https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/35f7d97fdd8ad665615b22cd1721bd42.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=VgnV5GLM1Gdyo3fvDBd6y5gCV6KYyZ1-lpGzsyPCBcmc7VZGw4r-JzY39WepbvBprs64-64nbZX0%7EyAks6djM-R2UPwjUmw9dse-bhSZmVh-BBAaqyjzPjg9PNxAAFuPEwYsKTBcoIh8OEzbS7Ai1h69tFA1qLjwnWTU0myJ6YIkm6kZ%7Enq4rVOQ8MHr0UtN3tkL0NHeZ3aZDbiJCgeNcW0em1cBwhuEbQmKblUq5uf82ZOEWeZPKRZuoRBhYktfoz2FTZCtONirBUXE0UC-MmOv4n9gAvKNAVgKevqxPUc7wWRzsnUVG2tqtXbmiXzKwtXoC7d-Vjc81oIxhXq14A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 848c43e616616d11b162512b9929c71a PDF Text Text 8 V2-5.2 bJ6 6 O NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY CHRISTIANITY: H’S NATURE & INFLUENCE ON CIVILISATION. A LECTURE By Charles Watts, Secretary of Secular Society. the National It requires no profound knowledge of the human mind, to enable us to recognise the fact that some persons indulge in certain delusions, until such delusions become to the persons who indulge them, apparent realities. A striking illustration of the truth of this statement is furnished in the two great assumptions, which are entertained extensively throughout Christendom at the present time. First, it is supposed that what is termed Christianity, is sufficiently effi­ cacious to remove all the evils of life ; and in the second place, it is stated that England enjoys a high state of civilisation in consequence of the adoption of Christian principles. Hitherto, it has been the habit of Christian advocates, not only to ignore all in society that is evil and defective as belonging to their system, but Also to credit Chris­ tianity with all improvements which have taken place in modern times. It matters not whether it be a steam engine, an electric telegraph, a printing press, the repeal of the stamp and paper duties, the establishment of working men’s clubs, an industrial exhibition, or the co-operative companies ; all are attributed by Christians to the influence of their faith. All such steps of progress are regarded by them as the gift of God to his creature man. While inquiring into these pretensions, and ascertaining how far such allega­ tions are correct, the investigation shall be two-fold. We will endeavour to discover, if possible, to what extent the blots and blemishes which remain upon our civilisation are to be attributed to Christianity, and also, whether the pro­ gress that has been made, is the result of Christian influ­ ence; or whether, on the contrary, it is not the natural con­ �sequence of the adoption of principles antagonistic to New Testament principles. As a rule, man is supposed to know himself better than anyone else knows him. But there are many important in stances, where other people can estimate a person more cor rectly than he can estimate himself. They will take a more dispassionate view of his character. They will be in a better position to compare him with others, and thus judge more accurately of his relations and comparative place in the scale of humanity. As with individuals, so it is with systems, and with generations. An age is incapable in many respects of properly knowing itself. It has only one test by which to estimate its merits and demerits. It cannot compare itself with future ages, which lie in the womb of the un­ known. It can only judge of itself by times gone by. And as every age, even the darkest and most lethargic, is, in some instances, more advanced than its predecessor, a survey of itself is extremely apt to assume the form of self-gratulation. Various designations have been given to the different phases of Christianity. We have had descriptions of “ He­ retical Christianity,” “ Muscular Christianity,” “ Objection­ able Christianity,” “ Secular Christianity,” and “ Super­ natural Christianity.” Now it may be necessary here to in­ timate that Ido not coincide with those who consider that what is termed “ Secular Christianity” is identical with Freethought principles. Christianity appears to me to be objectionable under whatever name it may be presented to us. Of course there are many things taught in the New Testament which are admirable and worthy of acceptation, but then such beauties do not belong exclusively to Christianity. The practical portion of the Sermon on the Mount was in existence long before the time when Christ is supposed to have taught in Galilee. The phrase “ Christianity” cannot be consistently used without conveying in some degree the idea of supernaturalism. The inspiration that induced Christ to say and do what is ascribed to him in the Four Gospels, was considered to have emanated from above. The power that moves and regulates the whole system of Christianity is designated by its believers as supernatural. The term “ Secular Christianity” is therefore a misnomer. Christ never uttered one word, or performed one action purely from Secular motives, but thinking he was doing the will of his �3 “ Father in Heaven,” he did it all for the 11 Glory of God.’’ It is important that this fact should be remembered, because we live in an age perhaps unsurpassed in the history of the world for the promulgation of systems, having for their professedobject the advancement of mankind. It becomes thereforea duty that we should be judicious as to the terms we use, as well as the mode we adopt to secure the triumph of prin­ ciples which we believe are essential to the permanent wel­ fare of society. Many valuable systems are frequently de­ prived of much of their vitality, and some of the best efforts of men rendered comparatively useless through the lack of the ob­ servance of this very necessary precaution. The temporary success of bad and erroneous principles is often to be attri­ buted to the fact that the manner in which they are pre­ sented to the world is the result of careful study, and wellmatured thought. In studying the nature of Christianity, we recognise one or two features which are identical in all its different phases. Reliance on a supernatural power, faith in Christ, belief in the efficacy of prayer, and the immortality of the soul, are tenets professed, more or less, by most Christian sects. In addition to this, the New Testament distinctly teaches that poverty is a virtue, that submission is a duty, and that love to man should be subordinate to love to God. Now these prin­ ciples, however consoling they may be to some, from their nature have checked and must check the progress of civilisa­ tion. The extent of their retarding influence depends upon the degree of veneration in which they are held by their profes­ sors. With Tbeists and Unitarians these theological notions are less dangerous, because such Christians are less dogmatic and less orthodox. But with a Wesleyan or a Baptist the profession of such notions frequently leads to conduct anta­ gonistic to general improvement. With these latter Chris­ tians, Christ is “ all in all.” In vain do we look to their teachings forthose principles that are necessary to a progres­ sive civilisation. On the contrary, experience has proved that as a rule, they have been injurious, and in proportion to their adoption has the Secular welfare of mankind been retarded. And we cannot expect aught else. The object of Christ was to teach his followers how to die, rather than to instruct them how to live. If therefore we press the question, “ What is Christianity?” the answers given by the Christian world will be as varied as they will be numerous. The reply lrom a mem- �ber of the Church of England, would differ widely from the answer given by a Latter-day Saint. The fact is, according to the education of the individual, and the intelligence of the nation, so are the notions entertained as to what constitutes Christianity. For instance, religion with Mazzini is very different to the religion of Archbishop Manning. The faith cherished by Garibaldi, is not precisely the same article of belief as that indulged in by the present ruler of France. The Christianity of Professor Huxley is as different to the doctrines taught by Richard Weaver, as is the religion of a Maurice to that of C. H. Spurgeon. The same diversity exists in reference to nations. In Spain religion, is cruel oppression, in Scotland it is a gloomy nightmare, in Rome it is priestly dominion, while in England it is simply.emo­ tional pastime. All these different phases of Christianity indicate that theological opinions depend on surrounding circumstances, and cannot therefore be the cause of the civi­ lisation of the world. . To test the power of Christianity in organising a civilised state of society, it is only necessary to suppose a company of men and women going to some uninhabited island, and there attempting to form a constitution to meet the require­ ments of modern society based upon the teachings of the New Testament. First they must seek, the kingdom of Heaver, and love not the world or the things of the world. This would at once put an end to all human effort, because if a person is not to love the world, his interest will be at once gone from things below, and directed to things above. It is impossible to get persons long to work.for anything which they hate. Under a system of despotism, a certain amount of labour may be ground out of serfs or slaves, but once give a nation its freedom, and the inhabitants will only strive in a cause which they love. Secondly, they must take no thought for their bodies nor even their lives. This would prevent them studying the laws of health. Sanitary reform or physiological science would be deemed unnecessary. Hos­ pitals would be superseded by a rapid increase of “ God’s Peculiar People.” The recent unfortunate case of the two persons who were committed for manslaughter because they practically carried out New Testament teaching, is a. potent answer to the alleged efficacy of Christianity for civilising purposes. The “ Peculiar People ” relied upon faith and prayer, instead of science and medicine, and, as a reward for �5 their Christian devotion, death and imprisonment were the results. Then Christians in this island must take no thought for the morrow. Economy and a desire for the future of this world would thus be entirely ignored. It would be a crime to establish post office savings’ banks, inasmuch as laying up treasures on earth is strictly forbidden. The thought of a divorce must not be entertained for a moment, because “ whosoever God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Those who are fortunate to be rich, must get rid of their riches, as they are pronounced in the New Testament to be a curse. If an enemy is cruel enough to invade this * Christian island, the inhabitants dare not interfere, because Christ told them to “ resist not evil.” Should the invading powers succeed and establish themselves as governors of the island, then the inhabitants must quietly submit, as “ the powers that be are ordained of God.” If they are smitten on the one cheek, they must offer the other to be operated upon in a similar manner. Now, I submit, that a people living under a constitution framed by these Christian rulers would not be very progressive ; neither would they be very happy. Apart from the menial dependent subjection in which they would be placed, they would have to listen to the comforting assurance that at the last day they will have to give an ac­ count for every idle word spoken through life. Need we wonder any longer that Christians are such “miserable sin­ ners,” believing as they do that their final doom may depend upon words spoken in the jubilant and joyous moments of life? But modern professors of Christianity will ask, if their system is so unprogressive in its nature, how is it that men of intellect, of determination, and of scientific culture have accepted it as their faith ? And they further inquire how it is that under the influence of Christianity, civilisation in England has progressed so rapidly ? As these questions are considered by the religious world as very important, it may be necessary hero hriefly to examine them. Now the whole fal­ lacy in coni/<fc&ton with the first question lies in the interpre­ tation given the words “ their faith.” Any one acquainted with the early history of Christianity will know that the faith of Jesus as he preached it, and the faith of the Christiana in 1868, are two entirely different things. Even if we accept the alleged dates of Christian chronology to be historically correct, Christianity began to alter and modify �itself immediately after the death of Christ. Paul preached a system of a philosophical character compared with that of Jesus. The Christianity of Paul was widely different from that of his “ divine Master.” The character of Christ was submissive and servile; Paul’s was defiant and pugna­ cious. We could no more conceive Christ fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus, than we could suppose Paul sub­ mitting without protest or resistance to those insults and indignities which are alleged to have been heaped upon Christ. . Neither could we for one moment imagine Paul ad­ vising his disciples when anyone smote them on one cheek, to offer them the other. Christ was an illiterate peasant; Paul, when compared with his master, was a polished philosopher. Paul introduced by his personal character a certain amount of boldness and energy into the Chris­ tian propaganda, and by the character of his mind he largely. modified the Christian system. In fact, each successive age has left its mark and impress upon Chris­ tianity. No system was ever less rigid and more plastic. It has certainly come up to the injunction of St. Paul, “ to be all things to all men.” Persons of the most con­ trary dispositions and the most opposite natures have been its great illustrators, expounders, and living representatives. It has found room for all temperaments : the ascetic and the luxurious enjoyer of life; the man of action and the man of contemplation; the monk and the king; the philanthropist and the destroyer of his race : the iconoclastic hater of all ceremonies, and the superstitious devotee; Cromwell and Cowper; Lyell and Wesley; St. Augustine and Dr. Pusey; John Milton and C. H. Spurgeon. All these and many other similar opposites have found refuge within the pale of Christianity. But let it be distinctly understood that this heterogeneous family is by no means the result of any all-embracing comprehensiveness in the system of Christ, but rather the effects of a Theology characterised alike by its indefinite, incomplete, and undecisive principles. No man of action can possibly be a true and consistent believer in Christianity, for many of its teachings are the very incar­ nation and inculcation of forbearance and suffering. They clearly and emphatically teach submission to physical evil, tyranny, and oppression. They inculcate an unprogres­ sive and retarding spirit; they draw the energies and desires of men from the duties of this life, fixing them on an un— �7 certain and unknown future. Until, therefore, Christians can prove to us that their principles are capable of pro­ ducing uniformity of character ; until it is satisfactorily ex­ plained that the precepts, as propounded by Christ, contain the elements of that greatness which has invariably charac­ terised the lives of eminent statesmen, philosophers, and poets of all ages ; until it can be shown by an appeal to authority and experience that the principles as taught in the New Testament are compatible with progress and human advancement; until the course pursued by Christ when on earth is adopted by his professed followers of to-day and made to harmonise with reason and humanity—I say, until these things are accomplished, Christianity will be incapable of furnishing a code of morals by which all suc­ ceeding generations shall be governed, and to which the great intellects of the world shall finally succumb. The notion entertained by many that the present civilised condition of England is the result of Christian influence is decidedly fallacious. The progress of a nation cannot be attributed to any one thing or any one age, but rather to a combination of circumstances which have been in operation during many ages. For instance, had it not been for the scientific discoveries of a Watt, Dalton, and Black of the last century, the application of these sciences with which their names are associated, would not have been so easily applied to the ends of' human utility in this present age; had it not been for the great French Revolution the name of liberty, for it is but little more, would not exist to-day in France; and had it not been for many attempts at revolu­ tion in this country, many concessions to liberty which we now enjoy, would never have been extorted. The Reform. Bill of last year, incomplete as it is, would never have passed the House of Commons but for the meetings in Trafalgar Square, and the demonstrations in Hyde Park, Birmingham, Leeds, and other places. Disraeli boasted that he had edu­ cated his party; far be it from me to attempt to rob the Premier of the laurels he won in going through that painful operation, but it seems to me that the best lesson the Tories received in the reform educational course was from the Re­ form League and their co-workers. It is equally true that for the partial freedom from religious intolerance which we now enjoy we are as much indebted to the Franklins and Paines of the past, as to any of their representatives of the �present. But waiving this point, I ask, is it true that we have a high state of civilisation? Notwithstanding an “Open Bible,” and “ general dissemination of Gospel truths,” which we have had in this country for the last 300 years, can it be denied that the major portion of our rural population are sunk in the deepest ignorance and the most depraved wretchedness ? Is it not a reproach upon Christian influ­ ence that, after three centuries of the rule, discipline, teach­ ing, and. example of 20,000 clergymen and a host of Dissent­ ing ministers, that the very classes of society which have been most under their direction and control, should be the greatest stigma upon our social condition ? Can it be alleged that anything like an approach even to a proper adjustment ef the relations between capital and labour has been arrived at? Those who pride themselves on the present state of Christian civilisation should ask themselves the question, does labour receive anything like a fair quota of the results of the wealth towards the production of which it contributes more than the “ lion’s share ?” Can an age or a country be considered civilised in which so large an amount of abject, and, to all appearance, hopeless poverty prevails ? Have we not ignorance, sickness, and sorrow existing on every hand ? Are there not thousands who wake every morning tortured with anxiety as to how they are to obtain food for the day, and when the hour for sleep again returns, they know not where to lay their heads ? Parade the glories of Christian civilisation to those unfortunate creatures who are driven to misery, shame, and madness by the want of the necessaries of life. In noticing the deplorable condition of “ Christian ’’ England, the Morning Star recently asked— “When shall starvation die out of the land? When shall we cease to hear that in one part of the country a man lies dead of a debauch on roast goose, while in another a woman perishes of sheer hunger, with her teeth locked in the flesh of her own arm ? Must we wait till East London sits down to this sickening meal ? Can Government, Whig or Tory, do nothing ? Within two years, more than a million of human beings under its care have died of starvation alone.” Witness the fate of many of England’s daughters who, amidst Chris­ tian civilisation, have either to drag out a wretched existence by continual slavery, as pictured in the “ Song of the Shirt,” or else to sink into utter ruin and hopeless degradation. It is an insult and mockery to tell such victims of a misruleu �9 world that their position is the result of their own conduct. One of the principal causes of such calamities is to be found in promulgating doctrines which destroy man’s energy in worldly pursuits, rendering him a dependent, povertycheiished suppliant. The history of Christianity is a glocmy illustration of its influence and tendency to maintain those conditions which are unfavourable to individual progress and national greatness. Among other requisites to a civilised condition of society it is necessary to have national wealth, the cultivation of the sciences, the acquirement of knowledge, and freedom of inquiry. Without these agencies, civilisation as we under­ stand the term cannot exist. How far then has Christianity encouraged these agencies ? Now it is certain that the Reli­ gion of the New Testament is opposed to material wealth. While poverty is there magnified as a virtue, riches are de­ nounced as a vice. If those who had wealth were to sell that which they had, and give it to the poor, as Christ com­ manded them, and at the same time omit to accumulate any more, individual and national bankruptcy would be the result. The influence of religion on scientific pursuits is well known to students of history. The great impediment to the progress of scientific truth in the past, has been reli­ gious bigotry. First, such sciences as geology were alleged to be untrue; every fact demonstrated by early writers was regarded as an instance of the insanity of the writer, and every fossil wonder disclosed, was referred to the limited explanation of the Noachian deluge. Finding that threats and intimidation failed to check the advance of truth, persecution and imprisonment were the weapons used by Christian hands towards those whose crime consisted in in­ vestigating the laws of nature, and making those laws known to their fellow-creatures. Dr. Ferguson in his “ Penalties of Greatness,” acknowledges that theology, as embodied in the Christian church, was the first to extinguish the light of reason. But truth existed in spite of the deadly agencies which surrounded it. Not only did the church employ means to prevent the least difference of opinion on religious subjects, by the invention of the most finished in­ struments of torture, but science itself became the object of burning jealousy and persecution, and men were made to deny the very laws of nature. The same spirit pervades to & certain extent a portion of the Christian world at the pre­ �10 sent day. Every scientific discovery, opposed as it is to popular theology, is suspected with pious horror by orthodox Christians. The Morning Advertiser and other orthodox papers have denounced such men as Huxley, Darwin, and Sir Charles Lyell as enemies to the welfare of mankind. “ Real knowledge,” says Buckle, “ the knowledge on which all civilisation is based, solely consists in an acquaintance with the relations which things and ideas bear to each other and to themselves ; in other words, in an acquaintance with physical and mental laws.” The history of the Christian religion proves that the object and aim of its advocates have been too frequently to discourage and prevent the acquisi­ tion and dissemination of this scientific knowledge. Not only has Christian influence affected the acquirement of scientific knowledge, but it has also interfered with the progress of general education. Fortunately at the present time, many professed Christians are advocating a national system of education, but this advanced policy is not the re­ sult of their faith, but a proof that the Secular aspirations in man are less fettered by theological restriction, than they were in the palmy days of Christianity. It has taken the Christian world nearly eighteen hundred years to arrive at the conclusion that the people ought to have adequate means of education at their command. As recently as fifty years ago, pamphlets were written by clergymen warning the nation against the horrid democratic consequences of giving to the labouring classes education. In our time it is Freethought which has extorted, not the Church which has granted, Natio­ nal Education. Dr. Johnson, the great lay pillar of the Church in the last century, had the honesty to state that he objected to education for the poor, because it would teach them politics. He might have added with equal truth, that it would teach them to think for themselves, instead of allowing the Church to do it for them. At last, the hour of victory, partial though it was, arrived. The educational Reformers had their triumph. The legislature decreed that to some extent education should be national. £20,000 were voted for that purpose. Then it was that the Church again exerted her influence. Find­ ing she could not resist the progressive stream, she sought io pollute it and destroy its refreshing power. Failing to prevent, she endeavoured to contaminate. And what is the result ? National education is but half accomplished. Thousands are growing up as monuments of imperfect edu­ �11 cation. Believing that the “ wisdom of this world is foolish­ ness with God,” the Christian governments, in the words of Buckle, “ Where they have not openly forbidden the free dissemination of knowledge, they have done all they could to check it. On all the implements of knowledge and on all the means by which it is diffused, such as papers, books, poli­ tical journals, and the like, they have imposed duties so heavy that they could hardly have done worse if they had been the sworn advocates of popular ignorance. Indeed, looking at what they have actually accomplished, it may be emphatically said that they have taxed the human mind.” Fortunately many of these impediments have been removed, not, however, with the free consent of the Christian world. This victory was achieved by the dauntless efforts and heroic sufferings of Freeihought martyrs in the face of Christian opposition and Christian persecution. Domestic loss, pecu­ niary ruin, and the horrors of imprisonment, were the prices paid for the removal of those hindrances to the people’s educational advancement. Doubtless the power of Christianity has been great upon the civilisation of the world. Nothing influences the human mind either for good or for evil more than the Christian’s notion of supernaturalism. If a person is induced to have absolute faith in the fatherhood and sovereignty of God, he deems it his first duty to carry out that which he considers the will of that God. Hence it is, that during intellectual periods men’s notions of Deity have been refined and culti­ vated ; and, as a consequence, oppression and persecution for scepticism have been more rare. While on the other hand, when the multitude held rude ideas of divinity, the pure and chaste were sickened at the scenes of cruelty and bloodshed which were enacted in accordance with what was supposed to be the “ will of God.” If any doubt existed upon this point, it would only be necessary to study carefully Buckle’s “History of Civilisation.” In that work ample proof is given of the contracting influence of religion. Nothing tends more to limit progress than the attempt to prevent freedom of opinion, and the enforcement of penalties for the exercise of this right. “During,” says Buckle, ‘‘ almost 150 years Europe was afflicted by religious wars, religious massacres, and religious persecutions; not one of which would have arisen, if the great truth had been recognised that the state had no concern with the opinions �1*4 of men, and no right to interfere, even in the slightest degree, with the form of worship which they may choose t<. adopt.” The same writer goes on to show that the increase oi perjury and hypocrisy has been the result of the policy oi the Christian governments, arriving at the conclusion that it is folly to ascribe the civilisation of a nation to any creed. Unfortunately Christianity appeared at a very inoppor­ tune period of history, just when there was no indication that the world would throw off supernaturalism. The old Pagan creed which Christianity supplanted, was by far the better of the two, because it contained most promise for the world. The Roman religion sat but lightly upon the Romans. It was just a body of mythological tales, which perhaps was useful in the world’s infancy, but which was certainly not re­ quired in.its more matured age. The grand feature of the old Pagan faith was its true tolerant spirit. Death for religious belief was unknown to the Romans. They allowed every one to worship according to his or her own conscience. Per. secution for non-belief was reserved for Christianity. As soon as the disciples of Christ possessed the power, the^ commenced by persecuting those who did not accept then faith, and endeavoured to crush all systems that were anta­ gonistic to their own. Instead of Christians talking sc foolishly of the depravity of the ancients, it would be far better if they endeavoured to emulate Pagan Rome in their love of toleration. Even from the New Testament we learn the extreme reluctance with which the Roman Gfovernor of Judea signed the death-warrant of Christ. The Romans were so tolerant—in other words, they were so little religious, and therefore, so ripe for becoming converts to Secularistie truth—that whenever they conquered a new territory, they at once added to their own number of Gods those whom they found to be worshipped by the inhabitants of their new con­ quest. Now, if Queen Victoria, by royal mandate, were to order to be added to the objects of English worship, all the gods worshipped by her coloured subjects, all over the world; if, whenever we achieved a new conquest, it became the duty of the Archbishops and Bishops, the Spurgeons and Cummings, to add a new batch of deities to the objects of worship, what would be the result? Why religion would fall rapidly into contempt, and mankind would see at once its utter folly and absurdity. This is precisely what was ■ �id fast happening amongst the Romans and all through their empire, when Christianity came upon the scene, stopped the progressive spirit, and deferred the reign of human happiness. If we take a historical glance at countries where Chris­ tianity was professed, and at one time, to a large extent, acted upon, we shall at once recognise the influence it pos­ sessed on national progress. First, we may take Scotland, [n the most comprehensive sense of the word, Scotland at no very remote period was strictly a religious nation, and what were the fruits cf that religion ? The most miserable and unprogressive state it is possible for a civilised people to live in. And let it be distinctly understood that Mr. Buckle in his “History of Civilisation,” attributes this non-progressive spirit, this lack of happiness, entirely to the fatal in­ fluence of religion. And can we expect aught else? Here is a country acting, as far as a people can possibly act, upon the principles of Christianity. And what do we find ? “An entire absence of all true toleration ; an aversion even to innocent gaiety; a desire to limit the enjoyment of others, and a spirit of bigotry and persecution ; yet in the midst of all this,” as Buckle properly observes, “ there existed a gloomy and austere creed. The churches were as crowded as they were in the middle ages, and were filled with ignorant wor­ shippers, who flocked to listen to opinions of which the middle ages alone were worthy.” What effect has such reaching had upon the Scotch mind ? Has it imparted to the people any progressive aspirations ? If we read th6 history of Scotland during the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth century, we shall find that Buckle stated the truth, when he said that “ Some of the noblest feelings of which our nature is capable, the feelings of love and of gratitude, were set aside, and were replaced by the dictates of a servile and ignominious fear.” But the sad effects of Christianity were not confined to Scotland. If we take England during wnat is Known as the “ dark ages,” the brightest era of Christianity, then she had no rival: assisted by kingcraft she ruled the civilised world through a thousand years, without one ray of light, without any addi­ tion whatever to the arts and sciences, and then bequeathed to mankind a heritage of cruelty, bloodshed, and persecution. In the middle ages there was a. great impetus given towards science and philosophy. Some of the most splendid intellects that ever appeared in the world, and that might, under more �favourable conditions, have adorned humanity, enlightened society, and held on progress, appeared in those days. But their intellects were stifled and rendered comparatively useless by the influence of Christianity. Those were the times when Christianity was paramount, unrestrained, and untrammelled, when the blood, the genius, and the chivalry of Europe were all wasted in the mad and useless crusades, when in one expedition alone, instigated by fanatical priests, no less than 560,000 persons were sacrificed to the superstition of the cross. Do we require a proof of the legitimate effects of Christianity ? Behold the history of the seven cru­ sades, which will for ever remain a lasting monument of a Wood-stained faith. For nearly 200 years did the followers of Christ lay desolate one of the finest and most romantic portions of the known world, and laid prostrate thousands of human beings. Do we wish to know the sad influence of religion ? Bead the history of the Christian Emperor Con­ stantine, who with the sword in one hand and the cross in the other, pursued his slaughtering and relentless career. Go to the streets of Paris, when in the fifteenth century they flowed with the blood of defenceless Protestants, and when 10,000 innocent persons were massacred by the believers in a meek and lowly Jesus. Visit the valleys of Piedmont, which were the scene of a most inhuman butchery, when women were suffocated by hundreds in cofined caves by the bearers of the cross. Study the history of the Inquisi­ tion, to whose power three millions of lives were sacrificed in one century. Peruse the records of the actions of a King Henry the E'ghth, a Queen Mary, and a Queen Elizabeth, in whose Christian reigns hundreds were either condemned to die at the stake, or to endure revolting cruelties in loath­ some dungeons, because they differed from the prevailing faith of those times. These were the effects of religion when it had absolute power. When Christianity exercised her legitimate influence, the maxim was ‘‘ Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology,” every philosopher, therefore, who did not so philosophise as to bring up new arguments to support some one of the absurd tenets of Christianity, had either to submit to a life of seclusion and persecution, or to an immediate death. But Christianity not only interfered with the high intellects of the earth, she also influenced every relation of life. The sum of almost all history for, centuries after Christ may be compressed in a few sentences. �Avery rascality that tings and nobles wished to perpetrate they got the bishops and priests to consecrate and make holy. Had it not been for the strong Christian notions of those sovereigns, James I. and Charles I., in all probability we should not have found such an abominably unpatriotic period succeeding the splendid era of Queen Elizabeth, And how lamentable it is to think that the noble-hearted English puritans, with men like Falkland, Cromwell, and John Milton at their head, lost all their chance of reforming the nation and establishing those ameliorations which certainly were so very necessary, through their unfortunate slavery to Christianity. Never did men exist whose minds by nature were more magnificently tolerant and truly secularisiic than those of Milton and Cromwell, if the religious element had been kept apart. But unfortunately it mastered Cromwell, or perhaps to do him justice, it mastered bis contemporaries, and they mastered him, and. then he sick­ ened the very country he had saved, by forcing upon them a religion they were weary of. The fate of Christianity was sealed in England the day that Cromwell died. Some writers have made it the great reproach of the reign of Charles II. that it was “ Godless,” yes, but its godlessness was the one redeeming trait of that “ Merry Monarch’s” reign. Reckless as he was, during his reign reforms were accomplished, the results of which cannot be too highly appreciated,. It was during his reign that a law was passed which deprived the Dishops of the power to burn those who differed from them in theological opinion. It was during his re gn that the clergy were deprived of the privilege of taxing themselves, and were compelled to submit to the ordinary mode of assessment. It was during his reign that a law was passed, forbidding bishops to administer the oath by which the church had hitherto compelled suspected persons to criminate them­ selves. It was during his reign that it was settled, that the taxation of the people should be decided by their own repre­ sentatives, and it was during-his reign that certain restrictions on the press were removed, whereby knowledge had a better opportunity of being disseminated among the masses of the people. Notwithstanding the calamities occasioned by the great Plague, and the great Fire of London, greater improve­ ments, says Buckle, were effected, and more progress made during this reign than had been accomplished during the twelve previous centuries of English history. The o-ha- �19 racier of Charles II. as a whole was one not to be emulated; but living amidst a profligate court, venal ministers, and constant conspiracies, he was enabled to recognise two great obstacles to the nation’s welfare ; these obstacles . were the spiritual tyranny of the priests’ and the territorial oppression of the nobles. Having but little regard for theological dogmas, he was determined that such Christian evils should be swept away. If Christianity contained any real remedy for existing evils, it would have displayed itself ere now. It has had every ad­ vantage in its favour; the influence of the priests, the patron­ age of kings, the alliance of the great and powerful, the use of untold wealth, the command of the armies, first place among the councillors of nations, the willing subjection of the populace, the command of their affections, and the dominancy of their fears. Science, art, education have humbled and enlisted themselves in its train. The brightest intellects of humanity have laid their treasures at its feet. The ties of domestic affection, the bonds of the social compact, the political relations of ruler and ruled, all have surrendered themselves to its influence. It has been absolute.monarch of the world. Yet with all these advantages it has proved unable to keep pace with a progressive civilisation. � 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 &amp; 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 : its nature & influence on civilisation; a lecture Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: 16 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: Publication date from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 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 [1868] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N660 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 : its nature &amp; influence on civilisation; a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Christianity Civilisation NSS