-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8fb84364c792117a7cbae289e8a1d7e5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CBdVLYerOxPiaydsvl%7EIKJz8AvxJsEUSfiZfhpMFQPJAxJ6UjV6pye%7EgchP1V6U9eF4AUG4bbVIKSP64w13vwpZbp8gkykum51khveIHfbnR3IlkvF0J9cF7tulDTMxmZfIc6CpL3PDfggsoYHFmyj29N2GVeVbMbPfeZ4%7E7Nmxa8qRiPiAM86JD-3nIrivcPttBx7fcKBK8iebA4MmroKd3bozUl9Xoy4chEr%7ECr68CrPP4FDIMC6uuFIsVtTy02uLMBAiew3onwMYp1ftLtNUd0iDYjNLsA%7E6hDeCtiYdvEqKJxBwlJ%7Ehe7djrT-7dF%7Ej7Jc2Fma9ysHV%7EhOdRfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23deaeaef7a79127eda4dff6ad165408
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY:
ITS
PROFESSED PRINCIPLES and ACTUAL POLICY.
NTEREST in the career of this promising though
hitherto disappointing institution prompted a
visit to Willis’s Rooms on Friday afternoon, June 5,
when the third anniversary was being celebrated.
Whether “ celebrated ” is the happiest term or not,
may be decided after acquaintance with what follows.
In the circular which accompanied the request for our
subscription, the Christian Evidence Society declares
(after enumerating the various aggressive efforts of
heterodox propagandists) that it is their object to
“stem the tide of scepticism.” They “hold that
difficulties must be met by fair argument, and doubts
removed by candid explanations. They desire, too, to
meet the bolder and more aggressive propagation of
infidelity, to confront its champions, and refute their
arguments; to rescue inquiring minds from being
misled by objections—essentially old, capable of refu
tation, and oft refuted, which nevertheless, if un
challenged in their new forms, may be thought un
answerable because unanswered.” A most laudable
object, would to Heaven they would carry it out!
and it was to hear the Society’s own report of its
warfare that our visit was paid.
I
�2
There were about 150 persons present, of whom
perhaps two-thirds were ladies, and a large proportion
of the remainder clergymen, as might perhaps be ex
pected, seeing that the speakers comprised the Arch
bishop of York, Bishop of London (in the chair),
Bishop of Gloucester, Bishop of Oxford, besides lesser
dignitaries of the Church. Prayers were read from
a small book, having no special reference to the work
of the Society. The report was lengthy; common
place at first, it grew chilly as it proceeded, until it
left us decidedly dull. Por, after reviewing the year’s
work, the opposition to which was characterised as
“ only feeble,” and planning out schemes to come,
the dismal truth had to be spoken, that Christians
had not rushed to the defence of the “ faith once
delivered” with the hoped-for energy: the sinews of
war were failing, the funds are dreadfully low. The
receipts had been 1,493Z.; expenditure, l,480Z.; leaving
a balance of 13Z. only “ to stem the tide of scepticism.”
Worse remained behind, the loss of large benefactors;
and there would not have been even a balance at all,
had not pressure of circumstances forced them to sell
out one-fourth of their reserve fund. We were much
relieved to hear, after this, that some of the members
have offered special prayers on the evening of the last
day in each month, in private, for the benefit of the
Society; and though at present the answer had not
been all that might be expected from a “ prayer
answering God,” we were all earnestly requested to
do likewise, since this mode of raising subscriptions
had been “ specially sanctioned by his Grace the
Archbishop of York,” who yawned heartily during
the whole of the report.
The Bishop of London struck the uppermost chord
in the hearts of all present by deploring, in his least
cheerful manner, “that society is saturated with
infidelity from the highest grade to the lowest,” that
men are satisfied to live according to the dictates “ of
�3
their own evil hearts.” The masses, he confessed,
do not attend church, and he believed that the extent
of passive unbelief is more harmful than active infi
delity. Still, he thought that this infidelity is not
deeper to-day than formerly, but more multiform, as
they are now attacked at once by the coarse objections
of Paine, and by the keen criticism of Strauss and
others. His lordship favoured us with a long cata
logue of various phases of modern unbelief, which he
summed up in one word, “ Egotism,” that is the root
of all heresy to-day. He considered that Christians
had been too full of apology and defence of late, and
advised the taking of higher ground in future, stating
boldly that they believe would perhaps have a better
effect with the people than mere argument. He did
not add that assertion was better than proof, when
proof is wanting. The Bishop effectually damped
our not over lively spirits, but there was possibly a
special providence in the fact that very few could
hear a word of his very badly read address. He
concluded with a feeble apology for the existence
of the Society, “ whose work is so valuable, but the
results of which,” said his lordship, “ will only be
known—hereafter. ’ ’
The Chairman stated that a “ good deal of the
infidelity of the day arose from ignorance, and hence
the necessity of a society like the Christian Evidence
Society, which met the Infidel on his own ground,
an.d showed by lectures, pamphlets, and tracts that
Christians were in the right.” Surely the Bishop of
London forgot the facts of the case. It is true that
ignorance breeds superstition, a state of mind largely
traded on by priests of all denominations ; but the
so-called infidelity of the present day, which the
Christian Evidence Society does not attempt to touch,
is the result of the increasing amount of intelligence
in all classes, leading to the examination of the
grounds on which certain facts are said to rest, and
�4
thereby the said facts are proved to have no
existence.
It is to be feared that the clergy comprising the
Christian Evidence Society are hardly so scrupulous
in their statements as their profession should make
them. Had the Bishop said that without the sup
port of the ignorant and superstitious such societies
as the Christian Evidence Society could not be kept
alive, he would indeed have uttered a great truth.
To ignore, as the Christian Evidence Society has
hitherto done, such challenges as that by Judge
Strange or Mr Thomas Scott, seems proof that they
fear to meet such writers. At any rate they ignore
them wholly ; as yet the Society has shrunk from
“ confronting the champions ” of free thought, and,
like Ealstaff, shows its bravery only by big words.
Or are, perhaps, these gentlemen so ignorant and
obscure as to be quite beneath their notice F
It is to be hoped that a steady persistence by these
gentlemen, and a host of others like them, in the
work of laying bare the immense assumptions and
assertions of the orthodox, may at last force this
Society to give some public reply to their various
pamphlets.
The Archbishop of York is abetter specimen of the
Church Militant than his brother of London, and as
he shook himself together it was evident there was
to be a serious deliverance. After paying the con
ventional compliment to “My Lord Bishop ” for the
magnificent oration from the chair, His Grace reluc
tantly declared he could not share the Bishop’s hope
that infidelity is decreasing. With great emphasis
he assured us it is increasing every day. We were
taken to Germany and France, and back to England,
in proof of the terrible encroachment of the great
army of sceptics, and were told how an astronomer had
given a detailed explanation of the movements of the
planetary bodies to one who, astounded, said to the
�5
man of Science, “ Why, you have never even men
tioned the name of God ! ” “ Sir,” said the philo
sopher, “ there is no need of such an hypothesis.”
His Grace also believes that the appearance of one
■who believes is quite as effectual as an argument,
which met with the approbation of many around him.
However potent for good the sight of a live Arch
bishop or Bishop may be, and we do not doubt it in
the least, it seems hardly probable that an exhibition
of lecturers or even the lectures themselves, will effect
much towards the Society’s object—“ the refutation
of arguments which may be thought unanswerable
because unanswered.” He deprecates evidential dis
courses and arguments in the pulpit, which might
cause many to doubt who did not doubt before, but
advises special lectures in suitable places, although he
rightly added that “ Christianity is just as true to-day
as ever it was.” Children ought not to be taught the
proofs of Christianity, nor to reason upon its facts, but
this sentiment was strongly opposed by several succeed
ing speakers. His Grace grew boisterously eloquent
with acknowledged borrowed illustrations and quota
tions upon “ the intellectual side of the Trinity,”
treating us to a little sermon suitable to the Calendar.
But sadness followed with the words “ there have been
works published this year which are as hard to answer
as any that have ever appeared.” He gave no signs of
any intention to reply to them himself, and deliberately
pooh-poohed a suggestion of the report, offered as an
incitement to further subscriptions, that the Society
should publish some works, after the pattern of
Butler’s ‘ Analogy,’ carefully reasoned out, which
shall claim the attention and dispose of the objections
of the cultured sceptic, who will not trouble himself
with their small publications. The Archbishop said
they must let this alone : “you cannot do it properly,
you must not become a publishing society, leave that
to the S.P.C.K. and continue as you are doing.” With
�6
an excuse for himself and Right Reverend Brethren,
that they could not be of much use to the cause,
having so little time at command, His Gtace con
cluded with an earnest appeal for—not arguments,
but funds, and. left the hall. The Rev. W. Arthur,
Wesleyan Minister, followed with an able speech of a
few minutes, in which he demolished Comte with
consummate ease in five sentences and a half. He
held that a child’s mind soon expands, delighting
in argument and reason [this unlucky oversight
of the Creator], could only be remedied by in
stilling into it early the glorious principles of the
Christian doctrine. Dr Jobson, Wesleyan, cheer
fully objected to be classed as a Nonconformist,
since he would willingly sign the Thirty-nine Articles.
He agreed with the last speaker that “ the children
should not be left to Satan,” and after saying nothing
for another five minutes, sat down. Dr J. H. Glad
stone announced himself as a man of Science. “ Some
of us,- or rather two or three of the few who are
known as men of Science, are supposed to be unbe
lievers ! ” A slander against which he vehemently
protested, for though one or two (e.y., Huxley, Tyndall,
Carpenter, and such like scientists) may not be “ with
us ” in all points, they are but units compared with the
great company “ of us,” who reconcile fact and faith.
This gentleman apparently forgot he was not lectur
ing to his class of youths, but at length, after sundry
“ scientific ” sneers at men who pretend to know more
than himself, the well-prepared performance closed.
Thus far we heard nothing about the victories won, or
schemes of future operations ; we were lost in contem
plation of the in-flowing “ tide of scepticism.” The
Bishop of Gloucester is given to plain speaking, espe
cially when advising how to dispose of an inconvenient
opponent, so we looked for light. His lordship had
charge of a resolution embodying a proposal to pub
lish the big books, previously discouraged by the
�7
Archbishop. With great ingenuity, more worthy of
the bar than the bench, his lordship found a way to
support the Society without coming into conflict with
His Grace, by dwelling upon the word “ further;” that
is, the Society will not publish, but only “further”
the publication of the two works, one of which is to
be upon the Gospels, and the other upon the Miracles.
An author of great eminence has undertaken one of
these already. The speaker dealt with many topics,
but managed to omit the interesting question, lost
sight of by all speakers, “ What has been done to
‘ refute the arguments ’ of the many scholars of
eminence who have pointedly challenged the Society ?
The Bishop read extracts from the most recently
published work of this kind, to show us how terribly
infidel in character our first writers are becoming.
But not one word of reply, not a sign of “ refutation ”
or “ stemming the tide.” He also lamented that his
time is so fully occupied, or he might—(no, he did
not say that.) He showed how Butler of the
‘ Analogy ’ is useless to-day, and so of the rest.
The brightest gem of his speech was when he
announced, in seductive tones, that the Christian
Evidence Society has plenty of room,—room for men
of genius to work for her, room for money to pay the
men of genius, and in sad need of the prayers of all
who, like their lordships, could not supply anything
else.
Others followed, but it was a weary wail through
out. The principles of the Society seem to flourish
in an inverse ratio to their efforts to propagate them.
Thev were a more powerful force in their first days
than now in their third year. Their confessions of
failure, whether in gaining respect, sympathy,
adherents, or money, are of more worth to the
opponents they ignore than to the cause they
profess to support. They challenge, but do not
fight; they argue, but do not reason; they see
�8
the gauntlet, but look another way; they profess
to be bold, but accept the taunt of cowardice.
It is their principle “to meet difficulties with fair
argument, and remove doubts by candid explana
tions;” it is their policy to meet the doubter with
exploded arguments, and that not sufficing, either
press him into their own army or dismiss him con
firmed in his doubt. Their apparent advance, when
closely observed and challenged, proves to be a stra
tegic movement culminating in retreat. Three years
of patient effort to arouse these apologists to their
duty of answering the persistent attacks of men
abler and more consistent than themselves, have
proved the impossibility of galvanising a moribund
body into active life. The deepest conviction of im
partial minds upon leaving the meeting was that the
Christian Evidence Society has, at great expense,
done little else than furnish evidence of the weakness
of the cause it defends, a conviction which, “how
ever capable of refutation,” if not removed by
“candid explanations,” will assuredly “ be thought
unanswerable because unanswered.”
C. W. REYNELL, printer, little pulteney street, kaymarket, w.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Thomas Scott?]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[187-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5543
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
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 (The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Evidences
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts