1
10
60
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbd1028c3542ce17efc38ea5c407d994.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bmB54wlBdolWNSJb-SASRWeC0VYWkcG7AbBiR2rRxNa5EaVS2abOvwD0wKl9SOrqk26vqt1TNCD5JXzX8LQXzwvQL8F09vtxk9%7Eq36JKADKRfE59nzGiHyffuLj4WozwGKnVL7y-0bD9PCdT65UIicYfoJR4EEudgfXJRWx74TvoB8mbgXYW51AVYESTw0SVZR0f9TSkIbO0oCAQOo6YC9jFYpxjNRbX0CqZ2uT2sUWj81YITIDS-F-QV925p6vmlu-Zvr30MyF83VZPB8AS0o%7EemEANjj0GL8gWHPjPGq%7EvLY39tEt1EixUJz672MH0PbU%7EdYfHlxr3T8CAsYVxig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8e38ccf0df928107151efd575141c4
PDF Text
Text
.Bare to be Wise
55
1
w.'
<
■
A
-
■
AN ADDRESS
'jlivered before the “ Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
«■ ’
n
si?
■£
BY
HN McTAGGART ELLIS MeTAGGART
,etor in Letters, Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College in Cambridge,
Fellow of the British Academy.
■•',r
i
a.
I®
’. it
London:
WATTS & CO.,
JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence
�Works by
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
STUDIES IN THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC.
Press. 8s.
Cambridge University
STUDIES IN HEGELIAN COSMOLOGY. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
A COMMENTARY ON HEGEL’S LOGIC. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
SOME DOGMAS OF RELIGION. Edward Arnold. 10s. 6d. net.
The Rationalist Press Association, Ltd.
Chairman :
EDWARD CLODD
Honorary Associates :
ALFRED WILLIAM BENN
F. J. GOULD
BJORNSTJERNE bjOrnson
Prof. ERNST HAECKEL
Sir EDWARD BRABROOK
LEONARD HUXLEY
GEORGE BRANDES
JOSEPH McCABE
CHARLES CALLAWAY, M.A.,D.Sc. EDEN PHILLPOTTS
Dr. PAUL CARUS
JOHN M. ROBERTSON
Prof. B. H. CHAMBERLAIN
Dr. WASHINGTON SULLIVAN
Dr. STANTON COIT
Prof. LESTER F. WARD
Dr. F. J. FURNIVALL
Prof. ED. A. WESTERMARCK
Secretary and Registered Offices:
Charles E. Hooper, Nos. 5 and 6, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
How to Join and Help the R. P. A.
The minimum subscription to constitute Membership is 5s., renewable in
January of each year.
A form of application for Membership, with full particulars, including latest
Annual .Report and specimen copy of Literary Guide, can be obtained gratis
on application to the Secretary.
Copies of new publications are forwarded regularly on account of Members’
subscriptions, or a Member can arrange to make his own selection from the
lists of new books which are issued from time to time.
To join the Association is to help on its work, but to subscribe liberally is
of course to help more effectually. As subscribers of from 5s. to 10s. and more
are entitled to receive back the whole value of their subscriptions in books, on
which there is little, if any, profit made, the Association is dependent, for the
capital required to carry out its objects, upon subscriptions of a larger amount
and upon donations and bequests.
�national secular society
“DARE TO BE WISE”
AN ADDRESS
Delivered before the “Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
BY
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
IR IN LETTERS, FELLOW AND LECTURER OF TRINITY COLLEGE IN CAMBRIDGE, FELLOW
OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
[issued for the rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1910
�II
�“DARE TO BE WISE
''
M
At the other end of the world is a University1 which
has adopted for its own the motto which best expresses
the nature of a University: Sapere Aude.
It is of the
duty laid on our Society to follow this injunction that I
wish to speak.
Our object is to promote discussion upon religion,
philosophy, and art.
And in discussing religion and
philosophy there is a special
■command, Dare to be wise.
significance
in
the
In seeking truth of all
sorts many virtues are
needed, industry,
humility, magnanimity.
And courage also is often
patience,
needed in the search, since the observer of nature must
often risk his life in his observations.
But there is
another need for courage when we approach religion
and philosophy.
And this need comes from the tremendous effect on
•our own welfare, and the welfare of our fellow beings,
of those aspects of reality with which religion and
philosophy are concerned.
This effect is, in the first
1 The University of New Zealand.
3
�DARE TO BE WISE
4
place, a characteristic of that reality, the problems about
which would usually be called religious.
But it spreads
to all philosophy, for there is, I think, no question in
philosophy—not even among those which border closest
on logic or on science—of which we can be sure before
hand that its solution will have no effect on the problems
of religion.
The profound importance to our welfare of the truth
on these questions involves that our beliefs about those
truths will also have a great importance for our welfare.
If our lives would gain enormously in value if a certain
doctrine were true, and would lose enormously in value
if it were false, then a belief that it is true will naturally
make us happy, and a belief that it is false make us
And happiness and misery have much to
miserable.
do with welfare.
The practical importance to our lives of these matters
has not always been sufficiently recognised of late years.
This error is due, I think, to excessive reaction from two
errors on the other side.
The first of these errors is the assertion that, if certain
views on religious matters were true, all morality would
lose its validity.
that all
From this, of course, it would follow
persons who believed those views and yet
accepted morality would
foolishly.
quite clear.
be
acting illogically and
That this view is erroneous seems to me
Our view£ on religious questions may affect
�DARE TO BE WISE
5
some of the details of morality—the observance of a
particular day of rest, or the use of wine or of beef, for
example.
But they are quite powerless either to
obliterate the difference between right and wrong, or to
change our views on much of the content of morality.
At least, I do not know of any view maintained by any
one on any religious question which would, if I held it,
alter my present belief that it is right to give water to a
thirsty dog, and wrong to commit piracy or to cheat at
cards.
Another form of this same error is the assertion that
certain beliefs on religious matters, though they might
not render morality absurd, would in practice prevent
those who accepted them from pursuing virtue per
sistently and enthusiastically.
This view seems refuted
by experience, which, I think, tells us that the zeal for
virtue shown by various men, while it varies much, and
for many causes, does not vary according to their views
on religious matters.
The men who believe,
for
example, in God, or immortality, or optimism, seem to
be neither better nor worse morally than those who
disbelieve in them.
The second error is the view that certain beliefs on
religious matters would destroy the value, for those who
accepted the beliefs, of many of those parts of expe
rience which would otherwise have the highest value.
Tennyson, for example, maintained that disbelief in
�DARE TO BE WISE
6
immortality would destroy the value of love, even while
life lasted :—
And love would answer with a sigh,
The sound of that forgetful shore
Will change my sweetness more and more,
Half-dead to know that I shall die.1
Here, again, it seems to me, there is certainly error.
Our views as to the ultimate nature and destiny of the
universe may affect our judgments as to the generality
of certain forms of good, or as to their duration, or as to
the possibility of their increase in intensity hereafter.
But I do not see how they can affect our judgment of the
goodness of these good things, as we find them here and
now.
Indeed, if we do not start with the certainty that
love for an hour on earth is unconditionally good, I do
not see what ground we should have for believing that
it would be good for an eternity in heaven.
These views, then, I admit to be errors, and those do
well who reject them as errors.
But the reaction from
them, as I said, goes sometimes too far, and leads to a
denial of the practical importance of the problems of
religion.
And this is, again, a great mistake.
What
ever may be the true answer to the problems of religion,
good will be different from bad, and right from wrong,
and much of what we do and feel in this present life
will be good, and much will be bad.
But if we ask how
much good exists in the universe and how much bad ;
' In Memo riant.
�DARE TO BE WISE
if we ask if the main current of the universe is for right,
or for wrong, or indifferent to both ; if we ask what is
the eventual destiny of the universe or of ourselves—all
these questions must be answered one way or the other
according to the solution we adopt of religious problems,
and of those problems of philosophy which bear on
religion.
Are there any questions which affect our
welfare more than these?
It is true that what primarily
affects our welfare is the truth on these matters, and not
But a belief that things are
our knowledge of the truth.
well with the world brings happiness, a belief that
things are ill with the world brings misery.
And this
involves the intense practical importance of our beliefs
on the problems of religion.
Let us consider what some of these problems are
which we call religious.
In the first place, there is the
general question of optimism or pessimism.
universe as a whole more good than bad?
Is the
It is, of
course, possible to maintain that it is impossible for us
to answer this question.
But some systems maintain
that it can be answered, and some of them answer that
the good prevails, and some of them hold that it is
outbalanced by the evil.
The practical importance of
the truth on this question does not require to be enforced.
For the goodness or badness of the universe is the whole
of which every other matter of practical importance is a
part.
�“DARE TO BE WISE”
8
Our belief on the subject, therefore, must have great
influence on our happiness.
So far, indeed, as I am
only concerned with my welfare in this life, or with that
of my friends, the more general question will have little
influence, for in these limited fields we have empirical
means of judging the present or inferring the immediate
future, which are more certain than inferences from the
general nature of the universe.
But few people limit
their interests entirely to those whom they know person
ally.
And then there is always the question whether my
own life, and those of my friends, may not, perhaps,
extend indefinitely further than that short period in our
present bodies which is all that we can now know by
observation.
And there is another question, equally important.
Does the universe become better or worse as time goes
on, and, if it becomes either, which does it become ?
This is of equal importance, because it is a disposition
of our nature—apparently a fundamental and inevitable
disposition—to regard good and evil in the future with
very different feelings from those with which we regard
good and evil in the past.
If the world were known to
be more evil than good on the whole, we should still
regard it cheerfully, if we believed that most of the evil
lay in the past, and that the future was predominantly
good.
And, though the world as a whole were known
to be more good than evil, that would afford us but little
�DARE TO BE WISE
9
comfort if that part of its course which still lay in the
future were more evil than good.
Then, to come to less general questions, there is the
question of immortality.
Our beliefs on this subject,
also, will profoundly affect our happiness.
Some desire
annihilation, some shrink from it, but very few are
indifferent.
And even of these, I suppose, none would
be indifferent as to the further question of what kind the
future life would be, if there were a future life at all.
Then there is the existence of God.
The importance
■of this question for our welfare has, no doubt, been
exaggerated,
through a failure to comprehend the
alternatives.
It has been supposed that the only
alternative to a belief in God is a belief in some Scepti
cism or Materialism which would be incompatible with
any hope that the universe as a whole was coherent,
■orderly, or good.
But this is a mistake.
There are
systems which hold the universe to be all this, although
they deny the existence of God.
And, on the other
hand, the existence of God would certainly not be by
itself a guarantee that the universe was good.
That
there is some evil in the universe is beyond doubt.
If
it is there because God did not object to it, how do we
know how much evil he may tolerate, or even welcome?
If it is there—as most reasonable Theists would say now
—because God could not help it, how do we know how
much evil it may be beyond his power to prevent?
�IO
“ DARE TO BE WISE
Theism may possibly form a link in a chain of argu
ment leading to Optimism, but it is far indeed from
being a complete proof of Optimism.
But in spite of all this it cannot be denied that to many
people the belief that there is or is not a God is most
intimately connected with their happiness.
And even
those who are indifferent on this point would certainly
not be indifferent on the question whether, if there is a
God, he is such as he was supposed to be by the early
Jews, or, again, by the Jesuits or the Calvinists of the
sixteenth century.
Our beliefs on religious questions, then, do profoundly
affect our happiness.
We can conceive—indeed, we
know in history, and in the thought of the present day—
beliefs the acceptance of which would make life almost
intolerably miserable to anyone whose interests reached
beyond the immediate present
environment.
and
his immediate
And here we find the need of courage.
For, if we are to think on these matters at all, we must
accept the belief for which we have evidence, and we
must reject the belief for which we have no evidence,
however much the first may repel or the second allure us.
And, sometimes, this is not easy.
When we deal with the knowledge of science, or
every-day life, we have no similar struggle.
In the first
place, it is here often very indifferent to us what the true
solution of a problem niay be, provided that, whatever it
�DARE TO BE WISE
is, we can know it.
11
It may be of great importance to us
to know what sort of building will best stand the shock
of an earthquake, but comparatively unimportant what
sort it is, since, whichever it may be, we can build in
that manner in earthquake districts.
It may be very
important to know which of two medicines will cure a
disease, but quite unimportant which it is, so long as we
know it and can use it.
If, indeed, we have to put the question, Is there any
medicine which can cure this disease? then, indeed, it
may matter very much to us what the answer is.
And
in such a case we may be tempted, for a short time, to
believe that a cure has been found, when in point of fact
it has not.
But the temptation does not last for long.
When the medicine is tried, and fails to cure, then
conviction comes to all except the weakest.
But there
is no corresponding help in religion and philosophy.
For, if there is ever to be any experimental verification
of our beliefs on such subjects, at least it will not be on
this side of death.
If through cowardice we depart
from the right path, we must not hope for experience
to take us back.
The strain is so hard that often and often in the history
of thought men have tried to justify their weakness by
asserting that we were entitled to believe a proposition
if its truth would be very good, or at any rate if its
falsity would be very bad.
Over and over, in different
�I2
DARE TO BE WISE"
forms, this demand meets us—not infrequently in the
work of the men of whom we should least expect it.
Bui, whenever we find it, we must, I maintain, reject it.
It may well be that the universe, if this or that belief were
false, would be very bad.
But how do we know that the
universe is not very bad?
There is no intrinsic a priori
connection between existence and goodness.
If we can
show that the nature of existence is such that it A good,
so much the better.
But then the question of the nature
of existence is the one which we are setting out to
determine, and we have no right to begin by assuming
that that nature is good.
Nor can we fall back on the argument, which is often
used, that our desires for the good—those desires the
thwarting of which produce the misery we are avoiding
—are as real as anything else in the universe, and form
as sound a basis for an argument as anything else.
Unquestionably they are real, and form a basis for an
argument; but the question remains, What argument
can be based on them?
If they were to be any good
here, the argument would have to be that, because they
really exist as desires in us, therefore the universe must
be such as will gratify them.
And this is invalid.
The
existence of a desire does not involve the existence of its
gratification.
Each of us has had many desires which
were not satisfied, and which can now never be satisfied.
We cannot argue, then, from the pain that a belief
�“ DARE TO RE WISE"
gives us to the falsity of that belief.
15
And, if we decide
to think freely on these subjects, we run the risk of
arriving, as others have arrived before us, at conclusions
the pain of which may be very great.
It is true that, so
far as I know, no person who has thought freely on these
subjects has arrived at conclusions so maddening as
those of some traditional theologies now fading into the
past.
The ideas of an endless hell, of an unjust God,
are fruits of ancient tradition, or of interpretation of
alleged revelations—never, I believe, of independent
reasoning.
But to find no more hope, no more purpose,
no more value in the universe than was found by
Hobbes, by Hume, or by Schopenhauer—the pain of
this, especially to one who has hoped for better results,
or, perhaps, has once held them gained—the pain of this
is sometimes not trifling.
Why should we not endeavour to escape it?
Why
should we not accept, without inquiry, some traditional’
faith?
There may be arguments for it, there may be
arguments against it.
But others have accepted it
without inquiry into these arguments.
Why should not
we?
Such a suggestion has greater attractions than it
would have had two generations ago.
In Europe, in
the present age, a man is not likely to accept any
religion in this way, except some form of Christianity.
And the Christianity of sixty years ago, while no doubt
�“DARE TO BE WISE
such that many men could honestly believe it to be true,
was such that no man could wish it to be true, unless he
was devoid either of imagination or of humanity.
Christianity of the present day is still of this type.
Much
But
it would be most absurd and unjust to deny that the
type of Christianity which becomes every year relatively
more powerful is very different.
Its view of the universe
is one which might well entitle us to call the universe
good.
Why should we not accept it without the risks
of inquiry? .
Or, if we cannot do that, why trouble about these
problems at all ?
Is not the world we see big enough
to occupy lives so short as ours?
Shall we not enjoy
the good, strive to increase it and to share it, and ask no
questions about what is behind, beyond, and—perhaps—
above?
Yet some follow after truth.
reward?
And what shall be their
May we answer, in words which were written
about Spinoza, and which are worthy to have been
written by him: “Even that which true and fearless
men have preached through all the generations to
unheeding ears.
Seek the truth, fear not and spare
not: this first, this for its own sake, this only ; and the
truth itself is your reward—a reward not measured by
length of days nor by any reckoning of men ”?x
1 Sir Frederick Pollock, Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy, chap. ix.
�DARE TO BE WISE
15
It is most beautiful and most true, but it is not the
whole truth.
For knowledge of the truth, though a
great good, is not the only good, nor perhaps the
highest good.
If my friend is in pain or estranged from
me, if the universe is worthless or worse than worthless,
it is no adequate consolation to know that at least I
see the evil clearly.
And then, is truth always the reward for seeking the
truth?
Always it cannot be, for if some have attained,
the others must have failed who disagreed with them.
The reward of the search—are we sure that it will be
anything but the search?
Can we give any other bidding than that which was
once given to a search yet more sacred ?
Come—pain ye shall have, and be blind to the ending !
Come—fear ye shall have, mid the sky’s overcasting !
Come—change ye shall have, for far are ye wending !
Come—no crown ye shall have for your thirst and your fasting,
But-----1
And here we must stop, before the promise that follows.
The crown of our thirst and our fasting may be the
opened heavens and the Beatific Vision.
It may be
nothing but the thirst and the fasting itself.
No great inducement, perhaps, all this?
inducement is needed.
And no
There are those who long for
truth with a longing as simple, as ultimate, as powerful
1 William Morris, Love is Enough.
�i6
DARE TO BE WISE
as the drunkard’s longing for his wine and the lover’s
longing for his beloved.
must.
They will search, because they
Our search has begun.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JQHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
��as the drunkart
By G.
W.
FOOTE
(Editor of the Fre^inlcer—ImprisonedforBlas£
^^hn alarum-likTwarniDg to the people of the terra7’
which threatens their<eligious liberties. — Ulverston
This pamphlet deals w^th the whole question
Pphemy, legally, historically, theological! teal*,
and morally.
A
MONTHLY
ZMZ .A. G- .A. Z
Edited by G. W« FOOTE.
Kj
Radical in Politics, Darwinian in ^chance, H
Religion, Modern in Thought, JJonest in Crl
°
Popular in Style.
i
“This is an age of Freethought, and there is both j
vio-or in a cheap and well got-bp periodical which hai|
-started as an exponent of the principle under the title of
Bristol Mercury.
“ Mr. Foote’s new monthly, entitled Progress, bids fail
a standard magazine. It is characterised by pleasing
.commends itself to a very general class of readers.”—Xij
PRINTED BV WATTS AND
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutfj
London, E.C.
�SIIJHISTORY OF THE SCIENCES.
t Will NEW AND IMPORTANT SERIES OF POPULAR BOOKS.
4view to supplying what is believed to be lacking in the literature of
U'inr>, THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SERIES has been projected,
twenty volumes have been proposed, while nine have been
msrtfc f y arranged for.
thWIIoT following points about the new Series are worthy of consideration :
vzfQpd|h book will be written by an expert in the given subject, by one who
‘baidied the history as well as the conclusions of his own branch of
bpjsli and who commands a popular style. (2) Each volume will be
■bnupipound in cloth, with gilt lettering, and will consist of about 160 pages.
Ill.ejre will be in every case from twelve to sixteen carefully prepared
ji-ij .elisions, including portraits of celebrated discoverers and explanatory
d-LmI and diagrams.
(4) A concise, up-to-date bibliography will add
srfi m to the value of each book. (5) Each will be sold at the phenoq wo|' low price (for a work of original research, produced in this style) of
NOW READY.
rtojBikistory of Astronomy.
AnijOaSProfessor GEORGE FORBES, M.A., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E.; author of
gVT'.'.'uhe Transit of Venus,” etc. 164 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by
.by, .21 .t is. 3d.
^fsiilHistopy of Chemistry. Vol I.: 2000 b.c. to 1850 a.d. By
EDWARD; THORPE, C.E., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.; Professor-Elect
;ii£l’ Director of the Chemical Laboratories of the Imperial College of Science
"Technology, South Kensington; author of “A Dictionary of Applied
^/dsirMmistry,” “Essays in Historical Chemistry,” “Humphrey Davy: Poet
x>lxdj Philosopher,” etc. 156 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d.
READY IN MAY.
HcMiiUistory of Chemistry. Vol II. 1850:
a.d. to date.
EDWARD THORPE, C.B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.
&&4apjiistory of Old Testament Criticism.
SBaxf Professor ARCHIBALD DUFF, Professor of Hebrew and Old TestagMv.iiTjit Theology in the United College, Bradford.
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION.
f<toie£History of Geography.
HT[ -4|Dr- JOHN SCOTT KELTIE, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., F.S.A., Hon. Mem.
UEHdq.H graphical Societies of Paris, Berlin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva,
editor of the Statesman's Year Book, etc.
vd'OJe’hlistory of Geology.
iOA>IQ|HORACE B. WOODWARD, F. R.S., F.G.S.; late Assistant-Director of
i&i^wlogical Survey of England and Wales.
^Q?S|Iistory of Biology.
:c;ciox.|Professor L. C. MIALL, F.R.S., Professor of Biology, Leeds Univer1876-1907 ; Fullerian Professor, Royal Institute, 1904-5.
blistory of Anthropology.
$£&S<?ttaPROFESS0R A. C. HADDON, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S., Lecturer in Ethnology,
bna ibridge and London ; author of “ Study of Man,” “ Magic and Fetishism,” etc.
vnoielUstory of New Testament Criticism.
I .□ .j.7. C. CONYBEARE, M.A., late Fellow and Praelector of Univ. Coll.,
. ’ford; Fellow of the British Academy; Doctor of Theology, honoris causa,
\
lessen ; Officier d’Academie ; author of “ Old Armenian Texts of Revela■ *J,”fetc.
�R.P.A. SIXPENNY REPRIfl
(Five or more post free at published price.)
1. Huxley’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Autobiography.
2. The Pioneers of Evolution. By
Edward Clodd.
3. Modern Science and Modern
Thought. By Samuel Laing, With
Illustrations.
By
4. ★Literature and Dogma.
Matthew Arnold.
5. The Riddle of the Universe.
By Ernst Haeckel.
6. ★Educations Intellectual, Moral,
and Physical. ByHERBERT Spencer.
7. The Evolution of the idea of
God. By Grant Allen.
8. Human Origins. By Samuel Laing.
9. The Service of Man. By J. Cotter
Morrison.
1O. Tyndall’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Biographical Sketch,
......
By C.
11. The Origin of Species.
Darwin.
Addresses
and
12. Emerson’s
Essays.
13. On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill.
By
14. ★The Story of Creation. . ___
Edward Clodd.
15. *An Agnostic’s Apology.
By
Sir Leslie Stephen.
16. The Life of Jesus. By Ernest
Renan.
17. A Modern Zoroastrlan. By S.
Laing.
18. An Introduction to the Philo
sophy of Herbert Spencer. By
Professor W. H. Hudson.
19. T/iree Essays on Religion. By
John Stuart Mill.
20. Creed of Christendom. By W. R.
Greg.
21. The Apostles. By Ernest Renan.
22. Problems of the Future. By S.
Laing.
23. Wonders of Life.
Haeckel.
24. Jesus of Nazareth. By
Clodd.
25. *God and the Bible. Byfl
Arnold.
26. \The Evolution of /W.
Ernst Haeckel. Vol. I.
27. iThe Evolution of Man. fl
28. Hume’s Essays 1 I.—Au ?
Concerning Human Understands
An Inquiry Concerning the Prir.'.’
Morals.
29. Herbert Spencer’s Essa
Selection.)
30. An Easy Outline of JEvoi
M.A.
By Dennis Hird, " ‘
"
By fl
31. Phases of Faith.
■
Newman.
By Sir
32. Asiatic Studies.
Lyall.
33. Man’s Place in Nature. P
Huxley.
34. The Origins of Religion^
Other Essays. By Andrew Lang.
35. Twelve Lectures and
By T. H. Huxley.
36. Haeckel: His Life anti V*.
By Wilhelm BOlsche. With ii
tions.
f
37. ★Life of Thomas Paine.
Part I.
Moncure D. Conway, I
38. ★Life of Thomas Paine. F
39. ★Life of Thomas Paine. Pa
I
40. The Hand of God, and C
By
Posthumous Essays. " Si
Allen.
41. The Nature and Origin of £/
Matter. By H. Charlton Basti
42. The Last Words on Evoiuti
By Ernst Haeckel.
I
R.P.A. EXTRA SERIES.
1. Jesus Christ s His Apostles and
Disciples in the Twentieth Century. By
Count de Renesse. ,
2. Haeckel's Critics Answered.
By Joseph McCabe.
3. Science and Speculation. By
G. H. Lewes.
4. New Light on Old Problems. By
John Wilson, M.A.
5. Ethics of the Great Religions.
By C. T. Gorham.
6. A New Catechism. By M. M.
Mangasarian.
7. The Religion of Woman. By
Joseph McCabe.
8. The Fundamental Principle!
the Positive Philosophy. 1
Auguste Comte.
Ethical Religion. By W. M. Sai
9.
1O. Religious persecution. ByE.l
Haynes.
11. The Oldest Laws In the Wo
By Chilperic Edwards.
12. The Science of Education f
Secret of Herbart). By F
Hayward.
13. Concerning Children. By fl
Gilman.
14. The Bible in School. Byfl
PlCTON.
* The whole of the above list, with the exception of those marked with an asteri
supplied in cloth at is.
t Published at 6d. net.
London: Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
t
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
"Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis [1866-1925]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. R.P.A. sixpenny reprints and extra series listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1910
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N462
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work ("Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/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/bf981093f0ff863d371ada2ec5acb527.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vTE8k-IvAcBgFsg9%7EdvPw0CWMVEiG0M%7EaTbLvWBZ-WhVa0egz%7Eozi%7EfBdS6OohUwp5gZMdRSFMQxABK8NnOueeNVLjiu1HJwE4daeyRYRyuBPwTr-fsUzbJGayrGrVS03NSiauwQoo--OHjmYnWdWlYNaQ8XrRBWH-A1RP0ME16a%7E5B6yY9kSTROBFw8WC6oOkg8n5iVPLM5puXNAh-W%7E-rroSGVNIyAJKZr0zK1WgCIL-uLZWklzeag6J6r9OcpihRjYX5p-0rDNjLNedJTNfMBKr2R3aRgrFnrBJAd8zJYevhypSQ3ol5YY70kc6x-na79ZbEMKWb4vNizOswogA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
27483b8a5b27ea5989f15a0903fe2396
PDF Text
Text
3
- A UHKMFIONjOF ORTHODOXY THUS REPLIES
RELIGION.
Sir,
A Correspondent on the above subject in your paper of last
week, styling himself “ Layman,” should have been
and styled
himself a “ Socinian” (a nickname foi’ an Atheist).
He has acted like all cowards act,—first misrepresent the opinions of
their opponents and then abuse them. Being a Layman (so called), I
venture to answer your Correspondent “ according to his folly,” and
challenge him to a public discussion, at any time and place, and defy him
to disprove the following propositions :—
That the Bible, fairly interpreted, teaches the following to be the
revealed will of God, and experience proves its truth :
1. That there are three persons, yet but one God.
2. That there is a future state of happiness, and misery, eternal in its
nature, and increasing as to its effects, let that happiness or misery arise
from what cause it may.
3. That Satan (or the Devil) first deceived our first parents, and from
that time to the present reigns in the hearts of all who have not repented
and believed on Christ.
4. That all mankind are born in sin, possessed of a fallen nature,
which leads them to love sin and hate God. This hatred is manifested
by all without distinction, high and low—your Correspondent not excepted.
5. That infants are not admitted into Paradise because of their
innocence by nature but by grace—“Christ died for them,” therefore,
baptized or unbaptized, if they die in infancy, in whatever clime, “ they
sleep in Jesus.”
6. That an atonement for sin was necessary. That Christ was, by
his Divine nature joined to the human, a fit sacrifice ; and His death and
resurrection confirms His power—and having atoned for the sins of the
whole world, He ascended upon high, and ever liveth to intercede for us.
The instruments God used to accomplish His purposes have nothing to do
with the atonement made. The Jews were as much the murderers of our
Saviour as though God’s design had been overturned, “ but our God turned
it into a blessing’' Christ could have died for us in some other way had
the Jews received Him, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.”
7. That repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
from Adam to now, have ever been followed with a consciousness of sins
forgiven, a heart renewed in righteousness and true holiness, and a hope
of eternal rest and power, through the in-dwelling Spirit of God, to live
unspotted from the world, doing good in their day and generation—proving
by their life and conversation that they “ seek a city which hath
foundations whose builder and maker is Godand when death comes
triumph over it, and die in hopes of a blissful immortality.
That there are many who teach otherwise we admit, but who are
they ? Papists, who deny the Scriptures to be the rule of our lives;
Puseyites, who are “ bastards of the Pope of Romeand Protestants
�4
(shame on the laws which compel us) are compelled to keep them—they
are spiritual thieves and murderers of the souls of men—common; high-'
waymen and murderers are angels when compared to them; Unitarians or
Socinians, who misquote and mistranslate Scripture, devil like, in order to
establish their unholy creed, viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint;” Anti,
nomians, who hope to be saved through a process they call “ election,” a
scheme concocted in the infernal regions, and sent into the world to
deceive mankind.
But all true Protestants of whatever name, and their name is Legion
—Methodists over 2,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 12,000,000;
Independents, 1,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 4,000,000; not to
mention Baptists, Evangelical Churchmen, and others, who, with the
immortal Chillingworth, cry out, “ The Bible and the Bible alone is the
religion of Protestants.”
Yours, &c.,
Oct. 9, 1865.
B. STICKLAND.
C.’s
REJOINDER.
Sir,
Your Correspondent, Mr. B. Stickland, fearfully denounces
all those who do not happen to entertain the same religious opinions as
himself.
My letter which you were kind enough to insert in your
impression of the 7th, has sorely grieved him. It is well he has not the
power of the inquisitors of old, or I might have suffered for my “heresy”
some fine morning at Smithfield or on Tower Hill. He evidently questions
my sincerity, for, says he, had I “ been honest ” I should have styled my
self a “ Socinian, a nickname for Atheist,” but I am “ like all cowards,”
I “ misrepresent and then abuse;” yet he “ will answer me according to
my folly,” and “ challenge me to public discussion,” when he will “ defy
me to disprove” his views. Bravo, Mr. Stickland! He evidently does
not want your readers to think him “ a coward,” yet how mightily
Pharasaical. He produces some half dozen of what he calls “propositions,’’
and adds, that those who “ teach otherwise ” are “ Papists who deny the
Scriptures, Puseyites who are bastards of the Pope, spiritual thieves, and
murderers of the souls of men !” “ Common highwaymen and murderers
are angels compared to them ; Unitarians and Sociniaus, who misquote
and mistranslate Scripture, devil-like, in order to establish their unholy
creed,” viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint.” “ Antinomians, who hope
to be saved by election, a scheme concocted in the infernal regions,” &c..
&c., &c. I
One would certainly conclude by this that Mr. S. is on terms of great
intimacy with his satanic majesty, as he appears to be quite au fait with
him, and his “ infernal regions.” I decidedly admit his superior knowledge
in this respect.
“But,” adds Mr. S. “all true Protestants,” such as he is, of course,
“ think otherwise,” &c., &c.
Now, in the name of common sense, what reason is there in all his
denunciations. Has our great teacher, Christ, who Mr. S. professes to
serve, ever given him the shadow of such a creed as is contained in his
seven propositions? Compare Mr. Stickland’s letter and creed with
Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and mark the contrast ! Oh, Mr. S.,
“ first cast the beam out of thine own eye,” &c.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. Religion.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stickland, B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.n.]
Collation: 3-4 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: A letter to the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette in response to a letter by W.E. Conner. Conner's rejoinder is also printed. Reprinted from the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette, October 9 or 10, 1865. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
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
[1865]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5258
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. 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
Orthodoxy
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/612a86d21a17fc3e11eb6f6cd2cb4630.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MqmbZa-sBKGuQqIkFdiXhyxPJ6Lq-Ni-iLWaquDFXWM-E4zeM2qqQblRxF5eI-RpoYMTvAwZvBJ7so9zWa2j3tkH1xbTgN0WEynmBbjdQBIyxtP5URUHKF0GliUnNlScubCEOKOrcW5Kb8KpbK%7EwzSGgggdP6r82w3oyJJg3DzVS3p7BePpNh5H3l0Jv2o0mrpmDxHQjutwb7QOm%7EABK9s1CSA4j0By75pj6S2RwfsoHgLwuivErxPLE9qCpDrOsR2KJCdiSD53s%7EOgg8wEOMC9L5syIngGirbkbu2k3ycmNv1T-Zttzj2aa36bEOAsS9rawRNDe3KCUDYGIvZeeKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bea4926af6caea4682ebe176f37ca957
PDF Text
Text
A DISCOURSE
AGAINST HERO-MAKING
>
$n
*
^tligxan,
DELIVERED IN SODTH PLACE CHAPEL, FINSBURY,
April 24th, 1864.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
Printed by request, with, Enlargements.
LONDON:
TEUBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1864.
�“ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom
ye believed ?
“ Paul planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Wherefore let no man glory in men.”
�-e
DISCOURSE
AGAINST
HERO-MAKING IN RELIGION,
OR more than twenty years we have been made familiar
F
with the phrase Hero-Worship.
It has been applied
not only in the regions of politics and literature, but in
religion, as the phrase itself strictly claims.
We have been
told, from very opposite quarters, that the' excellence, as well
as the characteristic, of the Christian religion turns on its
venerating a personal hero in Jesus of Nazareth.
Many who
regard Jesus as a mere man, yet insist upon inscribing them
selves his servants and followers, and on so wedding their
honour for him with their adoration to God most high, as
systematically to incorporate the two.
Nay, some who utterly
disown allegiance to Jesus—who think him to have taught
• many things erroneously, and to have had nothing super
natural in his character, in his powers, in his knowledge, in
his virtue, in his birth, or in his communications with God—
still maintain that he is fitly called the Regenerator of man
kind, and ought to receive—I know not what acknowledg
ment—as our Saviour.
It appears then not superfluous to
bestow a little space on the treatment of this question.
�4
I need hardly observe that personal qualities alone in no
case constitute a hero.
Action and success must be added;
and action cannot succeed until the times are ripe.
knows this better than the true hero.
No one
True genius is modest
in self-appreciation, and is fully aware how many other men
could have achieved the same results if the same rare con
juncture of circumstances had presented itself to them.
Men
of genius are fewer than common men, but they are no
accident.
God has provided for their regular and continuous
recurrence; theii birth is ordinary and certain in every nation
*
which is counted by millions.
The same is true in every
form of mental pre-eminence, whether capacity for leadership,
or genius for science, or religious and moral susceptibility.
Religion, separate from morals, is, of course, only fanaticism.
We venerate religion only when built upon pure morals.
Moral religion is notoriously a historic growth, and has de
pended on traditional culture at least as much as what is
especially called science; and its progress is not more way
ward and arbitrary than that of science, if the whole of
human history be surveyed.
The present is ever growing
out of the past, with a vigour and a certainty which never
allow the fortunes of the race to be seriously dependent on
any individual.
Each of us is, morally as well as physically,
a birth out of antecedents.
From childhood we are tutored
in right and wrong, not only by professed teachers, but by
all elder persons who are around us.
Improper deeds or
words of a child are reproved by a servant, or by an elder
brother, or even by a stranger, as well as by a parent or a
priest.
We imbibe moral sentiment, as it were, at every
pore of our moral nature; nor do we often know from whom
�5
we learned to abhor this course of conduct and to love that.
Hence no wise man will claim originality for his moral
judgments or religious sentiments.
A foolish dogma, a
fanciful tenet, may easily be original; but a pure sound
truth is more likely to have been old.
To prove its novelty
is impossible, and certainly could not recommend it: on the
contrary, the older we can prove it to have been, the greater
its ostensible authority.
For these reasons, in the theory of
morals and religion, a claim of originality can seldom or
never be sustained: in this whole field the question is less
■what a man has taught, than what he has persuaded others.
Hundreds of us may have said, truly and wisely: “ It is a
great pity that Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians of every
sect will not unlearn their dissensions, and blend into one
religious community.”
The sentiment must once have been
even new; yet its utterance coidd never have earned praise
and distinction.
But if any one devoted his life to bring
about such union, and succeeded in it, we should undoubtedly
regard him as a moral hero; though (as just said) no one
could succeed, until the fulness of time arrived and the crisis
was seized judiciously.
Thus, in discussing the claims put forth for special and
indeed exclusive honour to the name of Jesus, we have to
consider, not so much what he said, or is said to have said, as
what he effected; what impression he actually produced by
his life and teaching; what great, noble, abiding results his
energies originated and bequeathed.
The moment we ask,
What are the facts ? we seem to be plunged into waves of
most uncertain controversy; into discussions of literature
unsuitable for short oral treatment.
Yet, before the present
�6
audience, I may with full propriety claim as admitted that
which greatly clears our way.
I presume you to know
familiarly, that the picture of Jesus in the fourth gospel is
essentially irreconcilable with that in the three which
precede, and is neither trustworthy nor credible.
The
three first gospels, taken by themselves, do present a
character, a moral picture, sufficiently self-consistent and
intelligible to reason about.
But our present question (allow
me carefully to insist) is
Do we see in Jesus a remarkable
not,
man, a gifted peasant, a dogmatist by "whom we may profit,
whose noble sentiments we may admire or applaud? but
rather, Do we find one who dwarfs all others before and after
him? one to whose high superiority sages and prophets
must bow; before whom it is reasonable and healthful for
those who have a hundredfold of his knowledge and breadth
of thought to take the place of little children ?
Or, at least,
Has Europe and the world (as a fact) learned from him what
it was not likely to learn without him ?
Is that
trve
which
1s dinned into our ears, that Christendom has imbibed from
him a pure, spiritual, large-hearted, universal religion,
adapted to man as man, cementing mankind as a family, and
ennobling the individual by a new and living Spirit, unknown
to the philosophies, unknown to the priesthoods, untaught by
the prophets, before him ?
Even if we had no insight as to the comparative value of
the several gospels, one broad certainty affords solid ground
to plant the foot upon.
The positive institutions and active
spirit of the first Christian church are notorious and indubit
able;
On learning what the Apostles established in their
Master’s name within a few weeks of his death, We know
�7
with full certainty what they had understood him to leach}
what impression he actually produced, what was the real net
result of his life and preaching: and this, in fact, is our
main question.
Now, it is true beyond dispute—it is con
ceded by every sect of Christians—that in the first Christian
church the Levitical ceremonies were maintained with zealous
rigour, and that its only visible religious peculiarity consisted
in community of goods.
The candidate for baptism professed
no other creed but that Jesus was Messiah; and the obedience
of the disciple to the Master was practically manifested in the
sudden renunciation of private property.
This ordinance
was not, in theory, compulsory; but, while the fervour of
faith was new, it was enforced by the public opinion of the
church so sharply, as to tempt the richer disciples to
hypocrisy.
The story of Ananias and Sappliira is full of
instruction-.
They did not wish to alienate all their goods,
though they were "willing to be very liberal.
In deference
to the prevailing sentiment, they sold property and gave
largely to the church; yet were guilty of keeping back a part
for themselves secretly.
For this fraud (according to the
legend) they were both struck dead at the voice of Peter!
Such a legend could not have arisen, except in a church
which regarded absolute Communism as the characteristic
Christian virtues
Higher proof is not needed that Jesus
established this duty as the touchstone of discipleship: butj
in fact; the account in the three gospels tallies herewith
perfectly.
Jesus there mourns over a rich young man, as
refusing the law of PeHi’ection, because he hesitates to sell
all his goods; give them to the poor, and become a mendicant
friar,
When his disciples, commenting on the young man’s
�8
failure to fulfil tlio test, say: “ Lo! we have left all and
followed thee: what shall we have therefore?”
Jesus in
reply’ promises, that, in reward for having sacrificed to him
the gains of their industry and abandoning their relatives,
they shall sit upon thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of
Israel.
(In passing I remark, that the idea of such a reward
for such a deed is shocking to a Pauline Christian.)
The Jerusalem church was, alone of all churches, founded
by the' chosen representatives of Jesus on the doctrine of
Jesus himself, while the remembrance of that doctrine was
fresh.
It was a special community, not unlike a “ religious
order ” of modern Europe; and could not be discriminated,
by Jews any more than by Homans, from a Jewish sect.
In
the next century, those who seem to have been its direct
successors were called Ebionite heretics by the Gentile
Christians.
When Paul, who ostentatiously refused to learn
anything from the actual hearers of Jesus, had put forth
what he calls “ his own ” gospel—namely,“ the mystery that
Gentiles "were to be fellow-heirs ” without Levitical purity—
he brought on himself animosity and violent opposition from
the Christians of Jerusalem, who were the historical fruit of
Jesus’ own planting.
When Paul was in Jerusalem, one of
the leaders called his attention to the fact that, while many
thousands of Jews were believers, they were “ all zealous of
the law; ” he therefore advised him to pacify their mis
givings and suspicions of him, by performing publicly certain
Judaical ceremonies.
Paul obeyed him: nevertheless, no
such conformities could atone for his offence in teaching that
Gentiles, while free from the law, were equal to the Jews
before God; and Paul to his last day experienced enmity
�9
from the zealous members of that church.
His relations to
the other Apostles we know by his own account to have been
certainly cold.
He seems to be personally pointed at in the
Epistle of James, as “a vain man,” who preaches faith
without works; while he himself (as he tells us) publicly
attacked Petei’ at Antioch as a dissembler and weak truckler
to Jerusalem bigotry.
When, from first to last, the doctrine
of the church at Jerusalem was sternly Levitical, it is quite
incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious
nullity of Levitical ceremonies and the equality of Gentiles
with Jews before God.
But why need I argue about this,
when it is distinctly clear on the face of the narrative ?
In
the book of Acts the idea that “ God is no respecter of
persons ”—or of nations—breaks upon the mind of Peter as
a new revelation, and is said to have been imparted by a
special vision.
It is not pretended that Jesus had taught it;
nor does Paid, in any of his controversies against Judaism,
dare to appeal to the authority and doctrine of the earthly
Jesus as on his side.
In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount,
as also in a passage of Luke (xvi. 17), Jesus declares that he
is not come to destroy the law; and that “Bather shall
heaven and earth pass away, than shall one tittle of the law
fail.”
I am, of course, aware that Christian theologians
would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that
the words in Matthew, “ Until all be fulfilled,” mean “ Until
my death shall fulfil all the types.”
But this would make
Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle.
This is
indeed worse than trifling, and a gratuitous imputation on
the teacher’s truthfulness.
was understood.
He must have known how he
They supposed him to mean that Levitisnx
�10
was eternal; and lie did not correct the impression.
It was
then the very impression which he designed to make, simply
and truthfully; and the disciples, one and all, rightly under
stood him, and knew it well.
The verse which follows in Matthew clenches the argu
ment ; although (I see I must in candour add) I do not
believe that Jesus spoke it in exactly this form.
Never
theless, it emphatically shows how the writer interpreted the
verse preceding.
For he makes Jesus to add: “ Wherefore,
whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I find
myself unable to doubt that these words were written to
mean: “ Wherefore, one like Paul, who breaks the Levitical
ceremonies, and teaches the Gentiles to break them, is least
in my kingdom; but James, and the Apostles in Jerusalem,
who do and teach them, are great in my kingdom.”
The
intensity of feeling on this subject was such, that the Jewish
Christians easily believed Jesus to have prophetically warned
them against Paul’s error.
Be this as it may, the formula,
° break one of these least commandments, and teach men to
break it,” is in contrast to “ fulfilling the law,” and distinctly
shows that “ fulfilling the law ” refers to doing and enforcing
even the least commandments;
The Jerusalem church was the product (and, as far as wd
know, the only direct product) of the teachings of Jesus. Of
its sentiment we have an interesting Exhibition in the epistle
of James; in whom We see a high and severe moralist, pure
and exacting, full of righteous indignation against the
�11
oppression of the poor by the rich, and against all haughtiness
of wealth. He does not treat all private property as unchris
tian ; but only large property.
Evidently no rich man could
have seemed venerable to the chief saints in that church.
He assumes the guilt of all rich men, and announces misery
about to come on them, as does Jesus in the parable of Lazarus:
nevertheless, in him all the harshest parts of Jesus’ precepts
have been softened by the trial of practical life.
In fact, this
epistle is much in the tone of the very noblest of the Hebrew
prophets.
As with them, so in him, the moral element is
wholly predominant, and nothing ceremonial obtrudes itself.
Nay, what is really remarkable, he calls his doctrine the
K perfect law of libertyso little did those ceremonies oppress
him, to which from childhood he had been accustomed.
Let
due honour be given to this specimen of the first and only
genuine Christianity; yet it is difficult to find anything that
morally distinguishes it from the teachings of an Isaiah or a
Joel.
There is certainly a diversity: for the political ele
ments of thought have disappeared, which under the Hebrew
monarchy were prominent.
The great day of the Lord was
no longer expected to glorify the royalty of Jerusalem and
its national laws : and in this diversity lay the germ of great
changes.
It would be absurd to censure an epistle because it is not a
ritual, or to demand in it the fervours of spirituality found in
this or that psalm. Nevertheless, in the present Connection, I
must claim attention to the fact that neither the three Gospels,
nor the epistle pf James have ever been in high favour with
that Caivinistic or Augustinian school which most nearly
Represents Paul to the moderns;
To bring out the argument
�12
in hand more clearly, allow me to make a short digression.
Morality requires both action and sentiment.
No reasonable
teacher can undervalue either : yet some moral teachers press
more on action, and are said to preach duty and work; and
even make a duty of sentiment, laying down as a command
that we shall love God, love our neighbours, love not ease,
love not self.
Other teachers endeavour to excite, foster, and
develop just sentiment, and trust that it will generate just
action: possibly they even run into the error of shunning
definite instruction as to what action is good.
Finite and
one-sided as we are, two schools naturally grow up among
teachers, who may be classed as the preachers of duty and
the preachers of sentiment: but perhaps, if the question be
distinctly proposed to the ablest men of either school, “ Do
we learn action from sentiment, or sentiment from action ?”
they would alike reply (as in substance does Aristotle) that
both processes necessarily co-exist.
From childhood upward,
right action promotes right feeling, and right feeling generates
or heightens right action.
of the two schools.
There is no real or just collision
Nevertheless, as a fact of human history
easily explained, the preaching of duty and of outward action
gains everywhere an early and undue ascendency, perhaps
especially where morals and religion are taught by law, which
deals in command and threat.
The rude man and the child
are subjected to rule more or less arbitrary; and it is only
when intellect rises in a nation or in an individual that the
spiritual side of morals receives its proportionate attention.
In Greek history, we know the fact in the philosophy of
Socrates and Plato.
Among the Hebrews, a secular increase
of spirituality in the highest teachers will probably be con
�13
ceded by critics of every school to have gone on from the
time of the judge Samuel to the writer from whom came the
last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.
The characteristic
difference of the Greek and the Hebrew is this: that, however
spiritual the Greek morality might be, it seldom blended with
religion; and (with exceptions perhaps only to be found under
Hebrew influences, as at Alexandria) the moral affections
found no place in religion at all.
Now it has been recently
asserted by a Theist, that it is to Jesus that we owe that
regeneration of religion, which makes it begin and grow from
within. He is not (it is said) “ a mere teachei’ of pure ethics;”
but “his work has been in the heart.
He has transformed
the Law into the Gospel. He has changed the bondage of the
alien for the liberty of the sons of God.
He has glorified
virtue into holiness, religion into piety, and duty into love.”
Hence it is inferred that “his coming was to the life of
humanity what regeneration is to the life of the individual.”*
Deep as is my sympathy with the writer from whom I
quote, I am constrained to say that every part of the state
ment appears to me historically incorrect. It does, in the first
place, violent injustice to the Hebrews who preceded Jesus.
Did he first “ glorify virtue into holiness” ?
Nay, from the
very beginning of Hebraism this was done—at least as early
as Samuel.
Did he first “ glorify religion into piety” ?
Is
there then no piety in the 42nd Psalm ? in the 63rd ? in the
* I quote from the striking treatise of my friend Miss Cobbe,
called “ Broken Lights.” The whole protest against M. Renan, of
which the words above are the summary, should be read to under
stand their relation. I am authorized to say that she has not even
the remotest wish to make honour to Jesus a part of religion: she
intended to write as a historian only:
�14
27th ? in the 23rd ? Nay, I might ask; from what utterances
of Jesus can piety be learned by the man who cannot learn
it from the Psalms ?
Holiness and piety appear to me to
have been taught and exemplified quite as effectively before
Jesus as since.
Surely in the religion of the psalmists piety
dominated, as much as in Fenelon or in the poet Cowper. But
finally I have to ask, “ Did Jesus glorify duty into love?”
And, in order to reply, I turn to the three gospels, as con
taining our best account of what he taught.
A phenomenon there very remarkable is the severity with
which Jesus enforces as duty the most painful renunciations ;
and the contempt with which he rejects anything short of
immediate obedience to his arbitrary demands.
I know not
whether the narrators have overcoloured him ; but they give
us, on the one side, examples of prompt obedience to the com
mand, “ Follow me:” first, in Andrew and Peter; next, in
James and John ; who <l immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him.”
highly meritorious.
This is afterwards praised as
On the other side, when Jesus says to a
man, "Follow me,” and receives the reply, “Lord, suffer me
first to go and bury my father,” Jesus retorts: “Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee, but let me first go
and bid them fareioell which are at home in my house.
And
Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the
plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
The peremptory command to abandon their parents, not bury
a dead father, and not even say a word of farewell to the
living, is perhaps a credulous exaggeration of the writer; yet
it is in close harmony with the whole account, and with the
�15
declaration, “ He that hateth not liis father and mother, and
wife and children, cannot be my disciple
for evidently the
following of Jesus, as interpreted and enforced by himself,
involved an abandonment (perhaps to starvation) of these
near relatives.
It is not my purpose to dwell now on the
right or wrong of such precepts, but on the imperious tone in
which they are imposed fromzoithout, not the slightest attempt
being made to recommend them to the heart or understanding.
Again, in perfect harmony with the same is the reply, already
adduced, of Jesus to the rich young1 man, who comes to ask,
“What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
The
opportunity was excellent to set forth that no outward actions
could bring eternal life, but that such life was an interior and
divine state, to be sought by love and faithfulness.
Instead
of spiritual instruction, Jesus gives a crushing arbitrary com
mand : “ If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come and follow me.” Does such a teacher build from within
by implanting Love ? Does he act upon Love at all, or rather
on selfish Ambition?
He deals in hard duty and fierce
threat; commands too high, and motives too low; thoughts
of reward; promises of power; salvation by works; invest
ment of money for returns beyond the grave; prudential
adoption of virtue, which may soften judgment, win pro
motion, deliver from prospective prison and hell fire: topics
which at best are elements of Law, as opposed to Gospel.
In
the opinion of an increasing fraction of the most enlightened
Christians, the most noxious element in the popular creed is
the eternal Hell: the stronghold of this doctrine is in the
discourses of Jesus.
But what of Faith?
If Faith be a
�16
purely spiritual movement, which cleaves to Goodness and
Truth for its own sake, and without regard to selfish interests,
it is hard to say in what part of the three gospels it is found.
In the mind of Jesus all actions seem to stand in the closest
relation to the thoughts of punishment or reward on a great
future day.
To lose one’s soul means, to be sentenced when
that day shall come : cutting off a sin means, escaping muti
lated from a future hell.
In a religion practically moulded
on these discourses, calculation of what we shall hereafter
get by present obedience inheres as a primary essence.
The
only faith which Jesus extols, is, faith to work miracles, and
faith that he is Messiah and can work them.
frowned down and sighed over as unbelief.
Inquiry is
Power to forgive
sin is claimed by him; and, when this is reproved as impious
in a human teacher, the claim is marvellously justified by
identifying forgiveness with cure of bodily disease.
Add to
this the grant of miraculous powers to the Seventy, and a
delegation of power to forgive is made out at which Pro
testants may well shudder.
In another place (Luke vii. 4, 5)
Jesus declares forgiveness of sin to be earned by personal
affection to himself; but I am bound to add that, on special
*
grounds, I do not believe the account.
* The narrative in Luke vii. 37—50 seems to be an inaccurate
duplicate of that in Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3, John xii. 3; which
nearly agree as to time and place—viz., it was in Bethany, a little
before the last Passover. Matthew and Mark say, it was in the house
of Simon the leper : Luke says, of Simon the Pharisee. John calls
the woman Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and of Martha:
Luke says, a woman notorious for sin. I will here remark, that
discussion on the behaviour of Jesus to women of ill fame, which is
called “ delicate,” “ beautiful,” “ characteristic,” &c., appeal’s to me
wholly without basis of fact. Those who allow no historical cha
�17
Luke has in some parts added softer touches to Jesus, and
gives us two fine parables which it is astonishing that Matthew
and Mark omit, while they retail so many that are monoto
nous : yet even in Luke I seek in vain for anything calculated
to implant in the heart a sense of freedom ; to excite willing
service; or to cherish spiritual desire, gratitude and tranquil
In fact, Luke
love, careless of other reward than love itself.
is sometimes harsher than Matthew. Thus, in vi. 20, “ Blessed
be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye
that hunger now, for ye shall be filled.
But woe unto
.
.
you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation.
unto you that are full; for ye shall hunger.
Woe
Woe unto you
that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep.”
So indiscri
minate and thoughtless-are devotees, that such doctrine meets
with the same theoretic glorification as the essentially different
version of Matthew: “ Blessed are the poor in spirit.
.
.
Blessed are ye who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
If Matthew be correct and Luke’ wrong, Luke has foisted
upon Jesus curses against rich and mirthful men, in contrast
racter to the discourses in John will not quote John iv. 16—19, nor
John viii. 1—11, against this remark: and nothing remains but Luke
vii. 37—50. The fair fame of Mary Magdalene has been blasted by
believing this story in Luke, and then identifying her with the
woman.
I will add that many who must know seem to forget, that no
Greek philosopher—neither an Anaxagoras nor a Zeno, to say
nothing of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca—would ever
have felt crude or unjust severity towards a woman’s faults. If
English sentiment sometimes appear harsh against women who have
made a trade of themselves, is it not because sins which are gainful
to the sinner are more inveterate and more contagious than sins
which imf'Oterish him ?
B
�18
to the blessings on poverty and weeping: but if the curses
came from the lips of Jesus, Luke gives the opposite clauses
justly; in which case Matthew has improved monkish into
spiritual sentiment.
It would be a hard task to prove Luke’s
version out of harmony with the constant doctrines of Jesus.
To borrow Calvinistic phraseology, and (if my memory serves
me) the very words of a Pauline spiritualist: “ The three
gospels may be read in the churches till doomsday, without
converting a single soul.”
The spiritual side of Christianity,
inherited from the Hebrew psalmists, not from Jesus, was
diffused beyond Judaea, first by the Jewish synagogues, next
by the school of Paul, to whom the school of Jesus was in
fixed opposition, preaching works and the law, while Paul
preached the Spirit and faith. “ Though I give all my goods
to feed the poor,” says Paul, “ and give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, I am nothing.”
How vast the contrast
here to the doctrine of Jesus: “ Every one that hath forsaken
houses, oi’ brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,
or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hun
dredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.”
To make ascetic
sacrifices for the honour of Jesus was indeed a surpassing
merit in his eyes, unless the most important discourses, even
in these three gospels, extravagantly belie him.
I am unable
to discover on what just ground the opinion stands that the
character of Jesus is less harsh, and his precepts less sourly
austere than those of John the Baptist.
Little as we are told
of the latter (all of which is honourable), the two must have
had close similarities.
Let it be remembered that Apollos is
spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as “ instructed in the
�19
way of the Lord, and fervent in spirit, and teaching diligently
the things of the Lord,” while he “ knew only the baptism of
John.”
So also Paul falls in with “certain disciples” at
Ephesus, who pass as Christians ; yet he presently discovers
that they also know only John’s baptism.
It seems there
fore evident, that the two schools had nothing essential to
divide them, and were intimately alike.
When, on the other
hand, the sharp opposition of the Pauline doctrine to that of
James and the church of Jesus at Jerusalem is duly estimated,
some may think that certain words put into the mouth of
John the Baptist will become less untrue if changed as
follows: “ I indeed and Jesus baptize you with water unto
repentance and poverty ; but Paul shall baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Be that as it may—give as little
weight as you please to Paul’s strong points—press as heavily
as you will on his weak side, out of which came the worst
part of Calvinism—the fact remains, that Jesus did not teach
Christianity to the Gentiles, or declare them admissible to
his church without observing Mosaism; and that to the Jews
themselves he preached merely severe precepts, ethical or
monkish, with a minimum of what can be called Gospel;—
precepts, on which a religious order might be founded, but
totally unsuitable for a world-wide religion.
When people calmly tell me that Jesus first established
the brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the nullity of
ceremonies; that he overthrew the narrowness of Judaism;
that he found a national, but left a universal religion; found
a narrow-minded ceremonial, and originated a spiritual prin
ciple, I can do nothing but reply that every one of these
b
2
�2Q
statements is groundless and contrary to fact,
What his
disciples never understood him to teach, he certainly did not
teach effectually.
It is childish to reply that the fault lay in
the stupidity of the twelve Apostles.
speak as plainly as Paul did ?
What! could not Jesus
Surely, the more stupid the
hearer, the more plainly the teacher is bound to speak.
If
Jesus had so spoken, never could want of spirituality in the
hearer have made the words unintelligible.
Did only the
spiritual understand Paul when he proclaimed the overthrow
of ceremonies ?
Could the most stupid of mortals have failed
to understand Jesus also, if he had avowed that the Levitical
ordinances were a nullity and Gentiles the religious equals of
Jews ?
I may seem to insult men’s intellect by pressing these
questions; but do not they rather insult our intellect ?
For
they would have us believe Jesus to have originated doctrines
which are the very opposite of all that his actual hearers and
authorized expounders established as his, before there was
time for his teaching to fade from their memory, and to be
modified by novelties supervening.
I have called the primitive church of Jerusalem the only
direct product of Jesus.
Do I deny that Jesus bore any part
at all in setting up the creed known in Europe as Christian -
ism ?
I wish I could wholly deny it.
Gladly would I relieve
his memory of all responsibility for dogmas, whence proceed
far more darkness and weakness of mind, confusion, bitterness,
and untractable •enmities, than his moral teaching can ever
dispel; dogmas which as effectually break up good men into
hostile sects, with fixed walls of partition between them, as
ever did the ceremonialism which he is falsely imagined to
�21
have destroyed.
But, hard as it is to know how much of the
gospels is historical, I suppose that no one for three centuries
at least has doubted that Jesus avowed himself to be Messiah,
at first privately, at last ostentatiously; and was put to death
for the avowal.
ground.
If so much be historical, we are on firm
There is then no room for transcendental philoso
phies and imaginative theories, as to what authority and
honour Jesus was claiming.
The Jews of that day familiarly
understood that Messiah was to be a Prince from Heaven, who
should rule and judge on earth.
As to the great outlines of
his character and power, manifestly there was no dispute.
If
the popular notions on this subject were wrong, the first busi
ness with Jesus must have been to set them right.
But he
never discourses against them, nor shows alarm lest he be
thought to claim supernatural dignity and lordship: nor
could his riding triumphantly on the ass, amid shouts of
“ Hosanna to the Son of David! ” have been intended to dis
courage the belief that he was to exercise temporal as well as
spiritual royalty.
The learned and the vulgar were in full
agreement that Messiah was to be a supreme Prince and
Teacher to Israel, Judge and Lord of all nations: but the
rulers regarded it as impious, criminal, and treasonable to
aspire to this dignity w’hile unable to exhibit some miraculous
credentials. The fixed belief concerning Messiah was gathered,
not only from our canonical prophets, but also from the book
called “ The Wisdom of Solomon ” (whichwvas in the Greek
Bible of Paul and other Hellenist Jews), and still more vividly
from the book of Enoch, which Jude and Peter quote rever
entially, and Jude ascribes to the prophet Enoch, the seventh
�22
from Adam.
With the discovery of that book early in this
century a new era for the criticism of Christianity ought to
have begun; for it is evidently the most direct fountain of
the Messianic creed.
The book of Mormon does not stand
alone as a manifest fiction which had power to generate a
new religion; the book of Enoch is a like marvellous exhibi
tion of human credulity.
A recent German critic has given
the following summary of its principal contents
It not
only comprizes the scattered allusions of the Old Testament
in one grand picture of unspeakable bliss, unalloyed virtue,
and unlimited knowledge: it represents the Messiah as both
King and Judge of the world, who has the decision over
everything on earth and in heaven.
He is the Son of Man
who possesses righteousness; since the God of all spirits
has elected him, and since he has conquered all by righteous
ness in eternity.
He is also the Son of God, the Elected one,
the Prince of Righteousness.
which knows all secret things.
is poured out upon him.
He is gifted with that wisdom
The Spirit in all its fulness
His glory lasts to all eternity.
He
shares the throne of God’s majesty: kings and princes will
worship him, and will invoke his mercy.”*
So much from
the book of Enoch ; which undoubtedly was widely believed
among the contemporaries of Jesus.
How much of the self
glorifying language put into the mouth of Jesus was actually
uttered by him it is impossible to know. There is always
room for the opinion that only later credulity ascribed this
* I quote from a summary of the book of Enoch by the German
theologian Kalisch, given in Bishop Colenso’s Appendix to his 4th
volume on the Pentateuch.
�23
and that to him—that (for instance) he did not really speak
the parable about the sheep and goats, representing himself
as the Supreme Judge who awards heaven or hell to every
human soul.
But it remains, that this parable distinctly
shows the nature of the dignity which Jesus was supposed to '
claim in calling himself Son of Man ; and, even if we arbi- trarily pare away from his discourses this and other details
in defereflce to Unitarian surmise, we still cannot get rid of
what pervades the whole narrative, that Jesus from the
beginning adopted a tone of superhuman authority and
obtrusion of his own personal greatness, with the title “ Son
of Man,” allusive both to Daniel and to the book of Enoch.
According to Daniel, one like unto a Son of Man will come in
the clouds of heaven to receive eternal dominion over all
nations.
It is impossible to doubt, that, in the mind of those
to whom Jesus spoke, the character of Messiah implied an
overshadowing supremacy, a high leadership over Israel, and
hereby over the Gentiles, who were to come and sit at Israel’s
feet: a religious and, as it were, princely pre-eminence, which
only one mortal could receive, who by it was raised im
measurably above all others.
If he did not intend to claim
this, it was obviously his first duty to disclaim it, and to warn
all against false, dangerous, or foolish conceptions of Messiah ;
to protest that Messiah was only a teacher, not a prince, not
a divine lawgiver, not a supreme judge sitting on the throne
of God and disposing of men’s eternal destinies.
Nay, why
claim the title Messiah at all, if it could only suggest false
hood ?
Since he sedulously fostered the belief that he was
Messiah j without attempting to define the term) or guide the
�2<
public mind, he could only be understood, and must have
wished to be understood, to present himself as Messiah in the
popular, notorious sense. If he was really this, honour him as
such.
If his claim was delusive, he cannot be held guiltless.
Every high post has its own besetting sin, which must be
conquered by him who is to earn any admiration.
A finance
minister, who pilfers the treasury, can never be honoured as
a hero, whatever the merits of his public measures. 'A states
man or prince, entrusted with the supreme executive power,
ruins his claims to veneration if he use that power violently
to overthrow the laws.
Such as is the crime of a statesman
who usurps a despotism, sttch is the guilt of a religious
teacher who usurps lordship over the taught and aggrandizes
himself.
It is a bottomless gulf of demerit, swallowing up all
possible merit, and making silence concerning him our kindest
course, if only his panegyrists allow us to be silent.
A
teacher who exalts himself into our Lord and Saviour and
Judge, leaves to his hearers no reasonable choice between
two extremes of conduct.
him.
Whoso is not with him is against
For we must either submit frankly to his claims, and
acknowledge ourselves little children—abhor the idea of
criticizing him or his precepts, and in short become morally
annihilated in his presence—or, on the opposite, we cannot
help seeing him to have fallen into something worse than
ignominy.
I digress to remark, that a teacher supposed by us to be
the infallible arbiter of our eternity would detain our minds
for ever in a puerile state if lie taught dogmatically, not to
say imperiously.
If he aimed to elicit our own powers of
�25
judgment, and not to crush, us into submissive imbecility, the
method which Socrates carried to an extreme appears alone
suited to the object; namely, to refrain from expressing his
own decisions, but lay before the hearers the material of
thought half-prepared, and claim of them to combine it into
some conclusion themselves.
In fact, this is fundamentally
the mode in which the Supremely Wise, who inhabits this
infinite world, trains our minds and souls.
His greatness does
not oppress our faculties, because it is ever silent from with
out.
Displaying before us abundantly the materials of judg
ment, he elicits our powers ; never commanding us to become
little children, but always inviting our minds to grow up into,
manhood.
But, if there were also an opposite side of teaching-
healthful to us—if it were well to start from dogmas guaran
teed to us from heaven, which it is impiety to canvas—then
the matter of first necessity would be, that the uttered decrees
to which we are to submit should be free from all enigma, all
extravagance of hyperbole, all parable, dark allusion, and hard
metaphor, all apparent self-contrariety ; and, moreover, that,
we should have no uncertainty what were the teacher’s precise
words, no mere mutilated reports and inconsistent duplicates,
but a reliable genuine copy of every utterance on which there
is to be no criticism.
To sum up, I will say: Nothing can be
less suited to minister the Spirit and train the powers of the
human soul, than to be subject to a superhuman dictation of
truth; and nothing could be more unlike a divine law of the
letter, than the incoherent, hyperbolic, enigmatic, inconsistent
fragments of discourses given to us unauthoritatively as teach
ings of Jesus.
�26
But I return to my main subject.
I have shown what
conclusions seem inevitable, so soon as we cease to believe
that Jesus is the celestial Prince Messiah of the book of
Enoch, popularly expected in his day.
To lay stress on
his possession of this or that gentle and beautiful virtue
is quite away from the purpose.
Let it be allowed that
Luke has rightly added this and that soft touch to the
Let it be granted that the
picture in Matthew and Mark.
nobler as well as the baser side of the Jerusalem church
came direct from Jesus himself.
Whether any of the actual
virtues of European Christians have been kindled from fires
which really burnt in Jesus, it appears to me impossible to
know.
The heart of Paul gushed with the tenderest and
warmest love, and he believed Christ to be its source.
But
the Christ whom he loved to glorify was not the Christ of our
books, which did not yet exist; nor a Christ reported to him
by the Apostles, to whom he studiously refused to listen ; but
the Christ whom he made out in the Messianic Psalms, in
parts of Isaiah, in the apocryphal book called Wisdom, and
perhaps also in the book of Enoch.
With such sources of
meditation and information open, the personal and bodily
existence of Jesus was thought superfluous by a numbei' of
Christians considerable enough to earn denunciations in the
epistles of John.
A great and good man, Theodore Parker,
tells me that'it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. I reply,
that, though to invent a Jesus was undoubtedly difficult, to
colour a Jesus was very easy.
The colouring drawn from a
Buffering Messiah was superimposed on Jesus by the perpetual
meditations of the churches, which, after he had disappeared,
�27
sought the Scriptures diligently,
not
to discover whether
Jesus was Messiah, which was already an axiom, but to dis
cover what, and what sort of a person, Messiah was.
Ac
cording as the inquirers studied more in one or in another
book, the conception of Messiah came out different; and here
we have an obvious explanation of the varieties of portrait in
different gospels. The first disciples, who thus by prophetical
*
studies supplemented the dry outlines which alone could be
communicated by the actual hearers of Jesus, would naturally
affix to him many traits not strictly human, nor laudable
except on the theory of his superhuman character.
Never
theless, in a church exalted by moral enthusiasm and self
sacrifice, in which the highest spirits were truly devoted to
practical holiness, it is to be expected that whatever is most
beautiful and tender, pure and good, in the traits of character
which in Isaiah or elsewhere were believed to belong to
Messiah, would be eagerly appropriated to Jesus, as they
evidently were by Paul.
Some of these would be likely to
tinge often-repeated narratives; so that, although none could
invent the outline portrait of Jesus, no difficulty appears in
the way of a theory, that the moral sentiment of the church
has cast a soft halo over a character perhaps rather stem and
ambitious, than discriminating, wise, or tender.
* To my personal knowledge, this is the systematic practice of
Pauline Christians in the present day. They read of Jesus in the
Psalms, ih the Prophets, in the “ types” of Leviticus, in the Song of
Solomon, in the ProVerbs,—anywhere, in short,—with iiiore zeal and
pleasure than in the three gospels. A free instinct guides them to
feed on less stubborn material.
�28
We cannot recover lost history. Into the narratives and dis
courses of Jesus so much of legendary error has crept that we
may write or wrangle about him for ever : Paul is a palpable
and positive certainty.
In what single moral or religious
quality Jesus was superior to Paul, I find myself unable to say.
Is it really a duty incumbent on each of us to decide such
questions ? . Why must the task of awarding the palm of
spiritual greatness among men be foisted into religion ?
It is a fact on the surface of history, that Paul, more than
any one else, overthrew ceremonialism.
Hereby he founded
a religion more expansive than that of Isaiah, and, in his
fond belief, expansive as the human race, as the children of
God.
He was not the first Jew ta propound the nullity of
ceremonies.
If time allowed, that topic might admit in
structive amplification.
The controversy against ceremonies
was inevitable, and, with or without him, must have been
fought out.
What he effected, let us thankfully record; but
.God does not allow us to owe our souls to any one man, as
though he were a fountain of life.
It is an evil thing to call
ourselves a man’s followers, to express devotion to him, and
blazon forth his name.
Every teacher is largely the product
of his age: whatever light and truth he imparts, the glory
of it is due to the Father of Light alone, from whom cometh
down every good and perfect gift.
Any glory for it would
be inexpressibly painful to a true-hearted prophet; I mean,
for instance, to one true-hearted as Paul.
He had no wish
to be called Master, Master.
He could not bear to hear any
one say, “ I am of Paul.”
“ Who then is Paul, and who
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye have believed ?”
What!
�29
when a man believes himself to be the channel by which it has
pleased the Unseen Lord to pour out some portion of hidden
truth for the feeding of hungry souls, can such a one bear to
be praised and thanked for his ministrations ?
Nay, in pro
portion as he knows himself to speak God’s truth by the
impulse of God’s spirit, in the same proportion he feels his
own personality to be annihilated, and he breathes out an
intense desire that God in him may be glorified, but the man
be forgotten.
I say then, let not us thwart and counteract
such yearnings of the simple-hearted instructor.
himself further on this matter.
Hear Paul
“ Let no man glory in men;
for all things are yours : whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,
or the world or life or death, or things present or things to
come—all are yours.”
He means that the collective children
of God are the end, for whom God has provided teachers as
tools and instruments.
But this is not all.
In proportion as
the teachers are elevated, the taught become unable to judge
of their relative rank in honour. Pauf therefore forbad the.
attempt, and deprecated praise.
“ With me,” he continues,
“ it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or
of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not my own self, but he
that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before
the time, until the Lord come ; who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of hearts; and then shall every man have (his own)
praise of God.”
What else did he mean to say but: Think
not to distribute awards among those to whom you look up.
To graduate the claims of equals and inferiors is generally
more than a sufficient task.
Leave God to pass his awards
�80
on. those who are spiritually above you; who possibly, like
Paul, may receive your praise as painful, and be wholly
unconcerned at your blame.
The glorifying of religious
teachers has hitherto never borne any fruit but canonizations
and deifications, “voluntary humility and worshipping of
messengers,” vain competitions and rival sects ; stagnation in
the letter, quenching of the Spirit.
�
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
A discourse against hero-making in religion, delivered in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, April 24th, 1864
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Printed by request, with Enlargements. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: To M.D. Conway with the writer's kind regards.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5196
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), 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
Hero-Worship
Jesus Christ
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c993c8bbbbcfbc4d90e57fae6a67589b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SBV%7E1J%7EwYhN2oKe5ZDmc8jylrAy%7EollOqN-0ghPw6n2%7E9RHFQKYmldzHzc0-XcX00%7EeBN2AImdeGPY4pJx2p%7EAL-GLFvJQtcwnIGjxPURlBLWfx98V79HS4dnk2qqFt1nJ5LwD-27JdKzyvSB-Fopx0U9wGQotmd%7EH7%7E3cq2SZ4f1bKrmXQVneSSgpjbkzuXvpE4y8CnK%7EffBUri3kRcol5LqcVtFgajR8M564LyinG3zuynR7cSDc7iTOvyTrx0ng7w0n07Ku%7EMDfLYjzA3GloTnkvoNo9iIsJW3pp6CrpZl25bxETsZaZUAFx3kWBHRklMfT0kx4liiXMzbhRl2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e1cb573d846e9a7d1978fa21c1d70aa5
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
�This Cheap Edition of “A Modern Zoroas-
trian ” is also published in cloth, price One
Shilling.
Copies of the original larger type edition,
in cloth,
Shillings net.
bound
can be supplied at Two
�A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
BY
S. LAING,
AUTHOR OF “MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN THOUGHT,” “PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE/’
“human
origins’*
Revised and brought up to date by JOSEPH MeCABE
[issued for
the rationalist press association, limited]
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
1904
�I
�PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
From some of the criticisms on the first edition of this work I fear
that the distinction I endeavoured to draw between the use of the term
“ polarity ” in the inorganic and in the spiritual worlds has not been
made sufficiently clear. I stated in the Introduction “ That, while the
principle of polarity pervades both worlds, I am far from assuming that
the laws under which it acts are identical; and that virtue and vice,
pain and pleasure, are products of the same mathematical laws as
regulate the attractions and repulsions of molecules and atoms.” But
this warning has apparently been overlooked by some readers, who have
assumed that, instead of analogy, I meant identity, and that it was a
mistake to use the same word “ polarity ” for phenomena so essentially
distinct as those of the material and the spiritual worlds.
Thus my “guide, philosopher, and friend,” Professor Huxley, for
whose authority I have the highest respect, observed in a recent article
that he had long ago acquired a habit, if he came across the word
“ polarity ” applied to anything but magnetism and electricity, of throwing
down the book and reading no farther. I must confess that I felt a
little disconcerted when I read this passage; but I was soon consoled,
for, a month or two afterwards, I came across another passage in the
same Review, which said : “ However revolting may be the accumulation
of misery at the negative pole of Society, in contrast with that of
monstrous wealth at the positive pole, this state of things must abide
and grow continuously worse, as long as Istar (the dual Goddess of the
Babylonians) holds her way unchecked.”
Surely, I thought, here is a case in which the Professor must have
thrown down the Review when he came to these words : but when I
reached the end I found that it was not the Review, but the pen, which
must have been thrown down, for the article is signed “ T. Huxley.”
Can there be a more conclusive proof that there are a vast variety of
facts outside of magnetism and electricity, connected by an underlying
idea, which inevitably suggests analogy to them, and which can be most
conveniently expressed by the word “ polarity ” ?
Words, after all, are
�6
PREFACE
only coins to facilitate the interchange of ideas, and the best word is
that which serves the purpose most clearly and concisely, Thus, instead
of using a waggon load of copper, or the verbiage of a conveyancer’s
deed, to express the ideas comprised in such words as “theism,”
“ pantheism,” or “ agnosticism,” we coin them for general use, as Huxley
did the word “agnosticism,” in order to convey our meaning.
Polarity is such a word. It sums up what Emerson says in his
Essay on Compensation: “ Polarity, or action and reaction, we meet
in every part of Nature—in darkness and light; in the ebb and flow
of waters; in male and female; in the inspiration and expiration of
plants and animals; in the undulations of fluids and of sounds ; in the
centripetal and centrifugal gravity; in electricity, galvanism, and
chemical affinity. Superinduce Magnetism at one end of a needle,
the opposite Magnetism takes place at the other end. If the South
attracts, the North repels. An inevitable dualism besets nature, so that
each thing is a half, and suggests another to make it whole—as spirit,
matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective, objective; in, out,
upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.”
These, by whatever name we like to call them, are facts and not
fancies, and facts which enter largely into all questions, whether of
science, philosophy, religion, or practical policy. Every one who wishes
to keep at all abreast with modern culture ought to have some general
knowledge of the ideas and principles which underlie them, and which
are embraced in the comprehensive word “polarity.” My object in
this book has been to assist the reader who is not a specialist in arriving
at some general understanding of the subjects treated of, and, I may
hope, in awakening such an interest in them as may induce him to
prosecute further researches. If I succeed in this, my object will have
been attained.
S. Laing.
�PREFACE
The reception given to my former work, on Modern Science and
Modern Thought, has induced me to write this further one. I refer
not so much to the reviews of professional critics, though as a rule
nothing could be more courteous and candid, but rather to the letters I
have received from readers of various age, sex, and condition, saying
that I had assisted them in understanding much interesting matter
which had previously been a sealed book to them.
If I am good for anything, it is for a certain faculty of lucid con
densation, and I have thought that I might apply this to some of the
less-known branches of modern science, such as the new chemistry
and physiology, as well as, in my first work, to the more familiar subjects
of astronomy and geology; while at the same time I might extend it to
some of the more obvious problems of religion, morals, metaphysics,
and practical life, which force themselves, more and more every day, on
the attention of intelligent thinkers.
As in the former work the scientific speculations were linked
together by the leading idea of the universality of law, so, in this,
unity is given to them by the all-pervading principle of polarity, which
manifests itself everywhere as the fundamental condition of the
material and spiritual universe.
For the scientific portion of the work I am indebted to the most
approved authorities, such as Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Professor
Cooke’s volume on the New Chemistry in the International Scientific
Series. For the religious and philosophical speculations I am myself
responsible; for, although I have derived the greatest possible pleasure
and profit from Herbert Spencer’s writings, I had arrived at my
principal conclusions independently before I had read any of his works.
I can only hope that I may have succeeded in presenting a good many
abstruse questions in a popular form, intelligible to the average mind of
ordinary readers, and calculated, if it teaches nothing else, to teach
them a practical philosophy which inculcates tolerance and charity,
and assists them in finding
Sermons in stones and good in everything.
S. Laing.
�CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
Introductory
PAGE
Experiment with magnet—Principle of polarity—Applies universally—Analogies
in spiritual world—Zoroastrian religion—Changes in modern environment—
Require corresponding changes in religions and philosophies .
.
.
11
CHAPTER II.
Polarity in Matter—Molecules and Atoms
Matter consists of molecules—Nature of molecules—Laws of their action in gases
—Law of Avogadro—Molecules composed of atoms—Atoms and electrons—
Proved by composition of water—Combinations of atoms—Elementary sub
stances—Qualities of matter depend on atoms—Dimensions and velocities of
molecules and atoms—These are ascertained facts, not theories
.
. 14
CHAPTER III.
Ether
Ether proved by light—Light-waves—Elasticity of ether—Its universal diffusion
—Influences molecules and atoms—Is influenced by them—Successive orders
of the infinitely small—Illustrated by the differential and integral calculus—
Explanation of this calculus—Theory of vortex rings—Theory of electrons . 20
CHAPTER IV.
Energy
Energy of motion and of position—Energy can be transformed, not created or
destroyed—Notcreated by free will—Conservation of mechanical power—Con
vertibility of heat and work—Nature of heat—The steam-engine—Different
forms of energy—Gravity—Molecular energy—Chemical energy—DynamiteChemical affinities—Electricity—Produced by friction—By the voltaic battery—
Electric currents—Arc light—Induction—Magnetism—The magnetic needle—
The electric telegraph—The telephone—Dynamo-electric engine—Accumulator 26
CHAPTER V.
Polarity in Matter
Ultimate elements of universe—Built up by polarity—Experiment with magnet—
Chemical affinity—Atomic poles—Alkalies and acids—Quantivalence—Atom
icity _ Isomerism—Chemical stability — Thermo-chemistry — Definition of
atoms—All matte: built up by polar forces
.
.
■
.
-39
CHAPTER VI.
Polarity
in
Life
Contrast of living and dead—Eating and being eaten—Trace matter upwards and
life downwards—Colloids—Cells—Protoplasm—Monera—Composition of pro
toplasm—Essential qualities of life—Nutrition and sensation—MotionReproduction—Spontaneous generation—Organic compounds—Polar condi
.
•
•
.
.
•
•
•
-44
tions of life
�CONTENTS
9
CHAPTER VII.
Primitive Polarities—Plant and Animal
PAGE
Contrast in developed life-Plants producers, animals consumers-Differences
disappear insimple forms-Zoophytes-Protista-Nummulites-Corals-Fungi
—Lichens_ Insectivorous plants—’Geological succession Primary period,
Aims and Ferns—Secondary period, Gymnosperms—Tertiary and recent.
Angiosperms — Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons—Parallel evolution of
animal life—Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish—Secondary, reptiles Ter
tiary and recent, mammals
.
•
*
•
•
• 51
CHAPTER VIII.
Primitive Polarities—Polarity of Sex
Sexual generation—Base of ancient cosmogonies—Propagation non-sexual m
simpler forms—Amoeba and cells—Germs and buds Anemones Worms
Spores—Origin of sex—Ovary and male organ—Hermaphrodites—Partheno
genesis—Bees and insects—-Man and woman—Characters of each sex—Woman s
position—Improved by civilisation-Christianity the feminine pole—Mono
gamy the law of nature—Tone respecting women test of character—Women in
literature—In society—Attraction and repulsion of sexes Like attracts unlike
_ Ideal marriage—Woman’s rights and modern legislation .
.
• .55
CHAPTER IX.
Primitive Polarities—Heredity and Variation
Heredity in simple forms of life—In more complex organisms—Pangenesis—-Varie' ties how produced—Fixed by law of survival of the fittest—Dr. Temple s view
_ Examples : triton, axolotl—Variations in individuals and species Lizards
into birds—Ringed snakes—Echidna .
61
CHAPTER X.
The Knowable
and
Unknowable—Brain and Thought
Basis of knowledge—Perception—Constitution of brain—White and grey matter
_ Average size and weight of brains—European, negro, and ape—Mechanism
of perception—Sensory and motor nerves—Separate areas of brain—Sensory
and motor centres—Abnormal states of brain—Hypnotism—Somnambulism—
'Prance_ Thought-reading—Spiritualism—Reflex action—Ideas, how formed
_ Number and space—Creation unknowable—Conceptions based on percep
tions—Metaphysics—-Descartes, Kant, Berkeley—-Anthropomorphism—Laws
65
of nature
CHAPTER XI.
Religions
and
Philosophies
Religions “ working hypotheses ”—Newman’s illative sense—Origin of religions—
Ghosts and spirits—Fetishes—Nature-worship—Solar myths—Planets—Evo
lution of nature-worship—Polytheism, pantheism, and theism—Evolution of
monotheism in the Old Testament—Evolution of morality—Natural law and
miracle—Evidence for miracles—Insufficiency of evidence—Absence ot intelli
gent design—-Agnosticism—Origin of evil—Can only be explained by polarity
_ Optimism and pessimism—Jesus, the Christian Ormuzd Christianity
without miracles
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
^4
CHAPTER XII.
Christianity and Morals
Christianity based on morals—Origin of morality Traced in Judaism—Origi
nates in evolution—Instance of murder—Freedom of will—Will suspended in
certain states of brain—Hypnotism—-Mechanical. theory Pre-established
harmony—Human and animal conscience—Analysis of will—Explained by
polarity—Practical conclusion ..•••••
90
�IO
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XIII.
Zoroastrianism
Zoroaster an historical person—The Parsees—Iranian branch of Aryan family PAGE
—Zoroaster a religious reformer—Scene at Balkh—Conversion of Vishtasp—
Doctrines of the “ excellent religion”—Monotheism—Polarity—Dr. Haug’s
description Ormuzd and Ahriman—Anquetil du Perron—Approximation
to modern thought—Absence of miracles—Code of morals—Its comprehen
siveness—And liberality—Special rites—Fire-worship—Disposal of dead—
Practical results—The Parsees of Bombay—Their probity, enterprise, respect
for women—Zeal for education—Philanthropy and public spirit—Statistics—
Death and birth rates .
.
.
.
.
,
t
.96
CHAPTER XIV.
Forms of Worship
Byron’s lines—-Carnegie’s description—Parsee nature-worship—English Sunday
—The sermon—Appeals to reason misplaced—Music better than words—The •
Mass—Zoroastrianism brings religion into daily life—Sanitation—Zoroastrian
prayer—Religion of the Future—Sermons in stones and good in everything . 106
CHAPTER XV.
Practical Polarities
Fable of the shield—Progress and conservatism—English and French colonisa
tion—Law-abidingness—Irish land question—True conservative legislation—
Ultra-conservatism—Law and education—Patriotism—Jingoism and paro
chialism—True statesmanship—Free trade and protection—Capital and labour
—Egoism and altruism—Socialism and laissez faire—Contracts—Rights and
duties of landlords—George’s theory—State interference—Railways—Post
Office—Telegraphs—National defence—Concluding remarks •
.
. 109
�A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
Chapter I.
INTRODUCTORY
Experiment with magnet—Principle of polarity
—Applies universally—Analogies in spiritual
world — Zoroastrian religion — Changes in
modern environment—Require corresponding
changes in religions and philosophies.
Scatter a heap of iron filings on a plate
of glass; bring near it a magnet, and tap
the glass gently, and you will see the
filings arrange themselves in regular
forms.
If one pole only of the magnet is
brought near the glass, the filings arrange
themselves in lines radiating from that
pole.
Next, lay the bar-magnet on the glass
so that the filings are influenced by both
poles; they will arrange themselves into
a series of regular curves.
In other words, the Chaos of a con
fused heap of inert matter has become
a Cosmos of harmonious arrangement
assuming definite form in obedience to
manifestation of the more general prin
ciple of polarity, by which energy, when
it passes from the passive or neutralised
into the active state, does so under the
condition of developing opposite and
conflicting energies: no action without
reaction, no positive without a negative,
and, as we see it in the simplest form in
law.
As the old saying has it, that “every
road leads to Rome,” so this simple
experiment leads up to a principle which
underlies all existence knowable to
human faculty—that of Polarity. Why
do the iron filings arrange themselves
in regular curves? Because they are our magnets, no North Pole without a
magnetised by the influence of the larger South Pole—like ever repelling like and
The magnet, again,
magnet, and each little particle of iron attracting unlike.
is converted into a little magnet with may be considered as a special form of
two opposite poles attracting and re electricity, for, if we send an electric
current through a coil of copper wire
pelling.
What is a magnet? It is a special encircling a bar of soft iron, the bar is at
�12
INTRODUCTORY
once converted into a magnet; so that
a magnet may be considered as the
summing up, at two opposite extremities
or poles, of the attractive and repulsive
effects of electric currents circulating
round it. But this electricity is itself
subject to the law of polarity, whether
developed by chemical action in the
form of a current or electricity in motion,
or by friction in the form of statical
electricity of small quantity but high
tension. In all cases a positive implies
a negative; in all, like repels like and
attracts unlike. Conversely, as polarity
produces definite structure, so definite
structure everywhere implies polarity.
The same principle prevails not only
throughout the inorganic or world of
matter, but throughout the organic or
world of life, and specially throughout its
highest manifestations in human life and
character, and in the highest products of
its evolution, in societies, religions, and
philosophies. To show this by some
familiar and striking examples is the
main object of this book.
But here let me interpose a word of
caution. I must avoid the error which
vitiates Professor Drummond’s interesting
work on Natural Law in the Spiritual
World, of confounding analogy and
identity.
Because the principle of
polarity pervades alike the natural and
spiritual worlds, I am far from assuming
that the laws under which it acts are
identical; and that virtue and vice, pain
and pleasure, ugliness and beauty, are
products of the same mathematical
changes of sign and inverse squares or
cubes of distances as regulate the attrac
tions and repulsions of molecules and
atoms. All I say is that the same per
vading principle may be traced wherever
human thought and human knowledge
extend; that it is apparently, for some
reason unknown to us, the essential
condition of all existence within the
sphere of that thought and that know
ledge ; and that what lies beyond it is
the great unknown, behind the impene
trable veil which it is not given to
mortals to uplift. In like manner, if I
call myself “a modern Zoroastrian,” it is
not that I wish or expect to teach a new
religion or revive an old one, to see
Christian churches dedicated to Ormuzd,
or right reverend bishops exchanging
the apron and shovel-hat for the mitre
and flowing robes of the ancient Magi.
It is simply this. All religions I take to
be “ working hypotheses,” by which
successive ages and races of men try to
satisfy the aspirations and harmonise the
knowledge which in the course of evolu
tion have come to be, for the time, their
spiritual equipment. The best proof of
any religion is that it exists—i.e., that it
is part of the same evolution, and that on
the whole it works well, or is in tolerable
harmony with its environment. When
that environment changes, when loftier
views of morality prevail, when know
ledge is increased and the domain of
science everywhere extends its frontier,
religions must change with it if they
are to remain good working, and not
become unworkable and unbelievable,
hypotheses.
Now, of all the religious hypotheses
which remain workable in the present
state of human knowledge, that seems to
me the best which frankly recognises the
existence of this dual law, or law of
polarity, as the fundamental condition of
the universe, and, personifying the good
principle under the name of Ormuzd,
and the evil one under that of Ahriman,
looks with earnest but silent and un
spoken reverence on the great unknown
beyond, which may, in some way incom
prehensible to mortals, reconcile the two
opposites, and give the final victory to
the good.
“ Oh ! yet we hope that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill.”
So sings the poet of the nineteenth
century: so, if we understand his
doctrine rightly, taught the Bactnan
sage, Zoroaster, some thirty centuries
earlier.
This, and this alone, seems to me to
afford a working hypothesis which is
based on fact, can be brought into
�INTRODUCTORY
13
indestructibility of matter, the correlation
harmony with the existing environment,
and embraces, in a wider synthesis, all of forces, and the conservation of energy,
that is good in other philosophies and were unknown, or only just beginning to
be foreshadowed. As regards life,, proto
religions.
plasm was a word unheard of; scientific
When I talk of our new environment,
biology, zoology, and botany were in their
it requires one who, like the author, has
infancy; and the gradual building up of
lived more than the Scriptural three-score
and ten years, and has, so to speak, one all living matter from a speck of proto
foot on the past and one on the present, plasm, through a primitive cell, was not
to realise how enormous is the change even suspected. Above all, the works
which a single generation has made in of Darwin had not been published, and
the whole spiritual surroundings of a evolution had not become the general
law of modern thought; nor had the
civilised man of the nineteenth century.
When I was a student at Cambridge, discovery of the antiquity of man, and
of his slow development upwards from
little more than fifty years ago, astronomy
was the only branch of natural science the rudest origins, shattered into frag
which could be said to be definitely ments established beliefs as to his recent
brought within the domain of natural miraculous creation.
Science and miracle have been fighting
law; and that only as regards the law
out their battle during the last fifty years
of gravity, and the motions of the
heavenly bodies, for little or nothing along the whole line, and science has
was known as to their constitution. been at every point victorious. Miracle,
Geology was just beginning the series of in the sense in which our fathers believed
conquest? by which time and the order in it, has been not only repulsed, but
and succession of life on the earth have annihilated so completely that really little
been annexed by science as completely remains but to bury the dead.
The result of these discoveries has
as space by astronomy; and theories of
cataclysms, universal deluges, and special been to make a greater change in the
recent creations of animals and man, spiritual environment of a single genera
still held their ground, and were quoted tion than would be made in their
as proofs of a universe maintained by physical environment if the glacial
period suddenly returned and buried
constant supernatural interference.
And when I say that space had. been Northern Europe under polar ice. The
annexed to science by astronomy, it was change is certainly greater in the last
really only that half of space which fifty years than it had been in the pre
extends from the standpoint of the vious five hundred, and in many respects
human senses in the direction of the greater than m the previous five thousand.
It may be sufficient to glance shortly
infinitely great. The other equally im
portant half which extends downwards at the equally great corresponding
to the infinitely small was unknown, or changes which this period has witnessed
the subject only of the vaguest conjec in the practical conditions of life and of
society.
If astronomy and geology
tures.
Chemistry was, to a great extent, an have extended the dominion of the
empirical science, and molecules and mind over space and time, steamers,
atoms were at best guesses at truth, or railways, and the electric telegraph have
rather convenient mathematical abstrac gained the mastery over them for
Commerce . and
tions with no more actual reality than practical purposes.
the symbols of the differential calculus. emigration have assumed international
The real causes and laws of heat, light, proportions, and India, Australia, and
and electricity were as little known as America are nearer to us, and connected
those of molecular action and of chemi with us by closer ties, than Scotland was
I to England in my schoolboy days.
cal affinity.
The great laws of the
�14
POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
Education and a cheap press have even
in a greater degree revolutionised society;
and knowledge, reaching the masses, has
carried with it power, so that democracy
and freethought are, whether for good or
evil, everywhere in the ascendant, and
old privileges and traditions are every
where decaying.
With such a great change of environ
ment it is evident that many of the old
creeds, institutions, and other organisms,
adapted to old conditions, must have
become as obsolete as a schoolboy’s
jacket would be if taken to be the
habiliment of a grown-up man. But as
a lobster which has cast its shell does
not feel at ease until it has grown a new
one, so thinking men of the present day
are driven to devise, to a great extent
each for themselves, some larger theory
which may serve them as a “working
hypothesis” with which to go through
life, and bring the ineradicable aspira
tions and emotions of their nature into
some tolerable harmony with existing facts.
To me, as one of those thinking units,
this theory, of what for want of a
better name I call “Zoroastrianism,”
has approved itself as a good working
theory, which reconciles more intellectual
and moral difficulties, and affords a
better guide in conduct and practical
life than any other; and, in a word,
enables me to reduce my own individual
Chaos into some sort of an intelligible
and ordered Cosmos. I feel moved,
therefore, to preach through the press
my little sermon upon it, for the benefit
of those whom it may concern, feeling
assured that the process of evolution, by
which
“The old order changes, giving place to new,”
can best be assisted by the honest and
unbiassed expression of the results of
individual thought and experience on
the part of any one of those units
whose aggregates form the complicated
organisms of religions and philosophies,
of societies and of humanity.
Chapter II.
POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
Matter consists of molecules—Nature of mole
cules—Laws of their action in gases—Law of
Avogadro—Molecules composed of atoms—
Atoms and electrons—Proved by composi
tion of water—Combinations of atoms—Ele
mentary substances — Qualities of matter
depend on atoms—Dimensions and velocities
of molecules and atoms—These are ascertained
facts, not theories.
If, in building a house that is to stand
when the rains fall and the winds blow,
it is requisite to go down to the solid
rock for a foundation, so much the
more is it necessary in building up a
theory to begin at the beginning and
give it a solid groundwork. Nine-tenths
of the fallacies current in the world arise
from the haste with which people rush
to conclusions on insufficient premises.
Take, for instance, any of the political
questions of the day, such as the Irish
question: how many of those who
express confident opinions, and get
angry and excited on one side or the
other, could answer any of the pre
liminary questions which are the indis
pensable conditions of any rational
judgment? How many marks would
they get for an- examination paper
which asked what was the population of
Ireland ; what proportion of that popula
' tion was agricultural; what proportion
�POLARITY IN MA TTER—MOLECULES AND A TOMS
of that agricultural population consisted
Of holders of small tenements; what was
the scale of rents compared with that
for small holdings in other countries;
how much of that rent was levied on
them for their own improvements; and
other similar questions which lie at the
root of the matter ? In how many
cases would it be found that the whole
Superstructure of their confident and
passionate theories about the Irish dificulty was based on no more solid
foundation than their like or dislike of a
particular statesman or of a particular
15
ing the same qualities and behaviour
under chemical tests as the original bar
of iron from which the filings were
taken. This carries us a long way down
towards the infinitely small, for mechani
cal division and microscopic visibility
can be carried down to magnitudes
which are of the order of nm™ <jth part of
an inch.
But this is only the first step; to
understand our molecules we must
ascertain whether they are infinitely
divisible, and whether they are con
tinuous, expanding by being spread out
thinner and thinner like gold-beaters
party?
, .
.
skin : or are they separate bodies with
I propose, therefore, to begin at the
intervals between them, like little planets
beginning, and, taking the simplest case, forming one solar system and revolving
that of dead or inorganic matter, show
in space by fixed laws ? Ancient science
bow the material universe is built up by
guessed at the former solution and
the operation of the all-pervading Jaw of
embodied it in the maxim “ that nature
polarity. What does matter consist of.
abhors a vacuum
modern science
Of molecules, and molecules are made
proves the latter.
.
up of atoms, and these (while themselves
In the first place,, bodies combine
made up of electrons) are held together
only in fixed proportions, which is a
©r parted, and built up into the various necessary consequence if they consist of
forms of the material universe, primarily
definite indivisible particles, but incon
by polar forces.
. .
ceivable if the substance of each is
Let me endeavour to make this mtelindefinitely divisible.
Thus water is
• ligible to the intelligent but. unscientific
formed in one way and one only by
reader. Suppose the Pyramid of Cheops uniting one volume or molecule of
were shown for the first time to a giant
oxygen with two of hydrogen ; and any
whose eye was on such a scale that he
excess of one or the other is.left out and
could just discern it as a separate object.
remains uncombined. But if the mole
. He might make all sorts of ingenious
cules could be divided into halves,
conjectures as to its nature, but.if micro
quarters, and so on indefinitely, there
scopes had been invented in Giant-land,
can be no reason why their union should
and he looked through one, he would
take place always in this one proportion,
find that it was built up, layer by layer,
.
.
on a regular plan and in determinate and this only.
A still more conclusive proof 1$
lines and angles, by molecules, or what
furnished by the behaviour of substances
seemed to him almost infinitely small which exist in the form of gases. If a
masses of squared stone. For pyramid
jar is filled with one gas, a second and
write crystal, and we may see by the
third gas can be poured into it as
human sense, aided by human instru
readily as into a vacuum, the. result
ments and human reason, a similar
being that the pressure on the sides of
Structure built up in the same. way by
the jar is exactly equal to the sum of
minute particles. Or, again, divide and
the separate pressures of each separate
subdivide our iron filings until we. reach
gas. This evidently means that the first
the limit .of possible mechanical division
gas does not occupy the whole space, but
discernible by the microscope, each one
that its particles are like a battalion of
remains essentially a bar of iron, as
soldiers in loose skirmishing order, with
capable of being magnetised and show
�16
POLARITY IN matter—molecules and atoms
such intervals between each unit that ai substances arises, not from one having
second and third battalion can be: more molecules in the same volume than
inarched in and placed on the same: another, but from the molecules them
ground, without disturbing the formation, selves being heavier.
If we weigh a
and with the result only of increasing the: gallon or litre of hydrogen gas, which is
intensity of the fire.
the lightest known substance, and then,
Now, gas is matter as much as solids weighing an equal volume of oxygen gas,
or liquids, and in the familiar instance of find that it is sixteen times heavier, we
water we see that it is merely a question know for certain that the molecule or
of more or less heat whether the same ultimate particle of oxygen is sixteen
matter exists as ice, water, or steam. time heavier than that of hydrogen.
The number and nature of the molecules
It is evident that in this way the mole
is not changed, only in the one case cules of all simple substances which can
they are close to one another and exist in the form of pure gas can be
solidly linked together; in the other, weighed, and their weight expressed in
further removed and free to move about terms of the unit which is generally
one another, though still held together adopted, that of the molecule of the
as a mass by their mutual attractions ; lightest known substance, hydrogen. But
and in the third, still further apart, so science, not content with this achieve
that their mutual attraction is lost, and ment, wants to know not the relative
they dart about, each with its own weight only, but the absolute dimensions,
proper motion, bombarding the surface qualities, and motions of these little
which contains them, and by the resul bodies; and whether, although they
tant of their impacts producing pressure. cannot be divided further by mechanical
In this latter and simpler form of gas means, and while retaining the qualities
the following laws are found to prevail of the substances they build up, they are
universally for all substances. Under really ultimate and indivisible particles
like conditions volumes vary directly as or themselves composites.
,the temperature and inversely as the
Chemistry and electricity give a ready •
pressure. That is to say, the pressure answer to this latter question. Molecules
which contains them remaining the are composites of still smaller bodies,
same, equal volumes of air, steam, or and to get near to the ultimate particle,
any other substance in the state of gas, we must go on to atoms. All chemical
expand into twice the volume if the changes resolve themselves into the
temperature is doubled, three times if it breaking up of molecules and re-arrange
is tripled, and so on; contracting in the ment of their constituent atoms. If the
same way if the temperature is lowered. opposite poles of a voltaic battery are
If, on the other hand, the temperature inserted in a vessel containing water,
remains constant, the volume is reduced molecules of water are broken up,
to one-half or one-third, if the pressure is bubbles of gas rise at each pole, and, if
doubled or tripled. From these laws the these are collected, the gas at the posi
further grand generalisation has been tive pole is found to be oxygen, and that
arrived at, that all substances existing at the negative pole hydrogen. Nothing
in the form of gas contain the same has been added or taken away, for the
number of molecules in the same volume. weight of the two gases evolved exactly
This, which is known as the Law of equals that of the water which has dis
Avogadro, from the Italian chemist by ;appeared. But the molecules of the
whom it was first discovered, is one 'water have been broken up, and their
of the fundamental laws of modern <constituents reappear in totally different
chemistry.
1forms, for nothing can well be more
This conclusion obviously follows from 1unlike water than each of the two gases
That it is
it, that difference of weight in different (of which it is composed.
�POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
17
composed of them can be verified by the sixteen, but eight to one. . If, therefore,
reverse experiment of mixing the two the molecule were identical with the
gases together in the same proportion of atom of oxygen, we must admit that the
two volumes of hydrogen to one of atom could be halved, which is contrary
oxygen as was produced by the decom to its definition as the ultimate indi
position of water, passing an electric visible particle of the substance oxygen.
spark through the. vessel containing the But if the oxygen molecule consists of
mixture, when, with a loud explosion, two linked atoms, O—O, and the hydro
the gases reunite, and water, is formed gen molecule equally of two, H—H, as
in precisely the same quantity as pro can be proved by other considerations,
duced the volumes of gas by its decom everything is explained by assuming that
position. Can the ultimate particles of the molecule of water consists of two
these gases be further subdivided j can atoms of hydrogen linked to one of
they, like those of water, be broken up oxygen, or H„O, and that, when this
molecule is broken up by electricity, its
and reappear in new forms ?
It has long been suspected by physi constituents resolve themselves into
cists that the atom itself is compound, atoms, which recombine so as to form
and that one simple and identical form twice as many molecules of hydrogen,
of matter is made up into the atoms of H—H, as of oxygen, O,—i.e. into two
the various elements.
Recent. expeii- volumes of hydrogen gas to one of
ments have thrown so much light on oxygen.
Taking the single hydrogen atom as
this that it is now all but demonstrated.
The new element, radium, is seen to the unit of weight as being the lightest
throw off actual particles of its sub known ponderable body, and calling this
stance. We see, as Sir O. Lodge says, weight a microcrith, or standard of the
bits chipped off the atom. A further smallest of this order of excessively small
inquiry showed that this decomposition weights, this is equivalent to saying that
of the atom is observable, in a great the weight of an oxygen atom is equal to
many other cases, as, for instance, in 16 microcriths, and, as water is composed
newly-fallen rain. Working on these of one such atom plus two of hydrogen,
data, physicists have very generally the weight of its molecule ought to be
accepted the theory that the atom is x6 + 2 = i8, which is, in fact, the exact
itself composed of a great number of still ratio in which the weight of a volume
smaller particles—how small we shall of steam, or water in the form of gas, is
see presently. The atom of hydrogen, heavier than an equal volume of
for example, is made up of a thousand hydrogen.
This key unlocks the whole secret of
of these tiny particles (called “ electrons,”
the chemical changes and combinations
because they are the particles we find in
the electric charge), while the atom of by which matter assumes all the various
mercury contains 100,000 electrons. The forms known to us in the universe.
Thus oxygen enters into a great variety
term atom must, therefore, no longer
be taken to mean something absolutely of combinations forming different sub
stances, but always in the proportion
indivisible.
It is further known that the molecule which is either 16, or some multiple of
of oxygen consists of two atoms of 16, such as 32, 48, 64. That is, either
oxygen linked together. This appears 1, 2, 3, or 4 atoms of oxygen unite with
from the fact that while the weight of other atoms to form the molecules from
oxygen, and therefore that of its mole which these other substances are made.
One atom of oxygen weighing 16
cules, is sixteen times greater than that
of an equal volume of hydrogen, and microcriths combines, as we have, seen,
therefore of hydrogen molecules, it com with two atoms of hydrogen weighing. 2,
bines with it in the proportion not of to form a molecule of water weighing
c
�i8
POLARITY IN MATTER-MOLECULES AND ATOMS
18 me.
In like manner i atom of that atoms “ are not merely helps to
oxygen, 16 me., combines with one of puzzled mathematicians, but physical
carbon, which weighs 12 me., to form a realities.”
molecule of carbonic oxide weighing 28
The researches of chemists have suc
me.; and 2 of oxygen, 32 me., with one ceeded in discovering some seventy-eight
of carbon, 12 me., to form a molecule substances which are still spoken of°as
of carbonic dioxide weighing 44 me.
elementary,” though their decomposiThe same applies to all elementary bihty is now within sight. Their atoms
substances. Thus hydrogen, two atoms differ widely in size and weight: that of
of which combine with one of oxygen mercury, for instance, being 200 times
to form water, combines one atom to heavier than that of hydrogen, and the
one with chlorine to form the molecule weights varying from 1 me. for the
of hydrochloric acid, which weighs 36.5 hydrogen atom, up to 240 for that of
me., being the united weights of one uranium. When we call them elemen
atom of chlorine, 35.5 me., and one of tary substances, we merely mean that we
hydrogen, 1 me. These, with hundreds know no means of decomposing them.
of similar instances, are the results not It is now believed that all of them are
of theories as to molecules and atoms,
compounds, which we cannot take to
but of actual facts, ascertained by in pieces, of some substratum of uniform
numerable experiments made indepen matter, and it is remarkable that the
dently by careful observers over long weight of nearly all of these elementary
periods of years, many of them dating atoms is some simple multiple of that of
back to the labours of the alchemists of hydrogen, pointing to their being all
the middle ages in pursuit of gold. The combinations of one common substratum
atomic theory is the child and not the of matter. The recent discovery of the
parent of the facts, and is indeed nothing decomposition of the atom of radium
but the summary of the vast variety of leads chemists to hope they may yet
experiments which led up to it, as reduce all to a primitive form, and that
Newton’s law of gravitation is of the facts all the atoms are so many multiples, or
known to us with regard to the attractions clusters, of electrons. They are not all
and motions of matter in the mass. But equally important to us. Of the seventy
as Newton’s law enables us to predict eight elementary substances enumerated
new facts, to calculate eclipses and the in chemical treatises, thirty to thirty-five
return of comets beforehand, and to are either known only to chemists in
compile nautical almanacks, so the new minute quantities, or exist in nature in
chemistry, based on the atomic theory, small quantities, having no very material
affords the same conclusive proof of its bearing upon man’s relation to matter.
truth by enabling us in many cases to The most important are oxygen, hydro
predict phenomena which are subse gen, nitrogen, and carbon.
Oxygen
quently verified by experiment, and to diluted by nitrogen gives us the air we
infer beforehand what combinations are breathe, combined with hydrogen the
possible, and what will be their nature.
water we drink, and with metals and
The actual existence, therefore, of other primitive bases the solid earth on
molecules and atoms is as well-ascer which we tread. Carbon again is the
tained a fact as that of cwts. and lbs., great basis of organised matter and life,
or of planets and stars, of solar systems to which it leads up by a variety of com
and nebulae. Several attempts have been plex combinations with oxygen, hydrogen,
made of late years, especially by meta and nitrogen.
physicians, to show that the atom is only
The qualities and relations of elemen
a hypothesis or convenient fiction. But tary atoms afford a subject of great
Sir A. Rucker, in his presidential address interest, but of such vast extent that
to the British Association in 1901, proved those who wish to understand it must be
�POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
referred to professed works on modern
chemistry. For the present purpose it
is sufficient to say that the following
conclusions are firmly established.
All the various forms of matter are
composed of combinations of atoms which
form molecules, the molecules being
neither more nor less than very small
pieces of ordinary matter.
The qualities of this matter, or, what
is the same thing, of its molecules,
depend partly on the qualities of the
atoms, which are something quite distinct
from those of the molecules, and partly
on their mode of aggregation into mole. cules, affecting the form, size, stability,
and other attributes of the molecule.
All matter, down to the smallest atom,
has definite weight and is indestructible.
No man by taking thought can add the
millionth of a milligramme to the weight
of any substance, or make it either more
or less than the sum of the weights of its
component factors, any more than he
can add a cubit to his stature. When
Shelley sang of the cloud,
“ I change, but I cannot die,”
he enunciated a scientific axiom of the
first importance. Creation, in the sense
of making something out of nothing, is
a thing absolutely unknown and unknow
able to us. If we say we waA?.a ship or
a steam-engine, we simply mean that we
transform existing matter and existing
energies into new combinations, which
give results convenient for our purpose.
So, if we talk of making a world, our idea
really is that, if our powers and know
ledge were indefinitely increased, we
might be able, given the atoms and
energies with their laws of existence, to
put them together so as to produce the
desired results. But how the atoms and
their inherent laws got there is a question
as to which knowledge, or even con
ceivability, is impossible, for it altogether
transcends human experience.
19
Before finally taking leave of atoms it
may be well to state shortly that science,
not content with having proved their
existence and weighed them in terms of
the lightest element, the hydrogen atom,
has attempted, not without success, to
solve the more difficult problem of their
real dimensions, intervals, and velocities.
This problem has been attacked by
Clausius, Lord Kelvin, Clerk Maxwell,
and others, from various sides : from a
comparison with the wave-lengths of
light ; with the tenuity of the thinnest
films of soap-bubbles just before they
burst, and when they are presumably
reduced to a single layer of molecules;
and from the kinetic theory of gases, in
volving the dimensions, paths, and velo
cities of elastic bodies, constantly collid
ing, and by their impacts producing the
resulting pressure on the confining sur
face. All these methods involve such
refined mathematical calculations that it
is impossible to explain them popularly,
but they all lead to nearly identical
results, which involve figures so marvel
lous as to be almost incomprehensible.
For instance, a cubic centimetre of air is
calculated to contain 21 trillions of
molecules—i.e., 21 times the cube of a
million, or 21 followed by 18 ciphers;
the average distance between each mole
cule equals 95 millionths of a millimetre,
which is about 25 times smaller than the
smallest magnitude visible under a micro
scope ; the average velocity of each
molecule is 447 metres per second; and
the average number of impacts received
by each molecule in a second is 4,700
millions. When we further descend
from atoms to electrons, we deal with a
far lower order of magnitude still.
Taking an atom of hydrogen, the
smallest known, we find that the elec
trons, or small particles which com
pose it, are 100,000 times smaller still
in diameter.
�20
ETHER
Chapter III,
ETHER
Ether proved by light—Light-waves—Elasticity
of ether—Its universal diffusion—Influences
molecules and atoms—Is influenced by them
Successive orders of the infinitely small—
Illustrated by the differential and integral
calculus—Explanation of this calculus—
Theory of vortex rings—Theory of electrons.
Perhaps the best way to convey some
idea of this order of magnitudes to the
ordinary reader is to quote Lord Kelvin’s
illustration, that if we could suppose a
cubic inch of water magnified to the
size of the earth—zW, to a sphere of
24,000 miles in circumference—the
dimensions of its atoms, magnified on
the same scale, or, as he expresses it, its
degree of coarse-grainedness, would be
something between the size of rifle
bullets and cricket-balls. If we then
suppose the atom to be in its turn
magnified to the size of a building 160
feet long, 80 feet wide, and 40 feet
high, we must conceive its component
electrons to be of the size of a full-stop
as printed on this page.
Extraordinary as these dimensions are,
they are not more so than those at the
opposite extremity of the scale, where
the distance of stars and nebulae has to be
measured by the number of thousand
years their light, travelling at the rate of
186,000 miles per second, takes to reach
us. Infinitely small, however, as those
dimensions appear to our original con
ceptions derived from our natural senses,
they are certain and ascertained facts, if
not as to the precise figures, yet beyond
all doubt as to the orders of magnitude.
In dealing with them, also, we are, to a
great extent, on familiar ground. Mole
cules are nothing more nor less than
small pieces of ordinary matter; and
atoms are also matter, for they obey the
law of gravity, have definite weights,
and build up molecules as surely as
molecules build up ordinary matter, and
as squared stones build up pyramids.
But to understand the constitution of
the material universe we must go a step
further, apart from the familiar world of
sense, and deal with an all-pervading
medium, which is at the same time matter
and not matter, which lies outside the
law of gravity, and yet obeys other laws
intelligible and calculable by us; of
which it may be said we know it and we
know it not. We call it ether.
Ether is a medium assumed as a
necessary consequence from the pheno
mena of light, heat, and electricity—
primarily from those of light. Respect
ing light, two facts are known to us with
absolute certainty.
1 st. It traverses space at the rate of
186,000 miles per second.
2nd. It is propagated not by particles
actually travelling at this rate, but, like
sound through air, by the transmission of
waves.
The first fact is known from the dif
ference of time at which eclipses of
Jupiter’s satellites are seen, according as
the earth is at the point of its orbit
nearest to or farthest from Jupiter—/.<?.,
from the time light takes to traverse the
diameter of the earth’s orbit, which is
about 180 millions of miles; and this
velocity of light is confirmed by direct
experiments, as by noting the difference
of time between seeing the flash and
hearing the sound of a gun, which gives
the velocity of light compared with the
known velocity of sound.
The second fact is equally certain from
the phenomena of what are called inter
ferences, when the crest of one wave just
overtakes the hollow of a preceding one,
so that, if the two waves are of equal
�ETHER
magnitude, the oscillations exactly neu
ttftlise one another, and two lights pro
duce darkness. This is shown in a
thousand different ways, and for all the
different colours depending on different
waves into which white light is analysed
when passed through a prism. It is a
certain result of wave-motion, and of
wave-motion only, and therefore we know
without a doubt that light is propagated
by waves.
But waves imply a medium, through
which wave-forms are transmitted, for
waves are nothing but the rhythmic
motion of something which rises and
falls, or oscillates symmetrically about a
mean position of rest, slowly or quickly
according to the less or greater elasticity
of the medium. The waves which run
along a large and slack wire are. large
and slow, those along a small and tightlystretched wire are small and quick ; and
from the data we possess as to light, its
velocity of transmission, its refraction
when its waves pass from one medium
into another of different density, and
from the distance between the waves as
shown by interference, it is easy to. calcu
late the lengths and vibratory, periods of
the waves, and the elasticity of the
medium through which such waves are
transmitted.
The figures at which we arrive . are
truly extraordinary.
The dimensions
and rates of oscillations of the waves
which produce the different colours of
visible light have been measured and
calculated with the greatest accuracy,
and they are as follows :—
Dimensions of Light Waves.
Colours.
Red..........
Orange ...
Yellow ...
Green
Blue
Indigo
Violet
No. of
waves in
one inch.
No. of oscillations
in one second.
39,000
460,000,000,000,000
42,000
495,OOO,OOO, OOO,OOO
44,000
518, OOO,000,000, OOO
47,000
554,000,000,000,000
51,000
601,000,000,000,000
54,000
636,000,000,000, OOO
57,000
672,000,000,000,000
21
The elasticity of this wonderful
medium is even more extraordinary.
The rapidity with which wave-motion
is transmitted depends, other things
being equal, on the elasticity of the
medium, which is proportional to the
square of the velocity with which a. wave
travels through it. As the velocity of
the sound-wave in air is about 1,100 feet
in a second, and that of the light-wave
about 186,000 miles in the same time, it
follows that the velocity of the latter is
about a million times greater than that
of the former, and, if the density of ether
were the same as that of air, its elasticity
must be about a million million times
greater. But the elasticity is the same
thing as the power of resisting compres
sion, which, in the case of air, we know
to be about 15 pounds to the square
inch ; so that the ether, if equally dense,
would balance a pressure of .15 million
million pounds to the square inch —that
is, it would require a pressure of about
750 millions of tons to the square inch
to condense ether to the density of air.
On the other hand, its density, if any,
must be so infinitesimally small that the
earth, moving through it in its orbit, with
a velocity of 1,100 miles a minute, suffers
no perceptible retardation.
Consider what this means. Air blowing
at the rate of 100 miles an hour is a
hurricane uprooting trees and levelling
houses. If ether were as dense as air,
the resistance to the earth in passing
through it would be 600 times that, of
going dead to windward in a tropical
hurricane. But, in point of fact, there is
no sensible resistance, for the earth and
heavenly bodies move in their calculated
paths according to the law of gravity
exactly as they would do if they were
moving in a vacuum. Even the comets,
which consist of such excessively rare
matter that, when one of them got en
tangled among the satellites of Jupiter, it
did not affect their movements, are not
retarded by the ether, or so slightly that
any retardation in the case of one or two
of them is suspected rather than proved.
But, if the ether has no weight, how can
�22
ETHER
we call it material, weight being, as we the boundaries of the infinitely great we
have seen, the invariable test and know from the fact that light reaches us
measure of all matter down to the from.the remotest stars and nebulas, and
minutest atom ? And yet how can we that in this light the spectroscope enables
deny its existence when it is demon
us to detect waves propagated and
strably necessary to account for un absorbed by the very same vibrations of
doubted facts revealed to us every day the same familiar atoms at these enor
by the prism, the spectroscope, elec mous distances as at the earth’s surface.
tricity, and chemical action, and deduc Glowing hydrogen, for instance, is a
tions from these facts based on the strict principal ingredient of the sun’s atmo
laws of mathematical calculation? For sphere and of those distant suns we call
the existence of the ether is not based stars, and it affects the ether and is
only on the phenomena of light: it is an affected by it exactly in the same manner
equally necessary postulate to explain as the hydrogen burning in an ordinary
those of heat, electricity, and chemical gas-lamp.
action. We must conceive of our atoms
In the direction also of the infinitely
and molecules as forming systems and small, ether permeates the apparently
performing . their movements, not in solid structure of crystals, whose mole
vacuo, but in an all-pervading medium cules perform their limited and rigidly
of this ether, to which they impart, and definite movements in an atmosphere of
from which they receive, impulses.
it, as is shown by the fact that in sg
These impulses are excessively minute, many cases light and heat penetrate
and when they occur in irregular order through them. A whole series of re
they produce no appreciable effect; but markable phenomena arise from the
when the vibrations of the ether keep manner in which the vibrations of ether
time with those of the atoms, the multi which cause light are affected by the
tude of small effects becomes summed structure of the molecules of crystals
up into one considerable enough to pro through which they pass. In certain
duce great changes. Just so a rhythmic cases they are what is called polarised,
succession of tiny ripples may set a heavy or so affected that, while they pass freely
buoy oscillating, and the footfalls of a if the crystal is held in one direction,
regiment of soldiers marching over a they are stopped if it is turned round
suspension-bridge may make it swing through an angle of co° to its former
until it breaks down, while a confused position, so that one and the same crystal
mob could traverse it in safety. The may be alternately transparent and non
latter affords a good illustration of the transparent. It would seem as if its
way in which molecular structures may structure were like that of wood,
be broken down, and their atoms set free grained, and more easy to penetrate if
to enter into other combinations, by the cut with the grain than against it, so that,
action of heat, light, or chemical rays when a ray of light attempted to pene
beyond the visible end of the spectrum.
trate, its vibrations were resolved into
Conversely, the phenomena of the two, one with the grain which got
spectroscope all depend on the fact that through, the other against it which was
the vibrations of atoms and molecules suppressed ; and thus the emerging ray,
can propagate waves through the ether, which entered with a circular vibration,
as well as absorb ether-waves into their got out with only one rectilinear vibra
own motions, and thus give spectra dis tion parallel to the diameter which
tinguished by bright or dark lines coincided with the grain.
peculiar to each substance, by which it
Other crystals of more complicated
can be identified. Whatever ether may structure affect transmitted light in a
be, this much is certain about it: it more complex way, developing a double
pervades all space. That it extends to polarity very similar to that induced in
�ETHER
the iron filings when brought under the
influence of the two poles of the magnet.
With this polarised light the most beau
tiful coloured rings can be produced
from the waves of the different colours
into which the white light has been
analysed in passing through the crystal,
which alternately flash out and disappear
as the crystal is turned round its axis,
and which present a remarkable analogy
to the curves into which the iron filings
form themselves under the single or
double poles of the magnet. _ The importance of this will _ appear
afterwards. For the present it is suffi
cient to show that the waves of ether
which cause light really penetrate through
the molecules of crystals, but in doing so
may be affected by them.
RINGS OF POLARISED LIGHT,
UNIAXIAL CRYSTALS.
RINGS OF POLARISED LIGHT,
BIAXIAL CRYSTALS.
In dealing with these excessively small
magnitudes it may assist the reader who
has a slight acquaintance with mathe
matics, in forming some conception of
them, to refer to that refinement of calcula
tion, the differential and integral calculus.
'And even the non-mathematical reader
may find it worth while to give a little
attention in order to gain some idea of
this celebrated calculus which was the
23
key by which Newton and his successors
unlocked the mysteries of the heavens.
The first rough idea of it is gained by
considering what would happen if, in a
calculation involving hundreds of miles,
we neglected inches. Suppose we had
a block of land to measure, 300 miles
long and 200 wide 5 as there are, say,
5,000 feet in a mile, and the error from
omitting inches could not exceed a foot,
the utmost error in the measurement of
length could not exceed Tiroioo oth, and
in width 100000 0th part of the conect
amount.
In the area of 300 x 200
= 60,000 square miles, the limit of error
would, by adding or . omitting the
rectangle formed by multiplying together
these two small errors, not exceed
i7B0 0 0'<nr X ndmr = Tsooooiooinmrth
part. It is evident that the first error is
an excessively small part of the true
figure, and the second error a still more
excessively small part of the first error.
But, as we are dealing with abstract
numbers, we can just as readily conceive
our initial error to be the iHth or
10 th of an meh as one inch, and, m
fact, diminish it until it becomes an in
finitesimally small or evanescent quantity.
In doing so, however, it is evident that
we shall make the second error such a
still more infinitesimally small fraction of
the first that it may be considered as
altogether disappearing.
The first error is called a differential of
the first order and denoted by d, the
second a differential of the second order
denoted by ^2. Thus, if we call the base
of our rectangle x and its height
the
area will be xy. Let us suppose x to
receive the addition of a very small incre
ment dx, and y the corresponding incre
ment dy, what will be the corresponding
increment of the area, or d.xyl Clearly
the difference between the old area xy
and the new area (xydx) multiplied by
(y + dy). This multiplication gives:—
•x + af#
y + dy
xy +y d x
x dy -\-d x . dy
xy + xdy +y d x'+ dx .dy
�24
ETHER
The difference between this and xy is
xdyyy dx + dx . dy. But d x . dy is,
as we have seen, a differential of the
second order and may be neglected.
Therefore dxy^x dy=y dx. In like
manner dx2 = b: + dx'd-T = 2 xdx +
da.2, which last term may be neglected,
’
and d x2 — 2 x d x. In this way the
differentials of all manner of functions
and equations of symbols representing
dimensions and motions may be found.
Conversely, the wholes may be considered
as made up of an infinite number of
these infinitely small parts, and found
from them by summing up or integrating
the differentials. Thus if we had the
equation,
d xy +y d x — 2 z d z,
we know that the left-hand side is the
differential of xy, and therefore that by
integrating it we shall get xy; while the
right side is the differential of z2, which
we shall get by integrating it. The
relation expressed therefore is that
xy = z2, or, in other words, that a rec
tangle whose sides are x and y exactly
equals a square whose side is z.
The use of this device in assisting cal
culation will be apparent if we take the
case of an area bounded by a curved
line. We cannot directly calculate this
area, but we can easily tell that of a
rectangle. Now, it is evident that, if we
inscribe rectangles in this area a b c, the
more rectangles we inscribe the less will
be the error in taking their sum as equal
to the curved area. This is apparent if
we compare fig. 2 with fig. 3. Suppose
we take a point p on the curve, call
B N = and P n =y, and suppose n n to
be dx, the differentially small increment
of x, and p q = dy the corresponding
small increment of y. The area of the
rectangle p q n n = p n x n n —y d x, and
differs from the true curvilinear area
P/ n N by less than the little rectangle of
p Q x/ Q or of dx. dy. But, as we have
seen, if we push our division to the first
infinitesimal order, or make N/z and pq
differentials of x and y, dx.dy may
be neglected—/.<?., multiply the number
of rectangles indefinitely, and the sum of
their areas will differ from the true area
enclosed by the curve by an error which
is evanescent.
If, then, x and y are connected by
some fixed law, as must be the case if
the extremity of y traces out some
regular curve, the relation between them
may be expressed by an equation, which
will remain one however often it may be
differentiated or again integrated, and
whatever modifications or transfor
mations it may receive by mathematical
processes which do not alter the essential
equality of the two sides connected by
the symbol of equality =. Thus, by
differentiating and casting off as evanes
cent all differentials of a lower order
than that which we are working with, we
may arrive at forms of which we know
the integrals, and by integrating get
back to the results in ordinary numbers,
which we were in search of, but could
not attain directly.
The same thing will apply if our
symbols are more numerous, and .if they
express relations of motion as well as of
space, or, in fact, any relations which
are governed by fixed laws expressible by
equations. If I have succeeded in con
veying to the readers any idea of this
celebrated calculus, they will perceive
what an analogy it presents to the idea
of modern physical and chemical science,
that of molecules, atoms, and ether,
�ETHER
25
molecules and atoms; and the collision
forming differentials of successive orders
of billiard balls, knocked about at
of the infinitely small. It is certainly
random, to the movement of those
most remarkable that, while the former
minute bodies and the kinetic theory of
was a purely intellectual idea based on
gases. In the case of the vortex theory
mathematical abstractions, and which
the idea is given by the rings of smoke
was invented and worked as an instru which certain adroit smokers amuse
ment for solving the most intricate astro
themselves by puffing into the air. These
nomical problems for nearly two centuries,
rings float for a considerable time,
without a suspicion that it represented
retaining their circular form, and showing
any objective reality, the latter idea,
their elasticity by oscillating about it and
based on actual experiment, seems to returning to it if their form is altered,
show that differentials and integrals have
and by rebounding and vibrating ener
their real counterpart in nature, and
getically, just as two solid elastic bodies
represent fundamental facts in the con
would do if two rings come into collision.
stitution of the universe.
If we try to cut them in two, they recede
Those who are of a mystic or meta
before the knife, or bend round it, return
physical turn of mind may try to prove ing, when the external force is removed,
from this that matter and laws of matter
to their original form without the loss of
are, after all, only manifestations of one
a single particle, and preserving their
universal, all-pervading . mind ; but in
own individuality through every change
following such speculations we should
of form and of velocity.
This persis
be deserting the solid earth for cloudland,
tence of form they owe to the fact that
and passing the limit of positive know
their particles are revolving in small
ledge into the region where reflections
circles at right angles to the axis . or
of our own hopes, fears, religious feelings,
circumference of the larger circle which
and poetical sentiments form and dissolve
forms the ring; motion thus giving them
themselves against the background of the
stability, very much as in the familiar
great unknown. For the present, there
instance of the bicycle. They burst at
fore, I confine myself to pointing out
how these undoubted truths of mathe last because they are formed and rotate
in the air, which is a resisting medium ;
matical science, which have verified
but mathematical calculation shows that
themselves in the practical form of
in a perfect fluid free from all friction
enabling us to predict eclipses and con
these vortex rings would be indivisible
struct nautical almanacks, correspond with
and throw light upon the equally certain and indestructible—in other words, they
facts of this succession of infinitely small would be atoms.
The vortex theory assumes, therefore,
quantities of successive orders in the
that the universe consists of one uniform
constitution of matter.
primary substance, a fluid which fills all
An attempt has been made, based on
abstruse mathematical calculations, to space, and that what we call matter
consists of portions of this fluid which
carry our knowledge of the constitution
of matter one step further back, and have become animated with vortex
identify atoms with ether. This is motion. The innumerable atoms which
attempted by the vortex theory of Helm- form molecules, and through molecules
holz, Lord Kelvin, and Professor Tait. all the diversified forms of matter of the
material universe, are therefore simply so
It is singular how some of the ultimate
many vortex rings, each perfectly limited,
facts discovered by the refinements of
science correspond with some of the distinct, and indestructible, both as to
its form, mass, and mode of motion.
most trivial amusements.
Thus the
blowing of soap-bubbles gives the best They cannot change or disappear, nor
clue to the movement of waves of light, can they be formed spontaneously.
and through them to the dimensions of I Those of the same kind are constituted
�26
ENERGY
after the same fashion, and therefore are
endowed with the same properties.
Dr. Larmor has urged a further modi
fication of this theory. But of late years
the discovery of radio-action, or the dis
integration of the atom, has led most
physicists to conceive it as a little world
of electrons which, infinitesimal in bulk
(the electron is as much smaller than
the atom as a small speck is from a
house), make up the atom by the action
of their forces. It is believed to be
these electrons that cause the wave
movements in ether that we perceive as
heat and light, and cause the electrical
condition of the atom. The inquiry is
being pursued very assiduously just now
among physicists, and will probably
lead to a much higher comprehension of
the nature of matter.
Chapter IV.
ENERGY
Energy of motion and of position—Energy can
be transformed, not created or destroyed—•
Not created by free will—Conservation of
mechanical power—Convertibility of heat and
work—Nature of heat—The steam-engine—
Different forms of energy—Gravity—Mole
cular energy—Chemical energy—Dynamite—
Chemical affinities—Electricity—Produced by
friction—By the voltaic battery—Electric
currents—Arc light—Induction—Magnetism
—The magnetic needle—The electric tele
graph — The telephone — Dynamo-electric
engine—Accumulator.
called energy of motion, in the latter
energy of position. _ It is important to
realise this distinction clearly, for many
of the ordered and harmonious arrange
ments of the universe depend on the
polarity, or conflict with alternate vic
tories and defeats, between those two
forms of energy.
Thus, if a b is a pendulum suspended
at the point a, if we move it from its
position of rest a c to a b and hold it
there, its whole energy is that of position.
If we let it go, it swings backwards and
forwards between the positions a b and
a d, and but for the resistance of the air
and the friction at the point of suspen
sion, it would so swing for ever. But in
Those ultimate elements, however,
atoms, electrons, and ether, only give us
what may be called the dead half of the
universe, which could not exist without
the constant presence of the animating
principle of force or energy. Energy is
the term generally adopted in the lan
guage of science, for force is apt to be
associated with human effort and with
actual motion produced, while energy is
a comprehensive term, embracing what
ever produces or is capable of producing
motion. Thus, if we bend a cross-bow
the force with which it is bent may
either reappear at once in the flight of
the arrow, if we' let go the spring; or it
may remain stored up, if we fix the string thus swinging what happens ? From A b
in the notch, ready to reappear when we to a c energy of motion keeps gaining
pull the trigger. In the former case it is on energy of position, until when the
�ENERGY
pendulum reaches c it has annihilated
it Energy of position has entiiely dis
appeared, and the whole original force
expended in raising the pendulum to
AB exactly reappears in the force or
momentum of the pendulum at its
lowest point. But is this victory final ?
By no means ; energy of position, having
touched bottom, gathers, like Antaeus,
fresh vigour for the contest, and from the
position a c upwards it gains ground on
its adversary, until, when the pendulum
reaches a d, it is in its turn completely
victorious.
The same alternation between energy
of motion and of position takes place in
all rhythmical movements, such as waves,
which, whether in water, air, or ether, are
propagated, as in the case of the pen
dulum, by particles forced out of their
position of rest and oscillating between
the two energies.
Thus, if waves run along an elastic
wire A B, the particle p, which has. been
forced into the position p, oscillates
backwards and forwards between^ and
q, beginning with nothing but energy of
position at p, losing it all for energy of
motion at p, and regaining it at q. All
wave-motions, therefore—that is to say,
all sound, light, and heat—depend on
this primitive polarity.
If we have got this definition of the
two forms of energy clearly into our
heads, we shall be the better prepared
for this further generalisation— the
grandest, perhaps, in the whole range
of modern science : that energy, like
matter, is indestructible, and can only
be transformed, but never created or
annihilated.
This is at first sight a more difficult
proposition to establish in the case of
energy than in that of matter. In the
latter case we have nothing in our expe
rience that can lead us to suppose that
wc have ever created something out of
27
nothing; but in the former our first
impression undoubtedly is that we do
create force. If I throw a stone at a
bird, I have an instinctive impression
that the force which projects the stone
is the creation of my own conscious will;
that I had the choice either to throw or
not to throw ; and that, if I had decided
not to throw, the impelling force would
never have existed. But, if we. look
more closely at the matter, it. is not
really so. The chain of events is this :
the first impulse proceeds from the
visual rays, which, concentrated by the
lens of the eye on the retina, give an
image of the bird ; this sends vibrations
along the optic nerve to the brain,
setting in motion certain molecules of
that organ ; these, again, send vibrations
along other nerves to certain muscles of
the arm and hand, which contract, and
by doing so give out the energy of move
ment which throws the stone. All this
process is strictly mechanical; the eye
acts precisely like a camera obscura in
forming the image; the nerve-vibrations,
though not identical with those of the
wires of an electric telegraph, are of the
same nature, their velocity can be
measured, and their presence detected
by the galvanometer ; the energy of the
muscle is stored there by the slow com
bustion of the food we have eaten and
the oxygen of the air we have breathed.
Take any of these conditions away, and
no effort of the will can produce the
result. If the nerve is paralysed, or the
muscle, from prolonged starvation, has
no energy left, the stone will not be
thrown, however much we may desire to
kill the bird.
Again, precisely the same circle of
events takes place in numerous instances
without any intervention of this addi
tional factor of conscious will. We
breathe mechanically, the muscles of the
chest causing it to rise and fall like the
waves of the ocean, without any deli
berate intention of taking air into the
lungs and exhaling it. Nay, more: there
are instances of what was at first accom
panied by the sensation of conscious
�ENERGY
28
will, ceasing to be so when the molecular
movements had made channels for them
selves, as when a piano player, who had
learned his notes with difficulty, ends by
playing a complicated piece automati
cally. The case of animals also raises
another difficulty. Suppose a retriever
dog sees his master shoot at and miss a
hare: shall he obey the promptings of
his animal instinct and give chase, or
those of his higher moral nature which
tell him that it is wrong to do so without
the word of command? It is hard to
see how this differs from the case of a
man resisting or yielding to temptation ;
and how, if we assign conscious will to
the man, we can deny it to the dog.
Reasoning from these premises, some
philosophers have come to the conclu
sion that man and all animals are but
mechanical automata, cleverly con
structed to work in a certain way fitting
in with the equally pre-ordained course
of outward phenomena; and that the
sensation of will is merely an illusion
arising as a last refinement in the adjust
ment of the machinery. But here comes
in that principle of duality or polarity
by which a proposition may be at once
true and untrue and two contradictory
opposites exist together. No amount
of philosophical reasoning can make us
believe that we are altogether machines
and not free agents; it runs off us like
water from a duck’s back, and leaves us in
presence of the intuitive conviction that
to a great extent
Man is man and master of his fate.
If this be an illusion, why not everything
—evidence of the senses, experiment,
natural law, science, as well as morality
and religion ?
To pursue this farther would lead us
far astray into the misty realm of meta
physics, and I refer to it only as showing
that the principle of the conservation of
energy, standing as it does in apparent
contradiction to our natural impressions,
requires a fuller demonstration than the
kindred principle of the indestructibility
of matter.
In the case of ordinary mechanical
power it had been long known that the
intervention of machinery did not create
force, but only transformed it. If a
weight of i lb., a, just balances a
weight of 2 lb., b, by aid of a pulley, and
by the addition of a minute
fraction, such as a grain,
raises it i foot, it will be
invariably found that A has
descended 2 feet. In other
words, 1 lb. working through
2 feet does exactly the same
work as 2 lbs. working
through 1 foot.
And, whatever may
be the intervening machinery, the same
thing holds good, and the work put in
at one end comes out, neither more nor
less, at the other, except for a minute
loss due to friction and resistance of
air. If a force equal to 1 lb. is made,
by multiplying the intermediate machi
nery, to raise a ton a foot from the
ground, exactly as much force must have
been exerted as if the ton had been
divided into 2,240 parts of 1 lb. each,
and each part separately lifted.
But, although energy cannot be created,
at first sight it seems as if it might be
destroyed, as when the ton falls to the
ground and seems to have lost all its
energy, whether of motion or of position.
But here science steps in and shows us
that it is not destroyed, but simply trans
formed into another sort of motion, which
we call heat.
Some connection between mechanical
work and heat had long been known, as
in the familiar experiment of rubbing our
hands together to warm them; and the
practice known to most primitive races
of obtaining fire by twirling a stick
rapidly in a hole drilled in a block of
wood—a practice described by the old
Sanskrit word “ pramantha,” which
means an instrument for obtaining fire
by pressure or friction, and which, trans
lated into Greek, has been immortalised
by the legend of Prometheus. But it
was reserved for recent years, and for an
English philosopher, Dr. Joule, to give
scientific precision and generality to this
�ENERGY
29
factors which have united to form it.
idea, by actually measuring the amount
Thus, if iron is burnt in oxygen gas, the
of heat produced by a given amount of
product, oxide of iron or rust, weighs
work, and showing that they were in all
cases convertible terms—so much heat more than the original iron by just as
much as the weight of the oxygen which
for so much work, and so much work
for so much heat. He did this by has been consumed. But heat, light,
and electricity add nothing to the weight
measuring accurately by a thermometer
of a body when they are added to it, and
the heat added to a given amount of
water by the work done by a set of take nothing away when they are sub
tracted. The inference is unavoidable
paddles revolving in it, set in rapid
that heat, like light, is not ponderable
motion by a known weight descending
matter, but an energy transmitted by
through a known space. The unit of
waves of the imponderable medium know n
work being taken as that sufficient to
as ether. This is confirmed by finding
raise 1 kilogramme through 1 metre,
that, when a ray from the sun is analysed
and that of heat as that required to
by passing through a refracting. prism,
raise the temperature of 1 kilogramme
one part of the spectrum show’s light of
of water by i° Centigrade, the relation
various colours, while another gives heat.
between them, as found by a vast
number of careful experiments, is that of The hottest part of the spectrum lies in
424 to 1. That is, one unit of heat is the red and beyond it, showing that the
heat-waves are longer, and their oscilla
equal to 424 units of work.
In this, and all cases requiring scientific tions slower, than those of light. Heatprecision, it is better to use the units of waves also may be made to interfere,
the metrical system than our clumsy and to become polarised, in a manner
English standards ; but it may be suffi analogous to the phenomena exhibited
cient for the ordinary reader to take the by those of light.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that
metre, which is about 39.37 inches, as
practically a yard, and the kilogramme, heat, like light, is an energy or mode of
which is 15,432 English grains, as prac motion, transmitted by waves of an
tically equal to 2 lbs. This is sufficient imponderable ether, and that it acts on
to show the much greater energy of the the molecules and atoms of matter by
invisible forces which act at minute dis the accumulated successive impulses of
tances than that of gravity and other those waves on the molecules and atoms
forces which do appreciable mechanical which are floating in it, or rather which
work, the energy of a weight falling from are revolving in it, in definite groups and
a height of more than 1,300 feet being fixed orbits, like miniature solar systems
only sufficient to heat its own weight or starry universes. We can now see
how heat performs work, and why work
by i°.
This proof of the convertibility of can be transformed into it.
Heat performs work in two ways.
work into heat gives much greater preci
sion to our ideas respecting the real First, it expands bodies—that is, it draws
nature of heat and its kindred molecular their molecules farther apart against the
and atomic energies. Heat is clearly force of cohesion which binds them
not a material substance, for a body together or keeps them moving in definite
does not gain weight by becoming orbits at definite distances. It is as if
hotter. In the case of all ponderable it increased the velocity, and therefore
matter down to the atoms, which are the centrifugal force, of a system of
only of the size of cricket-balls compared planets, and so caused them to revolve in
to that of the earth, any combination wider orbits. The expansion of mercury
which adds matter adds weight, and the in a thermometer affords a familiar in
weight of the product exactly equals the stance of this effect of heat and the
sum of the weights of the separate; readiest measure of its amount. Secondly,
�30
ENERGY
it increases the energy of the molecular
lghting the coal, or, in other words,
motions, so that they dart about, collide,
separating its molecules more widely by
and vibrate with greater force. Thus, as heat, we enable them to exert once more
heat increases, evaporation increases
their natural affinity for oxygen, and
for molecules on the surface are pro
burn, that is re-combine into carbonic
jected with so much force as to
dioxide. The heat thus produced turns
get beyond the sphere of the cohesive
water into steam, which passes through
attraction which binds them to the
a cylinder, either into a condenser if the
system, and they dart off like comets steam js . at low pressure, or into the
into space. Finally, as heat increases,
outer air if it has been superheated and
and more and more work is done, against brought to a higher pressure than that of
the centripetal force of cohesion, most the atmosphere. The difference of the
substances, and doubtless all if we could
pressure or elasticity of the steam in the
get heat enough, are converted from boiler, and of the same steam when it is
solids into fluids, and ultimately into
condensed or liberated, is available for
gases, in which latter state the molecules doing work, and, being admitted and
have got altogether beyond the sphere of
released alternately at the two ends of
their mutual attraction, and tend to dart
the cylinder, drives a piston up and
off indefinitely in the direction of their
down, which, by means of cranks and
own proper centrifugal motions, unless shafts,. turns a wheel or does whatever
confined, in which case they dart about, work is required of it.
In doing this
collide, rebound, and exercise pressure heat disappears, being converted into
on the containing surface.
work, and the amount of heat would
Conversely, if heat expands bodies, it
exactly equal that into which the work
is given out when they contract. Thus
would be converted according to Joule’s
the enormous quantity of heat poured law, if it could all be utilised without the
out for millions of years by the sun is loss necessarily incurred by friction,
probably owing mainly to the mechanical radiation, and the still more important
force of contraction of the original cosmic absorption of latent heat required to
matter condensing about the solar convert water at boiling-point into vapour
nucleus.
of the same temperature. This latter is
Again, when gases suddenly expand not really an annihilation of the heat,
their temperature falls, which is the but its conversion into work done in
principle by which artificial ice is pro separating the molecules against the
cured, and frozen beef and mutton are force of cohesion. The whole heat,
brought from America and Australia, therefore, is transformed into work,
producing, such are the complicated rela mainly molecular work in tearing mole
tions of modern society, agricultural cules asunder, and the residue into
depression, fall of rents, and a serious mechanical work turning spindles and
aggravation of the Irish question.
driving locomotives and steamboats.
As an example of the converse pro
The intermediate machinery here,
position of the transformation of heat including the water in the boiler, is
into mechanical work, the steam-engine merely the means of applying the original
affords the aptest illustration. The energy in the particular way we desire,
original power came from the sun l he essential thing is the transformation
millions of years ago, and did work by or a certain amount of heat into work
enabling the leaves of plants to overcome by passing, in accordance with the laws
the strong mutual affinity of carbon and of heat, from a hotter to a colder body,
oxygen in the carbonic dioxide in the lhe last condition is indispensable, for
air, and store up the carbon in the plant, the nature of heat is to seek an equili
where it remained since the coal era in brium by passing from hot to cold, and
the form of energy of position. By no work can be got out of it in the
�ENERGY
reverse way.
On the contrary, work
must be expended and turned into heat
to restore the temperature which has run
down. The case is analogous to that of
water, which, if raised by evaporation or
stored up in reservoirs at a level above
the sea, can be made to turn a wheel
while it is running down; but, when it
has all run down to the sea level, can do
no more work, and can only be pumped
up again to a higher level by the expen
diture of fresh work. Owing to this
tendency of heat, we can see that,
although matter and energy are to all
appearance indestructible, the present
constitution of the universe is not
eternal. The animating energy of heat
is always tending to obliterate differences
of temperature, and bring all energy
down to one uniform dead level of a
common average, in which no further
life, work, or motion is possible. For
tunately this consummation is far off, and
for many tens or hundreds of millions of
years the inhabitants of this tiny planet
may feel fairly secure, and need not, like
the late Dr. Cumming, of millenarian
celebrity, introduce breaks in the leases
of their houses to provide against the
contingency of the world coming to an
end at an early date. Moreover, recent
physicists point out that there may be
compensating processes in nature, so that
the idea of all energy being finally trans
formed into heat must not be taken too
seriously.
Dismissing, then, to the remote future
any speculations as to the failure of this
essential element of active energy, let us
rather consider the various protean forms
in which it shows itself.
1. The energy of visible motion,
which, as we have seen, may be trans
formed into an equivalent amount of
energy of position.
2. Molecular energy, which causes the
cohesive attraction, repulsion, and other
proper motions of these minute and
invisible particles of matter.
3. Energy of heat and light, which
are transmitted by waves of the assumed
imponderable medium called ether.
3i
4. Energy of chemical action, by
which the small particles of ponderable
matter, called atoms, separate and com
bine into the various combinations of
molecules constituting visible matter, in
obedience to certain affinities, or inherent
attractions and repulsions.
5. Electrical energy, which includes
magnetism as a special instance.
All these forms of energy may exist,
as in the case of visible energy,. either as
energies of motion or of position; and
the actual constitution of the universe is
due in a great measure to the alternation
of these two energies. Thus all wave
motion, whether it be of the waves of the
sea grinding down a rocky coast, of the
air transmitting sound, or of ether trans
mitting light and heat, are instances of
energies of motion and of position, con
flicting with one another and alternately
gaining the victory. So also a pound of
gunpowder or dynamite has an immense
energy of position, which, when its atoms
are let loose from their mutual unstable
connection by heat or percussion, mani
fests itself in an enormous energy of
motion, which is more or less destructive
according to the rapidity with which the
atoms rush into new combinations.
Let us consider these different energies
a little more in detail. The energy of
visible motion is manifested principally
by the law of gravitation, under which
all matter attracts other matter directly
as the mass and inversely as the square
of the distance. The word “attract”
must not be taken literally, as the real
nature of the force is not yet clear;
many physicists think the atoms are
pushed towards each other rather than
pulled by each other. It is a universal
and uniform law of matter, and can be
traced without change or variation from
the minutest atom up to the remotest
double star. The energy of living force
might, at first sight, be considered as
another of the commonest causes of
visible motion ; but, when closely
analysed, it will be found that what
appears as such is only the result of
molecular energy of position stored up
�32
ENERGY
in the living body by chemical changes equal to a ton for each square inch of
f
during the slow combustion of food, and section, as exemplified in the tubular
s
that nothing has been added by any bridge across the Menai Straits, where
1
hypothetical vital force. The conscious space has to be allowed for the free con
s
will seems to act in those cases simply as traction and expansion of the irotl under
1
the signalman who shows a white flag changes of temperature.
'
Chemical energy, or the mutual attrac
may act on a train which has been stand
ing on the line waiting for. it.. The tions and repulsions of atoms, is even
energy which moves the train is due more powerful than that of molecules
entirely to the difference of heat, which It displays itself in their elective affinities,
has been developed by the combustion or what may be called the likes and dis
of coal, between the steam in the boiler likes, or loves and hatreds, of these
and the steam when allowed to escape ultimate particles. Perhaps the best
into the air; and this energy came illustration will be afforded by that “latest
originally from the sun, whose rays resource of civilisation,” dynamite. This
enabled the leaves.of growing plants to substance, or, to give it its scientific name,
decompose carbonic dioxide and store nitro-glycerine, is composed of molecules
up the carbon in the coal. Of this force each of which is a complex combination
of gravitation causing visible motion we of nine atoms of oxygen, five of hydrogen,
may say that it is comparatively a very three of nitrogen, and three of carbon.
weak force, which acts uniformly over all Of these, oxygen and hydrogen have a
strong affinity for one another, as is seen
distances, great or small.
Molecular energies, on the other hand, by their rushing together whenever they
act with vastly greater force, but at very get the chance and by their union form
small distances, and appear sometimes, as ing the very stable compound, water.
attractive and sometimes as repulsive Oxygen and carbon have also a very
forces. Thus solid bodies are . held strong affinity, and readily form the stable
together by a force of cohesion which is product, carbonic dioxide gas. Nitrogen,
very powerful, but acts only at . very on the other hand, is a very inert sub
small distances, as we may see if we stance; its molecule consists of two
break a piece of glass and try to mend it atoms of itself which are bound together
by pressing the broken edges together. by a strong affinity, and can only, be
We cannot draw them near enough to coaxed with difficulty into combinations
bring the molecular attraction again into with other elements, forming compounds
play and make the broken glass solid. which are, as it were, artificial structures,
But the same glass acts with repellent and very unstable. We see this in the
energy if another solid tries to penetrate air, which consists mainly of oxygen and
it, so that we can walk on a glass floor nitrogen, but not in chemical combina
without sinking into it. Heat, also, by tion, the oxygen being simply diluted by
increasing the distance between the the nitrogen, as whisky is with water,
molecules, first weakens the cohesive with the same object of diluting the too
force so that the solid becomes fluid, and powerful oxygen or too potent alcohol,
finally overcomes it altogether, so that it and enabling the air-breather or whisky
passes into the state of gas in which the drinker to take them into the system
centripetal attraction of the molecules is without burning up the tissues too rapidly.
extinguished, and they tend to recede: If nitrogen had more affinity for oxygen,
further and further from each. other■ it would combine chemically with it, and
under the centrifugal force of their ownl we should live in an atmosphere of
proper velocities. The great energy off nitrous oxide, or laughing gas.
The molecule, therefore, of mtromolecular forces will be apparent fromL
the fact that a bar of iron, in coolingr glycerine resembles a house of cards, so
io° Centigrade, contracts with a force» | nicely balanced that it will just stand,
�ENERGY
but will fall to pieces at the slightest
•oj| touch. When this is supplied by a slight
"q I percussion, the molecule falls to pieces
and is resolved into its constituent atoms,
which rush together in accordance with
their natural affinities, forming an
mi immense volume of gas, partly of water
rri in the form of steam where oxygen has
CClj combined with hydrogen, and partly of
ffiS carbonic dioxide where it has combined
with carbon, leaving the nitrogen atoms
•ol to pair off, and revert to their original
■ol form of two-atom molecules of nitrogen
<£4 gas. It is as if ill-assorted couples, who
t£$ had been united by matrimonial bonds
>St3 tied by the manoeuvres of Belgravian
:un mothers, found themselves suddenly freed
yd by a decree of divorce a vinculo matri
:'WS monii, and rushed impetuously into each
I JO other’s arms, according to the laws of
!3dJ their respective affinities.
So striking is
3fij xthe similitude that one of Goethe’s bestyui known novels, the Wahlverwandschaften,
takes its title from the human play of
sdJ these chemical reactions. The enormous
| energy developed when these atomic
>10)1 forces are let loose, and a vast volume of
asgi gas almost instantaneously created, is
aijjs J attested by the destructive force by which
the hardest rocks are shattered to pieces
and the strongest buildings overthrown.
These loves and hatreds, or, as they are
termed, chemical affinities and repulsions
of the atoms, are the principal means by
Iqsi which the material structure of the universe
gi is built up from the original elements.
,xlTj The earth, or solid crust of the planet
we inhabit, consists mainly of oxidised
jcLftdl bases, and is due to the affinity of oxygen
. ipi for silicon, calcium, aluminium, iron, and
xffd other primary elements of what are called
.
metals. This affinity enables them to
£$ui make stable compounds, which, under
-.hi the existing conditions of temperature
Umj and otherwise, hold together and are not
fe|'s| readily decomposed.
Water in like
tell manner, in all its forms of waves, seas,
lakes, rivers, clouds, and invisible vapour,
a is due to the affinity between oxygen
poiand hydrogen forming a stable comwound. Salt, again, is owing to the
huHiaffinity of chlorine for sodium, and so
flw1
33
for nearly all the various products with
which we are familiar, oxygen and nitro
gen in the air we breathe being almost
the only elements which exist in their
primary and uncombined state in any
considerable quantities, and form an
essential part of the conditions which
render our planet a habitable abode for
man and other forms of life.
We shall see presently something more
of the nature of these affinities, and the
laws by which they act; but before
entering on this branch of the subject
we must consider the remaining form in
which the one indestructible energy of
the universe manifests itself—viz., that of
electricity.
Electricity is the most subtle and the
least understood of these forms. In its
simplest form it appears as the result of
friction between dissimilar substances.
Thus, if we rub a glass rod with a piece
of silk, taking care that both are warm
and dry, we find that the glass has
acquired the property of attracting light
bodies, such as little bits of paper, or
balls of elder-pith. Other substances,
such as sealing-wax and amber, have the
same property. Pursuing our research
further, we find that this influence is
not, like that of gravity, uniform and
always acting in the same direction, but
of two kinds, equal and opposite. If
we touch the pith-ball by the excited
glass rod, it will after contact be repelled;
but if we bring the ball which has been
excited by contact with the glass within
the influence of a stick of sealing-wax
which has been excited by rubbing it
with warm dry flannel, the ball, instead
of being repelled, is attracted.
Conversely, if the pith-ball has been
first touched by excited ceiling-wax, it
will afterwards be repelled by excited
ceiling-wax and attracted by excited glass.
It is clear, therefore, that there are two
opposite electricities, and that bodies
charged with similar electricities repel,
and with unlike electricities attract, one
another. For convenience, one of these
electricities, that developed in glass, is
called positive, and the other negative;
D
�34
ENERGY
and it has been clearly proved that one
cannot exist without the other, and that,
whenever one electricity is produced,
just as much is produced of an opposite
description.
If positive electricity is
produced in glass by rubbing it with
silk, just as much negative electricity is
produced upon the silk.
Another.primary fact is that some sub
stances are able to carry away and diffuse
or neutralise this peculiar influence called
electricity, while others are unable to do
so and retain it. The former are called
conductors, the latter non-conductors.
Thus, glass is an insulator or non-con
ductor, while metal is a conductor of
electricity ; and the reason why the sub
stances rubbed together, as glass and silk,
must be dry is that water, in all its forms,
is a conductor which carries away the
electricity as fast as it is produced.
These facts led to the formation of a
theory of the existence of two opposite
electric fluids, which, in the ordinary or
unexcited body, are combined and neu
tralise one another, but are separated by
friction, and flow in opposite directions,
accumulating at opposite poles, or, it
may be, one being accumulated at one
pole, while the other is diffused through
some conducting medium and lost sight
of.
The latest discoveries in physics have,
however, disposed us to conceive the
process differently.
Electricity is the
substratum of matter. Lord Kelvin says
that “ the atomic theory of electricity is
now universally accepted.” We have
seen that it is the tiny particles of the
electric charge, the electrons, that make
up the atom; and the positive or nega
tive state of the atom (and therefore of
the mass composed of atoms) is thought
to depend on the number of its com
ponent particles.
However, there is a great analogy
between electrical energy and those of
heat and of chemical affinity. The same
mechanical work—viz., friction—which
generates heat, generates electricity. The
chief difference seems to be that friction
may be transformed into heat when the
same substances are rubbed together, as
in the case of obtaining fire by the fric
tion of wood ; but electricity can only be
obtained by friction between dissimilar
substances. Thus no electricity is ob
tained by rubbing glass upon glass, or
silk upon silk, or upon glass covered with
silk, though a slight difference of texture
is sometimes sufficient to separate the
electric fluids. Thus, if two pieces of
the same silk ribbon are rubbed together,
lengthways, no electricity is produced, but
if crossways, one is positively, and the
other negatively, electrified.
In this
respect, the analogy is evident to chemi
cal affinity, which, in like manner, only
acts between dissimilar bodies.
The analogy is even more striking
when we follow up electricity far beyond
the simple manifestations of the glass rod
and sealing wax, and pursue it to its
origin, in the transformations of chemical
action and mechanical work, in the
voltaic battery, the electric telegraph, the
telephone, and the dynamo.
The voltaic battery, in its simplest
form, is a trough containing an acid
liquid in which pairs of plates of different
metals are immersed. It is evident that,
if the action of the acid on each metal
were precisely the same, equal quantities
of each would be dissolved in the acid,
and the equilibrium of chemical energies
would not be affected. But, the action
being different, this equilibrium is dis
turbed, and if the sum of these distur
bances for a number of separate pairs
of plates can be accumulated, it will
become considerable. This is done by
connecting the plates of the same metal
in each cell by a metallic wire, covered
by some non-conducting substance.
There are, therefore, two wires, one to
the right hand, the other to the left, the
loose extremities of which are called the
poles of the battery. If we test these
poles as we did the glass rod and stick
of sealing-wax, we find that one pole is
charged with positive and the other with
negative electricity. In other words, the
chemical energy, whose equilibrium was
disturbed by the unequal action of the
�ENERGY
acid on the plates of different metals, has
been transformed into electrical energy,
manifesting itself, as it always does, under
the condition of two equal and opposite
polarities. If we connect these two poles
with one another, the two electricities
rush together and unite, and there is
established what is called an electrical
current circulating round the battery.
As the chemical action of the acid on the
metals is not momentary, but continuous,
the acid taking up molecule after mole
cule of the metal, so also the current is
continuous. When we call it a current,
the term is used for the sake of con
venience ; for as the current, as we shall
presently see, will flow along the wire or
other conducting substance for immense
distances, as across the Atlantic, with a
velocity of many thousands of miles per
second, we can no more than in the case
of light figure it to ourselves as an actual
transfer of material particles swept along
as by a river running with this enormous
velocity. In a free current of electricity
the particles are literally shot forth, but
along a solid they are only transmitted
from atom to atom, as in the wave
motion of heat. Be this as it may, the
effect of these electric currents is very
varied and very energetic. It can pro
duce intense heat, for if, instead of uniting
the two poles, we connect them by a
thin platinum wire, it will, in a few
seconds, become heated to redness. If
the connecting wire is thicker, heat will
equally be generated, but less intense,
thus maintaining the analogy to the
current which rushes with more im
petuosity through a narrow than through
a wide channel. If the poles are tipped
with a solid substance like carbon, whose
particles remain solid under great heat,
when they are brought nearly together
intense light is produced, and the carbon
slowly burns away. This produces what
is called the arc light, which gives such
a strong illuminating power, and is
coming into general use for lighting up
large spaces.
Another transformation is back again
into chemical energy, which is shown by
35
the power of the electric current to
decompose compound substances. If,
for instance, the poles of a battery are
plunged into a vessel containing water,
the molecules of the water will be
decomposed and bubbles of oxygen gas
will rise from the positive, and of
hydrogen from the negative, pole.
Another effect of electrical currents is
that of attraction and repulsion on one
another. If two parallel wires, free to
move, carry currents flowing in the same
direction as from positive to negative, or
vice versa, they will attract one another ;
if in opposite directions, they will repel.
Electrical currents also work by way of
induction—that is, they disturb the elec
trical equilibrium of bodies brought
within their influence and induce cur
rents in them. Thus, if we have two
circular coils of insulated wire placed
near each other, one on the right hand,
the other on the left, and connect the
extremities of the right-hand coil with
the poles of a battery, when the connec
tion is first made and the current begins
to flow, a momentary current in the
opposite direction will pass through the
left-hand coil. This will cease, and as
long as the current continues to flow
through the right-hand coil there will be
no current through the other; but if we
break the contact between the right-hand
coil and the battery, there will be again
a momentary current through the left
hand coil, but this time in the same
direction as the other. The same effect
will be produced if, instead of making
and breaking contact in the right-hand
coil, we keep the current constantly flow
ing through it,’and make the right-hand
coil alternately approach and recede from
the other coil. In this case, when the
right-hand coil approaches, it induces an
opposite current in the left-hand one ;
and when it recedes, one in the same
direction as that of the primary.
These phenomena of induction prepare
us to understand the nature of magnets,
and the magnetic effects produced by
electrical currents. If an insulated wire
is wrapped round a cylinder of soft or
�36
ENERGY
unmagnetic iron, and a current passed
through the wire, the cylinder is con
verted into a magnet and becomes able
to sustain weights.
If the current
ceases, the cylinder is no longer a
magnet, and drops the weight.
A
magnet is therefore evidently a substance
in which electric currents are circulating
at right angles to its axis, and a per
manent magnet is one in which such
currents permanently circulate from the
constitution of the body without being
supplied from without. The earth is
such a magnet, and also iron and other
substances, under certain conditions.
This being established, it is easy to
see why an electrical current deflects the
magnetic needle. If such a needle is
suspended freely near a wire parallel
with it, on a current being passed through
the wire it must attract if similar, or
repel if dissimilar, the currents which are
circulating at right angles to the axis of
the needle, and thus tend to make the
needle swing into a position at right
angles with the wire, so that its currents
may be parallel to that of the needle.
This is the reason why the needle in its
ordinary condition points to the north
and south, or rather to the magnetic
poles of the earth, because its currents
are influenced by the earth currents
which circulate parallel to the magnetic
equator. The deviation of the needle
from this direction, caused by any other
current, like that passed along the wire,
will depend on the strength of the
current, which may be measured by the
amount of deflection of the needle. The
direction in which the needle deflects—viz., whether the north pole swings to
the right or to the left, will depend on
the direction of the current through the
wire. The direction of the circular
currents which form a magnet is such
that if you look towards the north pole
of a freely suspended cylindrical magnet
—i.e., if you stand on the north of it and
look southwards—the positive current
will ascend on your right hand, or on the
west side, and descend on the east. It
follows that unlike poles must neces
sarily attract and like poles repel one
another, for in the former case the
circular currents which face each other
are going in the same and in the latter
in opposite directions.
The reader is now in a position to
understand the principle of the electric
telegraph, that wonderful invention which
has revolutionised human intercourse
and, to a great extent, annihilated space
and time. It originated in the discovery
made by Oersted, a Danish savant, that
the effect of an electric current was to
make a magnet swing round, in the
endeavour to place itself at right angles
to it. The conducting power of insulated
copper wire is such that it practically
makes no difference whether one of the
wires connected with the pole of a
battery is two feet or 2,000 miles in
length, and the earth, being a conducting
medium, supplies an equal extension
from the other pole, so that a closed
electric circuit may be established across
the Atlantic as easily as within the walls
of a laboratory.
If, therefore, a magnetic needle is sus
pended at the American end, it will
respond to every electrical current, and
to any interruption, renewal, or reversal
of that current established in England.
The needle may thus be made to swing
to the right or left, by forming or revers
ing a current through the wire; and it
will return to its position whenever the
current is interrupted, and repeat its
movement whenever the current is
renewed. In fact, it may be made to
move like the arm of the old-fashioned
telegraph, or of a railway signal. It only
remains to have a machine by which the
operator can form and interrupt currents
rapidly, and a code by which certain
movements of the needle stand for cer
tain letters of the alphabet, and you have
the electric telegraph.
There are many ingenious applications
of the machinery, but in principle they
all resolve themselves into transformations
of energy. Chemical energy is trans
formed into electric energy, . and that
again into mechanical work in moving
�ENERGY
the needle or other apparatus used. It
has now been found possible to dispense
with the wires altogether, as. in the
Marconi system, and the transmitter and
receiver of the electric current are very
elaborate.
The telephone is another instance of
similar transformations. Here, spoken
words create vibrations of the air, which
cause corresponding vibrations in a thin
plate or disc of metal at one end, which
are conveyed by intermediate machinery
to a similar disc at the other end, whose
vibrations cause similar vibrations in the
air, reproducing the spoken words at a
distance which may be a great many
miles from the speaker.
The great inventions of modern science
which have so revolutionised society are
all instances of the law of the conserva
tion of energy. Man makes the powers
of nature available for his purposes by
transforming them backwards and for
wards, now into one, now into another
form of energy, as required for the result
he wishes to attain. He wants mechanical
power to pump water or drive a locomo
tive or steamboat: he gets it from the
steam-engine, by transforming the energy
of heat in coal, which came ages ago
from the energy of chemical action pro
duced by the sun’s rays in the green
leaves of growing plants. He wants to
send messages in a few seconds across
the Atlantic : he does it by transforming
chemical energy into electricity in a
voltaic battery, sending its vibrations
along a conducting wire, and converting
it at the far end into mechanical power,
making a magnetic needle turn on its
axis and give signals. If, instead of
sending a message, he wants to hold a
conversation at a distance, he invents
the telephone, by which sound-vibrations
of air are transformed into vibrations of
a disc, then into electric currents, then
into vibrations of a distant disc, and
finally back again to spoken words. Or,
if he wants light, he turns electricity into
it by tipping the poles of his battery
with carbon and bringing them close
together.
'37
The latest inventions of electrical
science—the dynamo and the accumu
lator—afford remarkable instances of this
convertibility of one primitive energy
into different forms. In the instance
just quoted, of obtaining light from
electricity by the voltaic battery, the
cost has hitherto proved an obstacle to
its adoption. The electrical energy is
all obtained from-the transformation of
the heat produced in the cells by the
chemical action on the metal used, which
is commonly zinc. Now, the heat of
combination of zinc with oxygen is only
about one-sixth of that of coal, while the
cost of zinc is about twenty times as
great. Theoretically, therefore,, energy
got by burning zinc costs 120 times as
much as that got by burning coal.
Practically the difference is not nearly
so great, for there is very little loss of
energy in the battery by the process, of
conversion, while the best steam-engine
cannot convert into work as much astwenty per cent, of the heat energy in
the coal consumed. Still, after making
every allowance, the cost of energy from
zinc remains some twenty times as great
as from coal, so that, unless some process,
is found for obtaining back the zinc as a
residual product, there is no prospect of
this form of electricity being generally
available for light or for mechanical
power.
The dynamo is an instrument invented
for the mechanical generation of elec
tricity by taking advantage of the prin
ciple that electrical energy is produced
by moving magnets near coils of wire, or
coils of wire near magnets. A current
is thus started by induction, and, once
started, the mechanical power exerted in
making the magnet or coils revolve is
continually converted into electricity
until the accumulated electrical energy
becomes very powerful. The original
energy comes, of course, from the coal
burned in the steam-engine which makes
the magnet or coils revolve.
The principle of the conservation of
energy is well illustrated by the fact that,
as the dynamo generates an electric
�38
ENERGY
current if made to revolve, conversely it
may be made to revolve itself if an
electric current is sent through it from
an exterior source. It is, therefore,
available not only as a source of light
in the former case, but as a direct
source of mechanical power in the latter.
It is on this principle that electric
engines are constructed and electric
railways are worked. Here also it is a
question of cost and convenience, for
you can only get electricity enough, either
to light a street or to drive an engine, by
an original steam-engine or other motive
power to work the dynamo; and a system
of conducting wires to convey the elec
tricity to the place where the light or
power is wanted. Where the motive
power is supplied by nature, as in the
case of tidal or river currents or water
falls, it is quite possible that power may
be obtained in this way to compete with
that obtained directly from the steamengine ; but there are as yet considerable
practical difficulties to be overcome in
the transmission of any large amount of
-energy for long distances.
To overcome some of these difficulties
the accumulator has been invented,
which affords yet another remarkable
instance of the transformation of energy.
It consists of two lead plates immersed
in acidulated water. When a strong
electrical current is sent through the
water it decomposes it, the oxygen going
to one lead plate and the hydrogen to
the other. The oxygen attacks the lead
plate to which it goes, forming peroxide
of lead; while the hydrogen reduces
any oxide in the other plate, producing
pure lead, and leaving a film of surplus
hydrogen on the surface. The charging
current is then reversed, so that the
latter plate is now attacked and the
former one reduced, when the current is
again reversed. By continuing this pro
cess the surfaces of both lead plates
become porous, so that they present a
large surface, and can therefore hold a
great deal of peroxide of lead. The
charging current being now broken, the
oxygen which has been forcibly separated
from the liquid seeks to recombine with
hydrogen ; and if the two lead plates are
joined by a wire, this effect of the oxygen
generates an electrical current in the
opposite direction to the original one,
which is the current utilised. Electricity
is thus stored up in a portable box,
where it can be kept till wanted, when it
is drawn out by connecting the plates,
and, as a large amount of energy has
been accumulated, the current which is
produced lasts for a considerable time.
Unfortunately, accumulators are bulky,
heavy, and expensive, and nearly half
the energy of the original charging
current is lost in obtaining the reversed
or working current. They are therefore
not as yet adapted for general use,
though perfectly capable of supplying
either light or motive power, for both
which purposes they have been success
fully applied in special cases. The
future both of electric power and electric
lighting is now reduced entirely to a
question of cost; and though it is hard
to beat gas and the steam engine, with
cheap coal, and air and water for
nothing, it is possible that by using
natural sources of power to move
dynamos, and by obtaining zinc back as
a residual product in batteries, electricity
may in certain cases carry the day. A
visit to any modern electrical exhibition
will show that it is rapidly displacing the
older motive forces at every turn.
�POLARITY IN MATTER
39
Chapter V.
POLARITY IN MATTER
Ultimate elements of universe—Built up by
polarity—Experiment with magnet—Chemical
affinity—Atomic poles—Alkalies and acids—
Quantivalence — Atomicity — Isomerism —
Chemical stability — Thermo-chemistry —Definition of atoms—All matter built up by
polar forces.
I almost fear that by this time some of
my readers may think that I have
seduced them under false pretences to
read long chapters of dry science, when
they had been led from the introduction
to anticipate discussions on the more
immediately interesting topics of morals,
religions, and philosophies. My excuse
must be that these scientific subjects are
really of extreme interest in themselves
and indispensable as a solid basis for the
superstructure to be raised on them.
How can I attempt to show that the law
of polarity extends to the more complex
problems of human thought and life if I
fail in establishing its application to the
simpler case of inorganic force and
matter? It must be recollected also
that among the primitive polarities is
that of author and reader. It is my
part to endeavour to present the leading
facts and laws of the material universe in
such plain and popular language that the
ordinary reader who has neither time nor
faculty for special studies may apprehend
them clearly without excessive effort or
extraordinary intelligence. But it is the
reader’s part to supply a fair average
amount of attention, and above all to feel
an interest in interesting matters. Clever
ness and curiosity are very much con
vertible terms, and the clearest exposition
is thrown away on the torpid mind which
views the marvellous universe in which he
has the privilege to live with the stupid
apathy of the savage, taking things as
they come without caring to know any
thing about them.
'
For the reader’s part of the work I am
not responsible; but for my own I am,
and I proceed therefore to give in my
own way, and with the best faculty that
is in me, a clear summary of such of the
fundamental facts and laws of nature as
seem necessary for the work I have
undertaken.
From the preceding chapters we are
now able to realise what are the ultimate
elements of the material universe, and it
remains to show how they are put together.
The elements are ether, energy, and
matter.
First, ether: a universal, all-pervading,
medium, imponderable or infinitely light,
and almost infinitely elastic, in which all
matter, from suns and planets down to
molecules and atoms, float as in a bound
less ocean, and whose tremors or vibra
tions, propagated as waves, transport the
different forms of energy, light, heat, and
electricity, across space.
Secondly, energy : a primitive, indes
tructible something, which causes motion
and manifests itself under its many diver
sified forms, such as gravitation, mecha
nical work, molecular and atomic forces,,
light and heat, all of which are merely
Protean transformations of the one funda
mental energy, and convertible into each
other.
Thirdly, matter: the ultimate elements
of this are the electrons, or electric
particles, which combine to form atoms
these in turn build up molecules, or little
pieces of ordinary matter with all its
qualities, which are the bricks used in
building all the varied structures of the
organic and inorganic worlds. Of these
atoms some seventy-eight have been dis
tinguished, and, although we suspect that
they are merely combinations or trans
formations of one original matter, it is
still convenient to consider them as
�4°
POLARITY IN MATTER
elementary. In like manner we may
suspect that matter is in reality only
another form of energy, and that the im
pression of solidity is given by the action
of a repellent force which is very energetic
at short distances. If this were estab
lished, we might look forward to the
generalisation that energy was the one
reality of nature ; but for the present it
is a mere speculation, and we must be
content to pursue our inquiry into the
nature and unions of the electrons. In
any case this much is certain, that
matter, like energy, is indestructible.
We have absolutely no experience of
either of them being created or annihi
lated. Nay, more, we have no faculties
to enable us even to conceive how some
thing can be made out of nothing; and
all we know, or can ever know, about these
primitive constituents of the universe
concerns their laws of existence, their
evolutions and their transformations.
Minute as the electrons and atoms and
molecules are, we must conceive of them
: not as stationary and indissolubly con
nected, but rather as little solar systems
■in which revolving electrons form the
atom, revolving atoms form the molecule,
and revolving molecules form the matter,
held together as separate systems by
their proper energies and motions, until
some superior force intruding breaks up
the system and sets its components free
lo form new combinations.
What is the principle which thus forms,
•un-forms, and re-forms the various com
binations of atomic and molecular
systems by which the world is built up
from its constituent elements ? It is
polarity.
As I began with the illustration of the
magnet introducing order and harmony
into the confused mass of iron filings, let me
take this other illustration from the same
source. If we place an iron bar in con
tact with the pole of a magnet, the bar
becomes itself a magnet with opposite
poles to the original one, so that, as
opposite poles attract, the iron bar
adheres to it. Bring a lump of nickel in
contact with the further end or free pole
of the iron bar, and the nickel also will
be magnetised and adhere. Let the
lump of nickel be as large as the pole of
the iron bar is able to support, and now
bring a lump of soft iron near this pole.
It will drop the nickel and take the iron.
This is exactly similar to those cases of
chemical affinity in which a molecule
drops one of its factors and takes on
another to which its attraction is stronger.
If iron rusts in water, it is because the
oxygen atom drops hydrogen to take iron,
just as the magnet dropped nickel.
The polarity of chemical elements is
attested by the fact that, when compounds
are decomposed by the electric current,
the different elementary substances
appear at different poles of the battery.
Thus oxygen, chlorine, and non-metallic
substances appear at the positive pole;
while hydrogen, potassium, and metals
generally, appear at the negative one.
The inference is irresistible that the
atoms had in each case an opposite
polarity to that of the poles to which
they were attracted. This is confirmed
by the fact that the radicals—i.e., the
elementary atoms or groups of atoms
which have opposite polarities—combine
readily; while those which have the
same polarity, as two metals, have but
slight affinity for each other. Like there
fore attracts unlike, as in all cases of
polarity, and the greater- the degree of
unlikeness the stronger is the attraction.
Thus, the radicals of all alkalies are
electro-positive, and appear at the nega
tive pole of a battery; while those of
acids are all electro-negative, and the
higher each stands in its respective scale
of polarity the more strongly does it
show the peculiar qualities of acid or
alkali and the more eagerly does it com
bine with its opposite.
Acids and alkalies are, in fact, all
members of the same class of compounds
called Hydrates, because a single atom
of hydrogen is a common feature in
their composition. This atom is coupled
with a single atom of oxygen, which may
be conceived of as the central magnet
holding the hydrogen atom at one pole,
�POLARITY IN MATTER
4i
while at the other it holds either a single hydrogen, just as the magnet dropped
atom of some metallic element, such as nickel and took iron.
This polarity of chemical elements
potassium or sodium, or a group consist
ing, of such an element together with manifests itself in different ways. In
atoms of oxygen, so constituted as to some cases it appears like that of. a
present a single pole to the attraction of magnet, in which there are two opposite
the central oxygen atom. Thus, if K poles, and two only, one at each end.
stands for kali or potassium, N for Thus oxygen (O) is bipolar, and its atom
nitrogen, O for oxygen, and H for holds together two atoms of hydrogen
hydrogen, we may have the compounds (H) in forming the molecule of water,
which may be represented as H + H - O - K
O + - H, which is equivalent to
iron
The former is the molecule of potassic
hydrate, which is the most caustic or
strongest of alkalies; the latter, that of
nitric acid, the most corrosive or power
ful of acids. These are the extremes of
the series, of which there are many
intermediate members, all being more or
less alkaline, that is caustic and turning
litmus-paper blue, when the third element
is a simple metallic atom; and acid,
corrosive, and turning litmus-paper red,
when it is a compound radical of a group
of metallic and oxygen atoms. This
shows to what an extent whole classes of
substances may have a general resem
blance in their constitution, and yet differ
most widely in their qualities by the sub
stitution of one element for another.
These special qualities may be made
to diminish and finally disappear by
mixing the two opposite substances, or,
as it is called, neutralising an acid by an
alkali or an alkali by an acid. Thus, if
hydrochloric acid, H Cl, be poured into
a solution of sodic-hydrate, Na - O - H,
the alkaline qualities of the latter diminish
and finally disappear, the result of the
neutral solution being water, H - O - H,
and sodic-chloride, or common salt,
Na-Cl. It is evident that this result
has been produced by the hydrogen
atom in H - Cl and the sodium atom in
Na - O - H changing places, the former
preferring to unite with oxygen to form
water, while the displaced sodium atom
finds a refuge with chlorine. The oxygen
atom has dropped sodium and taken
__________
| n| s |magnet[ N |s_|. Others, again,
like hydrogen and chlorine, seem to
have only a single pole, as in the case of
electricity in an excited glass rod, and „
have to create for themselves the opposite
pole, which is the indispensable con
dition of all polarity, by. induction in
another body. Thus, muriatic or hydro
chloric acid is formed by the union of a
single atom of chlorine, which is strongly
negative, with a single atom of hydrogen,
in which it appears to have induced a
positive pole; though the combination is
not a very stable one, for, if an element
with a stronger positive pole of its own is
presented to the chlorine, it drops the
hydrogen, just as the magnet drops the
nickel. Other atoms are multipolar, and
seem as if made up of more than one
magnet, or rather as if the atom had
regular shape like a triangle, square, or
pentagon, and each angle was a pole,
thus enabling it to unite with three, four,
five, or more atoms of other substances.
Thus, one atom of nitrogen unites with
three of hydrogen, one of carbon with
four of hydrogen, and so on. . Every
substance has, therefore, what is called
its “ quantivalence,” or power of uniting
with it a greater or less quantity of other
atoms, and conversely that of replacing
in combinations other atoms, or groups
of atoms, the sum of whose quantivalence
equals its own.
Thus, one atom of
carbon, which has four poles, combines
with four atoms of hydrogen or chlorine,
which is unipolar, but with only two of
oxygen, which is bipolar; while the
oxygen atom combines with two of
�42
POLARITY IN MA TTER
hydrogen, and that of chlorine with one
atom only of hydrogen. The analogy
between the single atomic and electrical
poles on the one hand, and the dual and
magnetic poles on the other, will be
evident if we consider what occurs if a
pith-ball, electrified positively, is brought
near a similar ball electrified negatively.
They attract each other, and the one
becomes the pole of the other; but if
separated, each carries with it its own
electrical charge. But the separate balls
or poles, though no longer influencing
each other, are not isolated, for each
draws by induction an electrical charge
opposite to its own to the extremity of
the nearest conductor, and thus creates
for itself a new or second pole. Polarity,
in fact, involves opposition of relations,
or two poles, and electrical only differs
from magnetic polarity in the fact that
in the latter the two poles are in the
same body, while in the former they are
in separate bodies.
For pith-balls read atoms, and we
have an explanation of the univalent
atoms like those of chlorine and sodium
which act as single poles : and this is
confirmed by the fact that such atoms
are never found isolated, but are always
associated in a molecule with at least one
other atom which forms the opposite
pole of the molecular system. Bivalent
or magnetic atoms, on the other hand,
which have two poles, like those of
mercury and zinc, may constitute a
complete polar system, and be found
isolated, and form the class of molecules
which consist of single atoms.
This conception of the polarity of
atoms enables us to understand the way
in which the almost infinite variety of
substances existing in the world is built
up from a comparatively few simple
elements.
Atoms and radicals, which
are multipolar, can attract and form
molecules with as many other atoms or
radicals as they have poles. This is
called their degree of atomicity, which is
the same as their quantivalence; and
each of these atoms or radicals may be
replaced by some other atom or radical,
which presents to any pole a more
powerful polarity.
Thus, compounds
may be built up of great and varied
complexity, for the quality of any com-,
pound may be greatly altered by any one
of the substitutions at any one of the
poles.
And the molecules, or small
specimens of matter, may be thus built
up into very complex aggregations of
atoms, some single molecules containing
more than a hundred atoms. Thus,
carbon has four poles, or is quadrivalent,
and its atoms possess the power of com
bining among themselves to an almost
indefinite extent and forming groups of
great stability. Thus, carbon radicals
may be formed in very great number,
each affording a nucleus upon which
compound radicals may be built up, so
that carbon has been aptly called the
skeleton of almost all the varied com
pounds of the more complex forms of
inorganic matter as well as the principal
foundation of organic life.
Nor is this all, for the qualities of
substances depend not only on the quali
ties of their constituent elements, but also
on the manner in which these elements
are grouped. Two substances may have
exactly the same chemical composition
and yet be very different. We may
suppose that the same elements affect
us differently according as they are
grouped. Thus, the same bricks may
be built up either into a cube or pyramid,
which forms are extremely stable and
can only be taken to pieces brick by
brick; or into a Gothic arch, which all
tumbles to pieces if a single brick form
ing the keystone is displaced. As an
instance of this, butyric acid, which gives
the offensive odour to rancid butter, has
exactly the same composition as acetic
ether, which gives the flavour to a ripe
apple. They consist of the same number
of atoms of the same elements— carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen—united in the
same proportions. This applies to a
number of substances, and is called
Isomerism, or formation of different
wholes from the same parts.
The principle of polarity, therefore,
�POLARITY IN MA TTER
aided by the subsidiary conditions of
quantivalence, atomicity, and isomerism,
gives the clue to the construction of the
inorganic world out of some seventy
eight elementary substances. Of the sub
stances thus formed, whether of mole
cules or of combinations of molecules,
some are stable and some unstable. As
a rule, the simpler combinations are the
most stable, and instability increases with
complexity. Thus the diamond, which
is merely a crystal of pure carbon, is very
hard and indestructible; while dynamite,
or nitro-glycerine, which is a very com
plex compound, explodes at a touch.
The stability of a substance depends
partly on the stable structure of its com
ponent elements, and partly on their
mutual affinity being strong enough to
keep them together in .presence of the
attractions of other outside elements,
which, in the case of most natural sub
stances at the surface of the earth, con
sist principally of air and water. Thus,
the rocks, earths, metallic oxides, water,
carbonic dioxide, and nitrogen are ex
tremely stable, and resist decomposition,
or chemical union with other substances,
with great energy. With regard to all
substances this law holds good, that the
tendency is to fall back from a less stable
to a more stable condition, and that such
a falling back is always attended with an
evolution of heat; while, on the other
hand, heat is always absorbed and dis-’
appears whenever the elements of a more
stable substance are made to enter into
a less stable condition. Thus, when
wood bums, there is a falling back from
a substance unstable, on account of its
affinity for the oxygen in the air, into the
stable products, carbonic dioxide and
water, and the heat evolved is the effect
of this fall.
43
As the tendency of all changes is
towards stability, we arrive at the follow
ing law, which is one of the most recent
generalisations of modern chemistry : In
all cases of chemical change the tendency
is to those products whose formation^
will determine the greatest evolution.,
of heat.
This, however, does not imply that
the tendency may not be overcome and
unstable products formed, for just as a
weight may be lifted against the force of
gravity, so may the chemical tendency
be overcome by a sufficient energy acting
against it. Heat is the principal means
of supplying this energy, and by increas
ing it sufficiently not only are molecules
drawn apart and most solids converted
into fluids and finally into gases, but
there is reason to believe that at extremely
high temperatures, such as may prevail
in the sun, all matter would be resolved
into isolated or dissociated atoms. As
tronomers, indeed, think they have
detected matter with even its atoms
disintegrated in some of the stars.
Thus, water at a temperature of i,2ooa
is resolved into a mixture of oxygen and
hydrogen atoms no longer chemically
united into water-molecules; and iodinevapour, which below 700° degrees con
sists of molecules of two atoms, above
that temperature consists of single atoms
only.
The subject might be pursued further,
but enough has been said for the present
purpose to show that the universe con
sists of atoms which are endowed with
polarity, and that as diminished tempera
ture allows these atoms to come closer
together and form compounds, matter in
all its forms is built up by the action of
polar forces.
�44
POLARITY IN LIFE
Chapter VI.
POLARITY IN LIFE
Contrast of living and dead—Eating and being
eaten—Trace matter upwards and life down
wards — Colloids — Cells — Protoplasm —
Monera— Composition of protoplasm — Es
sential qualities of life—-Nutrition and sensa
tion — Motion — Reproduction—Spontaneous
generation—Organic compounds—Polar con
ditions of life.
Polarity having been established as
the universal law of the inorganic world,
we have now to pass to the organic, or
world of life. At first sight there seems
to be a great gulf fixed between the
living and the dead which no bridge
can span. But first impressions are
very apt to deceive us, and when things
are traced up to their origins we often
find them getting nearer and nearer,
until it is difficult to say where one
begins and the other ends. Take, for
instance, such an antithesis as “ eating
or being eaten.” If a hunter meets a
grizzly bear in the Rocky Mountains,
one would say that no distinction can
be sharper than whether the bear eats
■the man or the man the bear. In the
•one case there is a man, and in the other
•a bear, less in the world. But look
through a microscope at a glass of water,
and you may see two specks of jelly-like
substance swimming in it. They are
living creatures, for they eat and grow,
and thrust out and retract processes of
their formless mass, which serve as
temporary legs and arms for seizing food
and for voluntary motion. In short,
they are each what may be called
strictly individual amcebae, forming
separate units of the animated creation as
much as the man and the bear. But if
the two happen to come in contact, what
happens ? The two slimy masses involve
one another and coalesce, and the
resulting amoeba swims -away merrily as
two gentlemen rolled into one.
Now, in this case what became of their
individualities ? Did amoeba A eat
amoeba B, or vice versa, and is the
resulting amoeba a survival of A or of B,
or of both or neither of them? And
what becomes of the antithesis of “eating
or being eaten ” which was so clear and
distinct in the highly specialised forms of
life, and is so evanescent in the simpler
forms ? This illustration may serve to
teach us how necessary it is to trace
things up to their origins, before express
ing too trenchant and confident opinions
as to their nature and relations.
In the case of the organic and inor
ganic worlds the proper course obviously
is, not to draw conclusions from extreme
and highly specialised instances, but to
follow life downwards to its simplest and
most primitive form, and matter upwards
to the form which approaches most
nearly to this form of life. Following
matter upwards, we find a regular pro
gression from the simple to the complex.
Take the diamond, which is one of the
simplest of substances, being merely the
crystallised form of a single ultimate
element, carbon. It is extremely hard
and extremely stable.
Ascending to
compounds of two, three, or more ele
ments, we get substances which are more
complex and less stable ; and at last we
arrive at combinations which involve
many elements and are extremely com
plex. Among these latter substances are
some, called colloids, which are neither
solid, like crystals, nor fluid, like liquids,
but in an intermediate state, like jelly or
the white of an egg, in which the mole
cules have great mobility and are at a
considerable distance apart, so that water
can penetrate their mass. These colloids
are for the most part very complicated
compounds of various elements based on
a nucleus of carbon, which, from its atom
�L
r
POLARITY IN LIFE
45
Protoplasm is, therefore, evidently the
having four poles with strong mutual
nearest approach of life to matter; and
attractions, is eminently qualified for
if life ever originated from atomic and
forming what may be called the inner molecular combinations, it was in this
skeleton of these complex combinations.
form. To suppose that any more com
Colloids of this description form the last plex form of life, however humble, could
stage of the ascending line from inorganic
originate from chemical combinations,
matter to organic life.
.
would be a violation of the law of evolu
Next, let us trace life downwards
tion, which shows a uniform develop
towards matter. There is a constant ment from the simple to the complex,
succession from the more to the less
and never a sudden jump passing at a
complex and differentiated : from man bound over intermediate grades.
To
through mammals, reptiles, fishes, and
understand life, therefore, we must under
a long chain of more simple forms,
stand protoplasm; for protoplasm, closely
until at its end we come to the two last
as it approximates to lifeless colloid
links, which are the same for all animals,
matter, is thoroughly alive. . A whole
all plants, and all forms of animated
family, the Monera, consist, simply of a
existence. The last link but one is the
living globule of jelly, which has not
cell; the last of all is protoplasm.
even begun to be differentiated. Every
Protoplasm, or, as Huxley calls it,
molecule, as in a crystal, is of homoge
“the physical basis of life,’ is a colour
neous chemical composition and an
less jelly-like substance, absolutely homo
geneous, without parts or structure in epitome of the whole mass. There are
no special parts, no organs told off for
fact, a mere microscopic speck of jelly.
The cell is the first step in the particular functions; and yet all life
functions—nutrition, reproduction, sensa
specialisation of protoplasm, the outer
tion, and movement—are performed, but
layer of which, in contact with the
each by the whole body. The jelly
surrounding
environment,
becomes
hardened so as to form an enclosing speck becomes a mouth to swallow,.and,
turning inside out, a stomach to digest.
cell-wall, while a portion of the enclosed
protoplasm condenses into a nucleus, in It shoots out tongues of jelly to move
and feel with, and presently withdraws
which a further condensation makes
. . .
what is called the nucleolus or second them.
With these characteristics it is impos
smaller nucleus. This constitutes the
sible to deny to protoplasm the full attri
nucleated cell, whose repeated sub
butes of life, or to doubt that, like the
division into other similar cells in geo
atom in the material world, it is. the
metrical progression furnishes the raw
primary element of organic or living
material out of which all . the varied
structures of the world of life are built existence. Given the atom, we can
trace up, step by step, the evolution of
up. Plants and animals, bones, muscles,
and organs of sense, are all composed of matter; so given the protoplasm, we
modified cells, hardened, flattened, , or can trace up the evolution of life by
otherwise altered, as the case may require. progressive stages to the highest, develop
If we trace life up to its origin in the ment—man. To understand life, there
individual instead of in the species, we fore, we must begin by trying to under
arrive at the same result. All plants and stand protoplasm.
What is protoplasm ? In its substance
animals, whether of the lowest or highest
it is a nitrogenous carbon compound,
forms—fish, reptile, bird, mammal, man
—begin their individual existence as a differing only from other similar , com
speck of protoplasm, passing, into a pounds of the albuminous family of
nucleated cell, which contains in it the colloids by the extremely complex com
whole principle of its subsequent evolu position of its atoms. It consists of five
tion into the mature and completed form. elements, and its average composition is
�46
POLARITY IN LIFE
said by chemists to be 52.55 per cent, waste preponderates, remaining always
carbon, 21.23 oxygen, I5-I7 nitrogen, itself. The distinction will be clear if
6.7 hydrogen, 1.2 sulphur. Its peculiar we consider what happens when water
qualities, therefore, including life, are rusts iron. In a certain sense the iron
not the result of any new and strange may be said to eat the oxygen, reject the
atom added to the known chemical hydrogen, and grow, or increase in weight
compounds of the same family, but of by what it feeds on; but the result is not
the manner of grouping and motions of a bigger piece of iron, but a new sub
these well-known material elements. It stance, rust, or oxide of iron. That
has in a remarkable degree the faculty living matter should feed internally
of absorbing water, so that its molecules is not so wonderful, for its semi-fluid
seem to float in it in a condition of semi condition may well enable foreign mole
fluid aggregation, which seems to be cules to penetrate its mass and come in
necessary for the complex molecular contact with its own interior molecules ;
movements which are the cause or but it is an experience different from
accompaniment of life. Living proto anything known in the inorganic world
plasm, in fact, contains from eighty to that it should be able to manufacture
eighty-five per cent, of water. Thus, molecules of protoplasm like its own out
many seeds and animalculse, if perfectly of these foreign molecules, and thus
dry, may remain apparently as dead and grow by assimilation. For instance,
as unchanging as crystals, for years, or when amoebae, bacteria, and other low
even, as in the case of the mummy organisms live and multiply in chemical
wheat, for centuries, to revive into life solutions which contain no protoplasm,
when moistened.
but only inorganic compounds con
But in addition to those material taining the requisite atoms for making
qualities in which protoplasm seems to protoplasm, or when a plant not only
differ only from a whole group of similar chemically decomposes carbonic dioxide,
compounds of the type of glycerine, by exhaling the oxygen and depositing the
the greater complexity and mobility of carbon in its stem and leaves, but also
its molecules, it has developed the new from this and other elements drawn
and peculiar element which is called life. from the soil or air manufactures the
Life in its essence is manifested by the living protoplasm which courses through
faculties of nutrition, sensation, move its channels, the result is that life has
ment, and reproduction.
manufactured life out of non-living mate
As regards nutrition, there is this rials.
essential difference beween living and
If we take sensation, this, in its last
non-living matter. The latter, if it feeds analysis, is change, or molecular motion,
and grows at all, does so only by taking induced in a body by the action of its
on fresh molecules of its own substance environment.
Here there is a certain
on its outer surface, as in the case of analogy between living and non-living
a small nucleus-crystal of ice in freezing matter, for the latter does respond to
water. If it feeds on foreign matter and changes in the surrounding environment,
throughout its mass, it does so only as in the case of heat, electricity, and
in the way of chemical combination, other forces; but living matter is far
forming a new product. Living matter, more sensitive, the changes are far more
on the other hand, feeds internally, and frequent and complex, and in certain
works up foreign substances, by the pro cases they are accompanied by a sensa
cess we call digestion, into molecules tion of what is called consciousness,
like its own, which it assimilates, reject which in the higher organisms rises into
ing as waste any surplus or foreign a perception of voluntary effort or free
matter which it cannot incorporate. It will as a factor in the transformation of
thus grows and decays as assimilation or energies. Thus it happens that in the
�’ IN LIFE
________________ 47
are built up, which, in their turn, repeat
case of dead matter the changes pro the process and reproduce themselves in
duced by a change of conditions follow
offspring. This is the real mystery of
fixed laws, and can be predicted and
life; we can partly see or suspect how
calculated, while those of living matter
its other faculties might arise from an
are apparently uncertain and capricious
extension of the known qualities and
We can tell how much an iron bar will
laws of matter and of energy; but we
expand with heat; but we cannot say
whether, if a particle of food is. brought can discern no .analogy between the nonreproductive nitrogenous carbon com
within reach of an amceba, it will or will
not shoot out a finger to seize it. If the pound, which makes so near an approach
to protoplasm in its chemical composi
amoeba is hungry, it probably will; if it
tion, and the reproductive protoplasm,
is enjoying a siesta after a full meal, it
which is fertile, increases and multiplies,
probably will not.
.
The case of sensation includes that ot and replenishes the earth. Can the gap
motion, which is, after all, only sensation be bridged over: can protoplasm be
applied in the liberation of energy of manufactured out of chemical elements ?
position, which has, by some chemical It is done every day by plants which
process, become stored up, either in the make protoplasm out of inorganic ele
living mass, or in some special organ of ments, and by the lowest forms of life
which live and multiply in chemical
it, such as muscle. Iron, for instance,
moves when it expands by heat or is solutions. It is done also in the life*
history of all individuals whose primitive
attracted by a magnet; but it moves,
like the planets, by fixed and calculable cell or ovum makes thousands or millions
of other cells, each containing within its
laws ; while living matter moves., as
might be expected from the variable enclosing membrane as much protoplasm
as there was in the unit from which they
character of its sensation, in a manner
which often cannot be calculated. There started. But in all these instances there
are cases, however, of reflex or involun was the living principle to start with,
tary motion where, even in the highest existing in the primitive speck of proto
living organisms, sensation and motion plasm, from which the rest were de
seem to follow change of environment, veloped. Can this primitive speck be
in a fixed and invariable sequence, as in created; or, in other words, can proto
shrinking from pain, touching or gal plasm be artificially manufactured by
vanising a nerve ; and it may be that the chemical processes ?
The answer must be, No ; not by any
apparent spontaneousness and varia
bility of living motion is only the result process now known. The similarity, of
of the almost infinitely greater com chemical composition, and the increasing
plexity and mobility of the elements of conviction of the universality of natural
law and of- evolution, have led to a very
living matter.
Reproduction remains, which, is the general . belief that such a spontaneous
faculty most characteristic of life, and generation of life must be possible, and
which distinguishes most, sharply the numerous experiments have been made
organic from the inorganic world. In to produce it. For a time the balance
the inorganic there is no known process seemed to be very evenly held between
by w7hich dead matter reproduces itself, the supporters and opponents of spon
In fact, starting
as the cell does when it contracts in the taneous generation.
from the assumption, which at first was
middle and splits up into two cells,
which, in their turn, propagate an endless common to both sides, that heat equal
number of similar cells, increasing in to the boiling point of water destroyed
geometrical progression, until they supply all living organisms, spontaneous genera
the raw material from which all. the tion had the best of it; for it was clearly
countless varieties of living organisms proved that living organisms did appear
�48
POLARITY IN LIFE
in infusions contained in vessels which form of gout", indigotine, the principle of
had been hermetically sealed, after being the blue colouring matter of the indigo
subjected to this or even a higher degree plant ; and alizarine, that of madder—
of heat. But subsequent and more care all are now produced artificially, and
ful experiments have shown that the have even become important articles of
germs or spores of bacteria and other commerce. If. chemists can make the
animalcule, which are generally floating indigotine, which the growing plant
in the air, can, when dry, withstand a elaborates at the same time as it
greater degree of heat, and that when the elaborates protoplasm, may we not hope
experiments are made in optically pure some day to make the latter as well as
air no life ever appears and the infusions the former product? Now, organic com
never putrefy.
On questions of this pounds of this class are being formed
sort all who are not themselves prac artificially every day, and it is said that
tised experimentalists must be guided chemists have already succeeded in pro
by authority, and we may be content to ducing several hundreds. Of late years,
accept the dictum of Huxley that bio in fact, chemists have advanced as far
genesis, or all life from previous life, as the artificial manufacture of albuminoid
was “ victorious along the whole line.” substances, some of the most character
But in doing so we must accept Huxley’s istic of organic compounds. But even
caution, “that with organic chemistry, if this expectation is never fulfilled, we
molecular physics, and physiology yet in may fall back on Huxley’s second reser
their infancy, and every day making pro vation of the enormous difference of
digious strides, it would be the height of chemical and physical conditions in the
presumption for any man to say that the early stages of the earth’s life from any
conditions under which matter assumes thing now known. It has been calcu
the qualities called vital may not some lated that the earth’s temperature, when
day be artificially brought together.”
it first started on its career as an inde
And, further, “ that as a matter not of pendent planet, was something like
proof, but of probability, if it were given 3,ooo,ooo0 Fahrenheit. At this heat
to me to look beyond the abyss of geo probably all atoms would be dissociated;
logically recorded time, to the still more but as the temperature diminished they
remote period when the earth was passing would come closer together, though still
through chemical and physical conditions with a great deal of motion, and making
which it can never see again, I should wide excursions, which might bring many
expect to be a witness of the evolution different atoms together in complex
of living protoplasms from non-living though unstable combinations. More
matter.” Such is the cautious candour over, carbon, which is the basis of all
with which scientific men approach such combinations of the class of proto
problems upon which theologians dogma plasm, was far more abundant in those
tise with the unerring intrepidity of early days in the form of carbonic
ignorance.
dioxide gas, before the enormous amount
In the meantime, what may be said of vegetable matter in the form of coal
as to Huxley’s reservation is this: A and otherwise, had been subtracted
considerable step has been made in the from it. In any case, the first protoplasm
direction indicated, by the success of must be extremely ancient, for the
recent chemistry in forming artificially remains of sea-weeds are found in the
what are called organic compounds— oldest strata, and vegetation of any sort
that is, substances which were previously implies the manufacture of protoplasm
known only as products of animal or from inorganic matter.
vegetable secretions. Urea, for instance,
The passage from the organic into the
the base of uric acid, with which so inorganic world is best traced by follow
many are unfortunately familiar in the ing the line of Pasteur’s researches on
�49
POLARITY IN LIFE
ferments. How does the world escape
being choked up by the accumulation of
dead organic matter throughout innumer
able ages ? By what are called ferments,
inducing processes of fermentation, and
putrefaction, by which the course of life
is reversed, and the organic elements are
taken to pieces and restored to the
inorganic world. Pasteur proved, in
opposition to the theories of Liebig and
other older chemists, that this was not
done directly by the oxygen of the air,
but through the intermediate agency of
living microbes, whose spores, floating
in the air, took up their abode and
multiplied wherever they found an
appropriate habitation. Given an air
purified from germs, or a temperature
low enough to prevent them from
germinating, and putrescible substances
would keep sweet for ever. The prac
tical realisation of this is seen in the
enormous commerce in canned meats
and fruits, and in the imports of frozen
beef and mutton, causing a fall of rents
and much lamentation among British
landlords and farmers.
But then the question was asked, How
are your microscopic organisms disposed
of? What are the ferments of your
ferments ? For even microscopic bacteria
and vibrios would, in time, choke up the
world by their residue if not got rid of.
Pasteur answered that the ferments are
destroyed by a new series of organisms
■—aerobes—living in the air, and these
by other aerobes in succession, until the
ultimate products are oxidised. “ Thus,
in the destruction of what has lived, all
is reduced to the simultaneous action of
the three great natural phenomena—
fermentation, putrefaction, and slow
combustion. A living being, animal, or
vegetable, or the debris of either, having
just died, is exposed to the air. The
life that has abandoned it is succeeded
by life under other forms. In the super
ficial parts, accessible to the air, the
germs of the infinitely little aerobes
flourish and multiply. The carbon,
hydrogen, and nitrogen of the organic
matter are transformed by the oxygen of
the air, and under the vital activity of
the aerobes, into carbonic acid, the
vapour of water, and ammonia. The
combustion continues as long as organic
matter and air are present together.
At the same time the superficial com
bustion is going on, fermentation and
putrefaction are performing their work
in the midst of the mass by means of
the developed germs of the original
microbes, which, note, do not need
oxygen to live, but which oxygen causes
to perish. Gradually the phenomena of
destruction are at last accomplished
through the work of latent fermentation
and slow combustion.”
This seems a complete demonstration
of the passage of the organic into the
inorganic world in the way of analysis,
or taking the puzzle to pieces. In the
opposite way of synthesis, or putting it
together, the nearest approach yet made
has been in the manufacture of those
organic compounds already referred. to,
such as urea, alizarine, indigotine,
albuminoids, and other substances which
had hitherto only been known as pro
ducts of animal or vegetable life. Of
these a vast number have been already
formed from inorganic elements by
chemical processes, and almost every
day announces some fresh discovery.
Under these circumstances, it is unsafe
to affirm either, on the one hand, that
the problem has been solved and that
life has ever been made in a laboratory;
or, on the other hand, that there is any
such great gulf fixed between the organic
and the inorganic, that we can assume a
break requiring secondary supernatural
interference to surmount it, and ignore
the good old maxim that “Natura nihil
facit per salturn! Positive proof is
wanting, but the probabilities point here,
as they do everywhere else throughout
the universe, to the truth of the theory
of “ original impress ” as opposed to that
of “secondary interference.”
It remains to show how the funda
mental law of polarity affects the more
complex relations of life and of its
various combinations. And here it. is
-E
�5o
POLARITY IN LIFE
important to bear in mind that, as the
factors of the problem become more
intricate and complex, so also do the
laws which regulate their existence and
action. Polarity is no longer a simple
question of attraction and repulsion at
the two ends of a magnet or at the
opposite poles of an atom. It appears
rather as a general law under which, as
the simple and absolute becomes dif
ferentiated by evolution into the complex
and manifold, it does so under the con
dition of developing contrasts.
For
every plus there is a minus, for every like
an unlike; one cannot exist without
the other; and, although apparently
antagonistic, harmonious order is only
possible by their co-existence and mutual
balance.
This is so important that it may be
well to make the idea clearer by an illustra
tion. The earth revolves round the sun
in its annual orbit under the influence
of two forces: the centripetal, or force
of gravity tending to draw it towards the
sun; and the centrifugal, tending to
make it dart away into infinite space.
During half the orbit the centripetal
seems to be gaining ground on the
centrifugal, and the earth is approaching
nearer to the sun. If this continued, it
would revolve ever nearer and soon fall
into it; but the centrifugal force is
gradually recruiting its strength from the
increased velocity of the earth, until it
first equals the centripetal, and finally
outstrips it, and for the remaining half
of the orbit it is constantly gaining
ground. If this went on, the earth
would fly off into the chilly regions of
outer space; but the centripetal force in
its turn regains the ascendency; and'
thus by the balance of the two forces
our planet describes the beautiful ellipse,
its harmonious orbit as a habitable globe;
while comets in which one or the other
force unduly preponderates for long
periods are alternately drawn into fiery
proximity to the sun, and sent careering
through regions void of heat.
Compare this passage from Herbert
Spencer: “As from antagonist physical
forces, as from antagonist emotions in
each man, so from the antagonist social
tendencies man’s emotions create, there
always results not a medium state, but
a rhythm between opposite states. The
one force or tendency is not continuously
counterbalanced by the other force or
tendency; but now the one greatly
preponderates, and presently by reaction1
there comes a preponderance of the
other.”
And again: “ There is nowhere a
balanced judgment and a balanced
action, but always .a cancelling of one
another by opposite errors. Men pair
off in insane parties, as Emerson puts
it.”
The reader will now begin to under
stand the sense in which polarity applies
to these complex conditions of an
advanced evolution.
To return, however, from this digres
sion to the point at which it began—viz.,
the origin of life—we have to show how
the law of polarity prevails in the organic
as well as in the inorganic world. In the
first place, the material to which all life is
attached, from the speck of protoplasm
to the brain of man, is strictly a chemical
product of atoms and molecules bound
together by the same polar laws of those
of inorganic matter.
In like manner, all the essential pro
cesses by which life lives, moves, and
has its being are equally mechanical
and chemical. If the brain, receiving a
telegram from without through the optic
nerve, sends a reply along another nerve
which liberates energy stored up in.
a muscle and produces motion, the
messages are received and transmitted
like those sent by a voltaic battery along
the wires of a telegraph, and the energy
is stored up by the slow combustion
of food in oxygen, just as that of the
steam-engine is produced by the com
bustion of coal. All this is mechanical,
inorganic, and therefore polar.
But when we come to the conditions
of life proper, we find the influence of
polarity mainly in this: that as it
develops from simpler into more complex
�\
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
forms, it does so under the law of de
veloping contrasts or opposite polarities,
which are necessary complements of
each other’s existence. Thus, as we
51
ascend in the scale oi lite, we nna two
primitive polarities developed : that of
plant and animal, and that of male and
female.
Chapter VII.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—plant and animal
Contrast in developed life—Plants producers, framework of its structure from the air,
animals consumers—Differences disappear in by breathing in through its leaves the
simple forms — Zoophytes —- Protista—Num- carbonic dioxide present. in the atmo
mulites— Corals—Fungi —Lichens Insecti
sphere, decomposing it, fixing the carbon
vorous plants — Geological succession
Primary period, Algse and Ferns—Secondary in its roots, stem, and branches, and
period, Gymnosperms—Tertiary and recent, exhaling the oxygen. The animal exactly
Angiosperms—Monocotyledons and Dicotyle reverses the process, inhaling the oxygen
dons—Parallel evolution of animal life —
Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish Secon of the air, combining it with the carbon
dary, reptiles—Tertiary and recent, mammals. of its food, and exhaling carbonic dioxide.
Animals or plants? Judging by first
impressions, nothing can be more dis
tinct. No one, whether scientific or
unscientific, could mistake an oak
tree for an ox. To the unscientific
observer the tree differs in having
no power of free movement, and. ap
parently no sensation or conscious
ness—in fact, hardly any of the attributes
of life. The scientific observer, sees
still more fundamental differences in the
fact that the plant feeds on inorganic
ingredients, out of which it manufactures
living matter, or protoplasm; while the
animal can only provide itself with pro
toplasm from that already manufactured
by the-plant. The ox, who lives on
grass, could not live on what the grass
thrives on—viz., carbon, oxygen, hydro
gen, and nitrogen. The contrast is so
striking that the vegetable world . has
been called the producer, and the animal
world the consumer, of nature. In the
language of recent science, plants are
plasmodomus and animals plasmophagous.
Again, the plant derives the material
Thus, a complete polarity is established,
as we see in the aquarium, where plant
and animal life balance each other, and
the opposites live and thrive, where the
existence of either would be impossible
without the other.
Sharp, however, as the contrast appears
to be in the more specialised and de
veloped specimens of the two worlds, we
have here another instance of the diffi
culty of trusting to first impressions, and
have to modify our conceptions greatly,
if we trace animal and vegetable life up
to their simplest forms and earliest
origins. In the first place, each indi
vidual vegetable or animal begins its exist
ence from a simple piece of pure proto
plasm. This develops in the same way
into a nucleated cell, by whose repeated
subdivision the raw material is provided
for both structures alike. The chief
difference at this early stage is that the
animal cells remain soft and naked,
while those of vegetables secrete a com
paratively solid cell-wall, which makes
them less mobile and plastic. This gives
greater rigidity to the frame and tissues of
the plant, and prevents the development
�52
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
of the finer organs of sensation and
other vital processes which charac
terise the animal. But this is a differ
ence of development only, and the
origination of the future life from the
speck of protoplasm is the same in both
worlds.
If, instead of looking at the origin of
individuals, we trace back the various
forms of animal and vegetable life from
the more complex to the simpler forms,
we find the distinctions between the two
disappearing, until at last we arrive at a
vanishing point where it is impossible to
say whether the organism is an animal
pr a plant.
A whole family, comprising sponges,
corals, and jelly-fish, were once called
Zoophytes, or plant-animals, from the
difficulty of assigning them to one
kingdom or the other. They are now a
chief division of the Coelenterata. But
when we descend a £tep lower in the
scale of existence, we come to a large
family—the Protista—of which it is im
possible to say that they are either plants
or animals. In fact, scientific observers
have classed them sometimes as belong
ing to one and sometimes to the other
kingdom; and it was an organism of
this class, looking at which through a
microscope Huxley pronounced it to be
probably a plant, while Tyndall exclaimed
that he would as soon call a sheep a
vegetable. They are mostly microscopic,
and are the first step in organised
development from the Monera, which are
mere specks of homogeneous protoplasm.
Small as they are, they have played an
important part in the formation of the
earth’s crust, for the little slimy mass of
aggregated cells has in many instances
the power of secreting a solid skeleton,
or a minute and delicate envelope or
shell, the petrified remains of which form
entire mountains. Thus the nummulitic
limestone, which forms high ranges on
the Alps and Himalayas, and of which
the Pyramids are built, consists of the
petrified skeletons of a species of Radiolaria, or many-chambered shells, forming
the complicated and elegant mansion
with many rooms and passages, of the
formless, slimy mass which constitutes
the living organism. Chalk also, and
the chalk-like formation which is accumu
lating at the bottom of deep oceans, are
the results of the long-continued fall of
the microscopic snowdrift of shells of the
Globigerina and other protistic forms
swimming in the sea; and in a higher
stage of development the skeletons of
corals, one of the family of Zoophytes or
plant-animals, form the coral reefs and
islands so numerous in the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, and are the basis of
the vast masses of coralline limestone
deposited in the coal era and other past
geological periods.
As development proceeds the distinc
tion between plants and animals becomes
more apparent, though even here the
simplest and earliest forms often show
signs of a common origin by interchang
ing some of ihe fundamental attributes
of the two kingdoms. Thus, the essential
condition of plant existence is to live on
inorganic food, which they manufacture
into protoplasm, by working up simple
combinations into others more compli
cated. Their diet consists of water,
carbonic dioxide, and ammonia; they
take in carbonic dioxide and give out
oxygen, while animals do exactly the
reverse. But the fungi live, like animals,
upon organic food consisting of compli
cated combinations of carbon, which
they assimilate; and, like animals, they
inhale oxygen and give out carbonic
dioxide.
Lichens afford a very curious instance
of the association of vegetable and
animal functions in the same plant.
They are really formed of two distinct
organisms—a body which is a low form
of Alga or sea-weed, and a parasitic form
of fungus, which lives upon it. The
former has a plant life, living on in
organic matter and forming the green
cells, or chlorophyll, which are the
essential property of plants, enabling
them under the action of the sun’s rays
to decompose carbonic dioxide; while
the parasite lives like an animal on the
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
formed protoplasm of the parent stem,
forming threads of colourless cells which
envelop and interlace with the original
lichen, of which they constitute the prin
cipal mass, as in a tree overgrown with ivy.
Even in existing and highly developed
plants we find some curious instances of
reversion towards animal life. . Certain
plants, for instance, like the pionsea or
Venus’ fly-trap, finding it difficult, to
obtain the requisite supply of nitro
genous food in a fluid state from the
arid or marshy soil in which they grow,
have acquired a habit of supplying the
deficiency by taking to an animal diet
and eating flies. Conjoined with this is
a more highly developed sensitiveness, a
power of what appears to be voluntary
motion, and a faculty of secreting a sort
of gastric juice, in which the flies are
digested. The fundamental, property
also of decomposing carbonic dioxide
and exhaling oxygen depends on. light
stimulating a peculiar chemical action of
the chlorophyll; and at night leaves
breathe like lungs, exhaling not oxygen,
but the carbonic dioxide.
The records of geology, imperfect, as
they are, show a continued progression
from these simple and neutral organisms
to higher and more differentiated forms,
both in the animal and vegetable worlds.
These records are imperfect because the
soft bodies of the simpler and for the
most part microscopic forms of proto
plasm and cell life are not capable of
being preserved in petrifactions, and it
is only when they happen to have
secreted shells or skeletons that we have
a chance of identifying them. Still we
have a sufficient number of remains in
the different geological strata to enable
us to trace development. Thus, in the
vegetable world, in the earliest strata,
the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian,
forming the primordial period, which
has a thickness of some 70,000 feet
of the earth’s crust—or more than that
of the whole of the subsequent strata
taken together—we find few other vege
table remains besides those of the lowest
group of plants, that of the Tangles or
53
Algse, which live in water. Forests of
these sea-weeds, like .those of the
Aleutian Islands, in some of which
single tangles stream to the length of
sixty feet, and floating masses like those
of the Sargasso Sea, appear to have con
stituted almost the sole vegetation of
these primaeval periods. Recently a few
specimens of a land-flora are thought to
have been found.
The rest of the Primary epoch, com
prising the Devonian or Old Red Sand
stone, the Carboniferous or Coal system,
and the Permian, follow, the average
thickness of the three together amounting
to about 42,000 feet. In. these the
family of Ferns predominates, the
remains of which constitute the bulk of
the large strata of coal, forming in
modern times our great resource for
obtaining the energy which, in a trans
formed shape, does so much of our
work. Pines begin to appear, though
sparingly, in this epoch.
The Secondary epoch comprises the
Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous
or Chalk formation, the average thickness
of the three amounting to about 15,000
feet. In this era a higher species of
vegetation predominates, that of the
Gymnosperms, or plants having naked
seeds, of which the pines, or Coniferse,
and the palm-ferns, or Cycadese, are the
two principal classes. As in the case of
the former epoch, traces of the approach
ing higher organisation in the form of
leaf-bearing trees begin to appear towards
its close.
The Tertiary period extends from the
end of the Chalk to the commencement
of the Quaternary or modern period.
It is divided into the Eocene or older,
Oligocene or less old, the Miocene or
middle, and the Pliocene or newest
Tertiary system; though the division is
somewhat arbitrary, depending on the
number of existing species, mostly of
shell-fish, which have been found in
each. The average thickness of the three
together is about 3,000 feet. In this
formation a still higher class of vegetation
of the same order as that now existing,
�54
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
which made its first appearance in
In the Primary era the Devonian and
the Chalk period, has become predomi Permian formations are characterised by
nant. It is that of Angiosperms, or a great abundance of fishes, of the
plants with covered seeds, forming leafy antique type, which has no true bony
. forests of true trees. This group is skeleton, but is clothed in an army of
divided into the two classes of mono enamelled scales, and whose tail, instead
cotyledons or single-seed-lobed plants, of being bi-lobed or forked, has one lobe
and dicotyledons or plants with double only—a type of which the sturgeon and
seed-lobes. The monocotyledons spring garpike are the nearest surviving repre
from a single germ leaf, and are of sentatives. In the Coal formation are
simpler organisation than the other class. found the first remains of land animals
They comprise the grasses, rushes, lilies, in the form of insects and a scorpion,
irids, orchids, sea-grasses, and a number and a few traces of vertebrate amphibious
of aquatic plants, and in their highest animals and reptiles j while higher up in
form develop into the tree-like families the Permian are found a few more
of the palms and bananas.
highly developed reptiles, some of which
The dicotyledons include all forms of approximate to the existing crocodile.
leaf-bearing forest trees, almost all fruits Still, fishes greatly predominate, so that
and flowers, in fact by far the greater the whole Primary period may be called
part of the vegetable world familiar to the age of fishes, as truly as, looking at
man, as coming into immediate relation its flora, it may be called the age of
with it, except in the case of the culti ferns.
vated plants, which are developments of
In the Secondary period reptiles pre
the monocotyledon grasses.
dominate, and are developed into a
We see, therefore, in the geological great variety of strange and colossal
record a confirmation of the evolution forms. The first birds appear, being
over immense periods of time of the obviously developed from some of the
more complex and perfect from the forms of flying lizards, and having many
simple and primitive.
reptilian characters. Mammals also put
If we turn to the same geological in a first feeble appearance, in the form
record to trace the development of of small, marsupial, insectivorous crea
animal life, we find it running a parallel tures.
course with that of plants. It was
In the Tertiary period the class of
believed for a long time that the earliest mammals greatly predominates over all
known fossil was the Eozoon Canadense, other vertebrate animals, and we can
from the Lower Laurentian, which was see the principal types slowly developing
held to be the chambered shell of a and differentiating into those at present
protista of the class of Rhizopods, whose existing. The human type appears
soft body consisted of mere protoplasm plainly in the Miocene, in the form of
not yet differentiated into cells. But large anthropoid apes, the Dryopithecus,
this formation is now generally regarded the Pliopithecus, etc. In the Pliocene
by geologists as not organic. Still, a we have the remains of the Pithecan
certain number of remains of lowly thropus (or “ missing link ”) ; and
Crustacea, sponges, etc., have been found undoubted human remains are found in
in Pre-Cambrian strata. As we ascend the beginning of the Quaternary, if not,
the scale of the primordial era, traces as many distinguished geologists believe,
of marine life of the lower organisms in the Pliocene and even in the Miocene
begin to appear, until in the Silurian .ages.
they become very abundant, consisting,
So far, therefore, there seems to be a
however, mainly of mollusca and complete parallelism between the evolu
Crustacea, and in the Upper Silurian we tion of animal and vegetable life from
find the first traces of fishes.
the earliest to the latest, and from the
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
simplest to the most complex forms.
The facts now plainly establish a pro
cess of evolution by which the animal
and vegetable worlds, starting from a
common origin in protoplasm, the lowest
and simplest form of living matter, have
gradually advanced step by step, along
diverging lines, until we have at last
arrived at the sharp antithesis of the ox
and the oak tree. It is clear, however,
that this evolution has gone on under
what I have called the generalised law
of polarity, by which contrasts are pro
duced of apparently opposite and anta
gonistic qualities, which, however, are
indispensable for each other’s existence.
Thus animals could not exist without
plants to work up the crude inorganic
55
materials into the complex and mobile
molecules of protoplasm, which are alone
suited for assimilation by the more
delicate and complex organisation of
animal life. Plants, on the other hand,
could not exist without a supply of the
carbonic dioxide, which is their principal
food, and which animals are continually
pouring into the air from the combustion
of their carbonised food in oxygen,
which supplies them with heat and
energy. Thus nature is one huge
aquarium, in which animal and vegetable
life balance each other by their con
trasted and supplemental action, and,
as in the inorganic world, harmonious
existence becomes possible by this due
balance of opposing factors.
Chapter VIII.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
Sexual generation—Base of ancient cosmogonies
—Propagation non-sexual in simpler forms—
Amceba and cells—Germs and buds—Ane
mones—Worms—Spores—Origin of sex—
Ovary and male organ—Hermaphrodites—
Parthenogenesis—Bees and insects—Man and
woman—Characters of each sex—Woman’s
position—Improved by civilisation—Chris
tianity the feminine pole—Monogamy the law
<5f nature—Tone respecting women test of
character—Women in literature—In society—
Attraction and repulsion of sexes—Like
attracts unlike—Ideal marriage—Woman’s
rights and modern legislation.
“ Male and female created he them.”
At first sight this distinction of sex
appears as fundamental as that of plant
and animal. Mankind, and all the
higher forms of life with which mankind
has relations, can only propagate their
species in one way : by the co-operation
of two individuals of the species, who
are essentially like and yet unlike, pos
sessing attributes which are comple
mentary of one another, and whose
union is requisite to originate a new
living unit—in other words, by sexual
propagation.
So certain does this
appear that all ancient religions and
philosophies begin by assuming a male
and female principle for their gods, or
first guesses at the unknown first causes
of the phenomena of nature. Thus
Ouranos and Gaia, Heaven and Earth;
Phoebus and Artemis, the Sun and
Moon ; are all figured ' by the primitive
imagination as male and female; and
the Spirit of God, brooding over Chaos
and producing the world, is only a later
edition, revised according to mono
theistic ideas, of the far older Chaldean
legend which describes the creation of
Cosmos out of Chaos by the co-opera
tion of great gods, male and female.
Even in later and more advanced reli
gions, traces of this ineradicable tendency
to assume difference of sex as the indis
pensable condition of the creation of new
�56
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
existence are found to linger and crop
up in cases where they are altogether
inapplicable. Thus, in the orthodox
Christian creed we are taught to repeat
“ begotten, not made,” a phrase which is
absolute nonsense, or non-sense—that is,
an instance of using words like counter
feit notes, which have no solid value of
an idea behind them. For “ begotten ”
is a very definite term, which implies the
conjunction of two opposite sexes to
produce a new individual. Unless two
deities are assumed of different sexes, the
statement has no possible meaning. It
is a curious instance of atavism, or the
way in which the qualities and ideas of
remote ancestors sometimes crop up in
their posterity.
Science, however, makes sad havoc
with this impression of sexual generation
being the original and only mode of
reproduction, and the microscope and
dissecting knife of the naturalist intro
duce us to new and altogether unsus
pected worlds of life. By far the larger
proportion of living forms, in number at
any rate, if not in size, have come into
existence without the aid of sexual pro
pagation. When we begin at the begin
ning, or with those Monera which are
simple specks of homogeneous proto
plasm, we find them multiplying by self
division. Amoeba A, when it outgrows
its natural size, contracts in the middle
and splits into two Amoebse, B and C,
which are exactly like one another and
like the original A. In fact, B contains
one half of its parent A, and C the other
half. They each grow to the size of the
original A, and then repeat the pro
cess of splitting and duplicating them
selves.
The next earliest stage in the evolu
tion of living matter, the nucleated cell,
does exactly the same thing.
The
nucleus splits into two, each of which
becomes a new nucleus for the proto
plasmic matter of the original cell, and
either multiply within it, or burst the old
cell-wall, and become two new cells
resembling the first.
The next stage in advance is that of
propagation by germs-or buds, in which
the organism does not divide into two
equal parts, but a small portion of it
swells out at its surface, and finally parts
company and starts on a separate exist
ence, which grows to the size of the
parent by its inherent faculty of manu
facturing fresh protoplasm from surround
ing inorganic materials. This process
may be witnessed any day in an aquarium
containing specimens of the sea-anemone,
where the minute new anemones may
be seen in every form, both before and
after they have parted from the parent
body. It remains one of the principal
modes of propagation of the vegetable
world, where plants are multiplied from
buds even after they have developed the
higher mode of sexual propagation by
seeds. In some of the lowest animals,
such as worms, the buds are reduced to
a small aggregation of cells, which form
themselves into distinct individuals inside
the body of the parent, and separate from
it when they have attained a certain
stage of development.
Advancing still further on the road
towards sexual reproduction, we find
these germ-buds reduced to spores, or
single cells, which are emitted from the
parent, and afterwards multiply by divi
sion, until they form a many-celled
organism, which has the hereditary
qualities of the original one. This is
the general form of propagation of the
lower plants, such as algae, mosses, and
ferns, and also of a number of the lower
forms of animal-like microscopic organ
isms, such as bacteria, whose spores,
floating in the air in enormous quanti
ties, and multiplying when they find a
fit soil with astonishing rapidity, in a few
days devastate the potato crop of a whole
district or bring about an epidemic of
scarlet-fever or cholera.
They have
their use, however, in creation, and their
action is beneficent as well as the reverse,
for they are the principal cause of putre
faction, the process whereby the dead
organic matter, which, if not removed,
would choke up the world, is resolved
into the inorganic elements from which
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
it sprang, and rendered available for
fresh combinations.
We are now at the threshold of that
system of sexual progagation which has
become the rule in all the higher families
of animals and in many plants. It may
be conceived as originating in the amal
gamation of some germ-cell or spore with
the original cell which was about to
develop into a germ-bud within the body
of some individual, and, by the union of
the two, producing a new and more
vigorous originating cell, which modified
the course of development of the germ
bud and of its resulting organism.. This
organism, having advantages in the
struggle for life, established itself per
manently with ever new developments in
the same direction, which would be fixed
and extended in its descendants by here
dity, and special organs developed to
meet the altered conditions. Thus at
length the distinction would be firmly
established of a female organ or ovary
containing the egg or primitive cell from
which the new being was to be
developed, and a male organ supplying
the fertilising spore or cell, which was
necessary to start the egg in the evolu
tionary process by which it developed
into the germ of an offspring combining
qualities of the two parents. This is
confirmed by a study of embryology,
which shows that in the human and
higher animal species the distinction of
sex is not developed until a considerable
progress has been made in the growth of
the embryo. It is only, however, in the
higher and more specialised families
that we find this mode of propagation by
two distinct individuals of different sexes
firmly established. In the great majority
of plants, and in some of the lower
families of animals—for instance, snails
and earth-worms—the male and female
organs are developed within the same
being, and they are what are called
hermaphrodites. Thus, in most of the
flowering plants the same blossom con
tains both the stamens and anther,
which are the male organ, and the style
and germ, which are the female.
57
Another transition form is Partheno
genesis, or virginal reproduction, in
which germ-cells, apparently similar in
all respects to egg-cells, develop them
selves into new individuals without any
fructifying element. This is found to be
the case with many species of insects,
and with this curious result, that those
same germ-cells are often capable of
being fructified, and in that case produce
very different individuals. Thus, among
the common bees, male bees or drones
arise from the non-fructified eggs of the
queen bee, while females are produced
if the egg has been fructified.
In the higher families, however, of
animal life the distinction of sex in
different individuals has become the
universal rule, and it produces a polarity
or contrast which becomes ever more
conspicuous as we rise in the scale of
creation, until it attains its highest
development in the highest stage hitherto
reached, that of civilised man and woman.
Both physical and mental characteristics
depend mainly on the fact that the ovary
or egg-producing organ is developed in
the female, and thus the whole work of
reproduction is thrown on her. To per
form this a large portion of the vital
energy is required, which in the male is
available for larger and more prolonged
growth of organs, such as the brain,
stature, and limbs, by which a more
powerful grasp is attained of the outward
environment.
In other words, the
female comes sooner to maturity and is
weaker than the male. She is also
animated by a much stronger love for
the offspring, which is part of her own
body, during the period of infancy; and
thus, in addition to the physical attri
butes, such as lacteal glands and larger
breasts, she inherits qualities of softness,
amiability, and devotion which fit her
for the office of nurse. Her physical
weakness, again, has made her, for un
told ages, and even now in all the less
advanced communities, and too often
even in the most advanced, the slave of
the stronger male.
She has thus in
herited many of the mental qualities
�58
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF
which are essential to such a state : the
desire to propitiate by pleasing and
making herself attractive j the gentleness
and submissiveness which shrink from a
contest of brute force in which she is
sure to be defeated j the clinging to a
stronger nature for support, which in
extreme cases leads to blind admiration
of power and the spaniel-like attachment
to a master, whether deserving of it or
not. As civilisation, however, advances,
and as intellectual and moral qualities
gain ascendency over brute strength and
animal instincts, the condition of woman
improves, and it comes more and more
to be recognised that she is not made to
be man’s slave or plaything,, but has her
own personality and character, which, if
in some respects inferior, are in others
better than those of the male half of
creation. Tennyson, the great poet of
modern thought, who sums up so many
of the ideas and tendencies of the age in
concise and vigorous verse, writes :—
For woman is not undeveloped map,
Nor yet man’s opposite.
Not opposite, yet different, so that the
one supplements what is wanting to the
other, and the harmonious union of the
two makes ideal perfection. It is the
glory of European civilisation to have
done so much to develop this idea of the
equality of the sexes, and to have gone
so far towards emancipating the weaker
half of the human species from the
tyranny of the stronger half.
It would be unfair to omit mention of
the great part which Christianity has had
in this good work; not only by direct
precept and recognition of religious
equality, but even more by the embodi
ment, as its ideal, of the feminine virtues
of gentleness, humility, resignation, selfdevotion, and charity.
Ideal Chris
tianity is, in fact, what may be called the
feminine pole of conduct and morality,
as opposed to the masculine one of
courage, hardihood, energy, and selfreliance.
Many of the precepts of
Christianity are unworkable, and have to
be silently dropped in practice. It would
SEX
not. answer either for individuals or
nations “ when smitten on one cheek to
turn the other.” When an appeal is made
to fact to decide whether it is a right
rule to live as the sparrows do, taking no
thought for the morrow, the verdict of
^/is in favour of foresight and frugality.
erbert Spencer has stated this polarity
very strongly as that of the religion of
amity and the religion of enmity; but I
think he states the case too adversely for
the latter, for the qualities which make
men and nations good fighters and vic
torious in the struggle for existence are
in their way just as essential as the
gentler virtues, and both alike become
defects when pushed to the “ falsehood
o extremes.
Christianity, therefore,
whatever may become of its dogmas,
ought always to be regarded with affec
tion and respect for the humanising effect
it has produced, especially in improving
the condition of the female half of
creation.
This improvement in the condition of
women has brought about a correspond
ing improvement in the male sex, for the
polarity between the two has come to be
the most intimate and far-reaching in
fluence of modern life. Take the litera
ture of the novel and play, which aim at
holding up the mirror to human nature
and contemporary manners, and you will
find that they nearly all turn upon love.
The word “immorality” has come to
signify the one particular breach of the
laws of morality which arises from the
relations of the sexes.
In providing for the birth of nearly
equal numbers of each sex, nature clearly
establishes monogamy, or union of single
pairs, as the condition of things most in
accordance with natural laws.
The
family, also, the first germ of civilisation,
is impossible, or can only exist in a very
imperfect and half-developed state, without
this permanent union of a single husband
and wife. Violations of this law lead to
such disastrous consequences to indi
viduals, and are so deteriorating to
nations, that they are properly considered
as the “ immorality ” far excellence^ and
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
condemned by all right-minded opinion.
And yet to observe this law is a constant
lesson in self-control for a great part of
the life—a lesson of the utmost value,
for it is a virtue which is at the root of
all other virtues. And it is formed and
becomes habitual and easy by practice,
for just as the muscles of the balletdancer’s leg or blacksmith’s arm acquire
strength and elasticity by use, so do the
finer fibres of the brain improve by exer
cise and become soft and flabby by
disuse, so that effort in the former case
is a pleasure and in the latter a pain.
For this reason chaste nations are gene
rally strong and conquering nations;
dissolute Imperial Rome went down
before the Goths and Germans, and
polygamous Turkey perishes of dry rot
in the midst of the progress of the twen
tieth century. Indeed, there is no better
test of the position which either an indi
vidual, a class, or a nation holds in the
scale of civilisation than the tone which
prevails among the men with regard to
women. Wherever Turkish ideas pre
vail, we may be sure that, whatever may
be the outward varnish of manner, there
is essential snobbishness.
“Up and down
Along the scales of life, through all,
To him who wears the golden ball,
By birth a king, at heart a clown.”
On the other hand, wherever women are
regarded with a chivalrous respect and
reverence, the heart of a true gentleman
beats, though it be under the rough
exterior of one of Bret Harte’s cow-boys
or Californian miners.
Nothing, in fact, gives one more hope
in the progress of human society than to
find that in the freest countries, and
those farthest advanced towards modern
ideas and democratic institutions, the
tone with regard to women shows the
greatest improvement. There is a regu
lar crescendo scale of progress from Turkey
to America. I do not refer so much to
the fact that in the newer colonies and
countries women can travel unprotected
without fear of insult or injury, as to the
almost instinctive recognition of their
59
equal rights as intelligent and moral
beings, who have a personality and charac
ter of their own, which places them on
the same platform as men, though on
opposite sides of it.
To understand rightly the real spirit
of an age or country, it is not enough to
study dry statistics or history in the form
of records of wars and political changes.
We must study the works of the best
poets, novelists, and dramatists, who
seek to embody types and to hold up
the mirror to contemporary ideas and
manners. A careful perusal of such works
as those of Dickens, Thackeray, Trol
lope, and George Eliot at home, and of
Bret Harte, Howells, James, and Mrs.
Burnett in the United States, will give a
truer insight into the inner life of the
country and period than any number of
blue-books or consular returns. They
show what the writers of the greatest
genius—that is, of the greatest insight—
see as types of the actual ideas and
characters surrounding them; and the
fact of their works being popular shows
that the types are recognised as true.
Now, it is certain that the English litera
ture of fiction and its latest development,
that of the American novelists, show an
ever-increasing recognition of the female
individual as an equal unit with the male
in the constitution of modern society.
Those dear “ school marms ” of Bret
Harte’s and Wendell Holmes’s, who
career so joyously through mining camps,
receiving courtesy and radiating civilis
ing influences among the rough inhabi
tants, or touch the hearts and throw a
mellow light over the autumn days of
middle-aged professors and philosophers,
are far removed from the slaves of pre
historic savages or the inmates of a
Turkish harem. So also in the more
complex relations of a more crowded
civilisation, in the circles of Washington,
New York, and Boston, the ideal Ame
rican woman is always depicted as bright,
intelligent, and independent, with a
character and personality of her own;
and the suspicion never seems to enter
the author’s head that she is in any
�6o
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
respect inferior to the male characters
with whom she is associated.
The same may be said to a great
extent of English literature from the
time of Shakespeare downwards.
No
better portrait than Portia was ever
drawn of the
“ Perfect woman, nobly planned
To soothe, to comfort, and command ;
And yet a spirit still, and bright
With something of an angel light.”
And in the long gallery of good and
loveable women, from Rosalind and
Irtlogene down to Lucy Roberts and
Laura Pendennis, we have not one who
is a mere nonentity or child of passionate
impulse.
Nor is the recognition of
woman’s equality less marked in the
bad characters.
Lady Macbeth is of
a stronger nature than Macbeth ; Becky
Sharp more clever and full of resources
than the men with whom she plays like
puppets; Maggie Tulliver, with all her
wild struggles with herself and her sur
roundings, has far more in her than her
brother Tom. Compare these characters
with those of the school of modern
French novels, which turn mainly on
adultery and seduction, committed for
the most part not in any whirlwind of
irresistible passion, but to gratify some
passing caprice or vanity, and it is easy
to see how wide is the gulf which
separates the ideals and moral atmo
sphere of the two countries.
It is not, therefore, from any wish to
indulge in what Herbert Spencer calls
the “unpatriotic bias,” and depreciate
my own country, that I am disposed to
think that the younger English-speaking
communities are somewhat in advance
of ourselves in this matter of the rela
tions of the sexes, but simply because
I think that the feeling is there more
widespread and universal. We have in
English society two strata in which
women are still considered as inferior
beings to men : a lower one, where better
ideas have not yet permeated the dense
mass of ignorance and brutality; and a
higher one, where among a certain por
tion, let us hope a small one, of the
gilded youth and upper ten, luxury and
idleness have blunted the finer suscepti
bilities, and created what may be most
aptly called a Turkish tone about women.
There are many of this class, and unfor
tunately often in high places, where their
example does widespread mischief, whose
ideal might be summed up in the words
of the Irish ballad :—
“ I am one of the ould sort of Bradies,
My turn does not lie to hard work ;
But I’m fond of my pipe and the ladies,
And I’d make a most illigant Turk.”
And most “illigant Turks’’they make,
though far worse than real Turks, who
are born and brought up in the ideas
and surroundings of a lower civilisation ;
while the tone of our English Turks is
far more nauseous and disgusting, as
denoting innate selfishness, sensuality,
and vulgarity. Of these two classes
there seem to be fewer in the newer
English communities ; and if they exist,
they are in such a small minority that
they conceal their existence, and pay the
homage of vice to virtue which is called
hypocrisy.
To return, however, to the more
scientific aspects of the question, the
polarity of sex displays itself as con
spicuously as that of the magnet in the
fundamental law of repulsion of like for
like, and attraction of like for unlike.
In each case there must be an identity of
essence developing itself in opposite
directions. Thus, atoms attract or repel
atoms, but not molecules ; for if they
seem to do so, it is only in cases in
which the molecule contains some atom
whose atomicity or polar power has not
been fully satisfied. So currents of air
or water do not affect electric currents.
But given the identity of substance, its
differentiation takes place under an everincreasing progression of polarity of
affinities and repulsions.
A German naturalist, Brahm, discussing
the question why birds sing, says : “ The
male finds in the female those desirable
and attractive qualities which are want
ing in himself. He seeks the opposite
to himself with the force of a chemical
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
element.” This is equally true of the |
male and female of the human species.
A masculine woman and effeminate man
are equally unattractive, and, if the quali
ties are pushed to an extreme extent, the
individuals become monstrosities, and,
instead of attracting, excite vehement
disgust and repulsion. This, which is
true physically, is equally true of moral
and intellectual characteristics. Each
seeks, in the happy marriage or perfect
ideal union, the qualities which are most
deficient in themselves: the woman,
strength, active courage, and the harder
qualities; the man, gentleness, amiability,
and the softer virtues. In each indi
vidual, as in each union of individuals,
harmony and perfection depend on the
due balance of the opposite qualities,
and the “ falsehood of extremes ” leads
up to chaos and insanity. The man in
whom strength and hardihood are not
tempered by gentleness and affection
becomes brutal and tyrannical; while
the woman who has no strength of char
acter becomes silly and frivolous. Mar
riage, however, involves the highest ideal,
for the well-assorted union of the two in
one gives a more complete harmony and
reconciliation of opposites than can be
attained by the single individual, who
must always remain more or less within
the sphere of the polarity of his or her
respective sex. But here also the same
law of polarity operates, for as happy
marriage affords the highest ideal, so do
61
unhappy and ill-assorted unions involve
the greatest misery and most complete
shipwreck of life. Especially to the
woman, for the man has other pursuits
and occupations, and can to a great
extent withdraw himself from domestic
troubles; while the woman has no
defence against the coarseness, selfish
ness, and the vulgarity of the partner to
whom she is tied, and who may make
her life a perpetual purgatory, and drag
all her finer intellectual and moral nature
down to a lower level.
Fortunately,
extreme cases are rare, and, though the
ideal of a perfect union may seldom be
attained to, the great majority of married
couples manage to jog on together, and
bring up families in comparative comfort
and respectability. Evidently, however,
in many cases the weaker party does not
get fair play, and the laws which are the
result of centuries of male legislation
are often too oblivious of the maxim that
what is “sauce for goose is sauce for
gander.” Improvement, however, is
coming from the growth of the more
healthy public opinion, which stigmatises
any invasion of woman’s real rights, and
any attempt on the part of her natural
protector to bully and tyrannise, as
utterly disgraceful; and the waves of
this public opinion are slowly but surely
sapping the cliffs of legal conservatism,
and forcing the intrenchments of stolid
injustice behind ermine robes, horsehair
wigs, and obsolete Acts of Parliament.
Chapter
IX.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND
VARIATION
Heredity in simple forms of life—In more com
plex organisms—Pangenesis—Varieties, how
produced — Fixed by law of survival of
the fittest—Dr. Temple’s view—Examples :
triton, axolotl—Variations in individuals and
species—Lizards into birds—Ringed snakes—
Echidna.
As the earth is kept in an orbit, which
makes life possible by the balance of the
antagonistic centripetal and centrifugal
forces, so is that life evolved and main
tained by the balance of the two con
flicting forces of heredity and variation.
�62
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
Heredity, or the principle which makes
offsprings resemble the parental organ
isms, may be considered as the centri
petal force which gives stability to
species; while variation is like the
centrifugal force which tends to make
them develop into new forms, and pre
vents organic matter from remaining ever
consolidated into one uniform mass.
As regards heredity, the considerations
which have been advanced in the last
chapter, on the origin of sex, will enable
the reader to understand the principles
on which it is based. When a moneron,
or living piece of pure protoplasm, or its
successor the nucleated cell, propagates
itself by simple division into two equal
parts, it is obvious that each half must,
in its atomic constitution and motions,
exactly resemble the original. If amceba
A divides into amcebse B and C, both B
and C are exact facsimiles of A and of
one another, and so are the progeny of
B and C through any number of genera
tions. They must remain identical repe
titions of the parent form, unless some
of them should happen to be modified
by different actions of their surrounding
environment, powerful enough to affect
the original organisation.
In propagation by germs or buds, the
same thing must hold true, only, as the
offspring carries with it not the half,, but
only a small portion of the parental
organism, its impress will be less
powerful, and the new organism will
more readily be affected by external
influences. When we come to propaga
tion by spores or single cells, and still
more to sexual propagation by the union
of single cells of two progenitors, it
becomes more difficult to see how the
type of the two parents, and of a long
line of preceding ancestors, can be main
tained so perfectly.
Of the fact that it is maintained there
can be no doubt. Not only do species
breed true and remain substantially the
same for immense periods, but the
characters of individual parents and
their ancestors repeat themselves, to a
great extent, in their offspring. Thus
the cross between the white and black
varieties of the human species per
petuates itself to such an extent that a
single cross of black blood leaves traces
for a number of generations. In the
Spanish American States and the West
Indies, where the distinction is closely
observed, the term “ octoroon ” is well
known, as applied to creoles who have
seven-eighths of white to one-eighth of
black blood in their composition. In
the case of what is called “atavism,” this
recurrence to the characters of ancestors
is carried to a much further extent. In
breeding animals, it is not uncommon to
find the peculiar features of generations
of ancestors long since extinct cropping
up occasionally in individuals. Thus,
stripes like those of the ass along the
back and down the shoulders occa
sionally appear on horses whose imme
diate ancestors for many generations
back showed nothing of the sort; and
even stripes across the legs like those of
the zebra occur quite unexpectedly, and
testify to the common descent of the
various species of the horse tribe from a
striped ancestor. How these ancestral
peculiarities can be transmitted through
many generations, each individual of
which originated from a single micro
scopic cell which had been fructified by
another cell, is one of the greatest
mysteries of nature. It may assist us in
forming some idea of the possibility of a
solution to remember what has been
proved as to the dimensions of atoms.
Their order of magnitude is that of a
cricket-ball to the earth. In a single
microscopic cell, therefore, there may be
myriads of such atoms circling round
one another and forming infinitesimal
solar systems, of infinite complexity and
variety. Darwin’s theory of “ Pange
nesis ” supposes that some of the actual
identical atoms which formed part of
ancestral bodies are thus transmitted
through their descendants for generation
after generation, so that we are literally
“flesh of the flesh” of the primseval
creature who was developed into man in
the later tertiary or early glacial period.
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
Haeckel, more plausibly, suggests that
not the identical atoms, but their pecu
liar motions and mode of aggregation,
have been thus transmitted—-a mode of
transmission which, with his prevailing
tendency to invent long and learned
names for everything, he calls the
“Perigenesis of plastids.” Weismann
has more recently, while denying, that
acquired characteristics are transmitted,
formed a theory known as that of the
“continuity of the germ-plasm.” This
implies that a part of a definite substance
from the germ-cells (or “ germ-plasm ”)
of the parent is not used up in construct
ing the body of the new organism, but
“ reserved unchanged for the formation
of the germ-cells of the following genera
tions.” In any case, however, these must
be taken not as solutions of the problem,
but as guesses at the truth which show
that its solution is not impossible.
The opposite principle to heredity,
that of variation, is equally important
and universal. It is apparent in the
fact that, although every individual of
every species reproduces qualities of
parents and ancestors, no two individuals
do so in precisely the same manner; no
two are exactly alike. This difference,
or individuality, becomes more marked
as the organism is higher. Thus, sheep
and hounds differ from one another by
slight differences, which require the
practised eye of the shepherd or hunts
man to detect; while human beings are so
unlike that of the many millions existing
in each generation no two exactly
resemble one another. The reason of
this is apparent if we consider that the
higher the organism the more complex
does it become, and the less the chance
of the whole complicated relations of
parent and ancestral organisms being
transmitted by single cells so solidly and
completely as to overpower and remain
uninfluenced by external influences.
Variation evidently depends mainly on
the varying influences of environment.
If the exterior layer of molecules of a
lump of protoplasm become differentiated
from the interior ones and form a cell
63
wall, it is because they are in more
immediate contact with the air or other
surrounding medium. Internal changes
depend on conditions such as tempera
ture and nutrition. In the case of culti
vated plants and domestic animals we
can see most clearly how varieties are
produced by adaptation to changes of
environment. These variations, how
ever, would not proceed very far were
it not for the interaction of the opposing
forces of variation and heredity, by which
latter the variations appearing in indivi
duals are fixed’ and accumulated in
descendants, until they become wide and
permanent divergencies. This is done
in the case of cultivated plants and
domestic animals by man’s artificial
selection in pairing individuals who show
the same variations; and in nature by
the struggle for existence, giving victory
and survival to those forms, and in the
long run to those forms only, whose
variations, slight as they may be in each
generation, tend to bring individuals into
better adaptation to their environment.
It is the great glory of Darwin to have
established this firmly by an immense
number of interesting and exhaustive
instances, and thus placed evolution, or
a scientific explanation of the develop
ment and laws of life, on a solid basis.
Every day fresh discoveries and experi
ments confirm this great principle, and it
has almost passed into the same phase as
Newton’s law of gravity, as a fundamental
law accepted as axiomatic by all men of
science, and as the basis of modern
thought, to which all religions and philo
sophies have to conform, accepted by
nearly all modern thinkers. I may here
quote a passage from an eminent Angli
can divine, Dr. Temple, for the double
purpose of showing how universal has
become the acceptance of this Darwinian
view of evolution among intelligent men,
and how little terrible are its conse
quences, even to those who look at the
facts of the universe through a theo
logical medium and retain their belief in
accepted creeds :—
“ It seems in itself something more
�64
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
majestic, more befitting of him to whom
a thousand years are as one day, and one
day as a thousand years, thus to impress
his will once for all on this creation, and
provide for all its countless varieties by
this one original impress, than by special
acts of creation to be perpetually modi
fying what he had previously made.”1
Scientific men would be content to
accept this statement of Dr. Temple’s
almost in his own words, except that
they might consider his definition of the
Great First Cause as somewhat too
absolute and confident. Having had to
deal so much with actual facts and
accurate knowledge, they are apt to be
more modest in assertion than even the
most enlightened theologian, whose
studies have lain rather in the direction
of phrases and ideas, which, from their
very nature, are more vague and in
definite, and perhaps rather guesses and
aspirations after truth than proofs of it.
In any case, there is the authority of a
learned and liberal-minded bishop for
the position that the scientific way of
looking at the universe is not necessarily
profane or irreligious.
To return to variation: the instances
of the operation of this principle, alone
or in conjunction with that of heredity,
in working out the evolution of species,
are exceedingly numerous and interesting.
Those who wish to understand the
subject thoroughly must study the works
of Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, and other
modern writers; but for my present
purpose it will be sufficient to refer to a
few of the most marked instances which
may assist the reader in comprehending
how the gradual evolution of life and
creation of new species may have been
brought about.
There is an amphibious animal, called
the triton or water-salamander, akin to
the frog, whose normal course is to begin
life living in the water and breathing by
gills, and end it on land with gills meta
morphosed into lungs. If they are shut
up in water and kept in a tank, they
1 Dr. Temple, Religion and Science.
never lose their gills, but continue through
life in the lower stage of development,
and reproduce themselves in other tritons
with gills. Conversely, the axolotl, a
peculiar gilded salamander from the Lake
of Mexico, has its normal course to live,
die, and propagate its species in water,
breathing by gills; but if an axolotl
happens to stray from the water and
take to living on dry land, the gills are
modified into lungs and the animal gains
a place in the class in the school of
development. This fits in remarkably
with the fact that the embryo of all
vertebrate mammals, including man,
passes through the gilled stage before
arriving at the development of lungs,
which assists us in understanding two
facts of primary importance in the history
of evolution.
First, how terrestrial life may have
arisen from aquatic life by adaptation to
altered conditions.
Secondly, how the evolution of the
embryo sums up in the individual, in
the period of a few days or months, the
various stages of evolutions which it has
taken millions of years to accomplish in
the species.
As a parallel to the transformation of
gills into lungs, and an aquatic into a
land animal, if we turn to the geological
records of the Secondary period, we may
trace the transformation of a water into
an air population, of sea-lizards into
flying-lizards, and of flying-lizards into
birds. The “ Hesperornis ” is an actual
specimen of the transition, being a
feathered lizard, or rather winged and
feathered creature which is half lizard
and half bird.
A remarkable instance of the great
change of functions which may be pro
duced by a change of outward conditions
is afforded by the common ringed snake,
which in its natural state lays eggs that
take three weeks to hatch; but if con
fined in a cage in which no sand is
strewed, it hatches the eggs within its
own body, and from oviparous becomes
viviparous. This may help us to under
stand how the lowest order of mammals,
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 65
which, -like the Australian echidna or
duck-billed mole, lay eggs, may have de
veloped, first into marsupial, and finally
into placental mammals.
These examples may assist the reader
in understanding how the infinite diver
sities of living species may have been
developed in the course of evolution
from simple origins, just as the inorganic
world was from atoms, by the action and
reaction of primitive polar forces be
tween the organism and its environment,
and between heredity and variation.
Chapter
X.
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN
AND THOUGHT
how these impressions are made. In
all ordinary cases they are made through
the channels of the senses ; but it is
possible that in certain exceptional cases
vibration in the brain, causing percep
tions, may be conveyed to it through
the nerves in other ways. In somnam
bulism, for instance, it seems to be an
ascertained fact that a somnambulist with
closed eyes securely bandaged can walk
in the dark and avoid obstacles as well
as if guided by the sight in full daylight.
Before entering on the higher subjects There is a great deal of evidence also
of religions and philosophies, it is well that in artificial somnambulism, other
to arrive at some precise idea of the wise called mesmerism or hypnotism,
limits of human knowledge, and of the and also in what is called thought-reading,
boundary line which separates the know perception may be conveyed from one
able from the unknowable. The ultimate brain to another otherwise than by the
basis of all knowledge is perception. usual methods of speech or writing.
Without an environment to create But these phenomena, however far they
impressions, and an organ to receive may be extended, do not affect the
them, we should know absolutely nothing. position that impressions on the brain
What is the environment and what the are the essential condition of thought.
organ of human knowledge ? The If the grey matter of the brain is deficient
environment is the whole surrounding or diseased, the mind is affected, and
universe, or, in the last analysis, the beyond a certain point becomes extinct.
motions, or changes of motion, by which
The second and more important reser
the objects in that universe make impres vation is that, although mind and all its
sions on the recipient organ. The organ qualities are thus indissolubly connected
is the grey matter of that large nervous with matter, it by no means follows that
agglomeration, the brain. But here I they are matter or mere qualities of it.
must at the outset make two reserva In the case of the atoms and energ-ies,
tions. In the first place, I do not define we know absolutely nothing of their real
Basis of knowledge—Perception—Constitution
of brain—White and grey matter;—Average
size and weight of brains—European, negro,
and ape—Mechanism of perception—Sensory
and motor nerves—Separate areas of brain—Sensory and motor centres—Abnormal states
of brain — Hypnotism — Somnambulism —
Trance — Thought-reading —• Spiritualism —•
Reflex action—Ideas how formed—Number
and space—Creation unknowable—Concep
tions based on perceptions—Metaphysics—
Descartes, Kant, Berkeley—Anthropomor
phism—Laws of nature.
�66
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE-BRAIN AND THOUGHt
essence, and cannot form even a con
ception of what they are, how they came
there, or what will become of them. It
is the same with mind, soul, or self: we
feel an instinctive certainty of their exist
ence, as we do of that of matter; and
we can trace their laws and manifesta
tions under the conditions in which they
are known to us—viz., those of associa
tion with matter and motion in the brain.
But of their real essence or existence we
know nothing, and it is as unscientific
to affirm as to deny. Directly we pass
beyond the boundary of such knowledge
as really can be known by human
faculty, and stand face to face with the
mystery of the Great Unknown, we can
only bow our heads with reverence and
say with the poet,
“Behold, I know not anything.”
I hope thus to steer safely between
Scylla and Charybdis—between the arid
rocks of materialism and the whirling
eddies of spiritualism. Materialist and
spiritualist seem to me very like two
men disputing as to the existence of life
in the sun. “No,” argues the former;
“for the known conditions there are
totally inconsistent with any life we can
conceive.” “Yes,” says the other; “for
the belief fits in with many things which
I earnestly wish to believe respecting a
Supreme Being and a future existence.”
To the first I say, ignorance is not evi
dence; to the second, wishes are not
proofs. For myself, while not quarrelling
with those more favoured mortals who
have, or fancy they have, superior know
ledge, I can only say that I really know
nothing; and this being the case, I see
no use in saying that I know, and think
it both more truthful and more modest
to confess the limitation of my faculties.
With this caution, I return to the
field of positive knowledge. The brain,
spinal marrow, and nerves consist of two
substances: one white, which constitutes
the great mass consisting of tubes or
fibres; the other grey, which is an aggre
gation of minute cells, so minute that
it has been computed that there are
several millions of them in a space no
larger than a sixpence. The bulk of
this grey nerve-tissue is found in the
higher animals, and especially in man,
in the outside rind which covers the
brain; and its amount is greatly increased
by the convolutions of that organ giving
a greater extent of covering surface.
In fact, the convolutions of the average
human brain give as much grey matter
in a head of average size as would be
given by a head of four times the size if
the brain were a plane surface. The
extent of the convolutions is, therefore,
a sure sign of the extent of intellect.
They are more numerous and deeper in
the European than in the negro; in the
negro than in the chimpanzee; in the
anthropoid ape than in the monkey or
lemur. This grey nerve-tissue is the
organ by which impressions from without
are turned into perceptions, volitions,
and evolutions of nerve force. The
white matter is simply the medium of
transmission, or we may say the tele
graph wires by which the impressions
are conveyed to the head office and the
answers sent. The cell-tissue of the
grey matter is thus emphatically the
organ of the mind. In fact, if it did not
sound too materialistic, we- might call
thought a secretion of the grey matter,
only in saying so we must bear in mind
that it is only a mode of expressing the
fact that the two invariably go together;
and that if we say with the German
philosopher, Ohne Phosphor kein Gedank,
it does not mean that thought and
phosphorus are identical, but simply
that the condition on which thought
depends is that of the existence of a
material organ of which phosphorus is
an ingredient.
That this grey nerve-tissue is really
the organ of thought has been firmly
established by numerous experiments
both in man and the lower animals.
Injuries to it, or diseases in it, invariably
affect what is called the mind; while
considerable portions of the white matter
may be removed without affecting the
thinking and perceptive powers. A
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 67
certain amount of it is indispensable for
the existence of intellect; the more there
is of it as the brain increases in size and
the convolutions become deeper, the
greater is the intellect; when these fall
below certain dimensions, intellect is ex
tinguished, and we have idiocy. The
average brain of the male white European
weighs 49% ounces, of the negro a little
under 47. The maximum brains which
have been accurately weighed and
measured are those of Cuvier and Daniel
Webster, the weight of the former being
64^ ounces, and the capacity of the
latter being 122 cubic inches ; while the
average capacity of the Teutonic race, in
cluding English, Germans, and Ameri
cans, is 92 inches, of the negro 83, and
of the Australian and Hottentot 75. The
brain of the idiot seldom weighs over
23 ounces, and the minimum weight
consistent with a fair degree of intelli
gence is about 34 ounces.
The mechanism by which correspon
dence is kept up between the living indi
vidual and the surrounding universe is
very simple—in reality, as simple as that
of any ordinary electric circuit. In the
most complex case, that of man, there
are a number or nerve-endings, or small
lumps of protoplasm, embedded in the
tissues all over the body, or highly
specialised and grouped together in
separate organs, such as the eye and ear,
from which a nerve fibre leads direct to
the brain, or to the spinal cord, and so
up to the brain. These nerve-endings
receive the different vibrations by which
outward energy presents itself, which
propagate a current or succession of
vibrations of nerve-energy along the
nerve-fibre. This nerve-fibre is a round
thread of protoplasm covered by a white
sheath of fatty matter, which insulates it
like the wire of a submarine telegraph
coated with gutta-percha. This nerve
wire leads up to a nerve-centre, consist
ing of two corpuscles of protoplasm : the
first, or sensory, a smaller one, which is
connected by branches with the second,
a much larger one, called the motor,
from which a much larger nerve-fibre or
wire proceeds, which terminates in a
mass of protoplasm firmly attached to a
muscle. Thus, a sensation is propagated
along the sensory nerve to the sensory
nerve-centre, whence it is transmitted to
the motor-centre, which acts as an accu
mulator of stored-up energy, a large flow
of which is sent through the large con
ductor of the motor-nerve to the muscle,
which it causes to contract and thus pro
duces motion. It is thus that the
simpler involuntary actions are pro
duced by a process which is purely
mechanical. In the more complex cases,
in which consciousness and will are
involved, the process is essentially the
same, though more complicated. The
message is transmitted to the brain,
where it is received by a cluster of small
sensory cells or nerve-centres, which are
connected with another cluster of fewer
and larger motor-centres, often at some
distance from them, by a network of
interlacing fibres. But it is always a
case of a single circuit of wires, batteries,
and accumulators, adapted for receiving,
recording, and transmitting one sort of
vibrations caused by and producing one
sort of energy, and one only. The brain
does not act as a whole, receiving indis
criminately impressions of light, sound,
and heat, but by separate organs for
each, located in separate parts of it. It
is like a great central office, in one room
of which you have a printing instrument
reading off and recording messages sent
through an electric telegraph; in another
a telephone ; in a third a self-registering
thermometer, and so on. And the same
for the motor centres and nerves. One
set is told off to move the muscles of the
face, another those of the arms, others
for the legs and body, and so forth.
This is further complicated by the fact
that the brain, like the rest of the body,
has two sides—a right and left, and that
in some cases the motor-apparatus is
doubled, each working only on one side,
while in others the same battery and
wires serve for both. As a rule, the right
hemisphere of the brain works the
muscles of the left side of the body, and
�68
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
vice versa, so that an injury to one side
of the brain may paralyse the voluntary
motion of the limbs on the opposite side,
leaving in a perfect condition those on
its own side.
In the case of the higher functions
involving thought, the upper part of the
brain, which performs these functions,
seems to be a sort of duplex machine, so
that we have two brains capable of think
ing, just as we have two eyes capable of
seeing. It is a remarkable fact that the
areas of the brain which are appropriated
to the lowest and most instinctive func
tions, which appear first, lie lowest, and
as the functions rise the position of their
nerve-centres rises with them. Thus, at
the very base of the frontal convolutions
at the lowest end of the fissure of
Rolando we find the motor areas for
the lower part of the face, by which the
lowest animals and the new-born infant
perform their solitary function of sucking
and swallowing.
Higher up are the
centres in the right and left brains for
moving the upper limbs—that is, for seiz
ing food and conveying it to the mouth,
which is the next function in the ascend
ing scale.
Next above these are the
centres for moving the lower limbs and
for co-ordinating the motions of the arms
and legs, marking the progression of an
organism which can pursue and catch as
well as eat its food. And still higher
are the centres which regulate the
motions of the trunk and body in corre
spondence with those of the limbs.
It is easy to see that this corresponds
with the progression of the individual,
for the infant sucks and cries for food
from the first day, soon learns to extend
its hand and grasp objects, but takes
some time to learn to walk, and still
longer to perform exercises like dancing
or riding, in which the motions of the
whole body have to be co-ordinated with
those of the limbs. And as the develop
ment of the individual is an epitome of
the evolution of life from protoplasm, we
may well suppose that the brain was de
veloped in this order from its first origin
in a swelling at the end of the spinal
cord as we find it in the lowest verte
brates.
It is a singular fact that the particular
motor area which gives the faculty of
articulate speech lies in a small patch of
about one and a half square inches on
the left side of the lower portion of the
first brain. If this is injured, the disease
called aphasia is produced, in which the
patient loses the power of expressing
ideas by connected words. The corre
sponding area on the right side cannot
talk; but in left-handed persons this
state of things is reversed, and the right
side, which is generally aphasial, can be
taught to speak in young people, though
not in the aged.
Higher up in the cortex, or convoluted
envelope of the brain, come the areas for
hearing and seeing, the latter being the
more extensive. The visual centre lies
at the hindmost and lowest part of the
cortex (the occipital lobe), and the area
of hearing is found over the temples.
The centre for smell is believed to lie
in the frontal lobe. These areas are filled
mainly by a great number of sensory
nerve-centres or cells, connected with one
another in a very complicated network.
These seem to be concerned with the
multitude of ideas which are excited in
the brain by perceptions derived from
the higher senses, especially that of sight.
The simple movements are produced by
a few large motor-centres, which have
only one idea and do only one thing,
whether it be to move the leg or the
arm. But a sensation from sight often
calls up a multitude of ideas. Suppose
you see the face of one with whom some
fifty years ago you may have had some
youthful love passages, but your lives
drifted apart, and you now meet for the
first time after these long years, how
many ideas will crowd on the mind, how
many nerve-cells will be set vibrating,
and how many nerve-currents set cours
ing along intricate paths ! No wonder
that the nerve-corpuscles are numerous
and minute, and the nerve-channels
many and complicated.
When we come to the seats of the
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 69
intellectual faculties, the question becomes
still more obscure. The recent investi
gations of Flechsig, which are generally
accepted in substance, locate these
faculties between the great sense-centres
in the cortex : the sensory-areas occupy
ing the lower edge, and the thought-areas
the upper and central mass of the four
great cerebral lobes. They depend in
their action on the grey matter consist
ing of an immense number of minute
sensory cells. It has been computed
that there are millions in the area of a
square inch, and they are all in a state of
the most delicate equilibrium, vibrating
with the slightest breath of nervous
impression. They depend for their
activity entirely on the sensory percep
tive centres, for there is no consciousness
in the absence of sensory stimulation, as
in dreamless sleep. Perception, how
ever caused, whether by outward stimu
lation of real objects or by former per
ceptions revived by memory, sends a
stream of energy through the sense-area,
which expands, like a river divided into
numerous channels fertilising the intel
lectual area, where it is stored up by
memory, giving us the idea of continual
individual existence, and by some myste
rious and unknown process becoming
transformed into consciousness and
deliberate thought. And, conversely, the
process is reversed when what we call
will is excited, and the small currents of
the intellectual are concentrated by an
effort of attention and sent along the
proper nerve-channels to the motor
centres, whose function it is to produce
the desired movement. This mechani
cal explanation, it will be observed,
leaves entirely untouched the question of
the real essence and origin of these in
tellectual faculties, as to which we know
nothing more than we do of the real
essence and origin of life, of matter, and
of energy.
A very curious light, however, is thrown
on them by phenomena which occur in
abnormal states of the brain, as in a
trance, somnambulism, and hypnotism.
In the latter, by straining the attention
on a given object or idea, such as a coin
held in the hand or a black wafer on a
white wall, or by manual passes on the
part of the operator, or, in rare cases,
even by a distant projection of will
power, the normal action of the brain is,
in the case of many persons—perhaps
one out of every three or four—thrown
out of gear, and a state induced in which
the will seems to be annihilated, and the
thoughts and actions brought into sub
jection to the will of another person. In
this state also a cataleptic condition of
the muscles is often induced, in which
they acquire enormous strength and
rigidity.
In somnambulism outward
consciousness is in a great measure sus
pended, and the somnambulist lives forthe time in a walking dream, which he
acts and mistakes for reality. In this
state old perceptions, scarcely felt at the
time, seem to revive, as in dreams, with
such wonderful vividness and accuracy
that the somnambulist, in acting the
dream, does things altogether impossible
in the waking state. Thus an ignorant
servant-maid is said to have recited half
a chapter of the Hebrew version of the
Old Testament: the explanation being,
that she had been in the service of a
minister who was studying Hebrew, and
who used to walk about his room recit
ing this identical passage. It would
seem as if the brain were like a very
delicate photographic plate, which takesaccurate impressions of all perceptions,
whether we notice them or not, and.
stores them up ready to be reproduced
whenever stronger impressions are
dormant, and memory, by some strange
caprice, breathes on the plate.
Most wonderful, however, are some of
the phenomena of trance. In this case
it really seems as if two distinct indivi
duals might inhabit the same body.
Jones falls into a trance and dreams
that he is Smith. While the trance
lasts he acts and talks as Smith;
he really is Smith, and even ad
dresses his former self Jones as a
stranger. When he wakes from the
trance he has no recollection of it, and
�70
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
takes up the thread of his own life, just
as if he had dozed for a minute instead
of being in a trance for hours. But if
he falls into a second trance, days or
weeks afterwards, he takes up his trance
life exactly where he dropped it, abso
lutely forgetting his intermediate real
life. And so he may go on alternating
between two lives, with two separate
personalities and consciousnesses, being
to all intents and purposes now Jones
•and now Smith. If he died during a
trance, which would he be, Jones or
Smith ? The question is ’ more easily
asked than answered; but it certainly
appears as if with one mode of motion in
the same brain you might have one mind
and personal identity associated with it,
and with another mode of motion dif
ferent ones.
It would take me too far, and the facts
are too doubtful, to investigate the large
class of cases included under the terras
thought-reading, telepathy, psychism,
and spiritualism. It may suffice to say
that there is a good deal of evidence for
the reality of very curious phenomena,
but none of any real weight for their
being caused by any spiritualistic or
- supernatural agency. The same conclu
sion is given by Mr. Podmore, for many
years secretary of the Psychical Research
Society, in his well-known works. They
all seem to resolve themselves into the
assertion that under special conditions
the perceptions of one brain can be re
produced in another otherwise than by
the ordinary medium of the senses, and
that in such conditions a special sort of
cataleptic energy or psychic force may
be developed. The amount of negative
evidence is of course enormous, for it is
certain that in millions upon millions of
cases thought cannot be read, things are
not seen beyond the range of vision, and
coincidences do not occur between
deaths and dreams or visions. Neither
can tables be turned, nor heavy bodies
lifted, without some known form of
energy and a fulcrum at which to apply it.
This borderland of knowledge is, there
fore, best left to time, which is the safest
test of truth. That which is real will
survive, and be gradually brought within
the domain of science and made to fit
in with other facts and laws of nature.
That which is unreal will pass away, as
ghosts and goblins have done, and be
forgotten as the fickle fashion changes of
superstitious fancy. In the meantime
we shall do better to confine ourselves to
ascertained facts and normal conditions.
It is pretty certain that, although the
brain greatly preponderates as an organ
of mind in man and the higher animals,
the grey tissue in the spinal marrow and
nervous ganglia exercises a limited
amount of the same functions propor
tionate to its smaller quantity. The
reflex or automatic actions, such as
breathing, are carried on without refer
ence to the brain, and the messages are
received and transmitted through the
local offices without going to the head
office. This is the case with many com
plicated motions which originated in the
brain, but have become habitual and
automatic, as in walking, where thought
and conscious effort only intervene when
something unusual occurs which requires
a reference to the head office; and in
the still more complex case of the pianoplayer, who fingers difficult passages
correctly while thinking of something else,
or even talking to a bystander.
Indeed, in extreme cases, where experi
ments on the brain have been tried on
lower animals, it is found that it can be
entirely removed without destroying life,
or affecting many of the actions which
require perception and volition. Thus,
when the brain has been entirely removed
from a pigeon, it smoothes its feathers
with its bill when they have been ruffled,
and places its head under its wing when
it sleeps; and a frog under the same
conditions, if held by one foot, endeavours
to draw it away, and, if unsuccessful,
places the other foot against an obstacle
in order to get more purchase in the effort
to liberate itself.
So much for the organ of mind; the
other factor, that of outward stimulus, is
still more obvious. If thought cannot
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 71
exist without grey nerve-tissue, neither
can it without impressions to stimulate
that tissue. A perfect brain, if cut off
from all communication with the external
universe, could no more think and have
perceptions than impressions from with
out could generate them without the
appropriate nerve-tissue. Once gene
rated, the mind can store them up by
memory, control them by reason, and
gradually evolve fro_m them ever higher
and higher ideas and trains of reasoning,
both in the individual and the species : in
the individual, passing from infancy to
manhood, partly by heredity from ances
tors, and partly by education—using the
word in the large sense of influences of
all sorts from the surrounding environ
ment ; in the species, by a similar but
much slower development from savagery
to civilisation.
Thus the whole fabric of arithmetic,
algebra, and the higher calculi is built
up from the primitive perception of
number. The earliest palaeolithic savage
must have been conscious of a difference
between encountering one or two cave
bears or mammoths ; and some existing
races of savages have hardly got beyond
this primitive perception. Some Austra
lian tribes, it is said, have not got beyond
three numerals—one, two, and a great
number. But by degrees the perceptions
of number have become more extensive
and accurate, and the number of fingers
on each hand has been used as a standard
of comparison. Thus ten, or two-hand,
the number of fingers on the two hands,
has gradually become the basis of arith
metical numeration, and from this up to
Sir W. Hamilton’s “ Quaternions ” the
progression is regular and intelligible.
But Newton could never have invented
the differential calculus and solved the
problem of the heavens if thousands of
centuries before some primitive human
mind had not perceived that two apples
or two bears were different from one.
In like manner geometry, as its name
indicates, arises from primitive percep
tions of space, applied to the practical
necessity of land-measuring in alluvial |
valleys like those of the Nile and
Euphrates, where annual inundations
obliterated to a great extent the dividing
lines between adjoining properties. The
first perceptions of space would take the
form of the rectangle, or so many feet or
paces, or cubits or arm-lengths, forwards,,
and so many sideways, to give the proper
area; but, as areas were irregular, it wouldbe discovered that the triangle was-,
necessary for more accurate measurement...
Hence the science of the triangle, circle,,
and other regular forms, as we see it
developed in Euclid and later treatises,
on geometry, until we come to its latest
development in speculations as to space
of four dimensions.
But in all these cases we see the
same fundamental principle as prevails
throughout the universe under the name
of the “ conservation of energy”—always
something out of something, never some
thing out of nothing.
This, therefore, defines the limit of
human knowledge, or boundary line
between the knowable and the unknow
able.
Whatever is transformationaccording to existing laws is, whether
known or unknown, at any rate know
able—whatever is creation is unknow
able. We have absolutely no faculties
to enable us to form the remotest con
ception of what the essence of these
primary atoms and energies really is,
how they came there, and how the laws,
or invariable sequences, under which
they act came to be impressed on them..
We have no faculties, because we have
never had any perceptions upon which
the mind can work. Reason and imagi
nation can no more work without ante
cedent perceptions than a bird can fly
in a vacuum.
Thus, for instance, the imagination
can invent dragons, centaurs, and any
number of fabulous monsters, by piecing
together fragments of perceptions in new
combinations; but ask it to invent a
monster whose head shall be that of an
inhabitant of Saturn and its body that
of a denizen of Jupiter, and where is it?
Of necessity, all attempts to define or
�72
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
describe things of which we have never
had perceptions must be made in terms
of things of which we have had percep
tions, or, in other words, must be anthro
pomorphic.
So far as science gives any positive
knowledge as to the relations of mind
to matter, it amounts to this: That all
we call mind is indissolubly connected
with matter through the grey cells of the
brain and other nervous ganglia. This
is positive. If the skull could be
removed without injury to the living
organism, a skilful physiologist could
play with his finger on the human
brain, as on that of a dog, pigeon, or
other animal, and by pressure on dif
ferent notes, as on the keys of a piano,
annihilate successively voluntary motion,
speech, hearing, sight, and finally will,
consciousness, reasoning power, and
memory. But beyond this physical
science cannot go. It cannot explain
how molecular motions of cells of nervecentres can be transformed into, or can
create, the phenomena of mind, any
more than it can explain how the atoms
and energies to which it has traced
up the material universe were themselves
created or what they really are.
All attempts to further fathom the
depths of the unknown follow a different
line, that of metaphysics, or, in other
words, introspection of mind by mind,
and endeavour to explain thought by
thinking. On entering into this region,
we at once find that the solid earth is
giving way under our feet, and that we
are attempting to fly in an extremely
rare atmosphere, if, indeed, we are not
idly flapping our wings in an absolute
vacuum. Instead of ascertained facts
which all recognise, and experiments
which, conducted under the same con
ditions, always give the same results, we
have a dissolving view of theories and
intuitions, accepted by some, denied by
others, and changing with the changing
conditions of the age, and with individual
varieties of character, emotions, and
wishes. Thus, mind and soul are with
some philosophers identical, with others
mind is a product of soul; with some
soul is a subtle essence, with others
absolutely immaterial; with some it has
an individual, with others a universal,
existence; by some it is limited to man,
by others conceded to the lower animals;
by some located in the brain, by others
in the heart, blood, pineal gland, or
dura mater; with some it is pre-exist
ent and immortal, with others created
specially for its own individual organism;
and so on ad infinitum. The greatest
philosophers come mostly to the conclu
sion that we really know nothing about
it. Thus Descartes, after having built
up an elaborate metaphysical theory as
to a spiritual, indivisible substance inde
pendent of the brain and cognisable by
self-consciousness alone, ends by honestly
confessing “ that by natural reason we
can make many conjectures about the
soul, and have flattering hopes, but no
assurance.” Kant also, greatest of meta
physicians, when he has demolished the
fallacies of former theories, and comes to
define his “ noumenon,” has to use the
vaguest of phrases, such as “an inde
scribable something, safely located out
of space and time, as such not subject
to the mutabilities of those phenomenal
spheres,....... and of whose ontological
existence we are made aware by its
phenomenal projections, or effects in
consciousness.” The sentence takes our
breath away, and makes us sympathise
with Bishop Berkeley when he says, “ We
metaphysicians have first raised a dust,
and then complain we cannot see.” It
prepares us also for Kant’s final admission
that nothing can really be proved by
metaphysics concerning the attributes,
or even the existence, of the soul;
though, on the other hand, as it cannot
be disproved, its reality may for moral
purposes be assumed.
It appears, therefore, that the efforts
of the sublimest transcendentalists do
not carry us one step farther than the
conclusions of the commonest common
sense—viz., that there are certain funda
mental conditions of thought, such as
space, time, consciousness, personal
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 73
identity, and freedom of will, which we
cannot explain, but cannot get rid of.
The sublimest speculations of a Plato
and a Kant bring us back to the homely
conclusions of the old woman in the
nursery ballad, in whose mind grave
questions as to her personal identity
were raised by the felonious abstraction
of the lower portion of her petticoat.
“ If I be I, as I think I be,
I’ve a little dog at home, and he’ll know me.”
It is a safe “ working hypothesis ” that,
when I go home in the afternoon, my
wife, children, and little dog will recog
nise me as being “ I myself I ”; but why
or how I am I, whether I was I before I
was born, or shall be so after I am dead,
I really know no more than the little dog
who wags his tail and yelps for joy when
he recognises my personal identity as
something distinct from his own, when
he sees me coming up the walk.
Our conceptions, therefore, are neces
sarily based on our perceptions, and are
what is called anthropomorphic. The
term has almost come to be one of
reproach, because it has so often been
applied to religious conceptions of a
Deity with human, though often not very
humane, attributes; but, if considered
rightly, it - is an inevitable necessity of
any attempt to define such a being or
beings. We can only conceive of such
as a magnified man, indefinitely magnified
no doubt, but still with a will, intelli
gence, and faculties corresponding to our
own. The whole supernatural or miracu
lous theory of the universe rests on the
supposition that its phenomena are, in a
great many cases, brought about, not by
uniform law, but by the intervention of
some Power, which, by the exercise of
will guided by intelligent design, alters
the course of events and brings about
special effects. As long as the theory is
confined to knowable transformations of
existing things, like those which are seen
to be affected by human will, it is not
necessarily inconceivable or irrational.
Inferring like effects from like causes, the
hypothesis was by no means unreason
able that thunder and lightning, for in
stance, were caused by some angry
invisible power in the clouds. On the
contrary, the first savage who drew the
deduction was a natural philosopher, who
reasoned quite justly from his assumed
premises.
Whether the premises were
true or not was a question which could
only be determined centuries later by the
advance of accurate knowledge.
When do we say we know a thing?
Not when we know its essence and
primary origin, for of these the wisest
philosopher is as ignorant as the rudest
savage; but when we know its place in
the universe, its relation to other things,
and can fit it in to that harmonious
sequence of events which is summed up
in what are called Laws of Nature. Thehighest knowledge is when we can trace
it up to its earliest origin from, existing
matter and energy, and follow it down
wards so as to be able to predict its
results. The force of gravity affords a
good illustration of this knowledge, both
where it comes up to and where it falls
short of perfection.
Newton’s law leaves nothing to. be
desired as regards its universal applica
tion and power of prediction ; but we
do not yet fully understand its mode of
action or its relation to other forms of
energy. It is probable that some day we
may be able to understand how the force
of gravity appears to act instantaneously
at a distance, and how all the transform
able forces—gravity, light, heat, electricity,
and molecular or atomic forces—are but
different manifestations of one common
energy. But in the meantime we know
this for certain, that the law of gravity
is not a local or special phenomenon,
but prevails universally from the fixed
stars to the atoms, from the infinitely
great to the infinitely small. This is a
fact to which all other phenomena which
are really facts and not illusions must
conform.
In like manner, when we find in caves
or river-gravels, under circumstances im
plying enormous antiquity, and associated
with remains of extinct animals, rude
�74
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
implements so exactly resembling those
in use among existing savages that, if the
collection in the Colonial Exhibition of
stone celts and arrow-heads used by the
Bushmen of South Africa were placed
side by side with one from the British
Museum of similar objects from Kent’s
Cavern or the caves of the Dordogne,
no one but an expert could distinguish
between them, the conclusion is inevit
able that Devonshire and Southern
France were inhabited at some remote
period by a race of men not more
advanced than the Bushmen. Any theory
of man’s origin and evolution which is to
hold water must take account of this
fact and square with it. And so of a
vast variety of facts which have been
reduced to law and become certainly
known during the last half-century. A
great deal of ground remains unexplored
or only partially explored ; but sufficient
has been discovered to enable us to say
that what we know we know thoroughly,
and that certain leading facts and princi
ples undoubtedly prevail throughout the
knowable universe, including not only
that which is known, but that which is
as yet partially or wholly unknown; for
instance, the law of gravity, the conserva
tion of energy, the indestructibility of
matter, and the law of evolution, or
development from the simple to the
complex.
Chapter
XI.
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
Religions “ working hypotheses ”—Newman’s harmonious concordance. I said so for
illative sense—Origins of religions—Ghosts the following reasons. In a discussion
and spirits—Fetishes—Nature-worship—Solar
myths—Planets—Evolution of nature-worship at the Metaphysical Society, recorded in
—Polytheism, pantheism, and theism—Evolu the • Nineteenth Century, on the uni
tion of monotheism in the Old Testament—■ formity of the laws of nature, Huxley is
Evolution of morality—Natural law and represented as saying that he considered
miracle—Evidence for miracles—Insufficiency
of evidence—Absence of intelligent design— this uniformity, not as an axiomatic
Agnosticism—Origin of evil—Can only be truth like the first postulates of geometry,
explained by polarity—Optimism and pes but as a “ working hypothesis
adding,
simism—Jesus, the Christian Ormuzd—Chris however, that it was an hypothesis which
tianity without miracles.
Having thus, I may hope, given the
reader some precise ideas of what are
the boundaries and conditions of human
knowledge, we may proceed to consider
their application to the highest subjects,
religions and philosophies.
In the introductory chapter of this
work I have said that all religions are in
effect “ working hypotheses,” by which
men seek to reconcile the highest aspira
tions of their nature with the facts of the
universe, and bring the whole into some
had never been known to fail. To this
some distinguished advocates of Catholic
theology replied, that their conviction
was of a higher nature, for their belief in
God was a final truth, which was the
basis of their whole intellectual and
moral nature, and which it was irrational
to question. This is, in effect, Cardinal
Newman’s celebrated argument of an
“illative sense,” based on a complete
assent of all the faculties, and which was
therefore a higher authority than any
conclusions of science. The answer is
obvious, that complete assent, so far from
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
being a test of truth, is, on the contrary,
almost always a proof that truth has not
been attained, owing either , to erroneous
assumptions as to the premises or to the
omission of important factors in the solu
tion of the problem. To give an instance,
I suppose there could not be a stronger
case of complete assent than that of the
Inquisitors who condemned the theories
of Galileo. They had in support of the
proposition that the sun revolved round
the earth the testimony of the senses, the
universal belief of mankind in all ages,
the direct statement of inspired Scripture,
the authority of the infallible Church.
Was all this to be set aside because some
“ sophist vainly mad with dubious lore ”
told them, on grounds of some new
fangled so-called science, that the earth
revolved round its axis and round the
sun? “No; let us stamp out a heresy
so contrary to our ‘ illative sense,’ and so
fatal to all the most certain and cherished
beliefs of the Christian world, to the
inspiration of the Word of God, and to
the authority of his Church.” “Epur si
muoveP and yet the earth really did
move ; and the verdict of pact was that
Galileo and science were right, and the
Church and the illative sense wrong.
In truth, the distinction between the
conclusions of science and those of
religious creeds might be more properly
expressed by saying that the former are
“ working hypotheses ” which never fail,
while the latter are “ working hypothe
ses” which frequently fail. ‘Thus, the
fundamental hypothesis of Cardinal New
man and his school of a one infinite and
eternal personal Deity, who regulates the
course of events' by frequent miraculous
interpositions, so far from being a neces
sary and axiomatic truth, has never
appeared so to the immense majority of
the human race ; and even at the present
day, in civilised and so-called Christian
countries, its principal advocates com
plain that ninety-nine out of every hun
dred practically ignore it. It is not so
with the uniformity of the laws of nature.
No palaeolithic savage ever hesitated
about putting one foot after another in
75
chase of a mammoth from a fear that
his working hypothesis of uniform law
might fail, the support of the solid earth
give way, and with his next step he
might find himself toppling over into the
abyss of an infinite vacuum. In like
manner Greeks and Romans, Indians,
and Chinese, monotheists, polytheists^
pantheists, Jews and Buddhists, Chris
tians and Mohammedans, all use standard,
weights in their daily transactions with
out any misgivings that the law of gravity
may turn out not to be uniform. But
religious theories vary from time to time
and from place to place, and we can in
a great many cases trace their origins and
developments like those of other political
and social organisms.
To trace their origins we must, as in
the case of social institutions, look first
at the ideas prevailing among those
savage and barbarous races who are the
best representatives of our early pro
genitors ; and secondly at historical
records. In the first case we find the
earliest rudiments of religious ideas in
the universal belief in ghosts and spirits.
Every man is conceived of as being a
double of himself, and as having a sort
of shadowy self, which comes and goesin sleep or trance, and finally takes leave
of the body, at death, to continue its
existence as a ghost. The air is thus
peopled with an immense number of
ghosts, who continue very much their
ordinary existence, haunt their accus
tomed abodes, and. retain their living
powers and attributes, which are exerted
generally with a malevolent desire to
injure and annoy. Hence among savage
races, and by survival even among primi
tive nations of the present day, we find
the most curious devices to cheat or
frighten away the ghost, so that he may
not return to the house in which he died.
Thus, the corpse is carried out, not by
the door, but by a hole made for the
purpose in the wall, which is afterwards
built up—a custom which prevails with
a number of widely separated races—
Greenlanders, Hottentots, Algonquins,
and Fijians; and the practice even
�76
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
survives among more civilised nations,
such as the Chinese, Siamese, and
Thibetans; nor is it wholly extinct in
some of the primitive parts of Europe.
This idea obviously led to the practice
of constructing tents or houses for the
ghosts to live in, and of depositing with
them articles of food and weapons to be
used in their ghostly existence. In the
case of great chiefs, not only their arms
and ornaments were deposited, but their
horses, slaves, and wives were sacrificed
and buried with them, so that they might
enter spirit-land with an appropriate
retinue.
The early Egyptian tombs
were as nearly as possible facsimiles of
the house in which the deceased had
lived, with pictures of his geese, oxen,
-and other possessions painted on the
walls, evidently under the idea that the
ghosts of these objects would minister
to the wants and please the fancy of the
human ghost whose eternal dwelling was
in the tomb where his mummy was de
posited.
Another development of the belief in
spirits is that of fetish-worship, in which
superstitious reverenc.e is paid to some
stock or stone, tree or animal, in which
a mysterious influence is supposed to
reside, probably owing to its being the
chosen abode of some powerful spirit.
This is common among the negro races,
and it takes a curious development
among many races of American Indians,
where the tribe is distinguished by the
totem, or badge of some particular animal,
such as the bear, the tortoise, or the
hare, which is in some way supposed to
be the patron spirit of the clan, and often
the progenitor from whom they are
descended. This idea is so rooted that
intermarriage between men and women
who have the same totem is prohibited
as a sort of incest, and the daughter of
a bear-mother must seek for a husband
among the sons of the deer or fox.
Possibly a vestige of the survival of this
idea may be traced in the coat-of-arms
of the Sutherland family, and the wild
cat may have been the totem of the
Clan Chattan, while the oak tree was
that of the Clan Quoich, with whom
they fought on the Inch of Perth. Be
this as it may, it is clearly a most ancient
and widespread idea, and prevails from
Greenland to Australia; while it evidently
formed the oldest element of the pre
historic religion of Egypt, where each
separate province had its peculiar sacred
animal, worshipped by the populace in
one nome and detested in the neigh
bouring one.
By far the earliest traces of anything
resembling religious ideas are those
found in burying-places of the neolithic
period. It is evident that at this remote
period ideas prevailed respecting ghost
or spirit life and a future existence very
similar to those of modern savages.
They placed weapons and implements
in the graves of the dead, and not
infrequently sacrificed human victims
and held cannibal feasts. Whether this
was done in the far more remote palaeo
lithic era' is uncertain, for very few
undoubted burials of this period have
been discovered, and those few have
frequently been used again for later
interments. We can only draw a nega
tive inference from the absence of idols,
which are so abundant in the prehistoric
abodes explored by Professor Schlie
mann, among the very numerous
carvings and drawings found in the
caves of the reindeer period in France
and Germany—namely, that the religion
of the palaeolithic men, if they had any,
had not reached the stage when spirits
or deities were represented by images.
For the first traces, therefore, of any
thing like what is now understood by
the term religion, we must look beyond
the vague superstitions of savages, at the
historical records of civilised nations.
As civilisation advanced population
multiplied, and the rude tribes of hunters
were amalgamated into agricultural com
munities and powerful empires, in which
a leisured and cultured class arose, to
whom the old superstitions were no
longer sufficient. They had to enlarge
their “working hypothesis” from the
worship of stocks and stones and fear of
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
ghosts, to take in a multitude of new
facts and ideas, and specially those
relating to natural phenomena which had
roused their curiosity, or become impor
tant to them as matters of practical
utility. The establishment of an here
ditary caste of priests accelerated this
evolution of religious ideas, and from
time to time recorded its progress. The
oldest of such records are those of Egypt
and Chaldsea, where the fertility of
alluvial valleys watered by great rivers
had led to the earliest development of a
high civilisation. The records also of
the Chinese, Hindoos, Persians, and
other nations take us a long way back
towards the origins of religions.
In all cases we find them identical
with the first origins of science, and
taking the form of attempted explanations
of natural phenomena, by the theory of
deified objects and powers of nature.
In the Vedas we see this in the simplest
form, where the gods are simply personi
fications of the heavens, earth, sun,
moon, dawn, and so forth; where we
should say the red glow of morning
announces the rising of the sun, they
express it that Aurora blushes at the
approach of her lover, the mighty Sun
god. It is very interesting to observe
how the old Chaldsean legend of the
creation of the world has been modified
in the far later Jewish edition of it in
Genesis, to adapt it to monotheistic
ideas. The Chaldaean legend begins,
like that of Genesis, with an “earth
without form and void,” and darkness on
the chaotic deep. In each legend the
Spirit of God, called Absu in the
Chaldaean, moves on the face of the
waters, and they are gathered together
and separated from the land. But here
a difference begins: in the original
Chaldsean legend “ the great gods were
then made; the gods Lakman and
Lakmana caused themselves to come
forth; the gods Assur and Kesar were
made; the gods Anu, Bel, and Idea
were born.”
The appearance of the gods Lakman
and Lakmana was the primitive mode of
77
expressing the same idea as that which
is expressed in Genesis by saying that
God created the firmament separating
the heaven above from the earth beneath;
Assur and Kesar mean the same thing as
the hosts of heaven and the earth; the
god Bel is the sun, and so forth. It is
evident that the first attempts to explain
the phenomena of nature originated, in
the idea that motion and power implied
life, personality, and conscious will; and
therefore that the earth, sky, sun, moon,
and other grand and striking phenomena,
must be regarded as separate gods.
As culture advanced astronomy be
came more and more prominent in these
early religions, and solar myths became
a principal part of their mythologies,
while astrology, or the influence of
planets or stars on human affairs, became
an important part of practical life. .The
Chaldsean legend referred to contains a
mass of astronomical knowledge, which
in the Genesis edition is reduced to
“ He made the stars also.” It describes
how the constellations were assigned
their forms and names, the twelve signs
of the Zodiac established, the year
divided into twelve months, the equi
noxes determined, and the seasons set
their bounds. Also how the moon was
made to regulate the months by its disc,
“ horns shining forth to lighten the
heavens, which, on the seventh day,
approaches a circle.”
In the still older Egyptian pyramids
- we find proof of the long previous exist
ence of great astronomical knowledge
and refined methods of observation; for
these buildings, which are at once the
largest and the oldest in the world, are
laid down so exactly in a meridian line,
and with such a close approximation to
the true latitude, as would have other
wise been impossible. In fact, there is
every reason to believe that, while they
were constructed as tombs for kings,
they were at the same time intended for
national observatories ; for the arrange
ment of the internal passages is such as
to make the Great Pyramid serve, the
purpose of a telescope, equatorially
�78
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
mounted, and showing the transit of stars to the Gallery of Dresden, he would see in
and planets over the meridian, by refer Raffaelle s Madonna di San Sisto what he
ence to a reflected image of what was would consider to bean admirable repre
then the polar star, a knowledge of which sentation of Horus in the arms of Isis.
was essential for accurate calculation of . The planets also, still more mysterious
the calendar and seasons, for fixing the m their movements than the sun, and
proper date of religious ceremonies, and therefore still more endowed with human
very probably for astrological purposes.
like faculties of life, power, and purpose,
The prevalence of these solar and were from an early period believed to
astronomical myths among a number of exercise an influence on human affairs.
different nations separated by wide inter Of the universality of this belief we find
vals of space and time is very remarkable. traces in . the names of the days of the
Egyptians, Indians, Babylonians, Chinese, week, which are so generally taken from
Mexicans, and Peruvians had myths the sun, moon, and five visible planets—
which were strangely similar, indeed Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, and
almost identical, based on the sun’s Saturn—to whom special days were dedi
annual passage through the constella cated. If every seventh day is a day of
tions of the zodiac. His apparent decline rest, it was originally so because it was
and death as he approached the winter thought unlucky to undertake any work
solstice, and his return to life when he on the Sabbath, Saturday, or day of the
had passed it, gave rise to myths of the gloomy and malignant Saturn.
murder of the Sun-god by some fierce
As time rolled on and civilisation ad
wild boar, or treacherous enemy, and of vanced, this simple nature-worship and
his triumphant resurrection in renewed deification of astronomical phenomena
glory. Hence, also, the passage of the developed into larger and more complex
winter solstice was a season of general conceptions. Following different lines
rejoicing and festivity, traces of which of evolution, polytheism, pantheism, and
survive when the sirloin and turkey smoke monotheism began to emerge as religious
upon the hospitable tables of modern systems with definite creeds, rituals, and
Christmas. One remarkable myth had a sacred books. These lines seem to have
very universal acceptance, that of the been determined a good deal by the
birth of the infant Sun-god from a virgin genius of the race in which the religious
mother. It appears to have originated development took place. The impres
from the period, some 6,450 years ago, sions made on the human mind by the
when the sun, which now rises at the surrounding universe are very various.
winter solstice in the constellation of Suppose ourselves looking up at the
Sagittarius, rose in that of Pisces, with heavens on a clear starry night, what
the constellation of the Virgin, with will be the impression ? To one, that of
upraised arms marked by five stars, awe and reverence; he will feel crushed,
setting in the north-west. Anyhow, this as it were, into nothingness in the pre
myth of an infant god born of a virgin sence of such a sublime manifestation of
mother holds a prominent place in the majesty and glory. Another, of a more
religions of Egypt, India, China, aesthetic nature, will be charmed by the
Chaldaea, Greece, Rome, Siam, Mexico, beauty of the spectacle, and tempted to
Peru, and other nations. The resem assign life to it, and to personify and
blances are often so close that the first dramatise its incidents. A third, of a
Jesuit missionaries to China found that scientific turn, will above all things wish
their account of the miraculous concep to understand it.
tion of Christ had been anticipated by
Thus, we find the impression of awe
that of Fuh-ke, born 3468 b.c. ; and if preponderating among the Semitic races
an ancient priest of Thebes or Helio generally; and as in their political rela
polis could be restored to life and taken tions, so in their, religious conceptions,
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
we find them prone to prostrate them
selves before despotic power.. With the
Greeks, again, the aesthetic idea almost
swallowed up the others, and the old
astronomical myths blossomed into a
perfect flower-bed of poetical and fanciful
legends. The Chinese never got beyond
a simple pantheism, which looked upon
the universe as being alive, and saw
nothing behind it ; while the more meta
physical and physically feebler races of
Hindoos and Buddhists refined their
pantheism into a system of illusion, in
which their own existence and the sur
rounding universe were literally
“ such stuff
As dreams are made on,”
and to be “ rounded with a sleep ” was
the final consummation devoutly to be
desired.
Monotheism developed itself later,
partly from the feeling of the unity of
nature forcing itself on the more philoso
phical minds ; partly from that feeling of
reverence and awe in presence of the
Unknown which swallowed up other
conceptions; and partly, in the earlier
stages, from the feeling which exalted the
local god of the tribe or nation, first into
a supremacy over other gods, and finally
into sole supremacy, degrading all other
gods into the category of dumb idols
made by human hands. In the Old
Testament we can trace the development
of this latter idea in its successive stages.
Until the later days of the Jewish
monarchy it is evident that the Jews
never doubted the existence of other
gods; their allegiance oscillated between
Jehovah and the heathen deities sym
bolised by the golden calf, worshipped in
high places, and contending for the
mastership in the rival sacrifices of Elijah
and the priests of Baal. But the pro
phetic element gradually introduced
higher ideas, and in the reigns of Heze
kiah and Josiah the worship of Jehovah
as the sole God became the religion of
the State; and old legends and docu
ments were re-edited in this sense in the
sacred book, which was discovered and
79
published for the first time in the reign
of the latter king. The subsequent mis
fortunes of the nation, their captivity and
contact with other religions in Babylonia
(from which the old legends had them
selves been largely though indirectly
borrowed), strengthened this mono
theism into an ardent, passionate, na
tional faith, as it has continued to be
with this remarkable people up to the
present day. Christianity and Mohamme
danism, children of Judaism, have spread
this form of faith over a great part of the
civilised world; and of the three theories
—polytheism, pantheism, and mono
theism—it may be said that only the
two latter survive.
Polytheism was bound to perish first,
for, slow as the advance of science was,
the uniformity of most of the pheno
mena, which had been attributed to so
many separate gods, could not fail to
make an impression; and as. ideas of
morality came slowly and tardily to. be
appropriated as an element of religion,
the cruel rites and scandalous fables
which so generally accompanied poly
theistic religions became shocking to an
awakening conscience.
It is worthy of remark that this ele
ment of morality, which has now gone
so far towards swallowing up the others,
was the latest to appear. Even in the
Jewish conception Jehovah was for a long
time just as often cruel, jealous, and
capricious as just and merciful; and St.
Paul’s doctrine that, because God had the
power to do as he liked, he was warranted
in creating a large portion of the human
race as “ vessels of wrath,” predestined
to eternal punishment, is as revolting to
the modern conscience as any sacrifice to
Beelzebub or Moloch. If we wish to
see how little necessary connection there
is between morality and monotheism, we
have only to look at Mohammedanism,
which, in its extremer forms, may be
called monotheism run mad.
The Wahabite reformer, we are told
by Palgrave, preached that there were
only two deadly sins: paying divine
honours to any creature of Allah’s, and
�8o
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
smoking tobacco; and that murder,
adultery, and such-like trivial matters,
were minor offences which a merciful
Allah would condone. He held, also,
that of the whole inhabitants of the
world all would surely be damned, except
one out of the seventy-two sects of
Mohammedans, who held the true faith
and dwelt in the district of Riad. This
illustrates the insane extremes into which
all human speculations run, if a single
idea—in this case that of awe, reverence,
and abject submission in presence of an
almighty power—is allowed to run its
course without check and obtain undue
preponderance.
Apart from these extreme instances,
we may say that the two religious theories
which have survived to the present day
in the struggle for existence are mono
theism and pantheism. Pantheism is,
in the main, the creed of half the human
race—of the teeming millions of India,
China, Japan, Ceylon, Thibet, Siam,
and Burmah. How deeply it is rooted
in their conceptions was very forcibly
impressed on me in a conversation I
had on board one of the P. and O.
steamers with an English missionary
returning from China. He told me how
he had dined one evening with an intelli
gent Chinese merchant, and after dinner
they walked in the garden discussing
religious subjects, and he tried to impress
on his host the first principles of the
Christian religion. It was a starlight
night, and for sole reply the Chinese
gentleman stretched his hand to the
heavens and said: “ Do you mean to tell
me all that is dead—do you take me for
a fool?” The Chinese “illative sense”
was as absolute in its conclusions for
pantheism as that of Cardinal Newman
for theism. In fact, pantheism, though
not the whole truth, and almost as incon
sistent as polytheism with the real facts
of the universe as disclosed by science,
has a certain poetical truth in it, to
which chords of human emotion vibrate
responsively, and is perhaps not so widely
in error as some of the extreme theories
which treat matter as something base
and brutal. Wordsworth’s noble lines—
“ A sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man ;
A motion, and a spirit that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thoughts,
And rolls through all things ”—
are pure pantheism, and yet we cannot
but feel ourselves to a great extent in
sympathy with them.
So also the well-known lines of a
greater than Wordsworth, Shakespeare,
are pure Buddhism :—
“ The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on ; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”
No one can read these lines without
feeling that the Buddhist conception is
as far as possible from being a trivial or
vulgar one, and that the triviality and
vulgarity are rather with those who
cannot, up to a certain point, under
stand and sympathise with it.
The religions of the East are very
philosophical, and have kept very clearly
in view this fundamental distinction
between the knowable and the unknow
able. In the Century Magazine of July,
1886, there is an interesting account of
a conversation between an American
missionary and the Bozu or chief priest
of the great temple of the Shin Sect of
Buddhists at Kioto in Japan. The priest
was an intelligent and highly educated
gentleman, who spoke English, and was
well versed in the speculations of modern
philosophy. The conversation turned
on theological questions, and when
pressed by the argument for a Divine
Creator, from design shown in the uni
verse implying intelligence, he replied :—
“ No; God cannot make matter. Only
artificial things show design, only things
which can be made. What do you mean
by saying a thing shows design? You
only mean that by trying a man could
make it.”
�81
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
And he proceeded to illustrate it
thus
“You show me a gold ring ; the ring
shows design, but not the gold; gold is
an ultimate element, which can neither
be made nor destroyed. When men can
make a world, then they can prove that
this one shows design, for the only way
they know of design is by what they
make.”
He went on to argue for the immor
tality of the soul, and as a consequence
for its pre-existence and the transmigra
tion of souls, from the conservation of
energy; and concluded his argument
against the creation and government of
the world by a comprehensible, anthro
pomorphic Creator, by adducing the
existence of evil.
“ There is a sickness,” he said, “ called
fever and ague; what do you call the
medicine to cure that ?”
“ Quinine.”
“Yes; now we have not found that
long ; a good God would not have let so
many people suffer if he could have
given them that. A man found it by
chance. The sickness and suffering in
this life are for wrong done in another life.”
We may not accept this unproved
theory of the cause of sickness and
suffering, but it is very interesting to
find that candid and intelligent minds,
brought up in a society and religious
beliefs so widely different from our own,
have arrived practically at the same con
clusions as John Stuart Mill, Herbert
Spencer, and other leaders of advanced
thought in modern Europe, and drawn
almost identically the same line between
that which is knowable and that which
is unknowable by the human mind.
But, however large-minded we may
become in seeing the good in other
forms of creed, we English of the twen
tieth century are not going to turn
either Pantheists or Buddhists, and prac
tically the contest of the present day is
between the supernatural or miraculous,
and the natural or scientific, hypotheses.
According to the former, the opera
tions of the universe are carried on to
a considerable extent by what may be
called secondary inferences of a super
natural being, who with will, intelligence,
and design, like human though vastly
superior, frequently interposes to alter
the course of events and bring about
something which natural law would not
have brought about. The other hypo
thesis cannot be stated better than in
Bishop Temple’s words, that the Great
First Cause created things so perfect
from the first that no such secondary
interferences have ever been necessary;
and everything has been and is evolved
from the primary atoms and energies in
a necessary and invariable succession.
The supernatural and the natural theories
of the universe are thus brought into
direct antagonism.
For the supernatural theory it must be
conceded that it is quite conceivable, as
is proved by the fact that it has been the
almost universal conception of mankind
for ages, and remains so still for the
greater number. It is, as I have said,
the inevitable first conception when men
began to reflect on the phenomena of
the universe, and to reason from effects
to causes. I have always thought that
Hume went too far in condemning
miracles as absolutely incredible a priori.
It it is a question of evidence. A priori,
I can conceive that the true explanation
of the universe might have been natural
law, as the general rule, supplemented
by miracles; just as readily as that it is
law always, and miracle never. The
verdict must be decided by the weight
of evidence. The two theories must be
called, face to face, before the tribunal
of fact, and its decision must be respected.
This is exactly what has been going on
for the last two centuries, and specially
for the last half century ; and the record
of decisions is now a very ample one.
In every single instance law has carried
the day against miracle.
Instance after instance has occurred
in which phenomena which in former
ages were attributed without hesitation
to supernatural agencies have been con
clusively proved to be due to natural
G
�82
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
laws. Take the obvious instance of tered incantations, the new ones quinine 3
thunder. When Horace wrote—which cure the most patients ?
In like manner, demonology and witch
“ Jam satis terris nivis, atque dirre
Grandinis misit Pater, et rubente
craft, with all their train of cruelties and
Dextera sacras jaculatus arces
horrors, once universally believed even
Terruit orbem,”
by men like Justice Hale, have passed
he wrote to a public to whom it was an into oblivion as completely as the Lamiee,
undoubted article of faith that thunder Phorkyads, and other fantastic figures
and lightning, hail and snowstorms, came of the classical Walpurgis-night. Is the
direct from .the Father of the gods in world* the better or the worse for this
the sky. Even to a late period this was triumph of natural law over super
the general faith, and the prayers in our naturalism ?
rubric for rain or fine weather remain as
The triumph has been so complete in
a survival of the belief that these things, innumerable instances, without a single
when unusual or in excess, are super one to the contrary, that belief in the
natural manifestations. But Benjamin permanence and universality of natural
Franklin said : “ No, there is nothing law has become almost an instinct in all
supernatural about lightning. I will educated minds, and even those who
bring it down from the clouds and cling to old beliefs must admit that the
manufacture it by turning a wheel.” most cogent and irresistible evidence is
Appeal being made to fact, the verdict requisite to establish the fact of a real
is that Franklin was right, and that supernatural inference. It may be taken
lightning-conductors protect ships and as an axiom that, wherever a natural
houses better than prayers or incanta explanation is possible, a miraculous one
tions. Again, when Galileo and the is impossible.
Church joined issue as to whether the
Now, this is just the point on which,
earth was round or flat, inspiration and as knowledge has increased, the evidence
authority were cited in vain for the for miracles has become weaker, almost
received theoryj fact said it was round, in the exact ratio in which the necessity
and it was proved to be so by men for evidence has become stronger.
sailing round it. The law of gravity was • Take, for instance, the following case
considered a very dangerous heresy, and recorded by Dr. Braid, of Glasgow. Miss
for a long time pious divines held out R. had suffered from ophthalmia and
against its conclusions, and contended was totally blind. She could not discern
that it was no better than atheism to a single letter of the title-page of a book
doubt that comets were signs of God’s placed close to her, though some of the
anger sent to warn a sinful world. But letters were a quarter of an inch long.
Halley calculated the time of his comet’s Dr. Braid placed the patient in a condi
return according to the laws of gravity, tion of hypnotism, and directed the
and, appeal being made to fact, the comet nervous force, or sustained attention of
returned true to time.
the mind, to the eyes by wafting over
This has occurred so often that few them. After a first sitting of about ten
are left who doubt the universal preva minutes she was able to read a great
lence of law in the material universe, part of the title-page, and after four more
where former generations saw miracles at sittings she was able to read the smallestevery turn. Nor is the defeat of miracle sized print in a newspaper, and was quite
less conspicuous in the spiritual world. cured for the rest of her life. In another
Where former ages and rude races saw, case, that of Mrs. S., blindness of the
and still see, possession by evil spirits, left eye had occurred owing to an attack
modern doctors see fevers, epilepsies, or of rheumatic fever, the structure of the
insanity. Once more appeal being made eye, both external and internal, being
to fact, the old medicine-men adminis considerably injured, and more than
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
half the cornea covered by an opaque
film. After a few sittings the cornea
became transparent, and the patient was
cured.
In both these cases the blind were
made to see by processes which were
purely mechanical, for hypnotism was
induced by the simple means of making
the patient strain her attention on some
fixed idea or object, commonly on a
black wafer stuck on a white wall, and
the stimulation of the optic nerve to
greater activity did the rest. And if the
blind could be made to see, a fortiori
the deaf were made to hear, and the
lame and halt to walk, by the same
mechanical process. Here there is an
explanation of nine-tenths of all recorded
miracles by purely natural causes.
Again, take the well-known case of the
Berlin bookseller, Nicolai, who, having
fallen into ill-health, for a whole year
saw, when awake, visions so real and
palpable that he may be said to have
lived in the company of disembodied
spirits, undistinguishable from actual men
and women. This is a common pheno
menon in vivid dreams, but the Berlin
case takes us a step farther, and shows
us howsubjective impressions mayassume
the form of objective realities, even in the
case of a man wide awake, of a sceptical
turn of mind, and in full possession of
his reasoning faculties. Why, then, should
we be driven to the alternative of miracle
or imposture to account for similar
dreams or visions being taken for objec
tive realities by enthusiastic minds, living
in an atmosphere of religious excitement,
in an uncritical age, when supernatural
occurrences were considered to be
matters of course? And history is full
of instances which show how any super
natural germ, planted in such a medium,
propagates itself and extends to millions,
almost as rapidly as the bacillus germ
does in an epidemic of small-pox. St.
Vitus’s dance, or the dancing mania, ran
the round of Europe like the potato
disease, and even yet survives in the
hysterical affections of the sect of Shakers.
The gift of tongues spread like wildfire
83
through Irving’s congregation, and only
died out because it had fallen on the
uncongenial soil of the nineteenth cen
tury ; even the story of the tail of the
lion over the gateway of the old Northum
berland House being seen by many
passers-by to wag because one had
asserted it, illustrates the contagiousness
of nervous sympathy, and the tricks which
“ strong imagination ” can play with the
senses.
Another great blow has been dealt
against the miraculous theory by what
can only be called the singular want of
intelligence displayed in the exercise of
miraculous power as commonly recorded.
The raison d'etre, or effect desired to be
produced by miracles, is to convert man
kind from sin, or to attest a divine
mission by convincing proofs. Even
ordinary human intelligence—and how
much more so that of a superior Being—
must see that to attain this end the means
must be to make the proof convincing.
There is no reason in itself why it should
not be so. The fact that a man who
was alive and signed a will is now dead
is attested, as regards the latter proposi
tion, by a proper medical certificate, and
as regards the former by two credible
witnesses, who are prepared to come into
court, give their names and addresses,
depose on oath to the signature, and
stand cross-examination. If this testi
mony is required to establish a fact so
antecedently probable as that one parti
cular man has undergone the common
fate of millions of millions of other men
—that is to say, that he has died after
being alive—how much more must it be
requisite to establish the fact so antece
dently improbable as that one man
among those many millions, after having
died, came back to life. And yet, where
is the recorded miracle for which' even
this minimum, amount of testimony is
forthcoming?
Why are miracles so
constantly performed in holes and
corners, in obscure localities, among
little knots of ignorant and enthusiastic
adherents, attested by the vaguest hear| say evidence of unknown or incompetent
�84
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
witnesses, and apparently under circum so by working a miracle, he had refused,
stances inevitably calculated to defeat he would from his point of view have
their object and engender doubts in the been guilty of a great sin—that of pre
minds of reasonable and conscientious
venting the coming of the kingdom of
men. Take, for instance, the miracles heaven.
now said to be wrought at Lourdes. The
Again, who were the Pharisees ? No
object must be taken to be to convert doubt there were formalists and hypo
infidel France to the Catholic faith. But crites among them, but the position of
obviously this object would be far better the sect in the Jewish nation was almost
attained by a single undoubted miracle exactly similar to that of the English
wrought at Paris before a commission Puritans in the reign of Charles. They
headed by a man like Pasteur, than by were the embodiment of the patriotic
any number of miracles scarcely, if at all, and religious spirit of the race, the sons
distinguishable from those of Dr. Braid, of the heroic fathers who fought under
alleged to occur at an obscure village in Judas Maccabeus against Antiochus, the
the presence.of peasants and pilgrims. fathers of the equally heroic sons who
Or, take a higher instance, that of the made the last desperate stand against the
demand made by the Pharisees to Jesus legions of Titus. . It was their duty, when
for a sign to attest his Messiahship. Con a claim to Messiahship was advanced,
sider the. circumstances of the case, and before departing from the traditions of
see if it is at all possible that, if he had their ancestors, to require evidence. The
possessed the power of working miracles, universally expected evidence of a tem
he should have replied, “ Why doth this poral. deliverer being wanting, there
generation seek after a sign? verily I say remained only the evidence of miracles,
unto you, there shall no sign be given which, moreover, were assigned as the
unto this generation” (St. Mark ix. 12). test of a Messiah by all their prophets.
In the first place, the statement throws To refuse them a sign, if a sign were
discredit upon all the miracles said to possible, was to do injustice to many
have been wrought, by the positive and sincere and conscientious men. Nay,
explicit declaration that none should be more, it was an act of cruelty if leaving
wrought. But beyond this, the very them in their old faith entailed eternal
essence of the mission of Jesus was con punishment. The same thing applies to
tained in the words, “ Repent ye, for the all records of miracles. They are never
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He had wrought under circumstances where they
a firm conviction that the kingdom of would be the most effective means for
heaven, or a millennium of peace and attaining proposed ends. They are never
goodwill, was close at hand, and its wrought under circumstances which leave
advent only retarded by the sinfulness them clear of the suspicion of being sub
and want of faith of his chosen people. jective illusions of misinterpretations of
He thought it his bounden duty to do effects due to natural causes. They
all he could to remove the obstacle and never convince any but those who are
expedite the coming of the kingdom. more than half convinced already.
With this conviction, though fully seeing
It would be easy to multiply instances
the risk and counting the cost, when he showing the inadequacy of the evidence
found- that he was making no decided adduced to establish such an exceptional
headway by preaching in a remote pro and extraordinary fact as the occurrence
vince, he determined to go to Jerusalem of a real miracle. But it is unnecessary
and make there one great effort to to do so, as all thinking minds have
accomplish his object. Can it be doubted come, or are fast coming, to the conclu
that he would use every means in his sion of Dr. Temple, that “all the count
power to carry his mission to a successful less varieties of the universe were pro
conclusion ? If, having the power to do | vided for by one original impress, and
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
not by special acts of creation modifying
what had previously been made.”
It is only when we look behind the
phenomena of the universe at this Great
First Cause that I see anything to object
to in the definition of Dr. Temple, and
of Christian philosophers generally. They
assume it to be a personal Deity, who is
to a great extent known or knowable, and
therefore must have attributes conform
able to human perceptions which are the
basis of all human knowledge. In other
words, however much we may purify and
enlarge these attributes, He must be
essentially an anthropomorphic God or
magnified man. To this theory there
seems to me to be this fatal objection,
that it gives no account of the origin of
evil, or rather that it makes the Divine
Creator directly responsible for it. . The
existence of evil in the world is as
palpable a fact as the existence of good.
There are many things which to our
human perceptions appear to be base,
cruel, foul, and ugly, just as clearly as
other things appear to be noble, merciful,
pure, and beautiful. Whence come they ?
If the existence of good proves a good
Creator, how can we escape the inference
that the existence of evil proves an evil
one ? This is never so forcibly impressed
on me as when I read the arguments of
those who insist most strongly on the
conception of a one, anthropomorphic
God. When Carlyle says, “All that is
good, generous, wise, right—whatever I
deliberately and for ever love in others
and myself—who or what could by any
possibility have given it to me but One
who first had it to give? This is not
logic, but axiom.” I cannot but picture
to myself the sledge-hammer force with
which, if he had approached the question
without prepossessions, he would have
come down on the cant, the insincerity,
the treason to the eternal veracities,
which refused to look facts in the face,
and apply the same reasoning to the evil.
Or if Arnold defines the Deity as the
“ Something not ourselves which makes
for righteousness,” how of the Some
thing not ourselves which makes for
85
unrighteousness?
The only escape I
can find from this dilemma is to accept
existing facts and not evade them. It' is
a fact that polarity is the law of existence.
Why we know not, any more than we
know the real essence and origin of the
atoms and energies which are our other
ultimate facts. But we accept atoms and
energies, and accept the law of gravity and
other laws; why not accept also the law of
polarity, and admit that it is part of the
“original impress”: one of the funda
mental conditions under which, the
evolution of Creation from its ultimate
elements is necessitated to proceed.
This the human mind can understand;
beyond it is the great unknown or un
knowable, in presence of which we can
only feel emotions of reverence and of
awe, and “ faintly trust the larger hope ”
that duality may somehow ultimately be
merged in unity, evil in good, and “ every
winter turn to spring.”
As nations advanced in civilisation,
there has always been a tendency among
the higher and purer minds to relegate
the Great First Cause further and further
back into the unknown, and to divest it
of anthropomorphic attributes. When
Socrates said, “that divinely revealed
wisdom of what you speak, I deny not,
inasmuch as I do not know it; I can
only understand human reason,” he spoke
the identical language of Darwin, Spencer,
Huxley, and those leaders of modern
thought whom theologians call agnostics.
Even in religions based on the idea of a
single anthropomorphic Deity the same
tendency often appears among the highest
thinkers. Thus Emmanuel Deutsch, in
his learned work on the Talmud, tells us :
“ Its first chapter treats of the Deity as
conceived by Jewish philosophy. The
existence of God is, of course, pre
supposed. But what of his attributes ?
Has he any ? Scripture literally taken
seems to affirm this. Yet taken in a
higher sense, as understood by the Alex
andrines, the Talmud, and the Targum,
it denies it.”
The great Jewish doctors, Ibn Ezra,
Jehuda Hilmi, and Maimonides, take
�86
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
this view of a divine origin shrouded in
ineffable mystery. Maimonides says: “If
you give attributes to a thing, you define
this thing, and defining a thing means to
bring it under some head, to compare it
with something like it. God is sole of
his kind. Determine him, circumscribe
him, and you bring him down to the
modes and categories of created things.”
Even St. Paul says : “ O the depths of
God. How unsearchable are his judg
ments, and how inscrutable his ways”;
and the Creed of our own Church, in
the midst of a string of definitions all
implying that God is comprehensible, has
the words, “the Father incomprehen
sible.”
It is evident that the reasons why
these anticipations of the prevailing ten
dency of modern thought only appeared
by glimpses, and among a very limited
number of philosophic minds, arose from
the fact that the miraculous theory of the
universe everywhere prevailed. Every
unusual occurrence was supposed to be
owing to the direct supernatural interfer
ence of a Being acting in the main with
human attributes, and therefore to be a
direct refutation of the theory which
denied the possibility of defining His
attributes, and relegated Him to the dim
distance of an incomprehensible Creator.
With the utter breakdown of the miracu
lous theory, and the certainty that all the
countless varieties of the universe arise,
not from special interferences, but from
one original impress, this theory of a
reverent and devout agnosticism becomes
impregnable and holds the field against
all rivals. It, and it alone, is consistent
with the facts of science, the deductions
of reason, the axioms of morality, while
at the same time it denies nothing, and
leaves an ample background on which to
paint the visions of faith, and to reflect
back to us spectral images of our hopes
and fears, our longings and aspirations.
Some seek for a solution of the mysteiy, and try to reconcile the existence of
evil with that of an almighty and benefi
cent Creator, by assuming that in the
long run everything will come right.
Evolution, they say, has led constantly
to higher and better things, and when
carried far enough will lead to a state of
society in which wars will cease, evil
passions die out, and universal love and
charity _ prevail—in other words, to a
millennium.
Even if this were true, what of the un
told millions of the human race who have
perished in their sins while evolution was
slowly working out this tardy millennium?
Are they the chair a canons, whom a
Napoleon-like Deity sacrifices with
cynical indifference, in the calculated
moves of the game of Creation ? Is this
their idea of an all-wise and all-merciful
Father who is in heaven ?
And, again, is it true that evolution
works constantly for good and promises
to bring about such a millennium ? It
is doubtless true that evolution means
progress, and the ever-increasing develop
ment of the more and more complex and
differentiated from the simple and uni
form. But is this all for good, or all for
happiness; and is not evolution, like
everything else, subject to the primary
and all-pervading law of polarity ? We
have only to ask the question to answer
it. In the case of the individual, which
is the epitome of the history of the
species, is development from the engag
ing innocence of childhood always in the
direction of goodness and happiness ?
So far is this from being the case that,
as individuals and societies advance, and
become higher and more complex in the
scale of organisation, the law of polarity
asserts itself with ever-increasing force,
and contrasts become sharper. The
good become better, the bad worse ; and
as we become less
“Like the beasts with lower pleasures,
Like the beasts with lower pains,”
if our happiness becomes more intense,
so does our misery become more intoler
able. I refer not merely to physical
conditions, though here the contrast is
most apparent. An intelligent traveller
who recently circled the world, survey
ing mankind with a keen and impartial
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
eye “ from China to Peru,” says, as the
result of his experience : “ The traveller
will not see, in all his wanderings, so
much abject repulsive misery among
human beings in the most heathen lands
as that which startles him in his civilised
Christian home, for nowhere are the
extremes of wealth and poverty so pain
fully presented.” This is perfectly true;
but it would be a rash conclusion to
infer that civilised and Christian coun
tries are worse than heathen lands, or
that those who march in the van of pro
gress, and who succeed in the struggle
for life, have a larger dose of original sin
than the laggards and those who fail.
Accumulations of population and
accumulations of capital are alike causes
and effects of progress in an industrial
age. But you can no more have a north
without a south pole than you can have
this progress without its counterpart of
suffering. When an educated gentleman
was, like the good vicar,
“ Passing rich with forty pounds a year,”
how many struggles and how many
heart-aches were avoided. When “ merry
England” dwelt in rural hamlets and
villages, the “bitter cry” of East Lon
don could scarcely have been written.
Turn it as you like, increase of popula
tion means increase of poverty. Say
that only five per cent, fail in the battle
of life, from their own or inherited
faults—from bad luck, ill-health, weak
ness of mind, adverse surroundings—five
per cent, on thirty millions is a larger
figure than five per cent, on ten millions.
And the lot of those who fail is aggra
vated by the success of those who
succeed. The scale of living rises, and
the cost of living increases, while compe
tition becomes keener. Increase of
population in a limited area means in
creased difficulty of finding employment j
and the complex relations of interna
tional commerce send panics and crises
vibrating throughout the world, which
throw millions out of work, or reduce
them to starvation wages. In simple
forms of society everyone accepts the
87
condition in which he finds himself as a
matter of course, while in a more com
plex civilisation the fiend Envy steps in,
and teaches the baser natures who are
failures to regard every success as an
insult and every successful man as an
enemy. Hence Labour rises in mad
revolt against Capital; Socialists attack
society with dynamite; and Utopian
theorists preach a millennium to be
attained by abolishing private property
and individual liberty.
If we turn to the moral aspects of the
question, it is still more clear that evolu
tion does not tend solely to the side of
virtue. There is doubtless less ferocious
savagery, less rude and unconscious, or
half-conscious crime, in civilised societies,
but there is far more deliberate and
diabolical wickedness. The very tempta
tions and opportunities which, if resisted,
lead to higher virtues, if succumbed to,
lead to greater vice. Even the intellec
tual advance, if perverted, becomes the
instrument of greater crimes. A chemist
discovers nitro-glycerine, and dynamite
becomes a resource of civilisation. There
is a saying that there is “no blackguard
so bad as a Scotch blackguard,” which,
as a patriotic Scotchman, I take to be a
tribute to the generally high intellectual
and moral character of my countrymen.
A powerful polarity is powerful, as the
case may be, either for good or evil.
Why, then, should we believe that evo
lution, which, carried thus far, has de
veloped more strongly the contrast
between good and evil, will, if carried a
little farther, extinguish it by annihilating
the evil ?
In fact, the good and evil resulting
from the higher evolution of society are
so evenly balanced that it depends very
much on place, time, and temperament
whether we are optimists or pessimists.
If my liver acts properly, I am an opti
mist ; if it is out of order, a pessimist.
Personally, I incline to optimism—that
is, I think that this world, if not exactly
“ the best of all possible worlds,” is yet
on the whole a very tolerable world, and
that life to the majority, and on the
�88
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
average, is worth living. I think also
that progress is certainly towards higher,
and very probably towards happier, con
ditions. It seems to me that in the most
advanced English-speaking communities
the condition of at least one half—viz.,
the female half—of the population is
distinctly better, and that the working
class, who form the majority of the male
half, though many are worse off than
formerly, are, on the whole, better fed,
better clothed, better educated, and
better behaved.
This, however, is perhaps very much a
matter of temperament. Greater minds
than mine have seen things differently
and inclined to pessimism. Buddhism,
and almost all Oriental religions and
philosophies, are based upon it, and look
to Nirvana or annihilation of personal
identity as the supreme bliss. Pauline
Christianity assumes that all mankind,
except a few chosen vessels, are so hope
lessly bad as to be predestined to eternal
damnation. And even more remarkable,
Shakespeare, the universal genius, who,
one would say, had as happy a tempera
ment and led as successful a life as any
man, had his moods of despondency in
which he could say :—
“When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone bemoan my outcast state ;
Wearying deaf heaven with my fruitless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate.”
Or declare with Hamlet that no one
would bear the ills of life if
“ He himself could his quietus make
With a bare bodkin.”
With instances like these, and the dis
gust of life manifested in so many
modern societies by the increase of
suicides, and the spread of pessimistic
theories like those of Schopenhauer and
Hartmann, who can deny that the great
magnet of modern civilisation has a
south as well as a north pole, and that
progress is not all towards perfection ?
The attempts of theologians to recon
cile the existence of evil with the good
ness of an almighty Creator, by relegating
the adjustment to a future life, only
make the fact of this fundamental polarity
more apparent, for their conceptions of
a heaven and hell obviously do not
reconcile, but only intensify, the opposite
polarities. The good are better, the
bad worse, the happy happier, and the
wretched more miserable, in all these
attempts to define the undefinable and
to reconcile divine justice with divine
mercy. All that remains really clear to
each individual is that by his efforts in
this life he can do something to keep the
balance of polarities somewhat more on
the side of good, both in his own indi
vidual existence and in that of the aggre
gate of units, of which he is one, which
is called society or humanity.
The great advantage of this form of
religious hypothesis, which for want of a
better name I call Zoroastrianism, is
that, in the first place, it gets rid of the
antagonism between religion and science,
for there is no possible discovery of
science which is irreconcilable with the
fact that there is a necessary and inevit
able polarity of good and evil, and in
the background a great unknown, which
may be regarded with those feelings and
aspirations which are inseparable from
human nature. And, secondly, there is
the still greater advantage that we can
devote ourselves with a whole heart and
sincere mind to the worship of the good
principle, without paltering with our
moral nature by professing to love and
adore a Being who is the author of all
the evil and misery in the world as well
as of the good. If it were really true
that there were such a Being as theolo
gians describe, who created the immense
majority of the human race vessels of
wrath doomed to eternal punishment,
either from pure caprice or to avenge
the slight offered to him by the disobe
dience of a remote ancestor, what would
be the attitude of every healthy human
soul towards such a Being? Rather
that of Prometheus or Satan than of
Gabriel or Michael; of heroic defiance
than of abject submission. We may
gloss this over in words, but the fact
remains, and it is difficult to over-
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
estimate the amount of evil which has
resulted in the world from this confusion
of moral sentiments, which has made
good men do devil’s work in the belief
that it had Divine sanction.
The horrors of demonology and witch
craft had their origin in texts of the Old
Testament; religious wars and persecu
tions arose out of the fundamental error
that intellectual acceptance of' doubtful
dogmas was the one thing necessary for
salvation ; and ruthless cruelty was justi
fied by an appeal to God’s anger with
Saul for refusing to hew in pieces the
captive Amal ekites.
A follower of
Zoroaster would see at once that these
were works of Ahriman and not of
Ormuzd, and that in taking part in them
he was deserting the standard under
which he had enlisted, and doing deeds
of darkness while pretending to serve the
Prince of Light. This idea of being a
soldier enlisted in the army of light
seems to me to afford one of the strongest
practical inducements to hate what is
evil and cleave to what is good. A bad
deed or foul thought is felt to be not
only wrong, but dishonourable : a disloyal
going over to the enemy and abandon
ment of the chief under whom we had
enlisted, and of the comrades with whom
we had served. This is a very strong
motive, and even in the humble ranks
of the Salvation Army we can see how
powerfully it operates to make men true
to their banner.
Indeed, a great deal of what is best in
genuine Christianity seems to me to
resolve itself very much into the worship
of Jesus as the Ormuzd or personifica
tion of the good principle, and determina
tion to try to follow his example and do
his work. It happens to me to receive
a good many circulars from the devoted
men and women who are doing so much
charitable work to assist the poor and
fallen, and I observe that the appeals are
almost constantly made in the name of
Jesus. When the Salvation Army makes
an appeal once a year to its members
for funds to prosecute their campaign,
it is touching to read the replies and
____________ 89
see men parting with an overcoat . or
giving up their beer, and women going
without a new bonnet or cup of tea, to
contribute their mite. But always for
the “ love of Jesus,” for the “ Saviour’s
sake,” as an offering to the “dear
Redeemer.”
Theological Christianity
says that the one thing needful is to
believe in the Catholic Faith as defined
by the Athanasian Creed, without which
we shall “without doubt perish ever
lastingly.”
Practical Christianity has
completely dropped the Holy Ghost as
a sort of fifth wheel to the coach, and
relegated the Father into ever vaguer and
greater distance; while it has fastened
more and more on the figure of Jesus of
Nazareth as the practical living embodi
ment of the good principle of the uni
verse. In a word, Christianity, as it has
become more reasonable, more charitable,
more pure, and more elevated, has ap
proximated more and more to Zoroas
trianism ; and for practical purposes
modern Christians are, to a great extent,
without knowing it, worshippers of
Ormuzd, with Christ for their Ormuzd.
To this I see no sort of objection.
The tendency to personify abstract
principles in something which is warmer,
dearer, nearer to ourselves, is ineradic
able in human nature; and especially
among the great masses of mankind who
cannot rise to the height of philosophical
speculations. It is impossible in . the
present age to invent new personifications,
or to revive old ones. Jesus has the
immense advantage of being in posses
sion of the field, with all the accumulated
love and reverence of nineteen centuries
of followers. 'It would be difficult to
invent a better ideal or a more perfect
example. No doubt the ideal, like all
human conceptions, is not absolutely
perfect; it is subject to the law of
polarity, and its excellences, if pushed to
the “falsehood of extremes,” in many
cases become faults. It would not do
in practice if smitten on one cheek to
turn the other, or to take no thought for
the morrow and live like the sparrows.
The opposition between the flesh and
�90
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
the spirit is also stated so absolutely
that it is apt to lead to a barren and
ignoble asceticism. But those are ele
ments which, practically, are not likely
to be pushed to excess, and which serve
rather to mitigate the tendencies of
modern civilisation to an undue pre
ponderance of the opposite polarities of
selfishness, worldliness, and sensuality.
Courage, hardihood, self-reliance, fore
sight, a love of progress, and a desire to
attain independence, will always remain
prominent virtues, especially of the
stronger races, and the gentler teachings
of Christianity will long be wanted as an
influence to soften, to elevate, and to
purify. By all means, therefore, let
Christians remain Christians, and see in
Christ their Ormuzd, or personification
of the good principle. Only let them
remember that that there are two sides
to every question, and cease to entertain
hard and bitter thoughts towards those
who follow the truth after a different
fashion. Let them delight rather to dis
cover unity in the spirit than differences
in the letter, and, instead of anathematis
ing with Athanasius those who dissent
by one hair’s breadth from the Catholic
faith, strive with St. Paul after that
charity which “ suffereth long and is
kind : beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.”
This will be easier if they recollect
that love and reverence for Jesus, as the
personification of the good principle, is
in no way connected with the super
natural dogmas and legends which have
come down from superstitious ages, and
which are seen every day, more and more
clearly, to stand in direct contradiction
to the real facts and real laws of the
universe. He is the bright example of
the highest ideal of human virtue, not on
account of miracles, but in spite of them ;
not because he was a transcendental
abstraction with attributes altogether
outside of human experience or concep
tion, but because he was a man whom
other men can love and other men can
strive to imitate. The dogmas and
miracles may quietly fade out of sight, as
so many articles of the Athanasian Creed
have already done, like mists before the
rising rays of larger knowledge and purer
morality, and yet the essence of Chris
tianity will remain, as a worship of the
good and beautiful, personified in the
brightest examplewhich has beenafforded
—that of Jesus, the son of the carpenter
of Nazareth.
Chapter XII.
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
Christianity based on morals—Origin of morality
—Traced in Judaism—Originates in evolution
—Instance of murder—Freedom of will—Will
suspended in certain states of brain—Hyp
notism—Mechanical theory—Pre-established
harmony—Human and animal conscience—
Analysis of will—Explained by polarity—
Practical conclusion.
religions ” of the world. The creeds of
ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia, as
well as Buddhism and Confucianism,
contain many excellent moral precepts;
and the injunction to “do unto others
as you would be done by,” and to “ love
your neighbour as yourself,” are to be
found long before the Sermon on the
Christianity occupies a prominent Mount. Recent research into the literary
place among what are called the “ ethical remains of Egypt and Babylon give us
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
9i
an increasingly high estimate of their parallels of latitude or degrees of longi
moral teaching. In the same way Chris tude ; and they invent tribal gods, who
tianity became to the majority of its are simply great chiefs, bound by no
adherents a rule of conduct. and an laws, but granting favours when appeased
incentive, strengthened by divine sanc and inflicting injuries when angry. By
tion, to lead pure and upright lives. slow degrees, as civilisation advances,
This is the sense in which it has always moral ideas are evolved, and the more
been understood by the majority of enlightened minds begin to attribute
Christians, and its corruptions have come moral attributes to the deities. Earnest
much more from above than from below men, prophets, and reformers take up
—from theologians, priests, and politi these ideas and preach them to the world,
cians, rather than from the instincts of and, if circumstances are favourable and
the millions; and this it is which enables the soil prepared, they take root . and
it to retain such a wonderful vitality even become popular convictions, surviving
in modern times, when faith in dogmas in the struggle for life, and becoming
and miracles has been so greatly stronger from generation to generation.
This evolution of moral ideas is most
weakened. In order to appreciate the
clearly traced in the religious history of
solidity of this basis, it is necessary to
understand the origin of morals, and to the Jews, because in their case a more
see that the fundamental precepts of complete religious literature has reached
moral law are not mere chance inven us. In their earlier conceptions, when
tions of a few exceptional minds, or the they had passed the stage of polytheism
teachings of doubtful revelations, but are and human sacrifices, Jehovah is repre
the necessary growth and products of sented with all the traits of a jealous and
human nature, in the course of the capricious Oriental sultan. The one
evolution of society from rude beginnings virtue in his eyes is implicit obedience;
to a high civilisation. This gives them the one unpardonable crime, anything
a certainty and sanction which could be that looks like disrespect. David is the
derived from no other source, and makes man after God’s own heart, though he
them what in fact they have become— commits crimes of the foulest descrip
almost primary instincts of the natural tion, and treats as nullities the moral
and normal mind in civilised communi commandments against adultery and
ties. I proceed, therefore, to endeavour murder. But when he takes a census of
to trace shortly the process by which his people, Jehovah is offended, and,
moral laws have originated and grown up with a total disregard of justice, visits
to their present certainty and cogency in his anger, not on the offender, but on
the innocent people whom he decimates
the course of evolution.
As I have already said, the element by a pestilence. In like manner, Abra
of morality is one of the latest to be ham is favoured because he is ready to
developed in religious conceptions. The obey the inhuman command to sacrifice
first impressions of savage races reflect his son ; while Saul loses Jehovah’s
the feelings of vague superstitious terror favour because he hesitates to massacre
with which they regard unknown pheno his captives in. cold blood. The first
mena and powers. They are afraid of ideas of a higher moral sense appear
ghosts and afraid of thunder long before with the prophets in the troubled times
they rise to a belief in a future state of the later kings—-when poor little
of rewards and punishments, or to the Palestine was being ground between the
notion of an almighty Being acting upper millstone of Assyria and the nether
by natural laws. In a higher state of one of Egypt. Sufferings and persecu
development they personify natural tions, anxieties and tribulations, wrought
powers in gods, who have no more idea a ferment in the Jewish mind from which
of morality than if they were so many new ideas were generated. Sacrifices
�92
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
had been duly offered, and yet the thee. This is the whole Law, the rest is
enemies of Jehovah waxed and his chosen mere commentary.” And again : “ Do
people waned. It must be that he was , not judge thy neighbour until thou hast
offended with them because he required stood in his place.”
something better than the blood of bulls
The Talmud anticipates in a wonder
—justice and mercy. So taught the ful degree, not only the moral precepts of
popular preachers of the day—men like the Gospel, but to a great extent its
Isaiah and Amos—and by degrees their phraseology and technical terms. “Re
words found acceptance. It was not, demption,” “grace,” “faith,” “salvation,”
however, until the Captivity that these “ Son of man,” “ Son of God,” “ king
ideas of morality were wrought into the dom of heaven,” were all, as Deutsch
Jewish nation so as to become, so to shows, not invented by Christianity, but
speak, flesh of their flesh and blood of were household words of contemporary
their blood, as they have remained ever Judaism. In one respect only Chris
since. Whether it was contact with the tianity shows a higher evolution of
more advanced moral ideas of religions morality than Judaism—viz., its univer
like those of ancient Babylon, or of sality. Pure Judaism hardly rises above
Buddha and Zoroaster, or through their the idea of “neighbour,” or those who
sufferings from the cruelty and injustice were of the same race or common faith ;
of their conquerors, the Captivity cer while Christianity, as enlarged by St.
tainly made them a new nation, attached, Paul, embraces all mankind, and may
ardently to morality and monotheism— truly say : “Humani nihil a me alienum
thus affecting in a few years, and by puto.”
purely human agencies, what, according
The idea that morality and religion are
to received beliefs, centuries of miracu products of a slowly developing evolution
lous dispensation had failed to accom is denounced by many as degrading and
plish. How speedily and how effectually materialistic. In many the instinct of
the work was done appears from that the “ good ” is so strong that it seems to
most interesting description of the them sacrilege to attempt to explain it.
domestic life of a middle-class Jew of They insist that it is either a universal
Nineveh, the Book of Tobit—though the instinct implanted from the first in all
book may belong to a much later date. mankind, or else that it has been so im
The simple piety and homely household planted by a divine revelation. They
virtues are almost identically the same forget that, to use the vigorous phrase
as those of many a Jewish family living ology of Carlyle, “It matters not whether
to-day in London or Frankfort. From you call a thing pan-theism or pot-theism;
that time forward Jewish morality main what really concerns us is to know
tains a high level, and in the age imme whether it is true." Now, it admits of
diately preceding Christianity it had no question that, whether we like it or
attained great purity and spirituality in not, the evolutionist theory of morality
the school of the early doctors of the is the true one. Take an extreme in
Talmud, and of the Jewish colony of stance, that of murder. We feel an
Alexandria. The Sermon on the Mount, instinctive horror at the idea, and even a
beautiful as it is, is but an admirable brutal ruffian like Bill Sikes becomes an
resume of maxims which are to be found accursed thing to himself and his com
in the works of Philo and other Jewish panions when he has transgressed the
teachers, and which were current in the commandment, “ Thou shalt do no
synagogues of the day. Hillel, who was murder.” But is it so everywhere, and
president of the Sanhedrin when Christ was it so always? By no means; the
was born, on being asked what was the Fiji islander kills and eats a stranger or
law, replied : “Do not unto another what enemy without scruple; the Red Indian
thou wouldst not have another do unto and Dyak are not accounted men until
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
they have murdered some one and
brought home his scalp or his head as a
trophy. Even at a late period among
ourselves murder was considered to be
rather a civil injury, to be met by com
pensation, than a crime; and a regular
tariff was established of the amount to
be paid according as the victim was a
slave or a freeman.
The origin and progress of the idea
that murder is a crime can almost be
traced step by step. The wife of a rude
savage does something which offends
him; a violent perception of anger
flashes from the visual organ to the per
ceptive area of the brain, and a reflex
action flashes from it along the motor
nerve to the muscles of the arm. He
strikes and kills her, almost as uncon
sciously and instinctively as he walks or
breathes. But other perceptions follow
on the act. He finds next day that he
has no one to cook his food; the image
of her dying face photographed on his
brain is an unpleasant one ; and thus by
degrees a series of secondary perceptions
get attached to the primary one of
striking when he feels angry. If he gets
another wife who again provokes him,
the primary perception calls up the
secondary ones, and the nerve-centres of
his brain, instead of being solicited only
in one direction, are acted on in opposite
ways by conflicting impressions. He
hesitates, and, as the primary impulse of
passion is probably the more evanescent,
the restraining impulses prevail, and
every time they prevail they acquire
more strength. Gradually they extend
to a conviction that it is both inconve
nient and disagreeable to kill any one
with whom he is closely related either by
family or tribal ties, and that, in a word,
murder does not pay, and is wrong,
unless practised on an enemy. This
idea accumulates by heredity, and evi
dently those tribes or races in whom it
is strongest will have an advantage in the
struggle for life and be most likely to
survive.
From this point the idea may be
traced historically, deepening and widen
93
ing from generation to generation as
civilisation advances, until in the higher
races it assumes the form of an instinc
tive abhorrence of murder in the abstract,
as we find it at the present day.
It is a mistake to suppose that the
foundations of morality are in any way
weakened by thus tracing them up to
their first origins. On the contrary, if
we consider the matter rightly, they are
placed on a much more solid and un
assailable basis. If we say that moral
laws depend on a universal instinct im
planted in all mankind, faith in them is
shaken whenever we read in history, or
hear from the report of travellers, of
whole nations, constituting from first to
last the immense majority of the human
race, who had none of those ideas which
we now consider fundamental. If, again,
we base them on divine precepts miracu
lously conveyed, every discovery of
science and development of thought
which weakens faith in miracles impairs
the basis of morals. And on this theory
hopeless contradictions arise within the
sphere of those very moral laws which we
seek to establish, as in reconciling the
justice and mercy of the Creator in
revealing this inspired code only to
limited portions of the human race, and
under conditions which leave large scope
for legitimate doubt, and which, in point
of fact, failed to ensure recognition for its
moral precepts among his chosen people
for a long period after its promulgation.
But on the scientific theory of the
evolution of morality by natural laws it
stands on an impregnable footing. No
one can deny that, as a matter of fact,
such instincts do prevail, and have
become part of the nature of all the
best men and best races, and that each
successive generation tends to fix them
more firmly. Mathematical laws are not
the less certain because they can be
traced back to counting on the fingers,
and moral laws will continue to have a
certainty and cogency scarcely inferior
to the axioms of mathematics, although
we can trace them back to origins as
rude as the attempts of the Australian
�94
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
savage to extend his perceptions of
number beyond “ one, two, and a great
many.”
The real difficulty is not in tracing the
origin of these instincts of morality, but
in that fundamental difficulty which
underlies all theories of reconciling the
consciousness of free-will with the material
attributes with which it is indissolubly
associated. Without freedom of will
there can be no conscience, no right or
wrong in acting in accordance or other
wise with the instincts of moral law,
however those instincts may have been
derived. Now, it is certain that the will,
like life, memory, consciousness, and
other mental functions, is, so far as
human knowledge extends, indissolubly
connected with matter and natural laws,
in the form of certain motions of the
cells which form the grey substance of
the nerves and of the nervous ganglia of
which the cortex of the brain is the
most considerable. This is conclusively
proved by experiment. We know that,
by removing certain portions of the brain
of a dog or of a pigeon, we can destroy
the power of motion while preserving
the will, and by removing certain other
portions we can destroy the will while
preserving the powers of motion. Take
away a certain portion of the brain of a
pigeon, and, although it retains the power
of taking food, it has so totally lost the
will to exercise this power that it will
starve in the midst of abundance, though
it can be kept alive by placing the food
in its mouth. In like manner, in the
human brain there are certain portions
which, if destroyed by injury or disease,
will paralyse the power of giving effect
to the will by muscular movements, while
the destruction of other portions will
paralyse the will which originates such
movements.
Numerous
cases
are
recorded in medical treatises in which
the will is completely paralysed for the
performance of certain functions, and in
such cases the anatomist can lay his
finger on the spot where the brain is
affected, and, when the brain is dissected
after the death of the patient, it will be
found that his prediction is verified, and
that this region of the brain really was
diseased. In sleep also, and in abnormal
states of the brain such as somnambulism,
and mesmerism or hypnotism, the action
of the will is suspended. Hypnotism
affords the most remarkable instances,
for here the will seems to be transferred
from the ego or individuality of the
patient to that of the operator, and the
currents of nervous energy which induce
motion in A are set going by impulses
in the mind of A, not caused by his own
will, but by that of B, conveyed by
words, gestures, or other subtle indica
tions. A ludicrous instance of this is
recorded by Dr. Braid, in which an old
lady, who had a true puritanical abhor
rence of dancing as sinful, being hypno
tised, began capering about the room
when a waltz tune was struck up, on
being told to do so by the operators.
There are some other curious effects
produced by hypnotism, in the way of
inducing a sort of double consciousness
and memory, which makes people in this
condition totally forget things which
they remember when awake, and remem
ber things which were totally forgotten
in the waking state.
These and a variety of other instances
point to the conclusion that man is only
a conscious machine. In other words,
that the original impress, to use Dr.
Temple’s words, was so perfect that it
provided a pre-established harmony not
only for the innumerable phenomena of
the material universe as unfolded by
evolution, but for the still more innume
rable phenomena of life in all its manifes
tations and all its complex relations to
outward environment. I say of life, for we
•clearly cannot confine the theory to human
life. A dog, who with the two courses
before him of doing wrong and chasing
a rabbit, or doing right and remaining at
his master’s heel, chooses one of them,
is in exactly the same position as
Hercules between the rival attractions of
virtue and pleasure. If Hercules acted
as a machine, yielding to the pre-estab
lished preponderance of the stronger
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
attraction, so did the dog; but if Hercules
exerted free-will and felt the approval or
blame of conscience, so did the retriever.
There is no fundamental distinction, but
merely a question of degree, between
human conscience and the shame which
a dog feels when it knows that it has
done wrong, and the pleasure which it
manifests when conscious that it has
behaved properly.
Shall we thus conclude, as Leibnitz
and other great philosophers have done,
in favour of the mechanical theory ?
But if we do, how are we to account for
the instinctive ineradicable feeling, which
comes home to every one with a convic
tion even stronger than the evidence, of
the senses, that wre really have a choice
between opposite courses, and can decide
on our own actions—a conviction which
is obviously the foundation of all con
science and of all morality ?
Let us try to analyse more closely
what Will really means, and under what
conditions it is manifested. The circuit
which connects any one single percep
tion with action, through sensory nerve,
sensory centre, motor centre, motor
nerve and muscle, is as purely mechanical
as that of an electric circuit. Reflex
motions such as breathing, and even
more complex motions which by repeti
tion have become reflex or instinctive,
are also mechanical and involve, no
exercise of will. But when perceptions
become complex, and one primary
evokes a number of secondary percep
tions—in other words, when the cells
of the corresponding portions of grey
matter in the cortex of the brain are set
vibrating by a variety of complex and con
flicting molecular motions—the feeling
of free-will inevitably arises-. We feel
the conviction that there is a.something
which we call soul, mind, or, in the last
analysis, “I myself I,” which sits, as Von
Moltke might do, in a cabinet receiving
conflicting telegraphic messages from
different generals, and deciding then and
there what order to flash out in reply.
What can we say to this ? That it is
like space and time, one of the cate
95
gories of thought, or primary moulds in
which thought is cast. We do not know
what space and time really are in their
essence, or why they are the necessary
conditions of thought, any more than we
do in the case of will. They may be
illusions, but we accept them, and of
necessity accept them, as facts. For all
practical purposes it is the same to us
as if we understood their essence and
knew them to be realities. A man. can
no more doubt that he is an individual
being, with a will which, in a great many
cases, enables him to decide which of a
variety of impulses shall prevail, than he
can hesitate, if he is furnishing a room,
to regulate his purchase of carpeting and
paper by space of three dimensions,
without regard to possible speculations
as to quarternions.
Perhaps the principle of polarity may
assist us in understanding that both
theories may be true; or rather that
matter and spirit, necessity and free-will,
may be opposite poles of one funda
mental truth which is beyond our com
prehension. We cannot shake off this
principle of polarity, and arrive at any
knowledge, or even conception, of the
absolute truth in regard to the atoms,
energies, and natural laws, which make
up the universe of matter and of all the
ordinary and material functions of life,
why should we expect to do so in the
higher manifestations of the same life,
which have been arrived at in the later
stages of one unbroken course of evolu
tion from monad to man ?T
This, at any rate, is the theory which
best satisfies my own mind and enables
me to reduce my own individual chaos
into some sort of a cosmos. I draw
from it the following conclusions :—
For all practical purposes assume that
u right is right,” and that the moral
1 Recent psychologists tend to distinguish
between free-will, in the old sense of purely
spontaneous initiative, and self-determination ;
thus Dr. Stout in his latest manual. The latter
would seem to meet the theoretic requirements
of morality, while they reject , the former as
inconsistent with the facts of their science.
�96
ZOROASTRIANISM
instincts, however they have been formed,
are imperative laws. Assume also that
“ Man is man and master of his fate,”
and that we have, to a great extent, the
power of deciding what to do and what
not to do. But, in doing so, keep the
mind open to all conclusions of science,
and admit freely that these assumptions
are indissolubly connected with natural
laws and with material organs, and that
man is to a very great extent dependent
on his environment and his place in
Chapter
evolution, both for his moral code and
for the force of will and conscience which
enables him to conform to it. Learn,
therefore, the lesson of a large toleration
and of charity in thought and deed,
towards those who, from inherited con
stitution or unfortunate conditions of
education and outward circumstances,
fall under the sway of the principle of
evil, and lead bad, useless, and unlovely
lives. Had you and I, reader, been in
their place, should we have done better ?
XIII.
ZOROASTRIANISM
Zoroaster an historical person—-The Parsees—
Iranian branch of Aryan family—Zoroaster a
religious reformer—Scene at Balkh—Conver
sion of Vishtasp—Doctrines of the “ excellent
religion ” — Monotheism — Polarity — Dr.
Haug’s description—Ormuzd and Ahriman—
Anquetil du Perron — Approximation to
modern thought—Absence of miracles—Code
of morals —■ Its comprehensiveness — And
liberality—Special rites—Fire-worship—Dis' posal of dead—Practical results—The Parsees
of Bombay—Their probity, enterprise, respect
for women—Zeal for education—Philanthropy
and public spirit—Statistics—Death and birth
rates.
Zoroastrianism is commonly supposed
to derive its name from its founder,
Zoroaster, a Bactrian sage or prophet,
who lived in the reign of King Vishtasp
the First. Zoroaster’s name has come
down to us from antiquity in much the
same relation to this form of religion as
that of Moses to Judaism, or of SakyaMouni to Buddhism. As in those cases,
certain learned commentators have en
deavoured to show that the alleged
founder was purely mythical and had no
real historical existence, basing their argu
ment mainly on a fact that a number of
supernatural attributes, and embodiments
of metaphysical and theological ideas,
became attached to the name, just as a
whole cycle of solar myths became
associated with the name of Hercules.
But this seems to be carrying scepticism
too far. Experience shows that religions
have generally originated in the crystal
lisation of ideas floating in solution at
certain periods of the evolution of
societies, about the nucleus of some
powerful personality. Nearly all the
great religions of the world, such as
Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity,
and Mohammedanism, clearly had his
torical founders, and it would be hyper
critical to deny that such a man as Jesus
of Nazareth really lived because many
of his sayings and doings may be traced
to applications, more or less erroneous,
of ancient prophecies, or because his
human nature became transfigured into
the Logos and other mataphysical con
ceptions of the Alexandrian philosophy.
In the case of Zoroaster, the argument
for his historical existence seems even
stronger, for his name is connected with
historical reigns and places, and his
genuine early history contains nothing
�ZOROASTRIA NISM
supernatural or improbable.1 He is
represented as simply a deep thinker
and powerful preacher, like Luther, who
gave new form and expression to the
vague religious and philosophical ideas
of his age and nation, reformed its super
stitions and abuses, and converted the
leading minds of his day, including the
monarch, by the earnestness and elo
quence of his discourses. At any rate,
for my purpose I shall assume his
personality, for my object is not to write
a critical essay on the origin and develop
ment of the Zoroastrian religion, but to
show that in its fundamental ideas and
essential spirit it approximates wonder
fully to those of the most advanced
modern thought, and gives the outline
of a creed which goes further than any
other to meet the practical wants of the
present day, and to reconcile the conflict
between faith and science. This will
be most clearly and vividly shown by
assuming the commonly accepted his
torical existence of Zoroaster to be true,
and by confining myself to the broad,
leading principles of his religion, without
dwelling on its varying phases, or on the
mythical legends and ritualistic obser
vances which, as in the case of all other
old religions, have crystallised about the
primitive idea and the primitive founder.
Zara-thustra, or, as he is commonly
called, Zoroaster, and the religion which
goes by his name, are known to us
mainly from the sacred books which
have been preserved by the modern
Parsees. The Parsees, a small remnant
of the Persians who under Cyrus founded
one of the mightiest empires of the
ancient world, flying from their native
country to escape from persecution after
the Mohammedan conquest, formed a
colony in India, and are now settled at
Bombay. They form a small but highly
intelligent community, who have pre
served their ancient religipn, and, fortu1 Professor Jackson, in his recent Zoroaster,
declares that scholars are now “generally agreed ”
as to the historical character of Zoroaster, and
that the doubts raised by Kern and Darmesteter
have been “ dispelled. ”
97
nately, some considerable fragments of
their sacred scriptures. The oldest of
these are written in the Gatha dialect of
the Avesta or Zend language, which is
contemporary with Sanskrit, and bears
much the same relation to it as Latin
does to Greek. The primitive Aryan
family at some very remote period
became divided into two branches, and
radiated from their Central Asian home
in two directions. The Hindoo branch
migrated to the south into the Punjaub
and Hindostan; the Iranian westwards,
into Bactria and Persia; while other
successive w7aves of Aryan migration in
prehistoric times rolled still further west
wards over Europe, obliterating all but a
few traces of the aboriginal population.
The period of this separation of the
Iranian and Hindoo races must be very
remote, for the Rig-Veda is probably at
least 4,000 years old, and the divergence
between its form of Sanskrit and the
Gatha dialect of the Zend is already as
great as that between two kindred
European languages, such as Greek and
Latin. The divergence of religious ideas
is also evidently of very early date. In
the Hindoo, and all other races of the
primitive Aryan stock, the word used for
gods and good spirits is taken from the
root “ div,” to shine. Thus, Daeva in
Sanskrit, Zeus and Theos in Greek, Deus
in Latin, Tius in German, Diewrs in
Lutheranism, Dia in Irish, Dew in
Kymric, all mean the bright or shining
one represented by the vault of heaven.
But in Iranian the word has an opposite
sense, and the “deevs” correspond to
our “devils.”
The primitive Aryan religions were
evidently all derived from a contempla
tion of the powers and phenomena of
nature. The sky, with its flood of light
and vault of ethereal blue, was considered
to be the highest manifestation of a
Supreme Power; while the sun and
moon', the stars and planets, the winds
and clouds, the earth and waters, were
personified, either as symbols of the
Deity or as subordinate gods. The
original simple faith was thus apt to
H
�98
ZOROASTRIANISM
degenerate into a system of polytheism,
and, as the gods came to be represented
by visible forms, into idolatry.
Zoroasterappears to us, like Mohammed
at a later age and among a ruder people,
as a prophet or reformer who abolished
these abuses and restored the ancient
faith in a loftier and more intellectual
form, adapted to the use of an advanced
and civilised society. The records of
his life and teaching have fortunately
been preserved in so authentic a form
that, distant as he is from us, we can
form a singularly accurate idea of who
he was and what he taught. Our know
ledge is chiefly drawn from the Gathas,
the oldest section of the Avesta, or
Persian Bible.
Some 2,500 years ago a sight might
have been seen in the ancient city of
Balkh—the famous capital of Bactria,
the “ Mother of Cities ”—very like that
witnessed some eleven centuries later at
our own Canterbury. The king and his
chief nobles and courtiers were assem
bled to hear the discourse of a preacher
who proposed to teach them a better
religion. Vishtasp listened to Zoroaster,
as Ethelbert listened to Augustine, and
in each case reason and eloquence
carried conviction, and the nation be
came converts to the new doctrine.
This conversion was effected without
miracles, for it is expressly stated in the
celebrated speech of the prophet, pre
served in the 30th chapter of the Yasna,
that he relied solely on persuasion and
argument. Ferdousi, the Persian Homer,
thus describes the first interview between
Zoroaster and Vishtasp: “ Learn,” he
said, “ the rites and doctrines of the
religion of excellence. For without re
ligion there cannot be any worth in a
king. When the mighty monarch heard
him speak of the excellent religion, he
accepted from him the excellent rites
and doctrines,”
The doctrines of this “ excellent reli
gion” are extremely simple. The leading
idea is that of monotheism, but the one
God has far fewer anthropomorphic attri
butes, and is relegated much farther back
into the vague and infinite than the god of
any other monotheistic religion. Geiger
describes it as “one of the purest and
most sublime religions that have ever
existed.” Ahura-Mazda, of which the
more favourite appellation Ormuzd is an
abbreviation, means the “All-knowing
Lord ”; he is said sometimes to dwell
in the infinite luminous space, and some
times to be identical with it. He is, in
fact, not unlike the inscrutable First
Cause, whom we may regard with awe
and reverence, with love and hope, but
whom we cannot pretend to define or to
understand. But the radical difference
between Zoroastrianism and other reli
gions is that it does not conceive of this
one God as an omnipotent Creator, who
might make the universe as he chose,
and therefore was directly responsible for
all the evil in it; but as a Being acting
by certain fixed laws, one of which was,
for reasons totally inscrutable to us, that
existence implied polarity, and therefore
that there could be no good without
corresponding evil.
Dr. Haug, who is a high authority on
all questions connected with the Zend
scriptures, says : “ Having arrived at the
grand idea of the unity and indivisibility
of the Supreme Being, Zoroaster under
took to solve the great problem which
has engaged the attention of so many
wise men of antiquity and even in
modern times—viz., how are the imper
fections discernible in the world, the
various kinds of evil, wickedness, and
baseness, compatible with the goodness,
holiness, and justness of God? This
great thinker of remote antiquity solved
this difficult question philosophically, by
the supposition of two primaeval causes,
which, though different, were united, and
produced the world of material things as
well as that of spirit. These two primae
val principles are the two moving causes
in the universe, united from the begin
ning, and therefore called twins. They
are present everywhere—in the Ahura
Mazda, or Supreme Deity, as well as in
man.”
They are called in the Vendidad
�ZOROASTRIANISM
Spento Mainyush, or the “beneficent
spirit,” and Angro Mainyush, or the
“hurtful spirit.” The latter is generally
known as Ahriman, the Prince of Dark
ness ; and the former, as Ormuzd, is
identified with Ahura Mazda, the good
God, though, strictly speaking, Ahura
Mazda is the great unknown _ First
Cause, who comprehends within himself
both principles as a necessary law of
existence, and in whom believers may
hope that evil and good will ultimately
be reconciled.
Anquetil du Perron, the first translator
of the Zendavesta, in his Critical View
of the Theological and Ceremonial System
of Zar-thurst, thus sums up the Parsee
creed: “ The first point in the theo
logical system of Zoroaster is to recognise
and adore the Master of all that is good,
the Principle of all righteousness, Ormuzd,
according to the form of worship pre
scribed by him, and with purity of
thought, of word, and of action—a purity
which is marked and preserved by purity
of body. Next, to have a respect,
accompanied by gratitude, for the intel
ligence to which Ormuzd has committed
the care of nature (z>., to the laws of
nature), to take in our actions their
attributes for models, to copy in our
conduct the harmony which reigns in
the different parts of the universe, and
generally to honour Ormuzd in all that
he has produced. The second part of
their religion consists in detesting the
author of all evil, moral and physical,
Ahriman—his productions, and his
works; and to contribute, as far as in us
lies, to exalt the glory of Ormuzd by
enfeebling the tyranny which the Evil
Principle exercises over the world.”
It is evident that this simple and
sublime religion is one to which, by
whatever name we may call it, the best
modern thought is fast approximating.
Men of science like Huxley, philosophers
like Herbert Spencer, poets like Tenny
son, might all subscribe to it; and even
enlightened Christian divines, like Dr.
Temple, are not very far from it when
they admit the idea of a Creator behind
99
the atoms and energies, whose original
impress, given in the form of laws of
nature, was so perfect as to require no
secondary interference. Admit that
Christ is the best personification of the
Spenta Mainyush, or good principle in
the inscrutable Divine polarity of exist
ence, and a man may be at the same
time a Christian and a Zoroastrian.
The religion of Zoroaster has, how
ever, this great advantage in the existing
conditions of modern thought, that it is
not dragged down by such a dead weight
of traditional dogmas and miracles as
still hangs upon the skirts of Christianity.
Its dogmas are comprised in the state
ment that there is one supreme, un
known, First Cause, who manifests him
self in the universe under fixed laws
which involve the principle of polarity.
This is hardly so much a dogma as a
statement of fact, or of the ultimate and
absolute truth at which it is possible for
human faculty to arrive. No progress
of-science or philosophy conflicts with it,
but rather they confirm it, by showingmore and more clearly with every dis
covery that this is in very fact and deed
the literal truth. Religion, or the feeling
of reverence and love for the Great Un
known which lies beyond the sphere of
human sense and reason, shines more
brightly through this pure medium than
through the fogs of misty metaphysics ;
and we can worship God in spirit and in
truth without puzzling our brains as to
the precise nature of the Logos, or
exercising them on the insoluble problem
how one can be equal to three, and at
the same time three equal to one.
As regards miracles, which are another
millstone about the neck of Catholic
Christianity, the religion of Zoroaster is •
entirely free from them. There are, it
is true, a few miraculous myths about
him in some of the later writings in the
Pehlvi language, as of his conception by
his mother drinking a cup of the sacred
Homa; but these are of no authority, and
form no part of the religion. On the
contrary, the original scriptures, which
profess to record his exact words and
�V
ioo
ZOROASTRIANISM
precepts, disclaim all pretension to divine
nature or miraculous power, and base
the claims of the “excellent religion”
purely on reason. This is an immense
advantage in the “ struggle for life,” when
every day is making it more impossible
for educated men to believe that real
miracles ever actually occurred, and when
the evidence on which they were accepted
is crumbling to pieces under the light of
critical inquiry. The Parsee has no
reason to tremble for his faith if a Galileo
invents the telescope or a Newton dis
covers the law of gravity. He has no
occasion to argue for Noah’s deluge, or
for the order of Creation described in
Genesis. Nay, even, he may remain
undisturbed by that latest and most fatal
discovery that man has existed on the
earth for untold ages, and, instead of
falling from a high estate, has risen con
tinuously by slow and painful progress
from the rudest origins. How many
orthodox Christians can say the same, or
deny that their faith in their sacred books
and venerable traditions has been rudely
shaken ?
The code of morality enjoined by the
Zoroastrian religion is as pure as its
theory is perfect. Dr. Haug enumerates
the following sins denounced by its code,
and considered as such by the present
Parsees : Murder, infanticide, poisoning,
adultery on the part of men as well as
women, sorcery, sodomy, cheating in
weight and measure, breach of promise
whether made to a Zoroastrian or nonZoroastrian, telling lies and deceiving,
false covenants, slander and calumny,
perjury, dishonest appropriation of wealth,
taking bribes, keeping back the wages of
labourers, misappropriation of religious
property, removal of a boundary stone,
turning people out of their property,
maladministration and defrauding, apos
tasy, heresy, rebellion. These are positive
injunctions. The following are con
demnable from a religious point of view :
Abandoning the husband; not acknow
ledging one’s children on the part of the
father; cruelty towards subjects on the
part of a ruler; avarice, laziness, illiber-
ality and egotism, envy. In addition,
there are a number of special precepts
adapted to the peculiar rites of the
Zoroastrian religion which aim princi
pally at the enforcement of sanitary rules,
kindness to animals, hospitality to
strangers and travellers, respect to
superiors, and help to the poor and
needy.
It is evident that this is the most
complete and comprehensive code of
morals to be found in any system of
religion. It comprises all that is best
in the codes of Buddhism, Judaism, and
Christianity, with a much more ample
definition of many vices and virtues
which, even in the Christian religion, are
left to be drawn as inferences rather than
inculcated as precepts. Thus, laziness,
cheating, selfishness, and envy are dis
tinctly defined as crimes and their
opposites as virtues, and not merely left
to be inferred from the general maxims
of “ loving your neighbour as yourself,”
and “ doing unto others as you would be
done by.” The comprehensiveness and
liberal spirit of the code is also remark
able, for we are repeatedly told that these
rules of moralityapply to non-Zoroastrians
as well as to Zoroastrians. The applica
tion of religious precepts to practical
life is another distinguishing feature.
Thus kindness to animals is specially
enjoined, and it is considered a sin
to ill-treat animals of the good crea
tion, such as cattle, sheep, horses, or
dogs, by starving, beating, or unneces
sarily killing them. With true practical
wisdom, however, the “falsehood of
extremes ” is avoided, and this precept
is not, as in the case of Brahminism and
Buddhism, carried so far as to prohibit
altogether the taking of animal life, which
is expressly sanctioned when necessary.
This sober practical wisdom, or what
Matthew Arnold calls “ sweet reasonable
ness,” is a very characteristic feature of
Zoroaster’s religion, and very remarkable
as having been taught at so early a period
in the history of civilisation.
Another precept, which might well
have been made by an English Board of
�ZOROASTRIANISM
Health in the nineteenth century, is not I
to pollute water by throwing impure
matter into it.
The only special Parsee rites which
would be unsuited for modern European
society are the worship of the sacred fire
and the disposal of the dead. It is true
that the former is distinctly understood
to be merely a symbol of the Deity, and
used exactly as water is in baptism, or as
the ascending flame of candles and
smoke from swinging incense are, in the
Catholic ritual, to bring more vividly
before the minds of the worshippers the
idea of the spirit soaring upwards to
wards heaven. Still, in modern society
fire is too well understood as merely a
particular form of chemical combination,
and is too familiar as the strong slave
and household drudge of man, to ac
quire a leading place in a religious ritual
where it has not been hallowed by the
usage of a long line of ancestors and the
traditions of a venerable antiquity. All
that can be said is that, if religious rites
and ceremonies are to be maintained in
an age when science has become the
prevailing mode of thought, appropriate
symbolism, especially that of music, must
more and more take the place of appeals
to the intellect on metaphysical ques
tions, and of repetitions of traditional
formulse which have lost all living signifi
cance.
Another Parsee rite, which is even
less adapted for general usage, is that of
disposing of the dead on towers of
silence, where the body moulders away
or is devoured by birds of prey. It
originates in a poetical motive of not
defiling the pure elements, fire, earth, or
water, by corruption ; but it is obviously
unsuited for the conditions of civilisation
and climate which prevail in crowded
cities under a humid sky.
There is little prospect, therefore, of
any general conversion to the sect of
Zoroastrians; but what seems probable
is the gradual transformation of existing
modes both of religious and secular
thought into something which is, in
principle, very closely akin to the “ ex
IOI
cellent religion ” taught by the Bactrian
prophet.
The miraculous theory of the universe
being virtually dead, the only theory that
can reconcile facts with feelings, and the
ineradicable emotions and aspirations of
the human mind with the incontro
vertible conclusions of science, is that of
a remote and more or less unknown and
incomprehensible First Cause, which has
given the original atoms and energies so
perfect an impress from the first that
all phenomena are evolved from them by
fixed laws, one of the principal of such
laws being that of polarity, which de
velops the ever-increasing complexities
and contrasts of the inorganic and
organic worlds, of moralities, philoso
phies, religions, and human societies.
True religion consists in a recognition of
this truth, a feeling of reverence in pre
sence of the unknown, and, above all,
a feeling of love and admiration for the
good principle in whatever form it is
manifested, in the beauties of nature and
of art, in moral and physical purity and
perfection, and all else that falls within
the domain of the Prince of Light, in
whose service, whether we conceive of
him as an abstract principle or accept
some personification of him as a living
figure, we enlist as loyal soldiers, doing
our best to fight in his ranks against the
powers of evil.
The application of the all-pervading
principle of polarity is exemplified in the
realm of art. The glorious Greek drama
turned mainly on the conflict between
resistless fate and heroic free-will, and is
typified in its highest form by ZEschylus,
when he depicts Prometheus chained to
the rock hurling defiance at the tyrant
of heaven. Our own Milton, in like
manner, gives us the spectacle of the
fallen archangel opposing his indomitable
will and fertile resources to the extremity
of adverse circumstance and to Almighty
power.
The greatest of modern dramas,
Goethe’s “ Faust,” turns so entirely on
the opposition between the human soul
striving after the infinite and the spirit
�102
ZOROA STRIANISM
der verneint, who combats ideal aspira
tions with a cynical sneer, that it might
well be called a Zoroastrian drama. It
is a picture of the conflict between the
two opposite principles of good and evil,
of affirmation and negation, of the beau
tiful and the ugly, personified in Faust
and Mephistopheles, and it is painted
on a background of the great mysterious
unknown. “ Wer darf ihn nennen ?”
“ Who dares to name him,
Who to-say of him, ‘ I believe,’
Who is there ever with a heart to dare
To utter, ‘ I believe him not ’?”
So in poetry, Tennyson, the poet of
modern thought, touches the deepest
chords when he asks :
“ Are God and Nature, then, at strife ? ”
and paints in the sharpest contrast on
the background of the unknown the
conflict between the faith that
“ God is love, indeed,
And love creation’s final law,”
'and the harsh realities of nature, which
“ Red in tooth and claw
With ravine shrieks against the creed”;
or again in his later work, The Ancient
Sage, he says :
“ Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son !
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven.”
In like manner in the works of art
which embrace a wider range, and hold
up the mirror to human nature, as in
Shakespeare’s plays, and the novels of
Walter Scott, and other great authors,
the interest arises mainly from the
polarity of the various characters. We
care little for the goody-goody heroes or
vulgar villains, but we recognise a touch
of that nature which makes all the world
akin in a Macbeth drawn by metaphysi
cal suggestion to wade through a sea of
blood ; in Othello’s noble nature caught
like a lion in the toils by the net of
circumstances woven by a wily hunter;
in Falstaff, a rogue, a liar, and a glutton,
yet made almost likeable by his ready
wit, imperturbable good humour, and
fertile resources. Shakespeare is, in fact,
the greatest of artists, because he is
the most multipolar. He has poles of
sympathy in him which, as the poles of
carbon attract so many elements and
form so many combinations, enable him
to take into his own nature, assimilate,
and reproduce every varied shade of
character from a Miranda to a Caliban,
from an Imogen to a Lady Macbeth,
from a Falstaff to an Othello. Sir Walter
Scott and all our great novelists have the
same faculty, though in a less degree,
and are great in exact proportion as they
have many poles in their nature, and as
those are poles of powerful polarity. The
characters and incidents which affect us
strongly and dwell in the memory are
those in which the clash and conflict of
opposites are most vividly represented.
We feel infinite pity for a Maggie
Tulliver dashing her young life, like a
prisoned wild bird, against the bars of
trivial and prosaic environment which
hem her in; or for a Colonel Newcome
opposing the patience of a gentle nature
to the buffets of such a fate as meets us
in the everyday world of modern life, the
failure of his bank and the naggings of
the Old Campaigner. On a higher level
of art we sympathise with a Lancelot and
a Guinevere, because they are types of
what we may meet in many a London
drawing-room, noble natures drawn by
some fatal fairy fascination into ignoble
acts, but still retaining something of
their original nobility, and, while
“ Their honour rooted in dishonour stands,”
appearing to ordinary mortals little less
than “archangels ruined.” Or even if
we descend to the lowest level of the
penny dreadful or suburban drama, we
find that the polarity between vice and
virtue, however coarsely delineated, is
that which mostly fascinates the uncul
tured mind.
The affinity between Zoroastrianism
and art is easily explained when we con
sider that in one respect it has a mani
fest advantage over most Christian forms
of religion. Christianity in its early
�Z OROAS TRIA NISM
103
origins received a taint of Oriental the main causes of the indifference or
asceticism which it never shook off, and hostility to religion which is so widely
which, in the declining centuries of the spreading among the mass of the popula
Roman empire, and in the barbarism tion. Children are brought up to con
and superstition of the Middle Ages, de sider Sunday as a day of penance, and
veloped into what may be almost called church-going as a disagreeable necessity;
a devil-worship of the ugly and repulsive. while grown-up men, especially those of
The antithesis between the flesh and the the working classes, resent being, told
spirit was carried to such an extreme and that a walk in the country, a cricket
false extent that everything that was match, or a visit to a library or museum
pleasant and beautiful came to be re on their only holiday, is sinful.
In view of the approximation between
garded as sinful, and the odour of
the Zoroastrian religion and the forms of
sanctity was an odour which the passer
by would do well to keep on the wind modern thought, it is interesting to note
ward side of. This leaven of asceticism how the former works among its adherentsis the rock upon which Puritanism, in actual practice. For, after all, the
monasticism, and many of the highest practical side of a religion is more impor
forms of Christian life have invariably tant than its speculative or philosophical
split. It is contrary to human nature, theories. Thus, for instance, the Quakers
and directly opposed to the spirit of the have a. faith which is about the most
life and doctrines of the Founder of the reasonable of any of the numerous sects
religion. Jesus, who was ££ a Jew living of Christianity and nearest to the spirit
among Jews and speaking to Jews, of its Founder, and yet Quakerism
adopted the true Jewish point of view of remains a narrow sect, which is far from
making religion amiable and attractive, being victorious in the “ struggle for
and denouncing, as all the best Jewish life.” Mohammedanism, again, while
doctors of the Talmud did, the Pharisai dying out among civilised nations, shows
cal strictness which insisted on ritualistic itself superior to Christianity in the work
observances and arbitrary restrictions. of raising the barbarous, fetish-worship
In no passages of his life does the ping negroes of Africa to a higher level.
“ sweet reasonableness” of his character And Mormonism, based on the . most
appear more conspicuous than where we obvious imposture and absurdity, is the
find him strolling through the fields with only new religion which, in recent times,
his disciples and plucking ears of corn has taken root and to a certain extent
on the Sabbath, and replying to the for flourished.
Tried by this test, Zoroastrianism has
malists who were scandalised, “ The
made good its claim to be called the
Sabbath was made for man, not man for
the Sabbath.” The ascetic bias subse ££ excellent religion.” Its followers, the
quently introduced may have been a limited community of Parsees in India,
necessary element in counteracting the are honourably distinguished for probity,
corruption of Rome; but the pendulum intelligence, enterprise, public spirit,
in its reaction swung much too far, and benevolence, tolerance, and other good
when organised in its celibacy of the qualities. By virtue of these qualities
clergy and monastic institutions asceti they have raised themselves to a pro
cism became the source of great, evils. minent position in our Indian empire,
Even at a late period we can see in the and take a leading part in its commerce
reaction of the reign of Charles II. how and industrial enterprise. The chief
antagonistic the puritanical creed, even shipbuilder at Bombay, the first great
of men like Cromwell and Milton, native railway contractor, the founder of
proved to the healthy natural instinct of cotton factories, are all Parsees, and they
the great mass of the English nation. are found as merchants, traders, and
And at the present day it remains one of shopkeepers in all the chief towns of
�io4
ZOROASTRIANISM
British India and distant places, such as
t Aden and Zanzibar. Their commercial
probity is proverbial, and, as in England,
they have few written agreements, the
word of a Parsee, like that of an English
man, being considered as good as his
bond. Their high character and practi
cal aptitude for business are attested by
the fact that the first mayor, or chairman
of the Corporation of Bombay, was a
Parsee, who was elected by the unanimous
vote both of Europeans and natives.
The position of women affords perhaps
the best test of the real civilisation and
intrinsic worth of any community. Where
men considerwomen as inferior creatures,
it is a sure proof that they themselves
are so. They are totally wanting in that
■delicacy and refinement of nature which
distinguishes the true gentleman from
. the snob or the savage, and are coarse,
- vulgar brutes, however disguised under a
veneer of outward polish. On the other
hand, respect for women implies selfrespect, nobility of nature, capability of
rising to high ideals above the sordid
level of animal appetite and the selfish
supremacy of brute force.
The Parsees in this respect stand high,
far higher, than any other Oriental people,
and on a level with the best European
civilisation. The equality of the sexes
is distinctly laid down in the Zoroastrian
scriptures. Women are always mentioned
as a necessary part of the religious com
munity. They have the same religious
.-rites as the men. The spirits of deceased
-women are invoked as well as those of
men. Long contact with the other races
of India, and the necessity for some
outward conformity to the practices of
Hindoo and Mohammedan rulers, did
something to impair the position of
females as regards public appearances,
though the Parsee wife and mother always
remained a principal figure in the Parsee
household ; and latterly, under the
security of English rule, Parsee ladies
may be seen everywhere in public,
enjoying just as much liberty as the
ladies of Europe or America. Nor are
they at all behind their Western sisters |
in education, accomplishments, and, it
may be added, in daintiness of fashion
able attire. In fact, an eager desire for
education has become a prominent feature
among all classes of the Parsee com
munity, and they are quite on a par with
Scotch, German, and other European
races in their efforts to establish schools,
and in the numbers who attend, and
especially of those who obtain dis
tinguished places in the higher schools
and colleges, such as the Elphinstone
Institute and the Bombay University.
Female education is also actively pro
moted, and no prejudices stand in the
way of attendance at the numerous
girls’ schools which have been estab
lished, or even of studying in medical
colleges, where Parsee women attend
lectures on all branches of medical
science along with male students. Those
who know the position of inferiority and
seclusion in which women are kept
among all other Oriental nations can best
appreciate the largeness and liberality
of spirit of a religion which, in spite of
all surrounding influences, has rendered
such a thing possible in such a country
as India.
Another prominent trait of the Parsee
character is that of philanthropy and
public spirit. In proportion to their
numbers and means, they raise more
money for charitable objects than any
other religious sect. And they raise it
in a way which does the greatest credit
to their tolerance and liberality. For
instance, the Parsees were the principal
subscribers to a fund raised in Bombay
in aid of the “ Scottish Corporation
and quite recently a Parsee gentleman
gave 16,000 towards the establishment
of a female hospital under the care of
lady doctors, although the benefit of
such an institution would be confined
principally to Mohammedan and Hindoo
women, Parsee women having no pre
judice against employing male doctors.
The public spirit shown by acts like
this is the trait by which the Parsee
community is most honourably dis
tinguished, and in respect of which it
�ZOROASTRIANISM
must be candidly confessed it far sur
passes, not only other Oriental races, but
most European nations, including our
own. Whatever the reason may be, the
fact is certain that in England, while a
great deal of money is spent 111 charity,
lamentably little is spent from the
enormous surplus wealth of the country
on what may be called public objects.
There is neither religious influence nor
social opinion brought to bear on the
numerous class who have incomes far
beyond any possible want, to teach them
that it should be both a pleasure and
a pride to associate their names with
some act of noble liberality.. A better
spirit we may hope is springing up, and
there have been occasional instances of
large sums applied to public purposes,
such as parks and colleges, by private
individuals, principally of the trading and
manufacturing classes, such as the Salts,
Crossleys, Baxters, and Holloways ; but,
on the whole, the amount contributed is
miserably small. It is probably part of
the price we pay for aristocratic institu
tions that those who inherit or accumu
late great fortunes consider it their
primary object to perpetuate or to found
great families. Be this as it may, a
totally different spirit prevails among the
Parsees of Bombay, where it has been
truly stated that hardly a year passes
without some wealthy Parsee coming
forward to perform a work of public
generosity. The instance of Sir Jamsedjee Jijibhoy, who attained a European
reputation for his noble benevolence, is
only one conspicuous instance out of a
thousand of this “ public spirit ” which
has become almost an instinctive ele
ment in Parsee society.
How far the large and liberal religion
may be the cause of the large and liberal
practice it is impossible to say. Other
influences have doubtless been at work.
105
The Parsees are a commercial people,
and commerce is always more libera
with its money than land. They are the
descendants of a persecuted race, and, as
a rule, it is better to be persecuted than
to persecute.
Still, after making all
allowances, it remains that the tree can
not be bad which bears such fruits ; the
religion must be a good one which pro
duces good men and women and good
deeds.
Statistical facts testify quite as strongly
to the high standard of the Parsee race,
and the practical results which follow
from the observance of the Zoroastrian
ritual. A small death-rate and a large
proportion of children prove the vigorous
vitality of a race. The Parsees have the
lowest death-rate of any of the many
races who inhabit Bombay. The aver
age for the two years 1881 and 1882 per
thousand was—for Hindoos, 26.11 ; for
Mussulmans, 30.46
f°r Europeans,
20.18; for Parsees, 19.26.
The per
centage of children under two years old
to women between fifteen and forty-five
was 30.27 for Parsees, as against
Hindoos 22.24, and Mussulmans. 24.9>
showing incontestably greater vitality
and greater care for human life.
Of 6,618 male and 2,966 female
mendicants in the city of Bombay, only
five male and one female were Parsees.
These figures speak for themselves.
It is evident that a religion in which
such results are possible cannot be
unfavourable to the development of
the mens sana in corpore sano, and
that, although we may not turn Zoroastrians, we may envy some of the good
results of a creed which inculcates wor
ship of the good, the pure, and the
beautiful in the concerns of daily life, as
well as in the abstract regions of theo
logical and philosophical speculation.
�106
FORMS OF WORSHIP
Chapter
XIV.
FORMS OF WORSHIP
Byron’s lines—Carnegie’s description—Parsee
nature-worship—English Sunday—The ser
mon—Appeals to reason misplaced—Music
better than words—The Mass—Zoroastrian
ism brings religion into daily life—Sanitation
—Zoroastrian prayer—Religion of the future
—Sermons in stones and good in everything.
4‘Not vainly did the early Persian make
His altar the high places and the peak
Of earth-o’ergazing mountains, and thus take
A fit and unwall’d temple, where to seek
The spirit, in whose honour shrines are weak,
Uprear’d of human hands. Come, and com
pare
Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,
With nature’s realms of worship, earth and
air,
Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy
prayer !”
—Childe Harold, iii. 91,
.A shrewd Scotch-American ironmaster
—Andrew Carnegie—in an interesting
and instructive record of experiences
during a voyage round the world, gives
the following description of the worship
of the modern Parsees, as actually wit
nessed by him at Bombay :—
“ This evening we were surprised to
see, as we strolled along the beach,
more Parsees than ever before, and more
Parsee ladies richly dressed, all wending
their way towards the sea. It was the
first of the new moon, a period sacred
to these worshippers of the elements;
and here on the shore of the ocean, as
the sun was sinking in the sea, and the
slender silver thread of the crescent
moon was faintly shining on the horizon,
they congregated to perform their re
ligious rites.
“ Fire was there in its grandest form,
the setting sun, and water in the vast
expanse of the Indian Ocean outstretched
before them. The earth was under their
feet, and, wafted across the sea, the air
came laden with the perfumes of ‘ Araby
the blest.’ Surely no time or place could
be more fitly chosen than this for lifting
up the soul to the realms beyond sense.
I could not but participate with these
worshippers in what was so grandly
beautiful. There was no music save the
solemn moan of the waves as they broke
into foam on the beach. But where
shall we find so mighty an organ, or so
grand an anthem ?
“How inexpressibly sublime the scene
appeared to me, and how insignificant
and unworthy of the unknown seemed
even our cathedrals ‘ made with human
hands,’ when compared with this looking
up through nature unto nature’s God !
I stood and drank in the serene happi
ness which seemed to fill the air. I
have seen many modes and forms of
worship—some disgusting, others sadden
ing, a few elevating when the organ
pealed forth its tones, but all poor in
comparison with this. Nor do I ever
expect in all my life to witness a religious
ceremony which will so powerfully affect
me as that of the Parsees on the beach
at Bombay.”
I say Amen with all my heart to Mr.
Carnegie. Here is an ideal religious
ceremony combining all that is most
true, most touching, and most sublime,
in the attitude of man towards the Great
Unknown. Compare it with the routine
of an ordinary English Sunday, and how
poor and prosaic does the latter appear !
There is nothing which seems to me to
have fallen more completely out of har
mony with its existing environment than
our traditional form of church service.
The sermon has been killed by the Press,
and has become an anachronism. There
was a time when sermons like those, of
Latimer and John Knox were living
realities ; they dealt with all the burning
political and personal questions of the
day, and to a great extent did the work
now done by platform speeches and
�FORMS OF WORSHIP
leading articles. If there are national
dangers to be denounced, national short
comings to be pointed out, iniquity in
high places to be rebuked, we look to
our daily newspaper, and not to our
weekly sermon. The sermon has, in a
great majority of cases, become a sort of
schoolboy theme, in which traditional
assumptions and conventional phrases
are ground out, with as little soul or idea
behind them as in the Thibetan praying
mill. In the course of a long life I have
gained innumerable ideas and experi
enced innumerable influences, from con
tact with the world, with fellow-men, and
with books; but, although I have heard
a good many sermons, I cannot honestly
say that I ever got an idea or an influence
from one of them which made me wiser
or better, or different in any respect from
what I should have been if I had slept
through them. And this from no fault
of the preachers. I have heard many
who gave me the impression that they
were good men, and a few who impressed
me as being able and liberal-minded men
—nor do I know that, under the condi
tions in which they are placed, I could
have done any better myself. But they
were dancing in fetters, and so tied down
by conventionalities that it was simply
impossible for them to depart from the
paths of a decorous routine.
The fact is that the whole point of
view of our religious services, especially
in Protestant countries, has become a
mistaken one. It is far too much an
appeal to the intellect and to abstract
dogmas, and too little one to the realities
of actual life and to the vague emotions
and aspirations which constitute the
proper field of religion. In the great
reaction of the Reformation it was per
haps inevitable that an appeal should be
made to reason against the abuses of an
infallible Church; and as long as the
literal inspiration of the Bible and other
theological premises were held to be un
doubted axioms by the whole Christian
world, there might be a certain interest
in hearing them repeated over and over
again in becoming language, and in
107
listening to sermons which explained
shortly conclusions which might be
drawn from these admitted axioms. But
this is no longer the case. It is impos
sible to touch the merest fringe of the
questions now raised by the intellectual
side of religion in discourses of half an.
hour’s length; even if the preacher were
perfectly free, and not hampered by thefear of scandalising simple, pious souls
by plain language. Spoken words have
to a great extent ceased to be the appro
priate vehicle for appealing either to reli
gious reason or to religious emotion—books for the former, music for the latter,
are infinitely more effective.
Music
especially seems made to be the language
of religion. Not only its beauty and
harmony, but its vagueness and its
power of exciting the imagination and
stirring the feelings, without anything
definite which has to be proved and can
be contradicted, fit it to be the inter
preter of those emotions and aspirations
which fill the human soul in presence of
the universe and of the Great Unknown.
Demonstrate, with St. Thomas Aquinas
or Duns Scotus, how many angels can
stand on the point of a needle, and I
remain unaffected; but let me' hear
Rossini’s Cujus Animam, or Mozart’s
Agnus Dei, and I say, “ Thus the angels
sing.”
In this respect the Roman Catholic
Church has retained a great advantage
over reformed Churches. Whatever we
may think of its tenets and principles,
its forms of worship are more impressive
and more attractive. The Mass, apart
from all dogma and miracle, is a
mysterious and beautiful religious drama,
in which appropriate symbolism, vocal
and instrumental music, all the highest
efforts of human art, are united to pro
duce feelings of joy and of devoutness.
The vestment of the priest, his gestures
and genuflexions, the Latin words chanted
in stately recitative, the flame of the
candles pointingheaven wards, theburning
incense slowly soaring upwards, the music
of great masters, not like our dreary and
monotonous psalmody, but in fullest
�108
FORMS OF WORSHIP
harmony and richest melody—all com
bine to attune the mind to that state of
feeling which is the soul of religion.
In this respect, however, what I have
called the Zoroastrian theory of religion
affords great advantages. It connects
religion directly with all that is good and
beautiful, not only in the higher realms
of speculation and of emotion, but in
the ordinary affairs of daily life. To
feel the truth of what is true, the beauty
of what is beautiful, is of itself a silent
prayer or act of worship to the Spirit of
Light; to make an honest, earnest effort
to attain this feeling is an offering or
act of homage. Cleanliness of mind
and body, order and propriety in con
duct, civility in intercourse, and all the
homely virtues of everyday life, thus
acquire a higher significance, and any
wilful and persistent disregard of them
becomes an act of mutiny against the
Power whom we have elected to serve.
Such moral perversion becomes impos
sible as that which in the Middle Ages
..associated filth with holiness, and adduced
-as a title to canonisation that the saint
had worn the same woollen shirt until it
fell to pieces under the attacks of vermin.
We . laugh at this in more enlightened
days, but we often imitate it by setting
up false religious standards, and thinking
we can make men better by penning
them up on Sundays in the foul air and
corrupting influences of densely-peopled
cities.
The identification of moral and
physical evil, which is one of the most
essential and peculiar tenets of the
Zoroastrian creed, is fast becoming a
leading idea in modern civilisation. Our
most earnest philanthropists and zealous
workers in the fields of sin and misery
in crowded cities are coming, more and
more every day, to the conviction that
an improvement in the physical con
ditions of life is the first indispensable
condition of moral and religious pro
gress. More air, more light, better
lodging, better food, more innocent and
healthy recreation, are what are wanted
to make any real impression on the
masses who have either been born and
bred in an evil environment, or have
fallen out of the ranks and are the waifs
and stragglers left behind in the rapid
progress and intense competition of
modern society. Hence we see that
the devoted individuals and charitable
institutions who take the lead in works
of practical benevolence direct their
attention more and more to the rescue
of children from bad surroundings; to
sending them to new and happier homes
in the colonies, to country retreats for
the sickly, and excursions for the healthy;
and to providing clubs and reading
rooms as substitutes for the gin-palace
and public-house. A recent develop
ment of this idea, the “People’s Palace”
in the East End of London, is a noble
offering to the “ Spirit of Light,” by
whatever name we choose to call him,
in opposition to the “Spirit of Dark
ness.”
To the Zoroastrian prayer assumes
the form of a recognition of all that is
pure, sublime, and beautiful in the sur
rounding universe. He can never want
opportunities of paying homage to the
Good Spirit and of looking into the
abysses of the unknown with reverence
and wonder. The light of setting suns,
the dome of loving blue, the clouds in
the might of the tempest or resting still
as brooding doves, the mountains, the
“ Waste
And solitary places where we taste
The pleasures of believing what we see,
Is boundless, as we wish our souls to be”;
the ocean lashed by storm, or where it
“ All down the sand
Lies breathing in its sleep,
Heard by the land ”—
these are a Zoroastrian’s prayers.
And even if, “ in populous cities
pent,” he is cut off from close com
munion with nature, opportunities are
not wanting to him of letting his soul
soar aloft with purifying aspirations. A
glimpse of the starry sky, even if seen
from a London street, may bear in on
him the awful yet lovely mystery of the
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
io9
literature, science, and art, he can hear
Infinite. Good books, good music, true
works of art, may all strengthen his love best
“ The still sad music of humanity,
of the good and beautiful. A dense fog
Not harsh nor grating, but of ample power
or drizzling rain may obscure the out
To chasen and subdue,”
ward view, but with the inner eye he may
and associate himself with movements in
stand listening to the lark or under the
which his little individual effort is exerted
vernal sky, and while his
towards making the world a little better
rather than a little worse than he found
“ Heart looks down and up,
Serene, secure ;
Warm as the crocus-cup,
As snowdrops pure,”
thank the Good Spirit that it has. been
given to man to write, and to him. to
read, verses of such exquisite perfection
as Shelley’s “ Ode to a Skylark ” and
Tennyson’s “ Early Spring.” Above all,
where men congregate in masses, in the
great centres of politics, of commerce, of
This, rather than wrangling with his
fellow-mortals about creeds and attempts
to name the unnameable, believe the un
believable, and define the undefinable,
seems to me to be the religion of the future.
Call it by what name you like, I quarrel
with no one as long as he can find
“ Sermons in stones and good in everything.”
Chapter XV.
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
Everything was fresh and cheerful as
Fable of the shield—Progress and conservatism
—English and French colonisation—Law- of a new-born earth, and so were the
abidingness—Irish land question True con spirits of the two youthful knights who
servative legislation — Ultra-conservatism
were pricking forth in search of adven
Law and education—Patriotism—Jingoism
and parochialism—True statesmanship—Free tures. He whose face was turned towards
trade and protection—Capital and labour— the West, where the rising sun. had. last
Egoism and altruism—Socialism and laissez set, wore a primrose scarf over his cuirass,
faire—Contracts—Rights and duties of land and had on his shield a quaint device,
lords—George’s theory—State interference—
Railways—Post Office—Telegraphs—National which, on closer inspection, might be seen
to be a tombstone with the inscription,
defence—Concluding remarks.
“ I was well, would be better, and here I, am.”
A well-known fable tells how, in the
olden time, two knights were riding in
opposite directions along a green road
overarched by the trees of an ancient
forest. It was a bright morning in early
summer, with the green leaves freshly
bursting in contrasted foliage; the sun
had just risen over the tops of the trees
in clouds of golden and crimson glory;
dewdrops were glittering like diamonds
on every twig and blade of grass ; and
the joyous birds carolling their loudest
song to greet the opening day.
He rode along musing on the heroic
legends of the past, and wishing that he
had been a knight of Arthur’s round
table to ride out with the blameless king
against invading heathen.
The second knight, whose face was
turned towards the rising sun, bore an
azure shield with a different device. On
it was depicted the good Sir James
Douglass charging the serried Paynim
army, and, as he charged, flinging before
) him into the hostile ranks the casket
�I IO
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
containing the heart of Robert Bruce,
and shouting for battle-cry :
“ Go thou aye forward, as was thy wont.”
As he rode his fancy wrought the fairy
web of a day-dream, in which he saw
himself delivering the fair princess
Liberty from the fiery dragon Prejudice
and the stolid giant Obstruction.
The knights met just where an ancient
oak of mighty bulk stretched overhead
a huge branch across the path, as some
aged athlete might stretch out an arm
rigid with gnarled and knotted muscles,
to show younger generations how
Olympian laurels were won when Pollux
or Hercules plied the cestus. From this
branch a shield hung suspended.
“ Good morrow, fair knight,” said he
of the primrose scarf; “ prithee tell me
if thou knowest what means this golden
shield suspended here.”
“ I marvel at it myself, good Sir
Knight,” responded the other; “ but
you mistake in calling the shield golden :
it is of silver.”
“Your eyes must be of the dullest,”
said the first knight, “if you mistake
gold for silver.”
“Not so dull as yours,” retorted the
other, “ if you mistake silver for gold.”
The argument waxed hot, and, as
usual in such cases, as tempers grew
weak adjectives grew strong. Soon, like
the old Homeric heroes when Greek
met Trojan
“ Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy,”
winged words of fire and fury darted
from each mouth, and epithets were ex
changed, of which “ stupid old Tory ”
and “ low, vulgar Radical ” were among
the least unparliamentary. At length
the fatal words, “ You lie,” escaped
simultaneously from both, and on the
instant spears were couched, steeds
spurred, and, red with rage, they encoun
tered each other in full career. Such
was the momentum that both men and
horses rolled over, even as the Templar
went down before the spear of Ivanhoe
within the lists of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
But, like the redoubted knight Brian de
Bois-Guilbert, each sprang to his feet
and drew his sword, eager to redeem the
fortune of war in deadly combat. Like
two surly boars with bristling backs and
foaming tusks quarrelling for the right of
way in Indian jungle, or tawny lions in
Numidian desert tearing one another topieces for the smiles of a leonine Helen,
the heroes clashed together, cutting,
slashing, parrying, foyning, and traversing,
until at length, bleeding and breathless,
they paused for a moment, leaning on
their swords to recover second wind.
Just then an aged hermit appeared on
the scene, drawn thither by the sound of
the combat.
“Pause, my sons,” he said, “and tell
me what is the cause of this furious
encounter.”
“ Yonder false villain protests,” said
the one, “that the shield which hangs
there is of gold.”
“ And that lying varlet persists that it
is of silver,” said the other.
The hermit smiled, and said : “ Hold
your hands, good sirs, for a single
moment, and use your remaining strength
to exchange places and look at the
opposite side of the shield.”
They obeyed his words, and found to
their confusion that they had been fight
ing in a quarrel in which each was right
and each wrong.
“ Father,” they said, “ we are fools.
Grant us thy pardon for our folly and
absolution for our sin.”
“ Absolution,” said the hermit, “ is
soon granted for faults which arise from
the innate tendency of poor human
nature. Wiser and older men than you
are prone to see only their own side of
a question. Come, then, with me to my
humble hermitage; there will I dress
your wounds and offer you my frugal
fare; happy if from this lesson you may
learn for the rest of your lives, before
indulging in vehement assertions and
proceeding to violent extremities, to
‘ look at the other side of the shield.’ ”
The application of this fable to the
polarity of politics will be obvious to
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
hi
every intelligent reader. As the earth is when they are placed in favourable con
ditions as in new countries, or in old
kept in its orbit by the due balance of
centripetal and centrifugal forces, so is countries where for ages
every civilised society held together by
“Freedom has widened slowly down,
the opposite influences of conservative
From precedent to precedent,
and progressive tendencies. .The con
that this happy ideal is most nearly
servative tendency may be likened to
the centripetal force which binds the realised. Hence it is that these races
mass together, while the progressive one are more and more coming to the front
resembles that centrifugal force which and surviving in the struggle for existence.
The contrast of English and French
prevents it from being concentrated in a
colonisation affords a striking instance of
rigid and inert central body without life
this difference of races. A century and
or motion. As Herbert Spencer truly
says, “ from antagonistic social tendencies a half ago France stood as well as
there always results not a medium state, England in the race for colonial supre
but a rhythm between opposite states. macy. She had the start of us in Canada,
Now the one greatly preponderates, and and her pioneers had explored the Great
presently, by reaction, their comes a Lakes, the Mississippi, and a large part
preponderance of the other.” So it is of the continent of North America west
with the antagonism of conservative and of the Rocky. Mountains. To-day there
liberal tendencies. In the societies of are sixty millions of an English-speaking
the ancient world, and to the present population in that continent, while French
day in the East, the conservative tendency is scarcely spoken beyond the single
unduly preponderates, and they crystal province of Quebec. Political events
lise into inert masses in the form of had doubtless something to. do with
despotisms, and of sacerdotal or ad this result; but it has been mainly owing
ministrative hierarchies. At times the to the innate qualities of the two races,
pent-up forces which make for change for even the genius of Chatham might
accumulate, and, as in the French have failed to establish our supremacy
Revolution, explode with destructive if it had not been backed by the superior
violence, shattering the old and bringing intelligence, energy, and staying power
in new eras. But unless the balance of the English colonists. The ultimate
between liberty and order is tolerably cause of the triumph of the English over
preserved in the individual citizens whose the French element in America, and
aggregate forms the society, after a period India is doubtless to be found in the
more or less prolonged of violent oscilla stronger individualism of the former.
tions, they crystallise anew into fresh The character of the French is eminently
forms, in which another military dynasty, social: they like to live in societies, and
or, it may be, administrative centralisa shrink from encountering the hardships,
tion under the name of a republic, again and still more the isolation, of the life of
asserts the preponderance of the centri early settlers. They like to be adminis
tered, and shrink from the responsibility
petal force.
The happiest nations are those in of hewing out, each for themselves, their
which the individual character of in own path in the relations of civil life or
dividual citizens supplies the requisite in the depths of primaeval forests.
It is so to the present day, and they
balance. An ideal society is one in
which every citizen is at the same time fail conspicuously in creating a large
liberal and conservative; law-abiding, French population even at their own
and yet with a strong instinct for liberty doors in Algeria; while in their more
of thought and action, for progress and distant colonies they conquer and annex,
for individual independence.
It is but to see their commerce fall into the
among the Teutonic races, especially hands of English, Germans, and Chinese,
�112
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
as in Cochin China, or to stagnate as in
New Caledonia. As a witty French
writer puts it, the trade of a remote
French colony may be summed up as—
imports, absinthe and cigars; exports,
stamped paper and red-tape. Individual
ism in this case has been fairly pitted
against Socialism, and has beaten it out
of the field by the verdict of Fact, which
is more conclusive than any amount of
abstract argument.
To return, however, to the field of
politics. Where the essential quality of
being law-abiding is wanting in individuals,
it is hopeless to look for real liberty.
The centripetal force in societies, as in
planets, must be supplied somehow, or
they would fly into dissolution; and if
not by the integration of the tendencies
of the individual units, then by external
restrictions. Socialists may be allowed
to make inflammatory harangues in a
non-explosive atmosphere, but hardly
to let off their fireworks in a powdermagazine. In order, however, that a
nation shall be law-abiding, it is essential
that the great majority should feel that,
on the whole, the law is their friend.
It is not in human nature to love that
which injures, or to respect that which
is felt to be unjust. The volcanic ex
plosion of the French Revolution was
due to the feeling of the French nation,
with the exception of a few courtiers,
nobles, and priests, that the existing
order of things was their enemy, and
law a tool in the hands of their oppressors.
Even among English-speaking races we
find, in the unfortunate instance of
Ireland, that under specially unfavourable
circumstances the same effects may be
produced by the same causes. What
has English law practically meant for
centuries to an average peasant of Kerry
or Connemara? It has meant an irre
sistible malevolent power, which comes
down on him with writs of eviction to
compel him to pay a high rent on his
own improvements. More that half the
population of Ireland consists of tenants
and their families occupying small hold
ings, paying less than ^io a year of rent.
Of an immense majority of these sm.dl
holdings two things' may be safely
asserted : first, that the total gross value
of the produce is insufficient, after paying
the rent, to leave a decent subsistence
for the cultivator. Secondly, that this
rent is levied to a great extent on the
improvements of the tenant or his prede
cessors. Throughout the poorer parts of
Ireland the greater part of the soil, in its
natural state of bog or mountain, is not
worth a rent of a shilling an acre; but
some poor peasant, urged by the earth
hunger which results from the absence
of other sources of employment, squats
upon it, builds a wretched cottage, delves,
drains, fences, and reclaims a few acres
of land, so as to bear a scanty crop of
oats and potatoes. When he has done
so the landlord or landlord’s agent comes
to him and says : “ This land is worth
ten or fifteen shillings an acre, according
to the standard of rents in the district,
and you must pay it or turn out and
the law backs him in saying so by writs
of eviction and police. Put yourself in
poor Pat’s place, and say if you would
love the law and be law-abiding.
It would take me too far from the
scope of this volume into the field of
contemporary politics if I attempted to
point out who is to blame for this state
of things, or what are the remedies. It
is enough to say that this is the real Irish
problem, and to point to it as an instance
of the calamitous effects which inevitably
follow when the instincts of a whole
population are brought by an unfavour
able combination of circumstances into
necessary and natural antagonism with
the laws which they are bound to obey.
Conservative legislation, by whatever
party it is introduced, really means making
the law correspond with the common
sense and common morality of all except
the criminal and crotchety classes, so
that the majority may feel it to be their
friend. For instance, the most truly
conservative measure of recent times was
probably that which legalised trades’
unions and gave working-men full liberty
to combine for an increase of wages.
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
The old legal maxim, that such combina
tions were illegal as being in restraint of
trade, was so obviously an invention of
the members of the upper caste who
wore horsehair wigs, to give their fellows
of the same caste who employed labour
an unfair advantage, that it could not
fail to cause feelings of discontent and
exasperation among the masses of working
men. By its repeal the sting has been
taken out of Socialism, and the British
working-man has come to be, in the main,
a reasonable citizen, on whom incitements
to violence in order to inaugurate Utopias
fall as lightly as the howlings of the
barren east wind on the chimney-tops.
It has led also to reasonable and peaceful
adjustment of disputes between employers
and labourers by arbitration and slidingscales instead of by strikes and lock-outs.
In the United States of America the lawabiding instinct is even stronger. We
find that strikes attended with violence
are almost always confined mainly to the
foreign element of recently-imported
immigrants, and that the native-born
American citizen considers the laws as
his own laws, and is determined to have
them respected.
The balance between the conservative
and progressive tendencies is, however,
at the best, always imperfect, and inclines
too much sometimes in one and some
times in the other direction. In England
the conservative tendency has had, on
the whole, too much preponderance. I
do not speak of political institutions, for
in these of late years the balance has
been pretty equally preserved ; but in
practical matters there is still a good
deal of old-fashioned stolid obstruction.
This is most apparent in law and in
education. The common or judge-made
law, though on the whole well-intentioned
and upright, is fettered by so many
technicalities and musty precedents that
it fails in a great many instances to be
what civil law ought to be—a cheap,
speedy, and intelligible instrument for
enforcing honest dealings as between
man and man. One of our greatest
railway contractors once said to me : “ If
113
I want to make an agreement which shall
be absolutely binding, I make it myself
on a sheet of notepaper; if I want to
have a loophole, I send it to my lawyer
to have it drawn up in legal language
and engrossed on sheets of parchment.”
Another man of large experience in com
mercial and financial matters laid down
this axiom : “ If you want to know what
is the law in a doubtful case, reason out
what is the common-sense view of it,
and assume that the direct opposite is
probably the law.”
These may be
extreme instances, as all such epigram
matic sentences generally are, but it is
undeniable that they have a considerable
basis of substantial truth; and that law,
with its dilatory processes, its enormous
expense, and its uncertain conclusions,
may be, and often is, not an instrument
of justice, but a weapon in the hands of
an unscrupulous adventurer or of a dis
honest rich man to extort blackmail or
to defeat just claims.
Again, what nation but England would
tolerate so long a system of land law,
so bristling with antiquated technicali
ties, so tedious, and so expensive, as
almost to amount to a prohibition of the
transfer of land in small quantities; or
would let the private interests of a mere
handful of professional lawyers stand in
the way of a codification of laws and a
registration of titles ?
Education is another subject which
shows how difficult it is to move the
sluggish ultra-conservative instincts of
the English mind in the direction, of
progress, when not stimulated by political
conflict.
What is education ?
The
word tells its own story; it is to draw
out, not to cram in; to unfold the capa
cities of the growing mind, strengthen
the reasoning faculty, create an interest
in the surrounding universe—in a word,
to excite a love of knowledge and impart
the means of acquiring it. For the mass
of the population education is neces
sarily confined in a great measure to the
latter object. The three R’s—-reading,
writing, and arithmetic—are indispens
able requisites, and the acquirement of
�H4
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
these, with perhaps a few elements of
history and geography, absorbs nearly
all the time and opportunity that can be
afforded for attendance at school. For
any culture beyond this the great
majority must depend on themselves in
after life. But there are a large number
of parents of the upper and middle
classes who can and do keep their
children at school for eight or ten years,
and spend a large sum of money in
giving them what is called a higher
education. What is there to show for
this time and money, even in the case
of the highest schools, which ought to
give the highest education? On the
credit side, a little Latin and less Greek,
plenty of cricket and athletics, good phy
sical training, and, best of all on the whole,
a manly, honourable, and gentlemanlike
spirit.
But on the debit side, abso
lute ignorance, except in the case of a
few unusually clever and ambitious boys,
of all that a cultivated man of the twen
tieth century ought to know. No French,
no German, and, what is worse, no
English. The average boy can neither
write his own language legibly nor gram
matically, and, if he goes straight from a
public school into a competitive examina
tion, stands an excellent chance of being
plucked for spelling. And, what is worst
of all, he not only knows nothing, but
cares to know nothing; his reasoning
faculty has never been cultivated, and
his interest in interesting things has
never been awakened. What is the first
lesson he has had to learn ? “Propria
qucn maribus dicantur mascula dicas ”—
that is, words appropriated to males are
called masculine—a lesson which elicits
as much reasoning faculty and creates as
much interest as if he had been made to
commit to memory that things made of
gold are called golden. Suppose instead
of this that the lesson had been that two
volumes of hydrogen combine with one
volume of oxygen to form water. The
exercise to the memory is the same; but
how different is the amount of thought
and interest evoked, especially if the
experiment is made before the class and
each boy has to repeat it for himself!
How many new subjects of interest woud
this open up in the mind of any lad of
average intelligence ! How strange that
there should be airs other than the
air we breathe, which can be weighed
and measured, and that two of them
by combining shall produce their exact
weight of a substance so unlike them
as water!
Or if the exercise of a
class were to look through a microscope
at the leaf of a plant or wing of an insect,
and try who could best draw what they
had seen and write a description of it in
a legible hand and in good English, how
many faculties would this call into play
compared with the dull routine of parsing
a Latin sentence or writing a halting
copy of Greek iambics 1 Even grammar,
the one thing which is supposed to be
taught thoroughly, is taught so unintelligently that it awakens no interest beyond
that of a parrot learning by rote. From
“propria qua maribus” the scholar passes
to “ as tn prasenti perfectum format in
avif without an attempt to explain what
language really means, how it originates
from root-words, and how these inflec
tions of “as” and “avi” are part of the
devices which certain families of man
kind, including our own, have invented
as a mechanism for attaching shades of
meaning, such as present and past, to
the primitive root. Even the alphabet,
intelligently taught, opens up wide fields
of interesting matter as to the history of
ancient nations, and their successive
attempts to analyse the component
sounds of their spoken words, and to
pass from primitive picture-writing to
phonetic symbols. But the instructors
of the budding manhood of the elite of
the nation, like Gallio, “ care for none
of these things,” and the organisation of
our higher schools seems to be stereo
typed on the principle that they are
made for teachers rather than for scholars,
and that the chief raison d'etre is to
enable a limited number of highly re
spectable gentlemen from the Universities
to realise comfortable incomes with a
maximum of holidays and a minimum of
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
115
gance and insolent ignorance I Reflected
trouble. And the parents support the
in the latter form from Paris, in hysterical
system because so many of them really
reverence rank more than knowledge, shouts now of “ A Berlin, a Berlin!
and are willing to compound for their and now “ A bas perfide Albion !. we
call it “ Chauvinism,” and recognise it
sons growing up ignorant, idle, and extra
as an unlovely exhibition. But call it
vagant, if by any chance they can count
“Jingoism,” and let it take the form of
a lord or two among their acquaintance.
Mr. Francis Galton, in the course of the bellowings of some stupid bull, as
the red rag, now of a French and now of
his interesting inquiries as to the effect
a Russian scare, crosses his line of vision,
of heredity and education on character
and attainments, took the very practical and we are blind to its deformity. Still
course of addressing a set of questions to there is another side to the shield, for even
“ Jingoism,” which is only another word
some hundred and eighty of our most
for patriotism run mad, is more respect
distinguished men as to the hereditary
able than the opposite extreme, of a
qualities of their ancestors, and the
sordid and narrow-minded parochialism,
various influences which they considered
had done most to promote or to retard which shrinks behind the “ silver streak,
measures everything by the standard of
their success in life. Of course, he re
pounds, shillings, and pence, and, with
ceived a variety of answers, “ quot. homines
tot sententice” but upon one point there what Tenhyson calls
“The craven fear of being great,”
was a striking unanimity. “ They almost
all expressed a hatred of grammar and groans over the responsibilities of ex
the classics, and an utter distaste for the tended empire. The growth.of such a
old-fashioned system of education. There spirit among prominent politicians of the
were none who had passed through this advanced Liberal school seems to me
old high and dry education who were one of the most alarming symptoms of
satisfied with it. Those who came from the day; but I take comfort when I
the greater schools usually did nothing reflect that the most democratic com
there, and have abused the system munity in the world—that of the United
heartily.”
States—is precisely the one which has
And yet the system goes on, and the shown most determination to maintain
Eton Latin grammar will probably be its national greatness, if necessary by the
taught, and hexameters written, for sword, and has made the greatest sacri
another generation. Surely the needle fices for that object. If the. “copper
swings here too strongly towards the heads ” were a miserable minority in
negative or obstructive pole.
America, why should we be afraid of
The instances are so numerous in our “ English copperheads ” ever be
social and practical life in which it is coming a majority in Old England? .
necessary to look at both sides of the
In this, as in all similar cases, it is
shield that the difficulty is in selection. evident that true statesmanship consists
Take the case of patriotism. Patriotism in hitting the happy mean, and doing
is beyond all doubt a great virtue—in the right thing at the right time; and
fact, the fertile mother of many of the that true strength stands firm in the
higher and heroic virtues. Who does middle between the two opposite poles,
not sympathise with the legends of while weakness is drawn, by one or other
Wallace and William Tell, and scorn of the conflicting attractions into
with Walter Scott
“ The falsehood of extremes.”
“the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself has said,
1 This is my own, my native land ’ ” ?
And yet how thin a line of partition
separates it from narrow-minded arro-
When Sir Robert Peel, some forty
years ago, announced his conversion by
the unadorned eloquence of Richard
Cobden, and free trade was inaugurated,
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
with results which were attended with foreign trade for the supplies to keep the
the most brilliant success, everyone ex other half alive. It is the best policy
pected that the conversion of the rest of also for a country which, owing to its
the civilised world was only a question mineral resources, its accessibility by sea
of time, and that a short time. Few to markets, its accumulated capital, and
would have been found bold enough to the inherited qualities, physical and
predict that forty years later England moral, of its working population, has
would stand almost alone in the world unrivalled advantages for cheap pro
in adherence to free trade principles, duction. Nor can any dispassionate
and that the protectionist heresy would observer dispute that in England, which
not only be strengthened and confirmed is such a country, free trade has worked
among Continental nations, such as well. It has not worked miracles, it has
France and Germany, but actually not introduced an industrial millennium,
adopted by large and increasing majorities the poor are still with us, and it has not
in the United States, Canada, Australia, saved us from our share of commercial
and other English-speaking communities. depressions. But, on the whole, national
Yet such is the actual fact at the present wealth has greatly increased, and, what
day. In spite of the Cobden Club and is more important, national well-being
of arguments which to the average has increased with it, the mass of the
English mind appear irresistible, free population, and especially of the working
trade has been steadily losing ground classes, get better wages, work shorter
for the last twenty years, and nation after hours, and are better fed, better clothed,
nation, colony after colony, sees its pro and better educated than they were forty
tectionist majority increasing and its free years ago.
trade minority dwindling.
This is one side of the shield, and it
It is evident there must be some real is really a golden and not an illusory
cause for such a universal phenomenon. one. But look at the other side. Take
In countries like France and Russia we the case of a country where totally oppo
may attribute it to economical ignorance site conditions prevail—where there is
and the influence of cliques of manu no surplus population, unlimited land,
facturers and selfish interests; but the limited capital, labour scarce and dear,
people of Germany, and still more of the and no possibility of competing in the
United States, Canada, and Australia, foreign, or even in the home, market
are as intelligent as ourselves, and quite with the manufactures which, with free
as shrewd in seeing where those interests trade, would be poured in by countries
really lie. They are fettered by no tradi like England, in prior possession of all
tional prejudices, and their political in the elements of cheap production. It
stincts rather lie towards freedom and is by no means so clear that protection,
against the creation of anything like an to enable native industries to take root
aristocracy of wealthy manufacturers. and grow, may not in such cases be the
And yet, after years of free discussion, wisest policy.
they have become more and more
Take as a simple illustration the case of
hardened in their protectionist heresies. an Australian colony imposing an import
What does this prove? That there duty on foreign boots and shoes. There
are two sides to the shield, and not, as is not a doubt that this is practically
we fancied in our English insularity, only taxing the immense majority of colonists
one.
who wear and do not make these articles.
Free trade is undoubtedly the best, or But, on the other hand, it makes the
rather the only possible, policy for a colony a possible field for emigration for
country like England, with forty millions all the shoemakers of Europe, and shoe
of inhabitants, producing food for less making a trade to which any Australian
than half the number, and depending on with a large family can bring up one of
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
J17
a larger life possible, it may be sound
his sons. Looking at it from the strict
point of view of the most rigid political policy to pay it, and the result seems to
economist, the maximum production of show that neither it nor free trade is
inconsistent with rapid progress j while,
wealth, which is the better policy ? The
production of wealth, we must recollect, on the other hand, neither of them
affords an absolute immunity from the
depends on labour, and productive labour
depends on the labourer finding his tools evils that dog the footsteps of progress,
and from the periods of reaction and
—that is, employment at which he can
work. A labourer who cannot find work depression which accompany vicissitudes
at living wages is worse than a zero j he is of trade.
Here, as in other cases, there are two
a negative quantity, as far as the accu
mulation of wealth is concerned. On sides of the shield, and true statesman
the other hand, every workman who ship consists in seeing, both, and doing
finds work, even if it may not be of the the right thing, at the right place, and at
ideally best description, is a wealth-pro the right time. If free trade .is, as we
believe, ultimately to prevail, it will be
ducing machine. What he spends on
himself and his family gives employment an affair of time. The real trial of pro
to other workmen, and the work must be tection comes when it has stimulated pro
poor indeed if the produce of a year s duction to a point which gluts the home
labour is not more than the cost of a market and leaves a surplus which must
Exports of articles the
year’s subsistence. The surplus adds to be exported.
the national capital, and thus capital and cost of which has been artificially, raised
population go on increasing in geo by protection cannot compete in the
metrical progression. The first problem, world’s market with the cheaper products
Vicissitudes,
therefore, for a new or a backward of free-trade countries.
country is to find “a fair day’s wages therefore, of prosperity and depression
for a fair day’s work ” for as many hands must tend to become more frequent and
as possible. The problem of making more severe, and, if production goes on,
that employment the most productive a point must be reached where, at what
possible is a secondary one, which will ever cost, it must either be ai rested or
solve itself in each case rather by actual made capable of competing in the wider
market. The United States are probably
practice than by abstract theory.
not far from such a point, and it would
This much, however, is pretty clear—
that, in order to secure the maximum of have been already reached but for the
employment, it must be varied. All are immense and unexhausted resources of
not fit for agricultural work, and, even if that vast continent. In France the point
they were, if the conditions of soil and has apparently been reached, and we
climate favour large estates and sheep find that, with a lower scale of wages
or cattle runs rather than small farms, a than in England, it is becoming more
large amount of capital may provide and more difficult every day to maintain
work for only a small number of that lower scale and the export trade
labourers. On social and moral grounds, of its manufactured goods to foreign
also, apart from dry considerations of markets.
Protection, leading to higher wages
political economy, progress, intelligence,
and a higher standard of life are more and profits than can be permanently
likely to be found with large cities, manu maintained, and artificially enhancing
factures, and a variety of industrial occu the cost of living to the working classes,
pations than with a dead level of a few threatens more and more every day to
millionaires and a few shepherds, or of introduce strained relations between
a few landlords and a dense population capital and labour in most countries of
of poor peasants. If protection is the Europe.
The relation between capital and
price which must be paid to render such
�118
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
labour affords a good instance of the: manufacturer or mine-owner’s profit may
inevitable error of applying hard-and- rise from five to twenty per cent, without
fast logical conclusions to the complex quadrupling the rate of wages; but, on
and ever-varying problems of actual life. the other hand, it may fall from twenty
- Ricardo and other distinguished writers per cent, to five, or even for a time below
on political economy have assumed that zero, without a proportionate diminution
the two constitute a fundamental antago in the price paid for labour. Capital is,
nistic polarity. Wealth, they say, is the in fact, the great insurer of labour, the
joint product of capital and labour, and, fly-wheel which regulates the motion of
as in the case of a cake which has to be the industrial machine. This will be
divided between C and L, the more C best illustrated by a practical instance.
gets the less is left for L, and vice versit,. The Brighton Railway Company for
The theory sounds plausible; but what several consecutive years paid no divi
says fact ? In the most unmistakeable dend, or only a trifling amount, on the
manner it pronounces, as the outcome of shareholders’ capital; but during the
practical experience, that the profits of whole of this time it gave steady employ
capital and the wages of labour rise and ment at good wages to upwards of ten
fall together. High profits mean high thousand workmen. The Blaenavon
wages, rising profits rising wages, falling Coal and Iron Company in South Wales
profits falling wages. It has been proved was for many years a losing concern, and
so in a thousand instances, and not one successive capitalists lost the best part of
can be quoted where the one factor has a million pounds in it, until at length it
varied in an inverse, and not in a direct, was reorganised with a small capital, and
ratio with the other. It is obvious that became a fairly prosperous concern.
there must be some fallacy in Ricardo’s During the whole of this time it gave
argument.
The fallacy is this : he employment at fair wages to several
assumes the cake to be of fixed dimen thousand workmen. Which had the
sions, whereas, in point of fact, it varies, better of it in these two cases, capital or
sometimes diminishing to zero, or even labour; and where would the workmen
to a negative quantity, at others expand have been on any communistic or co
ing to many times its original size. A operative system ? In fact, it will be
new goldfield is discovered in a remote apparent to anyone who will' study dis
country, and forthwith profits rise to passionately the statistics of any line of
cent, per cent., and wages to a pound a inquiry, such as the scale of wages, the
day; a bad season and depression of price of provisions, and the accumula
trade overtake an old country, and the tions of savings banks and provident
gross value of the produce of many a societies, etc., for the last twenty years,
farm is insufficient to cover expenses that the working classes have had the
and depreciation, even if the labourers lion’s share of the vast increase which has
worked for nothing. The polarity is taken place in the wealth and income of
therefore confined to the limited and the nation. I am glad that it is so, for
temporary case of the division of the it is better, both morally and politically,
profit, where there is a profit, in particular that the condition of the masses should
trades and in individual instances. And be improved and their standard of living
this is regulated mainly by the accus raised than that capital should accumu
tomed scale of wages and standard of late too exclusively in large masses.
living of the workmen, and their oppor
Still, there is a good deal to be said
tunities of finding employment elsewhere for such large accumulations. Let us
if dissatisfied with the terms offered to go to the United States of America for
them. On the whole, it may be said an illustration, where everything is on a
that capital has the best of it on a rising, large scale, and colossal fortunes have
and wages on a falling, market. A | been made in a few years. The modus
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
119
the continent—the Northern Pacificoperand! by which most of these fortunes j
ruined two successive sets of promoters,
have been made may be described ac
and is only now beginning to be mode
cording to the way we look at it, either
as a railway jobbing or as pioneering the rately successful.
But the final result has been that,
way in useful enterprise. The construc
while British India, which went on what
tion of the first railway across the conti
may be called the respectable system of
nent to California is a typical instance.
getting a pound’s worth of work for every
A clique or syndicate of wealthy specula
pound raised, has only 12,000 miles of
tors make surveys and estimates of a
railway, the United States, under the
line across deserts and over mountain
ranges, and ascertain pretty accurately speculative system, has got 120,000
miles. I cannot doubt that the national
what it will cost. They form a company
with a capital double that cost, and, by wealth of America is greater at the
present day than if there had been no
subventions from the Government, grants
of land, and sale of mortgage bonds, raise Jay Goulds or Vanderbilts, and the con
the half really required and hold the struction of her railways had been de
layed on the average for twenty years.
other half in shares as profit m paper.
The contrast between labour and
The line is made, and if the traffic turns
capital or free trade and protection is
out well, and there is a period of specula
tion in the money market, the paper is only a particular case of the larger
turned into dollars, and, if the line really polarity between what is called in scien
costs, say, ^10,000,000 or ^20,000,000, tific language egoism and altruism, or,
in more popular phraseology, individual
the promoters realise an equal amount
ism and socialism. According to one
as profit.
. .
theory, the best result is obtained by
This has two sides to it—it is doubt
leaving individuals as free as possible to
less bad for the public to have to pay
rates which give a return on twice the act on their own suggestions of their
actual cost, and the possession of a close duties and interests, and confining the
monopoly in the hands of a few mil intervention of the State to enforcing
lionaires may be abused to the detriment laws for the protection of life and pro
of individual traders. But, on the other perty, and such measures as are obviously
hand, the railway could not have been necessary for the safety of society.
made in any other way. If it had been According to the other theory, the State
necessary to wait until the slow growth ought to interfere wherever the results of
of population insured such a traffic as individual liberty lead to abuses, and
would induce the ordinary public, to should endeavour to create a society as
subscribe for shares at par, you might near to ideal perfection as possible, by
have waited for twenty years before administering and regulating the public
a single mile of railway was made west and private affairs of its citizens. It is
of the Mississippi. Nor is this all. The obvious that the question has two sides
enormous profit realised in the first, of —that extreme conclusions in either
these enterprises led to a rush of rich direction are, as is always the case, in
speculators into the lottery of. pushing variably false. Individualism carried too
railways ahead of traffic, in which there far would disintegrate society. It would
were such magnificent prizes. The con be impossible to leave it to the short
tinent was covered by new railways, built sighted selfishness of every citizen to say
to create new traffic rather than to pro whether an army and navy should be
vide for that which already existed. And maintained for national defence, and
the traffic was created—though, as. the taxes should be levied for their support.
Individualism also easily passes oyer
lottery contained blanks as well as prizes,
into a hard and cruel selfishness, which
many of the original promoters were
ruined. The second great line spanning recognises no obligation beyond the letter
�120
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
of the law, and acts practically on the
success
that
principle of “Every one for himself, there is to two conditions—first, mar
no marrying or giving in
and the devil take the hindmost.” It is riage; secondly, that a member invented
this phase of individualism which makes
a patent, rat-trap—conditions which are
enthusiasts and men of strong moral hardly likely to survive in the struggle
and religious sympathies declaim so for life and become a type for general
vehemently against laissez faire, and cry adoption.
aloud, like Carlyle, for a hero or bene . The nearest approach to Communism
volent despot who is to scourge humanity in practical operation on a large scale is
into the practice of all the virtues.
that of the village communities of Russia
On the other hand, Socialism, if not and parts of India, which certainly show
confined within rigid limits of experience no signs of being progressive types
and common sense, is even more des destined to gain ground. On the con
tructive. in its consequences. Civilised trary,. they fail to fulfil what is the first
society is based on the security of private condition of an agricultural community
property and the observance of contracts.
that of obtaining a fair average pro
If these are liable, not merely to be duce from the soil; and the more enter
regulated in extreme and exceptional prising and intelligent moujiks or ryots
cases,, but to be absolutely condemned invariably seek to obtain something
in principle, as by Socialists of the which they can call their own and are
Proudhon school, who declare, “ La not obliged to share with the idle and
propnete c'est le vol”-, or overruled and improvident. A conclusive objection to
set aside whenever they are thought to all schemes of socialism or communism
conflict with humanitarian scruples or is that they not only crush out all indivi
sentimental aspirations, society would be dual initiative and enterprise in material
dissolved into its elements, to crystallise life, but that they also destroy all incen
anew about some military dictator or tives to individual charity and bene
other strong form of repressive govern volence. Why make sacrifices to help
ment, who.could restore it to a state of others if they are already helped at your
stable equilibrium in accordance with expense by the State ? This is no theo
these fundamental laws.
retical objection, but has been proved
No society based on the community practically by the history, of the poor
of goods has ever existed, except on a laws. What scope for individual charity
very limited scale and for a very short was there, in a parish like that in Buck
time, under some strong temporary in inghamshire, where under the old poor
fluence, such as religious excitement. law the rate has risen to twenty shillings
In. the early Christian Church it only in.the pound, and the cultivation of the
existed as long as its members were a soil was abandoned ? Or even in less
handful of humble individuals who were extreme cases, any one who is acquainted
impressed with the idea that the end of with remote rural parishes inhabited by
the world was close at hand, and that cotters and small farmers must be aware
sacrifices made on earth would be repaid that the poor law operates strongly to
at an early day, with compound interest, destroy the feeling of manly indepen
in heaven. They acted on what was dence and family affection which induced
almost as much a principle of enlightened the poor to support their own aged and
selfishness as if they had placed their infirm relatives.
money on the best possible security at
In many parts of Scotland with which
the highest possible interest.
I am personally acquainted men who a
The only existing society, as far as I generation ago would have thought it a
am aware, which has everything in disgrace to ask for help to support an
common is a small sect of Shakers, in aged father or mother now think it only
the United States, which owes its limited fair play, after having contributed for
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
121
years to the poor rate, to try and get | dren, it is absurd to say that they are free
agents in contracting for the disposal of
something out of it in return.
Altruism, as Herbert Spencer_ well their labour, and the State properly
puts it, if carried to excess, defeats itself, interferes by Factory Acts to limit the
for in annihilating egoistic vices it anni number of hours for which they are to
hilates egoistic virtues, and the result is work. So in the relations between land-*
zero_a result which, as “nature abhors lord and tenant, whenever they meet on
a vacuum,” can happily never be at equal terms, and the tenant has an
tained, and the precepts of the Sermon option of either taking or refusing to
on the Mount must always remain take a farm at the rent asked, both sides
maxims of private morality rather than must be held to their bargain, however
disadvantageous it may turn out for
of State regulation.
It is of little use, however, to deal with either of them. But if the landlord is
such generalities; as long as we confine practically omnipotent, and the tenant
ourselves to extreme instances on either has no alternative but to promise to pay
side it is as easy as it is idle to refute an impossible rent or to be turned out
them. Profitable discussion only begins on the roadside and die of starvation, it
when we enter on the wide intermediate is by no means so clear that the State
space which lies between the extreme should enforce the bargain unless the
frontier provinces, and, instead of argu landlord submits to equitable terms. Or
ing for absolute conclusions, endeavour again, if the rent is not due to the in
to discover the happy mean in doubtful trinsic value of the land, but is a con
cases, where there really are limitations fiscation of the tenant’s improvements,
of time and circumstance and a. good it is far from being self-evident that the
deal which may be reasonably said on law should look only at landlords’ rights
and forget all about landlords’ duties.
each side of the question.
It is a question rather of fact than of
Take, for instance, the case of contract,
which has been so much discussed with argument or assertion whether such a
reference to the Irish question. Nothing state of things does or does not prevail
can be clearer than that the enforcement at any particular time in any particular
of contracts is one of the principal duties country. If the contracts were fair
of a Government. The principle caveat bargains entered into by free agepts,
emptor may occasionally lead to results they ought to be enforced whether prices
not altogether consistent with strict have risen or fallen, leaving it to the
morality; but there will always be fools humanity and self-interest of landlords
in the world, and it is better that they to make reasonable reductions. . But if
should pay for their folly than that the they were no more equal bargains than
State should be perpetually interfering in those of slaves or factory children, the
the vain attempt to protect them. The State might fairly interfere to attach
bargain may be a bad one, but it is far equitable conditions to the enforcement
better that men should be held to their of inequitable contracts.
The antithesis between the rights and
bargains than that every loser should
have a loophole provided to escape by duties of property, especially in the case
appealing to some legal quibble or State- of land, is one which raises many nice
and difficult questions. Some theorists,
provided tribunal of arbitration.
But there are limits to this salutary like Henry George, are for solving it by
principle. The contract must be a free ignoring the rights altogether. According
one, freely entered into by parties who to them, private property in land is the
meet on equal terms. If it is a com source of all the evils that afflict modern
pulsory one, which the weaker party has society; poverty, depressions of trade,
practically no option of refusing, the situa low profits, and low wages are caused by
tion is altered. Thus, in the case of chil the constant drift towards high rents,
�122
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
due to the possession by a small section
of the community of a monopoly in that
which is as much a necessity of existence
as air or water. Abolish private property
in land, and straightway you will have
the millennium.
In this extreme form the fallacy of the
argument is obvious. You cannot stop
at land, but must have the courage of
your opinion, and go the full length, like
Proudhon, of denouncing all property as
robbery. For if the right of individual
property is the first condition of civilised
society, you can hardly exclude that
form of it which, in all ages and all
countries, has been practically the most
powerful incentive to progress and civili
sation.
Compare the United States of America,
under their homestead laws, with Russia,
under a system of village communes; or
the California of to-day with that of fifty
years ago under the Jesuit padres; and
you will see that the desire to acquire
property in land has been what may be
called the high-pressure steam supplying
the motive power to reclaim continents
and multiply populations.
Nor in principle is there any argu
ment for the confiscation of land which
would not equally apply to the con
fiscation of any other sort of property,
when theorists, philanthropic at other
people’s expense, thought that the owner
had more than was good for him, or had
acquired it as an unearned increment,
without working for it. Suppose two
men, A and B, employed as engine
drivers on an American railway, have
each saved a hundred dollars. The rail
way has been a failure : intended to reach
a distant terminus, it has stopped half
way in a desert, for want of funds, and
for years has paid no dividend. The
hundred-dollar shares are only worth ten,
and the land at the distant terminus is
only worth ten dollars an acre. But A
and B are sharp fellows, and see that, if
speculation ever revives, the line will
probably be completed, and both shares
and land will become valuable. A buys
ten shares with his hundred dollars, and |
B ten acres of land. The boom comes,
the capital is found, the line completed,
and the shares rise to par, and the land
to a hundred dollars an acre. A and B
have each realised nine hundred dollars
by what may be described, as you like to
put it, either as an unearned increment
or as providence and foresight. On what
principle can you confiscate B’s nine
hundred dollars because it is in land, and
leave A’s untouched because it is in
shares ?
On the other hand, there is no doubt
that when we come to more complex
cases, in which land is held in large
masses, fenced in, not by the natural
right of a man to the produce of his own
exertions, but by artificial legal systems
of inheritance and settlement, we are on
neutral ground, where fair discussion is
possible as to the limitations and condi
tions under which the State may afford
its protection. Landed property is more
the creature of law, and runs greater
risks in case of revolution or communistic
legislation than personal property, which
is more easily concealed or transferred.
It is not unreasonable, therefore, that it
should pay a higher insurance in the
form of taxation, and especially when it
passes by inheritance or settlement, when
the new owner’s title is to a great extent
artificial and the creation of the law. No
one can dispute the abstract justice of a
succession duty on all property, landed
or personal, in proportion to its amount,
passing by operation of law : the only
question can be as to the amount, and
the expediency of confining it within
limits that shall not trench on confisca
tion or impair the desire to accumulate
capital. And in the case of land, there
is no doubt that there are a good many
instances in which the question of the
“ unearned increment ” is raised more
forcibly than in the case of ordinary pro
perty. Take a practical instance within
my own knowledge, for an illustration is
often better than an argument. There
was a mountain property in Wales which,
as a sheep or cattle farm, might be worth
at the outside ^800 a year. Coal and
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
123
iron were discovered under it, capitalists on the evils which arise from State inter
sank pits and erected works, two or three ference. There can be no doubt that it
sets losing their money; but the works is very undesirable that the State should
were carried on, a large amount of labour become a sort of Jack-of-all-trades, and
was employed, and in course of time a undertake branches of business which
town of some eight or nine thousand can be conducted by private enterprise.
inhabitants sprang up. The proprietor’s It is undesirable for two reasons : first,
^800 a year grew into ^8,000 from because the work is certain to cost more
fixed rents and royalties, which he has and be worse done; secondly, for the
enjoyed for the last thirty years, through still more important reason that it tends
good times and bad, without being called to extinguish individual enterprise,
on to contribute a penny towards schools, strangle progress with red-tape, and teach
churches, roads, sewers, water, or any of a nation to look, like children, to outside
the local objects necessary for the civilised guidance, rather than, like men, to their
existence of the population of eight own. Still, the question has two sides.
thousand, whose labour has added to his Whatever individual enterprise can do
wealth. I do not blame him *. the law should be left to it; but there are, in the
told him to do what he liked with his complex conditions of modem society,
own, and it probably never occurred to a number of things which cannot be
him that he was under any moral done by individuals, and which must
obligation to go beyond the law. But I either be left undone or done by the
do think that the law would have been State, or by some local authority, jointmore just, and better for the interests stock company, or other quasi-monopoly
of the community, if it had made some sanctioned by the State. Thus, if it
portion of this unearned increment, of were a question of bringing coals from
^■7,000 a year liable for a contribution Newcastle by sea, no one would suggest
towards the sanitary and other objects that the State should interfere with the
essential for the decent existence of the private enterprise of individual ship
town which had grown up on this property owners. But to bring them by land
and given it this increased value. I requires railways, and railways can only
cannot help thinking that centuries of be built by capital beyond the reach of
landlord legislation, and of a public private individuals. If the State had
opinion based mainly on that of the not delegated a portion of its powers to
wealthy and specially of the landed joint-stock companies, not a ton of coal
classes, have made our laws in many would ever have been brought by land
respects too favourable to the pre to London.
And if the State may thus occasionally
dominant interests, and that the swing
of the pendulum now is, and properly delegate its powers with advantage to the
is, in the direction of recognising the community, there are cases in which it
may, with equal advantage, undertake
duties as well as the rights of property.
We must take care, however, not to itself branches of the nation’s business.
let it swing too far in this direction, for For instance, the Postal Service. .The
of the two evils it is better to put up advantages of a cheap and uniform
with occasional cases of hardship and system for the collection and delivery of
oppression on the part of bad landlords letters throughout the whole kingdom
than to endanger the security of property are so great that they far outweigh, any
by reforms pushed to extremes at the theoretical objections to State inter
dictation of impulsive masses, design ference. Possibly some of the larger
ing demagogues, or sentimental philan towns might have been as well or better
served by private enterprise, but no non
thropists.
Herbert Spencer, in his works on paying district would have had a postSociology, often dwells with great force office, and the enormous commercial
�124
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
and educational benefits of the penny dozen telegrams asking him to quote
post would have been in a great measure special rates, one perhaps for beef from
lost to the community.
Chicago to London, another for emi
The case of telegraphs is not so clear. grants from Hamburg to New York via
Probably, on the whole, the advantages Liverpool, and all requiring telegraphic
of a uniform State management pre answers then and there, if the business is
ponderate, but there are drawbacks to be done at all.
which make it doubtful. Even at a six
Again, if railways had been in the
penny rate a great deal of the telegraphic hands of the State, I do not suppose
communication of the large towns and that we should have had half our present
active centres of business is taxed to mileage; for the Treasury would never
make up for the deficiency of the rest of have sanctioned the outlay of public
the kingdom. And invention and im money on lines which could not show
provement in telegraphy are no doubt the prospect of a fair return on the
checked to a considerable extent by capital, and it would have vetoed any
creating a State monopoly, whose first multiplication of trains or reduction of
duty it is to try to satisfy its masters at rates which threatened loss to the ex
the Treasury by making the system pay. chequer. I can speak with some autho
When we come to railways, we are on rity on this point, for I have been both
debateable ground, and it is fairly chairman of a railway company and
arguable that they should be worked by Secretary of the Treasury, and I am
the State for the public good. But the certain that, in the former capacity, I
objections here outweigh the advantages. have introduced important innovations,
Everyone who has any practical experi such as excursion trains and cheap
ence of the working of railways must be periodical tickets, by which the public
aware that the simplicity and uniformity have greatly benefited, which I should
of the penny postal system are totally have vetoed in the latter capacity.
inapplicable, and that the traffic of the
Still, there may be exceptional cases,
country requires, above all things, great as that of Ireland, where an unreason
freedom and elasticity in meeting, day able number of poor companies, in a
by day, the varying contingencies which poor country, wrangling among them
arise. Here is an illustration: In a selves, and giving a bad service at an
certain town in France, on a railway excessive cost, intensify social and
worked by the State, it was determined political evils, where the arguments in
to have a fete, in order to raise funds for favour of a State purchase may outweigh
a hospital, and, as an attraction, to bring the objections; and the extent and
down from Paris a small troop of actors nature of State control over British rail
and have a play in the evening. The ways is always a question fairly open to
question turned on the railway consent discussion.
ing to give them a reduced fare for the
In other departments the supply of
return journey. The manager of the articles such as water and gas, and the
railway was quite willing, but said that enforcement of sanitary conditions, are
he had no power to alter the tariff with probably best left to local authorities : in
out permission from the Minister of the latter case, under some central super
Public Works. The permission was vision, to see that the duty is not evaded.
applied for, and the result was that it Wherever neglect involves danger to
arrived exactly on the day twelve months others, as in the case of small-pox and
after the fete had been held.
other contagious epidemics, it is clear
Contrast this with the case of the that the decision cannot be left to indi
general manager of the London and viduals, and the State is bound to inter
North-Western Railway sitting in his fere to enforce rational precautions.
office at Euston and receiving half a
So also the State is bound to undertake
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
trades which are essential for the pro
tection of the nation against foreign
enemies. Our dockyards and arsenals
may, and doubtless do, often make mis
takes and turn out expensive work ; but
we could not safely leave the building of
ironclads and supply of cannon solely to
private enterprise, for there is no such
large and steady demand for these articles
as would induce a number of private
firms to erect works and keep up estab
lishments adequate to supply the wants
which might arise in an emergency.. In
all such matters, therefore., of national
defence we must put up with a certain
amount of drawbacks incidental to State
management, and confine ourselves to
endeavouring to reduce them to a
minimum. And this is, to a great ex
tent, within the power of the nation and
its Parliament, by applying common
sense principles of business to national
expenditure, and seeing that, while on the
one hand we get as nearly as possible a
pound’s worth of work for every pound
spent, on the other hand we do not
spend nineteen shillings
uselessly,
because some Chancellor of the Ex
chequer wants to gain momentary popu
larity by the “ penny wise and pound
foolish ” economy of docking the extra
shilling off the necessary estimates. In
private life a man gets on by knowing
when to spend as well as when not to
spend, and true economy has no greater
foe than spasmodic parsimony alternating
almost certainly with spasmodic extrava
gance. It would be easy to multiply
instances, for there are few phases of
political and practical life to which the
principle of polarity does not apply,
where extremes are not false, and where
there is not a good deal to be said on
both sides of the question. But the very
obviousness of the principle makes it
difficult to deal with it generally without
degenerating into commonplace, while to
trace its application exhaustively in any
one instance would require a volume.
Those who wish to pursue the subject
125
further will do well to study the works of
Herbert Spencer, where they will find
the application of general principles to
all the problems of sociology treated
with a depth of philosophic insight and
an abundance and aptness of illustration
which I cannot pretend to equal. My
ambition is of a humbler nature. I do
not expect to set the Thames on fire, or
to produce a revolution in modern
thought; but I do hope that the views
which I have endeavoured to express
may do somewhat to make some readers
more tolerant and charitable in their
judgments, less bitter and one-sided in
controversy; and that whatever truth
there may be in my ideas will contribute
to form a small part, neither more nor
less than it deserves, of the great body
of truth which is handed down from the
present to succeeding generations, and
which becomes, long after I am there to
witness it, the inheritance of the human
race in the course of its evolution.
And now, before I take my final leave
of the reader, let me for a few moments
throw the reins on the neck of fancy, and
suppose myself standing with that group
of Parsees by the shore of the Indian
Ocean, listening to its murmured rhythm,
inhaling the balmy air, watching the
silver crescent of the new moon, and
musing on the wise sayings of the
ancient sage ; the sum of the reflections
which I have tried to embody in the
preceding pages would take form and
crystallise in the following sonnet:—
Hail 1 gracious Ormuzd, author of all good,
Spirit of beauty, purity, and light ;
Teach me like thee to hate dark deeds of night,
And battle ever with the hellish brood
Of Ahriman, dread prince of evil mood—
Father of lies, uncleanness, envious spite,
Thefts, murders, sensual sins that shun the light,
Unreason, ugliness, and fancies lewd—
Grant me, bright Ormuzd, in thy ranks to stand,
A valiant soldier faithful to the end ;
So when I leave this life’s familiar strand,
Bound for the great Unknown, shall I commend
My soul, if soul survive, into thy hand—
Fearless of fate if thou thine aid will lend.
�INDEX
Abraham, 91
Accumulator, the, 37, 38
Acids and alkalies, 40, 41
Aerobes, 49
/Eschylus, 101
Ahriman, 89, 98, 99
Ahura Mazda, 98
Albuminoid substances pro
duced, 48
Algae, 52, 53
Altruism, 121
Amoebae, 44, 46, 47, 56, 62
Amos, 92
Analogy and identity, 12
Angiosperms, 54
Animals and plants, distinction
between, 51, 52
Anquetil du Perron on Parsee
creed, 99
Anthropoid apes, when appear,
54
Anthropomorphism, true and
false, 73, 85
Arithmetic, origin of, 71
Arnold’s definition of First
Cause, 85
Aryans, division of the, 97
Asceticism in Christianity, 103
Asiatic religious ideas, 80
Astronomy, 13, 77
Atavism, 62
Atomic theory, the, 18
Atoms, 15, 16-20, 22,25, 33,39
----- size of, 19, 20
-—— structure of, 39
Automata, animals as, 28
Avesta, the, 97
Avogadro, the law of, 16
Axolotl, the development of, 64
Brain, size of the, 67
Descartes on the soul, 72
----- structure of the, 66
Design, argument from, 80, 81
----- weight of the, 67
Deutsch, Emmanuel, 85, 92
Buddhism in Shakespeare, 80, Devonian strata, the, 53
88
Diamond, the, 43, 44
Burial customs, 76
Dicotyledons, 54
Dionsea, the, 53
Calculus, the differential and Divisibility of matter, 15, 17
integral, 23-5
Drummond, Professor, on ana
Cambrian strata, the, 53
logy, 12
Captivity, the, 92
Dynamite, 31, 32
Carbon, 18, 41
Dynamo, the, 37
Carboniferous strata, the, 53
Carlyle on deity, 85
Earth, motions of the, 50
----- on truth, 92
Education, defects of, 113
Carnegie on Parsee worship, 106 Egyptian tombs, 76, 77
Cell, the, 45
Elasticity, 21
Centripetal
and centrifugal Electric currents, 35
forces, 50
----- engines, 37
Chaldaic legends, 77
----- - light, 35
Chalk, formation of, 52
----- railways, 37
Chastity, reasons for, 59
Electricity, n, 16, 33-8
Chemical affinity, 32-3, 40-3
----- forms of, 33
------ change, nature of, 16
—— induction of, 35
Chemistry, 13, 16
----- nature of, 34
Chinese religion, 78, 79, 80
----- production of, 33, 34
Chlorophyll, 52, 53
----- storage of, 37
Christian ethic separable from ----- velocity of, 35
dogma, 90
Electrons, 16, 17, 19,20,26,34,
----- virtues, 90
39
Christianity as an ethical reli Elementary substances, number
gion, 91, 92
of, 18
----- and poverty, 87
Embryo, the, 57, 64
----- practical, 89
Energy, 26-7, 39
Coelenterata, 52
----- - forms of, 31
Cohesion, force of, 32
----- indestructibility of, 27, 28
Colloids, 44
----- of motion and position, 26,
Colonisation,
English
and
31
French, hi
----- supposed dissipation of, 31
Communism, 120
----- - transformation of, 28
Babylon, influence of, on Conceptions and perceptions, 73 Eozoon Canadense, 54
Jews, 92
Conductors of electricity, 34
Ether, 20, 21, 22, 39
Bacteria, 46, 48, 49, 56
Conservatism, value of, in, 112 ----- density of, 21
Balkh, 98
Creation, impossibility of, 19, 71 ----- elasticity of, 21
Bivalent atoms, 42
Credulity in former ages, 82, 86 ----- - pervades all space, 22
Bombay, Parsees at, 97, 103
Cretaceous strata, the, 53
Evil, origin of, 85, 86, 88
Braid, Dr., and hypnotic cures, Crystals, 22
Evolution, alleged good tendency
82, 84
Cumming, Dr., 31
of, 86
Brain, the, 66
----- - of species, 54, 55, 63-4
----- - action of the, 68
Darwin, 62, 63
Expansion of bodies by heat, 29
------ convolutions of the, 66
Days of the week, whence
----- parts of the, 68
named, 78
Faust, the, 101
�INDEX
127
Monotheism, origin of, 78, 79,
80
Moral instinct, the, 93
Morality, evolution of, 91, 92,
Jackson, Professor, on Zoro
aster, 97
93
Japanese Bozu on design, 80-1 ----- origin of, 91-3
Murder, development of moral
Jehovah, moral evolution of, 91
censure of, 92
Jesus as Ormuzd, 89
Music in worship, 107
----- not an ascetic, 103
Jewish morality, development
Nationalisation of railways,
of, 91, 92
123, 124
Jingoism, 115
Nerves, functions of the, 67
Joule, Dr., 28
----- structure of the, 67
Jurassi strata, the, 53
----- varieties of, 67
Newman’s “ illative sense,” 74
Kant on the soul, 72
Newton, 71
Kelvin, Lord, 19, 20, 25, 34
Knowledge, limits of, 65, 66, Nirvana, 87
Nitrogen, 32, 41
7D 73
Nummulitic limestone, 52
----- nature of, 66-9, 70-1
Nutrition, 46
----- - of crystals, the, 46
Galileo, the condemnation of, Labour and capital, 118
Land nationalisation, 122
75> 82
Oersted, 36
Larmor, Dr., 25
Gal ton, Mr. F., 115
Old Testament, errors due to, 89
Laurentian strata, the, 53
Galvanometer, the, 27
----- evolution of ideas in the,
Law, conservatism of the, 113
Gas, nature of, 16, 30
Lichens, 52
79
Gathas, the, 98
Oligocene strata, the, 53
Liebig, 49
Genesis, 77
Optimism and pessimism, 87
Light, nature of, 20, 21
Geometry, or;gin of, 71
Organic and inorganic, how
George, Henry, criticised, 121 ----- polarisation of, 22
differ, 44-5
----- velocity of, 20
Germ-plasm, 63
Ghosts, belief in, a root of Light-waves, dimensions of, 21 Organic compounds, artificial
production of, 48
Locomotion, animal, 47
religion, 75
Lungs and gills, changes of, 64 Ormuzd, 89, 98, 99
----- savage beliefs about, 75
Ovary, the, 57
Gift of tongues, the, 83
Oxygen, 16, 17, 18, 41
Magnet, the, 11, 12, 35, 36
Globigerina, 52
Magnetic needle, the, 36
God, origin of the word, 97
Pangenesis, 62
Maimonides on God, 86
Gravitation, law of, 31
Pantheism, 78, 79> 80
Mammals, when appear, 54
Greek religion, 79
Parsee burial rites, 101
Marconi system, the, 37
Gymnosperms, 53
----- worship, 101
Marriage, 61
Parsees, the, 97
Materialism, 66
Haeckel, 63, 64
Matter, composition of, 17, 19, ----- and education, 104
Haug, Dr., 98, 100
—— and scientific advance, 100
25-6> 39
Heat, 28-31
----- indestructibility of, 19, 25 ----- morality of, 100, 103
----- conversion of, 29
—— philanthropy of, 104
Memory, 71
----- nature of, 29
Parthenogenesis, 57 ■
Menai Bridge, the, 32
Helmholtz, Professor, 25
Pasteur, 48, 49
Mercury, 17, 18, 29
Heredity, 61-3
Patriotism, 115
Metrical system, the, 29
----- nature of, 62
Pendulum, the, 26
Microbes, 48, 49
------- reality of, 62
Perception, 65, 66, 69
Milton, 101
Hermaphrodites, 57
----- brain-centres of, 69
Mind, nature of the, 65, 72
Hesperornis, 64
----- relation to brain, 65, 66, 72 ----- mechanism of, 69, 7°) 71
Hillel, 92
Perigenesis of plastids, the, 63
Miocene strata, the, 53
Hindoo religion, 79, 88
Permian strata, the, 53
Miracles, evidence for, 81-4
Hume on Miracles, 81
Personality of God, 85, 89
----- inutility of, 83, 86
Hydrates, 40
Pharisees, the, 84
----- of Jesus, 84
Hydrogen, 16, 17, 18, 41
Philanthropy in England, 105.
Missing link, the, 54
Hydrochloric acid, 18, 41
108
Mohammedanism, 79, 80
Hypnotism, 65, 69, 94
Molecules, 15, 16-20, 22, 25, Pithecanthropus, the, 54
----- cures by, 82-5
Pliocene strata, the, 53
33
Podmore, Mr., 70
----- weight of, 16, 17
Illusions, 83
Polarised light, 22
Monera, 45, 52, 56, 62
Indigotine, 48
Polarity, II, 15, 39, 40, 44, 49
Monocotyledons, 54
Individualism, 119
Ireland, land question in, 112,121 Monogamy, 58, 61
5°> 55
'Female characteristics, 57,58,61
Ferdousi. 98
Fermentation, 49
Fetish worship, 76
Fire, Parsee cult ot, 101
Fishes, fossilised, 54
Flechsig, discoveries of, 69
Fluidity, nature of, 32
Food of animals and plants, 5L
52
Force, 26
Freedom of the will, the, 28, 46
Free-will and morality, 94
■----- and the brain, 94
1—- and automatism, 94
----- in the animal, 95
Freezing, artificial, 30
Free trade, 116, 117
Friction, 33, 34
Fungi, 52
Isaiah, 92
Isomerism, 42
�128
INDEX
Semitic religion, 78
Sensation, how produced, 67
—— nature of, 46
Senses, brain-centres for the, 68
Sermon on the Mount, 92
Sermons, uselessness of, 107
Sex-distinction, the, 55
----- in mythology, 55
----- origin of, 57
Sexes, equality of the, 58, 61
Shakespeare, many-sidedness of,
102
Shield, story of the, 109
Silurian strata, the, 53
Singing of birds, 60
Snake, eggs of the, 64
Space and time unknowable, 95
Speech, brain-centre for, 68
Socrates on reason, 85
Solar myths, 77, 78
Socialism, 112, 120
Society, ideal form of, ill
Somnambulism, 65, 69, 94
Soul, opinions on the, 72
Sound, velocity of, 21
Spectrum, the, 22, 29
Spencer, Mr. H., 50, 58, 60, 81,
hi, 123
Quakers, fewness of, 103
Quantivalence of atoms, the, 41, Spiritism, examination of, 7°
Spiritualism, 66, 7°
42
Spontaneous generation, 47, 48,
Quaternary period, the, 53
49
Spores, 56, 57
Radiolaria, 52
St. Paul, crude theology of, 79
Radium, 17, 18, 26
----- ethic of, 90, 92
Railway enterprise, 119
St. Vitus’s dance, 83
Reflex action, Jo, 95
Stability of substances, 43
----- - motion, 47
Religion a working hypothesis, Stars, distance of, 20
Steam-engine, the, 30
12, 14
Strikes, 113
----- evolution of, 92
------ contrasted with science, 75 Sun, heat of the, 30
Supernaturalism, 81
----- development of, 75-80
Syndicates, 119
----- the nature of, 74
Synthesis, chemical, 49
----- origin of, 75, 76
----- varieties of, 77-80
Tait, Professor, 25
Reproduction, 47, 51, 56
Talmud, the, 92
Reptiles, extinct, 54
Telegraph, the, 36
>
Rhizopods, 54
Telepathy, 70
Rig-Veda, the, 97
Roman Catholic Church, its Telephone, the, 37
Temperature of earth at be
advantages, 107
ginning, 48
Rucker, Sir A., on atoms, 18
Temple, Dr., on evolution, 63,
84
Salt, composition of, 33
Tennyson on evil, 102
Salvation Army, the, 89
----- on woman, 58
Secondary period, the, 53
Polarity in art, ioi
----- in politics, hi
----- in the will, 95
----- of good and evil, 85, 87, 8g
Polygamy, 59
Polytheism, 78, 79
Postal service, the, 124
Poverty and population, 87
Pramantha, 28
Prayer, 108
Primary epoch, the, 53
Prometheus, legend of, 28
Propagation by budding, 56, 62
----- by sex, 57, 62
----- by splitting, 56, 62
----- by spores, 56, 62
Protection, 116,117
Protista, 52
Protoplasm, 45-7
----- composition of, 46
Protoplasm, properties of, 46,
47
----- production of, 47
Putrefaction, 49
Pyramids, the, 15
----- use of the, 77
Tertiary period, the, 53
Tobit, 92
Totems, 76
Trade unions, 112
Trance, phenomena of, 69
Triassic strata, the, 53
Triton, the, metamorphosis of,
64
Univalent atoms, 42
Urea, 48
Variation, 63
----- a factor in evolution, 63
----- causes of, 63, 64
Vendidad, the, 98
Vibratory movements in ether,
22, 27
Virgin-birth, the legend of the,
78
Vishtasp, King, 96
------------ , conversion of, 98
Voltaic battery, the, 34, 37
Vortex-theory, the, 25
Water, forms of, 33
----- how formed, 15, 17
Waves, nature of, 21, 27
Weismann, 63
Will, conscious and unconscious,
28, 32
Woman and Christianity, 58
---- - position of, 58, 59, 60
----- position of, among Parsees,
104
Wordsworth’s pantheism, 80
Worship, forms of, 106
Zend language, the, 97
Zodiac, the, 77
Zoroaster, 12, 96
----- birth of, 98
----- historical reality of, 96-7
----- teaching of, 98-9
----- work of, 98
Zoophytes, 52
Zoroastrianism, 14, 96-108
----- and art, 102
----- and miracles, 99
----- as a practical religion, 108
----- as a reconciling system, 88
----- ethical teaching of, 100
----- not weighted with dogmas,
99
----- teaching of, 99, 100
Zoroastrians, probity of the, 103
�
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
A modern Zoroastrian
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 128 p. : ill. ; 22 cm.
Series title: R.P.A. Cheap Reprints
Series number: No. 17
Notes: Includes index. First published, London: Chapman and Hall, 1891. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements inside and on back cover. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laing, Samuel [1812-1897]
McCabe, Joseph [1867-1955]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1904
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA730
N431
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Zoroastrianism
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 (A modern Zoroastrian), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Religion
Zoroastrianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/23a48899c20db9ab4d6edb1a3b4d68fe.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hFAReDrneAXQs88sauF3m22T7gDgOsyBbM3J0iyYolsEJSjz8fKsnAT5NSU9v93u7HqabHGQmWr2-jvRUbvzTP%7E8kj7QOAhUqN9VoKL5pMpy%7E4FvS0pGRoEZW84Xbqlim78nD5G5VsLny8yJJGsDnOfOxJjgWA7USrOMcVaFxTErBSKZNAO2ReXeXLCIb-vysU2i1OL%7Endv59zmPOYWwaYgHFNYT1j%7E8gc-OmHKwT6OphPOVlswSuR8TuZjapT2rxSUE2JlIjl7Pf%7EA3gu9DjdAZz2K3vfQNSmebqoYrFxFbYTLFRDlKSPda9EVnlTike6LJzzbKtsBBLDJTBxggUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
46a252cad85424d729f29996afd47c1c
PDF Text
Text
^nnibrmrg <Simbag, 1874.
I
-A- szeie^zveozlst;
PREACHED
AT
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM
PLACE, OCTOBER 11, 1874,
REV.
CHARLES
BY THE
VOYSEY.
The text was taken from Psalm cxxiv., 7, “ Our help
standeth in the Name of the Lord.”
He said—With these hopeful words we concluded our
three years ago. We began, as all good
and great works must begin, in the face of many obstacles and
discouragements. Beyond the earnestness and zeal of the
little band of men and women who had pledged themselves
to the work, there was not much ground for the hope of per
manence or success. The whole thing was an experiment;
the country, as it were, was unexplored, the invaders were
unfamiliar with its aspects, their weapons of attack and
Het). C. Voysey’s sermons are to be obtained at St. George’s
Hall, every Sunday morning, or from the Author (by post), Camden
Hottse^ Dulwich^ S.H Price one penny, postage a halfpenny.
�2
defence as yet untried. Among the earliest recruits were
some who did not quite know their own minds, who hardlyrecognized in these eccentric efforts the real object in view.
Some joined our forces for the mere pleasure of witnessing
assaults on orthodox belief, and were disappointed to find
that these assaults were only preliminary to the building up
of a rational faith. Others helped us in the hope of seeing
established a new church, or a new sect, with banners of new
dogma around which they might rally, and thus form a
society which would replace the social losses they had for
their heresy incurred. There were, too, those who came
armed to the teeth with their own peculiar prejudices, who
Jiad built up an adamantine barrier beyond which they would
not advance, and who resented our refusal of their shibboleths
with quite orthodox indignation.
Custom, also, had its obstacles to throw in our path. Some
could not endure a religious worship held in a j/wasz-theatre,
nor patiently bear the necessary discomforts of a building
not our own. Others objected to the form of prayer which
had been adopted; others to the minister continuing to use
the raiment to which all his life he had been accustomed;
others found fault with the music that it was not congrega
tional, while nearly all were found to be unwilling to repeat
responses in an audible voice, thus rendering a choral service
an absolute necessity.
Well do I remember the anxiety and misery of those early
days in our undertaking, and hdw much patience and perse
verance and kindly feeling were requisite from every member
of our congregation in order to tide-over the period of
unsettlement.
To-day I have no thoughts but those of satisfaction and
�3
gratitude in the retrospect. It is almost marvellous how
these difficulties were one by one cleared away, how members
one after another laid aside or smothered their prejudices in
order to promote good-will, and to secure the final triumph
of our endeavours. Compared with the large number oftliose
who worship here whenever they can, the seceders are com
paratively few. Not more than a score do I know of, who
having given these services a fair trial have deserted them
from dislike or on principle.
I see some before me now, and I know of many more who
are only temporarily absent from us to-day, who, at the sacri
fice of their own prejudices and tastes, have held on to our
society for the sake of those aims which in importance are ’
far above the trifling details of our worship or the
idiosyncrasies of the preacher with which they have no
sympathy. I honour them, and I thank them publicly with
my whole heart, not only for their manly and faithful support
of an unpopular cause, but also for setting before us all the
beautiful example of self-denial and devotion in not permitting
any private sentiments to interfere with their well-chosen
duty. Believe me, they will discover that they have lost
nothing by their generous concessions, which would beget
on my part, were it ever wanting, a desire to adapt both
service and discourse to their tastes, so far as can be
done consistently with honour and with the common good.
There remain with us to this day, some who look upon
our prayers and praises as idle words, some who dislike our
music, some who prefer a methodistical to an ecclesiastical
form and accessories, some who never can feel contented with
our present place of worship. More gratifying still is the
fact that some are still with us, rendering most valuable aid
�4
with a regularity that passes praise, who object to the dis
courses, some alleging that not enough is made of Christ
and Christianity, others saying that there is too much
religious sentiment and not enough of polemic. Many, too,
are here with patient constancy, who are far better fitted than
I to occupy this part.
Now all this is to us a source of comfort and encourage
ment beyond that which we find even in closer agreement and
sympathy. It leads us to ask once more, what is it that binds
us together? What is that noble aim which acts like a
spell upon such apparently incongruous and unruly
elements ?
My friends, I believe I shall speak only your own thoughts
when I say that the bond of union between us is our common
aim—to endeavour to solve what Professor Tyndall has
called “ that problem of problems, the reasonable satisfaction
of the religious emotions.” It is for this we have in various
ways and degrees sacrificed earthly comfort and advantage,
have stifled our own petty and private crotchets, have been
willing to put up with this, that, or the other thing which has
been distasteful. You are as sure of my loyalty to this grand
aim, as I am of yours; and it is to this loyalty alone that we
owe our assembling here to day, keeping our anniversary and
inaugurating the fourth year of our history as one of the
most remarkable religious movements in this century. This
is also why, in distant parts of Great Britain, and in north,
south, east, and west of the whole earth, thoughts of joyous
sympathy with us are throbbing, hands of generous help are
being held out to us, blessings are invoked, and prayers are
being uttered for the success of our enterprise.
With all its faults, and not one of them incurable, our
�5
service is as yet as reasonable as any service in existence, if
not the most reasonable of all; and whatever be the faults
and short-comings of the discourses added to it, the principle
on which they are delivered, and on which it is known they
are received, is that of perfect reasonableness;—the right on
the one hand of the absolutely unfettered speech of honest
thought, and the equal right, on the other, of accepting or
rejecting what is said, at will.
We have a great deal of faith, but we have no formu
lated creed; we have very strong opinions, and tena
ciously cling to certain doctrines; but we have not a
syllable of dogma; not an opinion which may not be chal
lenged, nor a doctrine not open to question. We are tied to
no Scripture, ancient or modern ; we are beholden to no
prophet, old or new, that we should obey his voice as Divine;
we lean on no Christ, Galileean or British, that we must bend
our thoughts to his thoughts, or take him for our master or
guide.
The best and the worst, the truest and the most false must
bring their doctrines to the same test in each of us. The
Reason, the Conscience, and the Affections.
Whatever
harmonizes with these we will accept, because of the harmony,
and not for the speaker’s renown. Whatever jars upon them,
we reject, for its intrinsic falsehood, regardless of the speaker’s
authority.
And still we leave ourselves open to correction. We are
not going to deify, and to worship as infallible, our Reason,
our Conscience, or our Affections, We expect our reason to
err sometimes; but we listen to it because it is better than
the authority of another man’s reason. We expect our con
sciences to be warped or stunted sometimes; but we do better
�6
in walking by our own conscience than by that of the priest.
We expect even our affections to err through deficiency
sometimes, perhaps even through excess, but it is better to be
guided through them to the light of love Divine than to
search for it in external nature or metaphysics, and worse
still to stifle our affections as unholy.
Moreover, we aim at the proper and harmonious action of
all the three, that none may be unduly exalted at the expense
of the other two. Were a man all reason, he would only
think rightly without right action. Were he to be all'con
science, he could nut perceive the reasonableness or the beauty
of right conduct. Were he all love, he would be foolish and
extravagant, though, perhaps, more likely to go right by
instinct than in the other two cases.
As religious enquirers, and even as religious believers, the
chief field of our enquiry, and the chief ground of our belief
is man. By the study and cultivation of our best human
faculties we are on the road to the discovery of Him to whom
our common human instinct points as the Ruler and Friend
of the universe.
But in doing this we absolutely forswear that very certainty
and infallibility, which at present are the life of all dogmatic
churches. We have such unbounded confidence in man, and
in Natural Religion, that we will not encumber ourselves with
those expedients which have hitherto proved so successful
in the machinations of priestcraft. We prefer our uncer
tainty and consciousness of the possibility of error, to a
certainty which has no solid foundation, to the claims of an
infallibility, which we can prove to be false. We are quite
as much in earnest to be right as the Christians are; but we
are not so much afraid to be mistaken. As believers, we
�■{
w ffg> o*d
'■:'
7
trust God’s entire justice to visit upon us no calamity which,
we do not deserve, to punish us with no penalty for what we
could not help, still less to inflict permanent misery and
disappointment in returu for our most loyal endeavours to
gain the truth. We are not afraid to be mistaken, in the
old sense of that awful fear of Hell-fire which is the
threatened doom of the Churches against any intellectual
error.
We are afraid of error only so far as we
may do mischief to other people, or fail of our own
proper improvement; and our worst errors, we believe,
will one day be thoroughly corrected, and we shall know
all the truth. A dear friend of mine, a convert to Roman
ism, confessed that he could not possibly understand this
perfect calm in a mind wide-awake to the possibility, and
even probability, of being in error. My reply was “ It is
because I believe in a God as good as myself—not to say
better ; that is enough to make me sure that, so long as I
honestly desire to go right, I shall be certain to know the
truth at last. He will not damn me for rejecting what seems
to me unreasonable and even blasphemous.
This, my friends, is where we stand; and more unfettered
than this, no man, or body of men can be; this is the secret
of our firm bond of union, and let me add the secret of our
past and future success. All will depend on keeping clear of
dogmatism, or the attempt to tie down each other, or the
future generation, to special modes of thought which may
suit ourselves.
In the Inaugural Discourse to which I have referred, I
took pains to shew what lines our several efforts ought to
take. 1st. That we should do all we could to expose the
falseness and absurdity and impiety of the orthodox doctrines..
i
I
�8
'2nd. That we should let the world know what religious
beliefs and hopes we had to put in their place. 3rd. That,
-at all events, we might hope in this generation to wean the
people from their insane dread of damnation for opinion. 4th.
That we should help those who had no faith at all towards
a reasonable trust in the goodness of G-od. And 5th. I dwelt
upon the necessity, on every ground, of the cultivation of
personal beauty of character and conduct, as the only condi
tion in which religious emotions could thrive.
From careful observation, I have come to the conclusion
that we are not held together by a common hatred and
rejection of orthodox Creeds, so much as by our mutual
agreement in the main on the subjects of G-od and immor
tality. I mean that there is far more sympathy between us
as to what we believe than as to what we deny. This sympathy
is not only deeper than the other but more general. It is but
a small minority who only enjoy discourses of attack upon
prevailing beliefs. With very few exceptions, we all like
best those subjects which help to clear our own insight and
to add to the foundation of a reasonable faith. To me this
fact is more than any other significant of progress and
^endurance. Had it been the reverse we could not have lasted
long. People not only weary in time of polemics, but the
function of polemics dies with the perishing superstition at
which they are aimed, and then the controversialist has
nothing more to do ; his mission is soon done and over. But
when people are united in the pursuit of that knowledge or
belief, which by its very nature cannot be exhausted, the
interest in it cannot die, its investigators become more eager
-and fascinated the longer they search. I am inclined to
think not only with Theodore Parker but with Tyndall, that
�9
the interest in religious enquiry is inexhaustible, and of such
a nature as to engage and engross the highest faculties of
the best of our race. And therefore if, as is the case, we are
linked together in sympathy, not merely to uproot hoary and
decaying superstitions, but above all things to find out all
that is true about the vast mystery of Grod and man, and to
strengthen each other in our faith and hope whenever they
rest on reasonable foundations, then indeed my heart leaps
up with renewed courage to feel sure that this our work will
prosper, that in time it will leaven the whole world, that what
is true and sound in our principles will prevail, and that in
ages to come we shall have made it an easier task for
posterity to correct our errors, than it has been for us to
uproot the errors of our forefathers.
Fifteen years ago, Francis William Newman said these
words, or words of the same meaning, “For the truly religious
in this age, there is no Temple.” We cannot yet ask that
this most just and severe sentence be withdrawn; but we may
ask the venerable professor, and the world of lofty minds and
souls like his who sigh for such a temple, to recognize, at all
events, our most earnest endeavours to erect such a Temple,
to mould such a form of worship. Ours at least has the
germs of self-improvement, ours is designed to be severely
subject to the dictates of reason and yet open to the embellish
ments which poetry and the highest aesthetic taste can provide.
To be worship at all, it must be emotional, and emotion is a
subtle thing very variable and transitory, soon satisfied
and soon repelled. The whole of the Service cannot then in
the nature of things be equally tasteful to every worshipper
alike. But we have entire liberty to make it what we please;
as the changes in, and additions to, it during the past three
�10
years will shew. We know it to be the envy of many clergy
men and others who are tied to old forms; and it has been
adopted in whole or in part by some who are free.
Is it not then somewhat of a reproach to us—or rather to
those who are one at heart with us, but who are afraid or un
willing to confess it—is it not a reproach, I ask, that such a
service should have as yet no local habitation, should be
relegated to a Music Hall, and be performed with all the
drawbacks of a small- theatre ? Is it not a reproach that
while Mr. Spurgeon (whom I personally greatly respect)
could get a Tabernacle built to hold 6,000 persons on purpose
to hear the Gospel of Hell Fire, the Religious Free-thinkers
of this Country cannot raise enough money even to buy a
bit of land for such a building as our Service and our
cause deserve ?
While his sermons are circulated by the million, we are
thankful to get ours sold by the thousand. While a little
book which in all good-nature I call a “wicked book” by a
Scotch Minister, entitled Grace and Truth, but which ought
to be entitled Disgrace and Falsehood, has been sold to the
amount of 70,000 copies since November last, we have still
on hand volumes which have never passed into a second
edition.
A Ritualistic Church in the suburbs which can scarcely
scrape together £20 for the London Hospitals, can raise
£300 at any time for a new set of vestments.
Again, as an instance of hearty earnestness, a handful of
Jews agree to build a new synagogue, and they raise
amongst themselves the sum of £80,000 for its erection.
For once I must reproach my countrymen, and say that,
although considering the agency at work, to have held on for
�three years is more than one could have expected : yet con
sidering the cause in question and its bearing on the interests
of humanity all over the world, such neglect is a discredit.
And it is a reproach to this wealthy country that we have
not in possession, this day, the finest Temple that could
be built in all London.
We are quite sure that there are at least 50 persons in this
country (probably ten times as many) who are in entire sym
pathy with our work and who could afford to put down
£1,000 each, as easily as we shall contribute our sovereigns
to the offertory to-day. We are bound to ask them why they
any longer hesitate to give the world such a pledge and
token of their honest belief? The moral value of their con
tribution will be lost, if it be.delayed till the cause becomes
a fashion. On the other hand, it is earnestness which wins
men’s confidence and does more to make converts than years
of talking and preaching.
While, however, this main ultimate object be kept in view,
the current expenses must not be forgotten; nor must it be
imagined that the sum of £100 a month can be defrayed out
of the ordinary receipts. Our weekly collection, as is well
known, is to enable non seat-holders and visitors to contribute
what they please towards the expenses ; and we need there
fore two or three special offertories in the course of the year
to make up deficiencies.
This is the first time in three years that I have made any
appeal to yourselves or to our country friends for greater
exertion. I am the worst pleader for money that ever spoke,
but I can refrain no longer from asking everyone, who at heart
wishes us well, to do his or her utmost to carry those kind
wishes promptly into effect. Let us endeavour to earn what
�12
Dr. Davies said of us in the Daily Telegraphy “ These people
are terribly in earnest.”
Still we must be patient; for we have even greater cause
for rejoicing and hope than if we had at command the wealth
of the country. The leaven is working more rapidly than we
could have expected. On every side, in every church and sect,
our denials and our beliefs are spreading with a speed that
must strike dismay into the very hearts of the champions of
orthodoxy. Truly this is all we want, a fruition more welcome
than any amount of worldly success. With the most modest
and truthful estimate of our own small powers to work so
mighty a change, we yet thankfully recognize that we have
had some share in it, and that it is the truth and the reason
ableness of what we proclaim, and not the mode of its
proclamation, which is working so mightily upon this
generation.
To conclude in the key-note with which we began, while
doing our best to ensure progress let us remember Him whose
truth we are patiently and honestly seeking to discover and
to declare ; whose Divine call first awakened our souls to this
holy service and has all along fortified'us . to encounter the
perils and to.conquer the obstacles which opposed our march;
whose assurances of final enlightenment and whose words of
Heavenly peace have led us on calm and unflinching in our
darkest hours ; and whose Love, bountifully shed over all his
creatures, has set us on the Rock of Haith and Trust, and
filled our hearts with songs of Praise.
“ Our help standeth in the Name of the Lord.”
CABTEB&WnllAMS, General Steam Printers, 14, Bishopsgate Avenue, Camomile-street,E.O
�
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
Anniversary Sunday, 1874: a sermon preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, October 11, 1874
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 13 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 6.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Carter & Williams]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4828
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
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 (Anniversary Sunday, 1874: a sermon preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, October 11, 1874), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Morris Tracts
Religion
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4476e79cd2ad9575744c7aa1bebca2b7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WCK5UPKN9GRU%7E%7EszY3g3e8JRFyglEzUkFGzwh-GAIXsjnC-qMID651PcAim4c2%7EKgSuSLmUo0cV4H8hk6tGOpc5ZnHIfosE6zQeXXShE0kHoPl14VrhVPpRlbzjIz%7El2FePcWM5EBkgpMZoW6MHLaVA6VagCRA6hSKZ59Gl-oyBTxx2MfNF0KAQmgmb76zBqfChsS3oM74k7YTXd1VNM3ktMD0nPp57UMUHLv4YWl5RP-mKr2x63Otkqjg8ue3XohSuRxaOMCMiAvm5ESDlEU6yly79MfQkHj8dj8UdB6XsW7D8DAYgf4DeHHQNYZVEkDwWVZa2V10SiE7S--5riFA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c232b391f2e87299c0682707ed10dc1
PDF Text
Text
ANNIVERSARY SUNDAY.
A SERMON,
PREACHED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
OCTOBER 5th, 1873, by the
REV. CHARLES VOYSEY.
[From the Eastern Post, October Wth, 1873.]
On Sunday (October 5 th) at St. George’s Hall, Langham-place,
the Rev. C. Voysey took his text from Nehemiah ii., 20, “ The
God of Heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we, his servants,
will arise and build.”
He said—Readers of the Bible must be familiar with the
interesting book from which my text is taken, which tells the
simple story of the re-building of the walls of Jerusalem after it
had been almost destroyed by the Babylonian armies. The hero
of this great event seems to have been singularly well fitted for his
patriotic work ; for he had three great gifts. He had rare tact,
very high moral principle, and what we might call a desperate
determination. With the first he conciliated the conquerors of his
nation; with the second he kept in order and elevated the half
trained fellow-countrymen on whose exertions he depended; and
with the third he fought hi# way over every obstacle and finished
the work which God had given him to do.
But although these great gifts were natural endowments and
might, have rendered their possessor eminently successful in any under
taking, I believe they were heightened and enlarged by his equally
remarkable faith. Though a captive in the Court of Artaxerxes, to
whom he was cup-bearer, he could not forget the God of his fathers;
while he was surrounded by the luxuries of a King’s palace, he
still remembered with shame and sorrow the daughter of Zion clad
in sackcloth and sitting in ashes. As long as Jerusalem lay in
ruins, there was no joy for him. As long as his countrymen were
captives in a foreign land, there could be no charm for him in
courtly dignity. Identifying Jerusalem with the honour of his God^
�knd regarding its temple as the witness of the Divine presence and
rule, it was a matter of religion with him to seek its restoration, and
to rebuild its ruined walls. Strong in mind and will though he was,
he was not ashamed to lay his cause at the footstool of the most
High, he scrupled not to pray for heavenly strength, for divine
wisdom and for the success of his undertaking, but went as a little
child to his Father’s knee, and besought His blessing and help :—
“ O Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the
prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire
to fear thy name, and prosper, I pray thee, thy servant this day.”
Having sought God’s blessing and favour upon his work, he
roused the enthusiasm of the Jews who still dwelt in the ruined
city, and they said, “ Let us rise up and build.” “ So they
strengthened their hands for this good work.” Nehemiah then
goes on to describe his first encounter with opposition and how he
met it. “ When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah, the servant,
the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed
us to scorn, and despised us, and said What is this thing that ye
do? Will ye rebel against the King? Then answered I and
said unto to them, ‘The God of heaven, he will prosper us, there
fore, we his servants will arise and build.’” We will not pursue
the narrative further into details. It is enough to see how this
brave and strong-minded man, who was the burning sun of
enthusiasm to the hundreds of colder spirits around him, drew
all his courage, and zeal, and hope, from his conscious dependence
upon God, from his intense desire to do His will, and above all,
from the aasurance that “God’s thoughts towards him were
thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give him an expected end.”
I cannot help feeling that this same spirit of dependence on God
is the secret of whatever courage and determination have been
manifested by those who are working in this age to build again the
walls of a mined Faith, and to combat the opponents on all sides
who would have us rather remain in the shackles of a spiritual
slavery or in the lonely wilderness of infidelity.
The gift of tact, which implies a quick discernment of other
men’s moods and wants, and a ready and versatile adaptation of our
conduct and speech in order to win rather than to repel the un
settled inquirer, is no doubt a most needful auxiliary to such work
�3
as ours. But tact is not everything; and this age shows, I think, a
tendency to exalt this happy facility into a virtue, and to prefer
its exercise to that of .the less polished but more serviceable weapon
of plain speech.
The high principle which was so conspicuous in Nehemiah is
the very alpha and omega of success in work like ours. Absolutely,
and before all things else, it is necessary to maintain an
unimpeachable honesty of word or deed, if we would hope to do
the slightest good in the way of emancipating the minds of others.
But this weapon of our warfare is wielded also by many of our
adversaries. Let us say it thankfully, we are well-matched in this
matter of integrity, and the battle would have to be drawn, if the
truer views were to be decided by the greater virtue. As yet,
the struggle cannot be finished on such terms alone, and our
enthusiasm would perish if it were not fed from other streams.
• Of all three, perhaps, a desperate determination is the most
powerful human aid to success in such an enterprise as ours.
Force of will we know can emove mountains, can defy and
dethrone the most ancient of dynasties, «an uproot the most wide
spread of traditions. All the great deeds for good or for evil have
been done by determination, by individual energy of purpose;
men once committed to a cause, holy or unholy, are rendered, by
their self-consecration, dangerous to those things which they oppose.
Half-hearted, luke-warm people are good for nothing but impedi
ment ; never succeed in anything but in getting in the way of the
earnest, and causing an obstruction.
The Nehemiahs of the world are none of these. To have simple
aims like his, to let neither himself nor friend, nor foe, ever come
between h’m and his duty; to win and defy by turns ; to slay
opponents who will take no other warning, and to rebuke and
chastise unfaithful or sleepy allies; to make every event, calculated
or unforeseen, further the sacred end in view; to live in the hottest
toil of the work, yet all a-glow with delight in it; and to be ready
to suffer and die for it when necessary, quite as willingly as to live
and to fight for it; this is to have power—power not easily defeated
not soon exhausted—power that grows by exercise and gathers
force, like the descending avalanche, from the irresistible attraction
which it exercises over surrounding souls.
�4
But not even this, mighty as it is, can always conquer. Some
times “ the weak things of the world confound the things that are
mighty, and things that are not will bring to naught things that
are.” All depends ultimately on the cause itself and not on the
brave men who fight for it. It must be a cause of light, or right,
or truth, or it will surely fail. It must be for the ultimate good
of mankind, or it will surely come to naught. In the language of
religion it must be the cause of God, and not merely a caprice of
man. If this thing be of man, i.e., of man’s ignorance or selfish
ness, it will surely come to naught; but if it be of God, i.e.,
accoding to His most holy and loving will; then who can overthrow
it 1 Nay, who would be so mad as to fight against God 1
Unman gifts, however well-fitted, then, will not by themselves
always accomplish the work on which they are expended. And
those who are wise enough to perceive this fact will not rush hastily
or wildly into any great undertaking relying solely on their own
powers and qualifications; but they will turn it about first in their
own minds to see whether it be a cause likely to benefit mankind
the increase of knowledge, of virtue, or of general happiness;
to discover through these enquiries whether the great will of
Heaven is for them or against them; whether, in the language of
Nehemiah, God will prosper the work of their hands. I feel sure
that it was with this manly deference to God’s Holy Will, and
reliance on His blessing, that we began our united work in this
place two years ago. Not one of ns would have put our hands to
it, had we thought it was against God’s will or to the detriment of
man. Not one of us would have had the heart to begin, as we
did, under such discouragements without the assurance that God
approved our undertaking, and would cause it to prosper. I
honestly say that I don’t know what would have become of me,
under the peculiar pressure of obligations upon most feeble powers,
but for this constant and refreshing comfort of believing that eur
work was a little portion of God’s wosk, and that He would make
good to me those words of peace, “ As thy day, so shall thy
strength be.”
As a society, necessarily compelled to raise funds, we have had
our dark days and gloomy anticipations —not that any one of us
feared for a moment that the cause of pure Theism even in this
�5
city, not to say in the wide world, depended upon the success of
this particular and comparatively insignificant movement—but we
naturally contemplated, with no little sorrow, the possibility of
our share in the great work passing away from us after all we had
gone through to maintain it. In such hours of anxiety, and they
are real though few, we know the blessedness of referring it all
back to God’s blessed will, and of knowing that it must prosper if
it be in harmony with the eternal laws; and if it be in discord with
them, well, the sooner it perish the better. Faith, then gives
fresh courage and determination, as well as keeps the mind in its
original integrity bent not on self-will, but supremely and entirely
given to the will of God.
And observe how entirely different this is from that spirit of
dogmatism which is merely faith in our own opinions. Of course
we must first believe that a thing is true before we can proclaim
it; and we must be persuaded of its essential value to mankind
before we can incur any suffering or odium as a penalty for its
proclamation. But we can feel' this perfect confidence in the
rectitude and value of our opinions, and yet consciously put God’s
will and wisdom above them all; and at the very bottom of our
hearts only wish to serve Him faithfully and to declare His truth,
whatever it be.
Skill, self-reliance, courage and determination are all to be
elevated by the inspiration of faith, and to be refreshed and
re-invigorated by it when wearied and discouraged.
Some, however, may say, How can you be sure that you are
right? In one sense we are not sure, i.e., we are not so arrogant as to
be sure that God has imparted all His truth to us, and to us only;
neither would we dare to say that even if God prospers our work
therefore, the work of other men is wrong and against His will.
But while we are thus decently modest, and confess further the
impossibility of proving that we are right, we feel very very sure
that we are right; so far from holding these opinions for gain, we
are in many cases going against all the predilections of the past,
aud flying in the face of an army of hostile and cruel prejudices.
Our convictions have been forced upon us. The soil of our minds
has been under the tillage of a husbandman mightier than ourselves.
Its rank foliage has been eleared and burnt, the roots of early
�6
culture have been dug up and the sweetly seasoned ground has
been sown with seeds of holy and life-giving fruit—not of our
choosing. The field with its golden harvest is our own, not so the
labour to which we owe its wealth. But once planted with this
precious seed, we cannot reap an alien grain; nor sow again the
tares which the great husbandman has burnt. Whatever grain we
have to give it must be our own or none; we will not lend a borrowed
word; or steal a neighbour’s thought, and say, “ The Lord hath
spoken it.” We speak only that that we do know or firmly believe,
and our surety is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God. Less than
this assurance will not work. Less than this degree of confidence
that we are right would disqualify us for the duties we have assumed.
For any one to speak of God as an hypothesis or probable theory may
be justifiable in itself; but it becomes absolutely misplaced on the
lips of any professed advocate of religion ; the rostrum of a place of
worship is not the suitable place from which to express grave
doubts as to the Being and character of God. Such doubts may,
of course, arise, and Ought not to be suppressed; nothing honest
ought to labour under disabilities of any kind ; but the office of a
religious teacher on religious subjects to an audience whose prayers
and praises to God are just silenced, demands some degree of
certainty and conviction as the raison d’etre of the function. But
there are two ways of doing everything ; and it is quite possible
to avoid dogmatic or dictatorial language while expressing to the
full one’s own earnest convictions.
It is my fervent hope that the truly religious spirit in which
this work of ours was begun may never cease to animate it; if
we are bearing witness in a world darkened by superstition, and
likely to be still more darkened by Atheism, bearing witness of
the love and friendliness of a perfect God, it becomes us both
individually and collectively to live and walk by that faith which
we profess, not to be ashamed of the core and kernel of those
principles which we all hold so dear, and for which so many are
suffering. We stand mid-way between those who have made the
very name of religion a by vord and a reproach by their fables and
dogmas, and those whose aversion to all religion is, therefore,
insurmounta’ le. We must neither fall into the old blunder of
dogmatism, nor timidly comply with the crude and bigoted denials
of a hasty Atheism. While God is to us the greatest reality of
our existence, let us honestly say so, in spite of the Church’s curses
on the one hand, and of the world’s ridicule on the other.
Finally, bear with me if I say a few words of more personal
reference to ourselves. To congratulate ourselves on beginning the
third year of our organization as a congregation, and to flatter one
another upon our success and oui- prospects would be an easy and
pleasant, but not very profitable occupation. To summon you and
�«W!IPW5’WW?'
.»-,•^4'vW^/i Aj’X/ 5 ■7<V
*^>.
T
all other friends to some heroic action which should excite the
public admiration—always ready enough to fall before the feet of
success—would be to go against the very roots of my nature, and
to wither up the beauty of an action only beautiful when spon
taneous. There are plenty of people agreeing with us who are
able to contribute £10,000 a piece, if the time were come for it.
But I have better things to say than that such a thing had been
done ; better thoughts of congratulation than any degree of personal
success.
We have lived and worshipped together long enough to prove
what is infinitely more cheering than our own permanence and
establishment. We have lived to learn that that pure Theism—that
pure natural religion which is so dear to our hearts—that Faith
which is the life of our souls, and the inspirer of our hope and
enthusiasm, is perfectly safe now from extinction and oblivion. I can
honestly say now that I don t care—speakingas your chosen minister
_ I don’t care now whether the Voysey Establishment Fund sinks
or swims. I do not, except as it would involve the inconvenience
of seeking a new source of maintenance, care one straw whether we
continue to prosper or not. Myself, aye, a hundred more like me,
■might go to the wall and be trodden down, as far greater men have
been ere now, by the tramp of adverse circumstances; but it is too
late to affect the growth and progress of that religion which was
safely planted in men’s hearts before I was born, and had been
loudly proclaimed in this generation—yes, by some under this
very roof, when I was but a boy. The little circle of workers
with which we are identified as a congregation and society, thank
God, is but a drop in a vast ocean of kindred souls. For every
one of us, there are a hundred thousand known, and myriads
unknown* who are on our side and against the falsehoods and
follies of Christianity. •
It is no figure of speech when I say that all over the world are
bn man beings to whom we telegraph, as it were, our loving thoughts
about God; our words fly hither and thither; are read in remotest
regions, far and near ; and wherever they go they do more, far
more, than convert—they awake the echoes of grateful and believing
hearts who have their own joyous tale to tell of God’s loving kind
ness, and of their birth into life. Nor is it only in distant lands,
but more strange still, in churches and sects most foreign to our
si m pip. creed; on one hand the Bomanist and members of all the
Orthodox churches and sects, and on the other, the Unitarian, are
leaving the territory of tradition, and opening their eyes to see ■
not what this, that, or the other man can shew them—but what
God Himself has to show them. Notmerely the Christian but the
Hindoo also is coming under the same leaven and heaving afresh
his quivering breast, always so sensitive to the Divine afflatus. Is
�I
hot tke same spirit stirring also the Jew—the Jew whose ancestor,
amid perils and difficulties a thousand times greater than our own,
looked in the face of God and left incomparable record of their
bliss 1 The Jew is fettered a little still, but the chains chafe his
limbs, and he, too, is pressing on “ into the glorious liberty of the
children of God.”
When I think of what was the state of things more than twenty one
years ago, when I began my clerical life, and glance at the successive
periods of eleven, five, three, and now two years, and contrast the
world’s state, and its rate of progress, to-day with what these were
when I first knew it, I am so abounding in hope and certainty as to the
ultimate conquest of the Church’s Creeds by Theism, that I could
lay down my life to-day, not murmuring that I had seen so little,
but thankful to overflowing that I had seen so much, of God’s
glorious work with the souls of men.
Once more, I say, if your hearts, like mine, are set upon this
noble work, you will surely do as much as you can, and work as
long as you can to help forward the little share which has been
entrusted to us; but for Heaven’s sake do not be afraid of the
consequences, were all of us to be swept into oblivion to-morrow.
Pure and natural religion has struck its roots into the hearts of
men, so that no rude axes can hew it down, nor fiercest storms can
root it up.
Young as I am, and dearly as I love life and its exquisit e
pleasures, one thought have I this day in looking back upon the
past. If God were to call me home or drive me by some mischance
into the wilderness once more; I should still say with old Simeon
in the temple, “ Lord, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared
before the face of all people. A Light to lighten the Gentiles and
to be the glory of thy people Israel.”
EASTERN
Post
steam Printing Works, 89 Worship Street, Finsbury E.C,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Anniversary Sunday: a sermon, preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, October 6th 1873
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 6.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Evening Post
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4829
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
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 (Anniversary Sunday: a sermon, preached at St. George's Hall, Langham Place, October 6th 1873), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Morris Tracts
Religion
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/157740095afc258c0a555ee32ef4085f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fuSaQ5MPHRs5PvGLbAgSoXt1PqAB1z8vLU2yj0MXe4pAnI6Yhk-unrtfrd4kJPgKwt6a9MoakyUyTgv%7ESWHw7peetNg%7ErMrRXPvKuVzTXtrtZ%7ED3caMGOWtdc3C%7EkZpI20Fc7927LoGi3ArHWNvnL-h58Nfzbf3cj3IKnN1M7mqE8VKzm1YsAA0eKrpOObN4XFc-l5adw2wIKoPqDhWB3XKuE5-NlXKPrtZgwbrMZYbbGpHEVG013U4mwlTkKkj5pKqnZAIccZbomQr41EMJGBvyNsLynjv3ol4n-YkoNlwjtnZvcXURgBKXDvzgNNrmWsvxgVh9OLBAZwnMGPvYUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
680877d78e76053136385bdb7e402938
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL STCLTAR SOCIETY
[SECOND
EDITION
“ BREAKING
THE FETTERS.
A POWERFUL DISCOURSE ON RELIGION
PAST AND PRESENT, BY
(From a Photograph hy SARONY of New York).
COL’ONEL
INGERSOLL.
The great American Orator, Freethinker and Wit.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
W. H. MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecutter-St, London:
TRUELOVE, 256. High Holborn, London;
CATTELL & Co., 84, Fleet Street, London;
HEYWOOD & SON, Manchester and London ;
The BOOKSTALL, 73. Humberstone Gate, Leicester;
BOOKSTALL, Freetheught Institute, Southampton ;
WHEELER, KING & CO., Edinburgh, &c.
�PUBLISHER'S NOTE.
This Lecture is not a reprint. The major portion has been
■specially reported, and is now published for the first time. It has been
Huly entered at Stationers Hall, and all rights are reserved.
IlSHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
REFERENCE LIBRARY
No.
2 1 NOV 1991
Classification
�B 2- b 4
BREAKING THE FETTERS,
A LECTURE BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL,
Precisely to the minute the Colonel walked on the stage, and experienced
his usual cordial reception from the densely packed audience. He
gracefully acknowleged the warmth of the greeting, and after a slight
pause proceeded as follows :—
Ladies and Gentlemen,
AM well aware that whoever attacks the prevailing religious
opinions of his time must, in his turn expect to be attacked.
We haven’t yet outgrown the barbarism that argument can be answered
by personal abuse. The religious world of to-day has not yet outgrown
the belief that you have to answer every argument not by showing that
it is bad, but by showing that the man who makes it is bad.
°
It makes no difference whether the maker of an arithmetic turned out
to be a rascal or not, we should still have to believe that ten times ten
is a hundred. (Applause).
I expected to be attacked and I have not been disappointed. I had
always supposed religion taught men to love their enemies, or, at least,
treat their friends decently; but I never knew of a minister who ever
loved me, or who could forgive me. In return I only want them to act
so that I won’t have to forgive them. I don’t pretend to love my
enemies for I find it hard work to love my friends, and if I have the
same feelings towards my enemies as towards my friends, I have no
humanity in me.
I deny that any man is under obligation to love his enemies. I believe
in returning good for good, and for evil the doctrine of Confucius_ exact
justice, without any admixture of revenge.
I have made up my mind to say my say, I £all do it kindly, distinctly,
but I am going to do it. I know there are thousands of men who sub
stantially agree with me, but who are not in a condition to express their
thoughts. I hey are poor ; they are in business; and they know that
I
�4
should they tell their honest thought, persons will refuse to patronise
them—to trade with them ; they wish to get bread for their little
children ; they wish to take care of their wives ; they wish to have
homes and the comforts of life. Every such person is a certificate of
the meanness of the community in which he resides. And yet I do not
blame these people for not expressing their thought. I say to them ;
“ keep your ideas to yourselves; feed and clothe the ones you love; I will
do your talking for you. The church cannot touch; cannot crush ; can
not starve; cannot stop or stay me; I will express your thoughts.”
(Loud cheers).
All I ask of the Christian world is simply to tell the truth, but that is
a good deal more than they will ever do. There was a time when
falsehood from the pulpit smote like a sword, but now it has become
almost an innocent amusement. Lying is now the last weapon left in
the arsenal of Theology. They say I am in favour of too much liberty,
but I am only in favour of justice, liberty, society.
You can’t make men good by slavery; there is no regeneration in
the chain. You can’t make a man honest by tying his hands behind
him. Good laws don’t make good people, but good people make good
laws. There is no reformation in force or in fear. You might scare a
man so that he would not do a thing, but you could not scare him so
that he would not want to do it. (Laughter.)
A few years ago the people were afraid to question the king, afraid
to question the priest, afraid to investigate a creed, afraid to denounce
a dogma, afraid to reason, afraid to think. Before wealth they bowed
to the very earth, and in the presence of titles they became abject,
All this is slowly but surely changing. We no longer bow to men
simply because they are rich. Our fathers worshipped the golden calf.
The worst you can say of an American now is, he worships the gold
of the calf. Even the calf is beginning to see this distinction.
It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man to be king or
emperor. The last Napoleon was not satisfied with being the emperor
of the French. He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold about
his head. He wanted some evidence that he had something of value
within his head. So he wrote the life of Julius Cmsar, that he might
become a member of the French Academy. The emperors, the kings,
the popes, no longer tower above their fellows. Compare King William
with the philosopher Haeckel. The king is one of the anointed by the
most high, as they claim—one upon whose head has been poured the
divine petroleum of authority. Compare this king with. Haeckel, who
towers an intellectual colossus above the crowned mediocrity. Compare
George Eliot with Queen Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments
given her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while George Eliot
wears robes of glory woven in the loom of her own genius. (Continued
applause.)
The world is beginning to pay homage to intellect, to genius.
There is no slavery but ignorance. Liberty is the child of intelligence.
The history of man is simply the history of slavery, of injustice and
brutality, together with the means by which he has, through the dead
and desolate years, slowly and painfully advanced, He has been the
�5
Sport and prey of priest and king, the food of superstition and cruel
might. Crowned force has governed ignorance through fear. Hypo
crisy and tyranny—two vultures—have fed upon the liberties of man;
Prom all these there has been, and is, but one means of escape—intellec
tual development. Upon the back of industry has been the whip. Upon
the brain have been the fetters of superstition. Nothing has been left
undone by the enemies of freedom. Every art and artifice, every cruelty
and outrage has been practised and perpetrated to destroy the rights of
man. In this great struggle every crime has been rewarded and every
virtue has been punished. Reading, writing, thinking and investigating
have all been crimes.
Every science has been an outcast.
All the altars and all the thrones united to arrest the forward march
of the human race. The king said that mankind must not work for
themselves. The priest said that mankind must not think for them
selves. One forged chains for the hands, the other for the soul. Under
this infamous regime the eagle of the human intellect was for ages
a slimy serpent of hypocrisy.
The human race was imprisoned. Through some of the prison bars
came a few struggling rays of light. Against these bars science pressed
its pale and thoughtful face, wooed by the holy dawn of human advance
ment. Bar after bar was broken away. A few grand men escaped and
devoted their lives to the liberation of their fellows.
Standing in the presence of the Unknown, all have the same right to
think, and all are equally interested in the great question of origin
and destiny. All I claim, all I plead for, is liberty of thought and ex
pression. That is all. I do not pretend to tell what is absolutely true,
but what I think is true. I do not pretend to tell all the truth.
I do not claim that I have floated level with the heights of thought,
or that I have descended to the very depths of things. I simply claim
that what ideas I have, I have a right to express ; and that any man
who denies that right to me is an intellectual thief and robber. That
is all. (Cheers).
Take those chains from the human soul. Break those fetters. If
I have no right to think, why have I a brain ? If I have no such right,
have three or four men, or any number, who may get together, and sign
a creed, and build a house, and put a steeple upon it, and a bell in it—
have they the right to think ? The good men, the good women, are
tired of the whip and lash in the realm of thought. They remember
the chain and faggot with a shudder. They are free, and they give
liberty to others. Whoever claims any right that he is unwilling to
accord to his fellow men is dishonest and infamous. (Great applause).
In the good old times, our fathers had the idea that they could make
people believe to suit them. Our ancestors, in the ages that are gone,
really believed that by force you could convince a man. You cannot
change the conclusions of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism.
But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done.
You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say
he has changed his mind: but he remains of the same opinion still.
Rut fetter? all oyer him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the
�6
last gasp upon the body rack ; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will
be of the same opinion still.
I oppose the Church because she is the enemy of liberty ; because her
dogmas are infamous and cruel; because she humiliates and degrades
women ; because she teaches the doctrine of eternal torment and the
natural depravity of man ; because she insists upon the absurd the im
possible and senseless ; because she is arrogant and revengeful; because
she resorts to falsehood and slander; because she allows men to sin
on credit; because she discourages self-reliance, and laughs at good
works ; because she believes in vicarious virtue and vicarious vice—
vicarious punishment and vicarious reward ; because she regards repen
tance of more importance than restitution, and because she sacrifices
the world we have to one we know not of.
The free and generous, the tender and affectionate, will understand
me. Those who have escaped from the grated cells of a creed will appre
ciate my motives.
Most of the clergy are, or seem to be, utterly incapable of discussing
anything in a fair and catholic spirit. .They appeal, not to reason, but
to prejudice ; not to facts but to passages of scripture. They can con
ceive of no goodness, of no spiritual exaltation beyond the horizon of
their creed. Whoever differs from them upon what they are pleased to
call “ fundamental truths,” is, in their opinion, a base and infamous
man. To re-enact the tragedies of the sixteenth century, they lack only
the power. Bigotry in all ages has been the same. Christianity simply
transferred the brutality of the Colosseum to the Inquisition. Foi the
murderous combat of the gladiators, the saints substituted the auto defe.
What has been called religion, is, after all, but the organization of the
wild beast in man. The perfumed blossom of arrogance is Heaven.
Hell is the consummation of revenge. The chief business of the clergy
has always been to destroy the joy of life, and multiply and magnify
the terrors and tortures of death and perdition. They have polluted
the heart and paralyzed the brain; and upon the ignorant altars of the
Past and the Dead, they have endeavoured to sacrifice the Present and
the Living.
. .
Nothing can exceed the mendacity of the religious press.. With one
or two exceptions I never knew an honest editor of a religious paper;
if truth was red-hot it would never scorch th&m. (Laughter).
I have had some little experience with political editors, and am forced
to say, that until I read the religious papers, I did not know what ma
licious and slimy falsehoods could be constructed from ordinary words.
The ingenuity with which the real and apparent meaning can be tortur
ed out of language, is simply amazing. The average religious editor
is intolerant and insolent; he knows nothing of affairs ; he has the
envy of failure, the malice of impotence, and always accounts for the
brave and generous actions of unbelievers, by low, base, and unworthy
motives.
• x n x r 4.1,
By this time, even the clergy should know that the intellect ot the
Nineteenth Century needs no guardian. They should cease to regard
themselves as shepherds defending flocks of weak, silly and timid sheep
from the claws and teeth of ravening wolves. By this time they should
�1
know that the religion of the ignorant and brutal Past no longer satisfies
the heart and brain ; that the miracles have become contemptible ; that
the “ evidences ” have ceased to convince; that the spirit of investiga
tion cannot be stopped or stayed ; that the church is losing her power ;
that the young are holding in a kind of tender contempt the sacred
follies of the old ; that the pulpit and pews no longer represent the cul
ture and morality of the world, and that the brand of intellectual
inferiority is upon the orthodox brain.
Men should be liberated from the aristocracy of the air. Every
chain of superstition should be broken. The rights of men and women
should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership
children should be governed by kindness,—every family should be a
republic—every fireside a democracy. (Loud applause).
The doctrine of eternal punishment has been taught in the name of
religion, in the name of universal forgiveness, in the name of love and
charity. Do not, I pray you, soil the minds of your children with this
dogma. Let them read for themselves ; let them think for themselves.
Jonathan Edwards the dear old soul, who, if his doctrine is true,, is
now in heaven rubbing his holy hands with glee as he hears the cries
of the damned, preached this doctrine ; and he said : “Can the believing
husband in heaven be happy, with his unbelieving wife in hell ? Can
the believing father in heaven be happy with the unbelieving children
in hell ? Can the loving wife in heaven be happy with her unbelieving
husband in hell?” And he replies: “I tell you, yea, such will be
their sense of justice, that it will increase rather than diminish their
bliss.” There is no wild beast in the jungles of Africa whose reputation
would not be tarnished by the expression of such a doctrine.
Where did that doctrine of eternal punishment for men and women and
children come from ? It came from the low and beastly skull of the
naked savage in the dug-out. Where did he get it ? It was a
souvenir from the animals. The doctrine of eternal punishment was
born in the glittering eyes of snakes—snakes that hung in fearful coils
watching for theii’ prey. It was born of the howl and bark and growl
of wild beasts. It was born of the grin of hyenas and of the depraved
chatter of unclean baboons. I despise it with every drop of my blood.
Tell me there is a God in the serene heavens that will damn his child
ren for ever for the expression of an honest belief! More men have
died in their sins, judged by your orthodox creeds, then there are leaves
on all the forests in the wide world ten thousand times over. Tell me
these men are in hell; that these men are in torment; that these chil
dren are in eternal pain, and that they are to be punished for ever and
ever and ever! I denounce this doctrine to night as the most infamous
of lies. (Great applause).
The human race has been guilty of almost countless crimes, but I
have some excuse for mankind. This world after all, is not very well
adapted to raising good people. In the first place nearly all of it is
water. It is much better adapted to fish culture than to the production
of folks. Of that portion which is land, not one eighth has suitable
soil and climate to produce great men and women. You cannot raise
men and women of genius without the proper soil and climate, any more
�8
than yoii can raise corn and wheat upon the icefields of the Arctic sea.
You must have the necessary conditions and surroundings. Man is a
product; you must have the soil and food. The obstacles presented by
nature must not be so great that man cannot by reasonable industry
and courage, overcome them. There is upon this world only a narrow
belt of land, circling zigzag the globe, upon which you can produce men
and women of talent. In the Southern Hemisphere the real climate
that man needs falls mostly upon the sea, and the result is that the sou
thern half of our world has never produced a man or woman of great
genius. In the far north there is no genius—it is too cold. In the far
south there is no genius—it is too warm. There must be winter and
there must be summer. In a country where man needs no coverlet
but a cloud, revolution is his normal condition. Winter is the mother of
industry and prudence. Above all, it is the mother of the family rela
tion. Winter holds in its icy arms the husband and wife and the sweet
children. If upon this earth we ever have a glimpse of heaven, it is
when we pass a home in winter, at night, and through the windows, the
curtains drawn aside, we see the family about the pleasant hearth ;
the old lady knitting ; the cat playing with the yarn ; the children wish
ing they had as many dolls as dollars or knives or somethings, as there
are sparks going out to join the roaring blast; the father reading and
smoking and the clouds rising like incense from the altar of domestic
joy. I never passed such a house without feeling 1 had received a bene
diction.
Civilization, liberty, justice, charity, intellectual advancement, are
all flowers that blossom in the drifted snow.
I do not know that I can better illustrate the great truth that only
part of the world is adapted to the production of great men and women
than by calling your attention to the difference between vegetation in
the valleys and upon the mountains In the valley you find the oak
and elm tossing their branches defiantly to the storm, and as you ad
vance up the mountain side the hemlock, the pine, the birch, the spruce,
the fir, and finally you come to little dwarfed trees, that look like other
trees seen through a telescope reversed—every limb twisted as though
in pain—getting a scanty subsistence from the miserly crevices of the
rocks. You go on and on, until at last the highest crag is freckled with
a kind of moss, and vegetation ends. Yrou might as well try to raise
oaks and elms where the mosses grow, as to raise great men and great
women where their surroundings are unfavorable. You must have the
proper climate and soil.
A few years ago we were talking about the annexation of Santo
Domingo to this country. I was in Washington at the time. I was
opposed to it. I was told that it was a most delicious climate ; that
the soil produced everything. But I said “ We don’t want it; it is
not the right kind of country to raise American citizens. Such a
climate would debauch us. You plight go there with five thousand
Congregational preachers; five thousand ruling elders ; five thousand
professors of Colleges; five thousand of the solid men of Boston and
their wives ; settle them all in Santo Domingo, and you will see the
second generation riding upon a mule, bareback no shoes, a grape vine
�9
bridle, hair sticking out of the tops of their hats, with a rooster under
each arm, going to a cock fight on Sunday. Such is the influence of
climate. (Laughter).
Science, however, is gradually widening the area within which men
of genius can be produced. We are conquering the north with houses,
clothing, food and fuel. We are in many ways overcoming the
south. If we attend to this world instead of another, we may in time
cover the land with men and women of genius.
I have still another excuse. I believe that man came from the
lower animals. I do not say this as a fact. I simply say I believe
it to be a fact. Upon that question I stand about eight to seven,
which for all practical purposes is very near a certainty.
When I first heard of that doctrine I did not like it. My heart
was filled with sympathy for those people who have nothing to be
proud of except their ancestors. I thought how terrible this will be
upon the nobility of the old world. Think of their being forced to
trace their ancestry back to the duke Orang-Outang, or to the princess
Chimpanzee ! (Roars of laughter).
After thinking it all over, I came to the conclusion that I liked that
doctrine. I became convinced in spite of myself. I read about the
rudimentary bones and muscles. I was told that everybody bad ru
dimentary muscles extending from the ear into the cheek. I asked
“ What are they ? ” I was told : “ They are the remains of muscles ;
that they became rudimentary from lack of use ; they went into bank
ruptcy. They are the muscles with which your ancestors used to flap
their ears.” (Laughter). I do not so much wonder that we once
had them as that we have outgrown them.
After all I had rather belong to a race that started from the skulless vertebrates in the dim Laurentian seas, vertebrates wiggling
without knowing why they wiggled, swimming without knowing
where they were going, but that in some way begun to develop, and
began to get a little higher and a little higher in the scale of existence;
that came up by degrees through millions of ages, through all the
animal world, through all that crawls and swims and floats and climbs
and walks, and finally produced the gentleman in the dug-out; and
then from this man, getting a little grander, and each one below call
ing every one who had made a little advance, an infidel or an atheist
—for in the history of this world, the man who is a-head has always
been called a heretic.
I would rather come up from a race that started from that skulless
vertebrate, and came up and up and up and finally produced Shakes
peare, the man who found the human intellect dwelling in a hut,
touched it with the wand of his genius, and it became a palace
domed and pinnacled. Shakespeare, who harvested all the fields of
dramatic thought, and from whose day to this, there have been only
gleaners of straw and chaff. I would rather belong to that race that
commenced a skulless vertebrate and produced Shakespeare, a race
that has before it an infinite future, with angels of progress leaning
from the far horizon, beckoning men forward, upward, and onward
for ever. I had rather belong to such a race, commencing there, pro-
�io
ducing this, and with that hope, than to have sprung from a perfect
pair upon which the Lord has lost every moment from that day to
this. (Applause).
Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the human
mind. Men began to enquire by what right a crowned robber made
them work for him ? The man who asked this question was called
a traitor. Others asked by what right does a robed hypocrite rule
my thought? subh men were called infidels. The priest said,
and the king said, where is this spirit of investigation to stop ? They
said then, and they say now, that it is dangerous for man to be free.
I deny it. Out on the intellectual sea there is room for every sail.
In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing.
The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a
traitor to himself and to his fellow man.
What would have become of the people five hundred years ago if
they had followed strictly the advice of the doctors ? They would all
have been dead. What would the people have been, if at any age of
the world they had followed implicitly the direction of the church ?
They would have all been idiots. It is a splendid thing that there is
always some grand man who will not mind, and who will think for
himself. (Cheers).
Every man should stand under the blue and stars, under the infinite
flag of nature, the peer of every other man.
I will tell you another thing—It is not necessary to be rich, or to be
great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy man is the success
ful man. Joy is wealth.
A little while ago, I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon—a magnificient tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a dead deity—and gazed
upon the sarcophagus of rare and nameless marble, where rest at last
the ashes of that restless man. I leaned over the balustrade and thought
about the career of the greatest soldier of the modern world.
I saw him walking upon the banks of the Seine, contemplating suicide.
I saw him at Toulon—I saw him putting down the mob in the streets of
Paris—I saw him at the head of the army of Italy—I saw him crossing
the bridge of Lodi with the tri-color in his hand—I saw him in Egypt
in the shadows of the pyramids—I saw Inm conquer the Alps and
mingle the eagles of France with the eagles of the crags. I saw him
at Marengo—at Ulm and Austerlitz. I saw him in Russia, where the
infantry of the snow and the cavalry of the wild blast scattered his
legions like winter’s withered leaves. I saw him at Leipsic in defeat
and disaster driven by a million bayonets back upon Paris—clutched
like a wild beast—banished to Elba. I saw him escape and retake an
empire by the force of his genius. I saw him on the frightful field of
Waterloo, where chance and fate combined to wreck the fortunes of
their former King. And I saw him a't St. Helena, gazing out upon the
sad and solemn sea.
I thought of the orphans and widows he had made—of the tears that,
had been shed for his glory, and of the only woman who ever loved
him, pushed from his breast by the cold hand of ambition. And I said
I would rather have been a French peasant and worn wooden shoes.
�1 would rather have lived in a hut with a vine growing over the door,
and the grapes growing purple in the kisses of the autumn sun. I would
rather have been that poor peasant with my loving wife by my side, knitt
ing as the day died out of the sky—with my children upon my kneesand
their arms about me—I would rather have been that man, and gone
down to the tongueless silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been
that imperial impersonation of force and murder. (Great applause).
It is not necessary to be great to be happy ; it is not necessary to be
rich to be just and generous. Free labor will give us wealth. Free
thought will give us truth.
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than
the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when
you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge !
As long as man believes the Bible to be infallible, that book is his
master. The civilization of this century is not the child of faith, but
of unbelief—the result of free thought. (Cheers).
As long as woman regards the bible as the charter of her rights, she
will be the slave of man. The bible was not written by a woman.
Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She
is regarded as the property of man. She is as much below her husband
as her husband is below Christ. She is not allowed to speak. The
gospel is too pure to be spoken by her polluted lips. Women must learn
in silence.
In the bible will be found no description of a civilized home. The
free mother, surrounded by free and loving children, adored by a free
man, her husband, was unknown to the inspired writers of the bible
They did not believe in the democracy of home—in the republicanism of
the fireside.
If any orthodox clergyman will read to his congregation certain pas
sages in the bible that I will select, I will pay him one hundred dollars
in gold. There would’nt be a lady left in the church, and if a man
stayed, it would be to chastise the man for insulting the women.
Let us go back to the time when society was first formed a long
time ago. Blackstone and Locke have always taken the giound that
society was first formed by contract; that animals formed themselves
into flocks and herds by agreement. IIow did men originally come to
act together ? By contract ? No. By necessity ? Yes. When men
first formed themselves into society they were not equal to the beasts.
No man ever worshiped anything he did not believe to be his superior.
Let us get to the foundation of this idea of worship. When man
first looked upon a lion he saw an animal that had greater strength
than himself. When he saw the serpent climb without hands, run with
out feet, and live apparently without food, it struck him with awe, and
he felt the serpent was superior to him. When he saw the powerful
eagle flying against the storms, and gazing at the blazing sun, he saw
something that was superior to him. He didn’t know how they got
their living. He was filled with wonder and admiration, and the result
was he began to worship beasts, and made gods out of lions, snakes, and
eagles.
The story of the serpent in the garden, of Eden, and of the brazen
�12
shi’pent in the wilderness, are but reminisences of an old serpent wor
ship. Almost all kinds of animals were deified. The old Jews themselves
—including Moses—worshipped Jehovah in the form of a bull. That
accounts for “ the horns on the altar.”
They not only worshipped that God but many others. Even in the
time of Solomon and Jeroboam there were thirty temples in which
other gods were worshipped besides Jehovah. After men fouud out that
one animal by itself was not their superior, they began to make gods
composed of several animals. They took the lion for strength, the eagle
for swiftness, and the serpent for cunning or long life, making together
an animal that could not be killed.
Take the Mexican Indians. What is their name for God? Stone
Spirit. One who wore an armour of stone. Where did they get that
idea from? The Armadillo, that could not be pierced with their arrows;
something they could not kill. I want to convince you all, as we go
along, that we manufacture these gods ourselves, and every one of them
is a poor job. (Laughter).
After men got through worshipping beasts, simple and compound, they
begun worshipping man, the beastial qualities in man as well as the good
ones. The gods were first beasts, then men Right here let me tell
you that there is not a person in this house who can think of God only
in the form of a man. Why ? Because that is the highest intellectual
form you are acquainted with. (Applause).
You can’t think of God on four legs, or as a woman. Why ? Because
man made all the religions. We havn’t yet become civilized enough to
worship a principle. If we worshipped God as a woman, I should be apt
to join some church myself.
Now having traced the origin of god, the next question is, Does this
God interfere in the affairs of this world ? For upon this depends the
great question of human rights. The savage has always believed it.
When his poor hut was blown down he thought God was mad with him
or one of his neighbours. Just think of the infinite maker of every
shining world getting mad at this poor savage and pulling up his home!
I tell you this world has been mightily abused, and it almost makes
one die of pity to read its religious history.
When that train of railway cars went down recently in Scotland the
pulpit resounded with talk about divine judgments for violating the sab
bath. One of the passengers was a sailor coming home to see his
widowed mother, to take care of her in her declining years. Just think
of God killing that man for crossing a bridge on a Sunday. (Cheers).
Imagine some rosy-cheeked little boys in a boat on a Sunday fishing. At
the end of their lines are fastened pin hooks, and an infinite being de
scends and keels over their boat because it is a Sunday! Our fathers
had no idea of religious liberty in their time, and their descendants to
day have not. (Applause).
I can’t believe in a personal God in any land where there is injustice;
where innocence is not safe, where honest men toil and rogues ride in
carriages, 'where hypocricy is crowned and sincerity degraded. I can’t
conceive of this world being governed by an infinite being. If any
good has to be done man has got to do it. We must depend on our
�13
selves. We musn’t consider the lilies of the field—we must sow the
field and reap and harvest the crop ourselves.
I want to show you the extent to which the Church has gone. Reli
gion has never relied upon argument. Protestantism never gained an
inch of soil except at the mouth of the cannon or the point of the bay
onet. Religion of love has always been shot into nations. (Applause).
Who are the most warlike nations in the world to day ? Christian
nations. Does any one of you wish to be a millionaire and famous for
the rest of his life ? Then invent a cannon that will blow more Christtian brains into froth than the best cannon will, and your fortune is
made, and your name will become famous. In the last eight years the
national debts of Christendom have increased over six thousand million
dollars.
What Catholic nation is the most orthodox to day ? Spain. And is
there any meaner nation. What next ? Italy, the land covered with
brigands, every one of which carries an image of the A irgin Mary or
some favorite saint, and who crosses himself with holy water in the
cathedral before he starts on his brigand work. What next? Ireland,
poor Ireland, crushed beneath the heel of oppression for hundreds of
years. Why ? Simply because her oppressor was of a different re
ligion. It is religion which has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a
hand organ, and Ireland to exile. (Immense applause).
Which is the most orthodox Protestant nation to day ? Scotland; and
in 1879 there were twelve thousand women arrested for drunkenness.
What nation is the most infidel to day ? France. And which is the
most prosperous country in Europe to day ? France.
There is another Christian nation, Russia. Go with me to Siberia.
Who are these poor creatures drawing wagons, on their hands and
knees Girls of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen or twenty; what are
they there for ? For having said a word in favour of human liberty.
That is all. Do you blame the lovers or the parents of these girls if
they endeavour to send a bullet to the heart of the Czar who allows
such brutality ? In such a case my sympathies are closest around the
point of the dagger. (Cheers.)
I tell you that when I think of how much this world has suffered ;
when I think of how long our fathers were slaves, of how they cringed
and crawled at the foot of the throne, and in the dust of the altar, of
how they abased themselves, of how abjectly they stood in the presence
of superstition robed and crowned, I am amazed.
This world has not been fit to live in fifty years. It was not until the
year 1808 that Great Britain abolished the slave trade. Up to that
time her judges, sitting upon the bench in the name of justice, her
priests occupying her pulpits in the name of universal love, owned stock
in the slave ships, and luxuriated upon the profits of piracy and murder.
It was not until the same year that the United States of America abolished the slave trade between this and other countries, but carefully
preserved it as between the States. It was not until the 27th day of
August, 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery in her colonies ; and
it was not until the 1st day of January, 1863, that Abraham Lincoln,
sustained by the sublime and heroic North, rendered our flag pure as
�14
the sky in which it floats. (Immense applause).
Abraham Lincoln, was, in my judgment, in many respects, the grandest
man ever President of the United States. Upon his monument should
be written: li Here sleeps the only man in the history of the world,
who, having been clothed with almost absolute power, never abused
it, except upon the side of mercy.” (Loud cheers).
Think how long we clung to the institution of human slavery, how
long lashes upon the naked back were a legal tender for labor performed.
Think of it! The pulpit of this country deliberately and willingly, for a
hundred years, turned the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
The Americans founded the first secular government that was ever
founded in this world, recollect that. The first secular government!
the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights
and no more ; every religion has the same rights and no more. In
other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, had the
genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword ;
that it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.
No government should be united with religion. You might as well
have a government united by force with Art, or with Poetry, or with
Oratory, as with Religion. Religion should have the influence upon
mankind that its goodness, that its morality, its justice, its charity, its
reason, and its argument give it, and no more. (Cheers). The religion
that has to be supported by law is without value, not only, but a fraud
and a curse. rIhe religious argument that has to be supported by a
musket is hardly worth making. A prayer that has a cannon behind it
better never be uttered. Forgiveness ought not to go in partnership
with shot and shell. Love need not carry knives and revolvers.
So our fathers’ said: ‘We will form a secular government, and under
the flag with which we are going to enrich the air, we will allow every
man to worship God as he thinks best.” They said, “ Religion is an
individual thing between each man and his Creator, and he can wor
ship as he pleases and as he desires.”
And why did they do this ? The history of the world warned them
that the liberty of man was not safe in the clutch or grasp of any church.
They had read of and seen the thumb screws, the racks, and the dun
geons of the inquisition. They knew all about the hypocrisy of the olden
time. They knew that the church had stood side by side with the throne ;
that the high priests were hypocrites, and that the kings were robbers.
They also knew that if they gave to any church power, it would corrupt
the best church in the world. And so they said that power must not
reside in a church, nor in a sect, but power must be wherever humanity
is,—in the great body of the people. And the officers and servants of
the people must be responsible to them as they derived all their authority
from the people.
Thus they did away for ever with the theological idea of government.
I thank every one of them from the bottom of my heart for their
courage—for their patriotism—for their wisdom—for the splendid con
fidence in themselves and in the human race. I thank them for what
they did and for what we have received—for what they suffered, and
for what we enjoy. (Cheers/
�15
What would we have been if we had remained colonists and subjects.
What would we have been to-day? Nobodies,—ready to get down on
our hands and knees and crawl in the very dust at the sight of some
body that was supposed to have in him some drop of blood that flowed
in the veins of that mailed marauder, that royal robber, William the
Conqueror. (Loud applause).
.
They signed the declaration of independance although they knew it
would produce a long, terrible, and bloody war. They looked forwaid
and saw poverty, deprivation, gloom and death. But they also saw, on
the wrecked clouds of war, the beautiful bow of freedom.
These grand men were enthusiasts; and the world has only been
raised by enthusiasts. In every country there have been a few who
have given a national aspiration to the people. The enthusiasts of
1776 were the builders and framers of this great and splendid govern
ment ; and they were the men who saw, although others did not, the
golden fringe of the mantle of glory that will finally cover this world.
They knew, they felt, they believed that they would give a new con
stellation to the political heavens—that they would make the Americans
a grand people—grand as the continent upon which they lived. (Great
Applause).
,
. . . . ,
Seven long years of war—fighting for what? For the principle that
all men are created equal—a truth that nobody ever disputed except a
scoundrel ; nobody, nobody in the entire history of the world.. No man
ever denied that truth who was not a rascal, and at heart a thief ; never,
never, and never will. What else were they fighting for ? Simply that
in America every man should have a right to life, liberty,, and the pur
suit of happiness. Nobody ever denied that except a villain; never,
never. It has been denied by kings—they were theives. It has been
denied by statesmen—they were liars. It has been denied by priests., by
clergymen, by cardinals, by bishops, and by popes—they were hypocrites.
We must progress. We are just at the commencement of invention.
The steam engine—the telegraph— these are but the toys with which
science has been amused. Wait; there will be grander things ; there
will be wider and higher culture—a grander standard of character, of
literature, and art.
The history of civilization is the history of the slow and painful enfranchisement of the human race. In the olden times the family was a
monarchy, the father being the monarch, the mother and children were
the veriest slaves. The will of the father was the supreme law.. .He
had the power of life and death. It took thousands of years to civilize
the father, thousands of years to make the condition of wife and mother
and child even tolerable. A few families constituted a tribe ; the tribe
had a chief; the chief was a tyrant ; a few tribes formed a nation ; the
nation was governed by a king, who was also a tyrant. A strong nation
robbed, plundered, and took captive the weaker ones. This "was the
commencement of human slavery.
I say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject
slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies, the ornaments you
wear upon your persons to-night are but the souvenirs of your mothers
bondage. The chains around your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon
�16
your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by
the wand of civilization from iron to shining glittering gold.
°
J
I believe in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinion of
those long haiied men and short haired women who denounce the insti
tution of marriage.
There is no success in life without love and marriage. You had better
be the emperor of one loving and tender heart, and she the empress of
yours than to be the king of the world. The man who has really won
the love of one good woman in the world, I do not care if he dies in
the ditch a beggar, his life has been a success.
It is not possible for the human imagination to conceive of the horlors of slavery. It has left no possible crime uncommitted, no pos
sible cruelty unperpetrated. It has been practised and defended by all
nations. It has been defended by nearly every pulpit. From the
profits derived from the slave trade churches have been built, cathedrals
real ed, and piiestspaid. Slavery has been blessed by bishop, by cardinal,
and by pope. It has received the sanction of statesmen, of kings, and
of queens. It has been defended by the throne, the pulpit, and the
bench. Monarchs have shared in the profits. Clergymen have taken
their part of the spoil, reciting passages of scripture in its defence at
the same time.
Only a few years ago our ancestors were slaves. They belonged to
the soil like coal under it and rocks on it. Only a few years agcTthey
were treated like beasts of burden, far worse than we treat our ani
mals at the present day. Only a few years ago it was a crime in Eng
land for a man to have a bible in his house, a crime for which men were
hanged, and their bodies afterwards burned. Only a few years ami
fathers could and did sell their children. Only a few years a°-o our
ancestors were not allowed to speak or write their thoughts—tha? bein°a ciime. To be honest, at least in the expression of your ideas, was a
felony. To do right was a capital offence; and in those days chains
and whips were the incentives to labor, and the preventative to thought.
Honesty was a vagrant, justice a fugitive, and liberty in chains. Only
a few years ago men were denounced because they doubted the inspira
tion of the bible—because they denied miracles and laughed at the
wonders recounted by the ancient Jews
Only a few years ago a man had to believe in the total depravity of
the human heart in order to be respectable. Only a few years ago peo
ple who thought God too good to punish in eternal flames an unbaptised
child were considered infamous.
As soon as our ancestors began to get free they began to enslave
others. With an inconsistency that defies explanation, they practiced
upon others the same outrages that had been perpetrated upon them.
As soon as white slavery began to be abolished, black slavery commenc
ed. In this infamous traffic nearly every nation in Europe embarked.
Fortunes were quickly realized; the avarice and cupidity of Europe
were excited; all ideas of justice were discarded ; pity fled from the hu
man breast; a few good, brave men recited the horrors of the trade,
but avarice was deaf ; religion refused to hear ; the trade went on ; the
governments of Europe upheld it in the name of commerce—in the
�17
name of civilization and religion.
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of
Slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. (Cheers).
What do I mean by liberty ? By physical liberty I mean the right
to do anything which does not interfere with the happiness of another.
By intellectual liberty I mean the right to think right and the right to
think wrong. Thought is the means by which we endeavour to arrive
at truth. If we know the truth already we need not think. All that
can be required is honesty of purpose. You ask my opinion about any
thing ; I examine it honestly, and when my mind is made up, what
should I tell you? Should I tell you my real thought ? What should
I do ? Here is a book put into my hands. I am told it is the Koran ;
that it was written by inspiration. I read it, and when I get through,
suppose that I think in my heart and in my brain, that it is utterly un
true, and you then ask me, ‘What do you think ?” Now supposing that I
live in Turkey, and have no chance to get any office unless I am on the
side of the Koran, what should I say ? Should I make a clean breast
and say that upon my honor I do not believe it ? What would you
think then of my fellow citizens if they said : “ That man is dangerous,
he is dishonest.”
Suppose I read the book called the Bible, and when I get through I
make up my mind that it was written by men, a minister asks me “ Did
you read the Bible ?” I answer that I did. “ Do you think it divinely
inspired?” What should I reply ? Should I say to myself, “If I deny
the inspiration of the scriptures, the people will never clothe me with
power.” What ought I to answer ? Ought I not to say like a man :
“ I have read it; I do not believe it.” Should I not give the real trans
cript of my mind ? Or should I turn hypocrite and pretend what I do
not feel, and hate myself for ever after for being a cringing coward.
For my part I would rather a man would tell me what he honestly
thinks. I would rather he would preserve his manhood. I had a thou
sand times rather be a manly unbeliever than an unmanly believer. And
if there is a judgment day, a time when all will stand before some su
preme being, I believe I will stand higher, and have a better chance of
getting my case decided in my favor, than any man sneaking through
life pretending to believe what he does not. (Loud cheers).
As an excuse for tyranny, as a justification of slavery the church has ■
taught that man is totally depraved. Of the truth of that doctrine the
church has furnished the only evidence there is. (Laughter). The
truth is, we are both good and bad. The worst are capable of some
good deeds, and the best are capable of bad. The lowest can rise, and
the highest may fall. That mankind may be divided into two great
classes, sinners and saints, is an utter falsehood.
In times of great disaster, called it may be, by the despairing voices of
Women, men, denounced by the church as totally depraved, rush to death
as to a festival By such men deeds are done so filled with self sacrifice
and generous daring, that millions pay them the tribute, not only of
admiration but of tears. Above all creeds, above all religions, after all
is that divine thing,—Humanity; and now and then in shipwreck on
the wide, wild sea, or ’mid the rocks and breakers of some cruel shore,
�18
oi where the serpents of flame writhe and hiss, some glorious heart,
some chivalric soul does a deed that glitters like a star, and gives the
lie to all the dogmas of superstition. All these frightful doctrines have
been used to degrade and to enslave mankind.
Away, for ever away with the creeds and books and laws and relio-ions
that take from the soul liberty and reason. Down with the idea°that
thought is dangerous! Perish the infamous doctrine that man can
have property in man, Let us resent with indignation every effort to
put a chain upon our minds. If there is no God, certainly we should
not bow and cringe and crawl. If there is a God, there should be no
slaves !
. [As the Colonel left the stage, the audience rose en masse, and
waving their hats and handkerchiefs “ applauded to the echo that app
lauds again,” and as he returned and bowed his acknowledgments, he
was greeted with renewed enthusiasm.]
A Collection of Colonel Ingersoll’s Orations, including the
“ Oration on the Gods,” “ Thomas Paine,” “ Heretics and Heresies,”
“Humboldt,” and “Arraignment of the Church,” in neatly bound
limp cloth volume, price 1/6, or mailed to any address for 1/7, can be
had of W. H. Mobrish, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol.
BWmpsgate Institut»
�REFOBMER'S LIBRARY
Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, reprinted from the edition in Six
volumes with Memoir and Two Portraits. Two Vols., nearly 1300
Pages, post free,
VoltaIM’s Philosophical Tales and Romances, complete with Portrait
VolneT’s Ruins of Empires : and Law of Nature. Handsome Binding
Paine’s Complete Political and Miscellaneous Works, with Full Report of
his Trial for writing the “Rights of Man.” with Portrait
Paine’s Theological Works, including “Age of Reason,” Portrait
Rights of Man, with Trial, complete ...
Age of Reason, Portrait ..
...
...
..............
The Prophet of Nazareth, by E. P. Meredith, published at 12s 6d
The StBMENTS of Social Science : an Exposition of the Cause and Cure of
th© three primary Social Evils—Poverty—Prostitution—and Celibacy
2s 6d., or in Cloth
Mazzini. Life by Madam Venturi. The Duties of Man. Democracy.
Two Autotype Portraits and Apendix—published at 5s...
The Aristocracy of England, the Anatomy of Rank by William Howitt
published at 5s.
Analysis of the influence of natural religion on the happiness of man
kind, by Geo. Grote ...
Rabelais. The Works of. With a Life of the Author by W. Maccall,
Two Volumes...
...
...
...
•••
•••
•••
••• • •••
.New Religious Thoughts by D. Campbell, published at 5s.
Robert Owen’s Lectures on Marriage ...
•••
..
...
..............
Robert Owen’s Lectures on Socialism
Half-Hours with the Freethinkers, containing the Lives of 48 Freethink
ers, by Chas« Bradlaugh and John Watts ..
...
...
...
...
s.
8
2
2
d.
O
6
6
5
3
1
1
7
O
0
0
0
6
3 0
3 0
2 6
1 0
4
2
0
2
0
6
8
0
3 0
Published by E. TRUELOVE,
256, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON.
READ THE NEW SATIRE
“A
SUPERHUMAN VIEW
OF MANKIND.”
Price 2d.,post free from the Secular Bookstore.
75, HUMBERSTONE GATE, LEICESTER.
�COLONEL INGERSOLL’S WORKS..
“The Religion of the Future,” 2d.
Post Free, 2^d., or Six Copies for 1/(An immense Success). Eighth Edition Now Ready.
A brilliant example of the Colonel’s marvellous powers of word painting;,
combining passages of great beauty, mingled with scathing satire, and frequent
flashes of humor.
“Breaking the Fetters,” 2d.
Post Free, 2±d., or Six Copies for Is.
“Full of gems.” “ Equal to anything he has said or written.” etc.
(vide Press).
“ Farm Life in America-” Id.
Posi free l^d., or Six Copies for 7d.
“Delightfully fresh and vigorous.” “Interesting as a novel.”—Secular Review.
“ What shall I do to be saved.?” 3d..
Single Copy by post 3^d.
“ The Ghosts.’’
4d.
Post Free, f(d.
“ The Christian Religion.”
3d.
Post Free, 3fl.
“ Mistakes of Moses.”
3d.
Post Free, 3\d.
Col. Ingersoll’s Photograph. 6d.
Post Free, 7d.
Any of the above securely packed and posted to any address ©n
receipt of stamps, by
W. H. MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol.
THE FEEETHINKEB,
An Infidel Weekly.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Trenchant Articles, Racy Paragraphs, Good Jokes, Interesting Matter all round. Price One Penny. Order with your Reformer,—
Freethought Publishing Co., 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Breaking the fetters : a powerful discourse on religion past and present
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: Bristol
Collation: 18 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Notes: (Sold by:) Freethought Publishing Company (London); Truelove (London); Cattell & Co. (London); Heywood & Son (Manchester); The Bookstall (73 Humberstone Gate, Leicester); Bookstall, Freethought Institute (Southampton); Wheeler, King & Co, (Edinburgh &c.). "This lecture is not a reprint. The major portion has been specially reported, and is now published for the first time."--Publisher's note, p.[2]. Publisher's list "Reformer's library" (E. Truelove, 256 High Holborn) inside back cover. "Colonel Ingersoll's works" available from W.H. Morrish (Bristol) listed on back cover. Stamp on p.[2]: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library, 21 Nov 1991. No. A1 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by him). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W.H. Morrish
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
N335
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Free thought
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 (Breaking the fetters : a powerful discourse on religion past and present), 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
NSS
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
-
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