-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/006dc4e4c5e721ce3045e81f65645d3d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UR8eyVrY50mUOa54ICblcK9cVliaW7mXzANW0-a1Jkz2LTekMu3jtxorG3%7EFKpkDIlaz-mFbnaMU1BmAcSn1qNpMuA4Mugsr0mFV2WlunraJGKtbQP5H-3XCQJJ3NQO26G6nTzDfXxhEi5QgzfTi96AI5t2elIDL2SQDZ385EsiO0qWLtc3lIEVNCLKiwJjZZy%7Eeg-z6pis75I4aO04A4Xqe9mavRwGRR%7EGuawx53B9JWW7YCz82pBx-ukcWV9p0aoAekds-1J9KWT-xWkuGjwDFlWvNjSA90Vnx-7PmOnNIeAux0k3VHy03E3ssPOXoUtN%7EynraizkF-XqIDpdgZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a7afbc3b7932ca12421bc4426dc6da7a
PDF Text
Text
DOES MORALITY
DEPEND ON LONGEVITY?
BY
EDW. VAN SITTART NEALE.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
187|.
Price Sixpence.
SCOTT,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. EEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�A
DOES MORALITY
DEPEND ON LONGEVITY?
F any one were to maintain that it is impossible
to give children any sense of the excellence of
truthfulness and the evil of falsehood; that they
cannot be induced to exercise any control over their
tempers, or to keep from pilfering sweet things ; that
they cannot be brought to obey the commands given
them by their parents, though no eye may witness
the disobedience, because it is right to obey and wrong
to disobey them; that, in short, they cannot be
formed into virtuous and noble characters unless you
can assure them that they will certainly live to be
very old men and women, and during this long period
—endless to the imagination of a child—will reap
the fruits of all their childish virtues in a prosperous,
happy life, or gather up the bitter consequences of
a contrary conduct in a miserable existence;—we
should laugh at such a disputant as one who defied
the teachings of experience, and lived in a world of
self-deluding dreams. And no one, I think, could
expose this folly more forcibly than “ Presbyter
Anglicanus,” if he thought it worth while to pull
such notions to pieces. Yet, what is the doubt
which the Presbyter so seriously expresses in his
tract, part of this series, ‘ On the Doctrine of Immor
tality in its bearing on Education ’ ? “ Whether, if
I
�4
Does Morality defend
we cut existence short at the moment which we call
death, there can be any morality at all ” (p. 7), but
an exaggerated form of the proposition that children
cannot be induced to exercise childish virtues and
eschew childish vices, unless you can assure them of
a long extension of life, in which they will experience
the good or bad consequences of their childish
actions.
But if it be true of children, in whom the genuine
tendencies of our nature manifest themselves in their
most native purity, that in order to produce goodness
it is not necessary to appeal to remote future conse
quences, but that it is necessary only to awaken
into activity the instinctive feelings of truthfulness,
gentleness, self-denial for the sake of others—the
harmonies of love, hidden beneath the conflicting
impulses of passion, but as a directing power which,
once aroused to action, claims the right to rule,—why
should we question the sufficiency of the same force
if it is appealed to in our subsequent life, to carry on
the work commenced in childhood, without intro
ducing as a motive the calculation of future conse
quences either on the earth or after death ? I cannot
find in the reasoning of “ Presbyter Anglicanus ”
any ground for such a questioning, except the state
ment, which I do not dispute, that the present edu
cation of English youth “ is based upon the idea of
their existence hereafter as well as here ; that the
teaching of all our great schools, and, probably, of
all the schools of every denomination, is not only
founded upon, but steeped in, this idea.”
Now, no doubt if the alternative of not insisting on
this belief as the foundation of moral principle were
what the Presbyter seems to contemplate, namely,
that it must be based solely on an appeal to the
calculation of its advantages to the individual in the
conduct of life, combined with a positive assertion
on the part of the teacher “ that after this fife is over
�on Longevity <?
$
there is and can be. no future life,” the consequence
might be expected'to be a general break-down of
morality. But it appears to me that both our present
experience of human nature in children, and the his
tory of mankind, prove this alternative to be by i o
means the only one left us. And at the present time,
when, as “ Presbyter Anglicanus ” will, I am cer
tain, admit, the customary proofs of the doctrine of
immortality, drawn from the assumed infallibility
of the Scriptures, are giving way, on all sides, before
the progress of critical research into those Scrip
tures ; which must, sooner or later, force upon all
honest and well-informed inquirers the conviction
that, whatever is their value—and to me it is very
great—they are simply human productions, no more
able to reveal the state of things in unseen
wotlds than is the ‘ Phaedo ’ of Plato; it does
appear to me, also, of no small importance in the
education of the young, that we should rest the
principles of conduct upon the knowable and pre
sent, instead of upon a future about which we can
only dogmatize without knowing anything certain.
With this view I propose to adduce some considera
tions, such as seem to me to show that there is no
necessity for making this uncertain forecast in
order to gain a solid foundation either for religion
or morality.
I. Antiquity offers us the spectacle of two adjoin
ing nations, which have filled an important part in
the religious history of mankind—the Egyptians and
the Jews. We know now that the whole religious
System of Egypt was founded upon the firm convic
tion that the conscious spirit survived death, and
entered into a state determined by the deeds done in
the body. Among the Jews, on the contrary, notwith
standing their long intercourse with Egypt, the idea
of immortality appears scarcely to have found en
drance at all till after the Babylonian captivity, when
�6
Does Morality depend
they seem to have borrowed it from the Persians,
Even in the work which especially deals with the
matters now most commonly relied upon as postu
lating, so to speak, our own future being if we would
not deny the Being of God, namely, the unmerited
sufferings of the good,—even in the Book of Job,
this idea is wanting. For the Goel of chapter xix. is*
very clearly, no God to be seen after death; but a
deliverer in whom Job confides that He will appear
at last on earth to justify him, as, in fact, he does
appear in the concluding chapters of the Book. Can
anything be more startling ? Here are writings
which have furnished the storehouse of the profoundest religious feeling for successive ages; writings
which have been the well-spring of the living water of
trust in God. Yet it is clear that the writers by
whom they were produced had no firm hold on the
idea of their individual conscious existence after
death, if, indeed, they had any faith in it at all. Now
suppose that, instead of the Psalms and Prophets,
mankind had been fed upon extracts from the ‘ Book
of the Dead,’ or any similar Egyptian work, will any
one maintain that the religious or moral effect could
have been as great, and rich, and varied as the effect
of the knowledge of the Old Testament has been ?
But this is not all the lesson which the story of
the Jews teaches. After the captivity they learnt
from their Persian deliverers the idea of immortality.
Under its influence they produced, as we learn from
the recent critical researches into the Canon of the
Old Testament, the Books of the Ceremonial Law,
the Books of Chronicles, the Visions of Daniel and
accompanying Apocryphal writings, and that system
of the authoritative interpretation of the ancient
Scriptures, which first stifled their spiritual life
beneath the formality of Pharisaism, and ultimately
replaced the Bible by the Talmud. In exact contrast
with what modern theories would induce us to expect,
�on Longevity f
7
we find the Jewish spirit full of religious life when
it did not believe in the prolongation of individual
existence, and sinking into a mummified torpor when
it took a firm hold on this expectation.
II. At the opposite extremity of Asia Minor to the
home of the Jewish race, we find that of the most
highly-gifted member of the great Aryan family—the
Greeks. To them, as to the Egyptians, a future state
of reward and punishment for their conduct in this
life was a matter of religious faith. The popular
morality, the traditionally orthodox education of
their youth, was founded on it. Was the morality
thus based able to resist the influences of increasing
wealth, growing power, and the manifold temptations
which the life of cities brings with it ? The story of
Thucydides and Xenophon, the comedies of Aristo
phanes, and the complaints of Plato, offer abundant
evidence that it was not.
But within this corrupt civilisation there grew up a
body of men whose morality, however much we may
find to criticise in it, undoubtedly did rise to a level
far higher than that of their countrymen in general—
a body of men who, during a long succession of gene
rations, under the political annihilation which came
over Greece with the rise of the Macedonian and
Roman empires, continued to be the living witnesses
for the efficacy of principles of conduct not based
upon any calculation of external advantages, to pro
duce virtuous action—I mean, of course, the Greek
philosophers ; of whom we must remember that they
were not merely a few eminent men, but a numerous
body of persons, professing to follow certain fixed
rules of life, and who appear to have, for the most
part, fulfilled this profession.
Now, among these Greek philosophers, it seems
clear that the doctrine of individual immortality met
with very doubtful acceptance, and, even where it
was accepted, did not occupy a prominent place as the
�8
Does Morality depend
foundation of moral conduct. Socrates, for instance,
according to the account of the speech made by him
at his trial given by Plato, presents two alternatives :
E
’ ither, he says, death is a dreamless sleep, in which
case it cannot but be a gain, if we compare this per
fect quiet with any other night or day of our whole
life; or, it is a migration to some state where the dead
might live in delightful intercourse with the great
men who bad died before them.* And this is all that
he says about it. Again, in the intimate conversation
narrated in the ‘ Phtedo of Plato,’ to have taken place
on the day of his death, where he heaps up a variety
of arguments to establish the position that the soul
is eternal by its nature, he does not present'this con
ception at all as the foundation of morality, but only
as a consideration which should make the philosopher
welcome death rather than fly from it. “ For how,”
he asks, “in truth, should those who philosophise
rightly not wish to be dead, how should not death be
to them, of all men, the least terrible ? Would it not
be the height of unreason if those who have always
quarrelled with the body, and longed to possess the
spirit in itself, should be fearful and angry when this
happens, instead of eagerly going there, where, when
they arrive, they may hope to attain what they have
elected throughout their life ; for they have chosen
wisdom, and to be delivered from that with which they
quarrelled so long as they possessed it.’’f Of the
argument so much in favour with the moderns, which
identifies the prolongation of our individual existence
beyond the tomb, with trust in the goodness and
justice of God, there is scarcely a trace in the
‘ Phsedo the only approach to it being the “ cawZmn,”
that, if the soul is incapable of destruction, and death,
therefore, cannot deliver us from the consequences of
our past acts, the wicked cannot be freed by it “ at
once from their sins and their souls; but the only
* Apology towards the end.
t Phsedo, § 34.
�on Longevity?
9
deliverance from evil must lie in a good life.”* But
this conception is so far from having formed the basis
of the moral teaching of Socrates, that, to judge by
the tone of this conversation, his notions on the
immortality of the soul would appear to have been
kept by him as a subject for his private meditations,
and to have been communicated to his friends, only
upon the close approach of his own death. And
they rest, for their chief support, upon the persuasion,
entirely strange to our modern conceptions of immor
tality, that our souls come to us out of a previous
state of conscious existence, and bring with them the
knowledge of ideas, or general principles, which the
experiences of sensation gradually re-awaken in our
memories.
Passing from this beginning of philosophical specu
lation to a point far advanced in its course, to the age
of Cicero, we find a yet more striking absence of any
connection between the idea of immortality and the
principles of morality in the eloquent treatise where
this great Roman thinker sums up, in his old age, the
reasonings of Greek philosophy on this subject in the
first book of his Tusculan disputations. Although
he expresses his own belief in the Platonic doctrine
of immortality, which he rests principally upon an
argument ascribed to Socrates in the Phcedrus of
Plato, that that must be eternal which possesses the
power of self-motion, and, as this power is possessed
by the soul, the soul must be eternal; an argument
which he applies to all living creatures,f yet all the
concluding portion of the treatise is occupied in
demonstrating that death is not to be dreaded, even
although it should involve the total loss of conscious
ness. How little morality depended in his judgment
* Phsedo, § 130.
f Inanimum est enim omne quod pulsu agitatur externo, quod autem
est animal id motu cietur interiore et suo. Nam haec est propria natura
animi, atque vis ; quae, si ipsa semper moveat, neque nata certa est, et
eterna est.—Ch. 23.
�IO
Does Morality Depend
on the continuance of individual existence, we gather
from the declaration made by him towards the close
of this argument, that “ no one has lived too short a
time who has perfectly discharged the duties of per
fect virtue.” * It is still more conclusively shown by
the fact that his celebrated “ Offices,” his great work
on moral duty, is avowedly founded upon the treatise
by Pansetius, who on this point, as he tells us, “ dissented
from Plato; whom everywhere else he calls divine,
the wisest, the holiest, the Homer of philosophers,
but whose doctrine of the immortality of the soul he
Rejected on the ground that whatever is born must
die, and whatever is subject to disease must be sub
ject to death.f This, it should also be observed, was
the general doctrine of the Stoics, of whom Cicero
says that they “ likened men to crows, asserting that
the soul lasted a long time, but not always.” J Yet
the Stoics are notorious for having taught a morality
which, if open to the charge of being wanting in
tenderness, undoubtedly exercised a most powerful
influence over the' minds of those who embraced it,
moulding their whole course of life, and leading
them, in very numerous instances, to an almost
ascetic renunciation of the pleasures of sense.
We see, then, that the history of four of the most
remarkable nations of the ancient world by no means
supports the notion that man is not furnished by his
Maker with sufficient motives for noble action deriv
able from the world in which he finds himself placed,
and the faculties of which he finds himself possessed,
but must draw the stimulus to present goodness from
a future to which he has no access. On the other
hand, if we consider what have been the consequences
of acting upon the latter assumption, we shall, I
think, find still more reason for questioning its truth.
Six centuries after Semitic and Aryan thought had
effected a union in Christianity, took place that fierce
♦ Ch. 45.
t.Tusc. Quest., I., ch. 32.
J lb., ch. 51.
�on Longevity ?
II
outburst of Semitic faith in the absolute will and
unconditional sovereignty of God, called by us
Mahometanism. The great instrument by which the
triumphs of this creed were effected was its uncom
promising declaration of a future state, where the
faithful would obtain from Allah a recompense for
his toils and sufferings in endless joys, and the un
believer would be precipitated by his relentless com
mand into endless tortures. “ Hell is much hotter,”
was the reply of the Prophet to the remonstrances of
the Arabs who, on his proclamation of war against the
Romans, “ objected the want of money, or horses, or
provisions, the season of harvest, and? the intolerable
heat of the summer.” * “ Paradise is before you, the
devil and hell-fire in your rear,” was the pithy
exhortation of the Arab generals to their troops,
before the battle of Yermuk, which gave to the
Moslems the possession of Syria, f The imagination
enlisted on the side of Islam proved as powerful to
sustain the active courage of the fanatic warrior, as
it had been, in earlier times, to sustain the patient
fortitude of the Christian martyr.
IV. If the East has thus testified to the danger
which may await morality when it is built upon a faith
emancipated from the control of present experience,
the West has borne a not less powerful witness to the
same truth in the history of the attempts made within
the Christian Church to extinguish heresy. Gibbon,
basing his calculations upon the number of martyrs
whom Eusebius states to have suffered in Palestine
during the great persecution in consequence of the
Edict of Diocletian, and upon the probable propor
tion borne by the population of Palestine to that of
the rest of the empire, estimates the number of
Christians on whom capital punishment was inflicted
by judicial sentence throughout the Roman Empire
♦ Gibbon, ch. 50 ; Ed. 1855.
t lb., ch. 51; 76, 318.
�12
Does Morality defend
during the ten years that this persecution lasted, as
somewhat less than 2,000; * while Grotius declares
that, in the Netherlands alone, 100,000 of the subjects
of Charles V. suffered death as heretics under the
hands of the public executioner. Even if we assume,
as M. Guizot appears to do, that the estimate of
Gibbon is below the mark, and allow, with Ruinart,
in his ‘ Acts of the Martyrs,’ greater credence to the
vague statements of “innumerable witnesses,”! while
we reduce the victims of the persecution in the Nether
lands with Fra Paolo to 50,000,J there remains a
terrible witness, in this case, to the excess of cruelty
of which Christians have been guilty, on religious
grounds, towards other Christians above that of which
the ancient heathen world was guilty in its attempts
to repress the spread of Christianity. It is notorious
that this evidence is far from being a solitary testi
mony to the fact. To what are we to attribute a
result so astoundingly unlike what might have been
reasonably expected from the spirit of profound love
which animates the Gospels ? Can it be doubted that
the cause has been the belief in the endless duration
of the soul, combined with the belief that its welfare
during this endless period might be irremediably
destroyed by the opinions which it entertained while
on earth ? Accept these beliefs as true, and it becomes
a duty, far more sacred than the duty of preserving
man’s mortal body from violent assault, to preserve
his undying soul from the contamination of any
opinions as to which we may be convinced that they
have this appalling issue. Even the probability of
such a result is sufficient to raise this duty. For, if
we are mistaken, the injury we do to the individual
who suffers is insignificant, since his immortal soul
will not suffer ; while, if we are right, the good that
* Gibbon, ch. xvi., Ed. 1855, II. 284.
t Note in Milman’s Gibbon, Second Ed., I., p. 598.
t lb. ch. xvi.; I., p. 600.
�on Longevity ?
13
we may do to others, if not to the individual sufferer,
is incalculable.
Ko doubt, if we adopt the view of “ Presbyter
Anglicanus,” there would be no danger of our falling
into such excesses. If the whole of our unceasing
existence is assumed to be a continuous course of
education, by which all shall ultimately be “ brought
into a state where they will think rightly and act
rightly, because they will be filled through and
through with the love of God,—that is, with the love
of that which is true, and pure, and just,” we may
contentedly leave the Divine educator to work out
His own method of instruction, without stepping in
to His aid by abruptly dismissing any of His pupils
from one class to another in the never-ending school.
But when “ Presbyter Anglicanus ” maintains that the
religious instruction of the great schools throughout
England is “ not only founded on, but steeped in,
the belief ” in immortality, I would remind him that
it is certainly not such a belief as this. That instruction,
where it really dwells on our imaginations of the future
as the base on which our conduct in the present should
be founded, is, I conceive, far more closely represented
by the unbelieving belief of that self-important selfnullifier, Dr Pusey, that, if men make any impor
tant slip in what the teacher calls orthodoxy, no
matter what their conduct may have been in other
respects, “ their shrieks will echo for ever along the
lurid vaults of hell,” than by the loving trust of the
Presbyter. The doctrine of immortality, theoretically
taught in the great majority of English schools, where
any stress is laid upon it, is the doctrine of which the
fires of Smithfield were the legitimate fruit; and, if it
does not produce this fruit now, the reason is that,
practically, it is not believed,—that the only part of
the doctrine which has any general influence on men’s
minds at the present time is one scarcely connected
with morality at all, namely, the sentimental hope
�14
Does Morality depend,
of.reunion in “ another and better world ” with those
we have loved and lost in this.
How much hold the idea of continuous existence has
upon men’s minds under this form, we see by the rapid
growth of belief in the so-called Spiritual manifesta
tions. And when we consider how very unspiritual the
character of these alleged manifestations appears to
be ; how entirely destitute it is of any conceptions of
a nature likely to ennoble the lives of those whose
minds are occupied with them, we cannot form a high
estimate of the influence of the mere notion of con
tinuous existence upon the conduct of mankind, Of
the conception as “ Presbyter Anglicanus ” would pre
sent it to us, I must form a very different estimate ;
if, as he no doubt supposes, the continued life of the
individual is conceived to be a career of active use
fulness, in spheres of action of continually increasing
extent and importance, according to the perfection of
the will by which the active power is regulated,
certainly this conception would operate as a power
ful stimulus to the noblest use of all the faculties
which we possess here. Yet when we remember how
peculiarly liable such a stimulus is to be misdirected,
if we allow ourselves to dwell upon the dreams of a
future of which we know nothing rather than upon
the ideas which can be tested by present experience,
we shall, I think, be disposed to look upon the use of
this stimulus with great suspicion.
That morality alone, even in its purest and most
ideal form, is sufficient to be the permanent source
of spiritual blessing tomankind, I do not believe ; and
that not because our lives are short and uncertain, but
because morality belongs properly to the intellectual,
analytical side of our nature, and therefore, though it
is very efficient in telling us what we ought to do, is
very feeble in furnishing the motive power to do it.
‘ Conduct, to use the words of Mr Matthew Arnold,
in his remarkable ‘ Essays on Literature and Dogma ’
�on Longevity T
15
“ is the simplest thing in the world so far as knowledge
is concerned, but the hardest thing in the world so
far as doing is concerned.”* To gain this power of
doing, we require to turn to the other great factor of
Our being, the constructive principle of will, and the
impelling force of love by which this principle can be
at once strengthened and guided. Now, the spirit of
loving Will is the spirit of Religion.
Awake in man the trust that the power which can
glow in his own bosom governs the universe—that
God is no mere name for “ the true, the pure, the
just,” but is the Eternal Spirit of purity, justice,^
and truth, with whom the spirit of man can have
communion, on whom it may rely in death as in life,
in sorrow as in joy, and you will not require the
doubtful dogma of continuous existence to furnish
motives to action, which the present reality will
abundantly supply, but to use the beautiful words in
which Cicero winds up his argument against the fear
of death, will hold “ nothing to be evil that is deter
mined either by the immortal Gods, or Nature the
parent of us all; for not hastily, or by chance, are we
born and created, but assuredly there is a power
which takes counsel for the human race, and has not
produced and nourished it, that when it has gone
through all its toils, it should fall into eternal evil at
death ; rather should we think that it has prepared for
it a haven and place of refuge.”f
In regard to the place which the conception of con
tinuous individual existence should occupy in the
education of the young, I think Presbyter Anglicanus
will agree with me, that it cannot continue to be what
it has been. Whatever arguments Plato or. Cicero
could use in support of this faith, it is open to us to
use now. We may, perhaps, add to them others, from
the knowledge of Nature which scientific research
is opening to us. But with the faith in infallible
* ‘Cornhill,’ Oct., 1871, p. 485.
t Tusc. Quest. I., 49.
�16
Does Morality defend
teaching,—and to the Presbyter, if I am not much
mistaken, no less than to myself, this faith is gone,
irreparably gone,beyond remedy by decrees of councils
be they ever so imposingly vouched, or plasterings of
learned ingenuity be they ever so skilfully applied,—
there is gone also all certainty in any assertions about
that world of which we can know nothing unless,
indeed, we are ready to be “ rapped ” into conviction,
and delight ourselves with the fantastic Hades of our
new spiritual “ Home.” It must become us, then, to
substitute, on this subject, modest hope for dogmatic
arrogance. But it does not follow that our faith in
the eternal should be less vivid, because it ceases to be
identified with a belief in the Longeval.
For myself I am persuaded that the conception of
infallible teaching, and the certainty of so-called im
mortal life associated with it, has constantly inter
posed itself between man and God, and that the faith
in an ever-present Deity will never be generally rea
lised till the faith in these counterfeits of His pre
sence has died away. To God, the source of all
good, we must direct man’s thoughts alike for the
education of the young, and the solace and guidance
of maturer age. Once quicken mankind to trust in
His presence as a living reality, and we may conclude
with Schleiermacher, whom “ Presbyter Anglic anus ”
finds so hard to understand, that only those who “ care
to live well rather than to live long ” can partake in
that immortality which belongs to truth and love,
whether or not the conditions of existence allow a
continuous prolongation of individual being to those
who live in the aspiration after love and truth.
What, indeed, can be more absurd than for a man
to say to his Maker, “ 0 God, the love of Thee, and
the study of Thy acts, and the following of Thy
Spirit, would be sufficient to satisfy my soul for count
less ages, but it will not suffice for fifty years. For
so short a time it is not worth my while to be en-
�on Longevity ?
i7
lightened by Thy truth, and cheered and warmed by
Thy love. Every attraction of sensuous delight,
every dream of self-seeking gratification, every im
pulse of passion, is preferable. Give me endless
existence, and I yield myself up to Thy service, which
is perfect freedom. Deny it me, and I serve myself,
though to serve myself is to become slave to a devil.”
Yet what is the assertion that the belief in immor
tality is essential as a support to morality but this
sentiment in disguise ? The notion I take to be the
legitimate product of that false religious teaching
which, by substituting authority for conviction, con
verts morality into legality. Divines of the stamp of
Dr Pusey instinctively feel that the edifice of apparent
goodness which they may raise rests in the great
majority of cases upon a foundation of sand, to which
they can give solidity only by the pressure of fear.
It is perfectly consistent in them, therefore, to insist
on the faith in an endless duration of individual ex
istence, which furnishes the heavy rammer that they
require. But divines who, like “ Presbyter Angli
canus,” would build goodness upon love, should feel,
what Dr Pusey, I am persuaded, feels to be his own
case, that they need no such extraneous support—•
that “ the rain may descend ” and “the floods rise,”
and “ the winds blow upon that house,” but it “ cannot
fall,” for it is “ built upon the rock.”
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, Mount Pleasant, Pamsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held hy the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Better and Spirit. By a Clergyman ok the Church of England. Price 6d.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of
Jesus. Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete
in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures.
By the Right Rev. Francis Harb, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman.
Price 6d.
The “ Church and its Reform. ” A Reprint. Price Is.
“ The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint.
Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev. P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records ; with special
reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synoptics and the Fourth
Gospel. By Thos. Scott. Price Is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
The Meaning of the Age. By the Author of ‘ The Pilgrim and the Shrine.’ Price 6d.
“ James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John (hi.ni;. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. N bwman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S,,^.,
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “ The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With AWM>tations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentate!®.
In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich. Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the CWSOM
of England. Price Is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�
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
Does morality depend on Longevity?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Neale, Edward Vansittart [1810-1892]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 17, [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT95
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Does morality depend on Longevity?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Ethics
Longevity
Morality