-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5bc4fb14f898b9ba921ebddca2e59406.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mDjvrTgcHWqP-dRsknMwLIGLkEM6aPzVnVcNpmBtnTytjqsY5WLBv18yXa3GJv92uVx0uJaBxgxLTydEwR-fxGk0DUgoSy0NIAnsi6%7ElUhWTyEkMwGdpZbwSdTdfjRfHlsxkeATzXfO4AJJsb6SGuFMwX7hnjV2kpSiOET9aFZ%7ENbpqWUFD02ymFEKLurymkMd5bdR3pl8EwMpw70RLXYsZCjGE-VEyedN0L7lzShuuRMib%7EhbdiNtXhMhyeTaG2cgWFKJBSg0W3Apa70CnSAsYCWbEj8fozTK4JKRHd9vs9PI4%7EYRWmVcCWFGkHG692eSSKjOBd9fq0f%7EjFxAJJng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
564d1b26f2fe17ec4ebc97f3a624fd9c
PDF Text
Text
&A708Z
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged
THE
GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
---- BY----
CHARLES WATTS,
Editor of “ Secular Thought
Author of ‘‘ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,’’
Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” Glory of Unbelief,” li Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ‘‘ Christianity : Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,” li Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable? ” “Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
Wherein does the Glory of Unbelief Consist ? Unbelief Wide-spread
amongst all Classes. What is Unbelief ? Its True Nature Defined.
Can it be Dispensed With ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What
It has Done for the World.
TORONTO:
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide 'tr. Eait
PRICE
TEN
CENTS.
��THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF
•
The Glory of Unbelief is a phrase the relevancy of which many
persons will at first fail to recognize. It may be thought that
but little glory can surround that which has too frequently been
associated with obloquy and persecution. Yet a little reflection
will bring to view the fact that, allied with unbelief, there have
been a fidelity of conviction, a grandeur of conduct, and a bril
liancy of action that add a splendour and a lasting honour to the
fame of Unbelievers in all ages and in every clime. These are
the reformers of the world who have aspired to the true glory
spoken of by Pliny, which consists in having done something
worth the writing, having written something worth the reading,
and having made the world better and happier through having
lived in it. The Glory of Unbelief consists in its being the em
ancipator of the human mind, the liberator of human thought,
and the precursor of all advanced civilization.
Physical slavery, from its very nature, has been a curse to hu
manity, an injustice to the poor slave, and a disgrace to the up
holders of the inhuman traffic. For centuries this crying evil was
perpetuated through a devout belief that slavery was sanctioned
by a divine providence. When the period of practical unbelief
dawned emancipation followed, men condemned serfdom and re
fused to believe in its theological justification. A similar pro
cess has been observed in reference to intellectual bondage, which
for ages proved a nightmare to the human mind, depriving soci
ety of the advantages of freedom of thought and liberty of speech.
For generations the claims of ecclesiastical supremacy and priest
ly domination enslaved the intellect of the race, but with the
advent of unbelief these chains were snapped asunder and pro
portionately mental freedom was the result.
�2
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief is the basis of all Secular philosophy. So long as
people maintain a blind belief in the teachings of the past, so
long as their minds are fettered by the decrees of Councils and
the dogmas and creeds of the Church, so long will the develop
ment of Secular philosophy be retarded. Let, however, disbelief
in ancient errors be supplanted by the belief in modern truth and
Secular progress will thereby be promoted.
The fact that Unbelief extensively exists among all classes of
society is beyond reasonable doubt. It is prominent in our poli
tics, in our poesy, in our philosophy, and in the various scientific
expositions of the present day. It dominates the press, it agi
tates the pulpit, and it permeates our national seats of learning.
As the Rev. Daniel Moore in “ The Age and the Gospels ” admits
(pp. 10-14): “The tendencies to scepticism at the present day
show themselves more or less in every direction.” And the Rev.
Dr. Herbert Vaughan, in his pamphlet on “ Popular Education
in England,” written in 1868, observes (p. 53):—
“ The most thorough, the most logical, and the most distinct school
opposed to us is that of the Secularists. It would be vain to close our
eyes to the fact that their numbers are large and rapidly increasing.”
Referring to the progress of Unbelief in the English Universi
ties, the Westminster Review for October, 1860, remarks:—
“ Few, perhaps, are aware how far the decay of belief extends be
neath those walls. . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed ! When they
are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every phase, from
mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Professors, tutors, fellows,
and pupils are conscious of this widespread doubt.” “ It must be a
profound evil,” continues the writer, “ that all thinking men should
reject the national religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the
tale by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who have
long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the text-book, the
manuals for study of youth and manhood, the whole mental food of
the day; science, history, morals, and politics, poetry, fiction and
essay ; the very lesson of the school, the very sermon from the pulpit.”
This testimony, recorded some years since, has been more than
ever confirmed within the last two decades. Go into what soci
ety we may ; move in what circle of life we will; Unbelief, either
active or dormant, confronts us on every side. The clergy con
template this sceptical progress, while they acknowledge their
inability to “ stem the tide of modern scepticism.”
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
3
While there can be no reasonable doubt as to the rapid increase
of unbelief in all phases of modern life, differences of opinion
may obtain as to the nature and authority of this unbelief.
For instance, it may be asked, Can unbelief have a philosophy ?
According to the majority of men who have been trained in what
is termed, orthodoxy, and who profess to accept the popular
teachings of the Christian faith, the answer would be a most
emphatic negative. But the impartial observer of the develop
ment of modern thought will doubtless think otherwise, and con
sider that he has ample reasons for the conclusion at which he
has arrived. If there is a philosophy of belief, why should there
not be a philosophy of unbelief ? The one may be true and the
other false, still both may be formulated in philosophic terms.
Unbelief has been so long branded as a crime, and so persistently
looked upon as a sin against God and as an enemy to all human
society, that the world has come largely to argue that it
has no philosophic basis. Ever and anon it is being declared
from the thousands of pulpits in the land that unbelief is the
great bane of the age, and that what mankind needs is more
faith in dogmas, at which an orthodox preacher himself declared,
“ Reason stands aghast and Faith herself is half confounded.”
Unbelief is not only condemned as being a crime, but it is pro
nounced as the worst of crimes. The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who.
is deemed by most persons as being no mean authority on ortho
dox questions, exclaims in pious fervour : “ Talk of decrees, I will
tell you of a decree, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned?
That is a decree and statute that can never change. Be as good
as you'please, be as moral as you can, be as honest as you will,
walk as uprightly as you may ; there stands the unchangeable
threatening, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ ” This is
a sample of orthodox teaching in Christian England in this glori
ous nineteenth century—this age of progress, of civilization and
culture. The unbeliever is viewed as a man who voluntarily or
wilfully rejects the light of truth, who clings to error knowing
it to be evil, and who consequently deserves no mercy of any
God, and no consideration on the part of his fellow man. The
very name Unbeliever or Sceptic is looked upon as a byword or
.
�4
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
reproach; and the term Infidel, with many people, has a more
horrible meaning than that of thief or murderer. To quote
again from Mr. Spurgeon : “ Could you take murder and blas
phemy and lust and adultery and fornication, and everything that
is vile, and unite them into one vast globe of black corruption,
they would not equal the sin of unbelief. This is the monarch
sin, the quintessence of guilt, the mixture of the venom of all
crimes, the dregs of the mine of Gomorrah; it is the A 1 sin, the
masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the Devil.” Unbelief is
a sort of intellectual bugbear by which the simple-minded are
held in the worst kind of slavery—that of intellectual bondage.
Whenever a man begins to think differently from the Church a
hue-and-cry of “ Infidelity” is raised against him, and many are
compelled, if they would preserve their positions in business and
retain the good opinion of their fellow men, to retrace their foot
steps and enter again the fold of believers, where doubt comes
not and where enquiry has no place. For let a man be guided
by the dogmas of antiquity, declare that reason is a blind guide
and logic a weapon of the Devil; let him denounce with all the
power he can command the great and illustrious men of the earth
who have doubted the various theologies of the world, and such
a man’s respectability is safe in this world, and his salvation is
regarded as being secured in the next. “ Only believe,” says the
poet of Methodism—
‘ ‘ Only belie re, your sins forgiven ;
Only believe, and yours is heaven.”
No one can believe everything, and some must consequently
be unbelievers in all that which does not fall within the range
of his or her thought. Want of faith, therefore, so far from
being criminal, is a necessary condition of the human mind. No
one can escape it, do what he may. The Christian is an unbe
liever to the Mohammedan, the Buddhist, the Parsee, and other re
ligious devotees, as they are all unbelievers to him and to each
other. The question here is not which of these systems, or whether
any of them, is true; but the point to be observed is that the
advocate of each disbelieves in the dogma of the other, showing
that unbelief is a necessity, since the various faiths are all in
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
5
some respects antagonistic. The Agnostic is, of course, an unbe
liever ; but is any Christian minister in the world less so ? As
the great Lord Shaftesbury once remarked: “ The best Christian
in the world, who, being destitute of the means of certainty, de
pends only on history and traditions for his belief in these par
ticulars, is at best but a Sceptic Christian.” The fact is, both the
Agnostic and the Christian disbelieve in what the other teaches.
Why, then, does the Christian consider himself justified in apply
ing to the Agnostic an epithet which is used in an offensive
sense, and resent the same epithet when applied to himself ?
The Christian, no doubt, will reply that his opinions are true,
and those of the Agnostic false. But that is just the point in dis
pute and has no right to be assumed; and besides, might not the
Agnostic justify the use of the word in the same way ?
Before unbelief, even in religion, can be dispensed with advan
tageously—and even then, perhaps, it could not rationally be
discarded—three qualifications must be shown to be possessed
by the believer who talks in the language of ordinary Christian
men. First, he must be infallible; secondly, he must be strictly
honest, for infallibility does not necessarily imply honesty, and
thirdly, his system must be perfect. In the absence of any one of
these, he may mislead those who listen to and follow his teaching.
And no man can possibly have a right to proclaim a system,
which he demands to have accepted under pain of penalties in
this world, and worse penalties in some world to come, unless he
is prepared with demonstrative proof that he and his system are
possessed of these three qualifications. With regard to the first
no man can profess seriously to claim infallibility but the Pope of
Rome; and his claim is not only not attempted to be made good, but
we are told that it must be accepted without any proof whatever.
Besides, half the Christians themselves not only dispute this
claim, but denounce it in language as strong as that which they
apply to unbelievers. In fact, infallibility can only exist in
connection with Omniscience, because to be certain that one could
have made no mistake it is essential that he should have a perfect
knowledge of everything that is in any and every part of the
universe. If there be any one fact or circumstance with which
�6
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
he is unacquainted, this very fact or circumstance may contain
an additional truth not present to his mind, which, if known,
would considerably modify existing views.
The Protestant, however, does not even pretend to claim infalli
bility, and, therefore, quite unconsciously, although very ra
tionally, foregoes a great part of his authority. With him the
certainty of being right is transferred to some extent from the
individual to the system, and hence, although personally he lays
no claim to being infallible, he still demands implicit faith in his
teachings. Infallibility in his case is not in his own mind, nor
in the head of the Church, but in his text-book. The Bible, he
declares, cannot err, although he can. But, even if this claim
were established, it would not be sufficient, since it is not required
as a substitute for personal infallibility, but in addition to it.
An infallible book would be of little value without an infallible
interpreter, because a million different infallible minds will deduce
a million different conclusions, nine hundred and ninety-nine thou
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them being erroneous—and,
perhaps, the other one also—which multiplies the chances of
error so extensively that the alleged infallibility disappears.
But to claim infallibility for the Bible is really to claim it for
the writers of the various books which make up that volume,
and the same arguments hold good against its possession by
them as by the Pope of Rome or any other human being. Even
supposing that the infallibility of the original version of the
Bible were conceded, nothing would thereby be gained, since such
an infallible original is no longer in existence. The volume that we
have is simply a translation from the Greek executed by fallible,
erring men. Thus the first qualification necessary to the disposal
of unbelief we find to be absent. The second is that such
teachers must be honest. It is only stating a well-known truism
to say that all men are not honest, particularly in theological
matters. Insincerity is the great curse of the Church, too many
of its members endeavouring to make people think they believe
creeds and doctrines in which, in reality, they have no practical
faith whatever. Unless, therefore, we could be quite certain,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as to the conscientious honesty
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
7
of the infallible teacher, even his infallibility would prove of
no avail. In business matters men always endeavour to act
upon the principle that honesty is the most important element
in life. They will not, as a rule, trust a dollar in the hands of
another person, unless thoroughly convinced both of his honesty
and of his capability to comply with the terms of the agreement
made. Yet these same men will stake their all in what they term
hereafter—the supposed eternal welfare of their souls—on the
ipse dixit of a priest or minister, without any guarantee of his
honesty or competence to perform his brilliant promises. Truly
man is a remarkable being, and, under the influence of theology,
his ways are marvellously strange and past finding out. The
very course which he applauds in secular transactions he not
only ignores in religious proceedings, but adopts the very opposite.
And yet we are told that the two lines of conduct—secular and
religious—are harmonious. In spite of all reckless condemnation
to the contrary, unbelief is a necessity of the human mind, to
escape which is altogether impossible.
There is but one state of mind in which it may be said un
belief can have but little or no place, and that is in a condition
of total ignorance. Perfect knowledge would, of course, remove
all unbelief of truth; but even with it there would be unbelief
as regards error. But, as this condition is unattainable, it need
not be discussed. Total ignorance does not disbelieve, because
.there is, in that case, nothing present to the mind in reference
to which unbelief can be exercised. This will go a long way to
explain the fact that, in times of supreme ignorance, unbelief
was comparatively unknown. Priestcraft held its sway, mental
stagnation obtained, and men and women were blind believers
O
in, and followers of, the then prevailing errors. But the moment
progress, from the condition of ignorance, commenced, new
forms of thought became present to the mind, new opinions weref
perceived, new theories sprang up, investigation took place, and
unbelief became a necessary consequent. And this belief will be
sure to increase with increasing knowledge. In childhood the
first impressions we receive we naturally enough imagine to be
indisputably correct, whether in religion, in philosophy, or in the
�8
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
ordinary commonplace affairs of life. The first impressions asto religion and to philosophy we receive from our parents or
teachers, and hence tradition frequently deceives us. As Dryden
says:—
“ By education most have been misled,
So we believe because we so were bred ;
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the boy imposes on the man.”
In the morning of existence theories in abundance crowd in.
upon the mind, the major part of them only to be subsequently
dismissed as untenable, and we become, perforce of necessity,
unbelievers to much that is presented to the mind. Each indi
vidual will probably accept some different theory to the others
but all will be unbelievers in those notions which have been
rejected. Much that comes before us has to be rejected as
utterly untenable, and we are unbelievers, whether we will or no.
We shall, of course, not all arrive at the same views; but that
will make no difference to the fact of our unbelief, since each
will disbelieve that which does not accord with his own deduc
tions ; and hence he becomes an unbeliever in all that is opposed
to the conclusions at which he has arrived. This unbelief will
deepen with increasing knowledge, because, the more we know,,
the greater the variety of the theories that will present them
selves to the mind, and the larger,, therefore, the number of these
that will have to be rejected. It will follow, as a necessary
consequence, that the unbelief will be commensurate with the
knowledge possessed. It is quite possible that some truth may
be rejected by a man as error; but that does not affect the question,
•under discussion. The real position is that unbelief in the
abstract is a necessity of the constitution of the human mind,
and the more the mind is instructed and cultivated, the more
extensive will be the unbelief. Thus Scepticism arises from the
very nature of things, and has its foundation in the universal
mentality of the race; and instead of deploring this fact, it is
one that should be rejoiced at, because it is a safeguard against
error; it stimulates and enriches human thought, and ennobles
the intellectual character of mankind. As Tennyson writes:—
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
9
“ There is more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds. ”
Seeing that there is so much that must come before the
human mind to be at once dismissed, and that so many various
and conflicting theories will present themselves before the intel
lect of every person who thinks upon ever so limited a scale,
the greater portion of which will doubtless have to be rejected,
our duty in regard to the matter is as evident as the sun at
noonday. Truth is a gem of which all men are professedly in
search, and all are obligated to discover and take hold of as
much of it as possible; and the only way in which this can be
done is by rejecting the error,—or that which appears to the
searcher to be such—for his own intellectual powers are the only
tests which he can apply to ascertain what is truth and what is
falsehood. Hence he must reject that which appears to him to
be irrational, and thus so far he becomes an unbeliever. If it is
said that this unbelief refers only to error, the question will arise,
What is error ? For is it not clear that, as no two minds are
constituted alike, and as no two persons can possibly follow out,
in every particular and in precisely the same manner, the same
line of thought and investigation, the conclusions reached can
not be the same always in the case of different individuals ? It
is possible that all will discover some truth; but truth, like man,
is many-sided; and, hence, some things which seem phases of
truth to one man will be classed with error by another. Free»
thought teaches the great fundamental truth—namely, that man
has an absolute right to think freely, unfettered by tradition and
uncontrolled by creeds and dogmas. This is the essence of all
true thinking ; for no one can think successfully in shackles,
and truth can never be properly reached while thought is in
chains. Protestantism boasts that it not only allows the right
■of private judgment, but that such right is its cardinal principle
and watchword. Now, true private judgment means the right
to arrive at any opinion which can be legitimately reached by
the laws of thought and the canons of logic, or the term is a mis
leading misnomer. It was the violation of this principle that
�10
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
made the conduct of the Protestant reformers so thoroughly
inconsistent. They robbed private judgment of its real essence
by compelling its conclusions to harmonize with their own, and
thus limiting that freedom which is absolutely necessary toprivate judgment.
The Rev. George Armstrong once said of the Church of Eng
land, and the same statement is equally applicable to some other
Protestant sects :—“ I am allowed the right of pi'ivate judgment
on condition that I arrived at the opinions settled beforehand
for me by the Church.” And he remarks: “ If I deny the right
of private judgment, the Church calls me a Romanistif I
acknowledge it and act upon it, she brands me as a heretic.”
Such inconsistency as this is foreign to the genius of Freethought. Unless a person’s right to think at all is denied, he
must be permitted the full right to arrive at any conclusion
which may seem to him rational. Every man has a right to his
views, even though he stand alone in their advocacy. Infalli
bility alone can possess the right to suppress any opinion, be
cause only infallibility can declare for certain that an opinion is
necessarily an error; and as, of course, infallibility does not
exist, such right is not to be found. A strong presumption that
the opinion sought to be suppressed is an erroneous one will not
be sufficient; because, in the first place, strong presumption is
not a proof, and, in the second place, very strong presumptions
have existed in the past in favour of the falsity of certain
opinions, which only a small minority held, but which afterwards
turned out to be true. The Roman Catholic denies the right of
private judgment altogether, and yet, strangely enough, he
always makes an appeal to it when seeking to make converts.
If a man says, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and
therefore I deny that you have any such right as that of private
judgment, I ask at once, “ Why are you a Roman Catholic ?” He
will, no doubt, proceed forthwith to give his reasons, thereby
admitting that he has exercised his own private judgment in the
matter—the very thing which he refuses me the right to do.
There is, and can be, no fixed standard of belief for all men,
unless the right of private judgment be entirely given up ; nor
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
11
scarcely then, as a matter of fact, for the standard itself will
have to be accepted or rejected according to evidence.
*’he Nonconformists who were persecuted even unto death, were,
like all other believers in creeds and dogmas, unable to resist the
temptation of oppressing others, when, by a turn of the wheel of
fortune, fate gave them an opportunity of so doing. The love of
rule and of lording it tyrannically over conscience is common to
all theologies and all theologians alike—to those of eld Paganism,
mediaeval Christianity, and that of Mohammedanism. The
doctrine that a wrong belief, the holding of an erroneous creed,
will lead to the consignment of the soul to eternal fire, “ where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” prompts men
(and seems to justify them in so doing) to exert all their powers
towards preserving their fellow men from becoming a prey to
Satan and from being irretrievably lost to God. Thus the bigot
has been always found prepared to plead, in extenuation of his
intolerance, his zeal on behalf of souls. Hence he has always
been ready to—
“ Deal damnation round the land
On each I deem thy foe.”
All persecution for unbelief is a crime and should be condemned
as such. No man, or society of men, can have the right to im
pose any restriction upon the liberty of thought or speech. Who
ever persecutes “ for conscience’ sake ” invades the dearest rights
and privileges of the human race, and really endangers and im
perils its highest and most cherished interests.
The Nonconformity of the present day appears to be ashamed
of its opinions. Instead of boldly adhering to- the true principle
Df private judgment, no matter whither it may lead, it adopts a
/policy of reservation. The modern Dissenter scarcely deems it
worth his while to combat the errors of ecclesiasticismand sacerdot
alism ; he himself is half a Churchman; and henow comes forwardas
the antagonist and opponent of what he terms the “ Unbelief of
the age.” But what is this Unbelief of which we hear so much ?
Is it not a logical carrying out and application of those principles
which gave the early reformers an excuse—a legitimate and
valid reason—for endeavouring to subvert and overthrow
�12
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Romanism and its man-destroying superstitions and prostrations
of the intellect to dogma and faith. The principle of free inquiry
once given to the world, and once admitted by mankind, it is
absurd and illogical for any new “ minister ” to attempt to forge
new intellectual shackles, or to say to the human mind, “ Thus
far shalt thou come, but no farther ! ” Whoever is opposed to
this right is an enemy to human freedom. As Milton has writ
ten :—
“ This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free ;
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace :
What can be juster in a State than this ? ”
But to disbelieve is not only a right, it is also a duty ; for every
man is under an obligation to deny and to do his best to destroy
that which, after careful and deliberate examination, appears to
him to be false. No doubt the orthodox believers fear the legi
timate exercise of Freethought, simply because they are alarmed
that their own views will not stand the test; but this really
ought to be evidence to them that there is something unsound
somewhere in their connections. There is a fashion in these
matters, as in the cut of a coat, and the great masses of society
do not like to be out of the fashion. But fashion will seldom
stand criticism. “ There is more power,” said an old writer,
“in an ounce of custom than in a ton of argument.” Now, this
is just the state of things that requires to be changed. Moreover,
few will admit that they are guided by it, which is a tacit
admission that even they hold that it cannot be defended. They
profess to exercise their private judgments, to think and to
investigate even when they are bound hard and fast in the chain of
a despotic custom—which proves that they, too, recognize the
right to differ, which is really the right of unbelief.
There can be no progress without unbelief, for disbelief in an
old system must ever precede the introduction of a new one.
Progress always implies change and change is the outcome of
unbelief in that which is old and no longer able to serve the
world, added, of course, to what is considered to be a new truth.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
13
’Thus we find that those who oppose Scepticism are usually
adverse to change of any kind; their motto is, “The same yester
day, to-day, and forever.” Among such persons there exists a
deep-rooted prejudice against everything that is new, and this
stubborn clinging to the teachings of the past has sapped the
very vitals of progress and perpetuated errors and hypocrisy to
an unknown extent. The man who changes his views and
embraces a conviction contrary to that which he was known
previously to hold is usually stigmatised by all sorts of offensive
epithets among his fellow men, and often he is regarded as being
a very dangerous character. Now, change—assuming that it is
in the right direction—is always desirable, and such change must
of necessity arise out of unbelief. No man can trace the progress
■of human thought and opinion from the crude and unformed
ideas of the ancients up to the brilliant discoveries and marvel
lous inventions of the present day, without feeling a thrill of joy
run through his frame that his lot has been cast in these later
times. First one erroneous notion and then another has been
got rid of, until, although the old tree of error still stands, its
branches are shrivelled, its trunk is decaying, and its root is
loosening i-n the soil in which it stood so firmly rooted a few
centuries ago. And every step in the world’s advancement has
been brought about by unbelief. This fact is fully demonstrated
by Buckle in his “ History of Civilization.” This eminent writer,
after showing that until doubt began civilization was impossible,
-and that the religious tolerance we now have has been forced
from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that the act of
doubting is the originator, or at all events the necessary ante
cedent, of all progress. Here we have that Scepticism, the very
name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed,
and if all is really true which they from their childhood have
been taught to believe. The more we examine this great prin
ciple of Scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense
�14
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
part it has played in the progress of European civilization. . . ..
It may be said that to Scepticism we owe the spirit of inquiry
which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached
on every possible subject; has reformed every department of
practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority
of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer
'foundation; has chastised the despotism of princes; has re
strained the arrogance of the nobles, and has even diminished
the prejudices of the clergy. In a word, it is this which has
remedied the three fundamental errors of the olden time—errors
which made the people, in politics too confiding, in science too
credulous, in religion too intolerant.”
Lecky, in his “ History of European Morals,” tells us that
“nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . The splendid discoveries of physical science
would have been impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of
the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till Moham
medan science and classical Freethought and industrial indepen
dence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the intellectual
revival of Europe begin.” Thus the lesson of all history is that'
unbelief in the old has ever preceded the introduction of the new.
Christianity itself came based upon the disbelief in Paganism,,
and the Pagans, feeling outraged at the proposed change, called
the first Christians not only unbelievers, but even Atheists.
Martin Luther disbelieved in the mysteries and mummeries of
Boman Catholicism, and the result was what is called the Protest
ant Reformation. Copernicus and Galileo disbelieved in the Bible
cosmogony, with its theory of the heavens; and this Scepticism
gave birth to correct views upon the great science of astronomy.
Modern geologists reject the Bible story of Creation, and the
consequence is more faith in Nature’s records than in the absurdi
ties of the Christian Bible. In philosophy the same thing has
occurred over and over again, as also in the political world. Thus,
unbelief has ever been the herald of change and improvement,
while its enemy has always been that superstitious conservatism
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
15.
that eschews all advancement, frowns down every new discovery*,
taboos all change, and keeps its anchor firmly fixed in the errors
of the past. With such persons mildew is more sacred than sun
shine, and decay preferable to the opening violet shedding its
fragrance in the morning air.
Unbelief is always spoken of as though it were a mere
negation, whose only mission could be to doubt and destroy.
The consequence of this misconception is, that the Freethought
party is denounced as being composed of members whose aim
is to pull down, without having any desire to reconstruct. The
pious orthodox believer looks upon the Sceptic as a sort of
modern Goth or Vandal, dangerous to the well-being of society,,
and to be avoided by all who care for the public good. These
are the wild fanatical notions, born of the theological delusion,,
which are held in reference to unbelievers. But such views are
most erroneous, to say nothing of their injustice. Some of the
greatest benefactors of the race who ever lived have been
unbelievers, that is, they have rejected those creeds and dogmas
which are clung to so tenaciously by the Church. “ It is his
torically true,” remarks J. S. Mill, “ that a large proportion of
Infidels, in all ages, have been persons of distinguished integrity
a,nd honour. . . . Persons in greatest repute with the world
both by virtues and attainments, are well-known, at least to
their intimates, to be unbelievers. ... It can do truth no
good to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary
acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the
noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work,
not only of men who’ did not know, but of men who knew and.
rejected, the Christian faith” (“On Liberty ”). And Mill was
quite right, for some of the noblest men and women who have
adorned the history of their times, and given to the world a.
record of the most useful deeds, have been unbelievers. Lucretius,
Spinoza, Goethe, Humboldt, Dr. Priestley, Newton, Voltaire,
Paine, Robert Owen, Lyell, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, and Harriet
Martineau are prominent in the Pantheon of the world’s bene
factors ; and these were all unbelievers from the orthodox stand
point. In France, nearly all the scientific men are heretics
�16
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
and Germany—the most Philosophic land of modern days—is
notoriously sceptical.
Unbelief is, of course, negative on the one side ; but there is
always another aspect of it to be seen, if one will only take the
trouble to look fairly for it. Unbelief in one thing means
belief in the opposite, and it is quite possible that such opposite
may be the more worthy of the two. This is another instance
how the word unbelief is used in a sense that is most certainly
not justifiable, because it conveys an idea of reproach, and
-almost of crime; and those to whom it is applied are thereby
singled out for ignominious attack and violent denunciation. It
may probably be replied here that the word is only employed in
this sense when it refers to disbelief in things which are infallibly
true, and too sacred to be tampered with, and far too well
established to admit of the possibility of doubt in regard to them.
But the position here assumed is absurd, since things which can
be demonstrated to be true beyond the possibility of doubt
cannot be disbelieved. No sane man can disbelieve in a proposi
tion of Euclid, or even the simple statement that two and two
make four. The fact, therefore, of the very existence of unbelief
in regard to any matter proves that it has not been demonstrated
to be true. As to infallibility, that idea has already been dis
posed of. Now, to say that anything is too sacred to be tampered
with, simply means that it is sacred in the eyes of those who
accept it; for it cannot be sacred to him who disbelieves it. To
assert that I am not at liberty to disbelieve in any dogma or
principle because some one else holds it to be sacred is to say that
he is infallible, and that I must, therefore, defer to his judgment,
surrender my own right to think at all, and take my opinions
ready-made from any one who is arrogant enough to claim the
right to dictate. Moreover, this view is self-destructive, because
a half-dozen different bodies may each be claiming the same
allegiance, and, as their views will probably be conflicting and
irreconcilable, to believe the pretensions of the one would be to
-disbelieve the claims of the others. But, if a person disbelieves
he also believes ; his disbelief is the negative side of his faith‘
-and his belief is the positive side.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
17
Disbelief in an error, or in that which is held to be an error,,
by any man involves belief in the opposite of the error, which is
truth, or at all events that which is recognized as such by him
who receives it. To describe a man as an unbeliever without
having regard to what it is that he disbelieves, and consequently
what he believes as the opposite of his unbelief, is not fair to
him, and is equally unfair to those who from this description
learn to estimate his views. Unbelief and belief must run hand
in hand, and cannot be separated. The most devout believer is
equally an unbeliever with him whom the world calls “ Infidel ”
and stigmatises with reproachful terms and epithets in conse
quence of his Scepticism. They differ, of course, as to the sphere
of their faith and doubt; but the one has no more right to be
called a believer par excellence than has the other. All of us
claim to have some truth on our side, and in that truth we are
firm believers. Our faith in it is the basis of our disbelief in
error, and the mainspring of our actions in the advocacy of our
views and the efforts which we make to bring others to our own
way of thinking. We are only negationists so far as a pulling
down and a clearing of the ground may be necessary to prepare
the way for the new building that is to be erected. Just as Luther
disbelieved in Romanism and sought to destroy it, in order tomake way for Protestantism, so Secularists to-day disbelieve in
the errors of the Church, and are thereby inspired to work for the
establishment of greater and grander truths than theology ever
rocognized or the Church ever possessed. The old Church called
Luther an unbeliever, and it was right so far; but a large por
tion of society came to recognize him as a true believer. His
positive work was the outcome of his unbelief, and but for that
it could have had no existence. Christianity owes its existence
to unbelief. If Christ and St. Paul had not rejected many of the
teachings of paganism and Judaism the religious change which
it is alleged occurred two thousand years ago, would in all prob
ability never have taken place. Thus unbelief has ever been
the precursor of a newer and truer faith; it is the herald of
progress, the forerunner of improvement, and the harbinger of.
coming good.
�.18
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelievers are supposed to have no right to the term sacred,
whereas it belongs to them in a much higher sense than it does
to the Church. What is truly sacred ? The beautiful in art
the true in philosophy, the noble and pure in human conduct—
these are all sacred, because they are in harmony with the higher
instincts of man, and tend to elevate and regenerate the race.
True sacredness does not consist in supernatural power, priestly
arrogance, or assumption of authority to our fellow-man. Things
are made holy by the temper and conduct of him who uses them.
Man is his own consecrator, whether in his home, at church, or
in the temple of science. Where mind speaks to mind, either
orally or in writing, and thus impresses for good : where intellect
• diffuses its choicest blessings abroad among mankind; where
learning and thought rise into higher regions of light and truth ;
where poetry illumines and art charms; where liberty goes forth
breaking asunder the chains of the captive; where knowledge
•dwells and love manifests its power ; where virtue reigns
supreme and justice bears the sway—there, and there alone, is
true sanctification to be found, encircled in the temple of Reality
and enthroned upon the pinnacle of Humanity.
Instead of regarding the term sacred as representing these
great enobling qualities and mental activities, the popular believ
ers associate it with certain places, buildings, and theological
ceremonies. For instance, Palestine is called the Holy Land, and
is looked upon as sacred in consequence of the notion that it
was the birthplace of Christianity. It is a most significant
fact that if Palestine were sufficiently prolific to produce a
religion, it has been comparatively barren in science, philosophy,
and general education. A church is termed a sacred building,
and is thought to be made so through some bishop or other
•ecclesiastical official performing a ceremony called consecration,
in which prayers are offered and forms complied with of a
strictly religious character, and thus the building becomes trans
formed into a holy temple totally unlike what it was before.
The very stones are sacred now, and cannot be used for another
.purpose without profanation. Can anything in the world be more
absurd ? Is it not derogatory to man and an insult to human
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
19
.genius ? What possible effect upon bricks and stones and
mortar and cement can the words of a bishop or any official
have ? And yet modern professors of theology stand aghast at the
folly displayed by Pagan worshippers. It would be exceedingly
interesting to have the modus operandi of this process of making
such things sacred explained to us—to be told what is the nature
of the conversion they undergo, and in what sense they differ
after consecration from their condition before.
Worse still, the same piece of theological legerdemain is
practised in our burial grounds. These, too, must be conse
crated—that is, made sacred, or sacred bones, it is feared, could
not rest in them. In cemeteries part of the ground is generally
^consecrated, and part left in its usual state. The physical
difference—and there can be no spiritual, for it will not be main
tained that mould is capable of spiritual impressions—that has
been effected by this process is more puzzling than the Athanasian Creed. How deep down does the consecration extend? And
does it cover any clods of earth that might afterwards be
brought to the spot, but which were not there at the time the
•ceremony was performed ? Is the grass that will hereafter
grow also consecrated ? And, if so, what will be the effect of the
•eating of the said grass upon the bodies of unconsecrated cattle ?
Shall we get, as a result, consecrated beef and mutton ?
But, in all seriousness, what is consecrated ground ? And
what power has priest or bishop or pope, by the reciting of any
form of words, to accomplish anything of the kind ? One of
•our poets has well written, as a rebuke to these miserable
superstitions :—
“ What’s hallowed ground ? ’Tis what gives birth
To sacred thoughts in souls of worth.
Peace ! Independence ! Truth ! Go forth
Earth’s compass round,
And your high priesthood shall make earth
All hallowed ground.”
'This is the true consecration, the real making holy; for not by
ridiculous ceremony, but by noble thoughts, is everything hal
lowed and made sacred on earth.
�20
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief leaves the mind free to receive new truths. The
greatest opponent that truth has ever had to contend with is dog
matism. A black cloud hangs over the mind of the dogmatist,
shutting out every ray of the bright and gladdening beams of
the sun of truth, and encircling all his mental powers in the
deepest darkness. To such an one improvement is nearly
impossible, and advancement in intellectual growth is never tobe dreamed of. His motto is always, “ As you were,” and his
watchword, if he has any, is like that of which Mackay preaches,
“ Backward, ye deluded nations ; man to misery is born.” When
a man dogmatically asserts that he has found all the truth which,
is capable to be found, and that his system contains perfect
verity without any mixture of error, his views become stereo
typed, and it is quite impossible that any change can take place
in his opinions. His mind is not open to receive new light from
any source whatever, and thought with him is a useless and
vain operation and investigation the quintessence of folly. For
him to receive any new truth would be to admit that what hepossessed before was in some way defective and imperfect, and
this his creed protests against with the authority of an infallible
mandate. His position is necessarily stationary ; he stands just
where his grandsires stood ages past, and where he would wish
his descendants to remain for ages to come. Now, surely un
belief is far in advance of such a condition as this, for it leaves
its possessor, without bias and prejudice, waiting the new know
ledge that is continually to be had for the seeking. It allows his
mind full scope to grow and advance in wisdom, because he does
not for one moment believe that he has reached aperfection beyond
which it is impossible to proceed. In connection with unbelief
there i-s always a certain amount of suspension of judgment—
that is to say, there is such an absence of dogmatism that any new
discovery of science, any fresh thought in philosophy, or better
and clearer ideas in religion, are always welcomed as an addition
to the stores of knowledge already in possession. A calm repose
rests on his mental powers : there is, to use the words of Harriet
Martineau, a “ clearness of moral purpose,” which “ naturally
ensues”—a “healthy activity of the moral faculties.” The un-
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
21
believer, not being biassed by any settled views which he thinks
■came from heaven, is ever ready to learn and be taught. There
is about him a lofty liberty which he alone can enjoy. From
whatever source the truth may come he is willing—nay, desirous
—to receive it. He is ever ready, as Dr. Watts observes, to—
.
“ Seize on truth where’er ’tis found,
On heathen or on Christian ground.”
The principal argument against unbelief is based upon the
supposition that we have an infallible guide, whereas the fact is
that we neither have nor can have anything of the kind ; and,
what is more, if we had such a guide, we could not understand
it, and therefore it would be no guide to us. All that man
requires is a reasonable probability, and his nature is so con
stituted that he is not capable of more. Besides, unbelief is not
voluntary, and the power of belief is not under the control of
the will.
Belief is the result of conviction, conviction of
evidence; and no man can believe either without or against
■evidence, or disbelieve in the face of evidence sufficiently strong
to carry conviction. Opinions change, theories pass away; old
faiths decay, and new ones appear in their places.
In connection with the Christian profession at the present time
we have an illustration of such inconsistency as is not to be
found in any other of the great religions of the world. History
fails to record in association with those faiths such a marked
difference between profession and action as we discover in the
Christian Church. In Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism,
there is a persistent and earnest effort to regulate personal con
duct in accordance with the alleged sayings and injunctions of
their respective founders. But it is not so with Christianity.
Where are the professing Christians to-day who even make the
attempt to adopt the advice, practice, and precepts ascribed to
Jesus of Nazareth ?' He was in every sense opposed to this
world, and, in most emphatic terms, he denounces its enjoyments,
iijs pride, its requirements, and particularly its riches. With
him, heaven was of greater importance than earth, submission a
ihigher duty than resistance, and poverty a greater virtue than
�22
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
wealth. Christ urged that practice was more valuable than pro
fession, and that the grace of God was more efficacious than the
ethics of man. Where, in the present day, do we find these
views practically endorsed even by Christians ? They are really
disbelievers to what they proclaim as being essential both for
life and for death. Consistency, where indeed is thy blush ? Before
professing Christians condemn us for our unbelief, let them show
us their genuine belief. Before they denounce us for rejecting
what we regard to be error, let them prove that they practice
that which they avow to be true. In the one case there is
honesty of purpose and sincerity of conviction; in the other
there is hypocrisy of profession and cant of fashion. Therefore
in the words of Polonius, we say to the Christian ;—
•
“ This above all, to thine own self be true ;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. ”
Wherein then consists the advantage of Unbelief ? It is the
symbol of mental freedom, the mark of intellectual dignity, the
genius of cultivated reason, the wisdom of being guided by pro
gressive thought, of replacing old fancies with new realities, of
proving all things and holding fast that which reason and
experience, not tradition and theology, decide to be true ; of
resisting to the very utmost all despotic sway over the intellect,
and of vindicating to the fullest extent the right of personal
independence. The advantage of unbelief is shown in its inspiring
mankind, not, in the words of Tyndall, “ to purchase intellectual
peace at the price of intellectual death. The world is not with
out refugees of this description, nor is it wanting in persons who
seek their shelter and try to persuade others to do the same. I
would exhort you to refuse such shelter, and to scorn such base
repose—to accept, if the choice be forced upon you. commotion
before stagnation, the leap of the torrent before the stillness of
the swamp. In the one there is, at all events, life, and therefore
hope ; in the other, none.” This, then, is the essence of unbelief
—not blind adherence to the past, but a loyal allegiance to the
ever-present. If it is asked what should a person disbelieve ? the
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
23
■answer is, everything that he cannot believe after honest investi
gation. Secularism condemns no one for not believing that
which fails to commend itself to his or her reason and judgment.
Hence, we do not believe in the necessity of priestcraft, the
wisdom of allowing the church to control the education of the
young, the necessary inferiority of women, the utility of death
bed repentance, and finality in thought, morality, or religion.
But we do believe in the right of individual opinion, unfettered
reason, moral excellence and intellectual discipline.
Unbelief asserts that every man and woman should be allowed
absolute freedom to test every religion by the light of reason,
and then either to accept one or reject all in accordance with the
dictates of his or her understanding ! By the revival of learning
at the Renaissance a great impetus and new momentum were
imparted to the human mind. The limits beyond which the
Roman Church had for centuries prohibited any advance, on
pain of the axe, the rack, the dungeon, and the stake, were now
overstepped by the aspiring, emancipated intellect. Those old
landmarks of the limits of former inquiry were now justly
despised, as the memorials of barbarian ignorance; and an appeal
was made from the dogmas of sacerdotal authority to human
nature, human science, and human thought. This latter, the
intellect, again asserted its supremacy, as it had of old time in
Greece and Rome. A bright and radiant future was before it;
it stood, as it were, upon an elevation from which it could take
a wide and enlightened survey of the complicated interests of
life. The master-spirits of the age soon proclaimed their deliver
ance from an irrational and degrading bondage, and demanded
that the nations of the European world should come out of the
darkness, the Egyptian bondage, of old Rome’s superstitions, to
emancipate themselves, to assert the dignity of their nature, and
to maintain the potency of their reason.
Mental freedom being secured, Unbelief refuses to be again
fettered; it has gone on from discovery to discovery; it has
tested the value of the cardinal doctrines of orthodox Christi
anity—tested them and found them worthless. What has now
�24
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
become of the Genesaic theory of the creation of the world ?
what of the age of the earth ? what of the origin of sin and evil ?
what of the doctrine of human depravity ? what of the belief in the
vicarious sufferings of Christ ? what of the old notion of eternal
punishment ? what of the destruction of the world by the deluge ?
what of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ? what of the miracles
of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha? what of the age of the Pentateuch?
what of the contention for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ?
whatof the testimony respecting the Jesus Christ of the four Gospels ?
It is well known what science says to all these old-world doc
trines. It simply discredits them ; treats them as figments of
the undisciplined imagination, and passes them by as unworthy
of serious notice. This has been the noble work of Unbelief.
Being unbelievers in orthodoxy we prefer fact to fiction, reality
to imagination, and good conduct to mere profession 1 In the
words of Mazzini: “We propose progressive improvement, the
transformation of the corrupted medium in which we are now
living, the overthrow of all idolatries, shams, lies and conven
tionalities. We want man to be not the poor, passive, cowardly
phantasmagoric unreality of the actual time, thinking in one
way and acting in another, bending to a power which he hates
or despises, carrying empty Popish or Thirty-nine Article formu
laries on his breast and none within. We would make man a
fragment of the living truth—a real individual, being linked to
collective humanity, the bold seeker of things to come, the gentle,
mild, loving, yet firm uncompromising apostle of all that is great,
heroic and good.” Herein lies the Glory of Unbelief.
�
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 glory of unbelief
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Happiness in hell and misery in heaven), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1088
RA1850
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
Atheism
Secularism