-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8aff5888c1496de4d45ecf34be57a357.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TrNjJGsD%7EGrkn3ouYwozSx8pVDbXRHx1bEzStvCWFMjccHS1ND4BYJwoIaxKqb0-xWp385crXvDlG2aJGSIbr2uju55rP9VUl4Y5x2eO2K4jqbpEfvZHuZsuhSQvTa4nV1mpnR2DYeXgiJZqK5ThMpxyHdrWW9ITaMOgPj%7E01CIrmP%7EVCDpOaUwzMYSVF-TAf%7EZDO9LU58Ihd5ksF-LkfGsFAf3SqOQ-NnVSBZVowHEkOdjOaS23xt4h65%7EUZTD5na3ZZEFFiG703lPaZAO5FEFurtp49gFjC-y-AEMVnQhFZogqv4k2ot4sEYZh5IX-mCvZ3lnNiS-gge0EC6zsnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7a3b815f360fbc5bb5ab0a8f322cfde5
PDF Text
Text
RAJS 506
Orthodox Criticism Tested I
A REPLY
— TO----
FATHER LAMBERT’S
“Tactics of Infidels,”
---- BY-----
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought,
Author of “ History of Freethought," “ Teachings of Secularism Compared -with
Orthodox Christianity“ Evolution and Special Creation," " Secularism;
Constructive a d Destructive," “ Glory of Unbelief' * Saints and
Sinners; Which?" “Bible Morality" Etc., Etc.
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST*
TWENTY CENTS.
\
��The Critic
of
“TACTICS OF INFIDELS”
CRITICIZED.
For some few years past a certain Father Lambert has devoted
■much of his time to a defense of the Christian religion, mainly by
attacking Col. Ingersoll. Mr. Lambert seems to labour under the
impression that if the Colonel can only be extinguished Chris- »
tianity will necessarily be demonstrated to be true. But the
falsity of a system no more depends upon the assertions of one
man than its truth upon the declarations of another. Christianity
will not stand or fall by the quibbles and sophisms of Mr. Lambert;
so neither will the opposite by the great eloquence of Colonel
Ingersoll. In the following criticism of a book called “ Tactics of
Infidels ”—which appears to have had a very large circulation—
it is not intended to defend either Colonel Ingersoll or Mr. Lacy—
since they are quite able to defend themselves—both of whom are
■made to figure largely in its pages, but simply to show wherein
Mr. Lambert’s reasoning is at fault. We do not care to discuss
men, but only to examine the principles they represent, and the
arguments employed by them to defend their views. It is chari
table to assume that every man is honest in the advocacy of the
opinions he puts forward, unless the contrary be very clearly
proved. It may seem strange to a man brought up under religi
ous influences, and with a strong emotional nature, who has never
read a Freethought work, or listened to a criticism of the evidences
of his faith, that any one should doubt what he holds to be infall
ibly true, but it is no less astounding to one who has freed himself
from the trammels of the orthodox religion that any one can for a
moment believe in the monstrous pretensions of the so-called
Catholic Church. Still so it is, and the sincerity of many such is
■beyond question. In what follows the dialogue form has been
adopted, because Father Lambert seems to prefer that to any
•other ; and to think that it has many advantages, for his side at
�4
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
least. His idea is that our teachings are easily disposed of by this;
method, so we will humour him by submitting his own to the same
kind of test.
It is not intended in this criticism to give a thorough and exhaus
tive reply to Father Lambert, but only to glance at some of the
more conspicuous of his fallacies, and to show that, although he
prides himself so greatly on his logic, he occasionally falls into the
most illogical kind of reasoning.
Ingersoll. The universe, according to my idea, is, always was,,
and forever will be * * * It is the one eternal being—the only
thing that ever did, does or can exist.
Lambert. When you say “ according to my idea ” you leave theinference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to
the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development..
Of course you do not intend to mislead or deceive ; you simply
meant that your “ idea ” of the universe is, like most of our modern;
plays, adapted from the French or elsewhere. * * * The old
originals, from whom you copy, thought it incumbent on them to
give a reason, or at least a show of reason, for their “ idea.” In.
this enlightened age you do not deem it necessary. It is suffi
cient for you to formulate your “ idea.” To attempt to prove it
would be beneath you. Have you got so far as to believe that
your “ idea ” has the force of an argument, or that the science;
of philosophy must be re-adjusted because you happen to have an
“ idea ?”
Lacy. The words “ according to my idea ” are said to imply
primitive conception; because I say “ I have an idea,” I leave the
inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before !
Lambert. There is a difference between an idea and my idea.
To say you have an idea might cause surprise, but to say it is yours
is to claim orginality for it. If Ingersoll were to claim some of
Edison’s ideas as his, he would be liable to prosecution for infringe
ment of the patent laws. The pantheistic theory of the universe
is too old to be claimed by Ingersoll as his idea. In claiming ithe
carries out his usual method of appropriating the thoughts and
speculations of others without giving credit, for which he deservesthe title of the Philosopher of the Purloined. Of course, one may
get at his meaning, but this verbal hypercritic of Moses should try
to say what he means.
pJZaMs. Is it not something like splitting hairs to thus quibble
about the expression “ according to my idea ?” Surely a man
means nothing more by that phrase than that the thing thus pre
sents itself to his mind. There is no necessary claim in it toorginality. Father Lambert would doubtless say, “ according to
my idea Christ is God,” but surely no man in his senses would.
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
5
suppose that to mean that no one before had had the same idea.
The pretended difference between an idea and my idea is not worth
■discussing, for the former is an abstraction. There is no such
thing as an idea that is not, in reference to some person, his idea,
•and it consequently becomes to him my idea. Originality in ideaa
is rare, and surely a Roman Catholic should be the last person to
make complaint on that score. No doubt the Pantheistic theory
■of the universe is old, but that to a Roman Catholic ought to prove
•a recommendation. And as to Ingersoll, it is admitted that his mean
ing may be got at. Well, then, what more is wanted ? Is it not
somewhat unfair to first accuse the Colonel of purloining ideas and
passing them off as his own, and then to admit that the Colonel’s
Slanguage does not mean that. This is hypercriticism with a ven
geance. And shallow enough, too, it is at that.
Lambert. Ideas are the elements or timbers of a judgment, as the
ibricks are the component parts of a house. As the house is greater
than one of its bricks, so is a judgment, an assent or a faith greater
than any one of the ideas composing it. A judgment is, then,
more than an idea, on the principle that the whole is greater than
any of its parts. Your mistake arises from ignorance of the differ
ence between a judgment and an idea. It is another mistake to
•advance this ignorance as an evidence of modesty.
Watts. The difference between one’s judgment and his idea is
another quibble which savours more of nonsense than of metaphysi
cal reasoning. A distinction of course there is in strictly philosophic
language, but this largely disappears in ordinary conversation.
An idea is a representation of a real thing, and a man’s judgment
regarding that is in truth his idea of it. I read that a certain man
was sentenced to death for a particular crime. I judge that the
sentence was just, that is it was just according to my judgment, that
is that my idea of justice corresponded with the sentence. And when
I say my idea I do not mean that the idea originated with me, but
•that it accords with my conception of the things involved in it.
•<i Faith is an assent to truth on the authority of another,” says
Lambert. But that is not a good definition of faith, in fact it is a
very clumsy one. There may be no authority of another in the
case. Faith is, where it is reasonable, largely based upon experi
ence—not authority, and it is just that authority against which we
protest. I have faith that if I sow seed in the spring, I shall reap
a harvest in the fall; that if I sleep when I am fatigued I shall rise
�6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
refreshed, but to no authority am I indebted for this, but to experi
ence. The experience may not be all mine, but a generalization of
other men’s, but there is no authority. We reject the Father’s
definitions in common with his theology, for the one is the out.
come of the other. A judgment is no doubt largely based upon
an idea, but one may surely be allowed to state the idea in connec
tion with the judgment, without being liable to be misunderstood.
Besides, if it be wrong to say my idea, when the same idea is held,
by other persons, it must be equally wrong to say my judgment
unless in such judgment I stand alone.
Lambert. “ That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite,,
because if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it. But that which
is infinite must be infinite in every way. If limited in any way it
would not be infinite. Now, matter is limited. It is composed of
parts, and composition is limitation. Change supposes succession,,
and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore
limitation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience and
common sense. Then—Matter is limited and therefore finite, and
if finite in anything finite in everything ; and if finite in everything,,
therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal. The idea of an
eternal, self-existent being is incompatible in every point of view
with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, un
changeable, impassible, and one. The latter is composite, change
able, passible and multiple. To assert that matter is eternal is to
assert that all these antagonistic attributes are identical—a privi
lege granted to lunatics only.”
Watts. Infinity we cannot conceive of, it is a mere negation, for
it means the not finite. Now, being a negation, how can it possessthe attributes here ascribed to it, or, in fact, any attributes at all ?'
Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest metaphysicians of this
age, and an orthodox Christian, has completely pulverized the logic
of Lambert. He shows that what men absurdly call the infinite
is simply the indefinite, and that to talk of the infinite is to use a
word without meaning. Matter is composed of parts, and there
fore limited. What parts ? Can we conceive of a part of matter
which cannot be further divided ? Is it not infinitely divisible ?•
And if so, here is infinity, that is, the infinitely small, ascribed to
d. If it be not infinitely divisible, then we must reach a portion
■sf matter the half of which is equal to the whole, which is an.
absurdity. But the infinite “ is essentially simple, unchangeable^
impassible and one.” This means that it cannot be divided. Sir
William Hamilton has shown the absurdity of this in regard to
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
7
duration. Eternity and infinity are one, for eternity is infinity of
duration. Now, there is an eternity of the past and an eternity of
the future, that is, an Infinite Duration in the past, and an InfiniteDuration in the future, and these are divided by the present; that
is, your supposed Infinity is cut into two parts. And here is the
reductio ad absurdam. Either these two parts are infinite or they
* are finite. If infinite, then there are two infinites succeeding each
other; if finite, then two finites can make an infinite. This is not
my idea, but that of the greatest Scotch metaphysician ; and
Father Lambert can choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases.
The same argument will apply to space. Take another illustra
tion, also from Hamilton. A foot is infinitely divisible, that is, it
is divisible into an infinite number of parts ; a mile is infinitely
divisible. But, as one infinite must be equal to another, therefore
a foot is the same as a mile. All this goes to show that we have
no conception of the infinite and cannot discuss it. When we
speak of it we simply mean the indefinite.
The human soul, says Lambert, is not eternal because it started
at a certain point, but will live forever. Well, that starting point
was a point in duration, and hence duration itself from that period
is not eternal. The human soul, then, is finite ; but, if so, how
can it last forever ? for that is just what the Father argues that
finite things cannot do.
Lambert. The future life of man is not actual and real, but
potential, and will ever remain potential.
Watts. What in the name of reason does this mean ? If man’s
future life be not real, why trouble about it ? What possible
concern can we have with the unreal ? This is really to
teach non-existence, which is assuredly not in harmony with the
theology of the Vatican.
Lambert. To imagine, or rather to conceive an infinite line is to
conceive a line*to whose lineal value nothing can be added, for as
long as an addition to it can be conceived if is not yet infinite. Is
such a line conceived as a reality ? No. Let us see why.
Imagine your infinite line extending through space in opposite
directions—say north and south. Now this so-called infinite line
is not infinite so long as we can conceive it increased by additional
length. Let us now imagine another so-called infinite line of
equal length with the first, and running parallel to it. If we add
the second to the first do we not increase its lineal value ? Most
certainly. Then the first line was not infinite because it admitted
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
of addition. Nor are the two together infinite, because we may
imagine another parallel line and another addition and a conse
quent increase of lineal value. We may continue this process for
ever and never exhaust the possibilities—never come to a lineal
value that excludes possible addition. From this you will see that
you cannot conceive, much less imagine, an infinite ltne so
“ readily ” as yo< thought.
Watts. Why, certainly. But what does all this prove but that
Sir William Hamilton is right, and that man can form no idea of
the Infinite, and that every attempt to describe it must end in
hopeless confusion and contradiction. The Father has in this
paragraph completely refuted himself.
Lacy. Space is infinite expansion but nothing more.
Lambert. Expansion of what ? Expansion without something
expanded is a mere fiction of the mind, having no real existence
outside the mind. Expansion is a mode of matter, and without
matter it is a non-entity. As matter is finite its expansion is finite.
Herbert Spencer defines space as “the abstract of all co-exist ences,” and by “the abstract” he tells us he means “ that which
is left behind when the realities are absent.” Now, take away all
reality and what have you left ? No reality, nothing. Then, ac
cording to Spencer’s definition space is no reality. But reality,
real being, is the first essential condition of the infinite, therefore
space, having no reality, no real existence aside from matter, can
not be infinite.
Watts. Space is unquestionably infinite expansion, if you sub
stitute indefinite for infinite. Expansion of what ? Well, we don’t
know. It may be an abstraction, as Spencer supposes, but there
are a hundred different opinions on that subject entertained by the
ablest philosophers. But it is certainly as real as eternity, which
word the Father uses glibly enough. At all events, the conception
of space is as clear as the conception of matter, and clearer than
the conception of God. If space be not infinite, as Lambert says
it is not, then it is limited, and we should be glad to be informed
what limits it, and whether the something that limits it exists
outside of space, which, of course, means nowhere. Is there some
place where there is no space ? If not, space is everywhere, in
other words, infinite. If space be the possibility of extended
things, still there can be no limit to that possibility. But Space
and Time are realities, despite the talk of such small and gabbling
metaphysicians as Father Lambert.
All the talk about the infinite line is just an illustration of Sir
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
$
Wm. Hamilton’s doctrine that no clear conception can be formed
of the infinite, but that any discussion of the subject must be in
volved in paradox and contradiction. The Father should read
Dean Mansell’s Bampton Lectures, a book written from a religious
standpoint, and in defence of Christianity. The Dean makes short
work of the nonsensical talk about the infinite. The argument
about Numbers and Duration go to show the absurdity in which
the whole thing is involved, and to illustrate Hamilton’s position.
What the Father is trying to prove it is difficult to make out. No
addition of finite numbers will make an infinite. Of course not.
Whoever supposed that it would ? But, as no number of finites
-can make an infinite, and as we can only conceive of finites, what
becomes of the talk about the infinite ?
Lambert. The incapacity to conceive how a thing can be done is
no proof that it cannot be done.................... The fact that the how
of an act or process is inconceivable is no proof that it has not a
.how, or that it is impossible.................... It is one thing not to con
ceive a thing and quite another to'conceive a thing to be impos
sible.................... I cannot conceive how God created the world,
but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative act. I cannot
■conceive the nature of matter, but I can conceive no impossibility
in it.
Watts. We do not attempt to explain the how of anything, and
■questions with regard to it are childish. And we are not alone
here. Let the Catholic give us the how of the facts of nature, or
•of his own being. But, he says, there is a difference between not
being able to conceive of a thing and the conceiving of it as im
possible. Why of course! It is only Christians who confound
these. “ I cannot conceive,” says the Father, “how God created
the world, but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative
act.” Well, to me such an act seems impossible. Will Mr.
Lambert explain how to him it does not seem so ? Did God create
the world out of nothing or out of pre-existing materials ? If the
latter, these must have been eternal, or there must have been a
prior creation, to which the same argument would apply. If the
former, was not that an impossibility ? How could an infinite make
a finite, i. e., could an infinite cause produce a finite result ? Is
not this an impossibility ? Or, in truth, how could there be space
or time for the finite when the infinite occupied the whole of both ?
Besides, we have been told that there is no change or succession
�IO
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
in the infinite. But, if at some point of duration or eternity he
performed an act which commenced or ceased, then he changed in
time, became related to time and consequently to succession.
Why was not creative power displayed before the creation ? In a
word, it must have been eternal, as God is eternal and unchange
able. If the infinite does not change, then from all eternity it must
have been creating worlds, and in that case these worlds would,
themselves be eternal. We would like an explanation of this. I
am not asking for the how, but for an explanation as to the possi
bility of conceiving of such a process. “ Everything,” says L.,
“ is possible that does not involve contradictory attributes.” Very
well. Then here are the contradictory attributes. God is eternal
and unchangeable, yet he put forth a new exertion a few millions
or so of years ago and created worlds, thereby changing his course
of action. “ Change supposes succession and therefore limitation.”
God changed his action, therefore became subject to succession,
ergo limited, that is, not infinite.
True, a thing may exist of which we are unable to form any
conception, but at least it can have no concern for us. What can
we have to do with that of which we can form no conception ?
It is a waste of time even to talk of it. But we know quite as
well as Father Lambert the difference between the failing to con
ceive a thing and the conception of its impossibility. And it is
just this latter that we urge against his theology. But, says the
Father, “ You must have some conception of the creative act, or
you could not assert that it is inconceivable.” Of course, we have
a conception of what Theologians say in reference to the act, and
we declare their statements to be self-contradictory and absurd.
But this is a very different thing to forming a conception of the
act itself. For we declare such an act to be both inconceivable
and contradictory.
Now, the concession that we must think of God with limitations,
as Lambert maintains, shows how impossible it is for us to con
ceive of the infinite at all. It is clear that our conception of God,
according to Lambert, is not correct. But how can he reach, in
thought, a being that transcends all human conception ? Besides,
if we can only conceive of God as limited, and yet he may be
unlimited, what becomes of the argument that matter cannot be
infinite, because we conceive of it as finite. If God, although
only thought of as finite,, and described as such in the Bible, be
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
II
really infinite, the same argument will apply to matter. This
mode of reasoning is suicidal, and cuts its own throat.
Lambert. As to space, we have seen that it is not a real being,
but only a relation between material beings ; that abstracted from
material beings it is nothing ; that it bears somewhat the same
relation to extended or expanded things that form does to matter
or weight to ponderable things. Annihilate extended or expanded
things and form and space and weight will “ fade away like the
shadows which flit before us and are seen no more.”
Watts. Space, then, is nothing at all; in a word, there is no
space. Things therefore exist nowhere, But that which exists
nowhere does not exist at all: ergo, there is nothing in existence.
The Father confounds the filling of space with its annihilation.
Space is not destroyed by being occupied. It is still there, but no
longer empty. To say that where a body is the space is not, is to
say that a thing exists where it is not,—for it surely exists in spaGe,
—which is egregious nonsense. According to this philosophy
things do not exist in space but outside of it, and where that is we
should like to be informed.
Lambert. Christian philosophers tell us that space, in as far as
it is real, is the distances between extended or spaced things, and
can exist only when extended things, exist, just as form can have
no real existence without things formed. Space in this sense is
limited to extended things and therefore cannot be infinite.
Watts.—Then Christian philosophers have taught nonsense, as the
Father himself has in these pages. But who are the philosophers
that have taught this ? Space is just the one thing whose non
existence or even limitation cannot be even conceived. Let the
Father try if he can accomplish this impossible feat. What about
the Ether ? Scientists tell us that this fills all space, so then there
is no space left and space is not. According to Mr. Lambert, to
fill an empty thing is to destroy the thing itself when it is filled,
which is assuredly something new in reasoning.
Ingersoll. To put God back of the universe compels us to admit
that there was a time when nothing existed but God.
Lambert. It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. The
eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act could
therefore be co-eternal with his being. The end of the act—that
is, creation—could be co-existent with the eternal act, and there
fore eternal. To deny that is to affirm that there could be a mo
ment when the eternal and omnipotent God could not act, which
is contrary to Christian teaching.
�12
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.-
Watts. Here we are told that God ean place a. creative act.
What that means no one can tell. Place it where ? Where it is,
that is, where it took place, or somewhere else. Really, this is
■child’s talk, and not reasoning. God can place anything, but he
must place it somewhere. The Father’s argument, if worth any
thing, is that he can place it no-where, and where that is I presume
even a priest cannot tell. “ His creative act could be co-eternal
with his being.” Well, in that case creation wasjrom all eternity,
hence the created thing was from all eternity, hence matter
was from all eternity, which is just what the Father elsewhere
denies. But to look at this in another light. The Creator
is the cause, the creation was the effect. Is it not a necessity
of thought that the cause must precede the effect ? If not how can
we discover causation at all ? Sequence and antecedence would be
meaningless terms. God created, that is, called into being, the
universe. Then before that occurred there was no universe, which
means nothing existed but God. No, says Lambert, creation is
■eternal. Then the thing made was contemporaneous in existence
with its maker, which is, in fact, to say that it was not made at
•all. To state that a thing is as old as the maker of the thing is
not argument, but downright nonsense, and may serve to bewilder
■children and ignorant Catholics, but assuredly can only be a source
of amusement for educated men.
Lambert. That creation could be co-eternal must be admitted if
we admit that God is eternal and omnipotent, and this we must
admit if we admit his existence. Hence it does not follow that
putting God back of the universe proves that he antedates it.
Lacy. If this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God
■created matter “ out of nothing ?”
Lambert. If he can create from eternity he "can create “ out of
nothing ” from eternity. The dogma is in no danger.
Lacy. Can you conceive of such a creative act, without a time
■or point in infinite duration when it was performed ? Try it.
Lambert. I cannot conceive when it was performed, for the sim
ple reason that if it be an eternal act it could not, because eternal,
•ever have had a “ when.” Any act of which when can be asserted
is not an eternal act.
Watts. But it is not a question of conceiving of the when but of
the fact so called. And that involves a contradiction in terms.
That which was created was clearly an effect. Now an eternal
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
I J:
effect is a meaningless expression. You might as well talk of a
square circle. Every effect must have a cause, and the cause must
in the nature of things precede the effect, or it could be no cause
at all. Moreover, I should like the Father to tell us how we can
know of a cause except through its effect. In Nature we see
cause and effect co-related everywhere. But we know nothing and
can know nothing of a supernatural cause.
That transcends
knowledge. Besides, how can a finite effect be produced by an
infinite cause ? This question has been asked before but it comes
in here too. Does the infinite in its effect become finite ? Effect
is probably nothing but transferred force. And an infinite force
cannot in its transference become finite. Hence an Infinite Cause
cannot exist. Let Father Lambert meet this argument.
Lacy. We are told in the Notes that before creation was, time
was not. This as poetry may pass, but as fact it is inconceivable.
Lambert. If it be conceivable, even as poetry, it is conceivable.
Hence your argument from inconceivability falls to the ground, for
that which is conceivable even as poetry is possible, and that which
is possible is conceivable as fact. I must here again repeat that
inconceivability is not the criterion of possibility, and that therefore
our inability to conceive a thing is no evidence that the thing is
impossible. If sceptics could once get this truth injected into their
skulls, they would perhaps use their unmetaphysical catchword less..
Watts. It is not conceivable either as poetry or anything else,,
save perhaps absurdity and nonsense. The so-called truth which
sceptics cannot get “ injected ” (an injection of truth is surely a
new method of administering that article) “ into their skulls ” is no
truth at all but a whimsey wild as any legend in the holy(?) Catho
lic record of marvellous exploits. Inconceivability may not be the
criterion of absolute possibility, but it certainly is of truth as pre
sented to man. And Christians more than any other class of men
use it as such. It is, in fact, their stock argument against what
they are pleased to call infidel notions. How can any one assert
the truth of that which is inconceivable ? Think of a time when
there was no time, a period when yesterday was to-day, and to
morrow the week before last. It is of no use to say that this,
although inconceivable, might possibly be, for that is to use words
without meaning, which is just what this priest does. Words
should represent ideas, but to use words which have no ideas tocorrespond to them is to play fast and loose with language, and to-
�14
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF IXFIDELS
CRITICISED.
befool men by engaging in a game of battledore and shuttlecock
with phrases.
“ Oh, sense, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.’
Lacy. But if it be true (that before creation was, time was not)
how do we know that it is true ?
Lambert. We know it in this way. Time is the measure of
movement and change in moving and changing things ; it is an
appurtenance of changeable things, and it is evident that an ap
purtenance of a thing cannot exist without the existence of that to
which it appertains. Therefore, without created things, time could
not be. It does not require much profound thinking to see this.
Watts. It certainly does not require much “profound thinking”
to see the absurdity of this. See how adroitly the word “ created ”
is dragged into the conclusion, when it did not appear in the pre
mises. Why may not eternal things be moveable and changeable ?
In fact, are not such conditions essential to all things ? If the
eternal existence—whatever it may be—could not move or change,
then it is clear it could not act. For all action is movement, and
a fortiori change. There can be no action without a movement on
the part of that which acts, and if God does not move, it is as clear
as that two and two make four, that action on his part is impossi
ble. Jesus represents God as working and the Old Testament re
cord of creation is one of activity on the part of Deity. Now work
means change and movement. Nor does the absurd fiction of an
eternal creation remove this difficulty, for the creation of this world
was certainly not from eternity, since we know that in its present
form it had a beginning. The creation of the earth and of the
organic beings upon it involved action, and consequently move
ment, on the part of its creator. As, therefore, there must have
been movement and change to produce that which was not pre
viously existing, or even to alter the form of that which was, there
was movement and change in Deity when such creation took place.
And as God has thus moved and changed, he, too, must be subject
to Time, and consequently Time was eternal. Time and space,
the two great facts in the universe, are not to be shuffled out ofi
existence by the wily—I had almost written silly—sophisms of
this popish priest.
Lacy. We are told that “ God is pure act,’’the source and origin
of all activity and life. How there can be “ pure act,’’ or any other
act, without an actor, is another riddle to which we succumb.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
15
Lambert. Riddles and conundrums seem to buzz about your brain
like blue-bottle flies about a dead horse. You should try to learn
and comprehend that which you do not know and understand, and
not imbecilely yield to gross ignorance and display it as an evidence
of profundity.
An act is the reduction of a potentiality or possibility to a reality.
Pure act is an act of being which excludes all potentiality. A Being
which is necessarily real, which excludes from its essence everything
that implies imperfection or defect of reality, is pure act. Poten
tiality of any kind always and necessarily implies defect or lack of
reality, because it has always something not yet actuated or real
ized in act. Being, therefore, which is necessarily real, with su
preme and infinite reality, excludes all potentiality. Now God is
necessarily and essentially real. He excludes from his essence
everything that implies imperfection or defect of reality. He is
therefore Pure Act.
Watts. Lord Byron once wrote respecting a contemporary of
his, that he went about “explaining metaphysics to the nation,” and
then added, “ I wish he would explain his explanation.” These
ines are most applicable to Mr. Lambejt. He really does make
“ riddles and conundrums ” buzz about onr ears. It is difficult to
imagine him serious in this jumble o'f words, which he calls logical
argument. An act without an actor. You might as well talk of a
walk without a walker, a stroke without a striker, a kick without a
kicker, a thought without a thinker. A being who acts, performs
an act, but without an actor there can be no act. “ Pure act ” is
pure nonsense, without any adulteration, and such as few men but
a Roman Catholic priest would try to throw dust in men’s eyes by
talking about. Moreover, an act requires not only the actor who
performs it, but also an agent upon which it is performed. What
was the agent in this case ? “ God is pure act.” Then the word
God is a name for an act performed by some other being, who is
higher than God, and somewhere there must be an agent upon
which the act is performed. But such unmitigated absurdity is
hardly worth discussing. And we are to be accused of “gross ig
norance ” and “ imbecility” if we fail to understand this meaning
less jargon. Be it so. Truly that proverb about “ blind leaders
of the blind ” has received a verification in the case of Father
Lambert.
Lambert. The difference between murder and killing is determined
by the intention. If a hunter, intending to kill a deer, kill a man
whom he mistook for a deer, he is not guilty of murder because he
�i6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
had not the intention. It will be observed, then, that the moral
nature of an act depends on the nature of the actor, and the good
ness or wickedness of the moral act depends on the intention of
the free moral agent. It is a mistake to suppose that a good act
is a moral one and a bad one is not. Every act of man, good or
bad, done with an intention, is a moral act. We attribute morals,
good and bad, to man alone, because he alone of all the inhabit
ants of the earth is capable of forming an intention and acting from
a motive.
Watts. Man performs thousands of acts with an intention which
are not moral acts. They are neither moral nor immoral, but
simply unmoral. He eats, drinks and sleeps with an intention, but
such acts do not fall within the range of any ethical code in this
world. The regulation of these is, no doubt, subject to moral law,
but the acts themselves per se are neither moral nor the reverse.
A man takes a walk along a country road to relish the scenery, or
sails in a boat on a lake for enjoyment, listens to music, gazes at a
great painting, or reads a poem, all with the intention of amusing
himself, but these are not moral acts. The Father’s notions of
ethics are about as hazy as his philosophical disquisitions.
Lambert. A standard of right, or a measure by which to distin
guish what is right from what is wrong is necessary for man,—
without it all difference between right and wrong, is destroyed.
Men may and do err in the application of this standard, but this
fact does not lessen its value, for the error is not in the standard but
in the application.
Lacy. You say, yes, “ the will of God,” but how do we deter
mine that will ?
Lambert. When a man is called on to act he is obliged as a
moral agent to consider, there and then, whether the act he is
about to do is good or bad. He must determine it by the light of
his knowledge of the will of God. If he does this honestly and to
the best of his ability his act, so far as he is concerned, is good.
He must always follow his conscience and act on his own honest
interpretation of the standard. His knowledge and conception of
it may change but the standard is unchangeable ; because founded
in the will and nature of God. It is man’s duty to act according
to the will of God as far as he knows it or honestly believes he
knows it at the time. His knowledqe of the will of God is the
measure of his merit or demerit.
Watts. The statement that the will of God is the standard of
right and wrong is a gratuitous assumption, a begging of the whole
question. No scintillation of evidence is produced in support of
the assertion. And many very eminent Christians have disagreed
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
17
with it in toto. Dr. Samuel Clarke, a far greater man than Father
Lambert—and, withal, a dignitary of the church—maintained that
the moral law was to be found in the fitness of things. Adam
Smith discovered it in sympathy, and Paley in a sort of utilitari
anism ; whilst, if I mistake not, Cardinal Bellarmine placed it in
the decisions of the Pope of Rome, and held that should the head
of the church decree that acts now considered moral should hence
forth be immoral, and vice versa, the moral law would be changed.
We deny that the will of God has aught to do with the standard of
right and wrong among men, and demand the proof. Let that
be forthcoming.
But, in the next place, where is this will of God recorded ? Surely
if it were to be discovered anywhere it should be in Nature. And
yet no one can gather from natural phenomena, what is right and
what is wrong. For, as Mill has shown, Nature does every day
that which men are imprisoned and hanged for doing. She is, and
can be, no guide in morals. Mr. Lambert will no doubt reply that
the will of God is to be found in the mandates of his churchand
the Protestant will tell you it is in the Bible. But here again we
want the proof, which is not forthcoming.
Moreover, the teachings of both the church and the Bible are so
contradictory that no formulated moral code can be obtained from
either one or the other, or both combined. The church has en
joined repeatedly the performance of acts atrocious in their cha
racter and pernicious in their results, and anathematized and
excommunicated those who had too high a moral nature to perform
them,—whilst the moral code of the Bible is such a heterogeneous
mass of contradictions that there is not wanting a text to justify
any act, however outrageously immoral.
Lambert. Protestants, like Catholics, hold that the will of God
is the standard, and they value the Bible only because they believe
it to be a revelation of that will.
Watts. Exactly, but that only shows how blind they all are.
The will of God, according to one, is in the Bible, and according
to the other, in the church ; and these two are in flagrant oppo
sition to each other. What is the use, therefore, of talking about:
an abstract will of God, which no one can discover, and about which
those who believe in it are at sixes and sevens ? If there be such,
a will it is perfectly useless to man as a guide in life, because na
one knows where it is to be found. And the moral code which
�18
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
society recognizes is found neither in the Bible nor in the church,
but based upon the general experience of mankind, as. to what is
best for the happiness of the race. Surely Father Lambert must
be aware of this.
Lacy. The standard of right and wrong, whatever rule may be
professed, is in the mind and heart of man and has varied from age
to age, as he advanced from the barbarism of the past to the com
parative enlightenment of the present.
Lambert. The standard is certainly in the mind of man, for all
peoples in all times have recognized a supreme will as the standard.
Catholics, Protestants and Jews call it the will of God; Pagans
call it the will of the gods—but all recognize a supreme, super
natural will as the standard of right and wrong. You say truly,
then, that it is in the mind of man. But it is not always in his heart,
for men often do what they know to be wrong. This standard has
never varied, though men’s know edge of it may have increased or
diminished, or their application of it may have differed.
Watts. It is assuredly a most astounding statement to make to
say that the standard of right and wrong has never varied. Why
it has never remained the same for a century at a time, and hardly
any two nations think alike about it. Moreover, where is the stan
dard ? What is the use of saying that different people call it the
will of God ? No two of them agree as to what that supposed will
enjoins. Unless the said will of God can be found written some
where in a plain and unmistakeable form, it amounts to nothing
more than “ a will-o-th-wisp.” The Roman Catholics say it is in
the Church, the Protestants in the Bible, the Parsee in the ZendAvesta, the Mohammedan in the Koran, the Hindoo in the Shaster
and Vedas, and the Pagan in none of them. And all these records
of the will of God teach different systems of morality. No doubt
men often do what they know to be wrong, but they also often dd
wrong believing it to be right. When Christians persecuted and
burned each other they did it most conscientiously, believing firmly
that they were obeying the moral law, acting in accordance with
the will of God, and therefore doing right. What has taught us
now that these acts were wrong ? Not the will of God, but the ad
vancement of human knowledge. The Roman Catholic would
think he was doing wrong in eating meat on a Friday, whilst the
Protestant laughs at this as a silly superstition. Where is the will
<of God, then, which both profess to take for their guide ?
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS- OF INFIDELS*' CRITICISED.
19
Lacy. Our knowledge of the rules of morality has come to us by
<slow degrees, and is not perfect yet.
Lambert. If so, we cannot say that murder, theft and adultery are
wrong. We must wait for developments ! Some new discovery
may yet prove that vice is virtue and virtue vice, that honesty is a
superstition, decency a prejudice and duty an illusion.
Watts. That is a non sequiter. Because we have not yet attained
to a perfect system of ethics, it does not follow that some questions
in connection with it are not settled. “ Murder, theft,” etc., are
known to be wrong, not because they conflict with some imaginary
■divine will, but because they are prejudicial to the well-being of
society. It would be very difficult, in fact, to prove that “ murder,
theft and adultery ” were contrary to the will of God, for all are
sanctioned in the Bible, and have been defended by the Holy
Catholic Church. That Church has committed murder on a very
large scale, has practised robbery in the confiscation of the pro
perty of heretics, and even Popes have been the fathers of illegiti
mate children, and, in some cases, the very personification of im
purity, lust and uncleanness. Yet these Popes were infallible, and
•the vehicles of the divine will. Is not this the height of absurdity?
Lacy. Christian theology also affirms that there are three Gods,
•co-equal and infinite in every divine attribute, although declaring
that the three are in some inexplicable sense, one.
Lambert. This is the kind of stuff infidel writers feed their credu
lous dupes on. It is difficult to understand how one brought up in
a Christian community, and pretending to know anything about
even the simplest elements of Christianity, could honestly make
■the above statement. ... A Sunday school boy of ten years
■who, after studying the first three chapters of his catechism, should
make such a statement as Mr. Lacy makes, would richly deserve
to be spanked for inattention or pitied for his stupidity....................
“ Christian theology affirms that there are three Gods ! ” The
man who makes such a statement sacrifices all claim to considera
tion as a scholar, or to having the most ordinary knowledge of the
subject he elects to talk about. Yet this is the kind of people who
are most flippant and noisy"ab'but theology, the Bible, and Moses.
They are always as ready, as a self-cocking pistol, to give their.
“ honest ” and ignorant contents. Here is the author of a book,
who undertakes to treat of philosophy, revelation and Christian
theology, and who attributes to Christians a doctrine they not only
do not hold, but which they have m all times conrfmned / And this
ignorant upstart states it as if it were a matter about which there
is no doubt whatever. Can any language be too severe for such an
�20
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’’ CRITICISED.
offence ? If he be ignorant of the Christian doctrine on this sub
ject he is too ignorant to discuss Christian theology in a cross road
grocery; and if he be not ignorant of the Christian doctrine of the
unity of God, and yet made in cold type the above statement what
are we to think of him ? Does not his statement justify me ’in dis
missing him as too ignorant or too dishonest to deal with in discus
sing the great question at issue ?
Watts. Here is a storm in a teacup. The Father’s holy ire is
like that of an incensed Jove. But he should remember that not
only is abuse not argument, but that, as a rule, it proves the lack,
of argument. To call an opponent ill names, apply to him such
complimentary epithets as “ ignorant upstart,” and rave about
his unfitness for the task he has undertaken, is, no doubt, quite in
keeping with the priestly intolerance of the popish hierarchy, but.
it is not likely to carry conviction to the calm and impartial reader..
The Father should remember the story of the dispute about the
body of Moses, recorded in “ sacred scripture,” between the devil
and an archangel. Verily that archangel would have been silent
had he encountered Father Lambert, and it is even questionablewhether the other disputant would have had much chance with
him. And, after all, what is the matter ? What is all this commo
tion about ?
Lambert. Christian theology affirms that there are not three
Gods, but one God, one divine nature, and that in this one divine
nature there are three persons. The unity is asserted of the divine
nature, tri-unity of the divine persons, and it does not require more
than average brains to understand that nature and personality are
not one and the same thing.
Watts. But personality surely implies a distinct and separate
consciousness. One Bishop, in fact—Sherlock I think—said that
the three persons in the Godhead were “ as distinct as Peter, James
and John.” That either means three Gods, or three persons of
whom each is one-third of a God. Which is it, Father Lambert ?
Don’t try to escape by calling out “ mystery.” There is no mystery
at all, but simply a use of words without meaning, which is thesynonym of nonsense. In fact, the mass of absurdity that has
been written on this question is astounding. Three Gods yet onlyone God.
Lambert. It is inexplicable how one can be one and three at thesame time and in the same sense, but that is precisely what Chris
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
21
tian theology does not affirm. When it affirms unity and trinity or
God it does not affim them in the same sense. It asserts that the
■divine nature is one; the divine persons, three.
Watts. Is that so, friend Lambert ? I must ask you whether
you are not familiar with a mass of nonsense called “ The Creed of
St. Athanasius.” Have you not subscribed to that creed ? Now
what does it say ? “ The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”
Now, tell me, does not this predicate that they are three and one in
the same sense 1 If not, then words have no meaning. Nothing can be
more clear and plain. And the absurdity is repeated a dozen
times or more in different ways—and always to show that these
existences are three and one in exactly the same sense. Who is
the “ ignorant upstart” now ? The tables are turned, Father, as
any one can see with half an eye.
Ingersoll. He (God) authorized the murder of millions.
Lambert, He never authorized or ordered the murder of anyone
from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and
those He places on this earth He can remove at His will No man
has a right to live one instant longer than his Creator wills him to
remain, be he born or unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of
God we are absolutely His and can have no right whatever as
against Him.
Lacy. The proposition embraced in the Father’s comment
raises two questions : ist, Has God a “ right ” to do whatever He
arbitrarily might will with His creature man, moulded in His
image, whom He made a little lower than the angels, and thought
worthy of a crown of glory and honour ? Has He the right, for
instance, to inflict wanton punishment without any moral aim
whatever ?
Lambert. Yes. He has the right to do whatever He wills with
His creature man, first, because being infinitely perfect He wills
rightly and justly, and secondly, because man is His creature. To
suppose God to will unjustly or punish wantonly is to suppose Him
to be imperfect, but you cannot suppose this since you have ad
mitted Him to be perfect. God being infinitely perfect and just
His will is infinitely perfect and just; and an infinitely perfect and
just will has a right to will what .it wills to will. This does not
need demonstration, it follows from the admitted existence of a
perfect Being.
Watts. This bit of Jesuitical sophistry is worthy of a priest. It,
in fact, begs the question in dispute. How are the perfections ot
�22
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
any being to be learned but by the acts of such a being ? God is.
assumed to be a perfect being and then all kinds of what, under
other circumstances, would be deemed not only imperfect but very
vile and atrocious acts, ascribed to Him, are said to be perfect
because He performed them. This is logic with a vengeance. The
acts of God prove His perfection, and His perfection makes the
acts perfect. There is, then, no absolute distinction between per
fection and imperfection. A man declares that he has a command
from God to commit murder, and he slays most brutally many of
his fellow men. This is not a crime, because of the assumption
that a perfect being ordained it to be done. But no, the man may
have been a deceiver, or himself deceived, and thus his act not of
God at all. Exactly. And to-day no one would believe his story
about his having received such a command from God. Why, then,
should not the same common sense be used when discussing thepretensions of men who lived in earlier times ? Assume, if you
please, that God is perfect and just. Then it follows, as clear as
that two and two make four, that He could never have commanded
any human being to perform acts which are unjust. But the Bibleascribes such commands to Him. Therefore the Bible is, so far
at all events, false. The atrocious murders and vile licentious acts,,
which are said to have been commanded by God in the Old Tes
tament, were either ordered by Him or they were not. If they
were, then He is unjust; if they were not, the story is untrue. Let
Father Lambert choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If
there be a God He has given to man the faculties by which justice
can be distinguished from injustice, benevolence from malignity,,
virtue from vice, and by those faculties the acts ascribed to God
himself must be judged. To believe otherwise is to make thejustice and goodness of God terms without meaning.
Lacy Has He (God) the right to inflict wanton suffering with
out any moral aim whatever ?
Lambert. This is an absurd question. It is as if you should ask,.
Has the perfect Being the right to do wrong ? Has the perfect
Being the right to be imperfect ? A question that supposes im
perfection in the perfect Being involves a contradiction and requires
no answer. God, being perfect, has a right to do as He wills.
Watts. But can He will to do wrong ? If not, then we err when
we ascribe wrong to Him. And that is iust what the Bible does.
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
23
To say that an act which would be wrong in man is right in God,
is to deny that there is any absolute distinction between right and
wrong. Or, if the will of God makes an act right and just, then
there is no meaning in saying that God acts rightly, or justly, and,
moreover, such acts as murder, theft, etc., having been decided to
be right because God commanded them, then it is only right that
men should so regard them. And on this principle the Holy (?)
Catholic Church has acted again and again in the history of the
past, when she resorted to the fire and faggot argument to con
vince heretics. Such sophistical quibbling as this priest indulges
in is pitiable.
Lambert. The difficulty is not in conceiving divine justice, but
in understanding its application. Our ignorance of all the condiditions, circumstances and divine purposes disables us from judg
ing the acts of God in any given case. But, knowing that he is
the perfect Being, we must conclude a priori that his every act is
just, without reference to how it may appear to us whose minds
are rendered impotent by ignorance. To know what justice is and
to discern the justice of a particular act are different things. Man
is capable of the former but not of the latter in all cases, for the
latter depends on conditions of which he is ignorant.
Watts. But what is this but saying that we know nothing at all
about God ? What nonsense to talk of God’s perfections, when
we are unable to judge of what perfection in him would con
sist. We can only judge of any act, whether of a man or a God,
by such faculties as we possess, and if these are useless for the
purpose in the case of God, how absurd it must be to talk of the
justice of God at all. 'If justice in God means something totally
different from justice in man, it is only misleading to say that God
is just. I am told that God is love, but that may, upon this prin
ciple of reasoning, mean something totally different from what I
understand by the term, from its use amongst men; it may in
fact mean the very opposite,—hate. But all this goes to show how
idle it is to talk at all about that which no one can understand.
All the adjectives which Mr. Lambert uses to describe God, may
mean something entirely different to the ideas they convey when
applied to men, and therefore only serve to make “ confusion more
confounded.”
Lacy. If God be God, he is no Nero, no Herod, no Gessler,
but a Father lifting up his children to himself.
�24
the CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
Lambert. This is true, and therefore you and Ingersoll slander
him when you make him out a tyrant.
Watts. 'Why, it is you who make him a tyrant, by declaring
that tyranny is not tyranny when practised by him. Your entire
argument is, in fact, a defence of his tyranny by an endeavour to
show that his most tyrannical acts are right.
Lambert. If it (the Bible) is inspired by God, its pre*cepts and
commands must be just and right, however they may appear to
us. It will not do to say the Book commanded unjust things to
be done, and therefore it is not inspired. This is to beg the ques
tion, for if it be inspired those things which you imagine to be
unjust are not and cannot be unjust.
Watts. Well, but does not the fact that this book commands
unjust acts, or what we should call unjust acts under any other
circumstances, prove that it is not inspired by a just God ? And
if it be inspired, then we ought to take our ideas of justice from its
pages, and completely revolutionize our present ethical code.
But even Father Lambert dares not do this. Acts are com
manded, or said to be commanded, by God in the Old Testament,
which Mr. Lambert, with the fear of the law before his eyes,
dares not to perform in America. He might plead that they
were right because they had been approved of by God. But a
judge—even a Christian judge—would make short work of all such
nonsense, and the Father would soon find himself where he could
write no more books on the “ Tactics of Infidels.”
Lambert. He who has the absolute right to take life cannot be
guilty of murder in taking it ; for murder is. an unjust killing, and
there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the
absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning
except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this
but by denying God’s existence ; for on the hypothesis that he
exists, he is creator, and being creator, the absolute right of dominion
over his creatures necessarily follows, * * * to deny this
right is to deny God’s existence.
Lacy. If by absolute dominion he meant to govern without
regard to the principles of justice, written by God’s own finger on
the human heart, we fail to see it.
Lambert. Inasmuch as absolute dominion does not . mean to
govern without regard to the principles of justice, your if is of no
consequence. No one thinks of asserting that the perfect Being
can govern without reference to his own essential attributes, of
which justice is one. When I assert the absolute dominion of God,
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
25
I simply assert that he is accountable to no one but himself, and
that whatever he does, merely because he does it, is beyond human
criticism.
Watts. This begs the whole question. We maintain, as Mr.
.Lambert must know, that the book is not true which ascribes
unjust acts to God. He assumes that God did act as here repre
sented, and then declares the acts recorded to be good, because
they were done by God.
But if our sense of justice is to be considered a guide for
our own conduct, we have the right to criticise, by means of
the same faculty, the actions of others. And when we are
told with one breath that God is good and with the next that
lie is the author of acts at which humanity shudders with
horror, we simply say that no one but a born fool can believe
both statements.
Either God is not good, or else it is fake
to say that he performed, or ordered to be performed, the acts
which are ascribed to Him in the Bible. The only other alterna
tive is to assert that we are incapable of judging of what is just
and right. But that is a more fatal position still to the Christian,
for it involves the fact that we have no guide for our own conduct.
Hence, we ourselves may kill and torture, inflict pain in the most
brutal form, and declare it wise and good to do so. In truth this
is what the Church has done in all ages, and no wonder, with such
pious examples before them ascribed to their God. If we are at
all capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between
justice and injustice, then we say boldly that such cruel acts as are
ascribed to God in the Bible are most terribly unjust. Nor is it
any answer to say that God did them, for that is to say he has no
sense of justice himself and is not good. We have rights even
against God himself, for, if he exists, it was he who gave us the
faculties by which his own acts are condemned. Our position,
However, is this, that the book which ascribes acts of horror, deeds
of blood and fierce cruelty to God is not true. Father Lambert,
with all the audacious effrontery of his class, assumes the truth of
the record and then proceeds to raise a superstructure of argument
upon the assumption. And this miserable quibbling he calls logical
reasoning.
Lambert. The Hebrew military laws did not abandon captive
women to the insolence and brutality of captors. On the contrary
�16
THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
they made special provision forbidding the first familiarities of thesoldier with his captives. If you study the 21st chapter of Deuter
onomy, verses 10 to 14, you will learn that the soldier was obliged,
to make the captive his wife.
Watts . But to compel a woman to marry a man whom she
loathed and detested, a foreign invader of her country, the
slaughterer of her kindred and friends, does not mend the matter
much. What was such a marriage but another form of foul
licentiousness ? This explanation leaves the case nearly as bad as
it was before. Compulsory marriage of people who detest each
other, solely for the purpose of gratifying the lust of the man, is
brutal, unjust, and loathsome.
Lambert. As further proof you quote from Numbers: “But all
the women children who have not known man by lying with him,.
keep for yourselves,'1' and add :—
Lacy. Female innocence to be offered on the altar of lust!’
Noble trophies of victory !
Lambert. A Comanche Indian would probably interpret the
verse that way. But what is there in the words to justify the
inference that the captives were devoted to the lusts of the captors ?
The captives were to be adopted into the nation and subsequently
to intermarry with the Jews in accordance with the law of
Deuteronomy quoted above. It is only a libidinous imagination
that can give the words any other interpretation. The United
States government “ keeps for itself ” the children of those Indianswhom it destroys. Are we to infer that those children are to be
offered on the altar of lust ?
Watts. But to charge your opponent with having “ a libidinous,
imagination,” although a very Christian argument, does not get rid
of the difficulty. The text, interpreted by common sense, and not
by theological hocus pocus, clearly means that these young women
were kept alive for purposes of debauchery. Otherwise, why thequalifications stated ? The case of the children of the Indians is
not analogous, for there both sexes are preserved and treated in
, the same way. Here it was the females only, and they of a par
ticular age, and in their virginity. The sophistry of this wily priest
may be able to do much in the form of hood-winking his credulous
dupes, but it is inadequate to the task of explaining away the plain
meaning of this charming and delicious text.
Lacy. In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that
slavery is an evil and polygamy a sin ?
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
2/
Lambert. He does most emphatically require those who reject
revelation to prove the wrong or sinfulness of slavery and poly
gamy. Those who believe in revelation believe they are wrong be
cause they are forbidden. But on what principle do you, who re
ject revelation, believe they are wrong ? Oh, they are slimy and
filthy. There, there, we have had enough of that kind of talk ; it
proves nothing.
Watts. Can anything be conceived of equal to this in reckless
and impudent audacity ? Revelation forbids slavery and polygamy ?
Where ? Let us have chapter and verse. Both are pretty gener
ally referred to in the Bible, and always without a single word of
condemnation. Had any unbeliever made an assertion of this
character, Mr. Lambert, with his excessive politeness, would have
called him a “ liar.” The entire statement is simply truth reversed.
Those who attach no importance to so-called supernatural revela,tion are the men who have always been first and foremost in con
demning polygamy and denouncing slavery, whilst the Christian
Church defended at least one of these monstrous evils up to quite
recent times. Why are they wrong ? Because they sap the founda
tion of all society, and are out of harmony with the best interests
of mankind. That is why, Mr. Lambert, and not because they are
condemned or forbidden by your so-called revelation, which they
most assuredly are not. Such an attempt to hoodwink the ig
norant dupes of a miserable superstition has rarely been witnessed
as is presented in the pages of this cunning priest’s book.
Lambert. The apostles claimed a divine communication and mis
sion. They worked miracles.
La,cy. Here again is a begging of the question by one who was
to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is assumed
that miracles were wrought, the very statement denied in the con
troversy.
Lambert. There is the same evidence to prove the miracles of
Christ and the apostles that there is to prove the existence and .
acts of Alexander and Csesar, namely, history and tradition. If
we rej( ct the former we must on the same principle reject the latter,
and if we adopt this principle we cut ourselves off comparatively
from all the events and personages of the past. The miracles of
Christ and His apostles are historic facts or events subject to the
same rules of historic criticism that other facts are.
Watts. But it should be borne in mind that this is just what we
deny, and for which we demand and wait for proof. Is there the same
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
historic evidence of the Christian miracles that there is for the ex
istence and actions of Alexander and Caesar ? If so, it is marvel
lously strange that it is never forthcoming. Why does not this
priest produce it ? We are tolerably familiar with the sort of evi
dence that his Church deals in. It is manufactured for the pur
pose, and is no doubt very conclusive to the poor dupes who are
bamboozled by an objectionable class of ecclesiastical dictators
who preserve their authority and their pay by lording it over their
victims. But rational men, who are not in bondage to the most
iniquitous hierarchy that has ever disgraced the earth, are not to
he fooled in this way. We assert boldly that no such evidence can
be produced, nor such evidence as would satisfy a legal mind and
convince an intelligent jury in a court of justice, even were the
issue the conviction of a prisoner for stealing a brass-headed nail.
But does not Mr. Lambert see that the cases are not at all analo
gous ? In the first place, it is of no great importance whether
Csesar lived or not, or whether Alexander performed the acts
ascribed to him. The question is not a very momentous one.- The
world would not be much affected whatever decision was arrived at
regarding it. But on the belief in the miracles of Jesus our eternal
salvation, it is said, depends, and evidence should therefore be ob
tainable about which no mistake could be made, and which no rea
soning could overturn. And secondly, everyone knows that the
strength of evidence tendered in support of any event should be in
proportion to the commonness or uncommonness of the event it
self. That which would suffice to prove an ordinary event would
be perfectly inadequate to show that an extraordinary one had
taken place. If I am told that such a man as Csesar lived, I have
no reason to doubt it, because there is nothing improbable in the
alleged fact. But if I were informed that he worked miracles, and
* came to life again after he was dead, the highly improbable char
acter of the circumstance would render much strong evidence ne
cessary before I should be convinced. There are stories told in
fact, which no amount of evidence could establish as true. The
testimony of a million men could not prove that which, by the very
nature of things, is impossible. And although I am not saying that
the miracles recorded in the New Testament are impossible, I do
say that they outrage all the laws of probability, and can only,
therefore, be believed on the production of an amount of evidence
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
2q
ten thousand times greater than that which would suffice to show
that Csesar had lived and written the commentaries ascribed to
him, or that Alexander had been a great warrior.
Lucy. The sceptic says, along with miracles we read of witch
craft and demoniacal possessions.
Lambert. And the merchant says, along with gold coin he meets
with counterfeits, but he is not so asinine as to reject all money
on that account. He takes care, however, to test each piece or
note, and rejects the false and accepts the true.
Watts. ' So, so, Father. There is the same difference between
miracles and such cases as those of witchcraft and demoniacal
possession, as between good coin and counterfeit money. Be
it so. But both the Bible and the huge ecclesiastical estab
lishment which you call the church, treat all three with the same
authority. Then, miracles are true, and demoniacal possession
and witchcraft spurious. It is quite refreshing to find a Romish
priest writing like this. It seems after all that there is a good deal
of counterfeit in the Bible and in the Church, which is just what
we have always maintained. Surely this was a slip of the pen on the
part of the priest. Witchcraft spurious ! Yet the Church has
put to death many thousands of persons for practising it. Demo
niacal possession a sham ! Yet the Bible teaches it, and the Church
maintains its truth. Be careful, Lambert, or you will be indicted
for heresy by your own church, and may be compelled, like poor
Gallileo, before any ignorant tribunal of the same hierarchy, to
eat your own words and recant.
Lacy. A crazy man was supposed to be possessed by the devil.
Lambert. Supposed by whom ? Where did you acquire this
piece of information which you impart so gratuitously ? We find
in the Scripture that certain persons were said to be possessed, but
we do not find that crazy men were supposed to be possessed. This
is an inference of your own which is not justified by the premises.
As a matter of fact the Scriptures themselves make a distinction
between demoniac possession and insanity, and recognize the exis
tence of both.
. Watts. The Scriptures “ recognize the existence of both.” Quite
so. Then please, Father Lambert, tell us how you reconcile this
with your former statement, that demoniacal possessions were
spurious and stood in the same relation to miracles that counter
�30
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
feit does to genuine coin. We know perfectly well that in the Bible
a distinction is made between insanity and the being possessed by
devils, but we contend that this shows the ignorance of those who
wrote the Bible. No scientific man to day believes in demoniacal
possession, and Christians of education use their utmost endeavours
and the most ingenious and sophistical arguments to explain away
the meaning of those passages in the New Testament, where it is
mentioned. But to be serious, is such childish nonsense worth dis
cussing ? The fact is, Christianity in its orthodox form is obsolete,
and the wretched old wbrn out despotism, called the Church of
Rome, out of place in the midst of modern civilization. It could
only flourish in an age of ignorance, darkness and superstition and
must disappear before the light of science as clouds before the
noonday sun. That any man of intelligence can be found in this
age to defend its audacious pretensions, its absurd dogmas, its
puerile mummeries, its despotic proceedings, its persecuting spirit,
its illiterate and ignorant priesthood, its ridiculous claims, its
false and mischievous teaching, is perfectly astounding. But
so it is. Delusions die hard, and the greater the delusion, some
times the harder the death. Demoniacal possession ! What would
be thought of any man who should talk about that absurdity in a
meeting of men of science ? He would simply be laughed at, and
no one would deem it worth noticing, nor his opinions worthy of
discussion.
Lacy. We hear the Bible called “ God’s Book,” as if it had been
written as a unit.
Lambert. If you heard that you must be in the habit of keeping
•strange company. If you had asked an intelligent Christian for
information on the subject, he would have told you that it was
written by many authors and at long intervals of time; that its
present arrangement, chaptering and versification are a matter of
convenience.
Watts. It is a quibble, and a very poor one at that, to say that
the Bible is acknowledged by Christians to be composed of many
different books which were written by various men at different
time£, therefore, it is not spoken of as “ a unit,” or one. Mr. Lam
bert knows perfectly well that according to Christian belief these
were simply instruments in the hands of God, in fact, vehicles
through whom the divine teaching flowed down to mankind, and
that their own private views are not found at all in what they wrote.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
31
The book had one author and that author was God, the men em
ployed being simply amanuenses, writing down what they were
inspired to put on record. Everywhere, therefore, amongst Chris
tians this volume is spoken of as a unit, under the name of the
Word of God. The teaching in its various parts—in whatever
age written—is believed to be of equal divine authority, and pass
ages from every book are frequently preached from in the pulpit,
and quoted in every-day life as applicable to the affairs of human
existence as we find it at the present time. The Romanist, of course,
puts the authority of his church above the Bible, but no Protestant
will for a moment allow this to be done. With both the Bible is
the word of God, and the latter takes as his motto, “ The Bible,
the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The “ strange com
pany,” therefore, was Christian company. Strange enough, no
-doubt, but Christian still.
Lacy. The Pope is in his own sacred person also infallible.
Lambert. Here as usual in presenting Catholic doctrines you mis
represent. Had you consulted any of the many books which treat
of the decrees of the council of the Vatican you would have learned
that they do not teach that the Pope personally, or as a private
individual, is infallible, but that he is infallible only in his official
■capacity, as supreme head and judge of the church. As a lawyer
you should understand this distinction. You know the decision of
one of our judges given as a private individual, and unofficial, has
no weight in law ; while the same decision given formally in his
public and official capacity, is decisive.
Watts. If anywhere in the world a prize should be given for
quibbling this priest would certainly take it against all comers.
He is surely the champion hair splitter. How adroitly he intro
duces an analogy, which is no analogy at all, and thus throws dust
into the eyes of his readers, and then winds up with a flourish of
trumpets as though he had achieved a great victory over his
antagonist. The Pope is infallible only in his official capacity,
whatever that may mean. He is infallible as head of the church.
.But is he not always head of the church? If yes, then he is
always infallible, if no, who is head of the church when he is not ?
Or is the church sometimes without a head ? There is no analogy
-in the case of the judge dragged in neck and crop. The opinion
of a judge will be just as sound and just as accurate in private as
an public, only if given in the one case it has authority, whilst in
�32
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
the other it has not. But infallibility cannot be laid aside then,,
for it is an individual and not an official quality. An infallible
being must be always infallible, no matter where and to what his
infallible power is applied, and if the Pope be really infallible, heis quite as much so when giving orders about his dinner, choosing
his servants, selecting his stockings, or scolding his menials, or
when delivering his decrees ex cathedra in the conclave of Bishops.
To maintain the contrary is to ascribe the infallibility to the chair
in which he sits or to some of his official surroundings, which
would be too absurd even for a Roman Catholic to maintain, which
is saying a great deal.
This infallibility doctine has been the curse of mankind in all
ages where it has been taught. It has deluged the world with
blood, and stopped the onward march of progress by fire and
sword. Superstition is its twin brother, persecution is its offspring,
and cruelty of the most damnable kind the weapon it has ever em
ployed. The Protestant ascribes infallibility to his Bible, and the
Romanist to a common-place old man in the Vatican. We say “ a
plague on both your houses 1 ” Infallibility is not within the reach
of human beings, and they who pretend to have it cannot avoid
arrogating to themselves superiority over their fellows, and treating
better men than themselves as inferiors. The arrogant and often,
impertinent and insolent tone of the author of “ Tactics of Infidels ”
bespeaks the true papist in every line. He is a priest of an infal
lible church, which church is unparalleled for the mischief it has
done in the world by any organization in ancient and modern times,.
It has everywhere championed despotism, ignorance and priestly
intolerance, and has seldom, if ever, been found on the side of free
dom, benevolence, and justice. But its end is near. It is out of har
mony with the institutions of this country, and with the aspirations
of modern thought. When it is gone, the people will breathe more
freely, and feel that a horrible night-mare has been removed.
�
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
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. At head of title: 'Orthodox criticism tested!'
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
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"), 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
RA1856
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
Secularism