{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19568/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19568","id":"gutenberg_19568","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19568","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- 20th century"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Religious Situation\n\n\nBY\n\nGOLDWIN SMITH\n\n\n\n\nTORONTO\n\nWM. TYRRELL & COMPANY\n\n1908\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1908\n\nBY THE\n\nNORTH AMERICAN REVIEW PUBLISHING COMPANY\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, CANADA, 1908\n\nBY\n\nGOLDWIN SMITH\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note:  This book was originally part of Smith's \"No\nRefuge but in Truth.\"  It was split into a separate e-book because it\nhad its own title and verso page.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS SITUATION.\n\n(From the _North American Review_.)\n\n\n\"I express myself,\" says Bishop Butler, \"with caution, lest I should be\nmistaken to vilify reason, which is, indeed, the only faculty which we\nhave to judge concerning anything, even revelation itself; or be\nmisunderstood to assert that a supposed revelation cannot be proved\nfalse from internal characters.\"  \"The faculty of reason,\" he says, \"is\nthe candle of the Lord within us against vilifying which we must be\nvery cautious.\"\n\nWhat would the world be without religion?  That is the dread question\nwhich seems now to be everywhere presenting itself.  Would even the\nsocial fabric remain unshaken?  Has not its stability partly depended\non the general belief that the dispensation, with all its inequalities,\nwas the ordinance of the Creator, and that for inequalities here there\nwould be compensation hereafter?  The belief may not in common minds\nhave been very present; but it would seem to have had its influence.\nApparently, it is now departing.  In some places it seems to have fled.\nScepticism, with social unrest, comes in its room.\n\nWhat is now the position of the clergy?  Keepers and ministers of\ntruth, as they are understood to be, they alone are debarred by\nordination vows and tests from the free quest of truth.  They are\necclesiastically bound not only to hold, but to teach and preach, as\ndivinely revealed, what many of them must feel to have been disproved\nor to have become doubtful.  Their uneasiness is shown by writings,\nsuch as \"Lux Mundi,\" struggling to reconcile orthodoxy with free\nthought.  It is shown by a growing tendency on the part of pastors to\nslide from the office of spiritual guide into that of leader of\nphilanthropic effort and social reform.  It is seen, perhaps, even in\nthe tendency to give increased prominence to musical attraction in the\nservice.  Sermons grow more secular.\n\nClerical biographies, such as that of Jowett, sometimes reveal private\nmisgivings.  The writer has even seen the pastorate of a large parish\nassumed by one who in private society was an evident rationalist and\nmust have satisfied his conscience by promising to himself that he\nwould do a great deal of social good.  There is, no doubt, practically,\nmore latitude than there was; heresy trials seem to have ceased, and\none of the writers of \"Essays and Reviews\" became, without serious\noutcry, Primate of the Church of England.  But ordination vows remain;\nso does the performance of a religious service which includes the\nrepetition of creeds and forms a practical confession of faith.  Hollow\nprofession cannot fail to impair mental integrity, or, if generally\nsuspected, to kill confidence in our guides.  Read Canon Farrar's \"Life\nof Christ\" and you will see to what shifts orthodoxy puts a clerical\nwriter who was, no doubt, a sincere lover of truth.\n\nThe religious disturbance shows itself at the same time in the\nprevalence of wild superstitions, such as Spiritualism, rising out of\nthe grave of religious faith, and attesting the lingering craving for\nthe supernatural, somewhat like the mysteries of Isis after the fall of\nnational religion at Rome.\n\nThe crisis has come on us rather suddenly, in consequence partly of\ngreat physical discoveries.  The writer as a young student heard\nBuckland struggling to reconcile geology with Genesis.  Now the\nstruggle is to reconcile Genesis with geology.  Before this wonderful\nadvance of science and criticism combined, there had been comparatively\nlittle of avowed, still less of popular, scepticism.  Rousseau was a\nsentimental theist; Voltaire erected a church to God.  This vast\n\"Modernism,\" as the poor, quaking Pope rather happily calls the\nascendancy of science and criticism, has changed all.  It is\nconceivable that, now as on some former occasions, the range of\ndiscovery may have been overrated and the pendulum of opinion may\nconsequently have swung too far.  Evolution, apparently, has still a\nwide space to traverse, even in what may be assumed to be the material\nsphere.  What can it make of the marvellous stores of memory or of the\napparently boundless play of the imagination, which by its working in\nsleep, sometimes with no assignable materials for the fancy, seems\nalmost to show creative power?\n\nHas Deity directly revealed itself to man?  It has if the Bible is\ninspired.  Otherwise, apparently, it has not.  About the Koran or the\nZendavesta it is hardly necessary to speak.  \"The Bible\" we call the\nOld Testament and the New bound up together, as though they contained\nthe two halves of the same dispensation and the moral ideal of both\nwere the same.  The historical importance of the Old Testament can\nhardly be overrated; nor can the literary grandeur of parts of it, or\nthe advance made in social character and in law.  When in connection\nwith the question of American slavery attention was specially directed\nto the social law of Moses, no careful reader could fail to be greatly\nstruck by its advanced humanity and civilization.  Nevertheless, the\nmorality of the Old Testament is tribal, while that of the New\nTestament is universal.  The tribal character of the Old Testament\nmorality is seen in the destruction of the first-born in Egypt in order\nto force Pharaoh to let the Chosen People go; in the invasion of Canaan\nand the slaughter of the Canaanites; in the murder of Sisera; in the\napproval of the treason of Rahab; in David's putting to torture the\ninhabitants of a captured city.  The attempt to reconcile all this with\nuniversal morality by styling it the course of \"Evolution\" can hardly\navail, since the spirit of tribal separatism dominates in the latest\nbooks of the Old Testament, Ezra and Nehemiah, where Israelites are not\nonly forbidden for the future to marry with Gentiles, but bidden to put\naway Gentile wives.  It is true there are glimpses of a universal\ndominion of the God of Israel, and of the happiness to be enjoyed by\nall nations under it.  Still, Jehovah is Israel's God.\n\nWere the Old Testament a Divine revelation it would certainly be free\nfrom error concerning the works of Deity, which plainly it is not.  The\nnarrative in Genesis of creation, compared with other primitive\ncosmogonies, is rational as well as sublime.  But if Professor Buckland\ncould persuade his hearers he could not persuade himself.\n\nLargely good the influence of the Old Testament has no doubt been;\nlargely also it prepared the way for the New.  That its influence has\nbeen wholly good cannot be said.  It has furnished fanaticism with\naliment and excuse.  It has found mottoes for the black flag of\nreligious war.\n\nIs it possible to believe, in face of doubtful authenticity,\ncontradictions as to fact, and traces of local superstition, that the\nNew Testament any more than the Old was dictated by Deity?  Inspired by\nthe creative power, in common with the other works of creative\nbeneficence, as a part of the general plan, the New Testament may have\nbeen.  Its morality is not tribal, but universal.  \"God is a Spirit;\nand they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth,\"\nthis beside the well of Samaria by the Founder himself was proclaimed.\nIf there is any privilege it is in favour not of race, but of class,\nthe class being the poor, whose poverty seems counted to them as\nvirtue, perhaps rather to the disparagement of active goodness.\n\nHad the New Testament been divinely inspired, would not its authority\nhave been clearly attested?  Would not the authorship of its books have\nbeen made known?  Would the slightest error or self-contradiction have\nbeen allowed to appear in it?  What is the fact?  The authenticity of a\nlarge portion of the Epistles of St. Paul seems admitted by critics; of\nother books of the New Testament the authorship is regarded as\ndoubtful.  The three Synoptic Gospels have a large element common to\nthem all, and are evidently grafts upon a single document which is\nlost, and which the critics generally seem inclined to place not\nearlier than the latter part of the first century.  The Synoptics all\ntell us that when Jesus expired the veil of the Temple was rent.  One\nadds that there was preternatural darkness; a third that the earth\nquaked, that the rocks were rent, that the graves opened, and many\nbodies of the saints which slept arose, came out of the graves after\nthe resurrection of Jesus, went into the holy city, and appeared to\nmany.  Such apparitions plainly must have produced an immense\nsensation; such a sensation, it may be assumed, as would have brought\nscepticism to its knees.  This surely must be legendary, and the legend\nmust have had time to grow.\n\nThough grafts on the same original stock, the Gospels are often at\nvariance with each other; as in the case of the genealogy of Jesus,\nupon which the harmonists labor in vain; in that of the marvels\nattending his birth; in that of his Last Supper; in that of the\nresurrection, which again baffles the skill of the harmonists.  Here,\nsurely, is proof that the pens of the narrators were not guided by\nOmniscience.\n\nConcerning the miracles of the casting out of devils generally, and in\nparticular of the casting out of a legion of devils into a herd of two\nthousand swine at Gadara, what is to be said?  Are these not clearly\ncases of human imagination set at work by a Jewish superstition?  Is it\npossible that they should have had a place in a divine narrative of the\nlife of the Saviour of the world?  The Fourth Gospel omits them.\nOrthodoxy would fain persuade itself that this was to avoid unnecessary\nrepetition.\n\nSatan from the top of a mountain shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the\nearth.  This seems to imply belief that the earth is a plane.  The\nmovement of the star of the Nativity seems to imply belief in the\nrotation of the heavens.\n\nAbout the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and, consequently, about its\ntitle to belief, there has been endless controversy among the learned.\nBut there are pretty plain indications, in the shape of the omission of\ndemoniac miracles and some lack of local knowledge, that it is not the\nwork of a Palestinian Jew.  Opening with a reference to the Logos, it\nstrikes the key of Alexandrian philosophy.  It is, indeed, rather\ntheological than historical, so that it has been not inaptly compared\nto the Platonic, in contrast to the Xenophontic, account of Socrates,\nthe theology seems like that of a post-evangelical era.  Martineau's\nconclusion is that \"the only Gospel which is composed and not merely\ncompiled and edited, and for which, therefore, a single writer is\nresponsible, has its birthday in the middle of the second century, and\nis not the work of a witness at all.\"  Historically, this Gospel is at\nvariance with the others in its narrative of the Last Supper.  \"The\nincidents,\" says the highly orthodox Speaker's Commentary, \"are\nparallel with sections of the Synoptic Gospels; but there are very few\npoints of actual correspondence in detail between the narratives of the\nSynoptists and of St. John.\"  There appears to have been much\ndisputation among critics and commentators, but no room for disputation\nsurely would have been left concerning narratives, equally authentic\nand inspired, of a momentous crisis in the life of the Saviour.\n\n\"At this point, that is to say the beginning of the Galilean ministry,\nwe are again met by difficulties in the chronology, which are not only\nvarious, but to the certain solution of which there appears to be no\nclue.  If we follow exclusively the order given by one Evangelist we\nappear to run counter to the scattered indications which may be found\nin another.  That it should be so will cause no difficulty to the\ncandid mind.  The Evangelists do not profess to be guided by\nchronological sequences.\"  So writes Dean Farrar in despair.  Is it\nlikely that such confusion would be found in a Divine revelation?\nWould not the narratives have been as well arranged and clear as, by\nthe admission of orthodoxy, they are the reverse?  Would the names of\nthe authors of the Gospels, their warrants and the sources of their\ninformation, have been withheld?  Providence surely was not there.\n\nIf there was a miraculous revelation on which salvation depended, why\nwas it not universal?  Why has it all this time been withheld from\nnations even more in need of it than those to whom it was given?  Are\nwe to suppose that the salvation of these myriads was a matter of\nindifference to their Creator, or that Heaven preferred the slow and\nprecarious working of the missionary to the instantaneous action of its\nown fiat?  This is the question which scepticism asks, and which the\ngreat author of the \"Analogy of Religion\" fails to answer.\n\nWhat did Jesus think of himself and his mission, and of his relation to\nDeity?  This it seems impossible without more authentic records clearly\nto decide.  The Gospel of St. John, which is the most theological,\nwould appear to be the least trustworthy of the four.  Its author,\napparently, sees its subject through a theosophic medium of his own.\nThe idea of the teacher in the mind of the disciples would naturally\nrise with his ascendancy; so, perhaps, would his own idea.  If Jesus is\nrightly reported he believed himself to be the Son of God, exalted to\nunion and participation in spiritual dominion with the Father, and\ndestined together with the Father to judge the world.  But, in his\nmortal hour of anguish in Gethsemane, he prays to the Father to let the\ncup pass from him; an act hardly consistent with the doctrines of the\nAthanasian Creed.  In the immortality of the soul and judgment after\ndeath he plainly believes.  But he does not substantiate the belief by\nany explanation of the mode of survival; nor, in separating the two\nflocks of sheep and goats, does he say how mixed characters are to be\ntreated.  Tribalism seems slightly to cling to his conception of the\njust gathered in Abraham's bosom.  Of his apologue of Dives and\nLazarus, the last part appears to show that the world beyond the grave\nwas to him a realm of the imagination.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount would appear, by the strong impress of\ncharacter it bears, to have special claims to authenticity.  So may the\nParables habitually employed as instruments of teaching and wearing\napparently the stamp of a single imagination.\n\nThat with Jesus of Nazareth there came into the world, and by his\nexample and teaching was introduced and propagated a moral ideal which,\nembodied in Christendom, and surviving through all these centuries the\naction of hostile forces the most powerful, not only from without, but\nfrom within, has uplifted, purified, and blessed humanity is a\nhistorical fact.  With the civilization of Christendom no other\ncivilization can compare.  But we have been accustomed to believe that\nthere was a miraculous revelation of the Deity.  A revelation of the\nDeity, though not miraculous, Christianity may be believed to have been.\n\nRevelation, direct and assured, of the nature, will, designs, or\nrelation to us of the Deity through the Bible or in any other way we\ncannot be truly said to have.  All that we apparently can be said to\nhave, besides the religious instinct in ourselves, is the evidence of\nbeneficent design in the universe; balanced, we must sadly admit, by\nmuch that with our present imperfect knowledge appears to us at\nvariance with beneficence; by plagues, earthquakes, famines, torturing\ndiseases, infant deaths; by the sufferings of animals preyed on by\nother animals or breeding beyond the means of subsistence; by\ninevitable accidents of all kinds; by the Tower of Siloam everywhere\nfalling on the just as well as on the sinner.  There may be a key,\nthere may be a plan, disciplinary or of some other kind, and in the end\nthe mystery may be solved.  At present there seems to be no key other\nthan that which may be suggested by the connection of effort with\nvirtue and the progress of a collective humanity.\n\nAt the same time, we may apparently dismiss belief in a great personal\npower of evil and in his realm of everlasting torture.  The independent\norigin of such a power of evil is unthinkable; so is the struggle\nbetween the two powers and its end.  There is no absolutely distinct\nline between good and evil.  The shades of character are numberless.\n\nAnother great change, rather of impression than of conviction, has been\ncreeping over the religious scene.  We have hitherto, largely, perhaps,\nunder the influence of the Bible, been fancying rather than thinking\nthat this little earth of ours was the centre of all things, the\nspecial object of interest to the Creator; and that the grand drama of\nexistence was that enacted on this terrestrial stage and culminating in\nRedemption.  Astronomical science is now making us distinctly feel that\nthis world is only one, and, if magnitude is to be the measure, very\nfar from the most important, of myriads of worlds governed by the same\nphysical laws as ours, forming a system of which ours is a member,\nwhile the destiny of the whole system is to us utterly inscrutable;\nproofs of the most sublime and glorious order presenting themselves on\nthe one hand, while on the other we see signs of disorder and\ndestruction, errant bodies such as comets and aerolites, a moon without\nan atmosphere, the conflagration of a star.  Whether the whole is\nmoving towards any end and, if it is, what that end is to be, we cannot\nhope to divine.  When with Infinity we take into our thought Eternity,\npast and future, if in Eternity there can be said to be past or future,\nour minds are completely overwhelmed.\n\nIs belief in a future life generally holding its ground?  My friend,\nthe late Mr. Chamberlain, was by no means alone in resigning it.  But\nif this life is all, how can we continue to hold our faith in divine\njustice?  Mr. Chamberlain, as I said before, was evidently happy as\nwell as good.  His life, though short and regarded by him as ending in\nthe grave, was to him so much gain, and proved beneficence on the part\nof the Author of his being.  But if Mr. Chamberlain's theory is true,\nwhat is to be said in the case of the myriads to whom life has been\nwretchedness, ending perhaps in agony, often without the slightest\nresponsibility on their part?  For these unhappy ones would it be well,\nas Mr. Chamberlain holds it was for him, that there should be no\nhereafter?  Is their being brought into existence only to suffer\ncompatible with our faith in supreme benevolence?  Is confidence in\nsupreme justice compatible with the conviction that the tyrant and the\ntortured victims of his tyranny, alike, repose forever in the grave?\nSuch, it is true, was the belief of the Hebrew; indication of any other\nbelief, at all events, he has left us none, unless it be a faint\nglimpse of Sheol.  The philosophy of Job halts accordingly.  The Hebrew\nbelieved that he would be rewarded or punished in his posterity.\n\nBishop Butler's grand argument for belief in the possibility of a\nfuture life goes upon the supposition that our conscious personality is\ndistinct and separable from our perishable frame, and is in itself\n\"indiscerptible,\" so that there is no reason why it should not survive\nthe death of the body.  To prove that it ever has survived the death of\nthe body, or to show the mode of its survival, the Bishop does not\nattempt.  But Butler lived long before Evolution and the general\nadvance of physiology in these later days.  Johnson, who was no\nsceptic, owned that he yearned for more light on the \"spiritual world,\"\nby which he apparently meant immortality.\n\nPositivism tenders us endless existence as particles in a collective\nhumanity, the \"colossal man.\"  But would there be much satisfaction in\nexistence when individuality and personal consciousness had been lost?\nWould the prospect lead the ordinary man to work and suffer for\ngenerations to come, at all events, for any beyond the circle of the\nimmediate objects of his love?  What the end of the colossal man is to\nbe seems undetermined.  The Positivist Church has produced very good\nand beautiful lives, but its power as a religion to go alone would be\nmore clearly seen were not Christianity at its side.\n\nIs there or is there not after all something in human nature apparently\nunsusceptible of physical explanation and seeming to point to the\npossibility of a higher state of being?  Evolution may ultimately\nexplain our general frame, emotional and intellectual, as well as\nphysical.  It may in time explain the marvels of imagination and\nmemory.  It may explain our aesthetic nature with our music and art.\nIt may explain even our social and political frame and our habit of\nconformity to law.  But beyond conformity to law, social or political,\nis there not, in the highest specimens of our race at least, a\nconception of an ideal of character and an effort to rise to it which\nseem to point to a more spiritual sphere?","title":"The Religious Situation","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":3619}