{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37234/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37234","id":"gutenberg_37234","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37234","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rationalism"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMY PATH TO ATHEISM\n\nBy Annie Besant\n\n[Third Edition]\n\nLondon:\n\nFreethought Publishing Company,\n\n63, Fleet Street, E.C.\n\n1885.\n\nTO\n\nTHOMAS SCOTT,\n\nWHOSE NAME IS HONORED AND REVERED WHEREVER\n\nFREETHOUGHT HAS--\n\nWHOSE WIDE HEART AND GENEROUS KINDNESS WELCOME\n\nALL FORMS OF THOUGHT, PROVIDED THE THOUGHT\n\nBE EARNEST AND HONEST;\n\nWHO KNOWS NO ORTHODOXY SAVE THAT OF HONESTY, AND\n\nNO RELIGION SAVE THAT OF GOODNESS;\n\nTO WHOM I OWE MOST GRATEFUL THANKS,\n\nAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST OF MY FREETHOUGHT FRIENDS,\n\nAND AS THE FIRST WHO AIDED ME IN MY NEED;--\n\nTO HIM\n\nI DEDICATE THESE PAGES,\n\nKNOWING THAT, ALTHOUGH WE OFTEN DIFFER IN OUR\n\nTHOUGHT,\n\nWE ARE ONE\n\nIN OUR DESIRE FOR TRUTH.\n\nANNIE BESANT.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.\n\nThe Essays which form the present book have been written at intervals\nduring the last five years, and are now issued in a single volume\nwithout alterations of any kind. I have thought it more useful--as\nmarking the gradual growth of thought--to reprint them as they were\noriginally published, so as not to allow the later development to mould\nthe earlier forms. The essay on \"Inspiration\" is, in part, the oldest\nof all; it was partially composed some seven years ago, and re-written\nlater as it now stands.\n\nThe first essay on the \"Deity of Jesus of Nazareth\" was written just\nbefore I left the Church of England, and marks the point where I broke\nfinally with Christianity. I thought then, and think still, that to\ncling to the name of Christian after one has ceased to be the thing\nis neither bold nor straightforward, and surely the name ought, in all\nfairness, to belong to those historical bodies who have made it their\nown during many hundred years. A Christianity without a Divine Christ\nappears to me to resemble a republican army marching under a royal\nbanner--it misleads both friends and foes. Believing that in giving up\nthe deity of Christ I renounced Christianity, I place this essay as the\nstarting-point of my travels outside the Christian pale. The essays\nthat follow it deal with some of the leading Christian dogmas, and are\nprinted in the order in which they were written. But in the gradual\nthought-development they really precede the essay on the \"Deity of\nChrist\". Most inquirers who begin to study by themselves, before they\nhave read any heretical works, or heard any heretical controversies,\nwill have been awakened to thought by the discrepancies and\ninconsistencies of the Bible itself. A thorough knowledge of the Bible\nis the groundwork of heresy. Many who think they read their Bibles never\nread them at all. They go through a chapter every day as a matter of\nduty, and forget what is said in Matthew before they read what is said\nin John; hence they never mark the contradictions and never see the\ndiscrepancies. But those who _study_ the Bible are in a fair way to\nbecome heretics. It was the careful compilation of a harmony of the\nlast chapters of the four Gospels--a harmony intended for devotional\nuse--that gave the first blow to my own faith; although I put the doubt\naway and refused even to look at the question again, yet the effect\nremained--the tiny seed, which was slowly to germinate and to grow up,\nlater, into the full-blown flower of Atheism.\n\nThe trial of Mr. Charles Voysey for heresy made me remember my own\npuzzle, and I gradually grew very uneasy, though trying not to think,\nuntil the almost fatal illness of my little daughter brought a sharper\nquestioning as to the reason of suffering and the reality of the love of\nGod. From that time I began to study the doctrines of Christianity from\na critical point of view; hitherto I had confined my theological reading\nto devotional and historical treatises, and the only controversies\nwith which I was familiar were the controversies which had divided\nChristians; the writings of the Fathers of the Church and of the modern\nschool which is founded on them had been carefully studied, and I had\nweighed the points of difference between the Greek, Roman, Anglican, and\nLutheran communions, as well as the views of orthodox dissenting schools\nof thought; only from Pusey's \"Daniel\", and Liddon's \"Bampton Lectures\",\nhad I gathered anything of wider controversies and issues of more vital\ninterest. But now all was changed, and it was to the leaders of the\nBroad Church school that I first turned in the new path. The shock of\npain had been so! rude when real doubts assailed and shook me, that I\nhad steadily made up my mind to investigate, one by one, every Christian\ndogma, and never again to say \"I believe\" until I had tested the object\nof faith; the dogmas which revolted me most were those of the Atonement\nand of Eternal Punishment, while the doctrine of Inspiration of\nScripture underlay everything, and was the very foundation of\nChristianity; these, then, were the first that I dropped into the\ncrucible of investigation. Maurice, Robertson, Stopford Brooke, McLeod,\nCampbell, and others, were studied; and while I recognised the charm\nof their writings, I failed to find any firm ground whereon they could\nrest: it was a many-colored beautiful mist--a cloud landscape, very\nfair, but very unsubstantial. Still they served as stepping stones away\nfrom the old hard dogmas, and month by month I grew more sceptical as\nto the possibility of finding certainty in religion. Mansel's Bampton\nlectures on \"The Limits of Religious Thought\" did much to increase the\nfeeling; the works of F. Newman, Arnold, and Greg carried on the\nsame work; some efforts to understand the creeds of other nations, to\ninvestigate Mahommedanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, all led in the same\ndirection, until I concluded that inspiration belonged to all people\nalike, and there could be no necessity of atonement, and no eternal\nhell prepared for the unbeliever in Christianity. Thus, step by step,\nI renounced the dogmas of Christianity until there remained only, as\ndistinctively Christian, the Deity of Jesus which had not yet been\nanalysed. The whole tendency of the Broad Church stream of thought was\nto increase the manhood at the expense of the deity of Christ; and with\nhell and atonement gone, and inspiration everywhere, there appeared\nno _raison d'etre_ for the Incarnation. Besides, there were so many\nincarnations, and the Buddhist absorption seemed a grander idea. I now\nfirst met with Charles Voysey's works, and those of Theodore Parker and\nChanning, and the belief in the Deity of Jesus followed the other dead\ncreeds. Renan I had read much earlier, but did not care for him; Strauss\nI did not meet with until afterwards; Scott's \"English Life of Jesus\",\nwhich I read at this period, is as useful a book on this subject as\ncould be put into the hands of an inquirer. From Christianity into\nsimple Theism I had found my way; step by step the Theism melted into\nAtheism; prayer was gradually discontinued, as utterly at variance with\nany dignified idea of God, and as in contradiction to all the results\nof scientific investigation. I had taken a keen interest in the later\nscientific discoveries, and Darwin had done much towards freeing me from\nmy old bonds. Of John Stuart Mill I had read much, and I now took him up\nagain; I studied Spinoza, and re-read Mansel, together with many other\nwriters on the Deity, until the result came which is found in the essay\nentitled \"The Nature and Existence of God \". It was just before this was\nwritten that I read Charles Bradlaugh's \"Plea for Atheism\" and his \"Is\nthere a God?\". The essay on \"Constructive Rationalism\" shows how we\nreplace the old faith and build our house anew with stronger materials.\n\nThe path from Christianity to Atheism is a long one, and its first steps\nare very rough and very painful; the feet tread on the ruins of the\nbroken faith, and the sharp edges cut into the bleeding flesh; but\nfurther on the path grows smoother, and presently at its side begins to\npeep forth the humble daisy of hope that heralds the spring tide, and\nfurther on the roadside is fragrant with all the flowers of summer,\nsweet and brilliant and gorgeous, and in the distance we see the promise\nof the autumn, the harvest that shall be reaped for the feeding of man.\n\nAnnie Besant. 1878.\n\n\n\n\nON THE DEITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH\n\n\"WHAT think ye of Christ, whose son is he?\" Humane child of human\nparents, or divine Son of the Almighty God? When we consider his purity,\nhis faith in the Father, his forgiving patience, his devoted work\namong the offscourings of society, his brotherly love to sinners\nand outcasts--when our minds dwell on these alone,--we all feel the\nmarvellous fascination which has drawn millions to the feet of this\n\"son of man,\" and the needle of our faith begins to tremble towards the\nChristian pole. If we would keep unsullied the purity of our faith\nin God alone, we are obliged to turn our eyes some times--however\nunwillingly--towards the other side of the picture and to mark the human\nweaknesses which remind us that he is but one of our race. His harshness\nto his mother, his bitterness towards some of his opponents, the marked\nfailure of one or two of his rare prophecies, the palpable limitation of\nhis knowledge--little enough, indeed, when all are told,--are more\nthan enough to show us that, however great as man, he is not the\nAll-righteous, the All-seeing, the All-knowing, God.\n\nNo one, however, whom Christian exaggeration has not goaded into unfair\ndetraction, or who is not blinded by theological hostility, can fail\nto revere portions of the character sketched out in the three synoptic\ngospels. I shall not dwell here on the Christ of the fourth Evangelist;\nwe can scarcely trace in that figure the lineaments of the Jesus of\nNazareth whom we have learnt to love.\n\nI propose, in this essay, to examine the claims of Jesus to be more\nthan the man he appeared to be during his lifetime: claims--be it\nnoted--which are put forward on his behalf by others rather than by\nhimself. His own assertions of his divinity are to be found only in the\nunreliable fourth gospel, and in it they are destroyed by the sentence\nthere put into his mouth with strange inconsistency: \"If I bear witness\nof myself, my witness is not true.\"\n\nIt is evident that by his contemporaries Jesus was not regarded as God\nincarnate. The people in general appear to have looked upon him as a\ngreat prophet, and to have often debated among themselves whether he\nwere their expected Messiah or not. The band of men who accepted him\nas their teacher were as far from worshipping him as God as were their\nfellow-countrymen: their prompt desertion of him when attacked by his\nenemies, their complete hopelessness when they saw him overcome and put\nto death, are sufficient proofs that though they regarded him--to quote\ntheir own words--as a \"prophet mighty in word and deed,\" they never\nguessed that the teacher they followed, and the friend they lived with\nin the intimacy of social life was Almighty God Himself. As has been\nwell pointed out, if they believed their Master to be God, surely when\nthey were attacked they would have fled to him for protection, instead\nof endeavouring to save themselves by deserting him: we may add that\nthis would have been their natural instinct, since they could never\nhave imagined beforehand that the Creator Himself could really be taken\ncaptive by His creatures and suffer death at their hands. The third\nclass of his contemporaries, the learned Pharisees and Scribes, were as\nfar from regarding him as divine as were the people or his disciples.\nThey seem to have viewed the new teacher somewhat contemptuously at\nfirst, as one who unwisely persisted in expounding the highest doctrines\nto the many, instead of--a second Hillel--adding to the stores of\ntheir own learned circle. As his influence spread and appeared to be\nundermining their own,--still more, when he placed himself in direct\nopposition, warning the people against them,--they were roused to a\ncourse of active hostility, and at length determined to save themselves\nby destroying him. But all through their passive contempt and direct\nantagonism, there is never a trace of their deeming him to be anything\nmore than a religious enthusiast who finally became dangerous: we never\nfor a moment see them assuming the manifestly absurd position of men\nknowingly measuring their strength against God, and endeavouring to\nsilence and destroy their Maker. So much for the opinions of those who\nhad the best opportunities of observing his ordinary life. A \"good man,\"\na \"deceiver,\" a \"mighty prophet,\" such are the recorded opinions of his\ncontemporaries: not one is found to step forward and proclaim him to be\nJehovah, the God of Israel.\n\nOne of the most trusted strongholds of Christians, in defending their\nLord's Divinity, is the evidence of prophecy. They gather from the\nsacred books of the Jewish nation the predictions of the longed-for\nMessiah, and claim them as prophecies fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.\nBut there is one stubborn fact which destroys the force of this\nargument: the Jews, to whom these writings belong, and who from\ntradition and national peculiarities may reasonably be supposed to be\nthe best exponents of their own prophets, emphatically deny that these\nprophecies are fulfilled in Jesus at all. Indeed, one main reason for\ntheir rejection of Jesus is precisely this, that he does not resemble in\nany way the predicted Messiah. There is no doubt that the Jewish nation\nwere eagerly looking for their Deliverer when Jesus was born: these very\nlongings produced several pseudo-Messiahs, who each gained in turn\na considerable following, because each bore some resemblance to the\nexpected Prince. Much of the popular rage which swept Jesus to his\ndeath was the re-action of disappointment after the hopes raised by the\nposition of authority he assumed. The sudden burst of anger against one\nso benevolent and inoffensive can only be explained by the intense hopes\nexcited by his regal entry into Jerusalem, and the utter destruction of\nthose hopes by his failing to ascend the throne of David. Proclaimed\nas David's son, he came riding on an ass as king of Zion, and allowed\nhimself to be welcomed as the king of Israel: there his short fulfilling\nof the prophecies ended, and the people, furious at his failing them,\nrose and clamoured for his death. Because he did _not_ fulfil the\nancient Jewish oracles, he died: he was too noble for the _role_ laid\ndown in them for the Messiah, his ideal was far other than that of a\nconqueror, with \"garments rolled in blood.\" But even if, against all\nevidence, Jesus was one with the Messiah of the prophets, this would\ndestroy, instead of implying, his Divine claims. For the Jews were pure\nmonotheists; their Messiah was a prince of David's line, the favoured\nservant, the anointed Jehovah, the king who should rule in His name: a\nJew would shrink with horror from the blasphemy of seating Messiah on\nJehovah's throne remembering how their prophets had taught them that\ntheir God \"would not give His honour to another.\" So that, as to\nprophecy, the case stands thus: If Jesus be the Messiah prophesied of\nin the old Jewish books, then he is not God: if he be not the Messiah,\nJewish prophecy is silent as regards him altogether, and an appeal to\nprophecy is absolutely useless.\n\nAfter the evidence of prophecy Christians generally rely on that\nfurnished by miracles. It is remarkable that Jesus himself laid but\nlittle stress on his miracles; in fact, he refused to appeal to them\nas credentials of his authority, and either could not or would not work\nthem when met with determined unbelief. We must notice also that the\npeople, while \"glorifying God, who had given such power unto _men_,\"\nwere not inclined to admit his miracles as proofs of his right to claim\nabsolute obedience: his miracles did not even invest him with such\nsacredness as to protect him from arrest and death. Herod, on his trial,\nwas simply anxious to see him work a miracle, as a matter of curiosity.\nThis stolid indifference to marvels as attestations of authority is\nnatural enough, when we remember that Jewish history was crowded with\nmiracles, wrought for and against the favoured people, and also that\nthey had been specially warned against being misled by signs and\nwonders. Without entering into the question whether miracles are\npossible, let us, for argument's sake, take them for granted, and see\nwhat they are worth as proofs of Divinity. If Jesus fed a multitude with\na few loaves, so did Elisha: if he raised the dead, so did Elijah and\nElisha; if he healed lepers, so did Moses and Elisha; if he opened\nthe eyes of the blind, Elisha smote a whole army with blindness\nand afterwards restored their sight: if he cast out devils, his\ncontemporaries, by his own testimony, did the same. If miracles prove\nDeity, what miracle of Jesus can stand comparison with the divided Red\nSea of Moses, the stoppage of the earth's motion by Joshua, the check of\nthe rushing waters of the Jordan by Elijah's cloak? If we are told that\nthese men worked by _conferred_ power and Jesus by _inherent_, we can\nonly answer that this is a gratuitous assumption, and begs the whole\nquestion. The Bible records the miracles in equivalent terms: no\ndifference is drawn between the manner of working of Elisha or Jesus; of\neach it is sometimes said they prayed; of each it is sometimes said\nthey spake. Miracles indeed must not be relied on as proofs of divinity,\nunless believers in them are prepared to pay divine honours not to Jesus\nonly, but also to a crowd of others, and to build a Christian Pantheon\nto the new found gods.\n\nSo far we have only seen the insufficiency of the usual Christian\narguments to establish a doctrine so stupendous and so _prima facie_\nimprobable as the incarnation of the Divine Being: this kind of negative\ntestimony, this insufficient evidence, is not however the principle\nreason which compels Theists to protest against the central dogma of\nChristianity. The stronger proofs of the simple manhood of Jesus remain,\nand we now proceed to positive evidence of his not being God. I\npropose to draw attention to the traces of human infirmity in his noble\ncharacter, to his absolute mistakes in prophecy, and to his evidently\nlimited knowledge. In accepting as substantially true the account\nof Jesus given by the evangelists, we are taking his character as\nit appeared to his devoted followers. We have not to do with slight\nblemishes, inserted by envious detractors of his greatness; the history\nof Jesus was written when his disciples worshipped him as God, and his\nmanhood, in their eyes, reached ideal perfection. We are not forced to\nbelieve that, in the gospels, the life of Jesus is given at its highest,\nand that he was, at least, not more spotless than he appears in these\nrecords of his friends. But here again, in order not to do a gross\ninjustice, we must put aside the fourth gospel; to study his character\n\"according to S. John\" would need a separate essay, so different is\nit from that drawn by the three; and by all rules of history we should\njudge him by the earlier records, more especially as they corroborate\neach other in the main.\n\nThe first thing which jars upon an attentive reader of the gospels is\nthe want of affection and respect shown by Jesus to his mother. When\nonly a child of twelve he lets his parents leave Jerusalem to return\nhome, while he repairs alone to the temple. The fascination of the\nancient city and the gorgeous temple services was doubtless almost\noverpowering to a thoughtful Jewish boy, more especially on his first\nvisit: but the careless forgetfulness of his parents' anxiety must be\nconsidered as a grave childish fault, the more so as its character is\ndarkened by the indifference shown by his answer to his mother's grieved\nreproof. That no high, though mistaken, sense of duty kept him in\nJerusalem is evident from his return home with his parents; for had he\nfelt that \"his Father's business\" detained him in Jerusalem at all, it\nis evident that this sense of duty would not have been satisfied by a\nthree days' delay. But the Christian advocate would bar criticism by an\nappeal to the Deity of Jesus: he asks us therefore to believe that\nJesus, being God, saw with indifference his parents' anguish at\ndiscovering his absence; knew all about that three days' agonised search\n(for they, ignorant of his divinity, felt the terrible anxiety as to\nhis safety, natural to country people losing a child in a crowded city);\ndid not, in spite of the tremendous powers at his command, take any\nsteps to re-assure them; and finally, met them again with no words of\nsympathy, only with a mysterious allusion, incomprehensible to them, to\nsome higher claim than theirs, which, however, he promptly set aside to\nobey them. If God was incarnate in a boy, we may trust that example as a\nmodel of childhood: yet, are Christians prepared to set this early\npiety and desire for religious instruction before their young children\nas an example they are to follow? Are boys and girls of twelve to be\nfree to absent themselves for days from their parents' guardianship\nunder the plea that a higher business claims their attention? This\nepisode of the childhood of Jesus should be relegated to those \"gospels\nof the infancy\" full of most unchildlike acts, which the wise discretion\nof Christendom has stamped with disapproval. The same want of filial\nreverence appears later in his life: on one occasion he was teaching,\nand his mother sent in, desiring to speak to him: the sole reply\nrecorded to the message is the harsh remark: \"Who is my mother?\" The\nmost practical proof that Christian morality has, on this head,\noutstripped the example of Jesus, is the prompt disapproval which\nsimilar conduct would meet with in the present day. By the strange\nwarping of morality often caused by controversial exigencies, this want\nof filial reverence has been triumphantly pointed out by Christian\ndivines; the indifference shown by Jesus to family ties is accepted as a\nproof that he was more than man! Thus, conduct which they implicitly\nacknowledge to be unseemly in a son to his mother, they claim as natural\nand right in the Son of God, to His! In the present day, if a person is\ndriven by conscience to a course painful to those who have claims on his\nrespect, his recognised duty, as well as his natural instinct, is to try\nand make up by added affection and more courteous deference for the pain\nhe is forced to inflict: above all, he would not wantonly add to that\npain by public and uncalled-for disrespect.\n\nThe attitude of Jesus towards his opponents in high places was marked\nwith unwarrantable bitterness. Here also the lofty and gentle spirit\nof his whole life has moulded Christian opinion in favour of a course\ndifferent on this head to his own, so that abuse of an opponent is now\ncommonly called _un_-Christian. Wearied with three years' calumny and\ncontempt, sore at the little apparent success which rewarded his labour,\nfull of a sad foreboding that his enemies would shortly crush him, Jesus\nwas goaded into passionate denunciations: \"Woe unto you, Scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites... ye fools and blind... ye make a proselyte\ntwofold more the child of hell than yourselves... ye serpents, ye\ngeneration of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell!\" Surely\nthis is not the spirit which breathed in, \"If ye love them which love\nyou, what thanks have ye?... Love your enemies, bless them that curse\nyou, pray for them that persecute you.\" Had he not even specially\nforbidden the very expression, \"Thou fool!\" Was not this rendering evil\nfor evil, railing for railing?\n\nIt is painful to point out these blemishes: reverence for the great\nleaders of humanity is a duty dear to all human hearts; but when homage\nturns into idolatry, then men must rise up to point out faults which\notherwise they would pass over in respectful silence, mindful only of\nthe work so nobly done.\n\nI turn then, with a sense of glad relief, to the evidence of the limited\nknowledge of Jesus, for here no blame attaches to him, although _one_\nproved mistake is fatal to belief in his Godhead. First as to prophecy:\n\"The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels:\nand then shall he reward every man according to his works. Verily I say\nunto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death\ntill they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.\" Later, he amplifies\nthe same idea: he speaks of a coming tribulation, succeeded by his own\nreturn, and then adds the emphatic declaration: \"Verily I say unto\nyou, This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.\" The\nnon-fulfilment of these prophecies is simply a question of fact: let\nmen explain away the words now as they may, yet, if the record is true,\nJesus did believe in his own speedy return, and impressed the same belief\non his followers. It is plain, indeed, that he succeeded in impressing\nit on them, from the references to his return scattered through the\nepistles. The latest writings show an anxiety to remove the doubts which\nwere disturbing the converts consequent on the non-appearance of Jesus,\nand the fourth gospel omits any reference to his coming. It is worth\nremarking, in the latter, the spiritual sense which is hinted at--either\npurposely or unintentionally--in the words, \"The hour... _now_ is when\nthe dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear\nshall live.\" These words may be the popular feeling on the advent of the\nresurrection, forced on the Christians by the failure of their Lord's\nprophecies in any literal sense. He could not be mistaken, _ergo_ they\nmust spiritualise his words. The limited knowledge of Jesus is further\nevident from his confusing Zacharias the son of Jehoiada with Zacharias\nthe son of Barachias: the former, a priest, was slain in the temple\ncourt, as Jesus states; but the son of Barachias was Zacharias, or\nZachariah, the prophet.* He himself owned a limitation of his knowledge,\nwhen he confessed his ignorance of the day of his own return, and said\nit was known to the \"Father only.\" Of the same class of sayings is\nhis answer to the mother of James and John, that the high seats of\nthe coming kingdom \"are not mine to give.\" That Jesus believed in the\nfearful doctrine of eternal punishment is evident, in spite of the\ningenious attempts to prove that the doctrine is not scriptural:\nthat he, in common with his countrymen, ascribed many diseases to the\nimmediate power of Satan, which we should now probably refer to natural\ncauses, as epilepsy, mania, and the like, is also self-evident. But on\nsuch points as these it is useless to dwell, for the Christian believes\nthem on the authority of Jesus, and the subjects, from their nature,\ncannot be brought to the test of ascertained facts. Of the same\ncharacter are some of his sayings: his discouraging \"Strive to enter\nin at the strait gate, _for_ many,\" etc.; his using in defence of\npartiality Isaiah's awful prophecy, \"that seeing they may see and not\nperceive,\" etc.; his using Scripture at one time as binding, while he,\nat another, depreciates it; his fondness for silencing an opponent by an\ningenious retort: all these things are blameworthy to those who regard\nhim as man, while they are shielded from criticism by his divinity to\nthose who worship him as God. There morality is a question of opinion,\nand it is wasted time to dwell on them when arguing with Christians,\nwhose moral sense is for the time held in check by their mental\nprostration at his feet. But the truth of the quoted prophecies, and\nthe historical fact of the parentage of Zachariah, can be tested, and on\nthese Jesus made palpable mistakes. The obvious corollary is, that being\nmistaken--as he was--his knowledge was limited, and was therefore human,\nnot divine.\n\n     * See Appendix, page 12.\n\nIn turning to the teaching of Jesus (I still confine myself to the three\ngospels), we find no support of the Christian theory. If we take his\ndidactic teaching, we can discover no trace of his offering himself as\nan object of either faith or worship. His life's work, as teacher, was\nto speak of the Father. In the sermon on the Mount he is always striking\nthe keynote, \"your heavenly Father;\" in teaching his disciples to\npray, it is to \"Our Father,\" and the Christian idea of ending a prayer\n\"through Jesus Christ\" is quite foreign to the simple filial spirit\nof their master. Indeed, when we think of the position Jesus holds in\nChristian theology, it seems strange to notice the utter absence of any\nsuggestion of duty to himself throughout this whole code of so-called\nChristian morality. In strict accordance with his more formal teaching\nis his treatment of inquirers: when a young man comes kneeling, and,\naddressing him as \"Good Master,\" asks what he shall do to inherit\neternal life, the loyal heart of Jesus first rejects the homage, before\nhe proceeds to answer the all-important question: \"Why callest thou _me_\ngood: there is none good but one, that is, God.\" He then directs the\nyouth on the way to eternal life, and _he sends that young man home\nwithout one word of the doctrine on which, according to Christians,\nhis salvation rested_. If the \"Gospel\" came to that man later, he would\nreject it on the authority of Jesus, who had told him a different \"way\nof salvation;\" and if Christianity is true, the perdition of that young\nman's soul is owing to the defective teaching of Jesus himself. Another\ntime, he tells a Scribe that the first commandment is that God is\none, and that all a man's love is due to Him; then adding the duty of\nneighbourly love, he says: \"There is _none other_ commandment greater\nthan these:\" so that \"belief in Jesus,\" if incumbent at all, must come\nafter love to God and man, and is not necessary, by his own testimony,\nto \"entering into life.\" On Jesus himself then rests the primary\nresponsibility of affirming that belief in him is a matter of secondary\nimportance, at most, letting alone the fact that he never inculcated\nbelief in his Deity as an article of faith at all. In the same spirit of\nfrank loyalty to God are his words on the unpardonable sin: in answer\nto a gross personal affront, he tells his insulters that they shall be\nforgiven for speaking against him, a simple son of man, but warns them\nof the danger of confounding the work of God's. Spirit with that of\nSatan, \"because they said\" that works; done by God, using Jesus as His\ninstrument, were done by Beelzebub.\n\nThere remains yet one argument of tremendous force, which can only\nbe appreciated by personal meditation. We find Jesus praying to\nGod, relying on God, in his greatest need crying in agony to God for\ndeliverance, in his last: struggle, deserted by his friends, asking why\nGod, his God, had also forsaken him. We feel how natural, how true to\nlife, this whole account is: in our heart's reverence for that noble\nlife, that \"faithfulness unto death,\" we can scarcely bear to think of\nthe insult offered to it by Christian lips: they take every beauty\nout of it by telling us that through all that struggle Jesus was\nthe Eternal, the Almighty, God: it is all apparent, not real: in his\ntemptation he could not fall: in his prayers he needed no support: in\nhis cry that the cup might pass away he foresaw it was inevitable: in\nhis agony of desertion and loneliness he was present everywhere with\nGod. In all that life, then, there is no hope for man, no pledge of\nman's victory, no promise for humanity. This is no _man's_ life at all,\nit is only a wonderful drama enacted on earth. What God could do is no\nmeasure of man's powers: what have we in common with this \"God-man?\"\nThis Jesus, whom we had thought our brother, is after all, removed from\nus by the immeasurable distance which separates the feebleness of man\nfrom the omnipotence of God. Nothing can compensate us for such a loss\nas this. We had rejoiced in that many-sided nobleness, and its very\nblemishes were dear, because they assured us of his brotherhood to\nourselves: we are given an ideal picture where we had studied a history,\nanother Deity where we had hoped to emulate a life. Instead of the\nencouragement we had found, what does Christianity offer us?--a perfect\nlife? But we knew before that God was perfect: an example? it starts\nfrom a different level: a Saviour? we cannot be safer than we are with\nGod: an Advocate? we need none with our Father: a Substitute to endure\nGod's wrath for us? we had rather trust God's justice to punish us as\nwe deserve, and his wisdom to do what is best for us. As God, Jesus can\ngive us nothing that we have not already in his Father and ours: as man,\nhe gives us all the encouragement and support which we derive from every\nnoble soul which God sends into this world, \"a burning and a shining\nlight\":\n\n     \"Through such souls alone\n     God stooping shows sufficient of\n     His light For us in the dark to rise by.\"\n\nAs God, he confuses our perceptions of God's unity, bewilders our reason\nwith endless contradictions, and turns away from the Supreme all those\nemotions of love and adoration which can only flow towards a single\nobject, and which are the due of our Creator alone: as man, he gives us\nan example to strive after, a beacon to steer by; he is one more leader\nfor humanity, one more star in our darkness. As God, all his words would\nbe truth, and but few would enter into heaven, while hell would overflow\nwith victims: as man, we may refuse to believe such a slander on our\nFather, and take all the comfort pledged to us by that name. Thank God,\nthen, that Jesus is only man, \"human child of human parents;\" that\nwe need not dwarf our conceptions of God to fit human faculties, or\nenvelope the illimitable spirit in a baby's feeble frame. But though\nonly man, he has reached a standard of human greatness which no other\nman, so far as we know, has touched: the very height of his character is\nalmost a pledge of the truthfulness of the records in the main: his life\nhad to be lived before its conception became possible, at that period\nand among such a people. They could recognise his greatness when it was\nbefore their eyes: they would scarcely have imagined it for themselves,\nmore especially that, as we have seen, he was so different from the\nJewish ideal. His code of morality stands unrivalled, and he was the\nfirst who taught the universal Fatherhood of God publicly and to the\ncommon people. Many of his loftiest precepts may be found in the books\nof the Rabbis, but it is the glorious prerogative of Jesus that he\nspread abroad among the many the wise and holy maxims that had hitherto\nbeen the sacred treasures of the few. With him none were too degraded\nto be called the children of the Father: none too simple to be worthy of\nthe highest teaching. By example, as well as by precept, he taught that\nall men were brothers, and all the good he had he showered at their\nfeet. \"Pure in heart,\" he saw God, and what he saw he called all to see:\nhe longed that all might share in his own joyous trust in the Father,\nand seemed to be always seeking for fresh images to describe the freedom\nand fulness of the universal love of God. In his unwavering love of\ntruth, but his patience with doubters--in his personal purity, but his\ntenderness to the fallen--in his hatred of evil, but his friendliness\nto the sinner--we see splendid virtues rarely met in combination. His\nbrotherliness, his yearning to raise the degraded, his lofty piety, his\nunswerving morality, his perfect self-sacrifice, are his indefeasible\ntitles to human love and reverence. Of the world's benefactors he is the\nchief, not only by his own life, but by the enthusiasm he has known to\ninspire in others: \"Our plummet has not sounded his depth:\" words fail\nto tell what humanity owes to the Prophet of Nazareth. On his example\nthe great Christian heroes have based their lives: from the foundation\nlaid by his teaching the world is slowly rising to a purer faith in God.\nWe need now such a leader as he was--one who would dare to follow the\nFather's will as he did, casting a long-prized revelation aside when\nit conflicts with the higher voice of conscience. It is the teaching\nof Jesus that Theism gladly makes its own, purifying it from the\ninconsistencies which mar its perfection. It is the example of Jesus\nwhich Theists are following, though they correct that example in some\npoints by his loftiest sayings. It is the work of Jesus which Theists\nare carrying on, by worshipping, as he did, the Father, and the Father\nalone, and by endeavouring to turn all men's love, all men's hopes, and\nall men's adoration, to that \"God and Father of all, who is above all,\nand through all, and,\" not in Jesus only, but \"_in us all_.\"\n\nAPPENDIX: \"Josephus mentions a Zacharias, a son of Baruch ('Wars of\nthe Jews,' Book iv., sec. 4), who was slain under the circumstances\ndescribed by Jesus. His name would be more suitable at the close of the\nlong list of Jewish crimes, as it occurred just before the destruction\nof Jerusalem. But, as it took place about thirty-four years after the\ndeath of Jesus, it is clear that he could not have referred to it;\ntherefore, if we admit that he made no mistake, we strike a serious\nblow at the credibility of his historian, who then puts into his mouth a\nremark never uttered.\"\n\n\n\n\nA COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE THREE SYNOPTICS\n\nEVERY one, at least in the educated classes, knows that the authenticity\nof the fourth gospel has been long and widely disputed. The most\ncareless reader is struck by the difference of tone between the simple\nhistories ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the theological and\nphilosophical treatise which bears the name of John. After following\nthe three narratives, so simple in their structure, so natural in their\nstyle, so unadorned by rhetoric, so free from philosophic terms,--after\nreading these, it is with a feeling of surprise that we find ourselves,\nplunged into the bewildering mazes of the Alexandrine philosophy, and\nopen our fourth gospel to be told that, \"In the beginning was the word,\nand the word was with God, and the word was God.\" We ask instinctively,\n\"How did John, the fisherman of Galilee, learn these phrases of the\nGreek schools, and why does he mix up the simple story of his master\nwith the philosophy of that 'world which by wisdom knew not God?'\"\n\nThe general Christian tradition is as follows: The spread! of\n\"heretical\" views about the person of Jesus alarmed the \"orthodox\"\nChristians, and they appealed to John, the last aged relic of the\napostolic band, to write a history of Jesus which should confute their\nopponents, and establish the essential deity of the founder of their\nreligion. At their repeated solicitations, John wrote the gospel which\nbears his name, and the doctrinal tone of it is due to its original\nintention,--a treatise written against Cerinthus, and designed to\ncrush, with the authority of an apostle, the rising doubts as to\nthe pre-existence and absolute deity of Jesus of Nazareth. So far\nnon-Christians and Christians--including the writer of the gospel--are\nagreed. This fourth gospel is not--say Theists--a simple biography\nof Jesus written by a loving disciple as a memorial of a departed and\ncherished friend, but a history written with a special object and to\nprove a certain doctrine. \"St. John's gospel is a polemical treatise,\"\nechoes Dr. Liddon. \"These are written that ye may believe that Jesus\nis the Christ, the Son of God,\" confesses the writer himself. Now, in\nexamining the credibility of any history, one of the first points\nto determine is whether the historian is perfectly unbiassed in his\njudgment and is therefore likely give facts exactly as they occurred,\nun-coloured by views of his own. Thus we do not turn to the pages of a\nRoman Catholic historian to gain a fair idea of Luther, or of William\nthe Silent, or expect to find in the volumes of Clarendon a thoroughly\nfaithful portraiture of the vices of the Stuart kings; rather, in\nreading the history of a partisan, do we instinctively make allowances\nfor the recognised bias of his mind and heart. That the fourth gospel\ncomes to us prefaced by the announcement that it is written, not to give\nus a history, but to prove a certain predetermined opinion, is, then,\nso much doubt cast at starting on its probable accuracy; and, by the\nconstitution of our minds, we at once guard ourselves against a too\nready acquiescence in its assertions, and become anxious to test its\nstatements by comparing them with some independent and more impartial\nauthority. The history may be most accurate, but we require proof\nthat the writer is never seduced into slightly--perhaps\nunconsciously--colouring an incident so as to favour the object he\nhas at heart. For instance, Matthew, an honest writer enough, is often\nbetrayed into most non-natural quotation of prophecy by his anxiety to\nconnect Jesus with the Messiah expected by his countrymen. This latent\nwish of his leads him to insert various quotations from the Jewish\nScriptures which, severed from their context, have a verbal similarity\nwith the events he narrates. Thus, he refers to Hosea's mention of the\nExodus: \"When Israel was a child then I loved him and called my son\nout of Egypt,\" and by quoting only the last six words gives this as a\n\"prophecy\" of an alleged journey of Jesus into Egypt. Such an instance\nas this shows us how a man may allow himself to be blinded by a\npre-conceived determination to prove a certain fact, and warns us to\nsift carefully any history that comes to us with the announcement that\nit is written to prove such and such a truth.\n\nUnfortunately we have no independent contemporary history--except a\nsentence of Josephus--whereby to test the accuracy of the Christian\nrecords; we are therefore forced into the somewhat unsatisfactory task\nof comparing them one with another, and in cases of diverging testimony\nwe must strike the balance of probability between them.\n\nOn examining, then, these four biographies of Jesus, we find a\nremarkable similarity between three of them, amid many divergencies of\ndetail; some regard them, therefore, as the condensation into writing\nof the oral teaching of the apostles, preserved in the various Churches\nthey severally founded, and so, naturally, the same radically, although\ndiverse in detail. \"The synoptic Gospels contain the substance of the\nApostles' testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching\ncurrent in the Church, partly also from written documents embodying\nportions of that teaching.\"* Others think that the gospels which we\npossess, and which are ascribed severally to Matthew, Mark, and Luke,\nare all three derived from an original gospel now lost, which was\nprobably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and variously translated into\nGreek. However this may be, the fact that such a statement as this has\nbeen put forward proves the striking similarity, the root identity, of\nthe three \"synoptical gospels,\" as they are called. We gather from them\nan idea of Jesus which is substantially the same: a figure, calm, noble,\nsimple, generous; pure in life, eager to draw men to that love of the\nFather and devotion to the Father which were his own distinguishing\ncharacteristics; finally, a teacher of a simple and high-toned morality,\nperfectly unfettered by dogmatism. The effect produced by the sketch of\nthe Fourth Evangelist is totally different. The friend of sinners has\ndisappeared (except in the narrative of the woman taken in adultery,\nwhich is generally admitted to be an interpolation), for his whole time\nis occupied in arguing about his own position; \"the common people\"\nwho followed and \"heard him gladly\" and his enemies, the Scribes and\nPharisees, are all massed together as \"the Jews,\" with whom he is in\nconstant collision; his simple style of teaching--parabolic indeed, as\nwas the custom of the East, but consisting of parables intelligible to\na child--is exchanged for mystical discourses, causing perpetual\nmisunderstandings, the true meaning of which is still wrangled about by\nChristian theologians; his earnest testimony to \"your heavenly Father\"\nis replaced by a constant self-assertion; while his command \"do this and\nye shall live,\" is exchanged for \"believe on me or perish.\"\n\n     * Alford.\n\nHow great is the contrast between that discourse and the Sermon on\nthe Mount.... In the last discourse it is His Person rather than his\nteaching which is especially prominent. His subject in that discourse is\nHimself.\n\nCertainly he preaches himself in His relationship to His redeemed; but\nstill he preaches above all, and in all, Himself. All radiates from\nHimself, all converges towards Himself.... in those matchless words all\ncentres so consistently in Jesus, that it might seem that \"Jesus Alone is\nbefore us.\"* These and similar differences, both of direct teaching and\nof the more subtle animating spirit, I propose to examine in detail; but\nbefore entering on these it seems necessary to glance at the disputed\nquestion of the authorship of our history, and determine whether, if it\nprove apostolic, it _must_ therefore be binding on us.\n\nI leave to more learned pens than mine the task of criticising\nand drawing conclusions from the Greek or the precise dogma of the\nevangelist, and of weighing the conflicting testimony of mighty names.\nFrom the account contained in the English Bible of John the Apostle, I\ngather the following points of his character: He was warm-hearted to his\nfriends, bitter against his enemies, filled with a fiery and unbridled\nzeal against theological opponents; he was ambitious, egotistical,\npharisaical. I confess that I trace these characteristics through all\nthe writings ascribed to him, and that they seem to be only softened by\nage in the fourth gospel. That John was a warm friend is proved by his\nfirst epistle; that he was bitter against his enemies appears in his\nmention of Diotrephes, \"I will remember his deeds which he doeth,\nprating against us with malicious words;\" his unbridled zeal was rebuked\nby his master; the same cruel spirit is intensified in his \"Revelation;\"\nhis ambition is apparent in his anxiety for a chief seat in Messiah's\nkingdom; his egotism appears in the fearful curse he imprecates on those\nwho alter _his_ revelation; his pharisaism is marked in such a feeling\nas, \"we know _we_ are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.\"\nMany of these qualities appear to me to mark the gospel which bears\nhis name; the same restricted tenderness, the same bitterness against\nopponents, the same fiery zeal for \"the truth,\" i.e., a special\ntheological dogma, are everywhere apparent.\n\n     * Liddon.\n\nThe same egotism is most noticeable, for in the other gospels John\nshares his master's chief regard with two others, while here he is\n\"_the_ disciple whom Jesus loved,\" and he is specially prominent in the\nclosing scenes of Jesus' life as the _only_ faithful follower. We should\nalso notice the remarkable similarity of expression and tone between\nthe fourth gospel and the first epistle of John, a similarity the more\nstriking as the language is peculiar to the writings attributed to\nJohn. It is, however, with the utmost diffidence that I offer these\nsuggestions, well knowing that the greatest authorities are divided on\nthis point of authorship, and that the balance is rather against the\napostolic origin of the gospel than for it. I am, however, anxious\nto show that, _even taking it as apostolic_, it is untrustworthy and\nutterly unworthy of credit. If John be the writer, we must suppose\nthat his long residence in Ephesus had gradually obliterated his Jewish\nmemories, so that he speaks of \"the Jews\" as a foreigner would. The\nstern Jewish monotheism would have grown feebler by contact with the\nsubtle influence of the Alexandrine tone of thought; and he would have\ncaught the expressions of that school from living in a city which was\nits second home. To use the Greek philosophy as a vehicle for Christian\nteaching would recommend itself to him as the easiest way of approaching\nminds imbued with these mystic ideas. Regarding the master of his youth\nthrough the glorifying medium of years, he gradually began to imagine\nhim to be one of the emanations from the Supreme, of which he heard so\nmuch. Accustomed to the deification of Roman emperors, men of infamous\nlives, he must have been almost driven to claim divine honours for _his_\nleader. If his hearers regarded _them_ as divine, what could he say to\nexalt _him_ except that he was ever with God, nay, was himself God? If\nJohn be the writer of this gospel, some such change as this must have\npassed over him, and in his old age the gradual accretions of years must\nhave crystallised themselves into a formal Christian theology. But if we\nfind, during our examination, that the history and the teaching of this\ngospel is utterly irreconcilable with the undoubtedly earlier synoptic\ngospels, we must then conclude that, apostolic or not, it must give\nplace to them, and be itself rejected as a trustworthy account of the\nlife and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nThe first striking peculiarity of this gospel is that all the people\nin it talk in exactly the same style and use the same markedly peculiar\nphraseology, (a) \"The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things\ninto his hand.\" (b) \"For the Father loveth the Son and showeth him all\nthings that Himself doeth.\" (c) \"Jesus, knowing that the Father had\ngiven all things into his hand.\" These sentences are evidently the\noutcome of the same mind, and no one, unacquainted with our gospel,\nwould guess that (a) was spoken by John the Baptist, (b) by Jesus, (c)\nby the writer of the gospel. When the Jews speak, the words still run in\nthe same groove: \"If any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will,\nhim He heareth,\" is not said, as might be supposed, by Jesus, but by the\nman who was born blind. Indeed, commentators are sometimes puzzled, as\nin John iii. 10-21, to know where, if at all, the words of Jesus stop\nand are succeeded by the commentary of the narrator. In an accurate\nhistory different characters stand out in striking individuality, so\nthat we come to recognise them as distinct personalities, and can even\nguess beforehand how they will probably speak and act under certain\nconditions. But here we have one figure in various disguises, one voice\nfrom different speakers, one mind in opposing characters. We have here\nno beings of flesh and blood, but airy phantoms, behind whom we see\nclearly the solitary preacher. For Jesus and John the Baptist are two\ncharacters as distinct as can well be imagined, yet their speeches are\nabsolutely indistinguishable, and their thoughts run in the same groove.\nJesus tells Nicodemus: \"We speak that we do know and testify that we\nhave seen, and ye receive not our witness; and no man hath ascended\nup to heaven, but he that came down from heaven.\" John says to his\ndisciples: \"He that cometh from heaven is above all, and what he hath\nseen and heard that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony.\"\nBut it is wasting time to prove so self-evident a fact: let us rather\nsee how a Christian advocate meets an argument whose force he cannot\ndeny. \"The character and diction of our Lord's discourses entirely\npenetrated and assimilated the habits of thought of His beloved Apostle;\nso that in his first epistle he writes in the very tone and spirit of\nthose discourses; and when reporting the sayings of his former teacher,\nthe Baptist, he gives them, consistently with the deepest inner truth\n(!) of narration, the forms and cadences so familiar and habitual to\nhimself.\"* It must be left to each individual to judge if a careful and\naccurate historian thus tampers with the words he pretends to narrate,\nand thus makes them accord with some mysterious inner truth; each\ntoo must decide as to the amount of reliance it is wise to place on a\nhistorian who is guided by so remarkable a rule of truth. But further,\nthat the \"character and diction\" of this gospel are moulded on that of\nJesus, seems a most unwarrantable assertion. Through all the recorded\nsayings of Jesus in the three gospels, there is no trace of this very\npeculiar style, except in one case (Matt. xi. 27), a passage which comes\nin abruptly and unconnectedly, and stands absolutely alone in style\nin the three synoptics, a position which throws much doubt on its\nauthenticity. It has been suggested that this marked difference of style\narises from the different auditories addressed in the three gospels and\nin the fourth; on this we remark that (a), we intuitively recognise such\ndiscourses as that in Matt. x. as perfectly consistent with the usual\nstyle of Jesus, although this is addressed to \"his own;\" (b), In this\nfourth gospel the discourses addressed to \"his own\" and to the Jews are\nin exactly the same style; so that, neither in this gospel, nor in\nthe synoptics do we find any difference--more than might be reasonably\nexpected--between the style of the discourses addressed to the disciples\nand those addressed to the multitudes. But we _do_ find a very marked\ndifference between the style attributed to Jesus by the three synoptics\nand that put into his mouth by the fourth evangelist; this last being a\nstyle so remarkable that, if usual to Jesus, it is impossible that its\ntraces should not appear through all his recorded speeches. From which\nfact we may, I think, boldly deduce the conclusion that the style in\nquestion is not that of Jesus, the simple carpenter's son, but is one\ncaught from the dignified and stately march of the oratory of Ephesian\nphilosophers, and is put into his mouth by the writer of his life. And\nthis conclusion is rendered indubitable by the fact above-mentioned,\nthat all the characters adopt this poetically and musically-rounded\nphraseology.\n\n     * Alford.\n\nThus our first objection against the trustworthiness of our historian\nis that all the persons he introduces, however different in character,\nspeak exactly alike, and that this style, when put into the mouth of\nJesus, is totally different from that attributed to him by the three\nsynoptics. We conclude, therefore, that the style belongs wholly to the\nwriter, and that he cannot, consequently, be trusted in his reports of\nspeeches. The major part, by far the most important part, of this gospel\nis thus at once stamped as untrustworthy.\n\nLet us next remark the partiality attributed by this gospel to Him Who\nhas said--according to the Bible--\"all souls-are Mine.\" We find the\ndoctrine of predestination, i.e., of favouritism, constantly put\nforward. \"_All that the Father giveth me_ shall come to me.\" \"No man can\ncome to me except the Father draw him.\" \"That of all _which He hath given\nme_ I should lose nothing.\" \"Ye believe not, _because_ ye are not of\nmy sheep.\" \"Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they\nbelieved not on him: _that the saying_ of Esaias the prophet _might be\nfulfilled._\" \"Therefore, they _could not believe because_ that Esaias\nsaid,\" &c. \"I have chosen you out of the world.\" \"Thou hast given him\npower over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to _as many as\nThou hast given him?_\" \"Those that thou gavest me I have kept and none\nof them is lost, but the son of perdition, _that the Scriptures might\nbe fulfilled._\" These are the most striking of the passages which teach\nthat doctrine which has been the most prolific parent of immorality and\nthe bringer of despair to the sinner. Frightfully immoral as it is, this\ndoctrine is taught in all its awful hopelessness and plainness by this\ngospel: some \"_could not_ believe\" because an old prophet prophesied\nthat they should not-So, \"according to St. John,\" these unbelieving Jews\nwere pre-ordained to eternal damnation and the abiding wrath of God.\nThey were cast into an endless hell, which \"they _could not_\" avoid. We\nreject this gospel, secondly, for the partiality it dares to attribute\nto Almighty God.\n\nWe will now pass to the historical discrepancies between this gospel and\nthe three synoptics, following the order of the former.\n\nIt tells us (ch. i) that at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was at\nBethabara, a town near the junction of the Jordan with the Dead Sea;\nhere he gains three disciples, Andrew and another, and then Simon Peter:\nthe next day he goes into Galilee and finds Philip and Nathanael, and on\nthe following day--somewhat rapid travelling--he is present, with\nthese disciples, at Cana, where he performs his first miracle, going\nafterwards with them to Capernaum and Jerusalem. At Jerusalem, whither\nhe goes for \"the Jews' passover,\" he drives out the traders from the\ntemple, and remarks, \"Destroy this temple, and in three days I\nwill raise it up:\" which remark causes the first of the strange\nmisunderstandings between Jesus and the Jews, peculiar to this Gospel,\nsimple misconceptions which Jesus never troubles himself to set right.\nJesus and his disciples then go to the Jordan, baptising, whence Jesus\ndeparts into Galilee with them, because he hears that the Pharisees know\nhe is becoming more popular than the Baptist (ch. iv. 1-3). All this\nhappens before John is cast into prison, an occurrence which is a\nconvenient note of time. We turn to the beginning of the ministry of\nJesus as related by the three. Jesus is in the south of Palestine, but,\nhearing that John is cast into prison, he departs into Galilee, and\nresides at Capernaum. There is no mention of any ministry in Galilee and\nJudaea before this; on the contrary, it is only \"from that time\" that\n\"Jesus _began_ to preach.\" He is alone, without disciples, but, walking\nby the sea, he comes upon Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and calls\nthem. Now if the fourth gospel is true, these men had joined him in\nJudaea, followed him to Galilee, south again to Jerusalem, and back to\nGalilee, had seen his miracles and acknowledged him as Christ, so it\nseems strange that they had deserted him and needed a second call, and\nyet more strange is it that Peter (Luke v. i-ii) was so astonished and\namazed at the miracle of the fishes. The driving out of the traders from\nthe temple is placed by the synoptics at the very end of his ministry,\nand the remark following it is used against him at his trial: so was\nprobably made just before it. The next point of contact is the history\nof the 5000 fed by five loaves (ch. vi.), the preceding chapter relates\nto a visit to Jerusalem unnoticed by the three: indeed, the histories\nseem written of two men, one the \"prophet of Galilee\" teaching in its\ncities, the other concentrating his energies on Jerusalem. The account\nof the miraculous, feeding is alike in all: not so the succeeding\naccount of the conduct of the multitude. In the fourth gospel, Jesus\nand the crowd fall to disputing, as usual, and he loses many disciples:\namong the three, Luke says nothing of the immediately following\nevents, while Matthew and Mark tell us that the multitudes--as would be\nnatural--crowded round him to touch even the hem of his garment. This is\nthe same as always: in the three the crowd loves him; in the fourth it\ncarps at and argues with him. We must again miss the sojourn of Jesus in\nGalilee, according to the three, and his visit to Jerusalem, according\nto the one, and pass to his entry into Jerusalem in triumph. Here we\nnotice a most remarkable divergence: the synoptics tell us that he\nwas going up to Jerusalem from Galilee, and, arriving on his way at\nBethphage, he sent for an ass and rode thereon into Jerusalem: the\nfourth gospel relates that he was dwelling at Jerusalem, and leaving it,\nfor fear of the Jews, he retired, not into Galilee, but \"beyond Jordan,\ninto the place where John at first baptised,\" i.e., Bethabara, \"and\n_there he abode_\" From there he went to Bethany and raised to life a\nputrefying corpse: this stupendous miracle is never appealed to by the\nearlier historians in proof of their master's greatness, though\n\"much people of the Jews\" are said to have seen Lazarus after his\nresurrection: this miracle is also given as the reason for the active\nhostility of the priests, \"from that day forward.\" Jesus then retires\nto Ephraim near the wilderness, from which town he goes to Bethany, and\nthence in triumph to Jerusalem, being met by the people \"for that they\nheard that he had done this miracle.\" The two accounts have absolutely\nnothing in common except the entry into Jerusalem, and the preceding\nevents of the synoptics exclude those of the fourth gospel, as does the\nlatter theirs. If Jesus abode in Bethabara and Ephraim, he could not\nhave come from Galilee; if he started from Galilee, he was not abiding\nin the south. John xiii.-xvii. stand alone, with the exception of the\nmention of the traitor. On the arrest of Jesus, he is led (ch. xviii.\n13) to Annas, who sends him to Caiaphas, while the others send him\ndirect to Caiaphas, but this is immaterial. He is then taken to Pilate:\nthe Jews do not enter the judgment-hall, lest, being defiled, they could\nnot eat the passover, a feast which, according to the synoptics, was\nover, Jesus and his disciples having eaten it the night before. Jesus is\nexposed to the people at the sixth hour (ch. xix. 14), while Mark tells\nus he was crucified three hours before--at the third hour--a note of\ntime which agrees with the others, since they all relate that there\nwas darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, i.e., there was thick\ndarkness at the time when, \"according to St. John,\" Jesus was exposed.\nHere our evangelist is in hopeless conflict with the three. The accounts\nabout the resurrection are irreconcilable in all the gospels, and\nmutually destructive. It remains to notice, among these discrepancies,\none or two points which did not come in conveniently in the course of\nthe narrative. During the whole of the fourth gospel, we find Jesus\nconstantly arguing for his right to the title of Messiah. Andrew speaks\nof him as such (i. 41); the Samaritans acknowledge him (iv. 42); Peter\nowns him (vi. 69); the people call him so-(vii. 26, 31, 41); Jesus\nclaims it (viii. 24); it is the subject of a law (ix. 22); Jesus speaks\nof it as already claimed by him (x. 24, 25); Martha recognises it\n(xi. 27). We thus find that, from the very first, this title is openly\nclaimed by Jesus, and his right to it openly canvassed by the Jews.\nBut--in the three--the disciples acknowledge him as Christ, and he\ncharges them to \"tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ\" (Matt. xvi.\n20; Mark viii. 29, 30; Luke ix. 20, 21); and this in the same year that\nhe blames the Jews for not owning this Messiahship, since he had told\nthem who he was. \"from the beginning\" (ch. viii. 24, 25); so that, if\n\"John\" was right, we fail to see the object of all the mystery about it,\nrelated by the synoptics. We mark, too, how Peter is, in their account,\npraised for confessing him, for flesh and blood had not revealed it to\nhim, while in the fourth gospel, \"flesh and blood,\" in the person of\nAndrew, reveal to Peter that the Christ is found; and there seems little\npraise due to Peter for a confession which had been made two or three\nyears earlier by Andrew, Nathanael, John Baptist, and the Samaritans.\nContradiction can scarcely be more direct. In John vii. Jesus owns that\nthe Jews know his birthplace (28), and they state (41, 42) that he comes\nfrom Galilee, while Christ should be born at Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke\ndistinctly say Jesus was born at Bethlehem; but here Jesus confesses\nthe right knowledge of those who attribute his birthplace to Galilee,\ninstead of setting their difficulty at rest by explaining that though\nbrought up at Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem. But our writer was\napparently-ignorant of their accounts. We reject this gospel, thirdly,\nbecause its historical statements are in direct contradiction to the\nhistory of the synoptics.\n\nThe next point to which I wish to direct attention is the relative\nposition of faith and morals in the three synoptics and the fourth\ngospel. It is not too much to say that on this point their teaching is\nabsolutely irreconcilable, and one or the other must be fatally in the\nwrong. Here the fourth gospel clasps hands with Paul, while the others\ntake the side of James. The opposition may be most plainly shown by\nparallel columns of quotations:\n\n \"Except your righteousness            \"He that _believeth on the_ Son\n exceed that of the scribes and        hath everlasting life.\"--iii. 36.\n Pharisees, ye shall _in no\n case_ enter Heaven.\"--Matt. v. 20.\n\n \"Have  we not prophesied in           \"He that believeth on Him _is\n thy name and in thy name done         not condemned_.\"--iii. 18.\n many wonderful works?\"\n\n \"Then will I profess unto them...\n Depart...ye that work iniquity.\"\n --Matt. vii. 22, 23.\n\n \"If thou  wilt enter into life,       \"He that believeth not the Son\n keep the commandments.\"--Mark          shall not see life.\"--iii. 36. x. 17-28.\n\n \"Her sins, which are many, are        \"If ye believe not that I am he\n forgiven, _for she loved_ much.\"--    ye shall die in your sins.\"--viii.\n                                       Luke vii. 47. 24.\n\nThese few quotations, which might be indefinitely multiplied, are\nenough to show that, while in the three gospels _doing_ is the test of\nreligion, and no profession of discipleship is worth anything unless\nshown by \"its fruits,\" in the fourth _believing_ is the cardinal matter:\nin the three we hear absolutely nothing of faith in Jesus as requisite,\nbut in the fourth we hear of little else: works are thrown completely\ninto the background and salvation rests on believing--not even in\nGod--but in Jesus. We reject this gospel, fourthly, for setting faith\nabove works, and so contradicting the general teaching of Jesus himself.\n\nThe relative positions of the Father and Jesus are reversed by the\nfourth evangelist, and the teaching of Jesus on this head in the three\ngospels is directly contradicted. Throughout them Jesus preaches the\nFather only: he is always reiterating \"your heavenly Father;\" \"that\nye may be the children of your Father,\" is his argument for forgiving\nothers; \"your Father is perfect,\" is his spur to a higher life; \"your\nFather knoweth,\" is his anodyne in anxiety; \"it is the Father's good\npleasure,\" is his certainty of coming happiness; \"_one_ is your Father,\nwhich is in heaven,\" is, by an even extravagant loyalty, made a reason\nfor denying the very name to any other. But in the fourth gospel all is\nchanged: if the Father is mentioned at all, it is only as the sender of\nJesus, as _his_ Witness and _his_ Glorifier. All love, all devotion, all\nhomage, is directed to Jesus and to Jesus only: even \"on the Christian\nhypothesis the Father is eclipsed by His only begotten Son.\"* \"All\njudgment\" is in the hands of the Son: he has \"life in himself;\" \"the\nwork of God\" is to believe on him; he gives \"life unto the world;\" he\nwill \"raise\" us \"up at the last day;\" except by eating him there is \"no\nlife;\" he is \"the light of the world;\" he gives true freedom; he is the\n\"one shepherd: none can pluck\" us out of his hand; he will \"draw all men\nunto\" himself: he is the \"Lord and Master,\" \"the truth and the life;\"\nwhat is even asked of the Father, _he_ will do; he will come to his\ndisciples and abide in them; his peace and joy are their reward. Verily,\nwe need no more: he who gives us eternal life, who raises us from the\ndead, who is our judge, who hears our prayers, and gives us light,\nfreedom, and truth, He, He only, is our God; none can do more for us\nthan he: in Him only will we trust in life and death. So, consistently,\nthe Son is no longer the drawer of believers to the Father, but the\nFather is degraded into becoming the way to the Son, and none can come\nto Jesus unless Almighty God draws them to him. Jesus is no longer the\nway into the Holiest, but the Eternal Father is made the means to an end\nbeyond himself.\n\n     * Voysey.\n\nFor this fifth reason, more than for anything else, we reject this\ngospel with the most passionate earnestness, with the most burning\nindignation, as an insult to the One Father of spirits, the ultimate\nObject of all faith and hope and love.\n\nAnd who is this who thus dethrones our heavenly Father? It is not even\nthe Jesus whose fair moral beauty has exacted our hearty admiration. To\nworship _him_ would be an idolatry, but to worship him--were he such as\n\"John\" describes him--would be an idolatry as degrading as it would\nbe baseless. For let us mark the character pourtrayed in this fourth\ngospel. His public career begins with an undignified miracle: at a\nmarriage, where the wine runs short, he turns water into wine, in order\nto supply men who have already \"well drunk\" (ch. ii. 10). [We may ask,\nin passing, what led Mary to expect a miracle, when we are told that\nthis was the first, and she could not, therefore, know of her son's\ngifts.] The next important point is the conversation with Nicodemus,\nwhere we scarcely knew which to marvel at most, the stolid stupidity\nof a \"Master in Israel\" misunderstanding a metaphor that must have been\nfamiliar to him, or the aggressive way in which Jesus speaks as to the\nnon-reception of his message before he had been in public many months,\nand as to non-belief in his person before belief had become possible.\nWe then come to the series of discourses related in ch. v. 10.\nPerfect egotism pervades them all; in all appear the same strange\nmisunderstandings on the part of the people, the same strange\npersistence in puzzling them on the part of the speaker. In one of them\nthe people honestly wonder at his mysterious words: \"How is it that he\nsaith, I come down from heaven,\" and, instead of any explanation, Jesus\nretorts that they should not murmur, since no man _can_ come to him\nunless the Father draw him; so that, when he puts forward a statement\napparently contrary to fact--\"his father and mother we know,\" say the\npuzzled Jews--he refuses to explain it, and falls back on his favourite\ndoctrine: \"Unless you are of those favoured ones whom God enlightens,\nyou cannot expect to understand me.\" Little wonder indeed that \"many\nof his disciples walked no more with\" a teacher so perplexing and so\ndiscouraging; with one who presented for their belief a mysterious\ndoctrine, contrary to their experience, and then, in answer to their\nprayer for enlightenment, taunts them with an ignorance he admits was\nunavoidable. The next important conversation occurs in the temple,\nand here Jesus, the friend of sinners, the bringer of hope to the\ndespairing--this Jesus has no tenderness for some who \"believed on him;\"\nhe ruthlessly tramples on the bruised reed and quenches the smoking\nflax. First he irritates their Jewish pride with accusations of slavery\nand low descent; then, groping after his meaning, they exclaim, \"We have\none Father, even God,\" and he--whom we know as the tenderest preacher\nof that Father's universal love--surely he gladly catches at their\nstruggling appreciation of his favourite topic, and fans the hopeful\nspark into a flame? Yes! Jesus of Nazareth would have done so. But\nJesus, \"according to St. John,\" turns fiercely on them, denying the\nsonship he elsewhere proclaims, and retorts, \"Ye are of your father,\nthe devil.\" And this to men who \"believed on him;\" this from lips which\nsaid, \"_One_ is your Father,\" and He, in heaven. He argues next with the\nPharisees, and we find him arrogantly exclaiming: \"_all_ that ever came\nbefore me were thieves and robbers.\" What, all? Moses and Elijah, Isaiah\nand all the prophets? At length, after he has once more repulsed some\ninquirers, the Jews take up stones to stone him, as Moses commanded,\nbecause \"thou makest thyself God.\" He escapes by a clever evasion, which\nneutralises all his apparent assertions of Divinity. \"Other men have\nbeen called gods, so surely I do not blaspheme by calling myself God's\nson.\" Never let us forget that in this gospel, the stronghold of the\nDivinity of Jesus, Jesus himself explains his strongest assertion \"I and\nmy Father are one\" in a manner which can only be honest in the mouth of\na man.* We pass to the celebrated \"last discourse.\" In this we find\nthe same peculiar style, the same self-assertion, but we must note,\nin addition, the distinct tritheism which pervades it. There are\nthree distinct Beings, each necessarily deprived of some attribute of\nDivinity: thus, the Deity is Infinite, but if He is divided He becomes\nfinite, since two Infinites are an impossible absurdity, and unless\nthey are identical they must bound each other, so becoming finite.\nAccordingly \"the Comforter\" cannot be present till Jesus departs,\ntherefore neither Jesus nor the Comforter can be God, since God is\nomnipresent. Since, then, prayer is to be addressed to Jesus as God,\nthe low theory of tri-theism, of a plurality of Gods, none of whom is\na perfect God, is here taught. In this discourse, also, the Christian\nhorizon is bounded by the figure of Jesus, the office of the Comforter\nis sub-servient to this one worship, \"he shall glorify me.\" Jesus, at\nlast, prays for his disciples, markedly excluding from his intercession\n\"the world\" he was said to have come to save, and, as throughout this\ngospel, restricting all his love, all his care, all his tenderness to\n\"these, whom Thou hast given me.\" Here we come to the essence of the\nspirit which pervades this whole gospel. \"I pray for them; I pray not\nfor the world: not for them who are of their father the devil, nor for\nmy betrayer, the son of perdition.\" This is the spirit which Christians\ndare to ascribe to Jesus of Nazareth, the tenderest, gentlest,\nwidest-hearted man who has yet graced humanity. This is the spirit, they\ntell us, which dwelt in _his_ bosom, who gave us the parables of the\nlost sheep and the prodigal son. \"No,\" we answer, \"this is not the\nspirit of the Prophet of Nazareth, but\" (Dr. Liddon will pardon the\nappropriation) \"this is the temper of a man who will not enter the\npublic baths along with the heretic who has dishonoured his Lord.\"\n\n     * \"For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy;\n     and because that thou being a man makest thyself God.\" Jesus\n     answered them, \"Is it not written in your law, I said, ye\n     are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God\n     came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him\n     whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,\n     Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the son of God?\"\n\nThis is the spirit of the writer of the gospel, not of Jesus: the\negotism of the writer is reflected in the words put into the mouth of\nhis master; and thus the preacher of the Father's love is degraded into\nthe seeker of his own glory, and bearing witness of himself, his witness\nbecomes untrue. I must also draw attention to one or two cases of\nunreality attributed to Jesus by this gospel. He prays, on one occasion,\n\"because of the people who stand by:\" he cries on his cross, \"I thirst,\"\nnot because of the burning agony of crucifixion, but in order \"that\nthe Scriptures might be fulfilled:\" a voice answers \"his prayer,\" \"not\nbecause of me, but for your sakes.\" This calculation of effect is very\nforeign to the sincere and open spirit of Jesus. Akin to this is the\nprevarication attributed to him, when he declines to accompany his\nbrethren to Judaea, but \"when his brethren were gone up then went he\nalso up to the feast, not openly but as it were in secret.\" All this\nstrikes us strangely as part of that simple, fearless life.\n\nWe reject this gospel, sixthly, for the cruel spirit, the arrogance, the\nself-assertion, the bigotry, the unreality, attributed by it to Jesus,\nand we denounce it as a slander on his memory and an insult to his noble\nlife.\n\nWe may, perhaps, note, as another peculiarity of this gospel--although I\ndo not enter here into the argument of the divinity of Jesus,--that when\nDr. Liddon, in his celebrated Bampton Lectures, is anxious to prove\nthe Deity of Jesus _from his own mouth_, he is compelled to quote\nexclusively from this gospel. Such a fact as this cannot be overlooked,\nwhen we remember that \"St. John's gospel is a polemical treatise\"\nwritten to prove this special point. We cannot avoid noting the\ncoincidence.\n\nWe have now gone through this remarkable record and examined it in\nvarious lights. At the outset we conceded to our opponents all the\nadvantage which comes from admitting that the gospel _may_ be written\nby the Apostle John; we have left the authorship a moot point, and\nbased our argument on a different ground. Apostolic or non-apostolic,\nJohannine or Corinthian, we accept it or reject it for itself, and not\nfor its writer. We have found that all its characters speak alike in a\nmarked and peculiar style--a style savouring of the study rather than\nthe street, of Alexandria rather than Jerusalem or Galilee. We\nhave glanced at its immoral partiality. We have noted the numerous\ndiscrepancies between the history of this gospel and that of the three\nsynoptics. We have discovered it to be equally opposed to them in morals\nas in history: in doctrine as in morals. We have seen that, while it\ndegrades God to enthrone Jesus in His stead, it also degrades Jesus,\nand so lowers his character that it defies recognition. Finally, we\nhave found it stands alone in supporting the Deity of Jesus from his own\nmouth.\n\nI know not how all this may strike others; to me these arguments are\nsimply overwhelming in their force. I tear out the \"Gospel according to\nSt. John\" from the writings which \"are profitable\" \"for instruction\nin righteousness.\" I reject it from beginning to end, as fatally\ndestructive of all true faith towards God, as perilously subversive of\nall true morality in man, as an outrage on the sacred memory of Jesus of\nNazareth, and as an insult to the Justice, the Supremacy, and the Unity\nof Almighty God.\n\n\n\n\nON THE ATONEMENT.\n\nTHE Atonement may be regarded as the central doctrine of Christianity,\nthe very _raison d'etre_ of the Christian faith. Take this away, and\nthere would remain indeed a faith and a morality, but both would have\nlost their distinctive features: it would be a faith without its\ncentre, and a morality without its foundation. Christianity would be\nunrecognisable without its angry God, its dying Saviour, its covenant\nsigned with \"the blood of the Lamb:\" the blotting out of the Atonement\nwould deprive millions of all hope towards God, and would cast them\nfrom satisfaction into anxiety from comfort into despair. The warmest\nfeelings of Christendom cluster round the Crucifix, and he, the\ncrucified one, is adored with passionate devotion, not as martyr for\ntruth, not as witness for God, not as faithful to death, but as the\nsubstitute for his worshippers, as he who bears in their stead the wrath\nof God, and the punishment due to sin. The Christian is taught to see in\nthe bleeding Christ the victim slain in his own place; he himself should\nbe hanging on that cross, agonised and dying; those nail-pierced hands\nought to be his; the anguish on that face should be furrowed on his own;\nthe weight of suffering resting on that bowed head should be crushing\nhimself inta the dust. In the simplest meaning of the words, Christ is\nthe sinner's substitute, and on him the sin of the world is laid: as\nLuther expressed it, he \"is the greatest and only sinner;\" literally\n\"made sin\" for mankind, and expiating the guilt which, in very deed, was\ntransferred from man to-him.\n\nI wish at the outset, for the sake of justice and candour, to\nacknowledge frankly the good which has been drawn forth by the preaching\nof the Cross. This good has been, however, the indirect rather than the\ndirect result of a belief in the Atonement. The doctrine, in itself, has\nnothing elevating about it, but the teaching closely connected with\nthe doctrine has its ennobling and purifying side. All the enthusiasm\naroused in the human breast by the thought of one who sacrificed himself\nto save his brethren, all the consequent longing to emulate that love by\nsacrificing all for Jesus and for those for whom he died, all the moral\ngain caused by the contemplation of a sublime self-devotion, all these\nare the fruits of the nobler side of the Atonement. That the sinless\nshould stoop to the sinful, that holiness should embrace the guilty in\norder to raise them to its own level, has struck a chord in men's bosoms\nwhich has responded to the touch by a harmonious melody of gratitude\nto the divine and sinless sufferer, and loving labour for suffering and\nsinful man. The Cross has been at once the apotheosis and the source of\nself-sacrificing love. \"Love ye one another _as_ I have loved you: not\nin word but in deed, with a deep self-sacrificing love:\" such is the\nlesson which, according to one of the most orthodox Anglican divines,\n\"Christ preaches to us from His Cross.\" In believing in the Atonement,\nman's heart has, as usual, been better than his head; he has passed over\nthe dark side of the idea, and has seized on the divine truth that the\nstrong should gladly devote themselves to shield the weak, that labour,\neven unto death, is the right of humanity from every son of man. It is\noften said that no doctrine long retains its hold on men's hearts which\nis not founded on some great truth; this divine idea of self-sacrifice\nhas been the truth contained in the doctrine of the Atonement, which has\nmade it so dear to many loving and noble souls, and which has hidden its\n\"multitude of sins\"--sins against love and against justice, against God\nand against man. Love and self-sacrifice have floated the great error\nover the storms of centuries, and these cords still bind to it many\nhearts of which love and self-sacrifice are the glory and the crown.\n\nThis said, in candi d'homage to the good which has drawn its inspiration\nfrom Jesus crucified, we turn to the examination of the doctrine itself:\nif we find that it is as dishonouring to God as it is injurious to man,\na crime against justice, a blasphemy against love, we must forget all\nthe sentiments which cluster round it, and reject it utterly. It is well\nto speak respectfully of that which is dear to any religious soul,\nand to avoid jarring harshly on the strings of religious feeling, even\nthough the soul be misled and the feeling be misdirected; but a time\ncomes when false charity is cruelty, and tenderness to error is treason\nto truth. For long, men who know its emptiness pass by in silence the\nshrine consecrated by human hopes and fears, by love and worship, and\nthe \"times of this ignorance God (in the bold figure of Paul) also winks\nat;\" but when \"the fulness of the time is come,\" God sends forth some\ntrue son of his to dash the idol to the ground, and to trample it into\ndust. We need not be afraid that the good wrought by the lessons derived\nfrom the Atonement in time past will disappear with the doctrine itself;\nthe mark of the Cross is too deeply ploughed into humanity ever to be\nerased, and those who no longer call themselves by the name of Christ\nare not the most backward scholars in the school of love and sacrifice.\n\nThe history of this doctrine has been a curious one. In the New\nTestament the Atonement is, as its name implies, a simply making at one\nGod and man: _how_ this is done is but vaguely hinted at, and in order\nto deduce the modern doctrine from the Bible, we must import into\nthe books of the New Testament all the ideas derived from theological\ndisputations. Words used in all simplicity by the ancient writers must\nhave attached to them the definite polemical meaning they hold in the\nquarrels of theologians, before they can be strained into supporting a\nsubstitutionary atonement. The idea, however, of \"ransom\" is connected\nwith the work of Jesus, and the question arose, \"to whom is this ransom\npaid?\" They who lived in those first centuries of Christianity were\nstill too much within the illumination of the tender halo thrown by\nJesus round the Father's name, to dream for a moment that their redeemer\nhad ransomed them from the beloved hands of God. No, the ransom was paid\nto the devil, whose thrall they believed mankind to be, and Jesus, by\nsacrificing himself, had purchased them from the devil and made them\nsons of God. It is not worth while to enter on the quaint details of\nthis scheme, how the devil thought he had conquered and could hold Jesus\ncaptive, and was tricked by finding that his imagined gain could not\nbe retained by him, and so on. Those who wish to become acquainted\nwith this ingenious device can study it in the pages of the Christian\nfathers: it has at least one advantage over the modern plan, namely,\nthat we are not so shocked at hearing of pain and suffering as\nacceptable to the supposed incarnate evil, as at hearing of them being\noffered as a sacrifice to the supreme good. As the teaching of Jesus\nlost its power, and became more and more polluted by the cruel thoughts\nof savage and bigoted men, the doctrine of the atonement gradually\nchanged its character. Men thought the Almighty to be such a one as\nthemselves, and being fierce and unforgiving and revengeful, they\nprojected their own shadows on to the clouds which surrounded the\nDeity, and then, like the shepherd who meets his own form reflected\nand magnified on the mountain mist, they recoiled before the image they\nthemselves had made. The loving Father who sent his son to rescue his\nperishing children by sacrificing himself, fades away from the hearts of\nthe Christian world, and there looms darkly in his place an awful form,\nthe inexorable judge who exacts a debt man is too poor to pay, and who,\nin default of payment, casts the debtor into a hopeless prison, hopeless\nunless another pays to the uttermost farthing the fine demanded by the\nlaw. So, in this strange transformation-scene God actually takes the\nplace of the devil, and the ransom once paid to redeem men from Satan\nbecomes the ransom paid to redeem men from God. It reminds one of the\nquarrels over the text which bids us \"fear him who is able to destroy\nboth body and soul in hell,\" when we remain in doubt whom he is we are\nto fear, since half the Christian commentators assure us that it refers\nto our Father in heaven, while the other half asseverate that the devil\nis the individual we are to dread. The seal was set on the \"redemption\nscheme\" by Anselm in his great work, \"_Cur Deus Homo_\" and the doctrine\nwhich had been slowly growing into the theology of Christendom was\nthenceforward stamped with the signet of the Church. Roman Catholics\nand Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, alike believed in the\nvicarious and substitutionary character of the atonement wrought by\nChrist. There is no dispute between them on this point. I prefer to\nallow the Christian divines to speak for themselves as to the character\nof the atonement: no one can accuse me of exaggerating their views, if\ntheir views are given in their own words. Luther teaches that \"Christ\ndid truly and effectually feel for all mankind, the wrath of God,\nmalediction and death.\" Flavel says that \"to wrath, to the wrath of an\ninfinite God without mixture, to the very torments of hell, was Christ\ndelivered, and that by the hand of his own father.\" The Anglican homily\npreaches that \"sin did pluck God out of heaven to make him feel the\nhorrors and pains of death,\" and that man, being a firebrand of hell and\na bondsman of the devil, \"was ransomed by the death of his own only and\nwell-beloved son;\" the \"heat of his wrath,\" \"his burning wrath,\"\ncould only be \"pacified\" by Jesus, \"so pleasant was this sacrifice and\noblation of his son's death.\" Edwards, being logical, saw that there was\na gross injustice in sin being twice punished, and in the pains of\nhell, the penalty of sin, being twice inflicted, first on Christ, the\nsubstitute of mankind, and then on the lost, a portion of mankind. So\nhe, in common with most Calvinists, finds himself compelled to restrict\nthe atonement to the elect, and declared that Christ bore the sins, not\nof the world, but of the chosen out of the world; he suffers \"not for\nthe world, but for them whom Thou hast given me.\" But Edwards adheres\nfirmly to the belief in substitution, and rejects the universal\natonement for the very reason that \"to believe Christ died for all is\nthe surest way of proving that he died for none in the sense Christians\nhave hitherto believed.\" He declares that \"Christ suffered the wrath of\nGod for men's sins;\" that \"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ\nunderwent the pains of hell for,\" sin. Owen regards Christ's sufferings\nas \"a full valuable compensation to the justice of God for all the sins\"\nof the elect, and says that he underwent \"that same punishment which....\nthey themselves were bound to undergo.\"\n\nThe doctrine of the Christian Church--in the widest sense of that\nmuch-fought-over term--was then as follows, and I will state it in\nlanguage which is studiously moderate, _as compared with the orthodox\nteaching_ of the great Christian divines. If any one doubts this\nassertion, let him study their writings for himself. I really dare\nnot transfer some of their expressions to my own pages. God the Father\nhaving cursed mankind and condemned them to eternal damnation, because\nof Adam's disobedience in eating an apple--or some other fruit, for the\nspecies is only preserved by tradition, and is not definitely settled\nby the inspired writings--and having further cursed each man for his own\nindividual transgressions, man lay under the fierce wrath of God, unable\nto escape, and unable to pacify it, for he could not even atone for his\nown private sins, much less for his share of the guilt incurred by his\nforefather in Paradise. Man's debt was hopelessly large, and he had\n\"nothing to pay;\" so all that remained to him was to suffer an eternity\nof torture, which sad fate he had merited by the crime of being born\ninto an accursed world. The second person of the Trinity moved to pity\nby the helpless and miserable state of mankind, interposed between the\nfirst person of the Trinity and the wretched sinners; he received into\nhis own breast the fire-tipped arrows of divine wrath, and by suffering\ninconceivable tortures, equal in amount to an eternity of the torments\nof hell, he wrung from God's hands the pardon of mankind, or of a\nportion thereof. God, pacified by witnessing this awful agony of one who\nhad from all eternity been \"lying in his bosom\" co-equal sharer of his\nMajesty and glory, and the object of his tenderest love, relents\nfrom his fierce wrath, and consents to accept the pain of Jesus as\na substitute for the pain of mankind. In plain terms, then, God is\nrepresented as a Being so awfully cruel, so implacably revengeful,\nthat pain _as_ pain, and death _as_ death, are what he demands as a\npropitiatory sacrifice, and with nothing less than extremest agony can\nhis fierce claims on mankind be bought off. The due weight of suffering\nhe must have, but it is a matter of indifference whether it is undergone\nby Jesus or by mankind. Did not the old Fathers do well in making the\nawful ransom a matter between Jesus and the devil?\n\nWhen this point is pressed on Christians, and one urges the dishonour\ndone to God by painting him in colours from which heart and soul recoil\nin shuddering horror, by ascribing to him a revengefulness and pitiless\ncruelty in comparison with which the worst efforts of human malignity\nappear but childish mischief, they are quick to retort that we are\ncaricaturing Christian doctrine; they will allow, when overwhelmed with\nevidence, that \"strong language\" has been used in past centuries, but\nwill say that such views are not now held, and that they do not ascribe\nsuch harsh dealing to God the Father. Theists are therefore compelled to\nprove each step of their accusation, and to quote from Christian writers\nthe words which embody the views they assail. Were I simply to state\nthat Christians in these days ascribe to Almighty God a fierce wrath\nagainst the whole human race, that this wrath can only be soothed by\nsuffering and death, that he vents this wrath on an innocent head, and\nthat he is well pleased by the sight of the agony of his beloved Son,\na shout of indignation would rise from a thousand lips, and I should be\naccused of exaggeration, of false witness, of blasphemy. So once more I\nwrite down the doctrine from Christian dictation, and, be it remembered,\nthe sentences I quote are from published works, and are therefore, the\noutcome of serious deliberation; they are not overdrawn pictures taken\nfrom the fervid eloquence of excited oratory, when the speaker may\nperhaps be carried further than he would, in cold blood, consent to.\n\nStroud makes Christ drink \"the cup of the wrath of God.\" Jenkyn says,\n\"he suffered as one disowned and reprobated and forsaken of God.\" Dwight\nconsiders that he endured God's \"hatred and contempt.\" Bishop Jeune\ntells us that \"after man had done his worst, worse remained for Christ\nto bear. He had fallen into his father's hands.\" Archbishop Thomson\npreaches that \"the clouds of God's wrath gathered thick over the whole\nhuman race: they discharged themselves on Jesus only;\" he \"becomes a\ncurse for us, and a vessel of wrath.\" Liddon echoes the same sentiment:\n\"the apostles teach that mankind are slaves, and that Christ on the\nCross is paying their ransom. Christ crucified is voluntarily devoted\nand accursed:\" he even speaks of \"the precise amount of ignominy and\npain needed for the redemption,\" and says that the \"divine victim\" paid\nmore than was absolutely necessary.\n\nThese quotations seem sufficient to prove that the Christians of the\npresent day are worthy followers of the elder believers. The theologians\nfirst quoted are indeed coarser in their expressions, and are less\nafraid of speaking out exactly what they believe, but there is no\nreal difference of creed between the awful doctrine of Flavel and the\npolished dogma of Canon Liddon. The older and the modern Christians\nalike believe in the bitter wrath of God against \"the whole human race.\"\nBoth alike regard the Atonement as so much pain tendered by Jesus to the\nAlmighty Father in payment of a debt of pain owed to God by humanity.\nThey alike represent God as only to be pacified by the sight of\nsuffering. Man has insulted and injured God, and God must be revenged by\ninflicting suffering on the sinner in return. The \"hatred and contempt\"\nGod launched at Jesus were due to the fact that Jesus was the sinner's\nsubstitute, and are therefore the feelings which animate the Divine\nheart towards the sinner himself. God hates and despises the world. He\nwould have \"consumed it in a moment\" in the fire of his burning wrath,\nhad not Jesus, \"his chosen, stood before him in the gap to turn away his\nwrathful indignation.\"\n\nNow, how far is all this consistent with justice? Is the wrath of God\nagainst humanity justified by the circumstances of the case, so that we\nmay be obliged to own that some sacrifice was due from sinful man to his\nCreator, to propitiate a justly incensed and holy God? I trow not. On\nthis first count, the Atonement is a fearful injustice. For God has\nallowed men to be brought into the world with sinful inclinations, and\nto be surrounded with many temptations and much evil. He has made\nman imperfect, and the child is born into the world with an imperfect\nnature. It is radically unjust, then, that God should curse the work\nof His hands for being what He made them, and condemn them to endless\nmisery for failing to do the impossible. Allowing that Christians are\nright in believing that Adam was sinless when he came from his Maker's\nhands, these remarks apply to every other living soul since born into\nthe world; the Genesis myth will not extricate Christians from the\ndifficulty. Christians are quite right and are justified by facts when\nthey say that man is born into the world frail, imperfect, prone to sin\nand error; but who, we ask them, made men so? Does not their own Bible\ntell them that the \"potter hath power over the clay,\" and, further, that\n\"we are the clay and thou art the potter?\" To curse men for being men,\n_i.e._, imperfect moral beings, is the height of cruelty and injustice;\nto condemn the morally weak to hell for sin, _i.e._, for failing in\nmoral strength, is about as fair as sentencing a sick man to death\nbecause he cannot stand upright. Christians try and avoid the force of\nthis by saying that men should rely on God's grace to uphold them, but\nthey fail to see that this _very want of reliance_ is part of man's\nnatural weakness. The sick man might be blamed for falling because he\ndid not lean on a stronger arm, but suppose he was too weak to grasp\nit? Further, few Christians believe that it is impossible in practice,\nhowever possible in theory, to lead a perfect life; and as to \"offend in\none point is to be guilty of all,\" one failure is sufficient to send the\ngenerally righteous man to hell. Besides, they forget that infants are\nincluded under the curse, although _necessarily_ incapable of grasping\nthe idea either of sin or of God; all babies born into the world and\ndying before becoming capable of acting for themselves would, we are\ntaught, have been inevitably consigned to hell, had it not been for the\nAtonement of Jesus. Some Christians actually believe that unbaptized\nbabies are not admitted into heaven, and in a Roman Catholic book\ndescriptive of hell, a poor little baby writhes and screams in a red-hot\noven.\n\nThis side of the Atonement, this unjust demand on men for a\nrighteousness they could not render, necessitating a sacrifice to\npropitiate God for non-compliance with his exaction, has had its due\neffect on men's minds, and has alienated their hearts from God. No\nwonder that men turned away from a God who, like a passionate but\nunskilful workman, dashes to pieces the instrument he has made because\nit fails in its purpose, and, instead of blaming his own want of skill,\nvents his anger on the helpless thing that is only what he made it.\nMost naturally, also, have men shrunk from the God who \"avengeth and\nis furious\" to the tender, pitiful, human Jesus, who loved sinners\nso deeply as to choose to suffer for their sakes. They could owe no\ngratitude to an Almighty Being who created them and cursed them, and\nonly consented to allow them to be happy on condition that another paid\nfor them the misery he demanded as his due; but what gratitude could\nbe enough for him who rescued them from the fearful hands of the living\nGod, at the cost of almost intolerable suffering to himself? Let us\nremember that Christ is said to suffer the very torments of hell, and\nthat his worst sufferings were when \"fallen into his father's hands,\"\nout of which he has rescued us, and then can we wonder that the\ncrucified is adored with a very ecstasy of gratitude? Imagine what it is\nto be saved from the hands of him who inflicted an agony admitted to be\nunlimited, and who took advantage of an infinite capacity in order to\ninflict an infinite pain. It is well for the men before whose eyes this\nawful spectre has flitted that the fair humanity of Jesus gives them a\nrefuge to fly to, else what but despair and madness could have been the\ndoom of those who, without Jesus, would have seen enthroned above the\nwailing universe naught but an infinite cruelty and an Almighty foe.\n\nWe see, then, that the necessity for an atonement makes the Eternal\nFather both unjust in his demands on men and cruel in his punishment of\ninevitable failure; but there is another injustice which is of the\nvery essence of the Atonement itself. This consists in the vicarious\ncharacter of the sacrifice: a new element of injustice is introduced\nwhen we consider that the person sacrificed is not even the guilty\nparty. If a man offends against law, justice requires that he should be\npunished: the punishment becomes unjust if it is excessive, as in the\ncase we have been considering above; but it is equally unjust to allow\nhim to go free without punishment. Christians are right in affirming\nthat moral government would be at an end were men allowed to sin with\nimpunity, and did an easy forgiveness succeed to each offence. They\nappeal to our instinctive sense of justice to-approve the sentiment that\npunishment should follow sin: we acquiesce, and hope that we have now\nreached a firm standing-ground from which to proceed further in our\ninvestigation. But, no; they promptly outrage that same sense of justice\nwhich they have called as a witness on their side, by asking us to\nbelieve that its ends are attained provided that somebody or other is\npunished. When we reply that _this_ is not justice, we are promptly\nbidden not to be presumptuous and argue from our human ideas of justice\nas to the course that ought to be pursued by the absolute justice of\nGod. \"Then why appeal to it at all?\" we urge; \"why talk of justice in\nthe matter if we are totally unable to judge as to the rights and wrongs\nof the case?\" At this point we are commonly overwhelmed with Paul's\nnotable argument--\"Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against\nGod?\" But if Christians value the simplicity and straightforwardness\nof their own minds, they should not use words which convey a certain\naccepted meaning in this shuffling, double sense. When we speak of\n\"justice,\" we speak of a certain well-understood quality, and we do not\nspeak of a mysterious divine attribute, which has not only nothing in\ncommon with human justice, but which is in direct opposition to that\nwhich we understand by that name. Suppose a man condemned to death for\nmurder: the judge is about to sentence him, when a bystander--as it\nchances, the judge's own son--interposes: \"My Lord, the prisoner is\nguilty and deserves to be hanged; but if you will let him go, I will\ndie in his place.\" The offer is accepted, the prisoner is set free, the\njudge's son is hanged in his stead. What is all this? Self-sacrifice\n(however misdirected), love, enthusiasm--what you will; but certainly\nnot _justice_--nay, the grossest injustice, a second murder, an\nineffaceable stain on the ermine of the outraged law. I imagine that,\nin this supposed case, no Christian will be found to assert that justice\nwas done; yet call the judge God, the prisoner mankind, the substitute\nJesus, and the trial scene is exactly reproduced. Then, in the name of\ncandour and common sense, why call that just in God which we see would\nbe so unjust and immoral in man? This vicarious nature of the Atonement\nalso degrades the divine name, by making him utterly careless in\nthe matter of punishment: all he is anxious for, according to this\ndetestable theory, is that he should strike a blow _somewhere_. Like\na child in a passion, he only feels the desire to hurt somebody, and\nstrikes out vaguely and at random. There is no discrimination used;\nthe thunderbolt is launched into a crowd: it falls on the head of the\n\"sinless son,\" and crushes the innocent, while the sinner goes\nfree. What matter? It has fallen somewhere, and the \"burning fire of\nhis-wrath\" is cooled. This is what men call the vindication of the\njustice of the Moral Governor of the universe: this is \"the act of\nGod's awful holiness,\" which marks his hatred of sin, and his immovable\ndetermination to punish it. But when we reflect that this justice\nis consistent with letting off the guilty and punishing the innocent\nperson, we feel dread misgivings steal into our minds. The justice of\nour Moral Governor has nothing in common with our justice--indeed, it\nviolates all our notions of right and wrong. What if, as Mr. Vance\nSmith suggests, this strange justice be consistent also with a double\npunishment of sin; and what if the Moral Governor should bethink himself\nthat, having confused morality by an unjust--humanly speaking, of\ncourse--punishment, it would be well to set things straight again by\npunishing the guilty after all? We can never dare to feel safe in the\nhands of this unjust--humanly speaking--Moral Governor, or predicate\nfrom our instinctive notions of right and wrong what his requirements\nmay be. One is lost in astonishment that men should believe such things\nof God, and not have manhood enough to rise up rebellious against such\ninjustice--should, instead, crouch at his feet, and while trying to hide\nthemselves from his wrath should force their trembling lips to murmur\nsome incoherent acknowledgment of his mercy. Ah! they do not believe it;\nthey assert it in words, but, thank God, it makes no impression on their\nhearts; and they would die a thousand deaths rather than imitate, in\ntheir dealings with their fellow-men, the fearful cruelty which the\nChurch has taught them to call the justice of the Judge of all the\nearth.\n\nThe Atonement is not only doubly unjust, but it is perfectly futile. We\nare told that Christ took away the sins of the world; we have a right to\nask, \"how?\" So far as we can judge, we bear our sins in our own bodies\nstill, and the Atonement helps us not at all. Has he borne the physical\nconsequences of sin, such as the loss of health caused by intemperance\nof all kinds? Not at all, this penalty remains, and, from the nature\nof things, cannot be transferred. Has he borne the social consequences,\nshame, loss of credit, and so on? They remain still to hinder us as\nwe strive to rise after our fall. Has he at least borne the pangs of\nremorse for us, the stings of conscience? By no means; the tears of\nsorrow are no less bitter, the prickings of repentance no less keen.\nPerhaps he has struck at the root of evil, and has put away sin itself\nout of a redeemed world? Alas! the wailing that goes up to heaven from a\nworld oppressed with sin weeps out a sorrowfully emphatic, \"no, this\nhe has _not_ done.\" What has he then borne for us? Nothing, save the\nphantom wrath of a phantom tyrant; all that is real exists the same as\nbefore. We turn away, then, from the offered atonement with a feeling\nthat would be impatience at such trifling, were it not all too\nsorrowful, and leave the Christians to impose on their imagined\nsacrifice, the imagined burden of the guilt of the accursed race.\n\nFurther, the Atonement is, from the nature of things, entirely\nimpossible: we have seen how Christ fails to bear our sins in any\nintelligible sense, but can he, in any way, bear the \"punishment\" of\nsin? The idea that the punishment of sin can be transferred from one\nperson to another is radically false, and arises from a wrong conception\nof the punishment consequent on sin, and from the ecclesiastical guilt,\nso to speak, thought to be incurred thereby. _The only true punishment\nof sin is the injury caused by it to our moral nature_: all the indirect\npunishments, we have seen, Christ has not taken away, and the true\npunishment can fall only on ourselves. For sin is nothing more than the\ntransgression of law. All law, when broken, entails _of necessity_ an\nappropriate penalty, and recoils, as it were, on the transgressor. A\nnatural law, when broken, avenges itself by consequent suffering, and so\ndoes a spiritual law: the injury wrought by the latter is not less\nreal, although less obvious. Physical sin brings physical suffering;\nspiritual, moral, mental sin brings each its own appropriate punishment.\n\"Sin\" has become such a cant term that we lose sight, in using it, of\nits real simple meaning, a breaking of law. Imagine any sane man coming\nand saying, \"My dear friend; if you like to put your hand into the fire\nI will bear the punishment of being burnt, and you shall not suffer.\" It\nis quite as absurd to imagine that if I sin Jesus can bear my consequent\nsuffering. If a man lies habitually, for instance, he grows thoroughly\nuntrue: let him repent ever so vigorously, he must bear the consequences\nof his past deeds, and fight his way back slowly to truthfulness of\nword and thought: no atonement, nothing in heaven or earth save his own\nlabour, will restore to him the forfeited jewel of instinctive candour.\nThus the \"punishment\" of untruthfulness is the loss of the power of\nbeing true, just as the punishment of putting the hand into the fire is\nthe loss of the power of grasping. But in addition to this simple and\nmost just and natural \"retribution,\" theologians have invented certain\narbitrary penalties as a punishment of sin, the wrath of God and hell\nfire. These imaginary penalties are discharged by an equally imaginary\natonement, the natural punishment remaining as before; so after all we\nonly reject the two sets of inventions which balance each other, and\nfind ourselves just in the same position as they are, having gained\ninfinitely in simplicity and naturalness. The punishment of sin is not\nan arbitrary penalty, but an inevitable sequence: Jesus may bear, if his\nworshippers will have it so, the theological fiction of the \"guilt of\nsin,\" an idea derived from the ceremonial uncleanness of the Levitical\nlaw, but let him leave alone the solemn realities connected with the\nsacred and immutable laws of God.\n\nDoubly unjust, useless, and impossible, it might be deemed a work of\nsupererogation to argue yet further against the Atonement; but its hold\non men's minds is too firm to allow us to lay down a single weapon which\ncan be turned against it. So, in addition to these defects, I remark\nthat, viewed as a propitiatory sacrifice to Almighty God, it is\nthoroughly inadequate. If God, being righteous, as we believe Him to be,\nregarded man with anger because of man's sinfulness, what is obviously\nthe required propitiation? Surely the removal of the cause of anger,\n_i.e._, of sin itself, and the seeking by man of righteousness. The old\nHebrew prophet saw this plainly, and his idea of atonement is the\ntrue one: \"wherewith shall I come before the Lord,\" he is asked, with\nburnt-offerings or--choicer still--parental anguish over a first-born's\ncorpse? \"What doth the Lord require of thee,\" is the reproving answer,\n\"but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\"\nBut what is the propitiatory element in the Christian Atonement?\nlet Canon Liddon answer: \"the ignominy and pain _needed_ for the\nredemption.\" Ignominy, agony, blood, death, these are what Christians\noffer up as an acceptable sacrifice to the Spirit of Love. But what have\nall these in common with the demands of the Eternal Righteousness, and\nhow can pain atone for sin? they have no relation to each other; there\nis no appropriateness in the offered exchange. These terrible offerings\nare in keeping with the barbarous ideas of uncivilized nations, and we\nunderstand the feelings which prompt the savage to immolate tortured\nvictims on the altars of his gloomy gods; they are appropriate\nsacrifices to the foes of mankind, who are to be bought off from\ninjuring us by our offering them an equivalent pain to that they desire\nto inflict, but they are offensive when given to Him who is the\nFriend and Lover of Humanity. An Atonement which offers suffering as\na propitiation can have nothing in common with God's will for man, and\nmust be utterly beside the mark, perfectly inadequate. If we must have\nAtonement, let it at least consist of something which will suit the\nRighteousness and Love of God, and be in keeping with his perfection;\nlet it not borrow the language of ancient savagery, and breathe of blood\nand dying victims, and tortured human frames, racked with pain.\n\nLastly, I impeach the Atonement as injurious in several ways to human\nmorality. It has been extolled as \"meeting the needs of the awakened\nsinner\" by soothing his fears of punishment with the gift of a\nsubstitute who has already suffered his sentence for him; but nothing\ncan be more pernicious than to console a sinner with the promise that\nhe shall escape the punishment he has justly deserved. The Atonement\nmay meet the first superficial feelings of a man startled into the\nconsciousness of his sinfulness, it may soothe the first vague fears and\nact as an opiate to the awakened conscience; but it does not fulfil the\ncravings of a heart deeply yearning after righteousness; it offers a\nlegal justification to a soul which is longing for purity, it offers\nfreedom from punishment to a soul longing for freedom from sin. The true\npenitent does not seek to be shielded from the consequences of his past\nerrors: he accepts them meekly, bravely, humbly, learning through pain\nthe lesson of future purity. An atonement which steps in between us and\nthis fatherly discipline ordained by God, would be a curse and not a\nblessing; it would rob us of our education and deprive us of a priceless\ninstruction. The force of temptation is fearfully added to by the idea\nthat repentance lays the righteous penalty of transgression on another\nhead; this doctrine gives a direct encouragement to sin, as even\nPaul perceived when he said, \"shall we continue in sin that grace may\nabound?\" Some one has remarked, I think, that though Paul ejaculates,\n\"God forbid,\" his fears were well founded and have been widely realised.\nTo the Atonement we owe the morbid sentiment which believes in the holy\ndeath of a ruffianly murderer, because, goaded by ungovernable terror,\nhe has snatched at the offered safety and been \"washed in the blood of\nthe lamb.\" To it we owe the unwholesome glorying in the pious sentiments\nof such an one, who ought to go out of this life sadly and silently,\nwithout a sickening parade of feelings of love towards the God whose\nlaws, as long as he could, he has broken and despised. But the Christian\nteachers will extol the \"saving grace\" which has made the felon die with\nwords of joyful assurance, meet only for the lips of one who crowns\na saintly life with a peaceful death. The Atonement has weakened that\nstern condemnation of sin which is the safeguard of purity; it has\nsoftened down moral differences, and placed the penitent above the\nsaint; it has dulled the feeling of responsibility in the soul; it has\ntaken away the help, such as it is, of fear of punishment for sin; it\nhas confused man's sense of justice, outraged his feeling of right,\nblunted his conscience, and misdirected his repentance. It has chilled\nhis love to God by representing the universal father as a cruel tyrant\nand a remorseless and unjust judge. It has been the fruitful parent of\nall asceticism, for, since God was pacified by suffering once, he would,\nof course, be pleased with suffering at all times, and so men have\nlogically ruined their bodies to save their souls, and crushed their\nfeelings and lacerated their hearts to propitiate the awful form\nfrowning behind the cross of Christ. To the Atonement we owe it that God\nis served by fear instead of by love, that monasticism holds its head\nabove the sweet sanctities of love and home, that religion is crowned\nwith thorns and not with roses, that the _miserere_ and not the _gloria_\nis the strain from earth to heaven. The Atonement teaches men to crouch\nat the feet of God, instead of raising loving, joyful faces to meet his\nradiant smile; it shuts out his sunshine from us, and veils us in the\nnight of an impenetrable dread. What is the sentiment with which Canon\nLiddon closes a sermon on the death of Christ? I quote it to show the\nslavish feeling engendered by this doctrine in a very noble human soul:\n\"In ourselves, indeed, there is nothing that should stay His (God's)\narm or invite his mercy. But may he have respect to the acts and the\nsufferings of his sinless son? Only while contemplating the inestimable\nmerits of the Redeemer can we dare to hope that our heavenly Father will\noverlook the countless provocations which he receives at the hands of\nthe redeemed.\" Is this a wholesome sentiment, either as regards our\nfeelings towards God or our efforts towards holiness? Is it well to look\nto the purity of another as a makewight for our personal shortcomings?\nAll these injuries to morality done by the atonement are completed\nby the crowning one, that it offers to the sinner a veil of \"imputed\nrighteousness.\" Not only does it take from him his saving punishment,\nbut it nullifies his strivings after holiness by offering him a\nrighteousness which is not his own. It introduces into the solemn\nregion of duty to God the legal fiction of a gift of holiness, which is\nimputed, not won. We are taught to believe that we can blind the eyes\nof God and satisfy him with a pretended purity. But that every one whose\npurity we seek to claim as ours, that fair blossom of humanity, Jesus\nof Nazareth, whose mission we so misconstrue, launched his anathema at\nwhited sepulchres, pure without and foul within. What would he have said\nof the whitewash of unimputed righteousness? Stern and sharp would have\nbeen his rebuke, methinks, to a device so untrue, and well-deserved\nwould have been his thundered \"woe\" on a hypocrisy that would fain\ndeceive God as well as man.\n\nThese considerations have carried so great a weight with the most\nenlightened and progressive minds among Christians themselves, that\nthere has grown up a party in the Church whose repudiation of an\natonement of agony and death is as complete as even we could wish.\nThey denounce with the utmost fervour the hideous notion of a \"bloody\nsacrifice,\" and are urgent in their representations of the dishonour\ndone to God by ascribing to him \"pleasure in the death of him that\ndieth,\" or satisfaction in the sight of pain. They point out that there\nis no virtue in blood to wash away sin, not even \"in the blood of a\nGod.\" Maurice eloquently pleads against the idea that the suffering\nof the \"well-beloved Son\" was in itself an acceptable sacrifice to the\nAlmighty Father, and he sees the atoning element in the \"holiness and\ngraciousness of the Son.\" Writers of this school perceive that a moral\nand not a physical sacrifice can be the only acceptable offering to the\nFather of spirits, but the great objection lies against their theory\nalso, that the Atonement is still vicarious. Christ still suffers _for_\nman, in order to make men acceptable to God. It is, perhaps, scarcely\nfair to say this of the school as a whole, since the opinions of Broad\nChurch divines differ widely from each other, ranging from the orthodox\nto the Socinian standing-point. Yet, roughly speaking, we may say that\nwhile they have given up the error of thinking that the death of\nChrist reconciles God to-us, they yet believe that his death, in\nsome mysterious manner, reconciles us to God. It is a matter of deep\nthankfulness that they give up the old cruel idea of propitiating God,\nand so prepare the way for a higher creed. Their more humane teaching\nreaches hearts which are as yet sealed against us, and they are the\nJohn Baptist of the Theistic Christ. We must still urge on them that an\natonement at all is superfluous, that all the parade of reconciliation\nby means of a mediator is perfectly unnecessary as between God and his\nchild, man; that the notion put forward that Christ realised the ideal\nof humanity and propitiated God by showing what a man _could_ be, is\nobjectionable in that it represents God as needing to be taught what\nwere the capacities of his creatures, and is further untrue, because the\npowers of God in man are not really the equivalent of the capabilities\nof a simple man. Broad Churchmen are still hampered by the difficulties\nsurrounding a divine Christ, and are puzzled to find for him a place in\ntheir theology which is at once suitable for his dignity, and consistent\nwith a reasonable belief. They feel obliged to acknowledge that some\nunusual benefit to the race must result from the incarnation and death\nof a God, and are swayed alternately by their reason, which places\nthe crucifixion of Jesus in the roll of martyrs' deaths, and by their\nprejudices, which assign to it a position unique and unrivalled in the\nhistory of the race. There are, however, many signs that the deity of\nJesus is, as an article of faith, tottering from its pedestal in the\nBroad Church school. The hold on it by such men as the Rev. J. S. Brooke\nis very slight, and his interpretation of the incarnation is regarded\nby orthodox divines with unmingled horror. Their _moral_ atonement, in\nturn, is as the dawn before the sunrise, and we may hope that it will\nsoon develop into the real truth: namely, that the dealings of Jesus\nwith the Father were a purely private matter between his own soul and\nGod, and that his value to mankind consists in his being one of the\nteachers of the race, one \"with a genius for religion,\" one of the\nschoolmasters appointed to lead humanity to God.\n\nThe theory of M'Leod Campbell stands alone, and is highly interesting\nand ingenious--it is the more valuable and hopeful as coming from\nScotland, the home of the dreariest belief as to the relations existing\nbetween man and God. He rejects the penal character of the Atonement,\nand makes it consist, so to speak, in leading God and man to understand\none another. He considers that Christ witnessed to men on behalf of God,\nand vindicated the father's heart by showing what he could be to the son\nwho trusted in him. He witnessed to God on behalf of men--and this\nis the weakest point in the book, verging, as it does, on\nsubstitution--showing in humanity a perfect sympathy with God's feelings\ntowards sin, and offering to God for man a perfect repentance for human\ntransgression. I purposely say \"verging,\" because Campbell does not\n_intend_ substitution; he represents this sorrow of Jesus as what he\nmust inevitably feel at seeing his brother-men unconscious of their sin\nand danger, so no fiction is supposed as between God and Christ. But he\nconsiders that God, having seen the perfection of repentance in Jesus,\naccepts the repentance of man, imperfect as it is, because it is _in\nkind_ the same as that of Jesus, and is the germ of that feeling of\nwhich his is the perfect flower; in this sense, and only in this sense,\nis the repentance of man accepted \"for Christ's sake.\" He considers that\nmen must share in the mind of Christ as towards God and towards sin, in\norder to be benefited by the work of Christ, and that each man must thus\nactually take part in the work of atonement. The sufferings of Jesus he\nregards as necessary in order to test the reality of the life of sonship\ntowards God, and brotherhood towards men, which he came to earth to\nexemplify. I trust I have done no injustice in this short summary to a\nvery able and thoughtful book, which presents, perhaps, the only view of\nthe Atonement compatible with the love and the justice of God; and this\nonly, of course, if the idea of _any_ atonement can fairly be said to\nbe consistent with justice. The merits of this view are practically that\nthis work of Jesus is not an \"atonement\" in the theological sense at\nall. The defects of Campbell's book are inseparable from his creed,\nas he argues from a belief in the deity of Jesus, from an unconscious\nlimitation of God's knowledge (as though God did not understand man\ntill he was revealed to him by Jesus) and from a wrong conception of the\npunishment due to sin. I said, at starting, that the Atonement was the\n_raison d'etre_ of Christianity, and, in conclusion, I would challenge\nall thoughtful men and women to say whether good cause has or has not\nbeen shown for rejecting this pillar \"of the faith.\" The Atonement has\nbut to be studied in order to be rejected. The difficulty is to persuade\npeople to _think_ about their creed, Yet the question of this doctrine\nmust be faced and answered. \"I have too much faith in the common sense\nand justice of Englishmen when once awakened to face any question\nfairly, to doubt what that answer will be.\"\n\n\n\n\nON THE MEDIATION AND SALVATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY.\n\nTHE whole Christian scheme turns on the assumption of the inherent\nnecessity of some one standing between the Creator and the creature,\nand shielding the all-weak from the power of the All-mighty. \"It is a\nfearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God;\" such is the\nkey-note of the strain which is chanted alike by Roman Catholicism, with\nits thousand intercessors, and by Protestantism, with its \"one Mediator,\nthe man Christ Jesus.\" \"Speak _thou_ for me,\" cries man to his favourite\nmouthpiece, whoever it may be; \"go thou near, but let me not see the\nface of God, lest I die.\" The heroes, the saints, the idols of humanity,\nhave been the men who have dared to search into the Unseen, and to gaze\nstraight up into the awful Face of God. They have dashed aside all that\nintervened between their souls and the Eternal Soul, and have found it,\nas one of them quaintly phrases it, \"a profitable sweet necessity to\nfall on the naked arm of Jehovah.\" Then, because they dared to-trust Him\nwho had called them into existence, and to stretch out beseeching hands\nto the Everlasting Father, they have been forced into a position they\nwould have been the very first to protest against, and have been made\ninto mediators for men less bold, for children less confiding. Those\nwho dared not seek God for themselves have clung to the garments of the\nbraver souls, who have thus become, involuntarily, veils between\ntheir brother-men and the Supreme. There is, perhaps, no better way of\ndemonstrating the radical errors from which spring all the so-called\n\"schemes of redemption\" and \"economies of Divine grace\" than by starting\nfrom the Christian hypothesis.\n\nWe will admit, for argument's sake, the Deity of Jesus, in order that we\nmay thus see the more distinctly that a mediator of any kind between\nGod and man is utterly uncalled for. It is mediation, in itself, that\nis wrong in principle; we object to it as a whole, not to any special\nmanifestation of it. Divine or human mediators, Jesus or his mother,\nsaint, angel, or priest, we reject them each and all; our birthright\nas human beings is to be the offspring of the Universal Father, and we\nrefuse to have any interloper pressing in between our hearts and His.\n\nWe will take mediation first in its highest form, and speak of it as if\nJesus were really God as well as man. All Christians agree in asserting\nthat the coming of the Son into the world to save sinners was the result\nof the love of the Father for these sinners; _i.e._, \"_God_ so loved the\nworld that _He_ sent His Son.\" The motive-power of the redemption of the\nworld is, then, according to Christians, the deep love of the Creator\nfor the work of His hands. This it was that exiled the Son from the\nbosom of the Father, and caused the Eternal to be born into time.\nBut now a startling change occurs in the aspect of affairs. Jesus has\n\"atoned for the sins of the world;\" he \"has made peace through the blood\nof his cross;\" and having done so, he suddenly appears as the mediator\nfor men. What does this pleading of the Son on behalf of sinners imply?\nOnly this--_a complete change in the Father's mind towards the world_.\nAfter the yearning love of which we have heard, after this absolute\nsacrifice to win His children's hearts, He at last succeeds. He sees His\nchildren at His feet, repentant for the past, eager to make amends in\nthe future; human hands appealing to Him, human eyes streaming with\ntears. He turns His back on the souls He has been labouring to win; He\nrefuses to clasp around His penitents the arms outstretched to them so\nlong, unless they are presented to Him by an accredited intercessor,\nand come armed with a formal recommendation. The inconsistency of such a\nprocedure must be palpable to all minds; and in order to account for\none absurdity, theologians have invented another; having created one\ndifficulty, they are forced to make a second, in order to escape from\nthe first. So they represent God as loving sinners, and desiring to\nforgive and welcome them. This feeling is the Mercy of God; but, in\nopposition to the dictates of Mercy, Justice starts up, and forbids any\nfavour to the sinner unless its own claims are first satisfied to the\nutmost. A Christian writer has represented Mercy and Justice as standing\nbefore the Eternal: Mercy pleads for forgiveness and pity, Justice\nclamours for punishment. Two attributes of the Godhead are personified\nand placed in opposition to each other, and require to be reconciled.\nBut when we remember that each personified quality is really but a\nportion, so to speak, of the Divine character, we find that God is\ndivided against Himself. Thus, this theory introduces discord into the\nharmonious mind which inspires the perfect melodies of the universe. It\nsees warring elements in the Serenity of the Infinite One; it pictures\nsuccessive waves of love and anger ruffling that ineffable Calm; it\nimagines clouds of changing motives sweeping across the sun of that\nunchanging Will. Such a theory as this must be rejected as soon as\nrealised by the thoughtful mind. God is not a man, to be swayed first\nby one motive and then by another. His mercy and justice ever point\nunwaveringly in the same direction: perfect justice requires the same\nas perfect mercy. If God's justice could fail, the whole moral universe\nwould be in confusion, and that would be the greatest cruelty that\ncould be inflicted on intelligent beings. The weak pliability, miscalled\nmercy, which is supposed to be worked upon by a mediator, is a human\ninfirmity which men have transferred to their idea of God.\n\nA man who has announced his intention to punish may be persuaded out\nof his resolution. New arguments may be adduced for the condemned one's\ninnocence, new reasons for clemency may be suggested; or the judge may\nhave been over-strict, or have been swayed by prejudice. Here a mediator\nmay indeed step in, and find good work to do; but, in the name of the\nEternal Perfection, what has all this to do with the judgment of God?\nCan His knowledge be imperfect, His mercy increased? Can His sentence be\nswayed by prejudice, or made harsh by over-severity?\n\nBut if His judgment is already perfect, any change implies imperfection,\nand all left for the mediator to do is to persuade God to make a change,\n_i.e._, to become imperfect; or, God having decided that sin shall\nbe punished, the mediator steps in, and actually so works upon God's\nfeelings that He revokes His decision, and--most cruel of mercies--lets\nit go unnoticed. Like an unwise parent, God is persuaded not to punish\nthe erring child. But such is not the case. God is just, and because He\nis just He is most truly merciful: in that justice rests the certainty\nof the due punishment of sin, and, therefore of the purification of the\nsinner! and no mediator--thanks be to God for it!--shall ever cause to\nwaver for one instant that Rock of Justice on which reposes the hope of\nHumanity.\n\nBut the theory we are considering has another fatal error in it:\nit ascribes imperfection to Almighty God. For God is represented as\ndesiring to forgive sinners, and this desire must be either right or\nwrong. If it be right, it can at once be gratified; but if Justice\nopposes this forgiveness, then the desire to forgive is not wholly\nright. Theologians are thus placed in this dilemma: if God is\nperfect--as He is--any desire of His must likewise be flawlessly\nperfect, and its fulfilment must be the very best thing that could\nhappen to His whole creation; on the other hand, if there is any barrier\nof right--and Justice _is_ right--interposed between God and His desire,\nthen His Will is not the most perfect Good. Theologians must then choose\nbetween admitting that the desire of God to welcome sinners is just, or\ndetracting from the Eternal Perfection.\n\nIt is obvious that we do not weaken our case by admitting, for the\nmoment, the Deity of Jesus; for we are striking at the root-idea\nof mediation. That the mediator should be God is totally beside the\nquestion, and in no way strengthens our adversaries' hands. His Deity\ndoes nothing more than introduce a new element of confusion into the\naffair; for we become entangled in a maze of contradictions. God, who is\nOne, even according to Christians, is at one and the same time estranged\nfrom sinners, pleading for sinners, and admitting the pleading. God\npleads to Himself--but we are confounding the persons: one God pleads to\nanother--but we are dividing the substance. Alas and alas for the creed\nwhich compels its votaries to deny their reason, and degrade their\nMaker! which babbles of a Nature it cannot comprehend, and forces\nits foolish contradictions on indignant souls! If Jesus be God, his\nmediation is at once impossible and unnecessary; if he be God, his will\nis the will of God; and if he wills to welcome sinners, it is God who\nwills to welcome them. If he, who is God, is content to pardon and\nembrace, what further do sinners require? Christians tell us that Jesus\nis one with God: it is well, we reply; for you say he is the Friend of\nsinners, and the Redeemer of the lost. If he be God, we both agree as to\nthe friendliness of God to sinners. You need no mediator between you\nand Jesus; and, since he is God, you need no mediator with God. This\nreasoning is irrefragable, unless Christians are content to assign to\ntheir mediator some place which is less than divine; for they certainly\nderogate from his dignity when they imagine him as content to receive\nthose whom Almighty God chases from before His face. And in making this\ndifference between Jesus and the Father they make a fatal admission that\nhe is distinct in feeling from God, and therefore cannot be the One God.\nIt is the proper perception of this fact which has introduced into\nthe Roman Church the human mediators whose intercession is constantly\nimplored. Jesus, being God, is too awful to be approached: his mother,\nhis apostles, some saint or martyr, must come between. I have read a\nRoman Catholic paper about the mediation of Mary which would be accepted\nby the most orthodox Protestant were Mary replaced by Jesus, and Jesus\nby the Father. For Jesus is there painted, as the Father is painted by\nthe orthodox, in stern majesty, hard, implacable, exacting the uttermost\nfarthing; and Mary is represented as standing between him and the\nsinners for whom she pleads. It is only a further development of the\nidea which makes the man Jesus the Mediator between God and man. As the\ndeification of Mary progresses, following in slow but certain steps\nthe deification of Jesus, a mediator will be required through whom to\napproach _her_; and then Jesus, too, will fade out of the hearts of\nmen, as the Father has faded out of the hearts of Christians, and this\nsuperstition of mediation will sink lower and lower, till it is rejected\nby all earnest hearts, and is loathed by human souls which are aching\nfor the living God.\n\nWe see, then, that mediation implies an absurd and inexplicable change\nin the supposed attitude of God towards man, and destroys all confidence\nin the justice of the Supreme Ruler. We should further take into\nconsideration the strange feeling towards the Universal _Heart_ implied\nin man's endeavour to push some one in between himself and the Eternal\nFather. As we study Nature and try to discover from its workings\nsomething of the characteristics of the Worker therein, we find not only\na ruling Intelligence--a _Supreme Reason_, before which we bow our heads\nin an adoration too deep for words--but we catch also beautiful glimpses\nof a ruling Love--a _Supreme Heart_, to which our hearts turn with a\nglad relief from the dark mysteries of pain and evil which press us in\non every side. Simple belief in God at all, that is to say, in a Power\nwhich works in the Universe, is quite sufficient to disperse any of\nthat feeling of fear which finds its fit expression in the longing for\na mediator. For being placed here without our request, and even without\nour consent, we have surely, as a simple matter of justice, a right to\ndemand that the Power which placed us here shall provide us with means\nby which we can secure our happiness. I speak, of course, as of a\n_conscious_ Power, because a blind Force is necessarily irresponsible;\nbut those who believe in a God are bound to acknowledge that He is\nresponsible for their well-being. If any one should suggest that to\nsay thus is to criticise God's dealings and to speak with presumptuous\nirreverence, I retort that the irreverence lies with those who ascribe\nto the Supreme a course of action towards His creatures that they\nthemselves would be ashamed to pursue towards their own children, and\nthat they who fling at us the reproach of blasphemy because we will not\nbow the knee before their idol, would themselves lie open to the charge,\nwere it not that their ignorance shields them from the sterner censure.\nAll good in man--poor shallow streamlet though it be--flows down from\nthe pure depths of the Fountain of Good, and any throb of Love on\nearth is a pulsation caused by the ceaseless beating of the Universal\nFather-Heart. Yet men fear to trust that Heart, lest it should cease\nbeating; they fear to rest on God, lest He should play them false.\nWhen will they catch even a glimpse of that great ocean of love which\nencircles the universe as the atmosphere the earth, which is infinite\nbecause God is infinite? If there is no spot in the universe of which\nit can be said, \"God is not here,\" then is there also no spot where love\ndoes not rule; if there is no life existing without the support of the\nLife-Giver and the Life-Sustainer, then is there also no life which is\nnot cradled in the arms of Love. Who then will dare to push himself in\nbetween man and a God like this? In the light of the Universal Reason\nand the Universal Heart mediation stands confessed as an impertinent\nabsurdity. Away with any and all of those who interfere in the most\nsacred concerns of the soul, who press in between the Creator and His\noffspring; between the heart of man and the parent Heart of God. Whoever\nit may be, saint or martyr, or the king of saints and martyrs, Jesus of\nNazareth, let him come down from a position which none can rightly hold.\nTo elevate the noblest son of man into this place of mediator is to make\nhim into an offence to his brethren, and to cause their love to turn\ninto anger, and their reverence into indignation. If men persist in\ntalking about the need of a mediator before they dare to approach God,\nwe must remind them that, if there be a God at all, He _must_ be just,\nand that, therefore, they are perfectly safe In His hands; if they begin\nto babble about forgiveness \"_for the sake of Jesus Christ?_ we must\nask them what in the world they mean by the forgiveness of sin?\" Surely\nthey do not think that God is like man, quick to revenge affront and\njealous of His dignity; even were it possible for man to injure, in any\nsense, the Majesty of God, do they conceive that God is an irascible and\nrevengeful Potentate? Those who think thus of God can never--I assert\nboldly--have caught the smallest glimpse of _God_. They may have seen\na \"magnified man,\" but they have seen nothing more; they have never\nprostrated themselves before that Universal Spirit who dwells in this\nvast universe; they have never felt their own littleness in a place so\ngreat. How _can_ sin be forgiven? can a past act be undone, or the hands\ngo back on the sun-dial of Time? All God's so-called chastisements are\nbut the natural and inevitable results of broken laws--laws invariable\nin their action, neither to be escaped or defied. Obedience to law\nresults in happiness, and the suffering consequent on the transgression\nof law is not inflicted by an angry God, but is the simple natural\noutcome of the broken law itself. Put your hand in the fire, and no\nmediator can save you from burning; cry earnestly to God to save you,\nand then cast yourself from a precipice, and will a mediator come\nbetween you and the doom you have provoked? We should do more wisely if\nwe studied laws and tried to conform ourselves to them, instead of\ngoing blundering about with our eyes shut, trusting that some one will\ninterpose to shield us from the effects of our own folly and stupidity.\nHappily for mankind, mediation is impossible in that beautiful realm of\nlaw in which we are placed; when men have quite made up their minds that\ntheir happiness depends entirely on their own exertions, there will at\nlast be some chance for the advancement of Humanity, for then they will\nwork for things instead of praying for them. It is of real practical\nimportance that this Christian notion of mediation should be destroyed,\nbecause on it hang all the ideas about trusting to some one else to do\nour own work. This plan has not answered: we judge it by results, and\nit has failed. Surely we may hope that as men get to see that prayer has\nnot succeeded in its efforts to \"move the arm which moves the world, to\nbring salvation down,\" they may turn to the more difficult, but also\nthe more hopeful task, of moving their own arms to work out their own\nsalvation. For the past, it is past, and none can reverse it; none\ncan stay the action of the eternal law which links sorrow with\ntransgression, and joy and peace with obedience. When we slip back on\nour path upward, we may repent and call on God or man for forgiveness\nas we list, but only through toil and suffering can the lost way be\nrecovered, and the rugged path must be trodden with bleeding feet; for\nthere is none who can lift the sinner over the hindrances he has built\nup for himself, or carry him over the rocks with which he has strewed\nhis road.\n\nDoes the sentimental weakness of our age shrink from this doctrine, and\nwhimper out that it is cold and stern? Ay, it is cold with the cold\nof the bracing sea-breeze, stringing to action the nerves enfeebled by\nhot-houses and soft-living; ay, it is stern with the blessed sternness\nof changeless law, of law which never fails us, never varies a hair's\nbreadth. But in that law is strength; man's arm is feeble, but let him\nsubmit to the laws of steam, and his arm becomes dowered with a giant's\nforce; conform to a law, and the mighty power of that law is on your\nside; \"humble yourself under the mighty hand of God,\" who is the\nUniversal Law, \"and He shall lift you up.\"\n\nSo much for mediation. We turn with a still deeper repugnance to study\nthe Christian idea of \"Salvation.\" Mediation at least leaves us\nGod, however it degrades and blasphemes Him, but salvation takes us\naltogether out of His Hands. Not content with placing a mediator between\nthemselves and God, Christians cry out that He is still too near them;\nthey must push Him yet further back, they must have a Saviour too,\nthrough whom all His benefits shall filter.\n\n\"Saviour,\" is an expression often found in the Old Testament, where it\nbears a very definite and noble meaning. God is the Saviour of men from\nthe power of sin, and although we may consider that God does _not_ save\nfrom sin in this direct manner, we are yet bound to acknowledge that\nthere is nothing in this idea which is either dishonouring or repulsive.\nBut the word \"Saviour\" has been degraded by Christianity, and the\nsalvation He brings is not a salvation from sin. \"The Lord and Saviour,\nJesus Christ\" is the Saviour of men, not because he delivers them from\nsin, but \"because he saves them from hell, and from the fiery wrath\nof God.\" Salvation is no longer the equivalent of righteousness, the\nantithesis of sin; in Christian life it means nothing more than the\nantithesis of damnation. It is true that Christians may retort that\nJesus \"saves his people from their sins;\" we gladly acknowledge the\nnobleness and the beauty of many a Christian life, but nevertheless this\nis _not_ the primary idea attached by popular Christianity to the word\n\"salvation.\" \"Being saved\" is to be delivered out of \"those hands of\nthe living God,\" into which, as they are taught by their Bible, it is\nso fearful a thing to fall. \"Being saved\" is the _immediate_ result of\nconversion, and is the opposite of \"being lost.\" \"Being saved\" is being\nhidden \"in the riven side of Jesus,\" and so preserved from the awful\nflames of the destroying wrath of God. Against all this we, believers in\nan Almighty Love, in a Universal Father, enter our solemn and deliberate\nprotest, with a depth of abhorrence, with a passion of indignation which\nis far too intense to find any adequate expression in words. There is no\nlanguage strong enough to show our deeply-rooted repugnance to the idea\nthat we can be safer anywhere or at any time than we are already here;\nwe cannot repel with sufficient warmth the officious interference which\noffers to take us out of the hands of God. To push some one in between\nour souls and Him was bad enough; but to go further and to offer us\nsalvation from our Maker, to try and threaten us away from the arms of\nHis Love, to suggest that another's hands are more tender, another's\nheart more loving than the Supreme Heart,--these are blasphemies\nto which we will not listen in silence. It is true that to us these\nsuggestions are only matters of laughter; dimly as we guess at the\nDeity, we know enough not to be afraid of Him, and these crude and\nchildish conceptions about Him are among ourselves too contemptible to\nrefute.\n\n     \"Non ragione di lor, mai guardo e passo.\"\n\nBut we see how these ideas colour men's thoughts and lives, how they\ncripple their intellect and outrage their hearts, and we rise to trample\ndown these superstitions, not because they are in themselves worth\nrefuting, but simply because they degrade our brother-men. We believe in\nno wisdom that improves on Nature's laws, and one of those laws, written\non our hearts, is that sorrow shall tread on the heels of sin. We are\nconscious that men should learn to welcome this law, and not to shrink\nfrom it. To fly from the suffering following on broken law is the last\nthing we should do; we ought to have no gratitude for a \"Saviour\" who\nshould bear our punishment, and so cheat us out of our necessary lesson,\nturn us into spoiled children, and check our moral growth; such an offer\nas this, could it really be made, ought to be met with stern refusal.\nWe should trust the Supreme so utterly, and adore His wisdom with a\nhumility so profound, that if we could change His laws we should not\ndare to interfere; nor ought we, even when our lot is saddest, to\ncomplain of it, or do anything more than labour to improve it in\nsteadfast obedience to law. We should ask for no salvation; we should\ndesire to fall--were it possible that we _could_ be out of them--into\nthe hands of God.\n\nFurther, is it impossible to make Christians understand that were Jesus\nall they say he is, we should still reject him; that were God all they\nsay He is, we would, in that case, throw back His salvation. For were\nthis awful picture of a soul-destroying Jehovah, of a blood-craving\nMoloch, endowed with a cruelty beyond human imagination, a true\ndescription of the Supreme Being, then would we take the advice of Job's\nwife, we would \"curse God and die?\" we would hide in the burning depths\nof His hell rather than dwell within sight of Him whose brightness would\nmock at the gloom of His creatures, and whose bliss would be a sneer at\ntheir despair. Were it thus indeed--\n\n     \"O King of our salvation,\n     Many would curse to thee, and I for one!\n     Fling Thee Thy bliss, and snatch at Thy damnation,\n     Scorn and abhor the rising of Thy sun.\n\n\"Is it not worth while to believe,\" blandly urges a Christian\nwriter, \"if it is true, as it is true, that they who deny will suffer\neverlasting torments?\" No! we thunder back at him, _it is not worth\nwhile_; it is not worth while to believe a lie, or to acknowledge as\ntrue that which our hearts and intellects alike reject as false; it is\nnot worth while to sell our souls for a heaven, or to defile our honesty\nto escape a hell; it is not worth while to bow our knee to a Satan or\nbend our heads before a spectre. Better, far better, to \"dwell with\neverlasting burnings\" than to degrade our humanity by calling a lie,\ntruth, and cruelty, love, and unreasonableness, justice; better to\nsuffer in hell, than to have our hearts so hard that we could enjoy\nwhile others suffer; could rejoice while others are tormented, could\nsing alleluias to the music of golden harps, while our lyrics are echoed\nby the anguished wailing of the lost. God Himself--were He such as\nChristians paint Him--could not blot out of our souls our love of truth,\nof righteousness, of justice. While we have these we are _ourselves_,\nand we can suffer and be happy; but we cannot afford to pay down these\nas the price of our admission to heaven. We should be miserable even as\nwe paced the golden streets, and should sit in tears beside the river\nof the water of life. Yet _this_ is salvation; _this_ is what Christians\noffer us in the name of Jesus; _this_ is the glad tidings brought to\nus as the gospel of the Saviour, as the \"good news of God;\" and this we\nreject, wholly and utterly, laughing it to scorn from the depths of\nour glad hearts which the Truth has made free; this we denounce, with a\nstern and bitter determination, in the name of the Universal Father, in\nthe name of the self-reliance of humanity, in the name of all that is\nholy, and just, and loving.\n\nBut happily many, even among Christians, are beginning to shrink from\nthis idea of salvation from the God in whom they say they place all\ntheir hopes. They put aside the doctrine, they gloss it over, they\nprefer not to speak of it. Free thought is leavening Christianity, and\nis moulding the old faith against its will. Christianity now hides its\nown cruel side, and only where the bold opponents of its creeds have not\nyet spread, does it dare to show itself in its real colours; in Spain,\nin Mexico, we see Christianity unveiled; here, in England, liberty is\ntoo strong for it, and it is forced into a semblance of liberality. The\nold wine is being poured into new bottles; what will be the result? We\nmay, however, rejoice that nobler thoughts about God are beginning to\nprevail, and are driving out the old wicked notions about Him and His\nrevenge. The Face of the Father is beginning, however dimly, to shine\nout from His world, and before the Beauty of that Face all hard thoughts\nabout Him are fading away. Nature is too fair to be slandered for ever,\nand when men perceive that God and Nature are One, all that is ghastly\nand horrible must die and drop into forgetfulness. The popular\nChristian ideas of mediation and salvation must soon pass away into the\nlimbo of rejected creeds which is being filled so fast; they are already\ndead, and their pale ghosts shall soon flit no longer to vex and harass\nthe souls of living men.\n\n\n\n\nON ETERNAL TORTURE.\n\nSOME time ago a Clergyman was proving to me by arguments many and\nstrong that hell was right, necessary and just; that it brought glory\nto God and good to man; that the holiness of God required it as a\npreventive, and the justice of God exacted it as a penalty, of sin.\nI listened quietly till all was over and silence fell on the reverend\ndenunciator; he ceased, satisfied with his arguments, triumphant in the\nconsciousness that they were crushing and unassailable. But my eyes were\nfixed on the fair scene without the library window, on the sacrament\nof earth, the visible sign of the invisible beauty, and the contrast\nbetween God's works and the Church's speech came strongly upon me. And\nall I found to say in answer came in a few words: \"If I had not heard\nyou mention the name of God, I should have thought you were speaking of\nthe Devil.\" The words, dropped softly and meditatively, had a startling\neffect. Horror at the blasphemy, indignation at the unexpected result of\nlaboured argument, struggled against a dawning feeling that there must\nbe something wrong in a conception which laid itself open to such\na blow; the short answer told more powerfully than half an hour's\nreasoning.\n\nThe various classes of orthodox Christian doctrines should be attacked\nin very different styles by the champions of the great army of\nfree-thinkers, who are at the present day besieging the venerable\nsuperstitions of the past. Around the Deity of Jesus cluster many\nhallowed memories and fond associations; the worship of centuries has\nshed around his figure a halo of light, and he has been made into the\nideal of Humanity; the noblest conceptions of morality, the highest\nflights of enlightened minds, have been enshrined in a human personality\nand called by the name of Christ; the Christ-idea has risen and expanded\nwith every development of human progress, and the Christ of the highest\nChristianity of the day is far other than the Christ of Augustine, of\nThomas a Kempis, of Luther, or Knox; the strivings after light, after\nknowledge, after holiness, of the noblest sons of men have been\ncalled by them a following of Jesus; Jesus is baptized in human tears,\ncrucified in human pains, glorified in human hopes. Because of all this,\nbecause he is dear to human hearts and identified with human struggles,\ntherefore he should be gently spoken of by all who feel the bonds of\nthe brotherhood of man; the dogma of his Deity must be assailed, must be\noverthrown, because it is false, because it destroys the unity of God,\nbecause it veils from us the Eternal Spirit, the source of all things,\nbut he himself should be reverently spoken of, so far as truthfulness\npermits, and this dogma, although persistently battled against, should\nbe attacked without anger and without scorn.\n\nThere are other doctrines which, while degrading in regard to man's\nconception of God, and therefore deserving of reprobation, yet enshrine\ngreat moral truths and have become bound up with ennobling lessons; such\nis the doctrine of the Atonement, which enshrines the idea of selfless\nlove and of self-sacrifice for the good of humanity. There are others\nagain against which ridicule and indignation may rightly be brought to\nbear, which are concessions to human infirmity, and which belong to the\nchildhood of the race; man may be laughed out of his sacraments and out\nof his devils, and indignantly reminded that he insults God and degrades\nhimself by placing a priesthood or mediator between God and his own\nsoul. But there is one dogma of Orthodox Christianity which stands\nalone in its atrocity, which is thoroughly and essentially bad, which is\nwithout one redeeming feature, which is as blasphemous towards God as\nit is injurious to man; on it therefore should be poured out unsparingly\nthe bitterest scorn and the sharpest indignation. There is no good human\nemotion enlisted on the side of an Eternal Hell; it is not hallowed by\nhuman love or human longings, it does not enshrine human aspirations,\nnor is it the outcome of human hopes. In support of this no appeal\ncan be made to any feeling of the nobler side of our nature, nor does\neternal fire stimulate our higher faculties: it acts only on the lower,\nbaser, part of man; it excites fear, distrust of God, terror of his\npresence; it may scare from evil occasionally, but can never teach good;\nit sees God in the lightning-flash that slays, but not in the sunshine\nwhich invigorates; in the avalanche which buries a village in its fall,\nbut not in the rich promise of the vineyard and the joyous beauty of\nthe summer day. Hell has driven thousands half-mad with terror, it\nhas driven monks to the solitary deserts, nuns to the sepulchre of the\nnunnery, but has it ever caused one soul of man to rejoice in the Father\nof all, and pant, \"as the hart panteth after the water-springs, for the\npresence of God\"?\n\nIt is only just to state, in attacking this as a Christian doctrine,\nthat, though believed in by the vast majority of Christians, the most\nenlightened of that very indefinite body repudiate it with one voice.\nIt is well known how the great Broad-Church leader, Frederick Denison\nMaurice, endeavoured to harmonize, on this point, his Bible and his\nstrong moral sense, and failed in so doing, as all must fail who would\nreconcile two contradictories. How he fought with that word \"eternal,\"\nstruggled to prove that whatever else it might mean it did _not_ mean\neverlasting in our modern sense of the word: that \"eternal death\" being\nthe antithesis to \"eternal life\" must mean a state of ignorance of\nthe Eternal One, even as its opposite was the knowledge of God: that\ntherefore men could rise from eternal death, aye, did so rise every\nday in this life, and might so rise in the life to come. Noble was\nhis protest against this awful doctrine, fettered as he was by undue\nreverence for, and clinging to, the Bible. His appeal to the moral sense\nin man as the arbiter of all doctrine has borne good fruit, and his\nlabours have opened a road to free thought greater than he expected or\neven hoped. Many other clergymen have followed in his steps. The word\n\"eternal\" has been wrangled over continually, but, however they arrive\nthere, all Broad Churchmen unite in the conclusion that it does not,\ncannot, shall not, mean literally lasting for ever. This school of\nthought has laid much stress on the fondness of Orientals for imagery;\nthey have pointed out that the Jewish word Gehenna is the same as Ge\nHinnom, or valley of Hinnom, and have seen in the state of that valley\nthe materials for \"the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not\nquenched:\" they show how by a natural transition the place into which\nwere thrown the bodies of the worst criminals became the type of\npunishment in the next world, and the valley where children were\nsacrificed to Moloch gave its name to the infernal abode of devils. From\nthat valley Jesus drew his awful picture, suggested by the pale lurid\nfires ever creeping there, mingling their ghastly flames with the\ndecaying bodies of the dishonoured dead. In all this there is probably\nmuch truth, and many Broad Churchmen are content to accept this\nexplanation, and so retain their belief in the supernatural character\nof the Bible, while satisfying their moral sense by rejecting its most\nimmoral dogma.\n\nAmong the evangelicals, only one voice, so far as I know, is heard\nto protest against eternal torture; and all honour is due to the Rev.\nSamuel Minton, for his rare courage in defying on this point the opinion\nof his \"world,\" and braving the censure which has been duly inflicted on\nhim. He seems to make \"eternal\" the equivalent of \"irremediable\" in some\ncases and of \"everlasting\" in others. He believes that the wicked will\nbe literally destroyed, burnt up, consumed; the fact that the fire is\neternal by no means implies, he remarks, that that which is cast into\nthe fire should be likewise eternal, and that the fire is unquenchable\ndoes not prove that the chaff is unconsumable. \"Eternal destruction\" he\nexplains as irreparable destruction, final and irreversible extinction.\nThis theory should have more to recommend it to all who believe in\nthe supernatural inspiration of the Bible, than the Broad Church\nexplanation; it uses far less violence towards the words of Scripture,\nand, indeed, a very fair case may be made out for it from the Bible\nitself.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to add to this small list of dissentients from\northodox Christianity, the Unitarian body; I do not suppose that there\nis such a phenomenon in existence as a Unitarian Christian who believes\nin an eternal hell.\n\nWith these small exceptions the mass of Christians hold this dogma, but\nfor the most part carelessly and uncomprehendingly. Many are ashamed of\nit even while duteously confessing it, and gabble over the sentences in\ntheir creed which acknowledge it in a very perfunctory manner. People\nof this kind \"do not like to talk about hell, it is better to think of\nheaven.\" Some Christians, however, hold it strongly, and proclaim their\nbelief boldly; the members of the Evangelical Alliance actually make the\nprofession of it a condition of admittance into their body, while many\nHigh Church divines think that a sharp declaration of their belief in\nit is needed by loyalty towards God and \"charity to the souls of men.\" I\nwish I could believe that all who profess this dogma did not realize\nit, and only accepted it because their fathers and mothers taught it to\nthem. But what can one say to such statements as the following, quoted\nfrom Father Furniss by W. R. Greg in his splendid \"Enigmas of Life:\" I\ntake it as a specimen of Roman Catholic _authorized_ teaching. Children\nare asked: \"How will your body be when the devil has been striking it\nevery moment for a hundred million years without stopping?\" A girl of\neighteen is described as dressed in fire; \"she wears a bonnet of fire.\nIt is pressed down all over her head; it burns her head; it burns into\nthe skull; it scorches the bone of the skull and makes it smoke.\" A\nboy is boiled: \"Listen! there is a sound just like that of a kettle\nboiling.... The blood is boiling in the scalded veins of that boy. The\nbrain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his\nbones.\" Nay, even the poor little babies are not exempt from torture:\none is in a red hot oven, \"hear how it screams to come out; see how it\nturns and twists about in the fire.... You can see on the face of this\nlittle child\"--the fair pure innocent baby-face--\"what you see on the\nfaces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible.\" Surely this\nman realized what he taught, but then he was that half-human being--a\npriest.\n\nDr. Pusey, too, has a word to say about hell: \"Gather in mind all that\nis most loathsome, most revolting--the most treacherous, malicious,\ncoarse, brutal, inventive, fiendish cruelty, unsoftened by any remains\nof human feeling, such as thou couldst not endure for a single hour....\nhear those yells of blaspheming, concentrated hate as they echo along\nthe lurid vault of hell.\"\n\nProtestantism chimes in, and Spurgeon speaks of hell: \"Wilt thou think\nit is easy to lie down in hell, with the breath of the Eternal fanning\nthe flames? Wilt thou delight thyself to think that God will invent\ntorments for thee, sinner?\" \"When the damned jingle the burning irons of\ntheir torment, they shall say, 'for ever;' when they howl, echo cries,\n'for ever.'\"\n\nI may allude, to conclude my quotations, to a description of hell which\nI myself heard from an eminent prelate of the English Church, one who is\na scholar and a gentleman, a man of moderate views in Church matters,\nby no means a zealot in an ordinary way. In preaching to a country\ncongregation composed mainly of young men and girls, he warned them\nspecially against sins of the flesh, and threatened them with the\nconsequent punishment in hell. Then, in language which I cannot\nreproduce, for I should not dare to sully my pages by repeating what\nI then listened to in horrified amazement, there ensued a description\ndrawn out in careful particulars of the state of the suffering body in\nhell, so sickening in its details that it must suffice to say of it that\nit was a description founded on the condition of a corpse flung out on\na dungheap and left there to putrefy, with the additional horror of\ncreeping, slowly-burning flames; and this state of things was to go\non, as he impressed on them with terrible energy, for ever and ever,\n\"decaying but ever renewing.\"\n\nI should almost ask pardon of tender-hearted men and women for laying\nbefore them language so abominable; but I urge on all who are offended\nby it that this is the teaching given to our sons and daughters in the\npresent day. Father Furniss, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Spurgeon, an English Bishop,\nsurely these are honoured names, and in quoting them I quote from the\nteaching of Christendom. Nor mine the fault if the language be unfit for\nprinting. I _quote_, because if we only assert, Christians are quick to\nsay, \"you are misrepresenting our beliefs,\" and I quote from writers of\nthe present day only, that none may accuse me of hurling at Christians\nreproaches for a doctrine they have outgrown or softened down. Still, I\nown that it seems scarcely credible that a man should believe this and\nremain sane; nay, should preach this, and walk calmly home from his\nChurch with God's sunshine smiling on the beautiful world, and after\npreaching it should sit down to a comfortable dinner and very likely\na quiet pipe, as though hell did not exist, and its awful misery and\nfierce despair.\n\nIt is said that there is no reason that we should not be contented in\nheaven while others suffer in hell, since we know how much misery there\nis in this world and yet enjoy ourselves in spite of the knowledge.\nI say, deliberately, of every one who does realise the misery of this\nworld and remains indifferent to it, who enjoys his own share of the\ngood things of this life, without helping his brother, who does not\nstretch out his hand to lift the fallen, or raise his voice on behalf of\nthe down-trodden and oppressed, that that man is living a life which is\nthe very antithesis of a Divine life--a life which has in it no beauty\nand no nobility, but is selfish, despicable, and mean. And is this the\nlife which we are to regard as the model of heavenly beauty? Is the\npower to lead this life for ever to be our reward for self-devotion\nand self-sacrifice here on earth? Is a supreme selfishness to crown\nunselfishness at last? But this is the life which is to be the lot of\nthe righteous in heaven. Snatched from a world in flames, caught up in\nthe air to meet their descending Lord, his saints are to return with him\nto the heaven whence he came; there, crowned with golden crowns, they\nare to spend eternity, hymning the Lamb who saved them to the music\nof golden harps, harps whose melody is echoed by the curses and the\nwailings of the lost; for below is a far different scene, for there the\nsinners are \"tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the\nholy angels and the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment\nascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night.\"\n\nIt is worth while to gaze for a moment at the scene of future felicity;\nthere is the throne of God and rejoicing crowds: \"Rejoice over her, thou\nheaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets,\" so goes out the command, and\nthey rejoice because \"God has avenged them on her,\" and again they\nsaid \"Alleluia, and her smoke rose up for ever and ever.\" Truly God\nmust harden the hearts of his saints in heaven as of old he hardened\nPharaoh's heart, if they are to rejoice over the anguished multitude\nbelow, and to bear to live amid the lurid smoke ascending from the\nburning bodies of the lost. To me the idea is so unutterably loathsome\nthat I marvel how Christians endure to retain such language in their\nsacred books, for I would note that the awful picture drawn above is not\nof my doing; it is not the scoffing caricature of an unbeliever, _it is\nheaven as described by St. John the divine_. If this heaven is true I do\nnot hesitate to say that it is the duty of every human being to reject\nit utterly and to refuse to enter it. We might even appeal to Christians\nby the example of their own Jesus, who could not be content to remain in\nheaven himself while men went to hell, but came down to redeem them from\nendless suffering. Yet they, who ought to imitate him, who do, many\nof them, lead beautiful lives of self-devotion and compassion, are\nsuddenly, on death, to lose all this which makes them \"partakers of the\nDivine Nature,\" and are to be content to win happiness for themselves,\ncareless that millions of their brethren are in woe unspeakable. They\nare to reverse the aim of their past lives, they are to become selfish\ninstead of loving, hard instead of selfless, indifferent instead of\nloving, hard instead of tender. Which is the better reproduction of the\n\"mind of Christ,\" the good Samaritan tending the wounded man, or the\nstern Inquisitor gloating over the fire which consumes heretics to the\ngreater glory of God? Yet the latter is the ideal of heavenly virtue.\nNever will they who truly love man be content to snatch at bliss for\nthemselves while others suffer, or endure to be crowned with glory while\nthey are crowned with thorns. Better, far better, to suffer in hell and\nshare the pains of the lost, than to have a heart so hard, a nature\nso degraded, as to enjoy the bliss of heaven, rejoicing over, or even\ndisregarding, the woes of hell.\n\nBut there is worse than physical torture in the picture of hell; pain is\nnot its darkest aspect. Of all the thoughts with which the heart of man\nhas outraged the Eternal Righteousness, there is none so appalling, none\nso blasphemous, as that which declares that even one soul, made by the\nSupreme Good, shall remain during all eternity, under the power of\nsin. Divines have wearied themselves in describing the horrors of the\nChristian hell; but it is _not_ the furnace of flames, _not_ the undying\nworm, _not_ the fire which never may be quenched, that revolt us most;\nhideous as are these images, they are not the worst terror of hell. Who\ndoes not know how St. Francis, believing himself ordained to be lost\neverlastingly, fell on his knees and cried, \"O my God, if I am indeed\ndoomed to hate thee during eternity, at least suffer me to love thee\nwhile I live here.\" To the righteous heart the agony of hell is a far\nworse one than physical torture could inflict: it is the existence of\nmen and women who might have been saints, shut out from hope of holiness\nfor evermore; God's children, the work of his hands, gnashing their\nteeth at a Father who has cast them down for ever from the life he might\nhave given; it is Love everlastingly hated; good everlastingly trampled\nunder foot; God everlastingly baffled and defied; worst of all, it is\na room in the Father's house where his children may hunger and thirst\nafter righteousness, but never, never, can be filled.\n\n      \"Depart, O sinner, to the chain!\n      Enter the eternal cell;\n      To all that's good and true and right,\n      To all that's fair and fond and bright,\n      To all of holiness and right,\n      Bid thou thy last farewell.\"\n\n\nWould to God that Christian men and women would ponder it well and think\nit out for themselves, and when they go into the worst parts of our\ngreat cities and their hearts almost break with the misery there, then\nlet them remember how that misery is but a faint picture of the endless,\nhopeless, misery, to which the vast majority of their fellow-men are\ndoomed.\n\nChristian reader, do not be afraid to realise the future in which you\nsay you believe, and which the God of Love has prepared for the home of\nsome of his children. Imagine yourself, or any dear to you, plunged\ninto guilt from which there is no redeemer, and where the voice cannot\npenetrate of him that speaks in righteousness, mighty to save. In the\nwell-weighed words of a champion of Christian orthodoxy, think there is\nno reason to believe that hell is only a punishment for past offences;\nin that dark world sin and misery reproduce each other in infinite\nsuccession. \"What if the sin perpetuates itself, if the prolonged misery\nmay be the offspring of the prolonged guilt?\" Ponder it well, and, if\nyou find it true, then cast out from your creed the belief in a Jesus\nwho loved the lost; blot out from your Bible every verse that speaks of\na Father's heart; tear from your Prayer-books every page that prays to a\nFather in heaven. If the lowest of God's creatures is to be left in the\nfoul embraces of sin for ever, God cannot be the Eternal Righteousness,\nthe unconquerable Love. For what sort of Righteousness is that which\nrests idly contented in a heaven of bliss, while millions of souls\ncapable of righteousness are bound by it in helpless sin; what sort of\nlove is that which is satisfied to be repulsed, and is willing to be\nhated? As long as God is righteous, as long as God is love, so long is\nit impossible that men and women shall be left by him forever in a\nstate to which our worst dens of earth are a very paradise of beauty and\npurity. Bible writers may have erred, but \"Thou continuest holy, O Thou\nworship of Israel!\" There is one revelation that cannot err, and that\nis written by God's finger on every human heart. What man recoils from\ndoing, even at his lowest, can never be done by his Creator, from whose\ninspiration he draws every righteous thought. Is there one father,\nhowever brutalized, who would deliberately keep his child in sin because\nof a childish fault? one mother who would aimlessly torture her son,\nkeeping him alive but to torment? Yet this, nothing less,--nay, a\nthousand times more, for it is this multiplied infinitely by infinite\npower of torture,--this is what Christians ask us to believe about our\nFather and our God, a glimmer from the radiance of whose throne falls on\nto our earth, when men love their enemies and forgive freely those who\nwrong them If this so-called orthodox belief is right, then is their\ngospel of the Love of God to the world a delusion and a lie; if this is\ntrue, the teaching of Jesus to publicans and harlots of the Fatherhood\nof God is a cruel mockery of our divinest instincts; the tale of\nthe good Shepherd who could not rest while one sheep was lost is the\nbitterest irony. But this awful dogma is not true, and the Love of God\ncradles his creation; not one son of the Father's family shall be left\nunder the power of sin, to be an eternal blot on God's creation, an\nendless reproach to his Maker's wisdom, an everlasting and irreparable\nmistake.\n\nNo amount of argument, however powerful, should make us believe a\ndoctrine from which our hearts recoil with such shuddering horror as\nthey do from this doctrine of eternal torture and eternal sin. There is\na divine instinct in the human heart which may be trusted as an arbiter\nbetween right and wrong; no supernatural revelation, no miracle, no\nangel from heaven, should have power to make us accept as divine that\nwhich our hearts proclaim as vile and devilish. It is not true faith\nto crush down our moral sense beneath the hoof of credulity; true faith\nbelieves in God only as a \"Power which makes for _Righteousness_\" and\nrecks little of threats or curses which would force her to accept that\nwhich conscience disapproves. And what is more, if it were possible that\nGod were not what we dream, if he were not \"righteous in all his ways\nand holy in all his works,\" then were it craven cowardice to worship him\nat all. It has been well said, \"that to worship simple power, without\nvirtue, is nothing but devil-worship;\" in that case it were nobler to\nrefuse to praise him and to take what he might send. Then indeed we\nmust say, with John Stuart Mill, in that burst of passion which reads so\nstrangely in the midst of his passionless logic, that if I am told that\nthis is justice and love, and that if I do not call it so, God will send\nme to hell, then \"to hell I'll go.\"\n\nI have purposely put first my strong reprobation of eternal hell,\nbecause of its own essential hideousness, and because, were it ever\nso true, I should deem myself disgraced by acknowledging it as\neither loving or good. But it is, however, a satisfaction to note the\nfeebleness of the arguments advanced in support of this dogma, and to\nfind that justice and holiness, as well as love, frown on the idea of an\neternal hell.\n\nThe first argument put forth is this: \"God has made a law which\nman breaks; man must therefore in justice suffer the penalty of his\ntransgression.\" This, like so many of the orthodox arguments, sounds\njust and right, and at first we perfectly agree with it. The instinct\nof justice in our own breasts confirms the statement, and looking abroad\ninto the world we see its truth proved by facts. Law is around us on\nevery side; man is placed in a realm of law; he may-strive against the\nlaws which encircle him, but he will only dash himself to pieces against\na rock; he is under a code which he breaks at his peril. Here is perfect\njustice, a justice absolutely unwavering, deaf to cries, unseducible\nby-flatteries, unalloyed by favouritism: a law exists, break it, and\nyou suffer the inevitable consequences. So far, then, the orthodox\nargument is sound and strong, but now it takes a sudden leap. \"The\npenalty of the broken law is hell.\" Why? What common factor is there\nbetween a lie, and the \"lake of fire in which all liars shall have their\npart?\" Nature is absolutely against the orthodox corollary, because hell\nas a punishment of sin is purely arbitrary, the punishment might quite\nas well have been something else; but in nature the penalty of a broken\nlaw is always strictly in character with the law itself, and is derived\nfrom it. Men imagine the most extraordinary \"judgment.\" A nation is\ngiven to excessive drinking, and is punished with cattle-plague; or\nshows leanings towards popery, and is chastised with cholera. It is as\nreasonable to believe this as it would be to expect that if a child fell\ndown stairs he would be picked up covered with blisters from burning,\ninstead of his receiving his natural punishment of being bruised.\nWhy, because I lie and forget God, should I be punished with fire and\nbrimstone? Fire is not derivable from truth, nor is brimstone a stimulus\nto memory. There is also a strange confusion in many minds about the\npunishment of sin. A child is told not to put his hand into the fire,\nhe does so, and is burnt; the burning is a punishment, he is told; for\nwhat? Not for disobedience to the parent, as is generally said, but for\ndisregarding the law of nature which says that fire burns. One often\nhears it said: \"God's punishments for sin are not equal: one man sins\nonce and suffers for it all his life, while another sins twenty times\nand is not punished at all.\" By no means: the two men both break a moral\nlaw, and suffer a moral degradation; one of them breaks in addition some\nphysical law, and suffers a physical injury. People see injustice where\nnone exists, because they will not take the trouble to distinguish\nwhat laws are broken when material punishments follow. There is nothing\narbitrary in nature: cause and effect rule in her realm. Hell is then\nunjust, in the first place, because physical torture has nothing in\ncommon with moral guilt.\n\nIt is unjust, secondly, because it is excessive. Sin, say theologians,\nis to be punished infinitely, because sin is an offence committed\nagainst an infinite being. Of course, then, good must logically be\nrewarded infinitely, because it is duty offered to an infinite being.\nThere is no man who has never done a single good act, so every man\ndeserves an infinite reward. There is no man who has never done a single\nbad act, so every man deserves an infinite punishment. Therefore every\nman deserves both an infinite reward and an infinite punishment,\n\"which,\" as Euclid says, \"is absurd.\" And this is quite enough answer to\nthe proposition. But I must protest, in passing, against this notion of\n\"sin against God\" as properly understood. If by this expression is only\nmeant that every sin committed is a sin against God, because every sin\nis done against man's higher nature, which is God in man, then indeed\nthere is no objection to be made to it. But this is not what is\ngenerally meant by the phrase. It usually means that we are able, as it\nwere, to injure God in some way, to dishonour him, to affront him, to\ntrouble him. By sin we make him \"angry,\" we \"provoke him to wrath;\"\nbecause of this feeling on his own part he punishes us, and demands\n\"satisfaction.\" Surely a moment's reflection must prove to any\nreasonable being that sin against God in this sense is perfectly\nimpossible. What can the littleness of man do against the greatness of\nthe Eternal! Imagine a speck of dust troubling the depths of the\nocean, an aphis burdening an oak-tree with its weight: each is far\nmore probable than that a man could ruffle the perfect serenity of God.\nSuppose I stand on a lawn watching an ant-heap, an ant twinkles his\nfeelers at me scornfully; do I fly into a passion and rush on the insect\nto destroy it, or seize it and slowly torture it? Yet I am far less\nabove the level of the ant than God is above mine.\n\nBut I must add a word here to guard against the misapprehension that\nin saying this I am depriving man of the strength he finds in believing\nthat he is personally known to God and an object of his care. Were I\nthe ant's creator familiar with all the workings of its mind, I\nmight regret, for its sake, the pride and scorn of its maker shown by\nits-action, because it was not rising to the perfection of nature of\nwhich it was capable. So, in that nature in which we live and move,\nwhich is too great to regard anything as-little, which is around all and\nin all, and which we believe to be conscious of all, there is--I cannot\nbut think--some feeling which, for want of a better term, we must call\na desire for the growth of his creatures (because in this growth lies\ntheir own happiness), and a corresponding feeling of regret when they\ninjure themselves. But I say this in fear and reverence, knowing that\nhuman language has no terms in which to describe the nature we adore,\nand conscious that in the very act of putting ideas about him into\nwords, I degrade the ideas and they no longer fully answer to the\nthought in my own mind. Silent adoration befits man best in the presence\nof his maker, only it is right to protest against the more degrading\nconceptions of him, although the higher conceptions are themselves far\nbelow what he really is. Sin then, being done against oneself only,\ncannot deserve an eternity of torture. Sin injures man already, why\nshould he be further injured by endless agony? The infliction of pain\nis only justifiable when it is the means of conveying to the sufferer\nhimself a gain greater than the suffering inflicted; therefore\npunishment is only righteous when reformatory. But _endless_ torture\ncannot aim at reformation; it has no aim beyond itself, and can only\narise, therefore, from vengeance and vindictiveness, which we have\nshown to be impossible with God. Hell is unjust, secondly, because its\npunishment is excessive and aimless. It is also unjust, because to avoid\nit needs an impossible perfection. It is no answer to this to say that\nthere is an escape offered to us through the Atonement made by Jesus\nChrist. Why should I be called on to escape like a criminal from that\nwhich I do not deserve? God makes man imperfect, frail, sinful,\nutterly unable to keep perfectly a perfect law: he therefore fails,\nand is--what? To be strengthened? by no means; he is to go to hell. The\nstatement of this suffices to show its injustice. We cavil not at the\nwisdom which made us what we are, but we protest against the idea which\nmakes God so cruelly unjust as to torture babies because they are unable\nto walk as steadily as full-grown men. Hell is unjust, in the third\nplace, because man does not deserve it.\n\nTo all this it will probably be retorted, \"you are arguing as though\nGod's justice were the same as man's, and you were therefore capable\nof judging it, an assumption which is unwarrantable, and is grossly\npresumptuous.\" To which I reply: \"If by God's justice you do not mean\njustice at all, but refer to some Divine attribute of which we know\nnothing, all my strictures on it fall to the ground; only, do not commit\nthe inconsistency of arguing that hell is _just_, when by 'just' you\nmean some unknown quality, and then propping up your theories with\nproofs drawn from human justice. It would perhaps tend to clearness in\nargument if you gave this Divine attribute some other name, instead of\nusing for it an expression which has already a definite meaning.\"\n\nThe justice of hell disposed of, we turn to the love of God. I have\nnever heard it stated that hell is a proof of his great love to the\nworld, but I take the liberty myself of drawing attention to it in this\nlight. God, we are told, existed alone before ought was created; there\nperfect in himself, in happiness, in glory, he might have remained,\nsay orthodox theologians. Then, we have a right to ask in the name of\ncharity, why did he, happy himself, create a race of beings of whom the\nvast majority were to be endlessly and hopelessly miserable? Was this\nlove? \"He created man to glorify him.\" But was it loving to create those\nwho would only suffer for his glory? Was it not rather a gigantic, an\ninconceivable selfishness?\n\n\"Man may be saved if he will.\" That is not to the point; God foreknew\nthat some would be lost, and yet he made them. With all reverence I say\nit, God had no right to create sentient beings, if of one of them it can\never be truly said, \"good were it for that man that he had never been\nborn.\" He who creates, imposes on himself, by the very act of creation,\nduties towards his creatures. If God be self-conscious and moral, it\nis an absolute certainty that the whole creation is moving towards\nthe final good of every creature in it. We did not ask to be made; we\nsuffered not when we existed not; God, who has laid existence on us\nwithout our consent, is responsible for our final good, and is bound by\nevery tie of righteousness and justice, not to speak of love, to make\nthe existence he gave us, unasked, a blessing and not a curse to us.\nParents feel this responsibility towards the children they bring into\nthe world, and feel themselves bound to protect and to make happy those\nwho, without them, had not been born. But, if hell be true, then every\nman and woman is bound not to fulfil the Divine command of multiplying\nthe race, since by so doing they are aiding to fill the dungeons of\nhell, and they will, hereafter, have their sons and their daughters\ncursing the day of their birth, and overwhelming their parents with\nreproaches for having brought into the world a body, which God was thus\nenabled to curse with the awful gift of an immortal soul.\n\nWe must notice also that God, who is said to love righteousness, can\nnever crush out righteousness in any-human soul. There is no one so\nutterly degraded as to be without one sign of good. Among the lowest and\nvilest of our population, we find beautiful instances of kindly feeling\nand generous help. Can any woman be more degraded than she who only\nvalues her womanhood as a means of gain, who drinks, fights, and steals?\nLet those who have been among such women say if they have not been\ncheered sometimes by a very ray of the light of God, when the most.\ndegraded has shown kindness to an equally degraded sister, and when the\nvery gains of sin have been purified by being; poured into the lap of a\nsuffering and dying companion. Shall love and devotion, however feeble,\nunselfishness and sympathy, however transitory in their action, shall\nthese stars of heaven be quenched in the blackness of the pit of hell?\nIf it be so, then, verily, God is not the \"righteous. Lord who loveth\nrighteousness.\"\n\nBut we cannot leave out of our impeachment of hell that it injures man,\nas much as it degrades his conceptions of God. It cultivates selfishness\nand fear, two of his basest passions. There has scarcely perhaps been\nborn into the world this century a purer and more loving soul than that\nof the late John Keble, the author of the \"Christian Year.\" Yet what a\nterrible effect this belief had on him; he must cling to his belief in\nhell, because otherwise he would have no certainty of heaven:\n\n     \"But where is then the stay of contrite hearts?\n     Of old they leaned on Thy eternal word;\n     But with the sinner's fear their hope departs,\n     Fast linked as Thy great name to Thee, O Lord;\n\n     That Name by which Thy faithful hope is past,\n     That we should endless be, for joy or woe;--\n     And if the treasures of Thy wrath could waste,\n     Thy lovers must their promised heaven forego.\"\n\nThat is to say in plain English: \"I cannot give up the certainty of\nhell for others, because if I do I shall have no certainty of heaven for\nmyself; and I would rather know that millions of my brethren should\nbe tormented for ever, than remain doubtful about my own everlasting\nenjoyment.\" Surely a loving heart would say, instead, \"O God, let\nus all die and remain unconscious for ever, rather than that one soul\nshould suffer everlastingly.\" The terrible selfishness of the Christian\nbelief degrades the noblest soul; the horror of hell makes men lose\ntheir self-control, and think only of their personal safety, just as\nwe see men run wild sometimes at a shipwreck, when the gain of a minute\nmeans life. The belief in hell fosters religious pride and hatred, for\nall religious people think that they themselves at least are sure of\nheaven. If then they are going to rejoice through all eternity over\nthe sufferings of the lost, why should they treat them with kindness or\nconsideration here? Thus hell, becomes the mother of persecution;\nfor the heretic, the enemy of the Lord, there is no mercy and no\nforgiveness. Then the saints persuade themselves that true charity\nobliges them to persecute, for suffering may either save the heretic\nhimself by forcing him to believe, or may at least scare others from\nsharing his heresy, and so preserve them from eternal fire. And they\nare right, if hell is true. Any means are justifiable which may save man\nfrom that horrible doom; surely we should not hesitate to knock a man\ndown, if by so doing we preserved him from throwing himself over a\nprecipice.\n\nBelief in hell takes all beauty from virtue; who cares for obedience\nonly rendered through fear? No true love of good is wrought in man by\nthe fear of hell, and outward respectability is of little worth when the\nheart and the desires are unpurified. We may add that the fear of hell\nis a very slight practical restraint; no man thinks himself really bad\nenough for hell, and it is so far off that every one intends to repent\nat the last and so escape it. Far more restraining is the proclamation\nof the stern truth that, in the popular sense of the word, there is no\nsuch thing as the \"forgiveness of sins;\" that as a man sows, so shall he\nreap, and that broken laws avenge themselves without exception.\n\nBelief in hell stifles all inquiry into truth by setting a premium\non one form of belief, and by forbidding another under frightful\npenalties.. \"If it be true, as it is true, that all who do not believe\nthis shall perish everlastingly, then, I ask, _is it not worth while to\nbelieve?_\" So says a clergyman of the Church of England. Thus he presses\nhis people to accept the dogma of the Deity of Jesus, not because it\nis-true, but because it is dangerous to deny it. And this-difficulty\nmeets us every day. If we urge inquiry, we are told \"it is dangerous;\"\nif we suggest a difficulty, we are told \"it is safer to believe;\" and\nso this doctrine of hell chains down men's faculties and palsies their\nintellects, and they dare not seek for truth at all, lest he who is\nTruth should cast them into hell for it.\n\nIt may perhaps be said by many that I have attacked this dogma with\nundue vehemence, and with excessive warmth. I attack it thus, because I\nknow the harm that it is doing, because it saddens the righteous heart\nand clouds the face of God. Only those who have realised hell, and\nrealising it, have believed in it, know the awful shadow with which it\ndarkens the world. There are many who laugh at it, but they have not\nfelt its power, and they forget that a dogma which is only ludicrous\nto them is weighing heavily on many a tender heart and sensitive brain.\nHell drives many mad: to others-it is a life-long horror. It pales the\nsunlight with its lurid flames; it blackens the earth with the smoke of\nits torment; it makes the Devil an actual presence; it transforms God\ninto an enemy, eternity into an awful doom. It takes the spring out of\nall pleasures; it poisons all enjoyments; it spreads gloom over life,\nand enshrouds the tomb in horror unspeakable. Only those who have\nfelt the anguish of this nightmare know what it is to wake up into the\nsunlight, and find it is only a disordered dream of the darkness; they\nonly know the glorious liberty of heart and soul, with which they lift\nup smiling faces to meet the smile of God, when they can say from the\ndepths of their glad hearts, \"I believe that God is Light, and in Him is\nno darkness at all; I believe that all mankind is safe, cradled in the\neverlasting arms.\"\n\n\n\n\nON INSPIRATION\n\nTHERE is a certain amount of difficulty in defining the word\nInspiration: it is used in so many different senses by the various\nschools of religious thought, that it is almost necessary to know the\ntheological opinions of the speaker before being quite sure of his\nmeaning when he talks of a book as being inspired. In the halcyon days\nof the Church, when faith was strong and reason weak, when priests had\nbut to proclaim and laymen but to assent, Inspiration had a distinct and\na very definite meaning. An inspired man spoke the very words of God:\nthe Bible was perfect from the \"In the beginning\" of Genesis to the\n\"Amen\" of Revelation: it was perfect in science, perfect in history,\nperfect in doctrine, perfect in morals. In that diamond no flaw was\nto be seen; it sparkled with a spotless purity, reflecting back in\nmany-coloured radiance the pure white light of God. But when the\nchemistry of modern science came forward to test this diamond, a\nmurmuring arose, low at first, but irrepressible. It was scrutinised\nthrough the microscope of criticism, and cracks and flaws were\ndiscovered in every direction; then, instead of being enshrined on\nthe altar, encircled by candles, it was brought out into the searching\nsunlight, and the naked eye could see its imperfections. Then it was\ntested anew, and some bold men were heard to whisper, \"It is no diamond\nat all, God formed in ages past; it is nothing but paste, manufactured\nby man;\" and the news passed from mouth to mouth, until the whisper\nswelled into a cry, and many voices echoed, \"This is no diamond at all.\"\nAnd so things are to-day; the battle rages still; some maintain their\njewel is perfect as ever, and that the flaws are in the eyes that look\nat it; some reluctantly allow that it is imperfect, but still consider\nit a diamond; others resolutely assert that, though valuable for its\nantiquity and its beauty, it is really nothing but paste.\n\nTo take first the really orthodox theory of inspiration, generally\nstyled the \"plenary\" or \"verbal\" inspiration of the Bible. It was well\ndefined centuries since by Athenagoras; according to him the inspired\nwriters \"uttered the things that were wrought in them when the Divine\nSpirit moved them, the Spirit using them as a flute-player would blow\ninto the flute.\" The same idea has been uttered in powerful poetry by a\nwriter of our own day:--\n\n     \"Then thro' the mid complaint of my confession,\n     Then thro' the pang and passion of my prayer,\n     Leaps with a start the shock of His possession,\n     Thrills me and touches, and the Lord is there.\n\nScarcely I catch the words of His revealing, Hardly I hear Him, dimly\nunderstand; Only the power that is within me pealing, Lives on my lips\nand beckons to my hand.\"\n\nThe idea is exactly the same as that of the Pagan prophetesses: they\nbecame literally possessed by a spirit, who used their lips to declare\nhis own thoughts; so orthodox Christians believe that it is no longer\nMoses or Isaiah or Paul that speaks, but the Spirit of the Father that\nspeaks in them. This theory is held by all strictly orthodox believers;\nthis and this only is from their lips, inspiration; hard pressed on the\nsubject they will allow that the Spirit inspires all good thoughts \"in\na sense,\" but they will be very careful in declaring that this is only\ninspiration in a secondary sense, an inspiration which diners in kind as\nwell as in degree from the inspiration of the writers of the Bible. By\nthis mechanical theory, so to speak, it is manifest that all possibility\nof error is excluded; thus, when Matthew quotes from the Old Testament\nan utterly irrelevant historical reference--\"when Israel was a child,\nthen I loved him and _called my son out of Egypt_\", as a prophecy of the\nalleged flight of Jesus into Egypt, and his subsequent return from that\ncountry into Palestine--we find Dr. Wordsworth, Right Reverend Father\nin God, and Bishop of Lincoln, gravely telling us that \"the Holy Spirit\nhere declares what had been in His own mind when He uttered these words\nby Hosea. And who shall venture to say that he knows the mind of the\nSpirit better than the Spirit Himself?\" Dr. Pusey again, standing\nvaliantly, after the manner of the man, to every Church dogma, however\nit may be against logic, against common sense, against reason, or\nagainst charity, makes a very reasonable inquiry of those who believe\nin an outward and supernatural inspiration, and yet object to the term\nverbal. \"How,\" he asks, \"can thought be conveyed to a man's mind except\nthrough words?\" The learned doctor's remark is indeed a very pertinent\none, as addressed to all those who believe in an exterior revelation.\nThoughts which are communicated from without can only become known\nto man through the medium of words: even his own thoughts only become\nappreciable to him when they are sufficiently distinct to be clothed\nin words (of course not necessarily _spoken_ words); and we can only\nexclude from this rule such thoughts as may be presented to the mind\nthrough mental sight or hearing: e.g., music might probably be composed\nmentally by imagining the _sounds_, or mechanical contrivances invented\nby imagining the _objects_; but any argument, any story, which is,\ncapable of reproduction in writing, must be thought out in words.\nA moment's thought renders this obvious; if a man is arguing with a\nFrenchman in his own language, he must, to render his arguments clear\nand powerful, _think_ in French. Now, if the Bible be inspired so as to\ninsure accuracy, how can this be done except through words; for many\nof the facts recorded must, from the necessity of the case, have been\nunknown to the writers. Suppose for a moment that the Biblical account\nof the creation of the world were true, no man in that case could\npossibly have thought it out for himself. Only two theories can\nreasonably be held regarding this record: one, that it is true, which\nimplies necessarily that it is literally true and verbally inspired,\nsince the knowledge could only have come from the Creator, and, being\ncommunicated must have come in the form of words, which words being\nGod's, must be literally true; the other, that it ranks with other\nancient cosmogonies, and is simply the thought of some old writer,\ngiving his idea as to the origin of the world around him. I select\nthe account of the Creation as a crucial test of the verbal theory of\ninspiration, because any other account in the Bible that I can think of\nhas a human actor in it, and it might be maintained--however unlikely\nthe hypothesis--that a report was related or written down by one who had\nbeen present at the incident reported, and the inspiration of the final\nwriter may be said to consist in re-writing the previous record which he\nmay be directed to incorporate in his own work. But no one witnessed\nthe creation of the world, save the Creator, or, at the most, He and\nHis angels, and the account given of it must, if true, be word for word\ndivine; or, if false--as it is--must be nothing more than human\nfancy. We must push this argument one step further. If the account was\ncommunicated only to the man's _mind_, in words rising internally to\nthe inward ear alone, how could the man distinguish between these\ndivine thoughts rising in his mind, and his own human thoughts rising in\nexactly the same manner? Thoughts rise in our minds, we know not how; we\nonly become conscious of them when they are there, and, as far as we can\njudge, they are produced quite naturally according to certain laws. But\nhow is it possible for us to distinguish whence these thoughts come?\nThere they are, ours, not another's--ours as the child is the father's\nand mother's, the product of their own beings. If my thought is not\nmine, but God's, how am I to know this? it is produced within me as my\nown, and the source of one thought is not distinguishable from that of\nanother. Thus, those who believe in the accuracy of the Bible are step\nby step driven to allow that not only are words necessary, but spoken\nwords; if the Bible be supernaturally inspired at all, then must God\nhave spoken not only in human words but also in human voice; if the\nBible be supernaturally inspired at all, it must be verbally inspired,\nand be literally accurate about every subject on which it treats.\n\nUnfortunately for the maintainers of verbal inspiration, their theory is\nsplendidly adapted for being brought before the bar of inexorable fact.\nIt is worth while to remark, in passing, that the infallibility of\nthe Bible has only remained unchallenged where ignorance has reigned\nsupreme; as soon as men began to read history and to study nature,\nthey also began to question scriptural accuracy, and to defy scriptural\nauthority. Infallibility can only live in twilight: so far, every\ninfallibility has fallen before advancing knowledge, save only the\ninfallibility of Nature, which is the infallibility of God Himself.\nProtestants consider Roman Catholics fools, in that they are not able to\nsee that the Pope cannot be infallible, because one Pope has cursed\nwhat another Pope has blessed. They can see in the case of others that\ncontradiction destroys infallibility, but they cannot see the force of\nthe same argument when applied to their own pope, the Bible. Strong in\ntheir \"invincible ignorance,\" they bring us a divinely-inspired book;\n\"good,\" we answer; \"then is your book absolutely true, and it will\nsquare with all known truth in science and history, and will, of course,\nnever be self-contradictory.\" The first important question which arises\nin our minds as we open so instructive a book as a revelation from on\nhigh, refers naturally to the Great Inspirer. The Bible contains, as\nmight indeed be reasonably expected, many statements as to the nature\nof God, and we inquire of it, in the first place, the character of its\nAuthor. May we hope to see Him in this world? \"Yes,\" answers Exodus.\n\"Moses in days gone by spoke to God face to face, and seventy-four\nIsraelites saw Him, and eat and drank in His presence.\" We have scarcely\ntaken in this answer when we hear the same voice proceed: \"No; for God\nsaid thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live;\nwhile John declares that no man hath seen Him, and Paul, that no man\nneither hath nor can see Him.\" Is He Almighty? \"Yes,\" says Jesus. \"With\nGod all things are possible.\" \"No,\" retorts Judges; \"for He could not\ndrive out the inhabitants of the valley, _because_ they had chariots of\niron.\" Is He just? \"Yes,\" answers Ezekiel. \"The son shall not bear the\niniquity of the father; the soul that sinneth _it_ shall die.\" \"No,\"\nsays Exodus. \"The Lord declares that He visits the iniquity of the\nfathers upon the children.\" Is He impartial? \"Yes,\" answers Peter. \"God\nis no respecter of persons.\" \"No;\" says Romans, \"for God loved Jacob and\nhated Esau before they were born, that His purpose of _election_ might\nstand.\" Is He truthful? \"Yes; it is impossible for God to lie,\" says\nHebrews. \"No,\" says God of Himself, in Ezekiel. \"I, the Lord, have\ndeceived that prophet.\" Is He loving? \"Yes,\" sings the Psalmist. \"He\nis loving unto every man, and His tender mercy is over all His works.\"\n\"No,\" growls Jeremiah. \"He will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy on\nthem.\" Is he easily pacified when offended? \"Yes,\" says the Psalmist.\n\"His wrath endureth but the twinkling of an eye.\" \"No,\" says Jeremiah.\n\"Ye have kindled a fire in His anger that shall burn for ever.\" Unable\nto discover anything reliable about God, doubtful whether he be just or\nunjust, partial or impartial, true or false, loving or fierce, placable\nor implacable, we come to the conclusion that at all events we had\nbetter be friends with Him, and surely the book which reveals His will\nto us will at least tell us in what way He desires us to approach Him.\nDoes He accept sacrifice? \"Yes,\" says Genesis: \"Noah sacrificed and God\nsmelled a sweet savour;\" and Samuel tells us how God was prevailed on to\ntake away a famine by the sacrifice of seven men, hanged up before the\nLord. In our fear we long to escape from Him altogether and ask if this\nbe possible? \"Yes,\" says Genesis. \"Adam and his wife hid from Him in the\ntrees, and He had to go-down from His heaven to see if some evil deeds\nwere rightly reported to Him.\" \"No,\" says Solomon. \"You cannot hide from\nHim, for His eyes are in every place.\" So we throw up in despair all\nhope of finding out anything reliable about Him, and proceed to search\nfor some trustworthy history. We try to find out how man was made. One\naccount tells us that he was made male and female, even in the image of\nGod Himself; another that God made man alone, and subsequently formed\na woman for him out of one of his own ribs. Then we find in one\nchapter that the beasts were all made, and, lastly, that God made \"His\nmasterpiece, man.\" In another chapter we are told that God having made\nman thought it not good to leave him by himself, and proceeded to make\nevery beast and fowl, saying that he would make Adam a help-meet for\nhim; on bringing them to Adam, however, none was found worthy to mate\nwith him, so woman was tried as a last experiment. As we read on we find\nevident marks of confusion; double, or even treble, accounts of the same\nincident, as, for instance, the denying a wife and its consequences.\nThen we see Moses fearing Pharaoh's wrath, and flying out of Egypt to\navoid the king's wrath, and not venturing to return until after his\ndeath, and are therefore surprised to learn from Hebrews that he forsook\nEgypt by faith, _not fearing_ the wrath of the king. Then we come across\nnumberless contradictions in Kings and Chronicles, in prophecy and\nhistory. Ezekiel prophecies that Nebuchadnezzar shall conquer Tyrus, and\ndestroy it and _take all its riches_; and a few chapters afterwards it\nis recorded that he did accordingly attack Tyrus but failed, and that as\nhe got _no wages_ for this attack he should have Egypt for his failure.\nIn the New Testament the contradictions are endless; Joseph, the\nhusband of Mary, had two fathers, Jacob and Heli; Salah is in the same\npredicament, for although the son of Canaan, Arphaxad begat him. When\nJohn was cast into prison, Jesus _began_ to preach, although He had been\npreaching and gaining disciples while John was still at large. Jesus\nsent the Twelve to preach, telling them to take a staff, and yet bidding\nthem to take none. He eat the Passover with His disciples, although He\nwas crucified before that feast. He had one title on his cross, but\nit is verbally inspired in four different ways. He rose with many\nvariations of date and time, and ascended the same evening, although He\nsubsequently went into Galilee and remained on earth for forty days.\nHe sent word to His disciples to meet Him in Galilee, and yet suddenly\nappeared among them as they sat quietly together the same evening at\nJerusalem. Stephen's history contradicts our Old Testament. When Paul\nis converted, his companions hear a voice, although another account says\nthat they heard none at all. After his conversion he goes in and out at\nJerusalem with the Apostles, although, strangely enough, he sees none of\nthem, except Peter and James. But one might spend pages in noting these\ninconsistencies, while even one of them destroys the verbal inspiration\ntheory. From these contradictions I maintain that one of two things must\nfollow, either the Bible is not an inspired book, or else inspiration is\nconsistent with much error, as I shall presently show.\n\nI am quite ready to allow that the Bible _is_ inspired, and I therefore\nlay down as my first canon of inspiration, that: \"Inspiration does\nnot prevent inaccuracy.\" I turn to the second class of orthodox\ninspirationists, who, while allowing that verbal inspiration is proved\nimpossible by many trivial inconsistencies, yet affirm that God's\noverruling power ensures substantial accuracy, and that its history\nand science are perfectly true and are to be relied on. To test this\nassertion, we--after noting that Bible history is, as has been remarked\nabove, continually self-contradictory--turn to other histories and\ncompare the Bible with them. We notice first that many important\nBiblical occurrences are quite ignored by \"profane\" historians. We\nare surprised to see that while the Babylonish captivity left marks on\nIsrael which are plainly seen, Egypt left no trace on Israel's names\nor customs, and Israel no trace on Egypt's monuments. The doctrine of\nangels comes not from heaven, but slips into Jewish theology from the\nPersian; while immortality is brought to light neither by Hebrew prophet\nnor by the Gospel of Jesus, but by the people among whom the Jews\nresided during the Babylonish captivity. The Jewish Scriptures which\nprecede the captivity know of nothing beyond the grave; the Jewish\nScriptures after the captivity are radiant with the light of a life\nto come; to these Jesus adds nothing of joy or hope. The very central\ndoctrine of Christianity--the Godhead of Jesus--is nothing but a\nrepetition of an idea of Greek philosophy borrowed by early Christian\nwriters, and is to be found in Plato and Philo as clearly as in the\nfourth Gospel. Science contradicts the Bible as much as does history;\ngeology laughs at its puny periods of creation; astronomy destroys its\nheavens, and asks why this little world took a week in making, while the\nsun and moon and the countless stars were rapidly turned out in twelve\nhours; natural history wonders why the kangaroos did not stay in Asia\nafter the Deluge, instead of undertaking the long sea voyage to far\nAustralia, and enquires how the Mexicans, and Peruvians, and others,\ncrossed the wide ocean to settle in America; archaeology presents its\nhuman bones from ancient caves, and asks how they got there, if only\nsix thousand years have passed since Adam and Eve stood alone in Eden,\ngazing out on the unpeopled earth; the Pyramids point at the negro\ntype distinct and clear, and ask how it comes that it was so rapidly\ndeveloped at first, and yet has remained stationary ever since. At last,\nscience gets weary of slaying a foe so puny, and goes on its way with a\nsmile on its grand, still face, leaving the Bible to teach its science\nto whom it lists. Evidence so weighty crushes all life out of this\nsecond theory of inspiration, and gives us a second rule to guide us in\nour search: \"Inspiration does not prevent ignorance and error.\" We may\npass on to the third class of inspirationists, those who believe that\nthe Bible is not given to man to teach him either history or science,\nbut only to reveal to him what he could not discover by the use of his\nnatural faculties--_e g._ the duties of morality and the nature of God.\nI must note here the subtilty of this retreat. Driven by inexorable fact\nto allow the Bible to be fallible in everything in which we can test its\nassertions, they, by a clever strategic movement, remove their defence\nto a post more difficult to attack. They maintain that the Bible is\ninfallible in points where no cannonade of facts can be brought to bear\non it. What is this but to say, that although we can prove the Bible\nto be fallible on every point capable of proof, we are still blindly to\nbelieve it to be infallible where demonstrated error is, from the nature\nof the case, impossible? As regards the nature of God, we have already\nseen that the Bible ascribes to him virtue and vice indifferently. We\nturn to morality, and here our first great difficulty meets us, for when\nwe point to a thing and say, \"that is profoundly immoral,\" our opponents\nretort, \"it is perfectly moral.\" Only the progress of humanity can prove\nwhich of us is in the right, though here, too, we have one great fact on\nour side, and that is, the conscience in man; already men would rather\ndie than imitate the actions of Old Testament saints who did that which\nwas \"right in the eyes of Jehovah;\" and presently they will be bold\nenough to reject in words that which they already reject in deeds. Few\nwould put the Bible freely into the hands of a child, any more than\nthey would give freely to the young the unpurged editions of Swift and\nSterne; and I imagine that the most pious parents would scarcely see\nwith un-mingled pleasure their son and daughter of fifteen and sixteen\nstudying together the histories and laws of the Pentateuch. But taking\nthe Bible as a rule of life, are we to copy its saints and its laws?\nFor instance, is it right for a man to marry his half-sister, as did the\ngreat ancestor of the Jews, Abraham, the friend of God?--a union, by the\nway, which is forbidden by Jewish law, although said to be the source of\ntheir race. Is the lie of the Egyptian midwives right, because Jehovah\nblessed them for it, even as Jael is pronounced blessed by Deborah, the\nprophetess, for her accursed treachery and murder? Is the robbery of the\nEgyptians right, because commanded by Jehovah? Are the old cruel laws\nof witchcraft right, because Jehovah doomed the witch to death? Are\nthe ordeals of the Middle Ages right, because derived from the laws\nof Jehovah? Is human sacrifice right, because attempted by Abraham,\nenjoined by Moses, practised by Jephthah, efficacious in turning away\nGod's wrath when Saul's seven sons were offered up? Is murder right\nbecause Phineas wrought atonement by it, and Moses sent his murderers\nthroughout the camp to stay God's anger by slaying their brethren? Is\nit right that the persons of women captives should be the prey of the\nconquerors, because the Jews were commanded by Jehovah to save alive the\nvirgins and keep them for themselves, except the sixty-four reserved for\nhimself? Is the man after God's own heart a worthy model for imitation?\nAre Jehu's lying and slaughter right, because right in the eyes of\nJehovah? Is Hosea's marriage commendable, because commanded by Jehovah?\nor are the signs of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the less childish and indecent\nbecause they are prefaced with, \"thus saith Jehovah?\" Far be it from me\nto detract from the glorious morality of portions of the Bible; but if\nthe whole book be inspired and infallible in its moral teaching, then,\nof course, one moral lesson is as important as another, and we have no\nright to pick and choose where the whole is divine. The harsher part of\nthe Old Testament morality has burnt its mark into the world, and may\nbe traced through history by the groans of suffering men and women, by\nburning witches and tortured enemies of the Lord, by flaming cities and\nblood-stained fields. If murder and rapine, treachery and lies, robbery\nand violence, were commanded long ago by Almighty God; if things are\nright and wrong only by virtue of His command, then who can say that\nthey may not be right once more, when used in the cause of the Church,\nand how are we to know that Moses speaks in God's name when he commands\nthem, and Torquemada only in his own? But even Christians are beginning\nto feel ashamed of some of the exploits of the \"Old Testament Saints,\"\nand to try and explain away some of the harsher features; we even hear\nsometimes a wicked whisper about \"imperfect light,\" &c. Good heavens!\nwhat blasphemy! Imperfect light can mean nothing less than imperfect\nGod, if He is responsible for the morality of these writings.\n\nSo, from our study of the Bible we deduce another canon by which we may\njudge of inspiration:\n\n\"Inspiration does not prevent moral error.\" There is a fourth class of\ninspirationists, the last which clings to the skirts of orthodoxy, which\nis always endeavouring to plant one foot on the rocks of science, while\nit balances the other over the quicksands of orthodox super-naturalism.\nThe Broad Church school here takes one wide step away from orthodoxy,\nby allowing that the inspiration of the Bible differs only in degree and\nnot in kind from the inspiration common to all mankind. They recognise\nthe great fact that the inspiring Spirit of God is the source whence\nflow all good and noble deeds, and they point out that the Bible itself\nrefers all good and all knowledge to that one Spirit, and that He\nbreathes mechanical skill into Bezaleel and Aholiab, strength into\nSamson's arms, wisdom into Solomon, as much as He breathes the ecstacy\nof the prophet into Isaiah, faith into Paul, and love into John. They\nrecognise the old legends as authentic, but would maintain as stoutly\nthat He spoke to Newton through the falling of an apple, as that He\nspoke of old to Elijah by fire, or to the wise men by a star. This\nschool try and remove the moral difficulties of the Old Testament by\nregarding the history recorded in it as a history which is specially\nintended to unveil the working of God through all history, and so to\ngradually reveal God as He makes Himself known to the world; thus the\ngrosser parts are regarded as wholly attributable to the ignorance of\nmen, and they delight to see the divine light breaking slowly through\nthe thick clouds of human error and prejudice, and to trace in the\nBible the gradual evolution of a nobler faith and a purer morality.\nThey regard the miracles of Jesus as a manifestation that God underlies\nNature and works ever therein: they believe God to be specially\nmanifested in Jewish history, in order that men may understand that He\npresides over all nations and rules over all peoples. To Maurice the\nBible is the explainer of all earth's problems, the unveiler of God, the\nBread of Life. There is, on the whole, little to object to in the Broad\nChurch view of inspiration, although liberal thinkers regret that, as a\nparty, they stop half way, and are still trammelled by the half-broken\nchains of orthodoxy. For instance, they usually regard the direct\nrevelation of morality as closed by Jesus and His immediate followers,\nalthough they allow that God has not deserted His world, nor confined\nHis inspiration within the covers of a book. To them, however, the Bible\nis still _the_ inspired book, standing apart by itself, differing from\nall other sacred books. From their views of inspiration, which contains\nso much that is true, we deduce a fourth rule:\n\n\"Inspiration is not confined to written words about God.\" From a\ncriticism of the book, which is held by orthodox Christians, to be\nspecially inspired, we have then gained some idea of what inspiration\ndoes _not_ do. It does not prevent inaccuracy, ignorance, error, nor\nis it confined to any written book. Inspiration, then, cannot be an\noverwhelming influence, crushing the human faculties and bearing along\nthe subject of it on a flood which he can neither direct nor resist. It\nis a breathing--gentle and gradual--of pure thoughts into impure hearts,\ntender thoughts into fierce hearts, forgiving thoughts into revengeful\nhearts. David calls home his banished son, and he learns that, \"even as\na father pitieth his children, so is the Lord merciful unto them that\nfear Him.\" Paul wishes himself accursed if it may save his brethren,\nand from his own self-sacrificing love he learns that \"God will have\nall men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.\" Thus\ninspiration is breathed into the man's heart. \"I love and forgive, weak\nas I am; what must be the depth of the love and forgiveness of God?\"\nDavid's fierce revenge finds an echo in his writings; for man writes,\nand not God: he defaces God by ascribing to Him the passions surging\nonly in his own burning Eastern heart: then, as the Spirit moves him to\nforgiveness, his song is of mercy; for he feels that his Maker must be\nbetter than himself. That part of the Bible is inspired, I do not deny,\nin the sense that all good thoughts are the result of inspiration, but\nonly as we share the inspiration of the Bible can we distinguish between\nthe noble and the base in it, between the eternal and that which is\nfast passing away. But as we do not expect to find that inspiration,\nnow-a-days, guards men from much error, both of word and deed, so we\nshould not expect to find it otherwise in days gone by; nor should we\nwonder that the man who spoke of God as showing His tender fatherhood by\npunishing and correcting, could so sink down into hard thoughts of that\nloving Father as to say that it was a fearful thing to fall into His\nhands. These contradictions meet us in every man; they are the highest\nand the lowest moments of the human soul. Only as we are inspired to\nlove and patience in our conduct towards men will our words be inspired\nwhen we speak of God.\n\nHaving thus seen what inspiration does not do, we must glance at what\nit really is. It is, perhaps, natural that we, rejecting, as we do,\nwith somewhat of vehemence, the idea of supernatural revelation, should\noftentimes be accused of denying all revelation and disbelieving all\ninspiration. But even as we are not atheists, although we deny the\nGodhead of Jesus, so are we not unbelievers in inspiration because we\nrefuse to bend our necks beneath the yoke of an inspired Bible. For we\nbelieve in a God too mighty and too universal to be wrapped in swaddling\nclothes or buried in a cave, and we believe in an inspiration too mighty\nand too universal to belong only to one nation and to one age. As the\nair is as free and as refreshing to us as it was to Isaiah, to Jesus, or\nto Paul, so does the spiritual air of God's Spirit breathe so softly and\nas refreshingly on our brows as on theirs. We have eyes to see and\nears to hear quite as much as they had in Judea long ago. \"If God\nbe omnipresent and omniactive, this inspiration is no miracle, but a\nregular mode of God's action on conscious Spirit, as gravitation\non unconscious matter. It is not a rare condescension of God, but a\nuniversal uplifting of man. To obtain a knowledge of duty, a man is not\nsent away outside of himself to ancient documents for the only rule of\nfaith and practice; the Word is very nigh him, even in his heart, and\nby this word he is to try all documents whatever.... Wisdom,\nRighteous-ness, and Love are the Spirit of God in the soul of man;\nwherever these are, and just in proportion to their power, there is\ninspiration from God.... Inspiration is the in-come of God to the\nsoul, in the form of Truth through the Reason, of Right through the\nConscience, of Love and Faith through the Affections and Religious\nElement.... A man would be looked on as mad who should claim miraculous\ninspiration for Newton, as they have been who denied it in the case of\nMoses. But no candid man will doubt that, humanly speaking, it was a\nmore difficult thing to write the Principia than to write the Decalogue.\nMan must have a nature most sadly anomalous if, unassisted, he is\nable to accomplish all the triumphs of modern science, and yet cannot\ndiscover the plainest and most important principles of Religion and\nMorality without a miraculous inspiration; and still more so if, being\nable to discover by God's natural aid these chief and most important\nprinciples, he needs a miraculous inspiration to disclose minor\ndetails.\"* Thus we believe that inspiration from God is the birthright\nof humanity, and to be an heir of God it needs only to be a son of man.\nEarth's treasures are highly priced and hard to win, but God's blessings\nare, like the rain and the sunshine, showered on all-comers.\n\n     \"'Tis only heaven is given away;\n     'Tis only God may be had for the asking;\n     No price is set on the lavish summer;\n     June may be had by the poorest comer.\"\n\n          * Theodore Parker.\n\nIf inspiration were indeed that which it is thought to be by the\northodox Christians, surely we ought to be able to distinguish its\nsayings from those of the uninspired. If inspiration be confined to the\nChristian Bible, how is it that the inspired thoughts were in many cases\nspoken out to the world hundreds of years before they fell from the\nlips of an inspired Jew? It seems a somewhat uncalled for miraculous\ninterference for a man to be supernaturally inspired to inform the world\nof some moral truth which had been well known for hundreds of years to\na large portion of the race. Or is it that a great moral truth bears\nwithin itself so little evidence of its royal birth, that it cannot be\naccepted as ruler by divine right over men until its proclamation is\nsigned by some duly accredited messenger of the Most High? Then, indeed,\nmust God be \"more cognizable by the senses than by the soul;\" and then\n\"the eye or the ear is a truer and quicker percipient of Deity than the\nSpirit which came forth from Him.\"* Was Paul inspired when he wished\nhimself accursed for his brethren's sake, but Kwan-yin uninspired, when\nshe said, \"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation;\nnever enter into final peace alone?\" If Jesus and the prophets were\ninspired when they placed mercy above sacrifice, was Manu uninspired\nin saying that a man \"will fall very low if he performs ceremonial acts\nonly, and fails to discharge his moral duties\"? Was Jesus inspired when\nhe taught that the whole law was comprehended in one saying, namely,\n\"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?\" and yet was Confucius\nuninspired when, in answer to the question, \"What one word would serve\nas a rule to one's whole life?\" he said, \"Reciprocity; what you do not\nwish done to yourself, do not to others.\" Or take the Talmud and study\nit, and then judge from what uninspired source Jesus drew much of His\nhighest teaching. \"Whoso looketh on the wife of another with a lustful\neye, is considered as if he had committed adultery.\"--(Kalah.) \"With\nwhat measure we mete, we shall be measured again.\"--(Johanan.) \"What\nthou wouldst not like to be done to thyself, do not to others; this\nis the fundamental law.\"--(Hillel.) \"If he be admonished to take the\nsplinter out of his eye, he would answer, Take the beam out of\nthine own.\"--(Tarphon.) \"Imitate God in His goodness. Be towards thy\nfellow-creatures as He is towards the whole creation. Clothe the naked;\nheal the sick; comfort the afflicted; be a brother to the children of\nthy Father.\" The whole parable of the houses built on the rock and on\nthe sand is taken out of the Talmud, and such instances of quotation\nmight be indefinitely multiplied. What do they all prove? That there is\nno inspiration in the Bible? by no means. But surely that inspiration\nis not confined to the Bible, but is spread over the world; that much\nin all \"sacred books\" is the outcome of inspired minds at their highest,\nalthough we find the same books containing gross and low thoughts.\nWe should always remember that although the Bible is more specially\na revelation to us of the Western nations than are the Vedas and the\nZend-Avesta, that it is only so because it is better suited to our modes\nof thought, and because it has-been one of the agents in our education.\n\n     * W. R. Greg.\n\nThe reverence with which we may regard the Bible as bound up with\nmany-sacred memories, and as the chosen teacher of many of our greatest\nminds and purest characters, is rightly directed in other nations to\ntheir own sacred books. The books are really all on a level, with\nmuch good and much bad in them all; but as the Hebrew was inspired to\nproclaim that \"the Lord thy God is one Lord\" to the Hebrews, so was the\nHindoo inspired to proclaim to Hindoos, \"There is only one Deity, the\ngreat Soul.\" Either all are inspired, or none are. They stand on the\nsame footing. And we rejoice to-believe that one Spirit breathes in all,\nand that His inspiration is ours to-day. \"The Father worketh hitherto,\"\nalthough men fancy He is resting in an eternal Sabbath. The orthodox\ntells us that, in rejecting the rule of morality laid down for us in the\nBible, and in trusting ourselves to this inspiration of the free Spirit\nof God, our faith and our morality will alike be shifting and unstable.\nBut we reck not of their warnings; our faith and our morality are only\nshifting in this sense, that, as we grow holier, and purer, and wiser,\nour conception of God and of righteousness will rise and expand with our\ngrowth. It was a golden saying of one of God's noblest sons that \"no man\nknoweth the Father save the Son:\" to know God we must resemble Him,\nas we see in the child the likeness of the parent. But in trusting\nourselves to the guidance of the Spirit of God, we are not building the\nhouse of our faith on the shifting sand; rather are we \"dwelling in a\ncity that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.\" Wisely was\nit sung of old, \"Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but\nlost that build it.\" Vain are all efforts of priestly coercion; vain\nall toils of inspired books; vain the utter sacrifice of reason and\nconscience; their labour is but lost when they strive to build a temple\nof human faith, strong enough to bear the long strain of time, or the\nearthquake-shock of grief. God only, by the patient guiding of His love,\nby the direct inspiration of His Spirit, can lay, stone by stone, and\ntimber by timber, that priceless fabric of trust and love, which shall\noutlive all attacks and all changes, and shall stand in the human soul\nas long as His own Eternity endures.\n\n\n\n\nON THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OF CHILDREN.\n\nIN every transition-stage of the world's history the question of\neducation naturally comes to the front. So much depends on the first\nimpressions of childhood, on the first training of the tender shoot,\nthat it has always been acknowledged, from Solomon to Forster, that to\n\"train up a child in the way he should go\" is among the most important\nduties of fathers and citizens. To the individual, to the family, to the\nState, the education of the rising generation is a question of primary\nimportance. Plato began the education of the citizens of his ideal\nRepublic from the very hour of their birth; the nursing child was taken\nfrom the mother lest injudicious treatment should mar, in the slightest\ndegree, the perfection of the future warrior. On this point modern and\nancient wisdom clasp hands, and place the education of the child among\nthe most important duties of the State. The battle at present raging\nbetween the advocates of \"secular\" and \"religious\" education--to use the\ncant of the day--is a most natural and righteous recognition of the vast\ninterests at stake when Church or State claims the right of training the\nsons and daughters of England. No one has yet attempted to explain why\nit should be \"irreligious\" to teach writing, or history, or geography;\nor why it should \"destroy a child's soul\" to improve his mental\nfaculties. It is among the \"mysteries\" of the faith, why it is better\nfor our poor to leave' them to grow up in both moral and intellectual\ndarkness, than to dissipate the intellectual darkness by some few rays\nof knowledge, and to leave the moral training to other hands. If we left\na starving man to die because we could only give him bread, and were\nunable to afford cheese in addition, all would unite in declaiming at\nour folly: but \"religious\" people would rather that our street Arabs\ngrew up both heathens and brutes, than that we should improve their\nminds without Christianizing their souls. Better let a lad grow up a\nthief and a drunkard, than turn him into an artizan and a freethinker.\nThere can scarcely be a better proof of the unreasonableness of\nChristian doctrine, than the Christian fear of sharpening mental\nfaculties, without binding them down, at the same time, in the chains\nof dogma. Only a religion founded on reason can dare to train children's\nminds to the utmost, and then leave them free to use all the power and\nkeenness acquired by that training on the investigation of any religious\ndoctrine presented to them. We, who have written Tekel on the Christian\nfaith, share in the opinion of the Christian clergy, that man's carnal\nreason is a terrible foe to the Christian revelation; but here we begin\nto differ from them, for while they regard this reason as a child of\nthe devil, to be scourged and chained down, we do homage to it as to the\nfairest offspring of the Divine Spirit, the brightest earthly reflection\nof His glory, and the nearest image of His \"Person\"; we would cherish\nit, tend it, nourish it, as our Father's noblest gift to humanity, as\nour surest guide and best counsellor, as the ear which hears His voice,\nand the eye which sees Him, as the sharpest weapon against superstition,\nthe ultimate arbiter on earth between right and wrong. To us, then,\neducation is ranged on the side of God; we welcome it freely and gladly,\nbecause all truth, all light, all knowledge, are foes of falsehood, of\ndarkness, of ignorance. If we mistake error for truth a brighter light\nwill set us right, and we only wish to be taught truth, not to be proved\nright.\n\nMost liberal thinkers agree in recognizing the fact that the duties of\nthe State in the matter of education must, in the nature of things, be\npurely \"secular:\" that is to say, that while the State insists that the\nfuture citizen shall be taught at least the elements of learning, so as\nto fit him or her for fulfilling the duties of that citizenship, it has\nno right to insist on impressing on the mind of its pupil any set of\nreligious dogmas or any form of religious creed. The abdication by the\nState of the pretended right of enforcing on its citizens any special\nform of religion, is not at all identical with the opposition by the\nState to religious teaching; It is merely a development of the very wise\nmaxim of the great Jewish Teacher, to render the things of Caesar\nto Caesar, and the things of God to God. To teach reading, writing,\nhonesty, regard for law, these things are Caesar's duties; to teach\nreligious dogma, creed, or article, is entirely the province of the\nteachers who claim to hold the truth of God.\n\nBut my object now is not to draw the line between the duties of Church\nand State, of school and home; nor do I wish to enter the lists of\nsectarian controversy, to break a lance in favour of a new religious\ndogma. The question is rather this: \"What are the limits of the\nreligious education which it is wise to impose on the young? Is any\ndogmatic teaching to be a part of their moral training, and is the\ndogmatism against which we have rebelled to be revived in a new form?\nAre the fetters which we are breaking for ourselves to be welded\ntogether again for the young limbs of our children? Are they to be fed\non the husks which have starved our own religious aspirations, and which\nwe have analysed, and rejected as unfit to sustain our moral and mental\nvigour? On the other hand, are our children to grow up without any\nreligious teaching at all, without a ray of that sunshine which is\nto most of us the very source of our gladness, and the renewal of our\nstrength?\"\n\nI think the best way of deciding this question is to notice the gradual\ndevelopment of the childish body and mind. Nature's indications are a\nsure guide-post, and we cannot go very far wrong in following her hints.\nI am now on ground with which mothers are familiar, though perhaps few\nmen have watched young children with sufficient attention to be able to\nnote their gradual development. The first instincts of a baby are purely\npersonal: the \"not-I\" is for it nonexistent: food, warmth, cleanliness,\ncomprise all its needs and all our duties to it. The next stage is\nwhen the infant becomes conscious of the existence of something outside\nitself: when, vaguely and indistinctly, but yet decidedly, it shows\nsigns of observing the things around it: to cultivate observation, to\nattract attention, slowly to guide it into distinguishing one object\nfrom another, are the next steps in its education. The child soon\nsucceeds in distinguishing forms, and learns to attach different sounds\nto different shapes: it is also taught to avoid some things and to play\nwith others: it awakes to the knowledge that while some objects give\npleasure, others give pain: so far as material things go, it learns\nto choose the good and to avoid the evil. This power is only gained by\nexperience, and is therefore acquired but gradually, and after a time,\nside by side with it, runs another lesson; slowly and gradually there\nappears a dawning appreciation of \"right\" and \"wrong.\" This appreciation\nis not, however, at first an appreciation of any intrinsic rightness or\nwrongness in any given action; it is simply a recognition on the child's\npart that some of its acts meet with approval, others with disapproval,\nfrom its elders. The standard of its seniors is unquestioningly\naccepted by the child. The moral sense awakes, but is completely guided\nin its first efforts by the hand of the child's teacher, as completely\nas the first efforts to walk are directed by the mother. Thus it comes\nto pass that the conscience of the child is but the reflex of the\nconscience of its parents or guardians: \"right\" and \"wrong\" in a\nchild's vocabulary are in the earliest stages equivalent to \"reward\"\nand \"punishment;\" its final court of appeal in cases of morality is the\njudgment of the parent.*\n\n     * The moral sense does show itself, however, in very young\n     children, in a higher form than this; for we may often\n     observe in a young child an instinctive sense of shame at\n     having done wrong. But the moral sense is awakened and\n     educated by the parents' approval and disapproval. This may\n     be proved, I think, by the fact that a child brought up\n     among thieves and evil-livers will accept their morality as\n     a matter of course, and will steal and lie habitually,\n     without attaching to either act any idea of wrong. The moral\n     sense is inherent in man, and is in no way _given_ by the\n     parent; but I think that it is first aroused and put into\n     action by the parent; the parent accustoms the child to\n     regard certain actions as right and wrong; this appeals to\n     the moral sense in the child, and the child very rapidly is\n     ashamed of wrong, as wrong, and not simply from dread of\n     punishment. I would be understood to mean, in the text, that\n     the wish for reward is the first response of the child to\n     the idea of an inherent distinction between different\n     actions; this feeling rapidly developes into the true moral\n     sense, which regards right as right, and wrong as wrong.\n\n     I append this note at the suggestion of a valued friend, who\n     feared that the inference might be drawn from the text that\n     the moral sense was implanted by the parent instead of\n     being, as it is, the gift of God.\n\nIt is perhaps scarcely accurate to call this motive power in the child\na _moral_ sense at all; still, this recognition of some thing which\nis immaterial and intangible, and which is yet to be the guide of its\nactions, is a great step forward from the simple consciousness of outer\nand material objects, and is truly the dawn of that moral sense which\nbecomes in men and women the test of right and wrong. So far we have\nconsidered the growing faculties of the child as regards physical and\nmoral development, and I particularly wish to remark that the moral\nsense appears long before any \"religious\" tendency can be noted. There\nis, however, another side of the complete human character which is very\nimportant, but which is slow in showing itself in any healthy child; I\nmean what may be called the _spiritual_ sense, in distinction from the\nmoral; the sense which is the crowning grace of humanity, the sense\nwhich belongs wholly to the immortal part of man: the outstretched hands\nof the human spirit groping after the Eternal Spirit; the yearning after\nthat all-pervading Power which men call God. I know well that in many\nprecociously-pious children this spiritual sense is forced into a\npremature and unwholesome maturity; by means of a spiritual hot-house\nthe summer-fruit of piety may be obtained in the spring-time of the\nchildish heart. The imitative instinct of childhood quickly reproduces\nthe sentiments around it, and set phrases which meet with admiration\nflow glibly from baby-lips. But this strongly developed religious\nfeeling in a child is both unnatural and harmful, and can never, because\nit is unreal, produce any lasting good effect. Yet is it none the less\ntrue that, at an early age, differing much in different children, the\n\"spiritual sense\" does show signs of awakening; that children soon begin\nto wonder about things around them, and to ask questions which can only\nfind their true answer in the name of God. How to meet these questions,\nhow to train this growing sentiment without crushing it on the one hand,\nand without unduly stimulating it on the other, is a source of deep\nanxiety to many a mother's heart in the present day. They are unable\nto tell their children the stories which satisfied their own childish\ncravings: no longer can they hold up before the eager faces the picture\nof the manger at Bethlehem, or dim the bright eyes with the story of the\ncross on Calvary; no longer can they fold the little hands in prayer to\nthe child of Nazareth, or hush the hasty tongue with the reminder of\nthe obedience of the Virgin's son. To a certain extent this is a loss.\nA child quickly seizes the concrete; the idea of the child Jesus or the\nman Jesus is readily grasped by a child's intellect; the God of the Old\nTestament, the \"magnified man,\" is also, though more dimly, understood.\nThese conceptions of the childhood of humanity suit the childhood of the\nindividual, and it is far more difficult for the child to realize the\nidea of God when he is divested of these materialistic garments. Yet I\nspeak from experience when I say that it is by no means impossible to\ntrain a child into the simplest and happiest feelings as regards the\nSupreme Being, without degrading the Divine into the human. By one name\nwe can speak of God by which He will be readily welcomed to the child's\nheart, and that is the name of the Father. Most children are keenly\nalive to natural beauties, and are quick to observe birds, and flowers,\nand sunshine; at times they will ask how these things come there, and\nthen it is well to tell them that they are the works of God Thus the\nchild's first notions of the existence of a Power he cannot see or feel\nwill come to him clothed in the things he loves, and will be free from\nany suggestion of fear.* Even those who regard God from the stand-point\nof Pantheism may use natural objects so as to train the child into a\nfearless and happy recognition of the constant working of the Spirit\nof Nature, and so guard the young mind against that shrinking from, and\nterror of God, which popular Christianity is so apt to induce. The lad\nor girl who grows up with even the habit of regarding God as the calm\nand mighty motive-power of the forces of Nature, changeless, infinite,\nabsolutely trustworthy, will be slow to accept in later life the crude\nconceptions which incarnate the creative power in a virgin's womb, and\nascribe caprice, injustice, and cruelty to the mighty Spirit of the\nUniverse.\n\n     * The ordinary shrinking of a child from the idea of a\n     Presence which he cannot see, but which sees him, will not\n     be felt by children whose only ideas about God are that He\n     is the Father from whose hand come all beautiful things. In\n     any home where the parents' thoughts of God are free from\n     doubt and mistrust, the children's thoughts will be the same;\n     religion, in their eyes, will be synonymous with\n     happiness, for God and good will be convertible terms.\n\nThere is a deep truth in the idea of Pantheism, that \"Nature is an\napparition of the Deity, God in a mask;\" that \"He is the light of the\nmorning, the beauty of the noon, and the strength of the sun. He is the\nOne, the All... The soul of all; more moving than motion, more stable\nthan rest; fairer than beauty, and stronger than strength. The power of\nNature is God... He is the All; the Reality of all phenomena.\" The child\nfed on this food will have scarcely anything to unlearn, even when he\nbegins to believe that God is something more than Nature; \"the created\nAll is the symbol of God,\" and he will pass easily and naturally on from\nseeing God in Nature to see Him in a higher form.\n\nOf course, as a Theist, I should myself go much further than this: I\nshould speak of all natural glory as but the reflection of the Deity,\nor as the robe in which He veils His infinite beauty; I should bid\nmy children rejoice in all happiness as in the gift of a Father who\ndelights in sharing His joy with His creatures; I should point out that\nthe pain caused by ignorance of, or by breaking natural laws, is God's\nway of teaching men obedience for their own ultimate good: in the\nfreedom and fulness of Nature's gifts I should teach them to see the\nequal love of God for all; through marking that in Nature's visible\nkingdom no end can be gained without labour and without using certain\nlaws, they should learn that in the invisible kingdom they need not\nexpect to find favouritism, nor think to share the fruits of victory\nwithout patient toil. To all who believe in a God who is also the Father\nof Spirits such teaching as this comes easily; as they themselves learn\nof God only through His works, so they naturally teach their children to\nseek Him in the same way.\n\nThe questions, so familiar to every mother, \"Can God see me?\" \"Where is\nGod?\" can only be met with the simple assertion that God sees all, and\nis everywhere. For there are many childish questions which it is wisest\nto meet with statements which are above the grasp of the childish mind.\nThese statements may be simply given to the child as statements which it\nis too young either to question or to understand. Nothing is gained\nby trying to smooth down spiritual subjects to the level of a child's\ncapacity; the time will come later when the child must meet and answer\nfor itself all great spiritual questions; the parent's care should be to\nremove all hindrances from the child's path of inquiry, but not to give\nit cut-and-dried answers to every possible question; religion, to be\nworth anything, must be a personal matter, and each must find it out for\nhimself; the wise parent will endeavour to save the child from the pain\nof unlearning, by giving but little formal religious teaching; he cannot\nfight the battle for his child, but he can prevent his being crippled by\na fancied armour which will stifle rather than protect him; he can give\na few wide principles to direct him, without weighing him down with\nguide-books.\n\nBut even the most general ideas of God should not be forced on a\nchildish mind; they should come, so to speak, by chance; they should be\npresented in answer to some demand of the child's heart; they should\nbe inculcated by stray words and passing remarks; they should form the\natmosphere surrounding the child habitually, and not be a sudden \"wind\nof doctrine.\" Of course all this is far more troublesome than to teach\na child a catechism or a creed, but it is a far higher training. Dogma,\n_i e_., conviction petrified by authority, should be utterly excluded\nfrom the religious education of children; a few great axiomatic truths\nmay be laid down, but even in these primary truths dogmatism should be\navoided. The parent should always take care to make it apparent that he\nis stating his own convictions, but is not enforcing them on the child\nby his authority. So far as the child is capable of appreciating them,\nthe reasons for the religious conviction should be presented along with\nthe conviction itself. Thus the child will see, as he grows older, that\nreligion cannot be learned by rote, that it is not shut up in a book, or\ncontained in creeds; he will appreciate the all-important fact that free\ninquiry is the only air in which truth can breathe; that one man's faith\ncannot justly be imposed on another, and that every individual soul has\nthe privilege and the responsibility of forming his own religion, and\nmust either hear God with his own ears, or else not hear Him at all.\n\nWe have noticed that the moral sense awakes before the religious (I must\nstate my repugnance to these terms, although I use them for the sake of\nclearness; but morality _is_ religion, although religion is more than\nmorality, and the so-called religion which is not morality is worthless\nand hateful). There remains then to consider what we will call the\nsecond side of religion, although it is by far its most important side.\nTrue religion consists not only in feelings towards God, but also in\nduties towards men: the first, noble and blessed as they are, should, in\nevery healthy religion, give place to the second; for a morally good man\nwho does not believe in God at all, is in a far higher state of being\nthan the man who believes in God and is selfish, cruel or unjust. Error\nin faith is forgiveable; error in life is fatal. The good man shall\nsurely see God, although, for a time, his eyes be holden; the evil man,\nthough he hold the noblest faith yet known, shall never taste the joy of\nGod, until he turns from sin, and struggles after holiness. Faith first,\nand then morality, is the war-cry of the churches; morality above all,\nand let faith follow in good time, is the watch-word of Theism; so,\namong us, the principal part of the religious training of our children\nshould be morality; religious feeling may be over-strained, or give rise\nto self-deception; religious talk may be morbid and unreal; religious\nfaith may be erring, and must be imperfect; but morality is a rock which\ncan never be shaken, a guide which can never mislead. Whether we are\nright or wrong in our belief about God, whether we are immortal spirits\nor perishable organizations, yet purity is nobler than vice, courage\nthan cowardice, truth than falsehood, love than hate. Let us, then,\nteach our children morality above all things. Let us teach them to love\ngood for its own sake, without thought of reward, and they will remain\ngood, even if, in after life, they should, alas! lose all hope of\nimmortality and all faith hi God. A child's natural instinct is towards\ngood; a tale of heroism, of self sacrifice, of generosity, will bring\nthe eager blood flushing up to a child's face and wake a quick response\nand a desire of emulation. It is therefore well to place in children's\nhands tales of noble deeds in days gone by. Nothing is easier than to\ntrain a child into feeling a desire to be good for the sake of being so.\nThere is something so attractive in goodness, that I have found it more\neffectual to hold up the nobility of courage and unselfishness before\nthe child's eyes, than to descend to punishment for the corresponding\nfaults. If a child is in the habit of regarding all wrong as something\nlow and degrading, he quickly shrinks from it; all mothers know the\ninstinctive ambition of children to be something superior and admirable,\nand this instinct is most useful in inculcating virtue. Later in life\nnothing ruins a young man like discovering that morality and religion\nare often divorced, and that the foremost professors of religion are\nless delicately honourable and trustworthy than high-minded \"worldly\nmen;\" on the other hand, nothing will have so beneficial an effect on\nmen and women entering life, as to see that those who are most joyful in\ntheir faith towards God, lead the purest and most blameless lives. \"Do\ngood, be good\" is, as has been well said, the golden rule of life;\n\"do good, be good\" must be the law impressed on our children's hearts.\nWhatever \"eclipse of faith\" may await England, whatever darkness of most\nhopeless scepticism, whatever depth of uttermost despair of God, there\nis not only the hope, but the certainty of the resurrection of religion,\nif we all hold fast through the driving storm to the sheet-anchor of\npure morality, to most faithful discharge of all duty towards man to\nlove, and tenderness, and charity, and patience. Morality never faileth;\nbut, whether there be dogmas, they shall fail; whether there be creeds,\nthey shall cease; whether there be churches, they shall crumble away;\nbut morality shall abide for evermore and endure as long as the endless\ncircle of Nature revolves around the Eternal Throne.\n\n\n\n\nNATURAL RELIGION VERSUS REVEALED RELIGION.\n\nONE is almost ashamed to repeat so trite an aphorism as the well-worn\nsaying that \"history repeats itself.\" But in studying the course taken\nby the advocates of what is called \"revealed religion,\" in seeing their\ndisdain of \"mere nature,\" their scornful repudiation of the idea that\nany poor natural product can come into competition with their special\narticle, hall-stamped by heaven itself, I feel irresistibly compelled\nto glance backwards down the long vista of history, and there I see\nthe conflict of the present day raging fierce and long. I see the same\nserried ranks of orthodoxy marshalled by bishops and priests, arrayed\nin all the splendour of prescriptive right, armed with mighty weapons\nof authority and thunderbolts of Church anathemas. Their war-cry is the\nsame as that which rings in our ears to-day; \"revelation\" is inscribed\non their banners and \"infallible authority\" is the watchword of their\ncamp. The Church is facing nature for the first time, and is setting her\nrevealed science against natural science. \"Mere Nature\" is temporarily\ngetting the worst of it, and Galileo, Nature's champion, is sorely\npressed by \"revealed truth.\" I hear scornful taunts at his presumption\nin attacking revealed science by his pretended natural facts. Had they\nnot God's Own account of His creation, and did he pretend to know more\nabout the matter than God Himself? Was he present when God created the\nworld, that he spoke so positively about its shape? Could he declare, of\nhis own personal knowledge, that it was sent hurtling through space in\nthe ridiculous manner he talked about, and could he, by the evidence of\nhis own eye-sight, declare that God was mistaken when He revealed to man\nhow He \"laid the foundation of the earth that it never should move at\nanytime?\" But if he was only reasoning from the wee bit of earth he\nknew, was he not speaking of things he had not seen, being vainly\npuffed-up in his fleshly mind? Was it probable, _a priori_, that\nGod would allow mankind to be deceived for thousands of years on so\nimportant a matter; would in fact--God forgive it!--deceive man Himself\nby revealing through His holy prophets an account of His creation\nwhich was utterly untrue; nay, further, would carry on the delusion for\ncentury after century, by working miracles in support of it--for what\nbut a miracle could make men unconscious of the fact that they were\nbeing hurried through space at so tremendous a rate? Surely very little\nreverence, or rather no reverence at all, was needed to allow that God\nthe Holy Ghost, who inspired the Bible, knew better than we did how\nHe made the world. But, the theologian proceeds, he must remind his\naudience that, under the specious pretext of investigating the creation,\nthis man, this pseudo-scientist, was in reality blaspheming the Creator,\nby contradicting His revealed word, and thus \"making Him a liar.\" It\nwas all very well to talk about _natural_ science; but he would ask this\npresuming speculator, what was the use of God revealing science to us if\nman's natural faculties were sufficient to discover it for himself? They\nhad sufficient proofs of the absurdities of science into which reason,\nunenlightened by revelation, had betrayed men in past ages. The idea of\nthe Hindoo, that the world rested on an elephant and the elephant on\na tortoise, was a sad proof of the incapacity of the acutest natural\nintellect to discover scientific truth without the aid of revelation.\nReason had its place, and a very noble placer in science; but it must\nalways bow before revelation, and not presume to set its puny guesses\nagainst a \"thus sayeth the Lord.\" Let reason, then, pursue its way with\nbelief not unbelief, for its guide. What could reason, with all its\nvaunted powers, tell us of the long-past creation of the world? Eye hath\nnot seen those things of ages past, but God hath revealed them to us by\nHis Spirit. A darkness that might be felt would enshroud the origin of\nthe world were it not for the magnificent revelation of Moses, that \"in\nsix days God created the heaven and the earth.\" He might urge how our\nconceptions of God were enlarged and elevated, and what a deep awe\nfilled the adoring heart on contemplating the revealed truth, that this\nwonderful earth with its varied beauty, and the heavens above with their\ncountless stars, were all called forth out of nothing within the space\nof one short week by the creative fiat of the Almighty. What could this\npseudo-science give them in exchange for such a revelation as that? Was\nit probable, further, that God would have become incarnate for the sake\nof a world that was only one out of many revolving round the sun? How\nirreverent to regard the theatre of that awful sacrifice as aught less\nthan the centre of the universe, the cynosure of angelic eyes, gazing\nfrom their thrones in the heaven above! Galileo might say that his\nheresy does not affect the primary truths of our holy faith; but this is\nonly one of the evasions natural to evildoers--and it is unnecessary\nto remark that intellectual error is invariably the offspring of moral\nguilt--for consider how much is involved in his theory. The inspiration\nof Scripture receives its death-blow; for if fallible in one point, we\nhave no reason to conclude it to be infallible in others. If there is\none fact revealed to us more clearly than another in Holy Scripture, it\nis this one of the steadfastness of our world, which we are distinctly\ntold, \"cannot be moved.\" It is plainly revealed to us that the earth was\ncreated and fixed firmly on its foundations; that then there was formed\nover it the vast vault of heaven, in which were set the stars, and in\nthis vault was prepared \"the course\" for the sun, spoken of, as you will\nremember, in the 19th Psalm, where holy David reveals to us that in the\nheavens God has made a tabernacle for the sun, which \"goeth forth from\nthe uttermost part of the heaven, and runneth about unto the end of\nit again.\" Language has no definiteness of meaning if this inspired\ndeclaration can be translated into a statement that the sun remains\nstationary and is encircled by a revolving earth. This great revealed\ntruth cannot be contradicted by any true science. God's works\ncannot contradict His word; and if for a moment they appear mutually\nirreconcileable, we may be sure that our ignorance is to blame, and that\na deeper knowledge will ultimately remove the apparent inconsistency.\nBut it is yet more important to observe that some of the cardinal\ndoctrines of the Church are assailed by this novel teaching. How could\nour blessed Redeemer, after accomplishing the work of our salvation,\nascend from a revolving earth? Whither did He go? North, south, east, or\nwest? For, if I understand aright this new heresy, the space above us\nat one time is below us at another, and thus Jesus might be actually\ndescending at His glorious Ascension. Where, too, is that Right Hand of\nGod to which He went, in this new universe without top or bottom? How\ncan we hope to rise and meet Him in the air at His return, according to\nthe most sure promise given to us through the blessed Paul, if He comes\nwe know not from what direction? How can the lightning of His coming\nshine at once all round a globe to herald His approach, or how can the\npeople at the other side of the world see the sign of the Son of Man in\nthe heavens? But I cannot bring myself to accumulate these blasphemies;\nall must see that the most glorious truths of the Bible are bound up\nwith its science, and must stand or fall together. And if this is so,\nand this so-called natural science is to be allowed to undermine the\nrevealed science, what have we got to rely upon in this world or in the\nnext? With the absolute truth of the Bible stands or falls our faith in\nGod and our hope of immortality; on the truth of revelation hinges all\nmorality, and they who deny to-day the truth of revealed science\nwill tamper tomorrow with the truth of revealed history, of revealed\nmorality, of revealed religion. Shall we, then, condescend to accept\nnatural science instead of revealed; shall we, the teachers of\nrevelation, condescend to abandon revealed science, and become the mere\nteachers of nature?\n\nThunders of applause greeted the right reverend theologian as he\nconcluded--he happened to be a bishop, the direct ancestor in regular\napostolical succession of a late prelate who inherited among other\nvaluable qualities the very argument which closed the speech above\nquoted--and Galileo, the foolish believer in facts and the heretical\nstudent of mere nature, turned away with a sigh from trying to convince\nthem, and contented himself with the fact he knew, and which must surely\nannounce itself in the long run. _E pur si muove!_ Fear not, noble\nmartyr of science: facts alter not to suit theologies: many a one may\nfall crushed and vanquished before the Juggernaut-car of the Church, but\n\"God does not die with His children, nor truth with its martyrs;\" the\nnatural is the divine, for Nature is only \"God in a mask.\" So, looking\ndown at that first great battle-field between nature and revelation I\nsee the serried ranks break up and fly, and the excommunicated student\nbecome the prophet of the future, Galileo the seer, the revealer of the\ntruth of God.\n\nIt is eternally true that nature must triumph in the long run.\nTheories are very imposing, doubtless, but when they are erected on a\nmisconception the inexorable fact is sure to assert itself sooner or\nlater, and with pitiless serenity level the magnificent fabric with\nthe dust. It is this which gives to scientific men so grave and calm an\nattitude; theologians wrangle fiercely and bitterly because they wrangle\nabout _opinions_, and one man's say is as good as another's where both\ndeal in intangibles; but the man of science, when absolutely sure of his\nground, _can afford to wait_, because the fact he has discovered remains\nunshaken, however it be assailed, and it will, in time, assert itself.\nWhen nature and revelation then come into contact, revelation must go to\nthe wall; no outcry can save it; it is doomed; as well try and dam the\nrising Thames with a feather, as seek to bolster up a theology whose\nmain dogmas are being slowly undermined by natural science. Of course\nno one nowadays (at least among educated people, for Zadkiel's Almanac\nI believe still protests on Biblical grounds against the heresy of the\nmotion of the earth) dreams of maintaining Bible, _i e_., revealed,\nscience against natural science; it is agreed on all hands that on\npoints where science speaks with certainty the words of the _Bible must\nbe explained so as to accord with the dictum of nature_; _i e._, it\nis allowed--though the admission is wrapped up in thick folds of\ncircumlocution--that science must mould revelation, and not revelation\nscience. The desperate attempts to force the first chapter of Genesis\ninto some faint resemblance to the ascertained results of geological\ninvestigations are a powerful testimony to the conscious weakness of\nrevealed science and to the feeling on the part of all intelligent\ntheologians that the testimony graven with an iron pen on the rocks\ncannot be contradicted or refuted. In fact so successfully has science\nasserted its own preeminence in its own domain that many defenders of\nthe Bible assert loudly, to cover their strategic movement to the rear,\nthat revelation was not intended to teach science, and that scientific\nmistakes were only to be expected in a book given to mankind by the\ngreat Origin of all scientific law. They are freely welcome to find\nout any reasons they like for the errors in revealed science; all\nthat concerns us is that their revelation should get out of the way of\nadvancing science, and should no longer interpose its puny anathemas\nto silence inquiry into facts, or to fetter free research and free\ndiscussion.\n\nBut I challenge revelation further than this, and assert that when the\ndictates of natural_ religion_ are in opposition to those of revealed\n_religion_ then the natural must again triumph over the revealed.\nChristianity has so long successfully impressed on human hearts the\nrevelation that natural impulses are in themselves sinful, that in \"the\nflesh dwelleth no good thing,\" that man is a fallen creature, thoroughly\ncorrupt and instinctively evil, that it has come to-pass that even those\nwho would be liberal if they dared, shrink back when it comes to casting\naway their revelation-crutches, and ask wildly _what_ they can trust\nto if they give up the Bible. Their teachers tell them that if they let\nthis go they will wander compassless on the waves of a pathless ocean;\nand so determinedly do they fix their eyes on the foaming waters,\nstriving to discern there the trace of a pathway and only seeing the\nbroken reflections of the waving torches in their hands, that they do\nnot raise their heads and gaze upwards at the everlasting stars, the\nsilent natural guides of the bewildered mariner. \"Trust to mere nature!\"\nexclaim the priesthood, and their flocks fall back aghast, clutching\ntheir revelation to their bosom and crying out: \"What indeed is there to\nrely on if this be taken from us?\" Only God. \"Mere\" God indeed, who is\na very feeble support after the bolstering up of creeds and dogmas,\nof Churches and Bibles. As the sunshine dazzles eyes accustomed to the\ndarkness, as the fresh wind makes shiver an invalid from a heated room,\nso does the light of God dazzle those who live amid the candles of the\nChurches, and the breath of His inspiration blows cold on feeble souls.\nBut the light and the air invigorate and strengthen, and nature is a\nsurer medicine than the nostrums of the quack physician.\n\n\"Mere\" God is, in very truth, all that we Theists have to offer the\nworld in exchange for the certainties of its Bibles, Korans, Vedas, and\nall other revelations whatsoever. On points where they each speak with\ncertainty, our lips are dumb. About much they assert, we confess our\nignorance. Where they know, we only think or hope. Where they possess\nall the clearness of a sign-post, our eyes can only study the mistiness\nof a valley before the rising sun has dispelled the wreathing clouds.\nThey proclaim immortality, and are quite _au fait_ as to the particulars\nof our future life. They differ in details, it is true, as to whether\nwe live in a jewelled city, where the dust is gold-dust and the gates\npearls, and spend our time in attending Sacred Harmonic Societies with\nan archangelic Costa directing perpetual oratorios, or whether we lie in\nrose-embowered arbours with delights unlimited, albeit unintellectual;\nbut if we take them one at a time they are most satisfactory in the\nabsolute information afforded by each. But we, we can only, whisper--and\nthe lips of some of us quiver too much to speak--\"I believe in the life\neverlasting.\" We do not pretend to _know_ anything about it; the belief\nis intuitive, but is not demonstrable; it is a hope and a trust, not an\nabsolute knowledge. We entertain a reasonable hope of immortality; we\nargue its likelihood from considerations of the justice and the love\nwhich, as we believe, rule the universe; we, many of us--as I freely\nconfess I do myself--believe in it with a firmness of conviction\nabsolutely immovable; but challenged to _prove_ it, we cannot answer.\n\"Here,\" the revelationists triumphantly exclaim, \"is our advantage; we\nforetell with absolute certainty a future life, and can give you all\nparticulars about it.\" Then follows a confused jumble of harps and\nhouris, of pasture-field and hunting-grounds; we seek for certainty\nand find none. All that they agree in, _i e_., a future life, we find\nimprinted on our own hearts, a dictate of natural religion; all they\ndiffer in is contained in their several revelations, and as they all\ncontradict each other about the revealed details, we gain nothing from\nthem. Nature whispers to us that there is a life to come; revelation\nbabbles a number of contradictory particulars, marring the majesty of\nthe simple promise, and adding nothing reliable to the sum of human\nknowledge. And the subject of immortality is a fair specimen of what is\ntaught respectively by nature and by revelation; what is common to all\ncreeds is natural, what is different in each is revealed. It is so with\nrespect to God. The idea of God belongs to all creeds alike; it is the\nfoundation-stone of natural religion; confusion begins when revelation\nsteps in to change the musical whisper of Nature into a categorical\ndescription worthy of \"Mangnall's Questions.\" Triune, solitary, dual,\nnumberless, whatever He is revealed to be in the world's varied sacred\nbooks, His nature is understood, catalogued, dogmatised on; each\nrevelation claims to be His own account of Himself; but each contradicts\nits fellows; on one point only they all agree, and that is the point\nconfessed by natural religion--\"God is.\"\n\nFrom these facts I deduce two conclusions: first, that revelation does\nnot come to us with such a certainty of its truth as to enable us to\ntrust it fearlessly and without reserve; second, that revelation is\nquite superfluous, since natural religion gives us every thing we need.\n\nI. Revelation gives an uncertain sound. There are certain books in the\nworld which claim to stand on a higher ground than all others. They\nclaim to be special revelations of the will of God and the destiny of\nman. Now surely one of the first requisites of a Divine revelation is\nthat it should be undoubtedly of Divine origin. But about all these\nbooks, except the Koran of Mahomet, hangs much obscurity both as regards\ntheir origin and their authorship. \"Believers\" urge that were the proofs\nundoubted there would be no room for faith and no merit in believing.\nThey conceive it, then, to be a worthy employment for the Supreme\nIntelligence to set traps for His creatures; and, there being certain\nfacts of the greatest importance, undis-coverable by their natural\nfaculties, He proceeds to reveal these facts, but envelopes them in\nsuch wrappings of mystery, such garments of absurdity, that those of\nHis creatures whom he has dowered with intellects and gifted with subtle\nbrains, are forced to reject the whole as incredible and unreasonable.\nThat God should give a revelation, but should not substantiate it, that\nHe should speak, but in tones unintelligible, that His noblest gifts of\nreason should prove an insuperable bar to accepting his manifestation,\nare surely statements incredible, are surely statements utterly\nirreconcileable with all reverent ideas of the love and wisdom of\nAlmighty God. Further, the believers in the various revelations all\nclaim for their several oracles the supreme position of the exponent of\nthe Will of God, and each rejects the sacred books of other nations as\nspurious productions, without any Divine authority. As these revelations\nare mutually destructive, it is evident that only one of them, at the\nmost can be Divine, and the next point of the inquiry is to distinguish\nwhich this is. We, of the Western nations, at once put aside the Hindoo\nVedas, or the Zendavesta, on certain solid grounds; we reject their\nclaims to be inspired books because they contain error; their mistaken\nscience, their legendary history, their miraculous stories, stamp them,\nin our impartial eyes, as the work of fallible men; the nineteenth\ncentury looks down on thee ancient writings as the instructed and\ncultured man smiles at the crude fancies and imaginative conceits of the\nchild. But when the generality of Christians turn to the Bible they lay\naside all ordinary criticism and all common-sense. Its science may be\nabsurd; but excuses are found for it. Its history may be false, but\nit is twisted into truth. Its supernatural marvels may be flagrantly\nabsurd; but they are nevertheless believed in. Men who laugh at the\nvisions of the \"blessed Margaret\" of Paray-le-Monial assent to the\ndevil-drowning of the swine of Gadara; and those who would scorn to\ninvestigate the tale of the miraculous spring at Lourdes, find\nno difficulty in believing the story of the angel-moved waters of\nBethesda's pool. A book which contains miracles is usually put aside as\nunreliable. There is no good reason for excepting the Bible from this\ngeneral rule. Miracles are absolutely incredible, and discredit at once\nany book in which they occur. They are found in all revelations, but\nnever in nature, they are plentiful in man's writings, but they never\ndeface the orderly pages of the great book of God, written by His own\nHand on the earth, and the stars, and the sun. Powers? Yes, beyond our\ngrasping, but Powers moving in stately order and changeless consistency.\nMarvels? Yes, beyond our imagining, but marvels evolved by immutable\nlaws. Revelation is incredible, not only because it fails to bring proof\nof its truth, but because the proofs abound of its falsehood; it claims\nto be Divine, and we reject it because we test it by what we know of\nHis undoubted works, for men can write books of Him and call them His\nrevelations, but the frame of nature can only be the work of that mighty\nPower which man calls God. Revelation depicts Him as changeable, nature\nas immutable; revelation tells us of perfection marred, nature of\nimperfection improving; revelation speaks of a Trinity, nature of one\nmighty central Force; revelation relates interferences, miracles, nature\nunbroken sequences, inviolable law. If we accept revelation we must\nbelieve in a God Who made man upright but could not keep him so; Who\nheard in his far-off heaven the wailing of His earth and came down to\nsee if things were as bad as was reported; Who had a face which brought\ndeath, but Whose hinder parts were visible to man; Who commanded and\naccepted human sacrifice; Who was jealous, revengeful, capricious, vain;\nWho tempted one king and then punished him for yielding, hardened the\nheart of another and then punished him for not yielding, deceived a\nthird and thereby drew him to his death. But nature does not so outrage\nour morality and trample on our hearts; only we learn of a power and\nwisdom unspeakable, \"mightily and sweetly ordering all things,\" and\nour hearts tell of a Father and a Friend, infinitely loving, and\ntrustworthy, and good. The God of Nature and the God of Revelation are\nas opposed as Ormuzd and Ahriman, as darkness and light; the Bible and\nthe universe are not writ by the same hand.\n\n\nII. Revelation then being so utterly untrustworthy, it is satisfactory\nto discover, secondly, that it is perfectly superfluous.\n\nAll man needs for his guidance in this world he can gain through the use\nof his natural faculties, and the right guidance of his conduct in this\nworld must, in all reasonableness, be the best preparation for whatever\nlies beyond the grave. Revelationists assure us that without their books\nwe should have no rules of morality, and that without the Bible man's\nmoral obligations would be unknown. Their theory is that only through\nrevelation can man know right from wrong. Using the word \"revelation\"\nin a different sense most Theists would agree with them, and would\nallow that man's perception of duty is a ray which falls on him from the\nRighteousness of God, and that man's morality is due to the illumination\nof the inspiring Father of Light. Personally, I believe that God\ndoes teach morality to man, and is, in very deed, the Inspirer of all\ngracious and noble thoughts and acts. I believe that the source of all\nmorality in man is the Universal Spirit dwelling in the spirits He has\nformed, and moving them to righteousness, and, as they answer to His\nwhispers by active well-doing--speaking ever in louder and clearer\naccents. I believe also that the most obedient followers of that inner\nvoice gain clearer and loftier views of duty and of the Holiest,\nand thus become true prophets of God, revealers of His will to their\nfellows. And this is revelation in a very real sense; it is God\nrevealing Himself by the natural working of moral laws, even as all\nscience is a true revelation, and is God revealing Himself by the\nnatural working of physical laws. For laws are modes of action, and\nmodes of action reveal the nature and character of the actor, so that\nevery law, physical and moral, which is discovered by truth-seekers and\nproclaimed to the world is a direct and trustworthy revelation of God\nHimself. But when Theists speak thus of \"revelation\" using the word as\nrightfully applicable to all discoveries and all nobly written religious\nor scientific books, it is manifest that the word has entirely changed\nits signification, and is applied to \"natural\" and not \"supernatural\"\nresults. We believe in God working through natural faculties in a\nnatural way, while the revelationists believe in some non-natural\ncommunication, made no one knows how, no one knows where, no one knows\nto whom.\n\nWhere opposing theories are concerned an ounce of fact outweighs pounds\nof assertion; and so against the statement of Christians, that morality\nis derived only from the Bible and is undiscoverable by \"man's natural\nfaculties,\" I quote the morality of natural religion, unassisted by what\nthey claim as their special \"revelation.\"\n\nBuddha, as he lived 700 years before Christ, can hardly be said to\nhave drawn his morality from that of Jesus or even to have derived any\nindirect benefit from Christian teaching, and yet I have been gravely\ntold by a Church of England clergyman--who ought to have known\nbetter--that forgiveness of injuries and charity were purely Christian\nvirtues. This heathen Buddha, lighted only by natural reason and a pure\nheart, teaches: \"a man who foolishly does me wrong I will return to him\nthe protection of my ungrudging love; the more evil comes from him the\nmore good shall go from me;\" among principal virtues are: \"to repress\nlust and banish desire; to be strong without being rash; to bear insult\nwithout anger; to move in the world without setting the heart on it; to\ninvestigate a matter to the very bottom; to save men by converting them;\nto be the same in heart and life.\" \"Let a man overcome evil by good,\nanger by love, the greedy by liberality, the liar by truth. For hatred\ndoes not cease by hatred at any time; hatred ceases by love; this is an\nold rule.\" He inculcates purity, charity, self-sacrifice, courtesy, and\nearnestly recommends personal search after truth: \"do not\nbelieve in guesses\"--in assuming something at hap-hazard as a\nstarting-point--reckoning your two and your three and your four before\nyou have fixed your number one. Do not believe in the truth of that to\nwhich you have become attached by habit, as every nation believes in the\nsuperiority of its own dress and ornaments and language. Do not believe\nmerely because you have heard, but when of your own consciousness you\nknow a thing to be evil abstain from it. Methinks these sayings of\nBuddha are unsurpassed by any revealed teaching, and contain quite as\nnoble and lofty a morality as the Sermon on the Mount, \"natural\" as they\nare.\n\nPlato, also, teaches a noble morality and soars into ideas about the\nDivine Nature as pure and elevated as any which are to be found in the\nBible. The summary of his teaching, quoted by Mr. Lake in a pamphlet\nof Mr. Scott's series, is a glorious testimony to the worth of natural\nreligion. \"It is better to die than to sin. It is better to suffer wrong\nthan to do it. The true happiness of man consists in being united to\nGod, and his only misery in being separated from Him. There is one God,\nand we ought to love and serve Him, and to endeavour to resemble Him\nin holiness and righteousness.\" Plato saw also the great truth that\nsuffering is not the result of an evil power, but is a necessary\ntraining to good, and he anticipates the very words of Paul--if indeed\nPaul does not quote from Plato--that \"to the just man all things work\ntogether for good, whether in life or death.\" Plato lived 400 years\nbefore Christ, and yet in the face of such teaching as his and\nBuddha's,--and they are only two out of many--Christians fling at us the\ntaunt that we, rejectors of the Bible, draw all our morality from\nit, and that without this one revelation the world would lie in moral\ndarkness, ignorant of truth and righteousness and God. But the light\nof God's revealing shines still upon the world, even as the sunlight\nstreams upon it steadfastly as of old; \"it is not given to a few men in\nthe infancy of mankind to monopolise inspiration and to bar God out of\nthe soul.... Wherever a heart beats with love, where Faith and Reason\nutter their oracles, there also is God, as formerly in the heart of\nseers and prophets.\"*\n\n     * Theodore Tarker.\n\nIt is a favourite threat of the priesthood to any inquiring spirit: \"If\nyou give up Christianity you give up all certainty; rationalism speaks\nwith no certain sound; no two rationalists think alike; the word\nrationalism covers everything outside Christianity, from Unitarianism to\nthe blankest atheism;\" and many a timid soul starts back, feeling that\nif this is true it is better to rest where it is, and inquire no more.\nTo such--and I meet many such--I would suggest one very simple thought:\ndoes \"Christianity\" give any more certainty than rationalism? Just\ntry asking your mentor, \"_whose_ Christianity am I to accept?\" He will\nstammer out, \"Oh, the teaching of the Bible, of course.\" But persevere:\n\"As explained by whom? for all claim to found their Christianity on\nthe Bible: am I to accept the defined logical Christianity of Pius IX.,\ndefiant of history, of science, of common sense, or shall I sit under\nSpurgeon, the denunciator, and flee from the scarlet woman and the cup\nof her fascinations: shall I believe the Christianity of Dean Stanley,\ninstinct with his own gracious, kindly spirit, cultured and polished,\npure and loving, or shall I fly from it as a sweet but insidious poison,\nas I am exhorted to do by Dr. Pusey, who rails at his 'variegated\nlanguage which destroys all definiteness of meaning.' For pity's sake,\ngood father, label for me the various bottles of Christian medicine,\nthat I may know which is healing to the soul, which may be touched with\ncaution, as for external application, and which are rank poison.\"\nAll the priest will find to answer is, that \"under sad diversities\nof opinion there are certain saving truths common to all forms of\nChristianity,\" but he will object to particularise what they are, and\nat this stage will wax angry and refuse to argue with anyone who shows\na spirit so carping and so conceited. There is the same diversity in\nrationalism as in Christianity, because human nature is diverse, but\nthere is also one bond between all freethinkers, one \"great saving\ntruth\" of rationalism, one article of faith, and that is, that \"free\ninquiry is the right of every human soul;\" diverse in much, we all agree\nin this, and so strong is this bond that we readily welcome any thinker,\nhowever we disagree with his thoughts, provided only that he think them\nhonestly and allow to all the liberty of holding their own opinions\nalso. We are bound together in one common hatred of Dogmatism, one\ncommon love of liberty of thought and speech.\n\nIt is probably a puzzle to good and unlearned Christians whence men,\nunenlightened by revelation, drew and still draw their morality. We\nanswer, \"from mere Nature, and that because Nature and not revelation is\nthe true basis of all morality.\" We have seen the untrustworthiness of\nall so-called revelations; but when we fall back on Nature we are\non firm ground. Theists start in their search after God from their\nwell-known axiom: \"If there be a God at all He must be at least as\ngood as His highest creature;\" and they argue that what is highest and\nnoblest and most lovable in man _must_ be below, but cannot be above,\nthe height and the nobleness and the loveableness of God. \"Of all\nimpossible thing, the most impossible must surely be that a man should\ndream something of the Good and the Noble, and that it should prove\nat last that his Creator was less good and less noble than he had\ndreamed.\"* \"The ground on which our belief in God rests is Man. Man,\nparent of Bibles and Churches, inspirer of all good thoughts and good\ndeeds. Man, the master-piece of God's work on earth. Man, the text-book\nof all spiritual knowledge. Neither miraculous or infallible, Man is\nnevertheless the only trustworthy record of the Divine mind in things\npertaining to God. Man's reason, conscience, and affections are the only\ntrue revelation of his Maker,\"** And as we believe that we may glean\nsome hints of the Glory and Beauty of our Creator from the glory and\nbeauty of human excellence, so we believe that to each man, as he lives\nup to the highest he can perceive, will surely be unveiled fresh heights\nof righteousness, fresh possibilities of moral growth.\n\n     * Frances Power Cobbe.\n\n     ** Rev. Charles Voysey.\n\nTo all men alike, good and evil, is laid open Nature's revelation of\nmorality, as exemplified in the highest human lives; and these noble\nlives receive ever the heavenly hall-mark by the instinctive response\nfrom every human breast that they \"are very good.\" To those only\nwho live up to the good they see, does God give the further inner\nrevelation, which leads them higher and higher in morality, quickening\ntheir moral faculties, and making more sensitive and delicate their\nmoral susceptibilities. We cannot, as revelationists do, chalk out\nall the whole range of moral perfection: we \"walk by faith and not by\nsight:\" step by step only is the path unveiled to us, and only as we\nsurmount one peak do we gain sight of the peak beyond: the distant\nprospect is shrouded from our gaze, and we are too fully occupied in\ndoing the work which is given us to do in this world, to be for ever\npeering into and brooding over the world beyond the grave. We have light\nenough to do our Father's work here; when he calls us yonder it will be\ntime enough to ask Him to unveil our new sphere of labour and to\ncause His sun to rise on it. Wayward children fret after some fancied\nhappiness and miss the work and the pleasure lying at their feet, and\nso petulant men and women cry out that \"man that is born of woman... is\nfull of misery,\" and wail for a revelation to ensure some happier life:\nthey seem to forget that if this world is full of misery _they_ are put\nhere to mend it and not to cry over it, and that it is our shame and our\ncondemnation that in God's fair world so much sin and unhappiness are\nfound. If men would try to read nature instead of revelation, if they\nwould study natural laws and leave revealed laws, if they would follow\nhuman morality instead of ecclesiastical morality, then there might be\nsome chance of real improvement for the race, and some hope that the\nDivine Voice in Nature might be heard above the babble of the Churches.\n\nAnd Nature is enough for us, gives us all the light we want and all that\nwe, as yet, are fitted to receive. Were it possible that God should now\nreveal Himself to us as He is, the Being of Whose Nature we can form\nno conception, I believe that we should remain as ignorant as we are\nat present, from the want of faculties to receive that revelation:\nthe Divine language might sound in our ears, but it would be as\nunintelligible as the roar of the thunder-clap, or the moan of the\nearthquake, or the whisper of the wind to the leaves of the cedar-tree.\nGod is slowly revealing Himself by His works, by the course of events,\nby the progress of Humanity: if He has never spoken from Heaven in human\nlanguage, He is daily speaking in the world around us to all who have\nears to hear, and as Nature in its varied forms is His only revelation\nof Himself, so the mind and the heart alone can perceive His presence\nand catch the whispers ot His mysterious voice.\n\n     Never yet has been broken\n     The silence eternal:\n     Never yet has been spoken\n     In accents supernal\n     God's Thought of Himself.\n\n     We are groping in blindness\n     Who yearn to behold Him:\n     But in wisdom and kindness\n     In darkness He folds Him\n     Till the soul learns to see.\n\n     So the veil is unriven\n     That hides the All-Holy,\n     And no token is given\n     That satisfies wholly\n     The cravings of man.\n\n     But, unhasting, advances\n     The march of the ages,\n     To truth-seekers' glances\n     Unrolling the pages\n     Of God's revelation.\n\n     Impatience unheeding,\n     Time, slowly revolving;\n     Unresting, unspeeding,\n     Is ever evolving\n     Fresh truths about God.\n\n     Human speech has not broken\n     The stillness supernal:\n     Yet ever is spoken\n     Through silence eternal,\n     With growing distinctness\n     God's Thought of Himself.\n\n\n\n\nON THE NATURE AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.\n\nIT is impossible for those who study the deeper religious; problems of\nour time to stave off much longer the question which lies at the root\nof them all, \"What do you believe in regard to God?\" We may controvert\nChristian doctrines, one after another; point by point we may be driven\nfrom the various beliefs of our churches; reason may force us to see\ncontradictions where we had imagined harmony, and may open our eyes\nto flaws where we had dreamed of perfection; we resign all idea of a\nrevelation; we seek for God in Nature only; we renounce for ever the\nhope (which glorified our former creed into such alluring beauty) that\nat some future time we should verily \"see\" God, that \"our eyes should\nbehold the King in his beauty\" in that fairy \"land which is very far\noff.\" But every step we take onwards towards a more reasonable faith\nand a surer light of Truth leads us nearer and nearer to the problem of\nproblems, \"What is That which men call God?\" Not till theologians have\nthoroughly grappled with this question have they any just claim to\nbe called religious guides; from each of those whom we honour as our\nleading thinkers we have a right to a distinct answer to this question,\nand the very object of the present paper is to provoke discussion on\nthis point.\n\nMen are apt to turn aside somewhat impatiently from an argument about\nthe Nature and Existence of the Deity, because they consider that\nthe question is a metaphysical one which leads nowhere; a problem the\nresolution of which is beyond our faculties, and the study of which\nis at once useless and dangerous; they forget that action is ruled by\nthought, and that our ideas about God are therefore of vast practical\nimportance. On our answer to the question propounded above depends our\nwhole conception of the nature and origin of evil, and of the sanctions\nof morality; on our idea of God turns our opinion on the much-disputed\nquestion of prayer, and, in fact, our whole attitude of mind towards\nlife, here and hereafter. Does morality consist in obedience to the will\nof a perfectly moral Being, and are we to aim at righteousness of life\nbecause in so doing we please God? Or are we to lead noble lives because\nnobility of life is desirable for itself alone, and because it spreads\nhappiness around us and satisfies the desires of our own nature? Is our\nmental attitude to be that of kneeling or standing? Are our eyes to\nbe fixed on heaven or on earth? Is prayer to God reasonable and helpful,\nthe natural cry of a child for help from a Father in Heaven? Or is it,\non the other hand, a useless appeal to an unknown and irresponsible\nforce? Is the mainspring of our actions to be the idea of duty to God,\nor a sense of the necessity of bringing our being into harmony with the\nlaws of the universe? It appears to me that these questions are of such\ngrave and vital moment that no apology is needed for drawing attention\nto them; and because of their importance to mankind I challenge the\nleaders of the religious and non-religious world alike, the Christians,\nTheists, Pantheists, and those who take no specific name, duly to test\nthe views they severally hold. In this battle the simple foot\nsoldier may touch with his lance the shield of the knight, and the\ninsignificance of the challenger does not exempt the general from the\nduty of lifting the gauntlet flung down at his feet. Little care I\nfor personal defeat, if the issue of the conflict should enthrone more\nfirmly the radiant figure of Truth. One fault, however, I am anxious\nto avoid, and that is the fault of ambiguity. The orthodox and the\nfree-thinking alike do a good deal of useless fighting from sheer\nmisunderstanding of each other's standpoint in the controversy. It\nappears, then, to be indispensable in the prosecution of the following\ninquiry that the meaning of the terms used should be unmistakably\ndistinct. I begin, therefore, by defining the technical forms of\nexpression to be employed in my argument; the definitions may be good or\nbad, that is not material; all that is needed is that the sense in which\nthe various terms are used should be clearly understood. When men fight\nonly for the sake of discovering truth, definiteness of expression is\nspecially incumbent on them; and, as has been eloquently said, \"the\nstrugglers being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and the\nvanquished: laurels to the victor in that he hath upheld the truth,\nlaurels still welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat crowns him with a\ntruth he knew not of before.\"\n\nThe definitions that appear to me to be absolutely necessary are as\nfollows:--\n\n_Matter_ is used to express that which is tangible. _Spirit (or\nspiritual_) is used to express those intangible forces whose existence\nwe become aware of only through the effects they produce.\n\n_Substance_ is used to express that which exists in itself and by\nitself, and the conception of which does not imply the conception of\nanything preceding it.\n\n_God_ is used to represent exclusively that Being invested by the\northodox with certain physical, intellectual, and moral attributes.\n\nParticular attention must be paid to this last definition, because the\nterm \"atheist\" is often flung unjustly at any thinker who ventures\nto criticise _the popular and traditional idea_ of God; and different\nschools, Theistic and non-Theistic, with but too much facility, bandy\nabout this vague epithet in mutual reproach.\n\nAs an instance of this uncharitable and unfair use of ugly names, all\nschools agree in calling the late Mr. Austin Holyoake an \"atheist,\" and\nhe accepted the name himself, although he distinctly stated (as we find\nin a printed report of a discussion held at the Victoria Institute) that\nhe did not deny the possibility of the existence of God, but only\ndenied the possibility of the existence of that God in whom the orthodox\nexhorted him to believe. It is well thus to protest beforehand against\nthis name being bandied about, because it carries with it, at present,\nso much popular prejudice, that it prevents all possibility of candid\nand free discussion. It is simply a convenient stone to fling at the\nhead of an opponent whose arguments one cannot meet, a certain way of\nraising a tumult which will drown his voice; and, if it have any serious\nmeaning at all, it might fairly be used, as I shall presently show,\nagainst the most orthodox pillar of the orthodox faith.\n\nIt is manifest to all who will take the trouble to think steadily, that\nthere can be only one eternal and underived substance, and that matter\nand spirit must therefore only be varying manifestations of this one\nsubstance. The distinction made between matter and spirit is then\nsimply made for the sake of convenience and clearness, just as we may\ndistinguish perception from judgment, both of which, however, are alike\nprocesses of thought. Matter is, in its constituent elements, the same\nas spirit; existence is one, however manifold in its phenomena; life is\none, however multiform in its evolution. As the heat of the coal differs\nfrom the coal itself, so do memory, perception, judgment, emotion, and\nwill, differ from the brain which is the instrument of thought. But\nnevertheless they are all equally products of the one sole substance,\nvarying only in their conditions. It may be taken for granted that\nagainst this preliminary point of the argument will be raised the\nparty-cry of \"rank materialism,\" because \"materialism\" is a doctrine of\nwhich the general public has an undefined horror. But I am bold to say\nthat if by matter is meant that which is above defined as substance,\nthen no reasoning person can help being a materialist. The orthodox are\nvery fond of arguing back to what they call the Great First Cause. \"God\nis a spirit,\" they say, \"and from him is derived the spiritual part of\nman.\" Well and good; they have traced back a part of the universe to\na point at which they conceive that only one universal essence is\npossible, that which they call God, and which is spirit only. But I then\ninvite their consideration to the presence of something which they\ndo not regard as spirit, _i e._, matter. I follow their own plan of\nargument step by step: I trace matter, as they traced spirit, back and\nback, till I reach a point beyond which I cannot go, one only existence,\nsubstance or essence; am I therefore to believe that God is matter only?\nBut we have already found it asserted by Theists that he is spirit only,\nand we cannot believe two contradictories, however logical the road\nwhich led us to them; so we must acknowledge two substances, eternally\nexistent side by side; if existence be dual, then, however absurd\nthe hypothesis, there must be two First Causes. It is not I who am\nresponsible for an idea so anomalous. The orthodox escape from this\ndilemma by an assumption, thus: \"God, to whom is to be traced back all\nspirit, _created_ matter.\" Why, am I not equally justified in assuming,\nif I please, that matter created spirit? Why should I be logical in one\nargument and illogical in another? If we come to assumptions, have not\nI as much right to my assumption as my neighbour has to his? Why may he\npredicate creation of one half of the universe, and I not predicate it\nof the other half? If the assumptions be taken into consideration at\nall, then I contend that mine is the more reasonable of the two, since\nit is possible to imagine matter as existing without mind, while it is\nutterly impossible to conceive of mind existing without matter. We all\nknow how a stone looks, and we are in the habit of regarding that\nas lifeless matter; but who has any distinct idea of a mind _pur et\nsimple?_ No clear conception of it is possible to human faculties;\nwe can only conceive of mind as it is found in an organisation;\nintelligence has no appreciable existence except as-residing in the\nbrain and as manifested in results. The lines of spirit and matter are\nnot one, say the orthodox; they run backwards side by side; why then, in\nfollowing the course of these two parallel lines, should I suddenly bend\none into the other? and on what principle of selection shall I choose\nthe one I am to curve? I must really decline to use logic just as far as\nit supports the orthodox idea of God, and arbitrarily throw it down\nthe moment it conflicts with that idea. I find myself then compelled\nto believe that one only substance exists in all around me; that the\nuniverse is eternal, or at least eternal so far as our faculties are\nconcerned, since we cannot, as some one has quaintly put it \"get to\nthe outside of everywhere;\" that a Deity cannot be conceived of as apart\nfrom the universe, pre-existent to the universe, post-existent to the\nuniverse; that the Worker and the Work are inextricably interwoven, and\nin some sense eternally and indissolubly combined. Having got so far, we\nwill proceed to examine into the possibility of proving the existence\nof that one essence popularly called by the name of _God_, under the\nconditions strictly defined by the orthodox. Having demonstrated, as I\nhope to do, that the orthodox idea of God is unreasonable and absurd,\nwe will endeavour to discover whether _any_ idea of God, worthy to be\ncalled an idea, is attainable in the present state of our faculties.\n\nThe orthodox believers in God are divided into two camps, one of\nwhich maintains that the existence of God is as demonstrable as any\nmathematical proposition, while the other asserts that his existence\nis not demonstrable to the intellect. I select Dr. McCann, a man of\nconsiderable reputation, as the representative of the former of these\ntwo opposing schools of thought, and give the Doctor's position in his\nown words:--\"The purpose of the following paper is to prove the\nfallacy of all such assumptions\" (i e., that the existence of God is an\ninsoluble problem), \"by showing that we are no more at liberty to deny\nHis being, than we are to deny any demonstration of Euclid. He would be\nthought unworthy of refutation who should assert that any two angles of\na triangle are together greater than two right angles. We would content\nourselves by saying, 'The man is mad'--mathematically, at least--and\npass on. If it can be shown that we affirm the existence of Deity\nfor the very same reasons as we affirm the truth of any geometric\nproposition; if it can be shown that the former is as capable of\ndemonstration as the latter--then it necessarily follows that if we are\njustified in calling the man a fool who denies the latter, we are\nalso justified in calling him a fool who says there is no God, and in\nrefusing to answer him according to his folly.\" Which course is a very\nconvenient one when you meet with an awkward opponent whom you cannot\nsilence by sentiment and declamation. Again: \"In conclusion, we believe\nit to be very important to be able to prove that if the mathematician be\njustified in asserting that the three angles of a triangle are equal to\ntwo right angles, the Christian is equally justified in asserting,\nnot only that he is compelled to believe in God, but that he knows Him\n(sic). And that he who denies the existence of the Deity is as unworthy\nof serious refutation as is he who denies a mathematical demonstration.\"\n('A Demonstration of the Existence of God,' a lecture delivered at the\nVictoria Institute, 1870, pp. I and II.) Dr. McCann proves his very\nstartling thesis by laying down as axioms six statements, which, however\nluminous to the Christian traditionalist, are obscure to the sceptical\nintellect. He seems to be conscious of this defect in his so-called\naxioms, for he proceeds to prove each of them elaborately,\nforgetting that the simple statement of an axiom should carry direct\nconviction--that it needs only to be understood in order to be accepted.\nHowever, let this pass: our teacher, having stated and \"proved\"\nhis axioms, proceeds to draw his conclusions from them; and as his\nfoundations are unsound, it is scarcely to be wondered at that his\nsuperstructure should be insecure, I know of no way so effectual to\ndefeat an adversary as to beg all the questions raised, assume every\npoint in dispute, call assumptions axioms, and then proceed to reason\nfrom them. It is really not worth while to criticise Dr. McCann in\ndetail, his lecture being nothing but a mass of fallacies and unproved\nassertions. Christian courtesy allows him to call those who dissent from\nhis assumptions \"fools;\" and as these terms of abuse are not considered\nadmissible by those whom he assails as unbelievers, there is a slight\ndifficulty in \"answering\" Dr. McCann \"according to his\" deserts. I\ncontent myself with suggesting that they who wish to learn how pretended\nreasoning may pass for solid argument, how inconsequent statements\nmay pass for logic, had better study this lecture. For my own part, I\nconfess that my \"folly\" is not, as yet, of a sufficiently pronounced\ntype to enable me to accept Dr. McCann's conclusions.\n\nThe best representation I can select of the second orthodox party, those\nwho admit that the existence of God is not demonstrable, is the late\nDean Mansel. In his 'Limits of Religious Thought,' the Bampton Lectures\nfor 1867, he takes up a perfectly unassailable position. The peculiarity\nof this position, however, is that he, the pillar of orthodoxy, the\nfamed defender of the faith against German infidelity and all forms\nof rationalism, regards God from exactly the same point as does a\nwell-known modern \"atheist.\" I have almost hesitated sometimes which\nwriter to quote from, so identical are they in thought. Probably neither\nDean Mansel nor Mr. Bradlaugh would thank me for bracketing their names;\nbut I am forced to confess that the arguments used by the one to prove\nthe endless absurdities into which we fall when we try to comprehend the\nnature of God, are exactly the same arguments that are used by the\nother to prove that God, as believed in by the orthodox, cannot exist.\nI quote, however, exclusively from the Dean, because it is at once novel\nand agreeable to find oneself sheltered by Mother Church at the exact\nmoment when one is questioning her very foundations; and also because\nthe Dean's name carries with it so orthodox an odour that his authority\nwill tell where the same words from any of those who are outside the\npale of orthodoxy would be regarded with suspicion. Nevertheless, I\nwish to state plainly that a more \"atheistical\" book than these Bampton\nLectures--at least, in the earlier part of it--I have never read; and\nhad its title-page borne the name of any well-known Free-thinker,\nit would have been received in the religious world with a storm of\nindignation.\n\nThe first definition laid down by the orthodox as a characteristic of\nGod is that he is an Infinite Being. \"There is but one living and true\nGod... of _infinite_ power, &c.\" (Article of Religion, 1.) It has been\nsaid that _infinite_ only means _indefinite_, but I must protest against\nthis weakening of a well-defined theological term. The term _Infinite_\nhas always been understood to mean far more than indefinite; it means\nliterally _boundless_: the infinite has no limitations, no possible\nrestrictions, no \"circumference.\" People who do not think about the\nmeaning of the words they use speak very freely and familiarly of the\n\"infinitude\" of God, as though the term implied no inconsistency. Deny\nthat God is infinite and you are at once called an atheist, but press\nyour opponent into a definition of the term and you will generally find\nthat he does not know what he is talking about. Dean Mansel points out,\nwith his accurate habit of mind, all that this attribute of God implies,\nand it would be well if those who \"believe in an infinite God\" would try\nand realise what they express. Half the battle of freethought will be\nwon when people attach a definite meaning to the terms they use. The\nInfinite has no bounds; then the finite cannot exist. Why? Because in\nthe very act of acknowledging any existence beside the Infinite One you\nlimit the Infinite. By saying, \"This is not God\" you at once make him\nfinite, because you set a bound to his nature; you distinguish between\nhim and something else, and by the very act you limit him; that _which\nis not he_ is as a rock which checks the waves of the ocean; in that\nspot a limit is found, and in finding a limit the Infinite is destroyed.\nThe orthodox may retort, \"this is only a matter of terms;\" but it is\nwell to force them into realising the dogmas which they thrust on our\nacceptance under such awful penalties for rejection. I know what \"an\ninfinite God\" implies, and, as apart from the universe, I feel compelled\nto deny the possibility of his existence; surely it is fair that the\northodox should also know what the words they use mean on this head,\nand give up the term if they cling to a \"personal\" God, distinct from\n\"creation.\"--Further--and here I quote Dean Mansel--the \"Infinite\"\nmust be conceived as containing within itself the sum, not only of all\nactual, but of all possible modes of being.... If any possible mode can\nbe denied of it... it is capable of becoming more than it now is, and\nsuch a capability is a limitation. (The hiatus refers to the \"absolute\"\nbeing of God, which it is better to consider separately.) \"An unrealised\npossibility is necessarily (a relation and) a limit.\" Thus is orthodoxy\ncrushed by the powerful logic of its own champion. God is infinite;\nthen, in that case, everything that exists is God; all phenomena are\nmodes of the Divine Being; there is literally nothing which is not God.\nWill the orthodox accept this position? It lands them, it is true,\nin the most extreme Pantheism, but what of that? They believe in an\n\"infinite God\" and they are therefore necessarily Pantheists. If they\nobject to this, they must give up the idea that their God is infinite\nat all; there is no half-way position open to them; he is infinite or\nfinite, which?\n\nAgain, God is \"before all things,\" he is the only Absolute Being,\ndependent on nothing outside himself; all that is not God is relative;\nthat is to say, that God exists alone and is not necessarily related to\nanything else. The orthodox even believe that God did, at some\nformer period (which is not a period, they say, because time then was\nnot--however, at that hazy \"time\" he did), exist alone, _i e._, as what\nis called an _Absolute_ Being: this conception is necessary for all who,\nin any sense, believe in a _Creator_.\n\n     \"Thou, in Thy far eternity,\n     Didst live and love alone.\"\n\nSo sings a Christian minstrel; and one of the arguments put forward for\na Trinity is that a plurality of persons is necessary in order that God\nmay be able to love at the \"time\" when he was alone. Into this point,\nhowever, I do not now enter. But what does this Absolute imply? A simple\nimpossibility of creation, just as does the Infinite; for creation\nimplies that the relative is brought into existence, and thus the\nAbsolute is destroyed. \"Here again the Pantheistic hypothesis seems\nforced upon us. We can think of creation only as a change in the\ncondition of that which already exists, and thus the creature is\nconceivable only as a phenomenal mode of the being of the Creator.\"\nThus once more looms up the dreaded spectre of Pantheism, \"the dreary\ndesolation of a Pantheistic wilderness;\" and who is the Moses who has\nled us into this desert? It is a leader of orthodoxy, a dignitary of the\nChurch; it is Dean Mansel who stretches out his hand to the universe and\nsays, \"This is thy God, O Israel.\"\n\nThe two highest attributes of God land us, then, in the most thorough\nPantheism; further, before remarking on the other divine attributes, I\nwould challenge the reader to pause and try to realise this infinite and\nabsolute being. \"That a man can be conscious of the infinite is, then,\na supposition which, in the very terms in which it is expressed,\nannihilates itself.... The infinite, if it is to be conceived at all,\nmust be conceived as potentially everything-and actually nothing; for\nif there is anything in general which it cannot become, it is thereby\nlimited; and if there is anything in particular which it actually is, it\nis thereby excluded from being any other thing. But again, it must also\nbe conceived as actually everything and potentially nothing; for an\nunrealised potentiality is likewise a limitation. If the infinite can\nbe\" (in the future) \"that which it is not\" (in the present) \"it is by\nthat very possibility marked out as incomplete and capable of a higher\nperfection. If it is actually everything, it possesses no characteristic\nfeature by which it can be distinguished from anything else and\ndiscerned as an object of consciousness.\" I think, then, that we must be\ncontent, on the showing of Dr. Mansel, to allow that God is, in his\nown nature--from this point of view--quite beyond the grasp of\nour faculties; _as regards us he does not exist_, since he is\nindistinguishable and undiscernable. Well might the Church exclaim\n\"Save me from my friends!\" when a dean acknowledges that her God is a\nself-contradictory phantom; oddly enough, however, the Church likes\nit, and accepts this fatal championship. I might have put this argument\nwholly in my own words, for the subject is familiar to every one who has\ntried to gain a distinct idea of the Being who is called \"God,\" but I\nhave preferred to back my own opinions with the authority of so orthodox\na man as Dean Mansel, trusting that by so doing the orthodox may be\nforced to see where logic carries them. All who are interested in\nthis subject should study his lectures carefully; there is really no\ndifficulty in following them, if the student will take the trouble of\nmastering once for all the terms he employs. The book was lent to me\nyears ago by a clergyman, and did more than any other book I know to\nmake me what is called an \"infidel;\" it proves to demonstration the\nimpossibility of our having any logical, reasonable, and definite idea\nof God, and the utter hopelessness of trying to realise his existence.\nIt seems necessary here to make a short digression to explain, for\nthe benefit of those who have not read the book from which I have been\nquoting, how Dean Mansel escaped becoming an \"atheist.\" It is a\ncurious fact that the last part of this book is as remarkable for its\nassumptions, as is the earlier portion its pitiless logic. When he ought\nin all reason to say, \"we can know nothing and therefore can believe\nnothing,\" he says instead, \"we can know nothing and therefore let us\ntake Revelation for granted.\" An atheistic reasoner suddenly startles\nus by becoming a devout Christian; the apparent enemy of the faithful\nis \"transformed into an angel of light.\" The existence of God \"is\ninconceivable by the reason,\" and, therefore, \"the only ground that can\nbe taken for accepting one representation of it rather than another\nis, that one is revealed and the other not revealed.\" It is the\nacknowledgment of a previously formed _determination_ to believe at any\ncost; it is a wail of helplessness; the very apotheosis of despair. We\ncannot have history, so let us believe a fairy-tale; we can discover\nnothing, so let us assume anything; we cannot find truth, so let us take\nthe first myth that comes to hand. Here I feel compelled to part company\nwith the Dean, and to leave him to believe in, to adore, and to\nlove that which he has himself designated as indistinguishable and\nundiscernable; it may be an act of faith but it is a crucifixion of\nintellect; it may be a satisfaction to the yearnings of the heart, but\nit dethrones reason and tramples it in the dust.\n\nWe proceed in our study of the attributes of God. He is represented as\nthe Supreme Will, the Supreme Intelligence, the Supreme Love.\n\n_As the Supreme Will_. What do we mean by \"will?\" Surely, in the usual\nsense of the word, a will implies the power and the act of choosing.\nTwo paths are open to us, and we will to walk in one rather than in the\nother. But can we think of power of choice in connection with God? Of\ntwo courses open to us one must needs be better than the other, else\nthey would be indistinguishable and be only one; perfection implies that\nthe higher course will always be taken; what then becomes of the power\nof choice? We choose because we are imperfect; we do not know everything\nwhich bears on the matter on which we are about to exercise our will; if\nwe knew everything we should inevitably be driven in one direction, that\nwhich is the _best possible course_. The greater the knowledge, the more\ncircumscribed the will; the nobler the nature, the more impossible the\nlower course. Spinoza points out most clearly that the Divinity _could\nnot_ have made things otherwise than they are made, because any change\nin his action would imply a change in his nature; God, above all, must\nbe bound by necessity. If we believe in a God at all we must surely\nascribe to him perfection of wisdom and perfection of goodness; we are\nthen forced to conceive of him--however strange it may sound to those\nwho believe, not only without seeing but also without thinking--as\nwithout will, because he must always necessarily pursue the course which\nis wisest and best.\n\n_As the Supreme Intelligence_. Again, the first question is, what do\nwe mean by intelligence? In the usual sense of the word intelligence\nimplies the exercise of the various intellectual faculties, and gathers\nup into one word the ideas of perception, comparison, memory, judgment,\nand so on. The very enumeration of these faculties is sufficient to show\nhow utterly inappropriate they are when thought of in connection with\nGod. Does God perceive what he did not know before? Does he compare one\nfact with another? Does he draw conclusions from this correlation\nof perceptions, and thus judge what is best? Does he remember, as we\nremember, long past events? Perfect wisdom excludes from the idea of God\nall that is called intelligence in man; it involves unchangeableness,\ncomplete stillness; it implies a knowledge of all that is knowable;\nit includes an acquaintance with every fact, an acquaintance which has\nnever been less in the past, and can never be more in the future. The\nreception at any time of a new thought or a new idea is impossible\nto perfection, for if it could ever be added to in the future it is\nnecessarily something less than perfect in the past.\n\n_As the Supreme Love_. We come here to the darkest problem of existence.\nLove, Ruler of the world permeated through and through with pain, and\nsorrow, and sin? Love, mainspring of a nature whose cruelty is sometimes\nappalling? Love? Think of the \"martyrdom of man!\" Love? Follow the\nHistory of the Church! Love? Study the annals of the slave-trade! Love?\nWalk the courts and alleys of our towns! It is of no use to try and\nexplain away these things, or cover them up with a veil of silence;\nit is better to look them fairly in the face, and test our creeds by\ninexorable facts. It is foolish to keep a tender spot which may not\nbe handled; for a spot which gives pain when it is touched implies the\npresence of disease: wiser far is it to press firmly against it, and,\nif danger lurk there, to use the probe or the knife. We have no right\nto pick out all that is noblest and fairest in man, to project these\nqualities into space, and to call them God. We only thus create an ideal\nfigure, a purified, ennobled, \"magnified\" Man. We have no right to\nshut our eyes to the sad _revers de la medaille_, and leave out of our\nconceptions of the Creator the larger half of his creation. If we are\nto discover the Worker from his works we must not pick and choose amid\nthose works; we must take them as they are, \"good\" and \"bad.\" If we only\nwant an ideal, let us by all means make one, and call it _God_, if thus\nwe can reach it better, but if we want a true induction we must take\n_all_ facts into account. If God is to be considered as the author of\nthe universe, and we are to learn of him through his works, then we\nmust make room in our conceptions of him for the avalanche and the\nearthquake, for the tiger's tooth and the serpent's fang, as well as for\nthe tenderness of woman and the strength of man, the radiant glory of\nthe sunshine on the golden harvest, and the gentle lapping of the summer\nwaves on the gleaming shingled beach.*\n\n     * \"I know it is usual for the orthodox when vindicating the\n     moral character of their God to say:--'All the Evil that\n     exists is of man; All that God has done is only good.' But\n     granting (which facts do not substantiate) that man is the\n     only author of the sorrow and the wrong that abound in the\n     world, it is difficult to see how the Creator can be free\n     from imputation. Did not God, according to orthodoxy, plan\n     all things with an infallible perception that the events\n     foreseen must occur? Was not this accurate prescience based\n     upon the inflexibility of God's Eternal purposes? As, then,\n     the purposes, in the order of nature, at least preceded the\n     prescience and formed the groundwork of it, man has become\n     extensively the instrument of doing mischief in the world\n     simply because the God of the Christian Church did not\n     choose to prevent man from being bad. In other words, man is\n     as he is by the ordained design of God, and, therefore, God\n     is responsible for all the suffering, shame, and error,\n     spread by human agency.--So that the Christian apology for\n     God in connection with the spectacle of evil falls to\n     pieces.\"--Note by the Editor.\n\nThe Nature of God, what is it? Infinite and Absolute, he evades our\ntouch; without human will, without human intelligence, without human\nlove, where can his faculties--the very word is a misnomer--find a\nmeeting-place with ours? Is he everything or nothing? one or many? _We\nknow not. We know nothing._ Such is the conclusion into which we are\ndriven by orthodoxy, with its pretended faith, which is credulity, with\nits pretended proofs, which are presumptions. It defines and maps out\nthe perfections of Deity, and they dissolve when we try to grasp them;\nnowhere do these ideas hold water for a moment; nowhere is this position\ndefensible. Orthodoxy drives thinkers into atheism; weary of its\ncontradictions they cry, \"there is _no_ God\"; orthodoxy's leading\nthinker lands us himself in atheism. No logical, impartial mind can\nescape from unbelief through the trap-door opened by Dean Mansel: he\nhas taught us reason, and we cannot suppress reason. The \"serpent\nintellect\"--as the Bishop of Peterborough calls it--has twined itself\nfirmly round the tree of knowledge, and in that type we do not see, with\nthe Hebrew, the face of death, but, with the older faiths, we reverence\nit as the symbol of life.\n\nThere is another fact, an historical one, still on the destructive side,\nwhich appears to me to be of the gravest importance, and that is the\ngradual attenuation of the idea of God before the growing light of true\nknowledge. To the savage everything is divine; he hears one God's voice\nin the clap of the thunder, another's in the roar of the earthquake,\nhe sees a divinity in the trees, a deity smiles at him from the clear\ndepths of the river and the lake; every natural phenomenon is the abode\nof a god; every event is controlled by a god; divine volition is at the\nroot of every incident. To him the rule of the gods is a stern reality;\nif he offends them they turn the forces of nature against him; the\nflood, the famine, the pestilence, are the ministers of the avenging\nanger of the gods. As civilisation advances, the deities lessen in\nnumber, the divine powers become concentrated more and more in one\nBeing, and God rules over the whole earth, maketh the clouds his\nchariot, and reigns above the waterfloods as a king. Physical phenomena\nare still his agents, working his will among the children of men; he\nrains great hailstones out of heaven on his enemies, he slays their\nflocks and desolates their lands, but his chosen ure safe under his\nprotection, even although danger hem them in on every side; \"thou shalt\nnot be afraid for any terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by\nday; for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the sickness\nthat destroyeth in the noon-day. A thousand shall fall besides thee, and\nten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee....\nHe shall defend thee under his wings, and thou shalt be safe under his\nfeathers.\" (Ps. xci., Prayer-Book.) Experience contradicted this theory\nrather roughly, and it gave way slowly before the logic of facts; it is,\nhowever, still more or less prevalent among ourselves, as we see when\nthe siege of Paris is proclaimed as a judgment on Parisian irreligion,\nand when the whole nation falls on its knees to acknowledge the\ncattle-plague as the deserved punishment of its sins! The next step\nforward was to separate the physical from the moral, and to allow that\nphysical suffering came independently of moral guilt or righteousness:\nthe men crushed under the fallen tower of Siloam were not thereby proved\nto be more sinful than their countrymen. The birth of science rang the\ndeath-knell of an arbitrary and constantly interposing Supreme Power-.\nThe theory of God as a miracle worker was dissipated; henceforth if God\nruled at all it must be as in nature and not from outside of nature; he\nno longer imposed laws on something exterior to himself, the laws could\nonly be the necessary expression of his own being. Laws were, further,\nfound to be immutable in their working, changing not in accordance with\nprayer, but ever true to a hair's breadth in their action. Slowly, but\nsurely, prayer to God for the alteration of physical phenomena is being\nfound to be simply a well-meant superstition; nature swerves not for our\npleading, nor falters in her path for our most passionate supplication.\nThe \"reign of law\" in physical matters is becoming acknowledged even by\ntheologians. As step by step the knowledge of _the natural_ advances,\nso step by step does the belief in _the supernatural_ recede; as the\nkingdom of science extends, so the kingdom of miraculous interference\ngradually disappears. The effects which of old were thought to be caused\nby the direct action of God are now seen to be caused by the uniform and\ncalculable working of certain laws--laws which, when discovered, it is\nthe part of wisdom implicitly to obey. Things which we used to pray for,\nwe now work and wait for, and if we fail we do not ask God to add his\nstrength to ours, but we sit down and lay our plans more carefully.\nHow is this to end? Is the future to be like the past, and is science\nfinally to obliterate the conception of a personal God? It is a question\nwhich ought to be pondered in the light of history. Hitherto the\nsupernatural has always been the makeweight of human ignorance; is it,\nin truth, this and nothing else?\n\nI am forced, with some reluctance, to apply the whole of the above\nreasoning to every school of thought, whether nominally Christian or\nnon-Christian, which regards God as a \"magnified man.\" The same\nstern logic cuts every way and destroys alike the Trinitarian and the\nUnitarian hypothesis, wherever the idea of God is that of a Creator,\nstanding, as it were, outside his creation. The liberal thinker,\nwhatever his present position, seems driven infallibly to the above\nconclusions, as soon as he sets himself to realise his idea of his God.\nThe Deity must of necessity be that one and only substance out of which\nall things are evolved under the uncreated conditions and eternal laws\nof the universe; he must be, as Theodore Parker somewhat oddly puts\nit, \"the materiality of matter, as well as the spirituality of spirit;\"\n_i e._, these must both be products of this one substance: a truth which\nis readily accepted as soon as spirit and matter are seen to be but\ndifferent modes of one essence. Thus we identify substance with the\nall-comprehending and vivifying force of nature, and in so doing we\nsimply reduce to a physical impossibility the existence of the Being\ndescribed by the orthodox as a God possessing the attributes of\npersonality. The Deity becomes identified with nature, co-extensive\nwith the universe; but the God of the orthodox no longer exists; we may\nchange the signification of God, and use the word to express a different\nidea, but we can no longer mean by it a Personal Being in the orthodox\nsense, possessing an individuality which divides him from the rest of\nthe universe. I say that I use these arguments \"with some reluctance,\"\nbecause many who have fought and are fighting nobly and bravely in the\narmy of freethought, and to whom all free-thinkers owe much honour, seem\nto cling to an idea of the Deity, which, however beautiful and poetical,\nis not logically defensible, and in striking at the orthodox notion of\nGod, one necessarily strikes also at all idea of a \"Personal\" Deity.\nThere are some Theists who have only cut out the Son and the Holy Ghost\nfrom the Triune Jehovah, and have concentrated the Deity in the Person\nof the Father; they have returned to the old Hebrew idea of God, the\nCreator, the Sustainer, only widening it into regarding God as the\nFriend and Father of all his creatures, and not of the Jewish nation\nonly. There is much that is noble and attractive in this idea, and it\nwill possibly serve as a religion of transition to break the shock of\nthe change from the supernatural to the natural. It is reached entirely\nby a process of giving up; Christian notions are dropped one after\nanother, and the God who is believed in is the residuum. This Theistic\nschool has not gained its idea of God from any general survey of nature\nor from any philosophical induction from facts; it has gained it only\nby stripping off from an idea already in the mind everything which is\ndegrading and revolting in the dogmas of Trinitarianism. It starts, as\nI have noticed elsewhere, from a very noble axiom: \"If there be a God at\nall he must be at least as good as his highest creatures,\" and thus\nis instantly swept away the Augustinian idea of a God,--that monster\ninvented by theological dialectics; but still the same axiom makes\nGod in the image of man, and never succeeds in getting outside a human\nrepresentation of the Divinity. It starts from this axiom, and the axiom\nis prefaced by an \"if.\" It assumes God, and then argues fairly enough\nwhat his character must be. And this \"if\" is the very point on which the\nargument of this paper turns.\n\n\"If there be a God\" all the rest follows, but _is there a God at all_\nin the sense in which the word is generally used? And thus I come to the\nsecond part of my problem; having seen that the orthodox \"idea of God is\nunreasonable and absurd, is there any idea of God, worthy to be called\nan idea, which is attainable in the present state of our faculties?\"\n\nThe argument from design does not seem to me to be a satisfactory\none; it either goes too far or not far enough. Why in arguing from the\nevidences of adaptation should we assume that they are planned by a\nmind? It is quite as easy to conceive of matter as self-existent, with\ninherent vital laws moulding it into varying phenomena, as to conceive\nof any intelligent mind directly modelling matter, so that the\n\"heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his\nhandy-work.\" It is, I know, customary to sneer at the idea of beautiful\nforms existing without a conscious designer, to parallel the adaptations\nof this world to the adaptations in machinery, and then triumphantly to\ninquire, \"if skill be inferred from the one, why ascribe the other to\nchance?\" We do not believe in chance; the steady action of law is not\nchance; the exquisite crystals which form themselves under certain\nconditions are not a \"fortuitous concourse of atoms:\" the only question\nis whether the laws which we all allow to govern nature are immanent in\nnature, or the outcome of an intelligent mind. If there be a lawmaker,\nis he self-existent, or does he, in turn, as has been asked again and\nagain by Positivist, Secularist, and Atheist, require a maker? If\nwe think for a moment of the vast mind implied in the existence of a\nCreator of the universe, is it possible to believe that such a mind is\nthe result of chance? If man's mind imply a master-mind, how much more\nthat of God? Of course the question seems an absurd one, but it is quite\nas pertinent as the question about a world-maker. We must come to a\nstop somewhere, and it is quite as logical to stop at one point as at\nanother. The argument from design would be valuable if we could prove,\na priori, as Mr. Gillespie attempted to do,* the existence of a Deity;\nthis being proved we might then fairly argue deductively to the various\napparent signs of mind in the universe. Again, if we allow design we\nmust ask, \"how far does design extend?\" If some phenomena are designed,\nwhy not all? And if not all, on what principle can we separate that\nwhich is designed from that which is not? If intellect and love reveal\na design, what is revealed by brutality and hate? If the latter are not\nthe result of design, how did they become introduced into the universe?\nI repeat that this argument implies either too much or too little.*\n\n     * \"The Necessary Existence of Deity.\"\n\nThere is but one argument that appears to me to have any real weight,\nand that is the argument from instinct. Man has faculties which appear,\nat present, as though they were not born of the intellect, and it seems\nto me to be unphilosophical to exclude this class of facts from our\nsurvey of nature. The nature of man has in it certain sentiments and\nemotions which, reasonably or unreasonably, sway him powerfully\nand continually; they are, in fact, his strongest motive powers,\noverwhelming the reasoning faculties with resistless strength; true,\nthey need discipline and controlling, but they do not need to be, and\nthey cannot be, destroyed. The sentiments of love, of reverence, of\nworship, are not, as yet, reducible to logical processes; they are\nintuitions, spontaneous emotions, incomprehensible to the keen and cold\nintellect. They may be laughed at or denied, but they still exist in\nspite of all; they avenge themselves, when they are not taken into\naccount, by ruining the best laid plans, and they are continually\nbursting the cords with which reason strives to tie them down. I do\nnot for a moment pretend to deny that these intuitions will, as our\nknowledge of psychology increases, be reducible to strict laws; we call\nthem instincts and intuitions simply because we are unable to trace them\nto their source, and this vague expression covers the vagueness of\nour ideas. Therefore, intuition is not to be accepted as a trustworthy\nguide, but it may suggest an hypothesis, and this hypothesis must then\nbe submitted to the stern verification of observed facts. We are not as\nyet able to say to what the instinct in man to worship points, or what\nreality answers to his yearning. Increased knowledge will, we may hope,\nreveal to us* where there lies the true satisfaction of this instinct:\nso long as the yearning is only an \"instinct\" it cannot pretend to be\nlogically defensible, or claim to lay down any rule of faith. But still\nI think it well to point out that this instinct exists in man, and\nexists most strongly in some of the noblest souls.\n\n     * \"Is there in man any such Instinct? May not the general\n     tendency to worship a Deity, everywhere be the result of the\n     influence gained by Priests over the mind by the play of the\n     mysterious Unknown and Hereafter upon susceptible\n     imaginations? Besides, what are we to say of the immense\n     number of philosophical Buddhists and Brahmins, for whose\n     comfort or moral guidance the idea of a God or a hereafter\n     is felt to be quite unnecessary? They cannot comprehend it,\n     and consequently acts of worship to God would be deemed by\n     them fanatical. It is traditionalists who either do not\n     think at all, or think only within a narrow, creed-bound\n     circle, that are most devoted to worshipping Deity; and if\n     so, may not the whole history of worship have its origin in\n     superstition and priestcraft! In that case, the theory of an\n     instinct of worship falls to the ground.\"--Note by the\n     Editor.\n\nOf all the various sentiments which are thus at present \"intuitional,\"\nnone is so powerful, none so overmastering as this instinct to worship,\nthis sentiment of religion. It is as natural for man to worship as to\neat. He will do it, be it reasonable or unreasonable. Just as the baby\ncrams everything into his mouth, so does man persist in worshipping\nsomething. It may be said that the baby's instinct does not prove that\nhe is right in trying to devour a matchbox; true, but it proves the\nexistence of something eatable; so fetish-worship, polytheism, theism,\ndo not prove that man has worshipped rightly, but do they not prove the\nexistence of something worshipable! The argument does not, of course,\npretend to amount to a demonstration; it is nothing more than the\nsuggestion of an analogy. Are we to find that the supply is correlated\nto the demand throughout nature, and yet believe that this hitherto\ninvariable system is suddenly altered when we reach the spiritual part\nof man? I do not deny that this instinct is hereditary, and that it is\nfostered by habit. The idea of reverence for God is transmitted from\nparent to child; it is educated into an abnormal development, and thus\nalmost indefinitely strengthened; but yet it does appear to me that the\nbent to worship is an integral part of man's nature. This instinct has\nalso sometimes been considered to have its root in the feeling that\none's individual self is but a \"part of a stupendous whole;\" that the\nso-called religious feeling which is evoked by a grand view or a bright\nstarlight night is only the realisation of personal insignificance,\nand the reverence which rises in the soul in the presence of the mighty\nuniverse of which we form a part. Whatever the root and the significance\nof this instinct, there can be no doubt of its strength; there is\nnothing rouses men's passions as does theology; for religion men rush\non death more readily and joyfully than* for any other cause; religious\nfanaticism is the most fatal, the most terrible power in the world. In\nstudying history I also see the upward tendency of the race, and\nnote that current which Mr. Matthew Arnold has called \"that stream of\ntendency, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness.\" Of course,\nif there be a conscious God, this tendency is a proof of his moral\ncharacter, since it would be the outcome of his laws; but here again\nan argument which would be valuable were the existence of God already\nproved, falls blunted from the iron wall of the unknown. The same\ntendency upwards would naturally exist in any \"realm of law,\" although\nthe law were an unconscious force. For righteousness is nothing more\nthan obedience to law, and where there is obedience to law, Nature's\nmighty forces lend their strength to man, and progress is secured.\nOnly by obedience to law can advance be made, and this rule applies,\nof course, to morality as well as to physics. Physical righteousness is\nobedience to physical laws; moral righteousness is obedience to moral\nlaws: just as physical laws are discovered by the observation of natural\nphenomena, so must moral laws be discovered by the observation of social\nphenomena. That which increases the general happiness is right; that\nwhich tends to destroy the general happiness is wrong. Utility is the\ntest of morality. But a law must not be drawn from a single fact or\nphenomenon; facts must be carefully collated, and the general laws of\nmorality drawn from a generalisation of facts. But this subject is too\nlarge to enter upon here, and it is only hinted at in order to note\nthat, although there is a moral tendency apparent in the course of\nevents, it is rather a rash assumption to take it for granted that the\npower in question is a conscious one: it may be, and that, I think, is\nall we can justly and reasonably say.\n\nAgain, as regards Love. I have protested above against the easiness\nwhich talks glibly of the Supreme Love while shutting its eyes to the\nsupreme agony of the world. But here, in putting forward what may be\nsaid on the other side of the question, I must remark that there is a\npossible explanation for sorrow and sin which is consistent with\nlove given immortality of man and beast, and the future gain may then\noutweigh the present loss. But we are bound to remember that we can only\nhave a _hope_ of immortality; we have no demonstration of it, and this\nis, therefore, only an assumption by which we escape from a difficulty.\nWe ought to be ready to acknowledge, also, that there is love in nature,\nalthough there is cruelty too; there is the sunshine as well as the\nstorm, and we must not fix our eyes on the darkness alone and deny the\nlight. In mother-love, in the love of friends, loyal through all doubt,\ntrue in spite of danger and difficulty, strongest when most sorely\ntried, we see gleams of so divine, so unearthly a beauty, that our\nhearts whisper to us of an universal heart pulsating throughout nature,\nwhich, at these rare moments, we cannot believe to be a dream. But there\nseems, also, to be a vague idea that love and other virtues could not\nexist unless derived from the Love, &c. It is true that we do conceive\ncertain ideals of virtue which we personify, and to which we apply\nvarious terms implying affection; we speak of a love of Truth, devotion\nto Freedom, and so on. These ideals have, however, a purely subjective\nexistence; they are not objective realities; there is nothing answering\nto these conceptions in the outside world, nor do we pretend to believe\nin their individuality. But when we gather up all our ideals, our\nnoblest longings, and bind them into one vast ideal figure, which we\ncall by the name of God, then we at once attribute to it an objective\nexistence, and complain of coldness and hardness if its reality is\nquestioned, and we demand to know if we can love an abstraction? The\nnoblest souls do love abstractions, and live in their beauty and die for\ntheir sake.\n\nThere appears, also, to be a possibility of a mind in Nature, although\nwe have seen that intelligence is, strictly speaking, impossible. There\ncannot be perception, memory, comparison, or judgment; but may there\nnot be a perfect mind, unchanging, calm, and still? Our faculties\nfail us when we try to estimate the Deity, and we are betrayed into\ncontradictions and absurdities; but does it therefore follow that He\nis not? It seems to me that to deny his existence is to overstep the\nboundaries of our thought-power almost as much as to try and define it.\nWe pretend to know the Unknown if we declare Him to be the Unknowable.\nUnknowable to us at present, yes! Unknowable for ever, in other possible\nstages' of existence?--We have reached a region into which we cannot\npenetrate; here all human faculties fail us; we bow our heads on \"the\nthreshold of the unknown.\"\n\n     And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;\n     But if we could see and hear, this Vision--were it not He?\n\nThus sings Alfred Tennyson, the poet of metaphysics: \"if we could see\nand hear\"; alas! it is always an \"if.\"\n\nWe come back to the opening of this essay: what is the practical result\nof our ideas about the Divinity, and how do these ideas affect the daily\nworking life? What conclusions are we to draw from the undeniable fact\nthat, even if there be a \"personal God,\" his nature and existence are\nbeyond our faculties, that \"clouds and darkness are round about him,\"\nthat he is veiled in eternal silence and reveals himself not to men?\nSurely the obvious inference is that, if he does-really exist, he\ndesires to conceal himself from the inhabitants of our world. I repeat,\nthat if the Deity exist, he does-not wish us to know of his existence.\nThere may be, in the very nature of things, an impossibility of his\nrevealing himself to men; we may have no faculties with which to\napprehend him; can we reveal the stars and the rippling expanse of ocean\nto the sightless limpet on the rock? Whether this be so or not, certain\nis it that the Deity does not reveal himself; either he cannot or he\nwill not. And the reason--I am granting for the moment, for argument's\nsake, his personal existence--is not far to seek; it is blazed upon\nthe face of history. For what has been the result of theology upon the\nwhole? It has turned men's eyes from earth, to fix them on heaven; it\nhas bid them be careless of the temporal, while luring them to grasp at\nthe eternal; it has induced multitudes to lavish fervent sentiment\nupon a conception framed by Priests of an incomprehensible God, while\ndiverting their strength from the plain duties which Humanity has before\nit; it has taught them to live for the world to come, when they should\nlive for the world around them; it has made earth's wrongs endurable\nwith the hope of the glory to be revealed. Wisely indeed would the\nDeity hide himself, when even a phantom of him has wrought such fatal\nmischief; and never will real and steady progress be secured until men\nacquiesce in this beneficent law of their nature, which draws a stern\ncircle of the \"limits of Religious Thought\" and bids them concentrate\ntheir attention on the work they have to do in this world, instead of\nbeing \"for ever peering into and brooding over the world beyond the\ngrave.\" \"What is to be our conception of morality, is it to base itself\non obedience to God, or is it to be sought for itself and its effects?\"\nWhen we admit that God is beyond our knowing, morality becomes at once\nnecessarily grounded on utility, or the natural adaptation of certain\nfeelings and actions to promote the general welfare of society. As\nno revelation is given to us as one \"infallible standard of right and\nwrong,\" we must form our morality for ourselves from thought and from\nexperience. For example, our moral nature, as educated under the highest\ncivilisation, tells us that lying is wrong;* with this hypothesis in our\nminds we study facts, and discover that lying causes mistrust, anarchy,\nand ruin; thence we lay down as a moral law, \"Lie not at all.\" The\nscience of morality must be content to grow like other sciences; first\nan hypothesis, round which to group our facts, then from the collected\nand collated facts reasoning up to a solid law. Scientific morality has\nthis great advantage over revealed, that it stands on firm, unassailable\nground; new facts will alter its details, but can never touch its\nmethod; like all other sciences, it is at once positive and progressive.\n\n     * All men do not think lying wrong, e g.. Thugs and old\n     Spartans. Therefore it is not our moral nature that\n     intuitively tells us thus, but our moral nature as\n     instructed by the moral ideas prevailing in the society in\n     which we happen to be living.--Note by the Editor.\n\n\"_Is our mental attitude to be kneeling or standing?_\" When we admit\nthat the Deity is veiled from us, how can we pray? When we see that that\nlaw is inexorable, of what use to protest against its absolute sway?\nWhen we feel that all, including ourselves, are but modes of Being which\nis one and universal, and in which we \"live and move,\" how shall we pray\nto that which is close to us as our own souls, part of our very selves,\ninseparable from our thoughts, sharing our consciousness? As well talk\naloud to ourselves as pray to the universal Essence. Children _cry_ for\nwhat they want; men and women _work_ for it. There are two points of\nview from which we may regard prayer: from the one it is a piece of\nchildishness only, from the other it is sheer impertinence. Regarding\nNature's mighty order, her grand, silent, unvarying march,--the\nimportunity which frets against her changeless progress is a mark of the\nmost extreme childishness of mind; it shows that complete irreverence\nof spirit which cannot conceive the idea of a greatness before which\nthe individual existence is as nothing, and that infantile conceit\nwhich imagines that its own plans and playthings rival in importance\nthe struggles of nations and the interests of distant worlds. Regarding\nNature's laws as wiser than our own whims, the idea which finds its\noutlet in prayer is a gross impertinence; who are we that we should\ntake it on ourselves to remind Nature of her work, God of his duty? Is\nthere any impertinence so extreme as the prayer which \"pleads\" with the\nDeity? There is only one kind of \"prayer\" which is reasonable, and that\nis the deep, silent, adoration of the greatness and beauty and order\naround us, as revealed in the realms of non-rational life and in\nHumanity; as we bow our heads before the laws of the universe and mould\nour lives into obedience to their voice, we find a strong, calm peace\nsteal over our hearts, a perfect trust in the ultimate triumph of the\nright, a quiet determination to \"make our lives sublime.\" Before our\nown high ideals, before those lives which show us \"how high the tides of\ndivine life have risen in the human world,\" we stand with hushed voice\nand veiled face; from them we draw strength to emulate, and even dare\nstruggle to excel. The contemplation of the ideal is true prayer; it\ninspires, it strengthens, it ennobles. The other part of prayer is work:\nfrom contemplation to labour, from the forest to the street. Study\nNature's laws, conform to them, work in harmony with them, and work\nbecomes a prayer and a thanksgiving, an adoration of the universal\nwisdom, and a true obedience to the universal law.\n\n\"_Is the mainspring of our actions to be the idea of duty to God, or the\nof loyalty to law and to man's well-being?_\" We cannot serve God in any\nreal sense; we are awed before the Unknown, but we cannot _serve_ it.\nFor the Mighty, for the Incomprehensible, what can we do? But we can\nserve man, ay, and he needs our service; service of brain and hand,\nservice untiring and unceasing, service through life and unto-death.\nThe race to which we belong (our own families and kinsfolk, and then the\ncommunity at large) has the first claim on our allegiance, a claim from\nwhich nothing can release us until death drops a veil over our work.\n\nSurely I may claim that my subject is not an unpractical one, and that\nour ideas of the Nature and Existence of God influence our lives in a\nvery real way. If I have substituted a different basis of morality for\nthat on which it now stands, if I have suggested a different theory of\nprayer, and offered a different motive for duty, surely these changes\naffect the whole of human life And if one by one these theories ate\ndenied by the orthodox, and they reject them because they sever human\nlife from that which is called revealed religion, is not my position\njustified, that the ideas we hold of God are the ruling forces of our\nlives? that it is of primary importance to the welfare of mankind that\na false theory on this point should be destroyed and a more reasonable\nfaith accepted?\n\nWill any one exclaim, \"You are taking all beauty out of human life,\nall hope, all warmth, all inspiration; you give us cold duty for filial\nobedience, and inexorable law in the place of God?\" All beauty from\nlife? Is there, then, no beauty in the idea of forming part of the great\nlife of the universe, no beauty in conscious harmony with Nature, no\nbeauty in faithful service, no beauty in ideals of every virtue? \"All\nhope?\" Why, I give you more than hope, I give you certainty: if I bid\nyou labour for this world, it is with the knowledge that this world will\nrepay you a thousandfold, because society will grow purer, freedom more\nsettled, law more honoured, life more full and glad. What is your hope?\nA heaven in the clouds. I point to a heaven attainable on earth. \"All\nwarmth?\" What! You serve warmly a God unknown and invisible, in a sense\nthe projected shadow of your own imaginings, and can only serve\ncoldly your brother whom you see at your side? There is no warmth in\nbrightening the lot of the sad, in reforming abuses, in establishing\nequal justice for rich and poor? You find warmth in the church, but none\nin the home? Warmth in imagining the cloud-glories of heaven, but none\nin creating substantial glories on earth? \"All inspiration?\" If you want\ninspiration to feeling, to sentiment, perhaps you had better keep to\nyour Bible and your creeds; if you want inspiration to work, go and walk\nthrough the east of London, or the back streets of Manchester. You\nare inspired to tenderness as you gaze at the wounds of Jesus, dead in\nJudaea long ago, and find no inspiration in the wounds of men and women\ndying in the England of to-day? You \"have tears to shed for him,\"\nbut none for the sufferer at your doors? His passion arouses your\nsympathies, but you see no pathos in the passion of the poor? Duty is\ncolder than \"filial obedience?\" What do you mean by filial obedience?\nObedience to your ideal of goodness and love, is it not so? Then how is\nduty cold? I offer you ideals for your homage: here is Truth for your\nMistress, to whose exaltation you shall devote your intellect; here is\nFreedom for your General, for whose triumph you shall fight; here is\nLove for your Inspirer, who shall influence your every thought; here is\nMan for your Master--not in heaven but on earth--to whose service you\nshall consecrate every faculty of your being. Inexorable law in the\nplace of God? Yes: a stern certainty that you shall not waste your life,\nyet gather a rich reward at the close; that you shall not sow misery,\nyet reap gladness; that you shall not be selfish, yet be crowned with\nlove, nor shall you sin, yet find safety in repentance. True, our creed\nis a stern one, stern with the beautiful sternness of Nature. But if we\nbe in the right, look to yourselves: laws do not check their action\nfor your ignorance; fire will not cease to scorch, because \"you did not\nknow.\"\n\nWe know nothing beyond Nature; we judge of the future by the present\nand the past; we are content to work now, and let the work to come\nwait until it appears as the work to do; we find that our faculties\nare sufficient for fulfilling the tasks within our reach, and we cannot\nwaste time and strength in gazing into impenetrable darkness. We must\nneeds fight against superstitions, because they hinder the advancement\nof the race, but we will not fall into the error of opponents and try to\ndefine the Undefinable.\n\n\n\n\nEUTHANASIA.\n\nI HAVE already related to you with what care they look after their\nsick, so that nothing is left undone which may contribute either to\ntheir health or ease. And as for those who are afflicted with incurable\ndisorders, they use all possible means of cherishing them, and of making\ntheir lives as comfortable as possible; they visit them often, and take\ngreat pains to make their time pass easily. But if any have torturing,\nlingering pain, without hope of recovery or ease, the priests and\nmagistrates repair to them and exhort them, since they are unable to\nproceed with the business of life, are become a burden to themselves and\nall about them, and have in reality outlived themselves, they should no\nlonger cherish a rooted disease, but choose to die since they cannot but\nlive in great misery; being persuaded, if they thus deliver themselves\nfrom torture, or allow others to do it, they shall be happy after death.\nSince they forfeit none of the pleasures, but only the troubles of life\nby this, they think they not only act reasonably, but consistently with\nreligion; for they follow the advice of their priests, the expounders\nof God's will. Those who are wrought upon by these persuasions, either\nstarve themselves or take laudanum. But no one is compelled to end his\nlife thus; and if they cannot be persuaded to it, the former care and\nattendance on it is continued. And though they esteem a voluntary death,\nwhen chosen on such authority, to be very honourable, on the contrary,\nif any one commit suicide without the concurrence of the priest and\nsenate, they honour not the body with a decent funeral, but throw into a\nditch.*\n\n     * Memoirs. A translation of the Utopia, &c, of Sir Thomas\n     Moore, Lord High Chancellor of England. By A. Cayley the\n     Younger, pp. 102,103.    (Edition of 1808.)\n\nIn pleading for the morality of Euthanasia, it seems not unwise to\nshow that so thoroughly religious a man as Sir Thomas Moore deemed that\npractice so consonant with a sound morality as to make it one of the\ncustoms of his ideal state, and to place it under the sanction of the\npriesthood. As a devout Roman Catholic, the great Chancellor would\nnaturally imagine that any beneficial innovation would be sure to obtain\nthe support of the priesthood; and although we may differ from him on\nthis head, since our daily experience teaches _us_ that the priest may\nbe counted upon as the steady opponent of all reform, it is yet\nnot uninstructive to note that the deep religious feeling which\ndistinguished this truly good man, did not shrink from this idea of\neuthanasia as from a breach of morality, nor did he apparently dream\nthat any opposition would (or could) be offered to it on religious\ngrounds. The last sentence of the extract is specially important; in\ndiscussing the morality of euthanasia we are not discussing the moral\nlawfulness or unlawfulness of suicide in general; we may protest against\nsuicide, and yet uphold euthanasia, and we may even protest against the\none and uphold the other, on exactly the same principle, as we shall see\nfurther on. As the greater includes the less, those who consider that a\nman has a right to choose whether he will live or not, and who therefore\nregard all suicide as lawful, will, of course, approve of euthanasia;\nbut it is by no means necessary to hold this doctrine because we contend\nfor the other. _On the general question of the morality of suicide, this\npaper expresses no opinion whatever_. This is not the point, and we do\nnot deal with it here. This essay is simply and solely directed to prove\nthat there are circumstances under which a human being has a moral right\nto hasten the inevitable approach of death. The subject is one which is\nsurrounded by a thick fog of popular prejudice, and the arguments in\nits favour are generally dismissed unheard. I would therefore crave the\nreader's generous patience, while laying before him the reasons\nwhich dispose many religious and social reformers to regard it as of\nimportance that euthanasia should be legalised.\n\nIn the fourth Edition of an essay on Euthanasia, by P. D. Williams,\njun.,--an essay which powerfully sums up what is to be said for and\nagainst the practice in question, and which treats the whole subject\nexhaustively--we find the proposition for which we contend laid down in\nthe following explicit terms:\n\n\"That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it should be the\nrecognised duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the\npatient, to administer chloroform, or such other anaesthetic as may\nby-and-by supersede chloroform, so as to destroy consciousness at once,\nand to put the sufferer to a quick and painless death; all needful\nprecautions being adopted to prevent any abuse of such duty; and means\nbeing taken to establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question,\nthat the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.\"\n\nIt is very important, at the outset, to lay down clearly the limitations\nof the proposed medical reform. It is, sometimes, thoughtlessly stated\nthat the supporters of euthanasia propose to put to death all persons\nsuffering from incurable disorders; no assertion can be more inaccurate\nor more calculated to mislead. We propose only, that where an incurable\ndisorder is accompanied with extreme pain--pain, which nothing can\nalleviate except death--pain, which only grows worse as the inevitable\ndoom approaches--pain, which drives almost to madness, and which must\nend in the intensified torture in the death agony--that pain should be\nat once soothed by the administration of an anaesthetic, which should\nnot only produce unconsciousness, but should be sufficiently powerful\nto end a life, in which the renewal of consciousness can only be\nsimultaneous with the renewal of pain. So long as life has some\nsweetness left in it, so long the offered mercy is not needed;\neuthanasia is a relief from unendurable agony, not an enforced\nextinguisher of a still desired existence. Besides, no one proposes to\nmake it obligatory on anybody; it is only urged that where the patient\nasks for the mercy of a speedy death, instead of a protracted one, his\nprayer may be granted without any danger of the penalties of murder or\nmanslaughter being inflicted on the doctors and nurses in attendance. I\nwill lay before the reader a case which is within my own knowledge,--and\nwhich can be probably supplemented by the sad experience of almost every\nindividual,--in which the legality of euthanasia would have been a boon\nequally to the sufferer and to her family. A widow lady was suffering\nfrom cancer in the breast, and as the case was too far advanced for the\nordinary remedy of the knife, and as the leading London surgeons refused\nto risk an operation which might hasten, but could not retard, death,\nshe resolved, for the sake of her orphan children, to allow a medical\npractitioner to perform a terrible operation, whereby he hoped to\nprolong her life for some years. Its details are too-painful to enter\ninto unnecessarily; it will suffice to say that it was performed by\nmeans of quick-lime, and that the use of chloroform was impossible.\nWhen the operation, which extended over days, was but half over,\nthe sufferer's strength gave way, and the doctor was compelled to\nacknowledge that even a prolongation of life was impossible, and that\nto complete the operation could only hasten death. So the patient had to\nlinger on in almost unimaginable torture, knowing that the pain could\nonly end in death, seeing her relatives worn out by watching, and\nagonised at the sight of her sufferings, and yet compelled to live on\nfrom hour to hour, till at last the anguish culminated in death. Is it\npossible for any one to believe that it would have been wrong to have\nhastened the inevitable end, and thus to have shortened the agony of\nthe sufferer herself, and to have also-spared her nurses months of\nsubsequent ill-health. It is in such cases as this that euthanasia would\nbe useful. It is, however, probable that all will agree that the benefit\nconferred by the legalisation of euthanasia would, in many instances, be\nvery great; but many feel that the objections to it, on moral grounds,\nare so weighty, that no physical benefit could countervail the moral\nwrong. These objections, so far as I can gather them, are as follows:--\n\nLife is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and must only be taken\nback by the giver of life.*\n\n     * We, of course, here, have no concern with theological\n     questions touching the existence or non-existence of Deity,\n     and express no opinion about them.\n\nEuthanasia is an interference with the course of nature, and is\ntherefore an act of rebellion against God.\n\nPain is a spiritual remedial agent inflicted by God, and should\ntherefore be patiently endured.\n\n_Life is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and must only\nbe taken back by the Giver of life_. This objection is one of those\nhigh-sounding phrases which impose on the careless and thoughtless\nhearer, by catching up a form of words which is generally accepted as an\nunquestionable axiom, and by hanging thereupon an unfair corollary.\nThe ordinary man or woman, on hearing this assertion, would probably\nanswer--\"Life sacred? Yes, of course; on the sacredness of life depends\nthe safety of society; anything which tampers with this principle must\nbe both wrong and dangerous.\" And yet, such is the inconsistency of the\nthoughtless, that, five minutes afterwards, the same person will glow\nwith passionate admiration at some noble deed, in which the sacredness\nof life has been cast to the winds at the call of honour or of humanity,\nor will utter words ot indignant contempt at the baseness which counted\nlife more sacred than duty or principle. That life is sacred is an\nundeniable proposition; every natural gift is sacred, _i e._, is\nvaluable, and is not to be lightly destroyed; life, as summing up all\nnatural gifts, and as containing within itself all possibilities of\nusefulness and happiness, is the most sacred physical possession which\nwe own. But it is _not_ the most sacred thing on earth. Martyrs slain\nfor the sake of principles which they could not truthfully deny;\npatriots who have died for their country; heroes who have sacrificed\nthemselves for others' good;--the very flower and glory of humanity\nrise up in a vast crowd to protest that conscience, honour, love,\nself-devotion, are more precious to the race than is the life of the\nindividual. Life is sacred, but it may be laid down in a noble cause;\nlife is sacred, but it must bend before the holier sacredness of\nprinciple; life which, though sacred, can be destroyed, is as nothing\nbefore the indestructible ideals which claim from every noble soul the\nsacrifice of personal happiness, of personal greatness, yea, of personal\nlife.*\n\n     * The word \"life\" is here used in the sense of \"personal\n     existence in this world.\" It is, of course, not intended to\n     be asserted that life is really destructible, but only that\n     personal existence, or identity, may be destroyed. And\n     further, no opinion is given on the possibility of life\n     otherwhere than on this globe; nothing is spoken of except\n     life on earth, under the conditions of human existence.\n\nIt will be conceded, then, on all hands, that the proposition that life\nis sacred must be accepted with many limitations: the proposition, in\nfact, amounts only to this, that life must not be voluntarily laid down\nwithout grave and sufficient cause. What we have to consider is, whether\nthere are present, in any proposed euthanasia, such conditions as\noverbear considerations for the acknowledged sanctity of life. We\ncontend that in the cases in which it is proposed that death should be\nhastened, these conditions do exist.\n\nWe will not touch here on the question of the endurance of pain as a\nduty, for we will examine that further on. But is it a matter of no\nimportance that a sufferer should condemn his attendants to a prolonged\ndrain on their health and strength, in order to cling to a life which is\nuseless to others, and a burden to himself? The nurse who tends, perhaps\nfor weeks, a bed of agony, for which there is no cure but death--whose\nsenses are strained by intense watchfulness--whose nerves are racked\nby witnessing torture which she is powerless to alleviate--is, by\nher self-devotion, sowing in her own constitution the seeds of\nill-health--that is to say, she is deliberately shortening her own life.\nWe have seen that we have a right to shorten life in obedience to a call\nof duty, and it will at once be said that the nurse is obeying such a\ncall. But has the nurse a right to sacrifice her own life--and an\ninjury to health is a sacrifice of life--for an obviously unequivalent\nadvantage? We are apt to forget, because the injury is partially veiled\nto us, that we touch the sacredness of life whenever we touch health:\nevery case of over-work, of over-strain, of over-exertion, is, so to\nspeak, a modified case of euthanasia. To poison the spring of life is\nas real a tampering with the sacredness of life as it is to check its\ncourse. The nurse is really committing a slow euthanasia. Either the\npatient or the nurse must commit an heroic suicide for the sake of the\nother--which shall it be? Shall the life be sacrificed, which is torture\nto its possessor, useless to society, and whose bounds are already\nclearly marked? or shall a strong and healthy life, with all its future\npossibilities, be undermined and sacrificed _in addition to that which\nis already doomed?_ But, granting that the sublime generosity of the\nnurse stays not to balance the gain with the loss, but counts herself as\nnothing in the face of a human need, then surely it is time to urge then\nto permit this self-sacrifice is an error, and that to accept it is a\ncrime. If it be granted that the throwing away of life for a manifestly\nunequivalent gain is wrong, that we ought not to blind ourselves to the\nfact, that to sacrifice a healthy life in order to lengthen by a few\nshort weeks a doomed life, is a grave moral error, however much it may\nbe redeemed in the individual by the glory of a noble self-devotion.\nAllowing to the full the honour due to the heroism of the nurse, what\nare we to say to the patient who accepts the sacrifice? What are we to\nthink of the morality of a human being who, in order to preserve the\nmiserable remnant of life left to him, allows another to shorten life?\nIf we honour the man who sacrifices himself to defend his family, or\nrisks his own life to save theirs, we must surely blame him who, on the\ncontrary, sacrifices those he ought to value most, in order to prolong\nhis own now useless existence. The measure of our admiration for the\none, must be the measure of our pity for the weakness and selfishness of\nthe other. If it be true that the man who dies for his dear ones on the\nbattlefield is a hero, he who voluntarily dies for them on his bed of\nsickness is a hero no less brave. But it is urged that _life is the gift\nof God, and must only be taken back by the Giver of life_, I suppose\nthat in any sense in which it can be supposed true that life is the gift\nof God, it can only be taken back by the giver--that is to say, that\njust as life is produced in accordance with certain laws, so it can\nonly be destroyed in accordance with certain other laws. Life is not the\ndirect gift of a superior power: it is the gift of man to man and\nanimal to animal, produced by the voluntary agent, and not by God, under\nphysical conditions, on the fulfilment of which alone the production of\nlife depends. The physical conditions must be observed if we desire to\nproduce life, and so must they be if we desire to destroy life. In\nboth cases man is the voluntary agent, in both law is the means of his\naction. If life-giving is God's doing, then life-destroying is his doing\ntoo. But this is not what is intended by the proposers of this aphorism.\nIf they will pardon me for translating their somewhat vague proposition\ninto more precise language, they say that they find themselves in\npossession of a certain thing called life, which must have come from\n_somewhere_; and as in popular language the unknown is always the\ndivine, it must have come from God: therefore this life must only be\ntaken from them by a cause that also proceeds from _somewhere_--i e.,\nfrom an unknown cause--i e., from the Divine will. Chloroform comes from\na visible agent, from the doctor or nurse, or at least from a bottle,\nwhich can be taken up or left alone at our own choice. If we swallow\nthis, the cause of death is known, and is evidently not divine; but if\nwe go into a house where scarlet fever is raging, although we are in\nthat case voluntarily running the chance of taking poison quite as truly\nas if we swallow a dose of chloroform, yet if we die from the infection,\nwe can imagine the illness to be sent from God. Wherever we think the\nelement of chance comes in, there we are able to imagine that God rules\ndirectly. We quite overlook the fact that there is no such thing as\nchance. There is only our ignorance of law, not a break in natural\norder. If our constitution be susceptible of the particular poison\nto which we expose it, we take the disease. If we knew the laws of\ninfection as accurately as we know the laws affecting chloroform,\nwe should be able to foresee with like certainty the inevitable\nconsequence; and our ignorance does not make the action of either set of\nlaws less unchangeable or more divine. But in the \"happy-go-lucky\" style\nof thought peculiar to ignorance, the Christian disregards the fact\nthat infection is ruled by definite laws, and believes that health and\nsickness are the direct expressions of the will of his God, and not the\ninvariable consequence of obscure but probably discoverable antecedents;\nso he boldly goes into the back slums of London to nurse a family\nstricken down with fever, and knowingly and deliberately runs \"the\nchance\" of infection--i e., knowingly and deliberately runs the chance\nof taking poison, or rather of having poison poured into his frame.\nThis he does, trusting that the nobility of his motive will make the\nact right in God's sight. Is it more noble to relieve the sufferings of\nstrangers, than to relieve the sufferings of his family? or is it more\nheroic to die of voluntarily-contracted fever, than of voluntarily-taken\nchloroform?\n\nThe argument that _life must only be taken back by the life-giver_,\nwould, if thoroughly carried out, entirely prevent all dangerous\noperations. In the treatment of some diseases there are operations that\nwill either kill or cure: the disease must certainly be fatal if left\nalone; while the proposed operation may save life, it may equally\ndestroy it, and thus may take life some time before the giver of life\nwanted to take it back. Evidently, then, such operations should not\nbe performed, since there is risked so grave an interference with the\ndesires of the life-giver. Again, doctors act very wrongly when they\nallow certain soothing medicines to be taken when all hope is gone,\nwhich they refuse so long as a chance of recovery remains: what\nright have they to _compel_ the life-giver to follow out his apparent\nintentions? In some cases of painful disease, it is now usual to produce\npartial or total unconsciousness by the injection of morphia, or by the\nuse of some other anaesthetic. Thus, I have known a patient subjected to\nthis kind of treatment, when dying from a tumour in the aesophagus; he\nwas consequently for some weeks before his death, kept in a state\nof almost complete unconsciousness, for if he were allowed to become\nconscious, his agony was so unendurable as to drive him wild. He was\nthus, although breathing, practically dead for weeks before his death.\nWe cannot but wonder, in view of such a case as his, what it is that\npeople mean when they talk of \"life.\" Life includes, surely, not only\nthe involuntary animal functions, such as the movements of heart and\nlungs; but consciousness, thought, feeling, emotion. Of the various\nconstituents of human life, surely those are not the most \"sacred\" which\nwe share with the brute, however necessary these may be as the basis on\nwhich the rest are built. It is thought, then, that we may rightfully\ndestroy all that constitutes the beauty and nobility of human life, we\nmay kill thought, slay consciousness, deaden emotion, stop feeling,\nwe may do all this, and leave lying on the bed before us a breathing\nfigure, from which we have taken all the nobler possibilities of life;\nbut we may not touch the purely animal existence; we may rightly\ncheck the action of the nerves and the brain, but we must not dare to\noutrage-the Deity by checking the action of the heart and the lungs.\n\nWe ask, then, for the legalisation of euthanasia, because it is in\naccordance with the highest morality yet known, that which teaches the\nduty of self sacrifice for the greater good of others, because it is\nsanctioned in principle by every service performed at personal danger\nand injury, and because-it is already partially practised by modern\nimprovements in medical science.\n\n_Euthanasia is an interference with the course of nature, and its\nherefore an act of rebellion against God_. In considering this\nobjection, we are placed in difficulty by not being told what sense our\nopponents attach to the word \"nature\"; and we are obliged once more\nto ask pardon for forcing these vague and high-flown arguments into a\nhumiliating precision of meaning. Nature, in the widest sense of the\nword, includes all natural laws: and in this sense it is of course\nimpossible to interfere with nature at all. We live, and move, and have\nour being in nature; and we can no more get outside it than we can get\noutside everything. With this-nature we cannot interfere: we can study\nits laws, and learn how to balance one law against another, so as to\nmodify results; but this can only be done by and through nature itself.\nThe \"interference with the course of nature\" which is intended in the\nabove objection does not of course mean this impossible proceeding; and\nit can then only mean an interference with things which would proceed\nin one course without human agency meddling with them, but which are\nsusceptible of being turned into another course by human agency. If\ninterference with nature's course be a rebellion against God, we are\nrebelling against God every day of our lives. Every achievement of\ncivilisation is an interference with nature. Every artificial comfort we\nenjoy is an improvement on nature. Everybody professes to approve and\nadmire many great triumphs of art over nature: the junction by bridges\nof shores which nature had made separate, the draining of nature's\nmarshes, the excavation of her wells, the dragging to light of what\nshe has buried at immense depths in the earth, the turning away of her\nthunderbolts by lightning-rods, of her inundations by embankments, of\nher ocean by breakwaters. But to commend these and similar feats, is\nto acknowledge that the ways of nature are to be conquered, not obeyed;\nthat her powers are often towards man in the position of enemies, from\nwhom he must wrest, by force and ingenuity, what little he can for his\nown use, and deserves to be applauded when that little is rather more\nthan might be expected from his physical weakness in comparison to those\ngigantic powers. All praise of civilisation, or art, or contrivance, is\nso much dispraise of nature; an admission of imperfection, which it\nis man's business, and merit, to be always endeavouring to correct or\nmitigate.*\n\n     * \"Essay on Nature,\" by John Stuart Mill.\n\nIt is difficult to understand how anyone, contemplating the course of\nnature, can regard it as the expression of a Divine will, which man has\nno right to improve upon. Natural law is essentially unreasoning and\nunmoral: gigantic forces clash around us on every side unintelligent,\nand unvarying in their action. With equal impassiveness these blind\nforces produce vast benefits and work vast catastrophes. The benefits\nare ours, if we are able to grasp them; but nature troubles itself not,\nwhether we take them or leave them alone. The catastrophes may rightly\nbe averted, if we can avert them; but nature stays not its grinding\nwheel for our moans. Even allowing that a Supreme Intelligence gave\nthese forces their being, it is manifest that he never intended man to\nbe their plaything, or to do them homage; for man is dowered with reason\nto calculate, and with genius to foresee; and into man's hands is given\nthe realm of nature (in this world) to cultivate, to govern, to improve.\nSo long as men believed that a god wielded the thunderbolt, so long\nwould a lightning-conductor be an outrage on Jove; so long as a god\nguided each force of nature, so long would it be impiety to resist,\nor to endeavour to regulate the divine volitions. Only as experience\ngradually proved that no evil consequences followed each amendment of\nnature, were natural forces withdrawn, one by one, from the sphere\nof the unknown and the divine. Now, even pain, that used to be God's\nscourge, is soothed by chloroform, and death alone is left for nature\nto inflict, with what lingering agony it may. But why should death,\nany more than other ills, be left entirely to the clumsy, unassisted\nprocesses of nature?--why, after struggling against nature all our\nlives, should we let it reign unopposed in death? There are some natural\nevils that we cannot avert. Pain and death are of these; but we can dull\npain by dulling feeling, and we can ease by shortening its pangs. Nature\nkills by slow and protracted torture; we can defy it by choosing a rapid\nand painless end. It is only the remains of the old superstition that\nmakes men think that to take life is the special prerogative of\nthe gods. With marvellous inconsistency, however, the opponents of\neuthanasia do not scruple to \"interfere with the course of nature\" on\nthe one hand, while they forbid us to interfere on the other. It is\nright to prolong pain by art, although it is wrong to shorten it. When a\nperson is smitten down with some fearful and incurable disease, they do\nnot leave him to nature; on the contrary, they check and thwart nature\nin every possible way; they cherish the life that nature has blasted;\nthey nourish the strength that nature is undermining; they delay each\nprocess of decay which nature sows in the disordered frame; they contest\nevery inch of ground with nature to preserve life; and then, when life\nmeans torture, and we ask permission to step in and quench it, they cry\nout that we are interfering with nature. If they would leave nature to\nitself, the disease would generally kill with tolerable rapidity; but\nthey will not do this. They will only admit the force of their own\nargument when it tells on the side of what they choose to consider\nright. \"Against nature,\" is the cry with which many a modern improvement\nhas been howled at; and it will continue to be raised, until it is\ngenerally acknowledged that happiness, and not nature, is the true guide\nto morality, and until men recognises that nature is to be harnessed to\nhis car of triumph, and to bend its mighty forces to fulfil the human\nwill.\n\n_Pain is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted by God, and should\ntherefore be patiently endured._ Does anyone, except a self-torturing\nascetic, endure any pain which he can get rid of? This might be deemed\na sufficient answer to this objection, for common sense always bids\nus avoid all possible pain, and daily experience tells us that people\ninvariably evade pain, wherever such evasion is possible. The objection\nought to run: \"pain is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted by God,\nwhich is to be got rid of as soon as possible, but ought to be patiently\nendured when unavoidable.\" Pain as pain has no recommendations,\nspiritual or otherwise; nor is there the smallest merit in a voluntary\nand needless submission to pain. As to its remedial and educational\nadvantages, it as often as not sours the temper and hardens the heart;\nif a person endures great physical or mental pain with unruffled\npatience, and comes out of it with uninjured tenderness and sweetness,\nwe may rest assured that we have come across a rare and beautiful nature\nof exceptional strength. As a general rule, pain, especially if it be\nmental, hardens and roughens the character. The use of anaesthetics is\nutterly indefensible, if physical pain is to be regarded as a special\ntool whereby God cultivates the human soul. If God is directly acting on\nthe sufferer's body, and is educating his soul by racking his nerves,\nby what right does the doctor step between with his impious anaesthetic,\nand by reducing the patient to unconsciousness, deprive God of his\npupil, and man of his lesson? If pain be a sacred ark, over which hovers\nthe divine glory, surely it must be a sinful act to touch the holy\nthing. We may be inflicting incalculable spiritual damage by frustrating\nthe divine plan of education, which was corporeal agony as a spiritual\nagent. Therefore, if this argument be good for anything at all, we\nmust from henceforth eschew all anaesthetics, we must take no steps\nto alleviate human agony, we must not venture to interfere with this\nbeneficent agent, but must leave nature to torture us it will. But we\nutterly deny that the unnecessary endurance of pain is even a merit,\nmuch less a duty; on the contrary, we believe that it is our duty to\nwar against pain as much as possible, to alleviate it wherever we cannot\nstop it entirely; and, where continuous and frightful agony can only end\nin death, then to give to the sufferer the relief he craves for, in\nthe sleep which is mercy. \"It is a mercy God has taken him,\" is an\nexpression often heard when the racked frame at last lies quiet, and the\nwrithed features settle slowly into the peaceful smile of the dead. That\nmercy we plead that man should be allowed to give to man, when human\nskill and human tenderness have done their best, and when they have left\nwithin their reach no greater boon than a speedy and painless death.\n\nWe are not aware that any objection, which may not be classed under one\nor other of these three heads, has been levelled against the proposition\nthat euthanasia should be legalised. It has, indeed, been suggested that\nto put into-a doctor's hands this \"power of life and death,\" would be\nto offer a dangerous temptation to those who have any special object to\ngain by putting a troublesome person quietly out of the way. But this\nobjection overlooks the fact that the patient himself must _ask_ for the\ndraught, that stringent precautions can be taken to render euthanasia\nimpossible except at the patient's earnestly, or even repeatedly,\nexpressed wish, that any doctor or attendant, neglecting to take these\nprecautions, would then, as now, be liable to all the penalties for\nmurder or for manslaughter; and that an ordinary doctor would no more\nbe ready to face these penalties then, than he is now, although he\nundoubtedly has now the power of putting the patient to death with but\nlittle chance of discovery. Euthanasia would not render murder less\ndangerous than it is at present, since no one asks that a nurse may be\nempowered to give a patient a dose which would ensure death, or that she\nmight be allowed to shield herself from punishment on the plea that the\npatient desired it. If our opponents would take the trouble to find out\nwhat we do ask, before they condemn our propositions, it would greatly\nsimplify public discussion, not alone in this case, but in many proposed\nreforms.\n\nIt may be well, also, to point out the wide line of demarcation which\nseparated euthanasia from what is ordinarily called suicide. Euthanasia,\nlike suicide, is a voluntarily chosen death, but there is a radical\ndifference between the motives which prompt the similar act. Those who\ncommit suicide thereby render themselves useless to society for the\nfuture; they deprive society of their services, and selfishly evade\nthe duties which ought to fall to their share; therefore, the social\nfeelings rightly condemn suicide as a crime against society. I do not\nsay that under no stress of circumstances is suicide justifiable; that\nis not the question; but I wish to point out that it is justly regarded\nas a social offence. But the very motive which restrains from suicide,\nprompts to euthanasia. The sufferer who knows that he is lost to\nsociety, that he can never again serve his fellow-men; who knows, also,\nthat he is depriving society of the services of those who uselessly\nexhaust themselves for him, and is further injuring it by undermining\nthe health of its healthy members, feels urged by the very social\ninstincts which would prevent him from committing suicide while in\nhealth, to yield a last service to society by relieving it from a\nuseless burden. Hence it is that Sir Thomas Moore, in the quotation with\nwhich he began this essay, makes the _social authorities_ of his ideal\nstate urge euthanasia as the duty of a faithful citizen, while they\nyet consistently reprobate ordinary suicide as a _lese-majeste_ a\ncrime against the State. The life of the individual is, in a sense, the\nproperty of society. The infant is nurtured, the child is educated,\nthe man is protected by others; and, in return for the life thus given,\ndeveloped, preserved, society has a right to demand from its members a\nloyal, self-forgetting devotion to the common weal. To serve humanity,\nto raise the race from which we spring, to dedicate every talent, every\npower, every energy, to the improvement of, and to the increase of\nhappiness in, society, this is the duty of each individual man and\nwoman. And, when we have given all we can, when strength is sinking,\nand life is failing, when pain racks our bodies, and the worse agony of\nseeing our dear ones suffer in our anguish tortures our enfeebled minds,\nwhen the only service we can render man is to relieve him of a useless\nand injurious burden, then we ask that we may be permitted to die\nvoluntarily and painlessly, and so to crown a noble life with the laurel\nwreath of a self-sacrificing death.\n\n\n\n\nON PRAYER.\n\nTHE mania for Prayer-meetings has lately been largely on the increase,\nand the continual efforts being made to\n\n     \"Move the arm that moves the world,\"\n\nnaturally draw one's attention strongly to the subject of Prayer; to its\nreasonableness, propriety, and prospect of success. If Prayer to God\nbe reverent as towards the Deity, if it be consistent with his\nimmutability, with his foreknowledge, with his wisdom, and with\nevery kind of trust in his goodness--if it be also, as regards man,\npermissible by science, and approved by experience, then there can be\nno doubt at all that it should be sedulously practised, and should be of\nuniversal obligation. But if it be at once useless and absurd, if it be\nforbidden by reason and frowned at by common sense, if it weaken man and\nbe irreverent towards the Being to whom it is said to be addressed, then\nit will be well for all who practise it to reconsider their position,\nand at least to endeavour to give some solid reason for persisting in a\ncourse which is condemned by the intellect and is unneeded by the heart.\n\nThe practice of Prayer is generally founded upon the supposed position\nheld by man--first, as a creature towards his Creator, and secondly,\nas a child towards his Father in heaven. In its first aspect, it is a\nsimple act of homage from the inferior to the superior, parallel to the\ncourtesy shown by the subject to the monarch; it is an acknowledgment of\ndependence, and a sign of gratitude for the gifts which are supposed\nto be freely given by God to man--gifts which man has done nothing to\ndeserve, but which come from the free bounty of the giver. Putting aside\nthe whole question of God as Creator, which is not the point at issue,\nwe might argue that, since he brought us into this world without our\nrequest, and even without our consent, he is in duty bound to see that\nwe have all things necessary for our life and happiness in the world in\nwhich he has thus placed us. We might argue that the \"blessings\" said\nto be bestowed upon us, such as food, clothing, &c, can only be called\n\"given\" by a fiction, for that they are won by our own hard toil, and\nare never \"gifts from God\" in any real sense at all. Further, we might\nplead that we find \"bestowed\" upon us many things which are decidedly\nthe reverse of blessings, and that if gratitude be due to God for some\nthings, the contrary of gratitude is due to him for others; and that\nif praise be his right for the one, blame must be his desert for\nthe second. We should be thus forced into the logical, but somewhat\npeculiar, frame of mind of the savage, who caresses his fetish when it\nhears his prayers, and belabours it heartily when it fails to help him.\nBut, taking the position that Prayer is due from man by reason of his\ncreaturehood, it must surely be clear that it cannot be a proper way\nof manifesting a sense of inferiority to degrade the Being to whom the\nhomage is offered. Yet Prayer is essentially degrading to God, and the\ncharacter ascribed to him of \"a hearer and answerer of Prayer\" is a most\nlowering conception of Deity. For God to hear and to answer Prayer\nmeans that Prayer changes his action, making him do that which he would\notherwise have abstained from doing; it means that man is wiser than\nGod, and is able to instruct him in his duty; and it means that God is\nless loving than he ought to be, and will not bestow upon his creature\nthat which is good for him, unless he be importuned into giving it. We\nare told that God is immutable, \"the same yesterday, to-day, and for\never;\" \"God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he\nshould repent.\" If this be true--and surely immutability of purpose must\nbe a necessary characteristic of an all-wise and all-good Being--how can\nPrayer be anything more than a childish fretting against the inevitable?\nThe Changeless One has planned a certain course of action, and is\nsteadily carrying it out; in passionless serenity he goes upon his way;\nthen man breaks in with his feeble cries and petulant upbraidings,\nand actually turns God from his purpose, and changes the course of his\nprovidence. If Prayer does not do this it does nothing at all; either\nit changes the mind of God or it does not. If it does, God is at the\ndisposal of man's whim; if it does not, it is perfectly useless, and\nmight just as well be left undone. The parable told by Christ about the\nunjust judge (Luke xviii. 1-8) is a most extraordinary representation\nof God: \"Because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by\nher continual coming she weary me.... And shall not God avenge his own\nelect, which cry day and night unto him?\" Verily, the picture of the\ndivine justice is not an attractive one! The judge does his duty, not\nbecause it is his duty, not because the widow needs his aid, not because\nher cause is a just one, but \"lest by her continual coming she weary\"\nhim. There is only one moral to be drawn from this, namely, that God\nwill not care for his \"elect,\" because they are \"his own;\" that he will\nnot guard them, because it is his duty; but that, if they cry day and\nnight to him, he will attend to them, because the continual cry wearies\nhim, and he desires to silence it. In the same way God the immutable\nchanges at the sound of Prayer, not because the change will be better or\nwiser, but because man's cry \"wearies\" him, and he will be quiet if he\nobtains his petition. Surely the idea is as degrading as it can be; it\nputs God on a level with the unwise human parent, who allows himself to\nbe governed by the clamour of his children, and gives any favour to\nthe spoilt child, if only the child be tiresome enough in its petulant\npersistence.\n\nIs Prayer consistent with the _foreknowledge_ of God? It is one of the\nattributes ascribed to God that he knows all before it happens, and that\nthe future lies mapped out before him as clearly as does the past. If\nthis be so, is it more reasonable to pray about things in the future\nthan things in the past? No one is so utterly irrational as to pray to\nGod, in so many words, to change the things that are gone, or to alter\nthe record of the past. Yet, is it more rational to ask him to change\nthe things that are coming, and to alter the already-written chart of\nthe future? In reality, man's own eyes being blinded, he deems his God\nsuch an one as himself, and where he cannot _see_, he can allow himself\nto _hope_. But there is no excuse from the inexorable logic which\npierces us with one horn or the other of this dilemma, however we may\nwrithe in our efforts to escape them; either God knows the future or he\nknows it not; if he knows it, it cannot be altered, so it is of no use\nto pray about it, everything being already fixed; if he knows it not, he\nis not God, he is no wiser than man. But, then, some Christians argue,\nhe has pre-arranged that he will give this blessing in answer to Prayer,\nand he foreknows the Prayer as well as its answer. Then, after all, it\nis pre-determined whether we shall pray or not in any given case, and we\nhave only to follow the course along which we are impelled by an\nirresistible destiny; so the matter is beyond all discussion, and the\npower to pray, or not to pray, does not reside in us; if there is a\nblessing in store for us which needs the arm of Prayer to pluck it from\nthe tree on which it hangs, we shall inevitably pray for it at the right\nmoment, and thus--in his effort to escape from one difficulty--the\npraying Christian has landed himself in a worse one, for absolute\nforeknowledge implies complete determinism, and prevents all human\nresponsibility of any kind.\n\nIs Prayer consistent with the _wisdom_ of God? After all, what does\nPrayer mean, boldly stated? It means that man thinks that he knows\nbetter than God, and so he tells God that which ought to happen. Is\nthere any self-conceit so intolerable as that which pretends to bow\nitself in the dust before him who created and who upholds the infinite\nworlds which make up the universe, and which then sets itself to correct\nthe ordering of him who traced the orbits of the planets, and who\nmeasured the rule of suns? Finite wisdom instructing infinite\nwisdom; mortal reason laying down the course of immortal reason; low\nintelligence guiding supreme intelligence; man instructing God. All this\nis implied in the fact of Prayer, and every man who has prayed, and who\nbelieves in God, ought to cast himself down in passionate humiliation\nbefore the wisdom he has insulted and impugned, and ask pardon for\nthe insolent presumption which dared to lay hands on the helm of the\nSupreme, and to dream that man could be more wise than God. At least,\nthose who believe in God might be humble enough to acknowledge his\nsuperiority to themselves, and if they demand that homage should be paid\nto him by their brethren, they should also confess him to be wiser and\nhigher than they are themselves.\n\nIs Prayer consistent with _trust in the goodness_ of God? Surely Prayer\nis a distinct refusal to trust, and is a proclamation that we think\nthat we could do better for ourselves than God will do for us. If God\nbe \"good and loving to every man,\" it is manifest that, without any\npressure being put upon him, he will do for each the best thing that\ncan possibly be done. The people of Madagascar are wiser, in this matter\nthan the people who throng our churches and our chapels, for they say,\naddressing the good Spirit, \"We need not pray to thee, for thou, without\nour prayers, wilt give us all things that be good for us;\" and then they\nturn to the evil Spirit, saying, that they must pray to _him_ lest, if\nthey do not, he should work them harm, and send troubles in their way.\nPrayer implies that God judges all good gifts, and will withhold them\nunless they are wrung from his reluctant hands; it denies that he loves\nhis creatures, and is good to all. In addition to this, it also\nimplies that we will not trust him to judge what is best for us; on the\ncontrary, we prefer to judge for ourselves, and to have our own way. If\na trouble comes, it is prayed against, and God is besought \"to remove\nhis heavy hand.\" What does this mean, except that when God sends sorrow,\nman clamours for joy, and when God deems it best that his child should\nweep, the child demands cause for smiles? If people trusted God,\nas they pretend to trust him--if the phrases of the Sunday were the\npractice of the week--if men believed that God's ways were higher than\nman's ways, and his thoughts than their thoughts--then no Prayer would\never ascend from earth to the \"Throne of grace,\" and man would welcome\njoy and sorrow, peace and care, wealth and poverty, as wise men welcome\nnature's order, when the rain comes down to swell the seed for the\nharvest, and the sunshine glows down upon earth to burnish the golden\ngrain.\n\nBut, say the praying Christians, even if Prayer be not defensible as\nhomage from the creature to the Creator, in that it lowers our idea of\nGod, it must surely yet be natural as the instinctive cry from the child\nto the Father in heaven; and then follow arguments drawn from the family\nand the home, and the need of communion between parent and child. As a\nmatter of fact,--taking the analogy, imperfect as it is--do we find much\nPrayer, as from child to parent, in the best and the happiest homes; _is\nnot the amount of asking the exact measure of the imperfection of the\nrelationship?_ The wiser and the kinder the parent, the less will the\nchild ask for; rather, it learns from experience to trust the older\nwisdom, and to be contented with the love which is ever giving,\nunsolicited, all good things. At the most, the simple expression of\nthe child's wish is all that is needed, if the child desire anything\nof which the parent have not thought; and even this mere statement of a\nwish is still the result of _imperfection, i e._, the want of knowledge\non the parent's part of the child's mind and heart In this case there\nis no pleading, no urging; the single request and single answer suffice;\nthere is nothing which corresponds with the idea of the prophet to\npray to God and to \"give him no rest\" until he grant the petition. In a\nwell-ordered home, the child who persisted in pressing his request\nwould receive a rebuke for his want of trust, and for his conceited\nself-sufficiency; and yet _this_ is the analogy on which Prayer to God\nis built up, and in this fashion \"natural instincts\" are dragged in, in\norder to support supernatural and artificial cravings.\n\nLeaving Prayer, as it affects man's relationship to God, let us look at\nit as it regards man's relationship to things around him, and ask if it\nbe permitted by our scientific knowledge, and approved by experience and\nby history. The chief lesson of science is that all things work by law,\nthat we dwell in a realm of law, and that _nothing_ goes by chance. All\nscience is built up upon this idea; science is not possible unless this\nprimary rule be correct; science is only the codified experience of the\nrace, the observed sequence of to-day marked down for the guidance of\nto-morrow, the teaching of the past hived up for the improvement of\nthe future. But all this accumulation and correlation of facts becomes\nuseless if laws can be broken--i e., if this observed sequence of\nphenomena can be suddenly broken by the interposition of an unknown and\nincalculable force, acting spasmodically and guided by no discoverable\norder of action. Science is impossible if these \"providential\noccurrences\" may take place at any moment. A physician, in writing his\nprescription, selects the drugs which experience has pointed out as the\nsuitable remedy for the disease under which his patient is labouring.\nThese drugs have a certain effect upon the tissues of the human frame,\nand the physician calculates on this effect being produced; but if\nPrayer is to come in as a factor, of what use the physician's science?\nHere is suddenly introduced--to speak figuratively--a new drug of\nunknown power, and the effect of medicine plus Prayer can in no way be\ncalculated upon. The prescription is either efficient or non-efficient;\nif it be efficient, Prayer is unnecessary, as the cure would take place\nwithout it; if it be non-efficient, and Prayer makes up the deficiency,\nthen medical science is not needed, for the impotency of the drugs can\nalways be balanced by the potency of the Prayer. This argument may be\nused as regards every science. Prayer is put up for a ship which goes to\nsea. The ship is fitted for the perils it encounters, or it is unfit. If\nfitted, it arrives safely without Prayer; if, though unfit, it\narrives, being guarded by Prayer, then Prayer becomes a factor in the\nshipbuilder's calculations, and sound timbers and strong rivets sink\ninto minor importance. If it be argued that to speak thus is to use\nPrayer unfairly, because it is our duty to take every proper means to\nensure safety, what, is this except to say that, after all, Prayer is\nonly a fiction, and that while we bow our knees to God, and pretend to\nlook to _him_ for safety, we are really looking to the strong timbers of\nthe ship-builder, and to the skill of the captain?\n\nScience teaches, also, that all phenomena are the results of preceding\nphenomena, and that an unbroken sequence of cause and effect stretches\nback further than our poor thoughts can reach. In stately harmony all\nNature moves, evolving link after link of the endless chain, each link\nbound firmly to its predecessor, and affording, in its turn, the same\nsupport to its successor. Prayer is put up in the churches for fair\nweather; but rain and sunshine do not follow each other by chance, they\nobey a changeless law. To alter the weather of to-day means to alter\nthe weather of countless yesterdays, which have faded away, one after\nanother, \"into the infinite azure of the past.\" The weather of to-day\nis the result of all those long-past phases of temperature, and, unless\nthey were altered, no change is pos sible to-day. The Prayer that goes\nup in English churches should really run:--\"O God, we pray thee to\nchange all that thou hast wrought in the past; we, to-day, in this petty\ncorner of thy world, are discontented with thy ordering; we desire of\nthee, then, that, to pleasure our fancy, thou wilt unroll the record of\nthe past, and change all its order, remoulding its history to suit our\nconvenience here to-day.\" It is difficult to say which is the worse, the\nself-conceit which deems its own petty needs worthy of such complaisance\nof Deity, or the ignorance which forgets the absurdities implied in the\nrequest it makes. But, after all, it is the ignorance which is to blame:\nthese Prayers were written when science was scarcely born; in those days\nGod was the immediate cause of each phenomena, sending rain from heaven\nwhen it pleased him, thundering from heaven against his enemies, pouring\nhailstones from heaven to slay his foes, opening and closing the windows\nof heaven to punish a wicked king or to pleasure an angry prophet. In\nthose days heaven was very close to earth: so near that when it opened,\nthe dying Stephen could see and recognise the form and features of the\nSon of Man; so near that, lest man should build a tower which should\nreach it, God had himself to descend and discomfit the builders. All\nthese things were true to the writers whose words are repeated in\nEnglish churches in the nineteenth century, and they naturally\nbelieved that what God wrought in days of old he could work also among\nthemselves. But knowledge has shattered the fairy fabric which fancy had\nraised up; astronomy built towers--not of Babel--from which men could\ngauge the heaven, and find that through illimitable ether worlds\ninnumerable rolled, and that where the throne of God should have been\nseen, suns and planets sped on their ceaseless rounds. Further and\nfurther back, the ancient God who dwelt among men was pressed back,\ntill now, at last, no room is found for spasmodic divine solutions, but\nNature's mighty order rolls on uninterrupted, in a silence unbroken by\nvoice and undisturbed by miraculous volitions, bound by a golden chain\nof inviolable law. The most learned and the most thoughtful Christian\npeople now acknowledge that prayer is out of place in dealing with\n\"natural order;\" but surely it is time that they should make their\nvoices heard plainly, so as to erase from the Prayer-book these obsolete\nnotions, born of an ignorance which the world has now outgrown. Few\nreally _believe_ in the power of Prayer over the weather, but people go\non from the sheer force of habit, repeating, parrot-like, phrases which\nhave lost their meaning, because they are too indolent to exert thought,\nor too fettered by habit to test the Prayer of the Sunday by the\nstandard of the week. When people begin to _think_ of what they repeat\nso glibly, the battle of Free Thought will have been won.\n\nMany earnest people, however, while recognising the fact that Prayer\nought not to be used for rain, fine weather, and the like, yet think\nthat it may be rightly employed to obtain \"spiritual benefits.\" Is\nnot this idea also the product of ignorance? When men knew nothing of\nnatural laws they thought they could gain natural benefits by Prayer;\nnow that people know nothing of \"spiritual\" laws, they think they can\ngain \"spiritual\" benefits by Prayer. In each case the Prayer springs\nfrom ignorance. Is it really more reasonable to expect to gain\nmiraculous spiritual strength from Prayer, than to expect to give\nvigour, by Prayer, to arms enfeebled by fever? Growth, slow and steady,\nis Nature's law; no sudden leaps are possible; and no Prayer will give\nthat spiritual stature which only develops by continual effort, and by\n\"patient continuance in well-doing.\" The mind--which is probably what\nis generally meant by the word \"spirit\"--has its own laws, according to\nwhich it grows and strengthens; it is moulded, formed, developed, as\nthe body is, by the play of the circumstances around it, and by the\norganisation with which it comes into the world, and which it has\ninherited from a long race of ancestors. Here, too, inexorable law\nsurrounds all, and in mind, as in matter, the \"reign of law\" Is\nall-embracing, all-compelling.\n\nIs Prayer approved by experience? It seems necessary here to refer to\nthe experience of some, who say that they have found Prayer strengthen\nthem to meet a trouble which they had dreaded, or to accomplish a duty\nfor which their own ability was insufficient. This appears to be very\nprobable, but the reason is not far to seek, and as the explanation of\nthe increased strength may be purely natural, it seems unnecessary to\nsearch for a supernatural cause. Prayer, when earnest and heartfelt,\nappears to exert a kind of reflex action on the person praying, the\npetition not piercing heaven, but falling back upon earth. A duty has\nto be done or a trouble has to be faced; the person affected prays\nfor help, and by the intense concentration of his thoughts, and by the\npassion of his desire, he naturally gains a strength he had not, when\nhe was less deeply and thoroughly in earnest. Again, the interior\nconviction that a olivine strength is on his side, nerves his heart and\nbraces his courage: the soldier fights with a tenfold courage when he\nis sure that endurance will make victory a certainty. But all this is no\nproof that God hears and answers Prayer; if it were so, it would prove\nalso that the Virgin Mother, and all the saints, and Buddha, and Brahma,\nand Vishnu were alike hearers and answerers of Prayer. In all cases\nthe sincere worshipper gains strength and comfort, and finds the same\n\"answer\" to his Prayer. Yet surely no one will contend that all these\nare \"Prayer-hearing and Prayer-answering\" Gods? This fancied answer is\nnot a proof of the truth of the worshipper's belief, but is only a proof\n_of his conviction of its truth_; not the soundness of the belief, but\nthe sincerity of the conviction, is proved by the glow and ardour which\nsucceed the act of Prayer. All the dormant energies are aroused; the\nsoul's whole strength is put forth; the worshipper is warmed by the fire\nstruck from his own heart, and is thrilled with the electricity which\nresides in his own frame. So far, Prayer is found to be answered,\njust as every strong conviction, however erroneous, is found to confer\nincreased strength and vigour on him who possesses it. But, excepting\nthis, Prayer is not proved to be efficacious when tested by experience.\nHow many Prayers have gone up to the Father in heaven from his children\noverwhelmed in the sea, and drowning in floods, and encircled by fire?\nHow many passionate appeals of patriots and martyrs, of exiles and of\nslaves? How many cries of anguish from beside the beds of the dying,\nand the fresh graves of the newly-dead? In vain the wife's wail for the\nhusband, the mother's pleading for the only child; no voice has answered\n\"Weep not;\" no command has replied, \"Rise up;\" the Prayers have fallen\nback on the breaking heart, poor white-winged birds that have tried\nto fly towards heaven, but have only sunk back to earth, their breasts\nbruised and bleeding from striking against the iron bars of a pitiless\nand relentless fate. So continually has Prayer failed to win an answer,\nthat, in spite of the clearness and the force of the Bible promises in\nregard to it, Christians have found themselves obliged to limit their\nextent, and to say that God judges whether or no it will be beneficial\nfor the worshipper to grant the petition, and if the Prayer be a\nmistaken one he will, in mercy, withhold the implored-for boon. Of\ncourse, this prevents Prayer from being ever tested by experience at\nall, because whenever a Prayer remains unanswered the reply is ready,\nthat \"it was not according to the will of God.\" This means, that we\ncannot test the value of Prayer in any way; we must accept its worth\nwholly as a matter of faith; we must pray because we are bidden to do\nso, and fulfil an useless form which affords no tangible results. In\nthis melancholy position are we landed by an appeal to experience, by\nwhich we are challenged to test the value of Prayer.\n\nThe answer of history is even yet more emphatic. The Ages of Prayer\nare the Dark Ages of the world. When learning was crushed out, and\nsuperstition was rampant, when wisdom was called witchcraft, and priests\nruled Europe, then Prayer was always rising up to God from the countless\nmonasteries where men dwarfed themselves into monks, and from the\nconvents where women shrivelled up into nuns. The sound of the bell that\ncalled to Prayer was never silent, and the time that was needed for work\nwas wasted in Prayer, and in the straining to serve God the service of\nman was neglected and despised.\n\nThere is one obvious fact that throws into bright relief the absurdity\nof Prayer. Two people pray for exactly opposite things; whose Prayers\nare to be answered? Two armies ask for victory; which is to be crowned?\nAmongst ourselves, now, the Church is divided into two opposing camps,\nand while the Ritualists appeal to God for protection, the Evangelical\nclamour also for his aid. To which is he to bend his ear? which Prayer\nis he to answer? Both appeal to his promises; both urge that his honour\nis pledged to them by the word he has given; yet it is simply impossible\nthat he should grant the Prayer of both, because the Prayer of the one\nis the direct contradiction of the prayer of the other.\n\nAgain, none of the believers in Prayer appear to consider, that, if it\nwere true that Prayer is so powerful a weapon--if it were true that by\nPrayer man can prevail with God--it would then be madness ever to pray\nat all. To pray would be as dangerous a thing as to put a cavalry sword\ninto the hands of a child just strong enough to lift it, but unable to\ncontrol it, or to understand the danger of its blows. Who can tell all\nthe results to himself and to others which might flow from a granted\nPrayer, a Prayer made in all honesty of purpose, but in ignorance and\nshort-sightedness? If Prayers really brought answers it would be most\nwickedly reckless ever to pray at all, as wickedly reckless as if a\nman, to quench a moment's thirst, pierced a hole in a reservoir of water\nwhich overhung a town.\n\nBut, in spite of all arguments, in spite of all that reason can urge and\nthat logic can prove, it is probable that many will still cling to the\npractice of Prayer, craving for the relief it gives to the feelings\nof the heart, however much it may be condemned by the judgment of the\nintellect. They seem to think that they will lose a great inspiration to\nwork if they give up \"communion with God,\" and that they will miss the\nglow of ardour which they deem they have caught from Prayer. But\nsurely it may fairly be urged on them that no real good can arise\nfrom continuing a practice which it is impossible to defend when it is\ncarefully analysed. Prayer is as the artificial stimulant which excites,\nbut does not strengthen, and lends a factitious brightness, which is\nfollowed by deeper depression. Those who have prayed most have often\nstated that \"seasons of special blessing\" are generally followed by\n\"special temptations of Satan.\" The reaction follows on the unreal\nexcitation, and the soul that has been flying in heaven grovels upon\nearth. To the patient who is weak and depressed from long illness, the\nbright air of the morning seems chill and cold, and he yearns for the\nwarmth of the artificial stimulants to which he has grown accustomed;\nyet better for him is it to gain health from the morning breezes, and\nstimulus from the glad clear sunshine, than to yield to the craving\nwhich is a relic of his disease. If they who find in communion with God\na sweetness which is lacking when they commune with their brethren--if\nthey who cultivate dependence on God would learn the true dependence of\nman on man--if they who yearn for the invisible would concentrate their\nenergies on the visible--then they would soon find a sweetness in labour\nwhich would compensate for the languor of Prayer, and they would learn\nto draw from the joy of serving men, and from the serene strength of\nan earnest life, a warmth of inspiration, a passion of fervour, an\nexhaustless fount of energy, beside which all Prayer-given ardour would\nseem dull and nerveless, in the glow of which the fancied warmth of\nGod-communion would seem as the pale cold moonshine in the glory of the\nrising sun.\n\n\n\n\nCONSTRUCTIVE RATIONALISM.\n\nIT is a common complaint against the Rationalistic school of thought\nthat they can destroy but cannot construct; that they tear down, but do\nnot build up; that they are armed only with the axe and with the sword,\nand not with the trowel and the mason's line. \"We have had enough of\nnegations,\" is a common cry; \"give us something positive.\" Much of this\nfeeling is foolish and unreasonable; the negation of error, where\nerror is supreme, is necessary before the assertion of truth can become\npossible. Before a piece of ground can be sown with wheat, it must be\ncleared of the weeds which infest it; before a solid house can be built\nin the place of a crumbling ruin, the ancient rubbish must be carried\noff, and the rotten walls must be thoroughly pulled down. Destructive\ncriticism is necessary and wholesome; the heavy battering-ram of science\nmust thunder against the walls of the churches; the swift arrows of\nlogic must rain on the black-robed army; the keen lance-points of\nirony must pierce through the leather jerkin of superstition. But the\ndestruction of orthodox Christianity being accomplished, there remains\nfor the Rationalist much more to do. He has to frame a code which shall\nrule in the place of the code of Moses and of Jesus; he has to found\na morality which shall replace the morality of the Bible; he has to\nconstruct an ideal which shall be as attractive as the ideal of the\nChurches; he has to proclaim laws which shall supersede revelation: in a\nword, he has to build up the religion of humanity.\n\nAs the Rationalist looks abroad over the contending armies of faith and\nof reason, he gradually recognises the fact that his new religion, if it\nis to serve as a bond of union, must stand on stable ground, apart from\nthe warring hosts. Round the idea of God rages the hottest din of the\nbattle. The old, popular, and traditional belief is wounded to\nthe death, and is slowly breathing out its life. The philosophical\nsubtleties of the metaphysician are beyond the grasp of folk busied\nchiefly with common work. The new school of Theists, believers in a\n\"spiritual personal God,\" stands on a slippery incline, whereon is\nno firm foothold. It simply spreads over the abysses of thought\na sentimental veil of poetical imaginings, and bows down before a\nbeatified and celestial man, whose image it has sculptured out of the\nthought-marble of its sublimest aspirations. If the idea of God be thus\nwarred over, thus changing, thus uncertain, it is plain that the new\nreligion cannot find its foundation on this shifting and disputed\nground. While theologians are wrangling about God, plain men are looking\nwistfully over the shattered idols to find the ideal to which they\ncan cling. The new religion, then, studying the varying phases of the\nGod-idea, seizes on its one permanent element, its idealised resemblance\nto man, its embodiment of the highest humanity; and, grasping this\nthought, it turns to men and says, \"In loving God you are only loving\nyour own highest selves; in conforming yourselves to the Divine image\nyou are only conforming yourselves to your own highest ideals; the\nunknown God whom you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you; in\nserving your family, your neighbours, your country, you serve this\nunknown God; this God is Humanity, the race to which you belong; this is\nthe veiled God whom all generations have worshipped in heaven, while he\ntrod the world around them in every human form; this is the only God,\nthe God who is manifest in the flesh: \"--\n\n     \"There is no God, O son, If thou be none.\"\n\nThe first great constructive effort of the new religion is thus to\ntransform the idea of God, and to turn all men's aspirations, all men's\nhopes, all men's labours, into this channel of devotion to humanity,\nthat so the practical outcome of the new motive power may be a steady\nflow of loving and energetic work for man, work that begins in the\nfamily, and spreads, in ever-widening circles, over the whole race.\n\nThis transformation of the central figure necessarily transforms also\nthe whole idea of religion, which must take its colour from that centre.\nRevelation from heaven being no longer possible, its place must be\nsupplied by study on earth: revealed laws being no longer attainable, it\nbecomes the duty of the Humanitarian to discover natural laws. This\nduty is the more cheering from the manifest failure of revealed laws, as\nexemplified in popular Christianity. \"Law,\" in the mouth of the believer\nin revelation, means a command issued by God; the \"laws of Nature\" are\nthe rules laid down by God, in accordance with which all things move;\nthey are the behests of the Creator of Nature, the controlling wires of\nthe mechanism, held by the hand of God. But \"law\" in the mouth of\nthe Rationalist means nothing more than the observed and registered\ninvariable sequence of events. Thus it is said \"a stone falls to\nthe ground in obedience to the law of gravitation.\" By the \"law of\ngravitation\" the Christian would mean that God had ordered that all\nstones _should_ so fall. The Rationalist would simply mean that all\nstones _do_ so fall, and that invariable sequence he calls the \"law of\ngravitation.\" Obedience to the laws of Nature replaces, in the religion\nof Humanity, obedience to the laws of God. As there is no inspired\nrevelation of these laws the student must carefully and patiently\nascertain them, either by direct observation, or most often, in the\nbooks of those who have devoted their lives to the elucidation of\nNature's code. Scientific books will, in fact, replace the Bible, and by\nthe study of the laws of health, both physical, moral, and mental, the\nRationalist will ascertain the conditions which surround him to which he\nmust conform himself if he desires to retain physical, moral, and mental\nvigour. This difference in the authority which is obeyed leads naturally\nto the difference of morality between the orthodox Christian and the\nRationalist. Christian morality consists of obedience to the will of\nGod, as revealed in the Bible. The grand difficulty regarding this\nobedience is, that the will of Jehovah, as revealed to the Jews at\ndifferent times, varies so much from age to age that the most zealous\nChristian must fail to obey all the conflicting behests prefaced by a\n\"Thus saith the Lord.\" God would, of course, never command any one to do\na thing which was directly wrong, yet God distinctly said: \"Thou\nshalt not suffer a Witch to live;\" and God sanctioned Slavery, and\nGod commanded Persecution on account of religious convictions: true,\nChristians plead that all these laws are obsolete, but what is that but\nto acknowledge that revealed morality is obsolete, _i.e._, that it was\nnever revealed by God at all. For a command to persecute must be either\nright or wrong: if right, it is the duty of Christians to obey it,\nand to raise once more the stakes of Smithfield for heretics and\nunbelievers; if wrong, it can never have come from God at all, and must\nbe blasphemously attributed to him. In God, Christians tell us there is\nno changeableness, neither shadow of turning; then what pleased him in\nlong past ages would please him still, and what he commanded yesterday\nwould be right to-day. Thus fatally does revealed morality fail when\ntested, and it becomes impossible to know which particular \"will of\nGod\" he desires that we should obey. Now, once more, the Rationalist\nexperiences the advantages of his new motive-power; he has to serve\nHumanity, and is unencumbered by the difficulties attendant upon\n\"pleasing God.\" Not the pleasure of God, but the benefit of man, is\nthe basis of his morality. Revealed morality is as a child's garment,\ninto-which one should try to force the limbs of a full-grown man; it\nis the morality of the past stereotyped for the use of today, and is\nclumsy, archaic, half-illegible from age. Rational morality, on the\nother hand, grows with the growth of those who follow its dictates; its\nerrors are corrected by wider experience, its omissions are filled up by\nthe irrefragable arguments of necessity. It is founded upon the needs of\nman; his happiness is its sole object; not only his physical happiness,\nnot only the fulfilment of the desires of the body for ease and comfort,\nbut the satisfaction also of all the cravings of his intellectual\nand moral powers, the love of truth, the love of beauty, the love of\njustice. A morality founded on this basis can never be overthrown; one\nsure test it affords whereby to decide on the morality or the immorality\nof any-given action: \"Is it useful to man? does it tend to the promotion\nof human happiness?\" The will of God is doubtful, and is always\ndisputable, and therefore it can never form the foundation of a\nuniversal system of morality, a code which shall unite all men in\nobedience. A code which shall unite all men must needs be founded on\nthose human interests which are common to all men. Such a code is the\nutilitarian. For man's happiness is on earth, and can be known and\nunderstood; the promotion of that happiness is an intelligible aim;\nthe test of morality may be applied by every one; it is a system which\neverybody can understand, and which the common sense of each must\napprove, for by it man lives for man, man labours for man, the efforts\nof each are directed to the good of all, and only in the happiness of\nthe whole can the happiness of each part be perfected and complete.\n\nThere is much popular misconception with regard to utilitarianism:\n\"utility\" is supposed to include only those material things which are\nuseful to the body, and which tend to increase physical comfort. But\nutility includes all art; for art cultures the taste and refines the\nnature. It thus adds a thousand charms to life, deepens, softens,\npurifies human happiness. Utility includes all study, for study-awakens\nand trains the intellectual faculties, and therefore increases the\nsources of happiness possible to man. Utility includes all science; for\nscience is man's true providence, foreseeing the dangers that threaten\nhim, and shielding him against their shock. Science leads man up to\nthose intellectual heights where to stand awhile and breathe in the\nkeen, clear air after dwelling in the turbid atmosphere of daily toils\nand cares, is as the refreshment of the pure mountain wind to the weary\ninhabitant of the crowded city streets.. Utility includes all love and\nsearch of truth; for the discovery of a truth is the keenest pleasure of\nwhich the noblest mind is susceptible. It includes all sublimest virtue;\nfor self-sacrifice and devotion yield the purest forms-of happiness\nto be found on earth. In a word, utility includes everything which is\n_useful_ in building up a grander manhood and womanhood, wiser, purer,\ntruer, tenderer than that we have to-day.\n\nSuch is the basis of the morality which is to supersede the supernatural\nmorality of the Churches; a morality which is: for this life and for\nthis world, since we have this life, and are in this world; a morality\nwhich seeks to ensure human happiness on this side the grave, instead of\ndreaming of it on the other side; a morality which endeavours to carve\nsolid heavens here, instead of seeing them in distant cloud-lands, white\nand soft and beautiful, but still only clouds.\n\nOne vast advantage of this humanitarian philosophy is that it endeavours\nto train men into unselfishness, instead of following the popular\nChristian plan of making self the central thought. Self is appealed to\nat every step in the New Testament: if we are bidden to rejoice under\npersecution, it is because \"great is your reward in heaven;\" if urged\nto pray, it is because \"thy Father, which seeth in secret, himself shall\nreward thee openly;\" if to be charitable, it is because at the judgment\nit will bring a kingdom as the recompense; if to resign home or wealth,\nit is because we shall receive \"a hundredfold in this present life, and\nin the world to come life everlasting;\" even the giver of a cup of cold\nwater \"shall in no wise lose his reward.\" It is one system of bribes,\nmingling the thought of personal pain with every effort of human\nimprovement and human happiness, and thereby directly fostering and\nencouraging selfishness and gilding it over with the name of religion\nand piety. Humanitarian morality, on the other hand, while utilising the\nnatural and rightful craving for individual happiness as a motive-power,\nendeavours to accustom each to look to, and to labour for, the happiness\nof all, making that general happiness the aim of life. Thus it gradually\nweakens the selfish tendencies and encourages the social, holding\nup ever the noble ideal by the very contemplation of its beauty\ntransforming its votaries into its likeness. \"Vivre pour au-trui,\" is\nthe motto of the utilitarian code; and in so living the fullest and\nhappiest life for self is really attained; so closely drawn are the\nbands that bind men together that happiness and unhappiness re-act from\none to another, and as the general standard of happiness rises higher\nand higher, the wheels of social life run more and more easily, with\nless of friction, less of jar, and therefore with increased comfort to\neach individual member. While Christianity developes selfishness by\nits continual cry of \"Save thyself,\" Utilitarianism gradually developes\nunselfishness by the nobler whisper, \"Save others, and in so doing\nthou shalt thyself be saved.\" Delivered from every debasing fear of an\nunknowable and inscrutable power, Utilitarianism works with a single\nheart and a single eye for the happiness of the race, stamping with\nthe brand of \"wrong\" every act the general repetition of which would be\nharmful to society, or the tendency of which is injurious, and sealing\nas \"right\" every act which brightens human life, and makes the general\nhappiness more perfect, and more widely spread. As morality rises higher\nand higher, human judgment will grow keener and purer, and in the times\nto come probably many an act now approved on all sides will be seen to\nbe harmful, and will therefore become marked as immoral, while, on the\nother hand, acts that are now considered wrong, because \"offensive\nto God,\" will be seen to be beneficial to man, and will therefore be\naccepted by all as moral. Thus Utilitarian morality can never be a bar\nto progress, for it will become higher and nobler as man mounts upwards.\nRevealed morality is as a milestone on the road of the world's onward\nmarch: it marks how far the world had travelled when its tables of\nlaw were first set up in its place: as a milestone, it is useful,\ninteresting, and instructive, and none would desire to destroy it; but\nif the milestone be removed from its post as a mark of distance, and be\nlaid across the road as a barrier which none must overclimb in days to\ncome, then it becomes necessary for the pioneers of progress to hew\nit to pieces that men may go on their way unchecked, and this revealed\nmorality now lies across the upward path of the world, and must be\nbroken in pieces with the hammer of logic and the axe of common sense,\nso that we may press ever higher up the mountain of progress, whose\nsummit is hid in everlasting cloud.\n\nAnd what has constructive Rationalism to say to us, when we stand face\nto face with the mighty destroyer of all living things? \"Your creed may\ndo well enough to live by,\" say-objectors, \"but is it good to die by?\"\nA creed that is good in life must needs be good in death, and never yet\nwas a hero-life closed by a coward death. What can better smooth the bed\nof the dying man than the knowledge that the world is the happier for\nhis living, that he leaves it better than he found it, that he has\nhelped to raise and to purify it? What easier pillow to rest the dying\nhead on than the memory of a useful life? The Rationalist has no fear\nlurking around his death-bed; no lurid gleams from a hell on the other\nside lighten around him as his breath begins to fail; no angry God\nfrowns on him from the great white throne; no devil stands beside him\nto drag him down into the bottomless pit; quietly, peacefully, happily,\nwithout fear and without dread, he passes out of life. As calmly as the\ntired child lies down to sleep in its mother's arms, and passes into\ndreamless unconsciousness, so calmly does the Rationalist lie down in\nthe arms of the mighty mother, and pass into dreamless unconsciousness\non her bosom.\n\nTo the Rationalist, the future of the race replaces in thought the\nfuture of the individual; for that he thinks, for that he plans, for\nthat he labours. A heaven upon earth for those who come after him, such\nis his inspiration to effort and to self-devotion. He seeks the smile of\nman instead of the smile of God, and finds in the thought of a happier\nhumanity the spur that Christians seek in the thought of pleasing God.\nHis hopes for the future spread far and wide before him, but it is a\nfuture to be inherited by his children in this same world in which he\nhimself lives; freer and fuller life, wider knowledge, deepened and more\npolished culture--all these are to be the heritage of the generations\nto come, and it is his to make that heritage the richer by every grander\nthought and nobler deed that he can do to-day.\n\nLet us place side by side the dogmas of Christianity and the motive\npower of the Rationalist, and see which of these two is the gladder\nlife-moulder of man. Christianity has a God in heaven, all powerful and\nall-wise, who in ages gone by made the universe and fore-ordained all\nthat should happen in time to come; who created man and woman with a\nserpent to tempt them, and made for them the opportunity of falling;\nwho, having made the opportunity, forced them to take it. It is said\nthat Adam and Eve were free agents, but they were nothing of the kind,\nfor the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world: the sacrifice\nwas offered before the sin was committed; and the sacrifice being made,\nthe sin was its necessary consequence. If Adam had been free, he might\nnot have sinned, and then there would have been a slain lamb and no\nsin for which he could atone; but God, having provided the Saviour,\nwas obliged to provide the sinner, and therefore he made the tree of\nknowledge and sent the tempter to entrap the parents of mankind. They\nfell, according to God's predestination, and thus became accursed, and\nthen the waiting Redeemer was revealed, and \"the divine scheme\" was\ncomplete. Accursed for a sin in which they had no part, the children of\nAdam are born with an evil nature, and being evil they act evilly, and\nthereby sink lower and lower; at their feet yawns a bottomless pit, and\nthe road to it is broad, easy, and pleasant; above their heads shines\na luxurious heaven, and the path is narrow, steep, and rugged. Their\nnature--God-given to all--drags them downwards; the Holy Ghost--God\ngiven to some--drags them upwards: immortality is their inheritance, and\n\"few there be that find\" immortal happiness, while \"many there be that\ngo in\" at the gate of hell to immortal woe; a severance, bitter beyond\nall earthly bitterness of parting, is in store for all, since, at the\ngreat day of judgment, \"one shall be taken and the other left,\" and\nthere will not be a family some of whose members will not be lost for\never. Eternal life, to the vast majority, is to mean eternal torment,\nand they are to be \"salted with fire,\" burning yet never burnt up,\nconsuming ever but never consumed. Towards the gaining of heaven,\ntowards the avoidance of hell, all human effort must be turned. \"What\nshall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own\nsoul?\" All life must be one striving \"to enter in at the strait gate,\nfor many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able;\" poverty,\noppression, misery, what matters it? the \"light affliction which is but\nfor a moment worketh a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.\"\nThus this world is forgotten for the sake of another, crushed out of\nsight beneath the overwhelming grandeur of eternity; the spur to human\neffort is blunted by the infinitesimal importance of time as compared\nwith eternity; bad government, bad laws, injustice, tyranny, pauperism,\nmisery, all these things need not move us, for \"we seek a better\ncountry, that is a heavenly;\" we are \"strangers and pilgrims;\" \"here we\nhave no continuing city, but we seek one to come;\" \"our citizenship is\nin heaven,\" and there also is our home. True, Christians do not carry\nout into daily life these phrases and thoughts of their creed, but in\nso much as they do not they are the less Christian, and the more\nimbued with the spirit of Rationalism. Rationalists they are, the vast\nmajority, six days in the week, and are only Christians on the Sunday.\nTo come out of, these old world dreams into Rationalism is like coming\ninto the open air after a hothouse. Rationalism clears away the terrible\nGod of orthodoxy, the fall, the serpent, the Saviour, the hell, the\ndevil. \"Work, toil, struggle,\" it cries to man; \"the ills around you\nare not the appointment of God, not the effects of his curse; they arise\nfrom your own ignorance, and may all be cleared away by your own study,\nand your own effort. Salvation? Yes, you need saviours, but the saviours\nmust save you from earthly woes and not from the wrath of God; save\nyourselves, by thought, by wisdom, by earnestness. Redemption? yes,\nyou need redeeming, but the redemption you want is from vice, from\nignorance, from poverty, and must be wrought out by human effort.\nPrayer? yes, you need praying for, but the prayer you want is work\ncompelling the result; not crying out for what you desire, but winning\nit by labour and by toil. The world stretches wide before you, capable\nof paying you a thousandfold for all you do for it. Life is in your\nhands, full of all glorious possibilities; throw away your dreams of\nheaven, and make heaven here; leave aside visions of the life to come,\nand make beautiful the life which is.\"\n\nFull of hope, full of joy, strong to labour, patient to endure, mighty\nto conquer, goes forth the new glad creed into the sad grey Christian\nworld; at her touch men's faces soften and grow purer, and women's eyes\nsmile instead of weeping; at last, at last, the heir arises to take\nto himself his own, and the negation of the usurped sovereignty of\nthe popular and traditional God over the world developes into the\naffirmation of the rightful monarchy of man.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BEAUTIES OF THE PRAYER-BOOK.\n\n\n\n\nMORNING PRAYER.\n\n\"HABIT, is second nature,\" saith a wise old saw, so it must be from\ncustom that it has become natural to Church people to repeat placidly,\nweek after week, the same palpable self-contradictions and absurdities.\nA sensible, shrewd man of business puts away his papers on the Saturday\nnight, and apparently locks his mind up with them in his desk; certain\nit is that he\n\n     \"Goes on Sunday to the church,\n     And sits among his boys;\n     He hears the parson pray and preach,\"\n\nand yet never discovers that his boys are repeating the most\ncontradictory responses, while the parson is enunciating as axioms the\nmost startling propositions.\n\nWhen the preliminary silence in church is broken by the \"sentences,\"\nthe first words that fall from the clergyman's lips are a distinct\ndeclaration of the conditions of salvation: \"When the wicked man turneth\naway from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which\nis lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive;\" and we are further\ninstructed as to our sins, that \"if we confess our sins, He is\nfaithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from\nall unrighteousness.\" These very plain statements take high and\ncomprehensible ground. God is supposed to desire that man should be\nrighteous, and is, therefore, naturally satisfied when \"the wicked\nforsakes his way and the unrighteous man his path.\" We proceed, then, to\nconfess our sins, and after Mrs. A., whose eyes are straying after her\nneighbour's bonnet, has confessed that she is erring and straying like a\nlost sheep, and Mrs. B., who is devising a way to make an old dress look\nnew, has owned plaintively that she is following the devices of her own\nheart; and Squire C, of the rubicund visage and broad shoulders, has\nsonorously remarked that there is no health in him, and his son, with\nthe joyous face, has cheerfully acknowledged that he is a miserable\nsinner--after these very appropriate and reasonable confessions, to a\nDivine Being who \"seeth the heart,\" and may therefore be supposed to\ntake them for what they are worth, have been duly gone through, we are\nsomewhat puzzled to hear the clergyman announce that God \"pardoneth and\nabsolveth all them that truly repent, _and unfeignedly believe His holy\nGospel._\" What is this sudden appendix to the before-declared conditions\nof salvation? We had been told that if we confessed our sins God's\nfaithfulness and justice would cause him to forgive us; here we have\nduly done so, and surely the language is sufficiently strong; we are\nyet suddenly called upon to believe a \"holy Gospel\" as a preliminary\nto forgiveness. But we are not yet, to use a colloquialism, out of the\nwood; for while we are moodily meditating on this infraction of our\ncontract the time slips on unobserved, and, it being a feast-day, we\nare startled by a stern voice conveying the cheerful intelligence,\n\"Whosoever will be saved, _before all things_, it is necessary that he\nhold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and\nundefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.\" \"Before all\nthings?\" before repentance? before turning away from our wickedness?\nbefore doing that which is lawful and right? And what is this \"Faith\"\nwhich we must keep whole and undefiled if we would save our souls alive?\nA bewildering jumble of triplets and units, mingled in inextricable\nconfusion. But as he that \"will be saved must thus think of the\nTrinity,\" we will try and disentangle the thread of salvation. \"The\nFather is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,\" says the\nparson. \"They are not three Gods, but one God,\" shout out the people.\nWe are compelled \"to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and\nLord,\" reiterates the parson. \"We are forbidden by the Catholic Religion\nto say there be three Gods or three Lords,\" obstinately persist the\npeople. Then, after some rather intrusive particulars about the family\n(and very intricate) relations of the Father to the Son, and of both to\nthe Holy Ghost, we are told that \"so\"--why so?--\"there is one Father,\nnot three Fathers, one Son, not three Sons, one Holy Ghost, not three\nHoly Ghosts.\" In so far as we have been able to follow the meaning, or\nrather the no-meaning, of the preceding sentences, no one said anything\nabout three Fathers, three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts. The definite\narticle _the_ had been used in each case with a singular noun. We\nimagine the clause must have been inserted because all ideas as to the\nmeaning; of numerals must have been by this time so hopelessly lost by\nthe congregation, that it became necessary to remark that \"the Father\"\nmeant one Father, and not three. The list of necessaries for salvation\nis not yet complete, for \"furthermore it is necessary to everlasting\nsalvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord\nJesus Christ.\" So far, then, from its being true that the wicked man who\nturns from his sins shall save his soul alive, we find that our sinner\nmust also believe the Gospel, must accept contradictory arithmetical\nassertions, must think of the Trinity in a way which makes thought a\nludicrous impossibility, and must believe _rightly_ all the details\nof the method by which a Divine Being became a human being. If a sinner\nchances to go out of church after the first sentence, and from being\na drunkard becomes temperate, from being a liar becomes truthful, from\nbeing a profligate becomes chaste, and foolishly imagines that he\nis thereby doing God's will, and thus saving his soul alive, he will\ncertainly, according to the Athanasian Creed, wake up from his pleasant\ndelusion to find himself in everlasting fire. As sceptics, we need offer\nno-opinion as to which is right, the creed or the text; we only suggest\nthat both cannot be correct, and that it would be more satisfactory if\nthe Church, in her wisdom, would make up her venerable mind which is\nthe proper path, and then keep in it. After all this, we are in no way\nsurprised to learn from a collect that being saved is dependent on quite\na new support, namely, on the knowledge we have of God. How many more\nthings may be necessary to salvation it is impossible to say at this\npoint, but the office for Morning Prayer, at any rate, gives us no more.\nIt would be rash to conclude, however, that we have fulfilled all, for\nthe Church has some more scattered up and down her Prayer-Book; the end\nof all which double-dealing is, that we can never be sure that we have\nreally fulfilled every condition; sad experience teaches us that\nwhen the Church says, \"do so-and-so, and you shall be saved,\" she is,\nmeanwhile, whispering under her breath, \"provided you also do everything\nelse.\"\n\nWe fail also to see the reasonableness of the constant cry, \"for the\nsake of Jesus Christ,\" or \"through Jesus Christ.\" We ask that we may\nlead \"a godly, righteous, and sober life\" _for His sake_; but this is\njust what we are told God wishes already, so why should He be asked to\ngrant it for some one else's sake, as though He were unwilling that we\nshould be righteous, and can only be coaxed into allowing us to be so by\na favourite son? In the same way we are to come to God's \"eternal joy,\"\nthrough Jesus, which is, by the way, another of these endless conditions\nof salvation. We ask to be defended from our enemies \"through the might\nof Jesus Christ,\" as though God Himself was not strong enough for the\ntask; and God is urged to send down His healthful Spirit for the \"honour\nof our advocate and Mediator,\" although that very advocate told His\ndisciples that God would always give that spirit to those who asked\nfor it. To the outside critic, these continual references to Jesus,\nas though God grudged all good gifts, appear very dishonouring to the\n\"Father in Heaven.\"\n\nIs it considered necessary to press God vehemently to hurry himself?\n\"O God, make speed to save us. O Lord, make haste to help us.\" Will\nnot God, of his own accord, do things at the best possible time? and\nfurther, is it possible for a Divine Being to make haste?\n\nIt will, perhaps, be considered hypercritical to object to the\nversicles: \"Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other\nthat fighteth for us but only thou, O God.\" What more do they want than\nan almighty reinforcement? \"None other?\" Well, we should have fancied\nthat God and somebody else were really more than were needed. At any\nrate it sounds very insulting to say to God, \"please give us peace,\nsince we cannot count on any assistance except yours.\"\n\nWe have nothing to say about the prayers for the Royal Family, except\nthat they do not show any very attractive results, and that it must have\nmuch edified George IV. to hear himself spoken of as a \"most religious\nand gracious king.\" Never surely was a family so much prayed for, but\n_cui bono?_ If the \"Bishops, Curates, and all congregations\" truly\nplease God, he is about, the only person that they succeed in pleasing,\nfor the Bishops abuse the clergy, and the clergy abuse the Bishops,\nand the congregations abuse both. Of the last prayer, we must note\nthe exceeding failure of the petition to grant the Church knowledge of\ntruth, and we cannot help marvelling why, if they really desire to know\nthe truth, they so invariably frown at and endeavour to crush out every\nearnest search after truth, every effort for clearer light. Of all\nthings that can happen to the Church, the knowledge of the truth would\nbe the least \"expedient for\" her, for she would fade away before the\nsunshine of truth as ghosts are said to fly at the cockcrow which\nannounces the dawn.\n\nA criticism on the office of Morning Prayer is scarcely complete\nwithout a few words upon the canticles appointed to be daily sung by\nthe faithful to the glory of God. Any thing more ludicrously absurd than\nthese from the lips of our congregations it would indeed be difficult to\nimagine. The _Venite_ (Ps. xcv.) is the first we are called upon to take\npart in, and the first shock comes when we find ourselves-chanting\n\"The Lord is a great God and a _great king above all gods_.\" \"Above\nall Gods!\" what terrible heresy have we been unwittingly committing\nourselves to? Is there not only one God--or, at least, it may be\nthree--but, if three, they are co-equal, and no one is above the other;\nwho are these \"all gods\" that \"the Lord\" is \"king above?\" We remember\nfor a moment that when this psalm was written the gods of the nations\naround Israel were believed to have a real existence, and that,\ntherefore, it was no inconsistency in the mouth of the Hebrew to rejoice\nthat his national god was ruler above the gods of other peoples. This\nexplanation is reasonable, but then it does not explain why we, who\nbelieve not in this multiplicity of deities should pretend that we do.\nOur equanimity is not restored by the next phrase, \"In his hand are all\nthe corners of the earth;\" but the earth is a globe, and has no corners.\nA misty remembrance floats through our mind of Iraeneus stating that\nthere were four gospels because there were four corners to the earth and\nfour winds that blew; but since his time things have changed, and the\ncorners have been smoothed off. Is it quite honest to say in God's\npraise a thing which we know to be untrue, and must we be unscientific\nbecause we are devotional? We then hear about our fathers being forty\nyears in the wilderness, although we know that they were not there at\nall, unless the people--generally looked upon as amiable lunatics--are\ncorrect, who assert that the English nation is descended from the ten\nlost tribes of Israel. Why should we pretend to God that we are Jews,\nwhen both He and we know perfectly well that we are nothing of the kind?\nWe come to the _Te Deum_, said to have been composed by S. Ambrose for\nthe baptism of S. Augustine:--\"To thee cherubin and seraphin continually\ndo cry.\" Putting aside the manifest weariness both to God and to the\ncryers of the never-ceasing repetition of these words, and the degrading\nidea of God implied in the thought that it gives Him any pleasure to\nbe perpetually assured of His holiness, as though it were a doubtful\nmatter--we cannot help inquiring, \"Who are these cherubin and seraphin?\"\nAccording to the Bible, they are six-winged creatures, who cover their\nfaces with two wings, and their feet with two more, and fly with the\nremaining pair: they may be seen in pictures of the ark, balancing\nthemselves on their feet-covering wings, and preventing themselves\nfrom falling by steadying each other with another pair. \"Lord God of\nSabaoth,\" or of \"Hosts;\" is this a reasonable name for one supposed to\nbe a \"God of peace?\" The elder Jewish and the Christian ideas of God\nhere come into direct collision: according to one, \"the Lord is a man\nof war\" (Ex. xv.), while the other represents him as \"the Everlasting\nFather, the Prince of Peace\" (Isai. ix.). The _Te Deum_ midway changes\nthe object of its song, and addresses itself to the Son instead of to\nthe Father. How far this is permissible is much disputed, for certain\nit is that in the early ages of Christianity prayer was addressed to the\nFather _only_, and that one of the Fathers* sharply rebukes those who\npray to the Son, since they thereby deprive the Father of the honour due\nto Him alone. How this can be, when Father and Son are one, we do not\npretend to explain. Then ensue those curious details regarding Christ\nwhich we shall touch upon in dealing later with the Apostles' Creed.\nWe find ourselves, presently, asking to be kept \"this day without sin;\"\nyet, we are perfectly well aware, all the time, that God will do nothing\nof the kind, and that all Christians believe that they sin every day.\nWhy does the Church teach her children to sing this in the morning, and\nthen prepare a \"confession\" for the evening, unless she feels perfectly\nsure that God will pay no attention to her prayer? The wearisome\nreiteration in the _Benedicite_ is so thoroughly recognised that it is\nvery seldom heard in the church, while the _Benedictus_ (Luke i.) is\nopen to the same charge of unreality as is the _Venite_, that it is a\nsong for Jews only.\n\n     * Origen.\n\nMany other faults and absurdities might be pointed cut which disfigure\nMorning Prayer, even if the whole idea of prayer be left untouched.\nThe prayers of the-Prayer-Book are dishonouring to God from their\nchildishness, their unreality, their folly, their conflict with sound\nknowledge. Allowing that prayer may be reasonable, these prayers are\nunreasonable; allowing that prayer may be reverent, these prayers are\nirreverent; allowing that prayer may be sincere, these prayers are\ninsincere. They are fragments of an earlier age transplanted into the\npresent, and they are as ludicrous as would be men walking about in\nour streets to-day clad in the armour of the Middle Ages, the ages of\nDarkness and of Prayer.\n\n\n\n\nEVENING PRAYER.\n\nThe Church, in her wisdom, fearing that the quaint conceits and\nimpossibilities which we have referred to, the--\n\n     \"Jewels which adorn the spouse of the eternal glorious King,\"\n\nshould not be sufficiently appreciated and admired by her children, if\npresented to their adoration once only on every day, has appointed for\nthe use of the faithful an office of Evening Prayer, which, in its main\nfeatures, is identical with that which is to be \"said or sung\" each\nmorning. Sentences, address, confession, absolution, Lord's Prayer, and\nversicles, are all exactly reproduced, and Psalms and Lessons follow\nin due course, varying from day to day. To take the whole Psalter, and\nanalyse it, would be a task too-long for our own patience, or for that\nof our readers, so we only pick out a few salient absurdities, and ask\nwhy English men and women should be found singing sentences which have\nno beauty to recommend them, and no meaning to dignify them. We will not\nlay stress on the quaintness of a congregation standing up and gravely\nsinging: \"Or ever your pots be made hot with thorns, so let indignation\nvex him, even as a thing that is raw\" (Ps. lviii.); we will not ask what\nthe clergyman means when he reads out to his congregation: \"Though ye\nhave lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove.\" (Ps.\nlxviii.) These are isolated passages, which a pen might erase, retaining\nthe major part of the Psalter: we go further, and challenge it as a\nwhole, asserting that it is ludicrously inappropriate as a song-book for\nsensible people, even although those people may be desirous of praying\nto, or praising God. Our strictures are here levelled, not at prayer as\nprayer, but simply at this particular form of prayer. In the first place\nthe Psalter is written only for a single nation; it is full of local\nallusions, and of references of Israelitish history, which are only\nreasonable in the mouth of a Jew. With what amount of sense can an\nEnglish congregation every 15th evening of the month sing such a Psalm\nas the lxxviii., recounting all the marvels of the plagues and of the\nexodus, or on the following day plead with God to help them, because\n\"the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple have they\ndefiled, and made Jerusalem an heap of stones?\" (Ps. lxxix.) Is there\nany respect to God in telling him that \"we are become an open shame to\nour enemies; a very scorn and derision unto them that are round about\nus\" (v. 4), when, as a matter of simple fact, the speakers are become\nnothing of the kind? Can it be thought to be consistent with reverence\nto God to make these extraordinary assertions in praying to Him, and\nthen to base upon them the most urgent pleas for His immediate aid? for\nwe find the congregation proceeding: \"Help us, O God of our salvation,\nfor the glory of Thy Name; O deliver us and be merciful unto our sins\nfor Thy Name's sake.... O let the vengeance of Thy servant's blood\nwhich is shed be openly shewed upon the heathen in our sight. O let the\nsorrowful sighing of the prisoners come before Thee; according to the\ngreatness of Thy power, preserve Thou those that are appointed to die\"\n(w. 9, 10, 11). Now in all sober seriousness what does this mean? Is\nthis addressed to God, or is it not? If it be, is it right and fit to\naddress to him words that are absolutely untrue, and to cry urgently for\naid which is not required, and which He cannot possibly give? If it be\nnot, is it decent to solemnly sing or read phrases seemingly addressed\nto God, but really not intended to be noticed by him, phrases which use\nHis name as though an appeal to Him were seriously made? It cannot be\nhealthy to juggle thus with words, and to make emotional prayers which\nare utterly devoid of all meaning. Some devout persons talk very freely\nabout the wickedness of blasphemy, but is not that kind of game with\nGod, in wailings which are devoid of reality, appeals not intended to be\nanswered, a far more real blasphemy in the mouth of any one who believes\nin Him as a hearer of prayer, than the so-called blasphemy of those who\ndistinctly assert that to them the popular and traditional \"God\" is\na phantom, and that they see no reason to believe in His existence?\nPassing from this graver aspect of the use of the Psalter as a\ncongregational song-book, we notice how purely comic many of the psalms\nwould appear to us had not the habit-fashion of our lives accustomed us\nto repeat them in a parrot-like manner, without attaching the smallest\nmeaning to the words so glibly recited. \"Every night wash I my bed and\nwater my couch with my tears\" (Ps. vi.), is sung innocently by laughing\nmaiden and merry youth, the bright current of whose life is undimmed by\nthe shadow of grief. \"Bring unto the Lord, O ye mighty, bring young\nrams unto the Lord\" (Ps. xxix.), is solemnly read out by the country\nclergyman, who would be beyond measure astonished if his direction were\ncomplied with. Then we find the congregation making the certainly untrue\nassertion: \"Moab is my wash-pot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe;\nPhilistia, be thou glad of me\" (Ps. lx.). At another time they cry out,\n\"O, clap your hands together, all ye people\" (Ps. xlvii.); they speak\nof processions which have no existence, \"The singers go before, the\nminstrels follow after, in the midst are the damsels playing on the\ntimbrels\" (Ps. lxviii.). Another phase of this Psalter, which is\noffensive rather than comic, is the habit of swearing and cursing which\npervades it; we find Christians, who are bidden to love their enemies,\nand to bless them that curse them, pouring out curses of the most\nfearful character, and displaying the most reckless hatred: \"The\nrighteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his\nfootsteps in the blood of the ungodly\" (Ps. lviii.). \"Let them fall from\none wickedness into another, and not come into Thy righteousness\" (Ps.\nlxix.). A nice prayer, truly, for one man to pray for his brother man,\nto a holy God who is supposed to desire righteousness in man. Then there\nis that fearful imprecation in Psalm cix., too long to quote, where the\nvindictive and cruel anger not only curses the offender himself, but\npasses on to his children: \"Let there be no man to pity him, nor to\nhave compassion upon his fatherless children.\" Of course, people do not\nreally mean any of these terrible things which they repeat day after\nday; humanity is too noble to wish to draw down such curses from heaven;\nthe people have outgrown the bad spirit of that cruel age when the\nPsalter was written, and their hearts have grown more loving; but surely\nit is not well that men and women should stand on a lower level in their\nprayers than in their lives; surely the moments, which ought to be the\nnoblest, should not be passed in using language which the speakers would\nbe ashamed of in their daily lives; surely the worship of the Ideal\nshould not be degraded below the practice of the Real, or the notion\nof God be less lofty than the life of man. By making their worship an\nunreality, by being less than true in their religious feelings, by\nusing words they do not mean, and by pretending emotions they do not\nexperience, people become trained into insincerity, and lose that rare\nand beautiful virtue of instinctive and thorough honesty. When the\nprayer does not echo the yearning of the heart, then the habit grows\nof not making the word really the representative of the thought, of not\nmaking the feeling the measure of the expression. Much of the cant\nof the day, much of the social insincerity, much of the prevalent\nunreality, may be laid at the door of this crime of the Churches, of\nmaking men speak words which are meaningless to the speaker, and of\nteaching them to be untrue in the moments which should be the truest\nand the purest. At another time, we might impeach prayer as a whole; we\nmight argue against it, either as opposed to the unchangeableness and\nthe wisdom of God, if a prayer-hearing and prayer-answering God be\nbelieved in, or as utterly futile, and proved worthless by experience.\nBut here we only plead for sincerity in prayer, wherever prayer is\npractised; we only urge that at least the prayer shall be sincere, and\nthat the lips shall obey the heart.\n\nExactly the same objection applies to the \"Canticles,\" which, in modern\nlips, are absolutely devoid of sense. What meaning has the \"song of the\nblessed Virgin Mary\" from an ordinary English congregation; why should\nEnglish people talk about God promising His mercy \"to our forefathers,\nAbraham, and his seed for ever,\" when Abraham is not their forefather\nat all? Why should they ask God to let them \"depart in peace,\" when\nthey have not the smallest desire to depart at all, and why should they\nassert to Him that they \"have seen Thy salvation,\" when they have seen\nnothing of the kind? For the perpetually recurring _Gloria_, one cannot\nhelp wondering what it means; when was \"the beginning,\" and is the \"it\"\nwhich was at that period, the \"glory\" which is wished to the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost; further, what is the good of wishing glory to\nHim--or to Them--if He--or They--have always had, and always will\nhave it? When we have heard a congregation reciting the Creed, we have\nsometimes wondered what meaning they attached to it. \"The maker of\nheaven and earth.\" Do people ever try to carry the mind back to the time\nbefore this \"making,\" and realise the period when nothing existed? Is it\npossible to imagine things coming into existence, \"something\" emerging\nfrom where before \"nothing\" was? And then Jesus, the only Son, conceived\nby the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from Himself, and son, therefore, not of\n\"the Father,\" but of that spirit which only exists in and through \"the\nFather and the Son.\" Again, how can a \"spirit\" conceive a material body?\nIf the whole affair be miraculous, why try to compromise matters with\nnature, by making this kind of pseudo-father? Surely it would be simpler\nto leave it a complete miracle, and let the Virgin remain the solitary\nparent. Except for making the story match better with the elder Greek\nmythology, there is no need to introduce a godparent in the affair; a\nchild without a father is no more remarkable than a mother who remains\na virgin. This attempt at reasonableness only makes the whole more\noutrageously unnatural, and provokes criticism which would be better\navoided. A God, who suffered, was crucified, dead, buried, who rose and\nascended, is a complete enigma to us. Could He, the impassive, suffer?\ncould He, the intangible, be crucified? could He, the immortal, die?\ncould He, the omnipresent, be buried in one spot of earth, rise from it,\nand ascend to some place where he was not the moment before? What kind\nof God is this who is to \"come again\" to a place where He is not now?\nIf the answer be, that all this refers to the manhood of Jesus, then we\ninquire, \"Is Christ divided?\" if He be one God with the Father, then all\nHe did was done by the Father as much as by Himself; if He did it only\nas man, then God did not come from heaven to save men; then this is\nnot a divine sacrifice at all; then, a simple man cannot have made an\natonement for the sin of the world. And where is \"the right hand\" of\nAlmighty God? Is Jesus sitting at the right hand of a pure spirit, who\nhas neither body nor parts? and, since He is one with God, is He sitting\nat his own right hand? Such questions as these are called blasphemous;\nbut we fling back the charge of blasphemy on those who try to compel us\nto recite a creed so absurd. We decline to repeat words which convey to\nus no meaning, and not ours the fault, if any inquiry into the meaning\nproduce dilemmas so inconvenient to the orthodox. We are also required\nto believe in \"the\" Holy Catholic Church, but we know of no such body.\nCatholic means universal, and there is no universal Church: to believe\nin that which does not exist would, indeed, be faith without sight.\nThere is the Orthodox Church, but that is anathematised by the Roman;\nthere is the Roman Church, but that is the \"scarlet whore of Babylon\" in\nthe eyes of the Protestant; there are the Protestant sects, but they\nare many and not one, a multiformity in disunity. We are asked to\nacknowledge a \"Communion of Saints,\" and we see those who severally call\nthemselves saints excommunicating each the other; in a \"forgiveness of\nsins,\" but Nature tells us of no forgiveness, and we find suffering\ninvariably following on the disregard of law; in a \"resurrection of the\nbody,\" but we know that the body decays, that its gases and its juices\nare transmuted in the alembic of Nature into new modes of existence;\nin a \"life everlasting,\" when the dark veil of ignorance envelopes the\n\"Beyond the tomb.\" Only the thoughtless can repeat the creed; only the\nignorant cannot see the impossibilities it professes to believe.\n\nThe two Collects, which are different in the evening prayer to those\nused in the morning office, call for no special remark, save that\nthey--in common with all prayers--make no practical difference in human\nlife. The devout Christian is no more defended from \"all perils and\ndangers of this night,\" than is the most careless atheist; wisely, also,\ndoes the Christian, having prayed his prayer, walk carefully round his\nhouse, and examine the bolts and bars, mindful that these commonplace\ndefences are more likely to be efficacious against burglars than the\nprotecting arm of the Most High.\n\nThe remainder of the service is the same as that used in the morning,\nso calls for no further remark. If only people would take the trouble\nof _thinking_ about their religion; if only they could be led, or even\nprovoked, into trying to realise that which they say they believe, then\nthe foundations of the popular religion would rapidly be undermined, and\nthe banner of Freethought would soon float proudly over the crumbling\nruins of that which was once a Church.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LITANY.\n\nThe Litany has a fault which runs throughout the Prayer-Book, that \"vain\nrepetition\" which, according to the Gospel, was denounced by Jesus of\nNazareth; the refrain of \"Good Lord, deliver us,\" and \"We beseech\nThee to hear us, good Lord,\" recurs with wearisome reiteration, and is\nrepeated monotonously by the congregation, few of whom, probably, would\nknow from what they were requesting deliverance, if the clergyman were\nto stop and ask so unexpected a question. Gods the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost are severally besought to have mercy upon the miserable sinners\npraying to them, and then the Trinity as a whole is asked to do the\nsame. How far this separation is consistent with the unity of the\nGodhead, and whether in praying to the Son we do, or do not, implicitly\npray to the Father, and _vice versa_, those only can tell us who\nunderstand the \"mystery of the Holy Trinity.\" This preamble over, the\nremainder of the Litany is addressed to \"God the Son,\" who is the \"Good\nLord\" invoked throughout, in spite of His reproof to the young man who\nknelt to Him, calling Him \"Good Master;\" \"why callest thou Me good?\"\nVarious dogmas are alluded to in the succeeding verses in which few\neducated people now retain any belief. How many really care to be\ndelivered \"from the crafts and assaults of the devil,\" or believe in the\nexistence of the devil at all? He is one of those phantoms that can only\nbe found in the darkness, and which fade away when the sun arises.\nHow many believe in the \"everlasting damnation,\" of the same verse,\nor really consider themselves in the smallest danger of it? No one who\nbelieved in hell could pray to be delivered from it in careless accents,\nfor the smallest chance of that awful doom would force a wail of terror\nfrom the lightest-hearted of the listeners. Is it consistent to ask\nChrist to deliver us from His wrath? if He loved men so much as to die\nfor them, it seems as though a great change must have come over His mind\nsince He ascended into heaven, if He really requires to be pressed so\nurgently not to \"take vengeance,\" and to spare us and deliver us from\nHis wrath. Which is right, the wrath or the love? for they are not\ncompatible; and does God really like to see people crouching before Him\nin this fashion, praising His mercy while they tremble lest He should\n\"break out\" upon them? If we were inclined to be hypercritical we might\nsuggest that the prayer to be delivered from \"all uncharitableness\"\ngives a melancholy proof of the inadequacy of prayer; the answer to it\nmay be read weekly in the _Church Times_ and the _Rock_ more especially\nin the clerical contributions. The other petitions are also curiously\nineffectual: \"from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism,\" is so\nmanifestly accepted at the Throne of Grace in these rationalising days.\nJesus is then abjured to deliver His petitioners by the memory of His\ndays upon earth, and we get the ancient idea of an incarnate God, so\ncommon to all eastern religions, and the curious picture of a God who\nis born, circumcised, baptised, fasts, is tempted, suffers, dies, is\nburied, rises, ascends. How God can do all this remains a mystery, but\nthese suffering, and then conquering gods are familiar to all readers\nof mythologies; we learn further, that God the Holy Ghost can come to a\nplace where He was not previously, although He is the infinite God, and\nis therefore omnipresent. Verily, it needs that our faith be great.\nBeing delivered sufficiently, the congregation proceed to a number of\nadditional petitions, the first of which is, unfortunately, as great\na failure as the preceding ones, for it prays that the Church may be\nguided \"in the right way;\" and having regard to the multiplicity of\nChurches, each one of which goes doggedly in her own particular way, it\nis manifest that they can't all be right, as they are all different.\nThen follow prayers for the Royal Family and the Government, and a\ngeneral request to \"bless and keep all Thy people;\" a request which is\nsystematically disregarded. In these days of \"bloated armaments\" it\nis at least pleasant to dream in church of there being given \"to all\nnations, unity, peace, and concord.\" The \"pure affection\" with which\nGod's Word is received is also perfectly imaginary; those who do not\nbelieve it criticise and cavil; those who do believe it go to sleep\nover it. The last part of these verses seems designed simply to pray for\neverybody all round, and this being satisfactorily accomplished, we come\nacross another trace of an ancient creed: \"Lamb of God, that takest away\nthe sins of the world;\" this is a fragment of sun-worship, alluding to\nthe sun-god, when, entering the sign of the Lamb, he bears away all the\ncoldness and the darkness of the winter months, and gives life to the\nworld. The remainder of the Litany is of the same painfully servile\ncharacter as the earlier portions; God seems to be regarded as a fierce\ntyrant, longing to wreak His fury on mankind, and only withheld by\nincessant entreaties. All possible evils seem to be showering down on\nthe congregation, and, if one closed one's eyes, one could imagine\na sad-faced, care-worn, haggard group of Covenanters, or Huguenots,\ninstead of the fashionable crowd that fills the pews; and when one hears\nthem ask that they may be \"hurt by no persecutions,\" one is inclined\nto mutter grimly: \"You are all safe, mother Church, and you are the\npersecutor, not the persecuted.\" The service concludes with the same\nunreal cant about afflictions and infirmities, till one could wish\nalmost to hear something of the style of observation made by an angry\nnurse to a tiresome child: \"If you don't stop crying this minute, I will\ngive you something to cry for.\" If men would only be as real inside the\nchurch as they are outside; if they would think and mean what they say,\nthis pitiful burlesque would speedily be put an end to, and they would\nno longer offer up that sacrifice of lying lips, which are said to be\n\"an abomination to the Lord.\"\n\n\n\n\nPRAYERS AND THANKSGIVINGS UPON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.\n\nThese special prayers are, perhaps, on the whole, the most childish of\nall the childish prayers in the Church-book before us. A prayer \"for\nrain;\" a prayer \"for fair weather:\" it is almost too late to argue\nseriously against prayers like these, except that uneducated people do\nstill believe that God regulates the weather, day by day, and may be\ninfluenced in His arrangements by the prayer of some weather-critic\nbelow. Yet it is a literal fact that storm-signals fly before the\napproaching storm, and prepare people for its coming, so that when it\nsweeps across our seas the vessels are safely in port, which otherwise\nwould have sunk beneath its fury; meteorology is progressing day by day,\nand is becoming more and more perfect, but this science--as all other\nscience--would be impossible if God could be influenced by prayer; a\nstorm-signal would be needless if prayer could stay the storm, and would\nbe unreliable if a prayer could suddenly, in mid-ocean, check the course\nof the tempest. Science is only possible when it is admitted that \"God\nworks by laws,\" _i.e._, that His working at all need not be taken into\naccount. The laws of weather are as unchangeable as all other natural\nlaws, for laws are nothing more than the ascertained sequence of\nevents; not until that sequence has been found by long observation to\nbe invariable, does the sequence receive the title of \"a law.\" As the\nweather of to-day is the result of the weather of countless yesterdays,\nthe only way in which prayers for change can be effectual is that God\nshould change the whole weather of the past, and so let fresh causes\nbring about fresh results; but this seems a rather large prayer, to\nsay the least of it, and might, by the carnal mind, be considered as\nsomewhat presumptuous. In the prayers \"in the time of dearth and famine\"\nwe find the old barbarous notion that men's moral sins are punished by\nphysical \"visitations of God,\" and that God's blessing will give plenty\nin the place of death: if men work hard they will get more than if they\npray hard, and even long ago in Eden God could not make his plants grow,\nbecause \"there was not a man to till the ground;\" at least, so says the\nBible. The prayer \"in the time of war,\" is strikingly beautiful, begging\nthe All-Father to abate the pride, assuage the malice, and confound the\ndevices of some of His children for the advantage of the others. The\n\"most religious and gracious\" Sovereign recommended to the care of\nGod has been known to be such a king as George IV., but yet clergy\nand people went on day after day speaking of him thus to a God who\n\"searcheth the hearts.\" A quaint old Prayer-Book remarks upon this\nprayer for the High Court of Parliament, that the \"right disposing of\nthe hearts of legislators proceeds from God,\" and that \"both disbelief\nand ignorance must have made fearful progress where this principle\nis not recognised.\" In these latter days we fear that disbelief and\nignorance of this kind _have_ made very considerable progress. The\nThanksgivings run side by side with the prayers in subjects, and are\ntherefore open to the same criticisms. None of these prayers or praises\ncan be defended by reason or by argument; reason shows us their utter\nfolly, and their complete uselessness. Is it wise to persist in forcing\ninto people's lips words which have lost all their meaning, and which\nthe people, if they trouble themselves to think about them at all, at\nonce recognise as false? All danger in progress lies in the obstinate\nmaintenance of things which have outlived their age; just as a stream\nwhich flows peacefully on, spreading plenty and fertility in its\ncourse, and growing naturally wider and fuller, will--if dammed up too\nmuch--burst at length through the dam, and rush forward as a torrent,\nbearing destruction and ruin in its course; so will gradual and gentle\nreform in ancient habits change all that needs changing, without abrupt\nalterations, letting the stream of thought grow wider and fuller; but\nif all Reform be delayed, if all change be forbidden, if the dam of\nprejudice, of custom, of habit, bar the stream too long, then thought\nhurls it down with the crash of revolution, and many a thing is lost\nin the swirling torrent which might have remained long, and might have\nbeautified human life. Few things call more loudly for Reform than our\nhitherto loudly-boasted Reformation.\n\n\n\n\nTHE COMMUNION SERVICE.\n\nNO doctrine, perhaps, has done so much to cause disunion in the Church\nas the doctrine of Communion enshrined in the Lord's Supper. A feast of\nlove in idea, it has been pre-eminently a feast of hate in reality,\nand the fiercest contests have been waged over this \"last legacy of\nthe Redeemer.\" Down to the time of the Reformation it was the central\nservice of the Church universal, Eastern and Western alike: it was the\nLiturgy, distinguished from every-other office by this distinctive name.\nRound this rite revolved the whole of the other services, as week-days\naround the Lord's Day; on its due performance was lavished everything of\nbeauty and of splendour that wealth could bring; sweetest incense, most\nharmonious music, richest vestments, rarely jewelled vessels, pomp of\nprocession, stateliness of ceremony, all brought their glory and their\nbeauty to render magnificent the reception of the present God. Among the\nReformed Churches the festival was shorn of its grandeur; it became once\nmore the simple \"supper of the Lord,\" no memorial sacrifice, but only a\ncommemorative rite; no coming of the Lord to men, but only a sign of\nthe union through faith of the believer with the Saviour. At the present\ntime the old contest rages, even within the bosom of the Reformed\nChurch of England; one party still clings to the elder belief of a\nreal presence of Christ in the elements themselves, or in indissoluble\nconnection with them, and, therefore, celebrates the service with much\nof the ancient pomp; while the other furiously rejects this so-called\nidolatry, and makes the service as bare and as simple as possible.\nBoth parties can claim parts of the Communion Office as upholding\ntheir special views, for the English service has passed through much of\ntinkering from High and Low, and retains the marks of the alterations\nthat have been made by each.\n\nTo those outside the Church this office has particular attraction, as\nbeing, in a special manner, a link between the past and the present, and\nbeing full of traces of the ancient religion of the world, that catholic\nsun-worship of which Christianity is a modernised revival. From the\nNicene Creed, in which Jesus is described as \"God of God, Light of\nLight, very God of very God, Begotten not made, Being of one substance\nwith the Father, By whom all things were made\"--from this point we\nbreathe the full atmosphere of the elder world, and find ourselves\nengaged in the worship of that Light of Light, who, being the image of\nthe invisible God, the first-born of every creature, has for ages and\nages been adored as incarnate in Mithra, in Christna, in Osiris, in\nChrist. We give thanks for \"the redemption of the world by the death and\npassion of 'the Sun-Saviour, who suffered on the Cross for us,' who lay\nin darkness and in the shadow of death;\" we praise Him who fills heaven\nand earth with His glory, and who rose as \"the Paschal Lamb,\" and has\n\"taken away the sin of the world,\" bearing away in the sign of the Lamb\nthe darkness and dreariness of the winter; we remember the Holy Ghost,\nthe fresh spring wind, who, \"as it had been a mighty wind,\" came to\nbring us \"out of darkness\" into \"the clear light\" of the sun; then we\nsee the priest, with his face turned to the sun-rising, take the bread\nand wine, the symbols of the God, and bless them for the food of men,\nthese symbols being changed into the very substance of the deity, for\nare they not, in very truth, of him alone? \"How naturally does the\neternal work of the sun, daily renewed, express itself in such lines as\n\n     'Into bread his heat is turned,\n     Into generous wine his light.'\n\nAnd imagining the sun as a person, the change to 'flesh' and 'blood'\nbecomes inevitable; while the fact that the solar forces are actually\nchanged into food, without forfeiting their solar character, finds\nexpression in the doctrines of transubstantiation and the real\npresence.\" (\"Keys of the Creeds,\" page 91.) After this union with the\nDeity, by partaking of his very self, we praise once more the \"Lamb of\nGod that takest away the sins of the world,\" and is \"most high in the\nglory of God the Father.\" The resemblance is made the nearer in the\nchurches where much of ceremony is found (although noticeable in all,\nsince that resemblance is stereotyped in the formulas themselves; but in\nthe more elaborate performances the old rites are more clearly apparent)\nin the tonsured head of the priest, in the suns often embroidered on\nvestment and on altar-cloth, in the rays that surround the sacred\nmonogram on the vessels, in the cross imprinted on the bread, and\nmarking each utensil, in the lighted candles, in the grape-vine\nchiselled on the chalice--in all these, and in many another symbol, we\nread the whole story of the Sun-god, written in hieroglyphics as easily\ndecipherable by the initiated as is the testimony of the rocks by the\ngeologian.\n\nBut passing by this antiquarian side of the Office, we will examine it\nas a service suitable for the use of educated and thoughtful people at\nthe present time. The Rubric which precedes the Office is one of those\nunfortunate rules which are obsolete as regards their practice, and yet\nwhich--from their preservation--appear to simple-minded parsons to be\nintended to be enforced, whereby the said parsons fall into the clutches\nof the law, and suffer grievously. \"An open and notorious evil-liver\"\nmust not be permitted to come to the Lord's Table, and this expression\nseems to be explained in the Exhortation in the Office, wherein we read:\n\"if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of His\nword, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous\ncrime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table;\nlest, after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the devil enter into\nyou, as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and\nbring you to destruction both of: body and soul.\" In a late case,\nthe Sacrament was refused to one who disbelieved in the devil and who\nslandered God's word, on those very grounds, and it would seem to be an\nact of Christian charity so to deny it; for surely to say that part of\nGod's word is \"contrary to religion and decency\" must be to slander it,\nif words have any meaning, and people who do not believe in the devil\nought hardly to be sharers in a rite after which the devil will\nenter into them with such melancholy consequences. It would seem more\nconsistent either to alter the formulas or else to carry them out;\ntrue, one clergyman wrote that the responsibility lay with the unworthy\nrecipient who \"did nothing else but increase\" his \"damnation,\" but it\nis scarcely a pleasing notion that the clergyman should stand inviting\npeople to the Lord's table and, coolly handing to one of those who\naccept, the body of Christ, say, \"The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ\npreserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life,\" when he means--in the\ndelicate language used by the above-mentioned clergyman--\"The Body of\nour Lord Jesus Christ damn thy body and soul unto everlasting death.\"\nNo one but a clergyman could dream of so offensive a proceeding, and, to\nthose who believe, one so terribly awful.\n\nThe Ten Commandments which stand in the fore-front of the service are\nvery much out of place as regards some of them, to say nothing of the\nwant of truthfulness in the assertion, that \"God spake these words,\" &c.\nIn the second we are forbidden to make any graven image, or any likeness\nof any thing, a command which would destroy all art, and which no member\nof the congregation can have the smallest notion of obeying. The Jews,\nwho made the cherubim over the ark, upon which God sat, are popularly\nsupposed not to have disobeyed this command, because the cherubim were\nnot the likeness of anything in heaven, earth, or water: they were,\nlike unicorns, creatures undiscovered and undiscoverable. Yet in direct\nopposition to this command, Solomon made brazen oxen to support his sea\nof brass (1 Kings vii. 25,29) and lions on the steps of his ivory throne\n(Kings x. 19,20) and God himself, said to have ordered Moses to make a\nbrazen Serpent. God is described, in this same commandment as a \"jealous\nGod\"--which is decidedly immoral and unpleasant who visits \"the sins of\nthe fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of\nthem that hate me;\" the justice of this is so obvious that no comment on\nit is necessary. The fourth Commandment is another which no one dreams\nof attending to; in the first place, we do not keep the seventh day at\nall, and in the second, our man-servant, our maid-servant and our cattle\ndo all manner of work on the day we keep as the Sabbath. Further, who\nin the present day believes that \"in six days the Lord made heaven and\nearth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day;\"\ngeology, astronomy ethnology have taught us otherwise, and, among those\nwho repeat the response to this commandment in a London church, not\none could probably be found who believes it to be true. The fifth\nCommandment is equally out of place, for dutiful children do not live\nany longer than undutiful. The remainder touch simple moral duties,\nenforced by all creeds alike, and are noticeable for their omissions\nand not for their commissions: the insertion of the Buddhist Commandment\nagainst intoxication, for instance, would be an improvement, although\nsuch a commandment is naturally not to be found in the case of so gross\nand sensual a people as the ancient Jews. The alternative prayers for\nthe Queen, which follow next, are only worth noting, because the first\nenshrines the doctrine of divine right, which is long since dead and\nburied, except in church; and the other says \"that the hearts of Kings\nare in thy rule and governance,\" and suggests the thought that, if\nthis be so, it is better to be out of that \"rule and governance,\" the\neffects on the hearts of Kings not having been specially attractive.\nThe Nicene Creed comes next, and is open to-the objections before made\nagainst the Apostles' Creed; the last clauses relating to the Holy\nGhost are historically interesting, since the \"and the Son\" forms the\n_Filioque_ which severed Eastern from Western Christendom;*\n\n     * A short but very graphic account of the shameful\n     transaction by which the Filioque clause was, so to speak,\n     smuggled into the Nicene Creed, is to be found in the first\n     ten or twelve pages of the shilling pamphlet written by\n     Edmond S. Fouldes, B.D., entitled \"The Church's Creed, or\n     the Crown's Creed\".... clearly provides, too, that the\n     Church of Rome once held that the Holy Ghost only proceeded\n     from the Father, as the Dominus in it can only refer to the\n     Father.\n\n\"Who with the Father and the Son together\" ought to be \"worshipped and\nglorified,\" would be more true to fact than \"is,\" since the Holy Ghost\nis sadly ignored by modern Christendom, and has a very small share of\neither prayers or hymns: yet he is the husband of the virgin Mary, and\nthe Father of Jesus Christ; he is, therefore, a very important, though\npuzzling, person in the Godhead, being the Father of him from whom\nhe himself proceeds: this is a mystery, and can only be understood\nby faith. The texts that follow are remarkable for their ingenious\nselection: \"Who goeth a warfare,\" &c. (Cor. ix. 7); \"If we have\nsown,\"&c. (I cor. ix. 9); \"Do ye know,\" &c. (I Cor. ix. 13); \"He that\nsoweth little,\" &c, (2 Cor. ix. 6); \"Let him that is taught,\" (Gal. vi.\n6). the pervading selfishness of motive is also worth nothing: Give now\nin order that ye may get hereafter; \"Never turn thy face from any\npoor man, _and then the face of the Lord shall not be turned away from\nthee_;\" \"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord: _and\nlook, what he layeth out, it shall be paid him again_;\" \"If thou hast\nmuch, give plenteously; if thou hast little, do thy diligence gladly to\ngive of that little; _for so gathered thou thyself a good reward in the\nday of necessity_.\"* No free, glad giving here; no willing, joyful aid\nto a poorer brother, because he needs what I can give; no ready offer of\nthe cup of cold water, simply because the thirsty is there and wants the\nrefreshment; ever the hateful whisper comes: \"thou shalt in no wise lose\nthy reward.\" These time-serving offerings are then presented to God by\nbeing placed \"upon the Holy Table,\" and we then get another prayer for\nQueen, Christian Kings, authorities, Bishops, and people in general,\nconcluding with thanks for the dead, not a cheerful subject to bless God\nfor, if there chance to be present any mourner whose heart is sore with\nthe loss of a beloved one. At this point the service is supposed to end,\nwhen no celebration of the Holy Communion is intended, and here we find\ntwo Exhortations, or notices of celebration, from the first of which\nwe have already quoted:** in the second, we cannot help remarking the\nundignified position in which God is placed; it is a \"grievous and\nunkind thing\" not to come to a rich feast when invited thereto,\nwherefore we are to fear lest by withdrawing ourselves from this holy\nSupper, we \"provoke God's indignation against\" us. \"Consider with\nyourselves how great injury ye do unto God:\" what a very curious\nexpression. Is God thus at the mercy of man? Surely, then, of all living\nBeings the lot of God must be the saddest, if his happiness and his\nglory are in the hands of each man and woman; the greater his knowledge\nthe greater the misery, and as his knowledge is perfect, and the vast\nmajority of human kind know and care nothing about him, his wretchedness\nmust be complete.\n\n     * As if the clergy, with very few exceptions, are not\n     sufficiently provided for by the tithes, &c, without having\n     to go a-begging like either Buddhist or Roman Catholic\n     monks, to both of whom P.P. and P.M. are not inappropriately\n     applied (Professors of Poverty and Practisers of\n     Mendicancy).\n\n     ** It is, however, only just to say that that portion of it\n     contained between \"The Way and Means thereto,\" and \"Offences\n     at God's Hands,\" is one of the best bits in the whole\n     Prayer-Book, and which far surpasses the generality of\n     sermons one hears afterwards.\n\nAll things being ready, the clergyman begins by another Exhortation, of\nsomewhat threatening character: \"So is the danger great if we receive\nthe same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of\nChrist our Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering\nthe Lord's Body; we kindle God's wrath against us; we provoke him to\nplague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death.\" (Surely we\ncannot be plagued with more than one kind of death at once, and we can't\ndie sundry times, even after the Communion.) One almost wonders why\nanyone accepts this very threatening invitation, even though there are\nadvantages promised to \"meet partakers.\" The High Church party have\nindeed the right to talk much of the real presence, since ordinary bread\nand wine have none of these fearful penalties attached to the eating and\ndrinking, and some curious change must have taken place in them before\nall these terrible consequences can ensue. What would happen if some\nconsecrated bread and wine chanced to be left by mistake, and a stray\ncomer into the vestry eat it unknowingly? One thinks of Anne Askew, who,\ntold that a mouse eating a crumb fallen from the Host would infallibly\nbe damned, replied, \"Alack, poor mouse!\" Then follows a Confession of\nthe most cringing kind, fit only for the lips of some coward suppliant\ncrouching at the feet of an Eastern monarch; it is marvellous that free\nEnglish men and women can frame their lips into phrases of such utter\nabasement, even to a God; manliness in religion: is sorely-needed,\nunless, indeed, God be something smaller than man, and be pleased with\nthe degradation painful to human eyes. The prayer of consecration is the\ncentral point of the ordinance; of old they prayed for the descent of\nthe Holy Ghost on the elements, \"for whatsoever the Holy-Ghost toucheth\nis sanctified and clean\"--it is not explained how the Holy Ghost, being\nomnipresent, manages to avoid touching everything--and now the priest\nasks that in receiving the bread and wine we \"may be partakers of\"\nChrist's Body and Blood, and repeats the words, \"This is my Body,\" \"This\nis my Blood,\" laying his hand alternately-over the bread and the wine:\nnow if this means anything, if it is not mere mockery, it means that\nafter the consecration the bread and wine are other than they were\nbefore; if it does not mean this, the whole prayer is simply a farce, a\npiece of acting scarcely decent under the circumstances. But flesh\nand blood! Putting aside the extreme repulsiveness of the idea, the\ncoarseness of the act, the utter unpleasantness of eating flesh and\ndrinking blood, all of which has become non-disgusting by habit and\nfashion, and the distastefulness of which can scarcely be realised by\nany believer--putting aside all this, is there any change in the bread\nand wine? Examine it; analyse it; test it in any and every fashion;\nstill it answers back to the questioner, \"bread and wine.\" Are our\nsenses deceived? Then try a hundred different persons; all cannot be\ndeceived alike. Unless every result of experience is untrustworthy, we\nhave here to do with bread and wine, and with nothing more. \"But faith\nis needed.\" Ah yes! There is the secret: no flesh and blood without\nfaith; no miracle without credulity. Miracle-working priests are only\nsuccessful among credulously-disposed people; miracles can only be\nreceived by those who think it less likely that Nature should speak\nfalsely than that man should deceive; those who believe in this change\nthrough consecration cannot be touched by argument; they have closed\ntheir eyes that they may not see, their ears that they may not hear;\nno knowledge can reach them, for they have shut the gateways whereby\nit could enter, they are literally dead in their superstition, buried\nbeneath the stone of their faith. The reception of the Body and Blood of\nChrist being over, the people having knelt to eat and drink, as is only\nright when eating and drinking Christ (John vi. 57), the Lord's Prayer\nis said for the second time, a prayer and thanksgiving follows, confined\nto \"we and all thy whole Church,\" for the spirit is the same as that of\nthe prayer of Christ, \"I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou\nhast given me\" (John xvii. 9), and then the service winds up with the\n_Gloria in Excelsis_ and the Benediction. Such is the \"bounden duty and\nservice\" offered by the Church to God, the service of which the central\nact must be either a farce or a falsehood, and therefore insulting to\nthe God to whom it is offered. Regarded as a service to God, the whole\nCommunion Office is objectionable in the highest degree; regarded as\nan antiquarian survival, it is very interesting and instructive; it is\nsurely time that it should be put in its right place, and that its true\norigin should be recognised. The day is gone by for these barbarous,\nthough poetic, ceremonials; the \"flesh and blood,\" which was a bold\nfigure for the heat and light of the sun, becomes coarse when joined in\nthought to a human being; ceremonies that fitted the childhood of the\nworld are out of place in its manhood, as the play that is graceful\nin the child would be despicable in the man; these rites are the\nbaby-clothes of the world, and cannot be stretched to fit the stalwart\nlimbs of its maturer age, cannot add grace to its form, or dignity to\nits graver walk.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BAPTISMAL OFFICES.\n\nFor all purposes of criticism the Offices for \"Public Baptism of\nInfants, to be used in the Church,\" for \"Private Baptism of Children in\nhouses,\" and \"Baptism to such as are of riper years, and able to answer\nfor themselves,\" may be treated as one and the same, the leading idea\nof each service being identical; this idea is put forward clearly and\ndistinctly in the preface to the Office: \"Dearly beloved, forasmuch\nas all men are conceived and born in sin; and that our Saviour Christ\nsaith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate\nand born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon\nGod the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous\nmercy he will grant to this Child that thing which by nature he cannot\nhave.\" According to the doctrine of the Church, then, baptism is\nabsolutely necessary to salvation: \"_None can enter_... except he be...\nborn anew of water;\" thus peals out the doom of condemnation on the\nwhole human race, save that fragment of it which is sprinkled from the\nChristian font; there is no evasion possible here; no exception made\nin favour of heathen peoples; no mercy allowed to those who have no\nopportunity of baptism; none can enter save through \"the laver of\nregeneration.\" Can any words be too strong whereby to denounce a\ndoctrine so shameful, an injustice so glaring? A child is born into the\nworld; it is no fault of his that he is conceived in sin; it is no fault\nof his that he is born in sin; his consent was not asked before he was\nushered into the world; no offer was made to him which he could reject\nof this terribly gift of a condemned life; flung is he, without his\nknowledge, without his will, into a world lying under the curse of God,\na child of wrath, and heir of damnation. \"By nature he _cannot_ have.\"\nThen why should God be wrath with him because he hath not? The whole\narrangement is of God's own making. He fore-ordained the birth; he gave\nthe life; the helpless, unconscious infant lies there, the work of his\nown hands; good or bad, he is responsible for it; heir of love or of\nwrath, he has made it what it is; as wholly is it his doing as the\nunconscious vessel is the doing of the potter; as reasonably may God\nbe angry with the child as the potter swear at the clay he has clumsily\nmoulded: if the vessel be bad, blame the potter; if the creature be\nbad, blame the Creator. The congregation pray that God \"of his bounteous\nmercy,\" \"for thine infinite mercies,\" will save the child, \"that he,\nbeing delivered from thy wrath,\" may be blessed. It is no question of\nmercy we have to do with here; it is a question of simple justice, and\nnothing more; if God, for his own \"good pleasure,\" or in the pursuance\nof the designs of his infinite wisdom, has placed this unfortunate child\nin so terrible a position, he is bound by every tie of justice, by every\nsacred claim of right, to deliver the blameless victim, and to place him\nwhere he shall have a fair chance of well-being. \"It is certain by\nGod's Word,\" says the Rubric, \"that children _which are baptized_, dying\nbefore they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.\" And those which\nare not baptized? The Holy Roman Church sends these into a cheerful\nplace called Limbo, and the baby-souls wander about in chill twilight,\ncursed with immortality, shut out for ever from the joys of Paradise.\nMany readers will remember Lowell's pathetic poem on this subject, and\nthe ghastly baptism; they will also know into what devious paths of\nargumentative indecency that Church has wandered in deciding upon the\nfate of unbaptized infants;--how, when mothers have died in childbirth,\nthe yet unborn children have been baptized to save them from the\nterrible doom pronounced upon them by their Father in heaven, even\nbefore they saw the light;--how it has been said that in cases where\nmother and child cannot both be saved the mother should be sacrificed\nthat the child may not die unbaptized. Into the details of these\narguments we cannot enter; they are only fit for orthodox Christians,\nin whose pages they may read them who list. Truly, the Lord is a jealous\nGod, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, since unborn\nchildren are condemned for the untimely death of their mother, and\nunbaptized infants for the carelessness of their parents or nurses. Of\ncourse, the majority of English clergymen believe nothing of this kind;\nbut then why do they read a service which implies it? Why do they use\nwords in a non-natural sense? Why do they put off their honesty when\nthey put on their surplices?\n\nAnd why will the laity not give utterance to their thoughts on these and\nall such objectionable parts of the Service? In the Office for adults,\nas regards the necessity of the Sacrament, the words come in: \"where it\nmay be had;\" but the phrase reads as though it had been written in the\nmargin by some kindly soul, and had from thence crept into the text, for\nit is in direct opposition to the whole argument of the address wherein\nit occurs and to the rest of the office, as also to the other two\noffices for infants. The stress laid upon right baptism, i.e., baptism\nwith water, accompanied by the \"name of the Father, and of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost,\" appears specially in the office to follow\nthe private baptism of a child, should the child live; for the Rubric\ndirects that if there be any doubt of the use of-the water and the\nformula, \"which are essential parts of Baptism,\" the priest shall\nperform the baptismal ceremony, saying, \"If thou art not already\nbaptized, I baptize thee,\" &c. Surely such care and pains to ensure\ncorrect baptism speak with sufficient plainness as to the importance\nattached by the Church to this initiatory rite; this importance she\ngives to it in other places: none, unbaptized, must approach her altar\nto take the \"bread of life:\" none, unbaptized, must be buried by her\nministers, \"in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal\nlife.\" The baptized are within the ark of the Church; the unbaptized\nare struggling in the waves of God's wrath outside; no hand can be\noutstretched to save them; they are strangers, aliens, to the covenant\nof promise; they are without hope. The whole office for infants reads\nlike a play: the clergyman asks that the infant \"may receive remission\nof his sins;\" what sins? The people are admonished \"that they defer not\nthe Baptism of their children longer than the first or second Sunday\nnext after their birth.\" What sins can a baby a week old have\ncommitted? from what sins can he need release? for what sins can he\nask forgiveness? And yet, here is a whole congregation prostrate before\nAlmighty God, praying that a tiny long-robed baby may be forgiven, may\nbe pardoned his sins of--coming into the world when God sent him! The\nceremony would be ludicrous were it not so pitiful. And supposing that\nthe infant does need forgiveness, and has sins to be washed away, why\nshould a few drops of water, sprinkled on the face--or bonnet--of the\nbaby, or even the immersion of his body in the font, wash away the sins\nof his soul? The water is \"sanctified;\" we pray: \"Sanctify this water to\nthe mystical washing away of sin.\" As the hymn sweetly puts it:\n\n     \"The water in this font\n     Is water, by gross mortals eyed;\n     But, seen by faith, 'tis blood\n     Out of a dear friend's side.\"\n\nBlood once more! how Christians cling to the revolting imagery of a\nbygone and barbarous age of gross conceptions. And, applied by faith,\nit cleanses the soul of the child from sin. Well, the whole thing is\nconsistent: the invisible soul is washed from invisible sin by invisible\nblood, and to all outward appearance the child remains after baptism\nexactly what it was before--except it chance to get inflammation of\nthe lungs, as we have known happen, from High Church free use of water,\nwhich is, perhaps, the promised baptism of fire. The promises of the\nsponsors are in full accordance with the rest of the services; promises\nmade by other people, in the child's name, as to his future conduct,\nover which they have no control. The baby renounces the devil and all\nhis belongings, believes the Apostles' Creed, and answers \"that is my\ndesire,\" when asked if he will be baptized; all which \"is very pretty\nacting,\" but jars somewhat on the feeling of reality which ought surely\nto characterize a believer's intercourse with his God. The child being\nbaptized and signed with the Cross, \"is regenerate,\" according to the\ndeclaration of the priest. Some contend that the Church of England does\nnot teach baptismal regeneration, but it is hard to see how any one can\nread this service, and then deny the teaching; it is clearer and fuller\nthan is the teaching of her voice upon most subjects. The ceremony\nof baptism and the idea of regeneration are both derived from the\nsun-worship of which so many traces have already been pointed out: the\nworshippers of Mithra practised baptism, and it is common to the various\nphases of the solar faith. Regeneration, in some parts, especially in\nIndia, was obtained in a different fashion: a hole through a rock, or\na narrow passage between two, was the sacred spot, and a worshipper,\nsqueezing himself through such an opening, was regenerated, and was, by\nthis literal representation of birth, born a second time, born into a\nnew life, and the sins of the former life were no longer accounted to\nhim. Many such holes are still preserved and revered in India, and there\ncan be little doubt that the ancient Druidic remains bear traces of\nbeing adapted for this same ceremony, although a natural fissure appears\never to have been accounted the most sacred.*\n\n     * Even in this country, at Brimham Rocks, near Ripon, in\n     Yorkshire, the dead form of the custom is, or was, until\n     very lately, kept up by the guide sending all visitors, who\n     chose to avail themselves of the privilege, through such a\n     fissure.\n\nOne ought scarcely to leave unnoted the preamble to the first prayer in\nthe baptismal service: \"Who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his\nfamily in the ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead\nthe children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby\nthy holy baptism; and by the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus\nChrist, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify water to the mystical\nwashing of sin.\" In the two first examples given the choice of the\nChurch appears to be peculiarly unfortunate, as in each case water was\nthe element to be escaped _from_, and it was a source of death, not\nof life; perhaps, though, there is a subtle meaning in the Red Sea,\nit points to the blood of Christ: but then, again, the Red Sea drowned\npeople, and surely the anti-type is not so dangerous as that? It must\nbe a mystery. It would be interesting to know how many of the educated\nclergymen who read this prayer believe in the story of the Noachian\ndeluge, and of the miraculous passage of the Red Sea; and further,\nhow many of them believe that God, by these fables, figured his holy\nbaptism. Will the nineteenth century ever summon up energy enough to\nshake off these remnants of a dead superstition, and be honest enough to\nstop using a form of words which is no longer a vehicle of belief? When\nthe Prayer Book was compiled these words had a meaning; to-day they have\nnone. Shall not a second Reformation sweep away these dead beliefs,\neven as the first away for its own age the phrases which represented an\nearlier and coarser creed?\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.\n\n\"These signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they\ncast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up\nserpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;\nthey shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\" In those\nremarkable days the \"order of Confirmation\" might have been in\nconsonance with its surroundings, a state of things which is very far\nfrom being its present position. Mr. Spurgeon, writing for the benefit\nof street preachers, lately pointed out very sensibly that as the Holy\nGhost no longer gave the gift of tongues, they had \"better stick to\ntheir grammars,\" and in these degenerate days honest effort is more\nlikely to show results more satisfactory than those which ensue from the\nlaying on of Bishops' hands. When the Apostles performed this ceremony,\nwhich the Bishop now performs after their example, definite proofs\nof its efficacy were said to have been seen; so much so, indeed, that\nSimon, the sorcerer, wished to invest some money in heavenly securities,\nso that \"on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Ghost.\" A\nSimon would manifestly never be found nowadays ready to pay a Bishop for\nthe power of causing the effects of Confirmation. So far as the carnal\neye can see, the white-robed, veiled young ladies, and the shame-faced\nblack-coated boys, who throng the church on a Confirmation day, return\nfrom the altar very much the same as they went up to it: no one begins\nto speak with tongues; if they did, the beadle would probably interfere\nand quench the Spirit with the greatest promptitude. They are supposed\nto have received some special gifts: \"the spirit of wisdom and\nunderstanding; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength; the spirit\nof knowledge and true godliness;\" and in addition to these six spirits,\nthere is one more: \"the spirit of thy holy fear.\" No less than seven\nspirits, then, enter these lads and lasses. Wisdom and understanding\nare easily perceptible: are they wiser after Confirmation than they were\nbefore? do they understand more rapidly? do they know more? if there\nbe no perceptible difference is the presence of the Holy Spirit of none\neffect? if of none effect can his presence be of any use, of the very\nsmallest advantage? if of no use, why make all this parade about giving\na thing whose gift makes the recipient no richer than he was before?\nBesides, what certainty can there be that the Holy Ghost is given\nat all? Allowing--what seems to an outsider a gross piece of\nirreverence--that the Holy Ghost is in the fingers of the Bishop to be\ngiven away when it suits the Bishop's convenience, or is in a sort of\nreservoir, of which the Bishop turns the tap and lets the stream of\ngrace descend--allowing all this as possible, ought not some \"sign to\nfollow them that believe\"? How can we be sure that the Bishop is not\nan impostor, going through a conjuror's gestures and mutterings, and no\nmagic results accruing? If, in the ordinary course of daily-life, any\none came and offered us some valuable things he said that he possessed,\nand then went through the form of giving them to us, saying: \"Here\nthey are; guard and preserve them for the rest of your life;\" and the\noutstretched hand contained nothing at all, and we found ourselves with\nnothing in our grasp, should we be content with his assurance that we\nhad really got them, although we might not be able to see them, and we\nought to have sufficient faith to take his word for it? Should we not\nutterly refuse to believe that we had received anything unless we had\nsome proof of having done so, and were in some way the better or the\nworse for it? The truth is that people's religion is, to them, a matter\nof such small importance that they do not trouble themselves about\nproof--Faith is enough to comfort them; the six week-days require their\nbrains, their efforts, their thought: the Sunday is the Lord's day, and\nhe must see toft: earth needs all their earnest attention, but heaven\nmust take care of itself; the validity of an earthly title is important,\nand the confirmation of a right to inherit property in this world is\neagerly welcomed, but the Confirmation to a heavenly inheritance is\na mere farce, which it is the fashion to go through about the age of\nfifteen, but which is only a fashion, the confirmation of a faith in\nnothing in particular to an invisible heritage of nothing at all.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FORM OF THE SOLEMNIZATION OF MATRIMONY.\n\nOne of the most curious blunders regarding orthodox Christianity is,\nthat it has tended to the elevation of woman. As a matter of fact, the\nEastern ideas about women are embodied in Christianity, and these ideas\nare essentially degraded and degrading. From the time when Paul bade\nwomen obey their husbands, Augustine's mother was beaten, unresisting,\nby Augustine's father, and Jerome fled from woman's charms, and monks\ndeclaimed against the daughters of Eve, down to the present day, when\nPeter's authority is used against woman suffrage, Christianity has\nconsistently regarded woman as a creature to be subject to man, because,\nbeing deceived, she was first in transgression. The Church service for\nmatrimony is redolent of this barbarous idea, relic of a time when men\nseized wives by force, or else purchased them, so that the wives became,\nin literal fact, the property of their husbands. We learn that matrimony\nwas \"instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto\nus the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church.\" It would\nbe interesting to know how many of those joined by the Church believe\nin the Paradise story of man's innocency and fall. It seems that Christ\nhas adorned the holy estate by his first miracle in Cana; but the\nadornment is rather of a dubious character, when we reflect that the\nprobable effect of the miracle would be a scene somewhat too gay, from\nthe enormous quantity of wine made by Christ for men who already had\n\"well drunk.\" Christ's approval of marriage may well be considered\ndoubtful when we remember that a virgin was chosen as his mother, that\nhe himself remained unmarried, and that he distinctly places celibacy\nhigher than marriage in Matt. xix. 11, 12, where he urges: \"he that is\nable to receive it let him receive it.\" St. Paul also, though he allows\nit to his converts, advises virginity in preference: \"I say to the\nunmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I;\" \"he\nthat giveth her not in marriage doeth better\" (see throughout 1 Cor.\nvii.) The reasons given for marriage are surely misplaced; last of all,\nit is said that marriage is \"ordained for the mutual society, help,\nand comfort that the one ought to have of the other;\" this, instead of\n\"thirdly,\" ought to be \"first.\" \"As a remedy against sin and to avoid\nfornication, that such persons as have not the gift of continency might\nmarry,\" is not a reason very honourable to the marriage estate, nor very\ndelicate to read out before a mixed congregation to a young bride and\nbridegroom; so strongly objectionable is the heedless coarseness of\nthis preface felt to be that in many churches it is entirely omitted,\nalthough it is retained--as are all remains of a coarser age--in the\nPrayer-Book as published by authority. The promise exchanged between the\ncontracting parties is of far too sweeping a character, and is immoral,\nbecause promising what may be beyond the powers of the promisers to\nperform; \"to love\" \"so long as ye both shall live,\" and \"till death us\ndo part,\" is a pledge far too wide; love does not stay by promising, nor\nis love a feeling which can be made to order. A promise to live always\ntogether might be made, although that would be unwise in this changing\nworld, and the endless processes in the Divorce Court are a satire on\nthis so-called joined by God; \"what God hath joined together\" man does\ncontinually \"put asunder,\" and it would be wiser to adapt the service to\nthe altered circumstances of the times in which we live. The promise of\nobedience and service on the woman's part should also be eliminated, and\nthe contract should be a simple promise of fidelity between two equal\nfriends. The declaration of the man as he places the ring on the woman's\nfinger is as archaic as the rest of this fossil service, and about as\ntrue: \"With all my worldly goods I thee endow,\" says the man, when, as a\nmatter of fact, he becomes possessed of all his wife's property and she\ndoes not become possessed of his. One of the concluding prayers is a\ndelightful specimen of Prayer-Book science: \"O God, who of thy mighty\npower hast made all things of nothing.\" What was the general aspect\nof affairs when there was \"nothing?\" how did something emerge where\n\"nothing\" was before? if God filled all space, was he \"nothing?\" is the\nexistence of nothing a conceivable idea? \"can people think of nothing\nexcept when they don't think at all?\" who also (after other things set\nin order) didst appoint that out of man (created after thine own image\nand similitude) woman should take her beginning:\" \"out of man,\" that\nis out of one of man's ribs; has any one tried to picture the scene:\nAlmighty God, who has no body nor parts, taking one of Adam's ribs, and\nclosing up the flesh, and \"out of the rib made he a woman.\" God, a pure\nspirit, holding a man's rib, not in his hands, for he has none, and\n\"making\" a woman out of it, fashioning the rib into skull, and arms,\nand ribs, and legs. Can a more ludicrous position be imagined; and Adam?\nWhat became of his internal economy? was he made originally with a rib\ntoo much, to provide against the emergency, or did he go, for the rest\nof his life, with a rib too little? And the Church of England endorses\nthis ridiculous old-world fable. Man was created \"after thine own image\nand similitude.\" What is the image of God? He is a spirit and has no\nsimilitude. If man is made in his image, God must be a celestial man,\nand cannot possibly be omnipresent. Besides, in Genesis i. 27, where it\nis stated that \"God created man in his own image,\" it distinctly goes\non to declare: \"in the image of God created he him; _male and female_\ncreated he them. Thus the woman is made in God's image as much as the\nman, and God's image is \"male and female.\" All students know that the\nancient ideas of God give him this double nature, and that no trinity\nis complete without the addition of the female element; but the pious\ncompilers of the Prayer-Book did not probably intend thus to transplant\nthe simple old nature-worship into their marriage office. Once more we\nhear of Adam and Eve in the next prayer, and we cannot help thinking\nthat, considering all the trouble Eve brought upon her husband by her\nflirtation with the serpent, she is made rather too prominent a figure\nin the marriage service. The ceremony winds up with a long exhortation,\nmade of quotations from the Epistles, on the duties of husbands and\nwives. Husbands are to love their wives because Christ loved a church--a\nreason that does not seem specially _a propos_, as husbands are not\nrequired to die for their wives or to present to themselves glorious\nwives, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (!); nor would most\nhusbands desire that their wives' conversation should be coupled with\nfear.\" Why should women be taught thus to abase themselves? They are\npromised as a reward that they shall be the daughters of Sarah; but\nthat is no great privilege, nor are English wives likely to call their\nhusbands \"lord;\" if they did not adorn themselves with plaited hair and\npretty apparel, their husbands would be sure to grumble, and the only\ndefence that can be made for this absurd exhortation is that nobody ever\nlistens to it.\n\nAmong the various reforms needed in the Marriage Laws one imperatively\nnecessary is that all marriages should be made civil contracts--that\nis, that the contract which is made by citizens of the State, and which\naffects the interests of the State, should be entered into before a\nsecular State official; if after that the parties desired a religious\nceremony, they could go through any arrangements they pleased in their\nown churches and chapels, but the civil contract should be compulsory\nand should be the only one recognised by the law. Of course the Church\nmight maintain its peculiar marriage as long as it chose, but it would\nprobably soon pass out of fashion if it were not acknowledged as binding\nby the State.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORDER FOR THE VISITATION OF THE SICK.\n\nOf all the services in the Prayer-Book this is, perhaps-, the most\nstriking relic of barbarism, the most completely at variance with sound\nand reasonable thought. The clergyman entering into a house of sickness,\nand as he enters the sick man's room and catches sight of him, kneeling\ndown and exclaiming, as though horror-stricken: \"Remember not, Lord, our\niniquities, nor the iniquities of our forefathers; spare us, good Lord,\nspare Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy most precious blood,\nand be not angry with us for ever.\" This clergyman reminds one of\nnothing so much as of one of Job's friends, who appear to have been an\neven more painful infliction than Job's boils. The sickness, the patient\nis told, \"is God's visitation,\" and \"for what cause soever this sickness\nis sent unto you: whether it be to try your faith for the example of\nothers, . . . or else it be sent unto you to correct and amend in\nyou whatsoever doth offend the eyes of your heavenly Father; know you\ncertainly, that if you truly repent you of your sins, and bear your\nsickness patiently, ... it shall turn to your profit, and help you\nforward in the right way that leadeth unto everlasting life.\" One might\nquestion the justice of Almighty God if the theory be correct that the\nsickness may be sent \"to try your patience for the example of others;\"\nwhy should one unfortunate victim be tormented simply that others\nmay have the advantage of seeing how well he bears it? If we are to\nendeavour to conform ourselves to the image of God, then it would seem\nthat we should be doing right if we racked our neighbours occasionally\nto \"try their patience for the example of others.\" And is the idea\nof God a reverent one? What should we think of an earthly father who\ntortured one of his children in order to teach the others how to bear\npain? if we should condemn the earthly father as wickedly cruel, why\nshould the same action be righteous when done by the Father in heaven?\nIf we accept the second reason given for the sickness, it is difficult\nto see the rationale of it. Why should illness of the body correct\nillness of the mind; does pain cure fretfulness, or fever increase\ntruthfulness? Is not sickness likely rather to bring out and strengthen\nmental faults than to weaken them? And how far is it true that sickness\nis, in any sense, the visitation of God for moral delinquencies? Is\nit not true, on the contrary, that a man may lie, rob, cheat, slander,\ntyrannise, and yet, if he observe the laws of health, may remain in\nrobust vigour, while an upright, sincere, honest and truthful man,\ndisregarding those same laws, may be miserably feeble and suffer an\nearly death? Is it, or is it not, a fact, that in the Middle Ages, when\npeople prayed much and studied little, when the peasant went to the\nshrine for a cure instead of to the doctor, when sanitary science was\nunknown, and cleanliness was a virtue undreamed of,--is it, or is\nit not, true, that pestilence and black death then swept off their\nthousands, while these terrible scourges have been practically driven\naway in modern times by proper attention to sanitary measures, by\nimproved drainage and greater cleanliness of living? How can that be a\nvisitation of God for moral transgressions, which can be prevented by\nman if he attends to physical laws? Is man's power greater than God's,\nand can he thus play with the thunderbolts of the divine displeasure?\nThe clergyman prays that \"the sense of his weakness may add strength to\nhis faith;\" what fine irony is here, as body and mind grow weak faith\ngrows strong; as a man is less able to think, he becomes more ready to\nbelieve. It is impossible to pass, without a word of censure, over the\npassage in the exhortation, taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which\nsays, \"for they (fathers of our flesh) verily for a few days chastened\nus after their own pleasure.\" Good earthly fathers do not chasten their\nchildren for their own amusement, while God does it \"for our profit;\"\non the contrary, they do it for the improvement of their children,\nwhile God alone, if there be a hell, tortures his children for his\nown pleasure and for no gain to them. The succeeding portion of the\nExhortation, that, \"our way to eternal joy is to suffer here with\nChrist,\" is full of that sad asceticism which has done so much to darken\nthe world since the birth of Christ; men have been so engaged in looking\nfor the \"eternal joy\" that they have let pass unnoted the misery here;\nthey have been so busy planting flowers in heaven that they have let\nweeds grow here; yes, and they have rejoiced in the misery and in\nthe weeds, because they were only strangers and pilgrims, and the\ntribulation, which was but temporal, increased the weight of the glory\nthat was eternal. Thus has Christianity blighted the flowers of this\nworld, and entwined the brows of its followers with wreaths of thorns.\nThe concluding portion of the exhortation deals with the duty of\nself-examination and self-accusation, that you may \"not be accused and\ncondemned in that fearful judgment.\" Very wholesome teaching for a sick\nman; sickness always makes a person morbid, and the Church steps in to\nencourage the unwholesome feeling; sickness always makes a person\ntimid and unnerved, and the Church steps in to talk about a \"fearful\njudgment,\" and bewilders and stuns the confused brain by the terrible\npictures called up to the mind by the thought of the last day.\n\nBut worse follows; for after the sick person has said that he\nsteadfastly believes the creed, the clergyman is bidden by the rubric\nto \"examine whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in\ncharity with all the world.\" Imagine a sick person being worried by an\nexamination of this kind, putting aside the gross impertinence of the\nwhole affair. Further, \"the minister should not omit earnestly to move\nsuch persons as are of ability to be liberal to the poor.\" When every\none remembers the terrible scandals of by-gone days, when priests drew\ninto the net of the Church the goods of the dying, using threat of hell\nand promise of heaven to win that which should have been left for the\nwidow and the orphan, one marvels that such a rubric should be left\nto recall the rapaciousness and the greed of the Church, and to invite\npriests to grasp at the wealth slipping out of dying hands. And here the\nsick person is to \"be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if\nhe feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter,\" and the priest\nis bidden to absolve him, for Christ having \"left power to his Church to\nabsolve by his authority committed to me,\" says the priest, \"I absolve\nthee.\" Confession, delegated authority, priestly absolution, such is the\ndoctrine of the Church of England: all the untold abominations of the\nconfessional are involved in this rubric and sentence; for if the man\ncan absolve a man at one time, he can do it at another. The precious\npower should surely not be left unused and wasted; whenever sin presses,\nbehold the remedy, and thus we are launched and in full sail. But never\nin England shall the confessional again flourish; never again shall\nEnglish women be corrupted by the foul questions of the priests; never\nagain shall Englishmen have their mental vigour and virility destroyed\nby such degradation. Let the Church fall that countenances such an\naccursed thing, and leave English purity and English courage to grow and\nflourish unchecked.\n\nThe devil is in great force in this service, as is only right in a so\ngenerally barbarous an office: \"Let the enemy have no advantage of him;\"\n\"defend him from the danger of the enemy;\" \"renew in him whatsoever\nhath been decayed by the fraud and malice of the devil;\" \"the wiles of\nSatan;\" \"deliver him from fear of the enemy;\" all this must convey to\nthe sick person a cheerful idea of the devil lingering about his bed,\nand trying to get hold of him before it is too late to drag him down to\nhell.\n\nIs there any meaning at all in the expression, \"the Almighty Lord....\nto whom all things in heaven, in earth and _under the earth_ do bow and\nobey.\" Where is \"under the earth \"? The sun is under some part of the\nearth to some people at any given time; the stars are under, or above,\naccording to the point of view from which they are looked at. Of course,\nthe expression is only a survival from a time when the earth was flat\nand the bottomless pit was under it, only it seems a Pity to continued\nto use expressions which have all but lost their meaning and are now\nthoroughly ridiculous. People seem to think that any old things are good\nenough for God's service. The last two prayers are remarkable\nchiefly for their melancholy and 'craven tone towards God: \"we humbly\nrecomment,\" \"most humbly beseeching thee.\" Surely God is not supposed\nto be an Eastern despot, desiring this kind of cringing at his feet.\nYet the \"Prayer for persons troubled in mind or in conscience\" is one\npitiful wail, as though only by passionate entreaty could God be moved\nto mercy, and he were longing to strike, and with difficulty withheld\nfrom avenging himself. When will men learn to stand upright on their\nfeet, instead of thus crouching on their knees? When will they learn\nto strive to live nobly, and then to fear no celestial anger, either in\nlife or in death?\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORDER FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD.\n\nIt is a little difficult to write a critical notice of a funeral office,\nsimply because people's feelings are so much bound up in it that any\ncriticism seems a cruelty, and any interference seems an impertinence.\nRound the open grave all controversy should be hushed, that no jarring\nsounds may mingle with the sobs of the mourners, and no quarrels wring\nthe torn hearts of the survivors. Our criticism of this office, then,\nwill be brief and grave.\n\nThe opening verses strike us first as manifestly inappropriate:\n\"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die;\" yet the dead is\nthen being carried to his last home, and the words seem a mockery spoken\nin face of a corpse. In the Fourth Gospel they preface the raising of\nLazarus, and of course are then very significant, but to-day no power\nraises our dead, no voice of Jesus says to the mourners, \"Weep not.\" The\nsecond verse from Job is---as is well known--an utter mistranslation:\n\"without my flesh\" would be nearer the truth than \"in my flesh,\" and\n\"worms\" and body are not mentioned in the original at all. It seems a\npity that in such solemn moments known falsehoods should be used.\n\nThe whole argument in the 15th ch of Corinthians is the reverse of\nconvincing. Christ is not the first fruits them that slept A dead man\nhad been raised by touching the bones of Ehsha (2 Kings xii). Elisha,\nin his lifetime had raised the dead son of the Shunamite (2 Kings iv.);\nElijah, before him, had raised the son of the Widow of Zarephath\n(2 Kings xvii.); Christ had raised Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus,\nand the son of a widow. In no sense, then, if the Scriptures of the\nChristians be true can it be said that Christ has become the first\nfruits, the first begotten from the dead. \"For since by man came death;\"\nbut death did not come by man; myriads of ages before man was in the\nworld animals were born, lived and died, and they have left their\nfossilised remains to prove the falsity of the popular belief. We notice\nalso that \"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.\" If this\nbe so, what becomes of the \"resurrection of the flesh,\" spoken of in\nthe Baptismal and Visitation Offices? What has become of the \"flesh and\nbones\" which Christ had after his resurrection and with which, according\nto the 4th Article, he has gone into heaven? Cannot Christ \"inherit the\nkingdom of God\"? It is hard to see how, in any sense, the resurrection\nof Christ can be taken as a proof of the resurrection of man. Christ\nwas only dead thirty-six or thirty-seven hours before he is said to have\nrisen again; there was no time for bodily decay, no time for corruption\nto destroy his frame: how could the restoration to life of a man\nwhose body was in perfect preservation prove the possibility of the\nresurrection of the bodies which have long since been resolved into\ntheir constituent elements, and have gone to form other bodies, and to\ngive shape to other modes of existence? People talk in such superior\nfashion of the resurrection that-they never stoop to remember its\nnecessary details, or to think where is to be found sufficient matter\nwherewith to clothe all the human souls on the resurrection morn.\nThe bodies of the dead make the earth more productive; they nourish\nvegetable existence; transformed into grass they feed the sheep and the\ncattle; transformed into these they sustain human beings; transformed\ninto these they form new bodies once more, and pass from birth to death,\nand from death to birth again, a perfect circle of life, transmuted by\nNature's alchemy from form to form. No man has a freehold of his body;\nhe possesses only a life-tenancy, and then it passes into other hands.\nThe melancholy dirge which succeeds this chapter sounds like a wail of\ndespair: man \"hath but a short time to live and is full of misery. He\ncometh up and is cut down like a flower; he fleeth as it were a shadow,\nand never continueth in one stay.\" Can any teaching be more utterly\nunwholesome? It is the confession of the most complete helplessness, the\nrecognition of the futility of toil. And then the agonised pleading: \"O\nLord God most holy, O Lord most mighty, O holy and most merciful Saviour\ndeliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death.\" But if he be\nmost merciful, whence all this need of weeping and wailing? If he be\nmost merciful, what danger can there be of the bitter pains of eternal\ndeath? And again the cry rises: \"Shut not thy merciful ears to our\nprayer; but spare us, Lord most holy, O God most mighty, O holy and\nmerciful Saviour, thou most worthy Judge Eternal, suffer us not, at our\nlast hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.\" It is nothing but\nthe wail of humanity, face to face with the agony of death, feeling its\nutter helplessness before the great enemy, and clinging to any straw\nwhich may float within reach of the drowning grasp; it is the horror of\nLife facing Death, a horror that seems felt only by the fully living and\nnot by the dying; it is the recoil of vigorous vitality from the silence\nand chilliness of the tomb.\n\nAfter this comes a sudden change of tone, and the mourners are told of\nGod's \"great mercy\" in taking the departed, and of the \"burden of the\nflesh,\" and they are bidden to give \"hearty thanks\" for the dead being\ndelivered \"out of the miseries of this sinful world.\" Can anything be\nmore unreal? There is not one mourner there who desires to share in\nthe great mercy, who wants to be freed from the burden of the flesh, or\ndesires deliverance from the miseries of this world. Why should people\nthus play a farce beside the grave? Do they expect God to believe them,\nor to be deceived by such hypocrisy?\n\nIt is urged by some that the Church cannot have a \"sure and certain hope\nof the Resurrection to eternal life\" as regards some of those whom she\nburies with this service; and it is manifest that, if the Bible be\ntrue, drunkards and others who are to be cast into the lake of fire, can\nscarcely rise to eternal life at the same time, and therefore the Church\nhas no right to express a hope where God has pronounced condemnation.\nThe Rubric only shuts out of the hope the uhbaptized, the\nexcommunicated, and the suicide; all others have a right to burial at\nher hands, and to the hope of a joyful resurrection, in spite of the\nBible.\n\nWe may hope that the day will soon come when people may die in England\nand may be buried in peace without this cry of pain and superstition\nover their graves. Wherever cemeteries are within reasonable distance\nthe Rationalist may now be buried, lovingly and reverently, without\nthe echo of that in which he disbelieved during life sounding over his\ngrave; but throughout many small towns and country villages the Burial\nService of the Church is practically obligatory, and is enforced by\nclerical bigotry. But the passing knell of the Establishment sounds\nclearer and clearer, and soon those who have rejected her services in\nlife shall be free from her ministrations at the tomb.\n\n\n\n\nA COMMINATION OR DENOUNCING OF GOD'S ANGER AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST\nSINNERS.\n\nTHIS service is too beautiful to be passed over without a word of\nhomage; the spectacle of the Church raving and cursing is too edifying\nto be ungratefully ignored. \"Brethren, in the primitive Church there was\na godly discipline that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood\nconvicted of notorious sin were put to open penance and punished in this\nworld, that their souls might be saved.... Instead whereof (until the\nsaid discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished), it\nis thought good,\" &c. That is, in other words: \"In days gone by, we were\nable to bite, as well as to bark; now that our mouths are muzzled we\ncan only snarl; but, until the old power comes back, which is much to\nbe wished, let us, since we cannot bite, show our teeth and growl as\nviciously as we can, so that people may understand that it is only the\npower that is wanting, and not the will, and that, if we could, we would\ntorture and burn as vigorously as we curse and damn.\" And promptly\nthe priest begins with his curses, and all the people say Amen: what a\npretty sight--a whole church full of Christians with one consent cursing\ntheir neighbours! Then comes an exhortation; as so many curses are\nflying about we must take care of our heads: \"Let us, remembering the\ndreadful judgment hanging over our heads, and _always ready to fall upon\nus_, return to our Lord God.\" Always ready to fall; but is God, then,\nalways lying in wait to catch us tripping, and crush us with his\njudgments? Does he punish gladly, and keep his blow suspended, to fall\nat the first chance our weakness gives him? If so, by no means let us\nreturn to our Lord God, but let us rather try to put a considerable\ndistance between himself and us, and endeavour, like the prophet Jonah,\nto flee from the presence of the Lord. \"It is a fearful thing to fall\ninto the hands of the living God: he shall pour down rain upon the\nsinners, fire and brimstone, storm and tempest.\" And who made the\nsinners? Who called them into the world without their own consent? Who\nmade them with an evil nature? Who moulded them as the potter the clay?\nWho made it impossible for them to go to Jesus unless he drew them,\nand then did not draw them? If God wants to pour fire and brimstone on\nanybody, he should pour it on himself, for he made the sinners, and is\nresponsible for their existence and their sin. \"It shall be too late to\nknock when the door shall be shut; too late to cry for mercy when it\nis the time of justice.\" How utterly repulsive is this picture of the\npopular and traditional God: how black the colours wherein is painted\nthis Moloch; surely the artist must have been sketching a picture of the\ndevil, and by mistake wrote under it the name of God when he should have\nput the name of Satan. If, however, we submit ourselves, and walk in his\nways, and seek his glory, and serve him duly--that is, if we acknowledge\ninjustice to be justness, and cruelty to be mercy, and evil to be\ngood--then we shall escape \"the extreme malediction which shall light\nupon them that shall be set on the left hand.\" On the whole, brave men\nand women will prefer to do rightly and justly here, caring much about\nserving man, and nothing about glorifying such a God, and leaving the\nmalediction alone, very sure that no punishment can befal a man for\nliving nobly, and that no fear need cloud the death-bed of him who has\nmade his life a blessing to mankind.\n\nOf course, after all this preface, come cringing confessions of sin. The\n51st Psalm leads the way, the congregation having by this time become so\nthoroughly confused that they see no incongruity in saying that when\nGod has built the walls of Jerusalem, he will be pleased with burnt\nofferings and oblations, and that \"then shall they offer young bullocks\nupon thy altar.\" As a matter of fact, they have no intention of offering\nyoung bullocks at all--bullocks having become too useful to be wasted in\nthat fashion, but they have so thoroughly left the realm of common sense\nthat they have become unconscious of the absurdities which they repeat.\nThe gross exaggeration of the concluding prayers must be patent to\neveryone; they are full of the hysteria which passes for piety. \"We are\ngrieved and wearied with the burden of our sins,\" although most of the\ncongregation will forget all about the burden before they leave\nthe church: we are \"vile earth and miserable sinners;\" we \"meekly\nacknowledge our vileness.\" One longs to shake them all, and tell them\nto stand up like men and women, instead of cringing there like cowards,\nwhining about their vileness. If they are vile, why don't they mend,\ninstead of saying the same thing every year? They should be ashamed to\ntell God of their miserable condition year after year, when his grace\nis sufficient for them, and they might be perfect as their Father in\nheaven.\n\nThe Church in all this service reminds one of nothing so much as a\nwicked old crone, who whines to the parson and scolds all the children.\nIn days gone by the old woman has been the terror of the village, and\nher sturdy arm has been shown on many a black eye and bruised face;\nnow she can no longer strike, she can only curse; she can no longer\ntyrannise, she can only scowl; her palsied tongue still mutters the\ncurses which her shrivelled arm can no longer translate into act, and in\nher bleared eye, in her wrinkled cheeks, in her shaking frame, we read\nthe record of an evil youth, wherein she abused her strength, and we see\ndescending upon her the gloom of a dishonoured age, and the night of a\nfathomless despair.\n\n\n\n\nFORMS OF PRAYER TO BE USED AT SEA.\n\nThere is now a special service used at the launching of her Imperial\nMajesty's war-vessels which has not yet found its way into the\nPrayer-Book; curious thoughts arise in the mind in contemplating that\nfashion, conjoined to the office to be \"used in her Majesty's navy every\nday.\" How does God protect \"the persons of us, thy servants, and the\nfleet in which we serve?\" Does prayer make bad ships more seaworthy, or\nsupply the place of stout iron and sound wood? If the ship is not safe\nwithout prayer, will prayer make it so?\n\nIf not, what is the use of praying over it? Either the ship is seaworthy\nor it is not; if it is, it will sail safely without prayer; if it is\nnot, will prayer carry the rotten ship through the storm? If prayer\nbe so efficacious, would it not be cheaper to use less wood and more\nprayer? Bad materials roughly put together would serve, for a curate\nwould be cheaper than a shipwright, and much prayer would enable us to\ndispense with much labour. In \"storms at sea,\" a special prayer is to be\nused; \"O most powerful and glorious Lord God, at whose command the\nwinds blow, and lift up the waves of the sea, and who stillest the rage\nthereof:\" \"O send thy word of command to rebuke the raging winds and the\nroaring sea.\" Is not this the prayer of utter ignorance, the prayer of\nan unscientific age? For what does the prayer imply? Only the modest\nrequest that the state of the atmosphere round the whole globe may be\nmodified to suit the convenience of a small ship! And not only that, but\nalso that the whole course of weather may be changed during countless\nyesterdays, the weather of to-day being only an effect caused by them.\nSuch prayers were offered up in former days by a people who knew nothing\nof the inviolability of natural order, and who imagined that the weather\nmight be changed at their bidding as the clerk may push on the hands of\nthe church clock. The sailors are very frank in their confession: \"When\nwe have been safe and seen all things quiet about us, we have forgot\nthee, our God... But now we see how terrible thou art in all thy works\nof wonder; the great God to be feared above all.\" At any rate they\ncannot be accused of hypocrisy in their dealings with God! Nor is this\nall. Short prayers are provided for those who have no time for the long\nones; and if the danger grows very pressing, everybody who can be spared\nis to join in a special confession of sins, taken from the Communion\nOffice. It would surely be well to avoid a very pious crew, as they\nmight be wasting the time in prayer which might save the ship by work.\nOne serious thought presents itself for consideration in connection with\nthis supposed power of God to smooth the turbulent billows. Many ships\ngo down year after year; many thousands of lives sink in the pitiless\nocean; many a bitter wail goes up from drowning crews; how wickedly\ncruel to have such power and to see the ship sink in the storm! how\nicily stony to have such power and to watch unmoved the agony of the\nperishing!\n\nThe prayers against the enemy are beautiful effusions; some of the\nchildren praying the All-father to enable them to slay his other\nchildren: \"Stir up thy strength, O Lord, and come and help us.\" What\na curious request! Does the All-strong require to stir up his strength\nbefore he can crush a few men? \"Judge between us and our enemies.\" But\nsuppose the enemy is in the right, what then? Suppose English sailors\nare on the wrong side, as in the dispute between George III. and the\nAmerican Colonies, such a prayer then becomes a prayer for defeat, not\nan encouraging thought with which to go into battle. The prayers are\nalso offensive for their cowardice of tone: \"Let not our sins now cry\nagainst us for vengeance; but hear us thy poor servants begging mercy,\nand imploring thy help.\" The praises after victory are as objectionable\nas the prayers before: \"The Lord hath covered our heads and made us\nto stand in the day of battle.\" And what of the poor wounded, groaning\nbelow in the cockpit, whose heads the Lord hath not covered? \"The Lord\nhath overthrown our enemies, and dashed in pieces those that rose up\nagainst us.\" How thoroughly savage and bloodthirsty the thanksgiving! Is\nGod supposed to rejoice over the sufferings of the defeated? Is he to\nbe thanked for slaying his creatures? And then the victory is to be\nimproved to the \"advancement of thy gospel;\" the gospel of so-called\npeace and goodwill is to be advanced by cannon-ball and torpedo, by\nsabre and cutlass. Truly they must believe that Jesus came to send\na sword through the earth. And yet this is the true spirit of\nChristianity; of the creed which has shed more human blood than any\nother faith; of the creed which won its way through Europe with the\ncrucifix in one hand, and the battle-axe in the other; of the creed\nthat tortured innumerable victims on the rack, and which lit the\nfuneral pyres of the martyrs; of the creed whose cross has ever been\ncrimson-red, not with the blood of one who died to save humanity, but\nwith the blood of a humanity sacrificed to the glory of God.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FORM AND MANNER OF MAKING, ORDAINING, AND CONSECRATING OF BISHOPS,\nPRIESTS, AND DEACONS, ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF\nENGLAND AND IRELAND.\n\nIf the Church of England confined herself in her ministrations to\noffices which had some demonstrable effect, her occupation would be\ngone. These Ordination offices stand on a par with that of Confirmation.\nIn both, the Holy Ghost is given by imposition of episcopal hands;\nin both, no appreciable results follow the gift. The preface to these\noffices says: \"It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy\nScripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have\nbeen these orders of ministers in Christ's Church: Bishops, Priests,\nand Deacons.\" The \"evidence\" of this appears doubtful, seeing that all\nPresbyterians acknowledge no such triple order, and regard bishops as\nan invention of the devil, and \"the pride of prelacy\" as \"a rag of\nthe scarlet\" lady. The three offices before us may, to all intents and\npurposes, be treated as one, for they are the progressive steps of the\nladder which reaches-from earth to heaven, from the poor deacon-curate\non 70_l_. a year at the bottom, to the archbishop luxuriating on\n15,000_l_. a year at the top. There is much of solemn farce in the\nopening: the archdeacon presents the candidates for ordination to the\nbishop, and the reverend father in God, who has had them examined, who\nknows all about them, and has-probably dined with them the night before,\ngravely responds, \"Take heed that the persons whom ye present unto us\nbe-apt and meet, for their learning and godly conversation, to exercise\ntheir ministry duly, to the honour of God and the edifying of his\nChurch.\" For the learning of some young clergymen, the less said about\nit the better, but those presented have at least scraped through the\nbishop's examination, and will not now be turned back. The question\nis simply a sham, and both candidates and bishop would be thoroughly\nastonished if the archdeacon replied that any one of them was deficient.\n\nThe Litany follows after this, and then the Communion Office, with\nspecial Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. After the Oath of Supremacy, the\nbishop examines the candidates for the diaconate: \"Do you trust that you\nare inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office?\" is\nasked of each, and each answers: \"I trust so.\" This ought to be a solemn\nquestion: to be inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost is surely an important\nthing; and when one remembers how very little many of these young men,\nfresh from college, seem to think of the matter, and how one chooses the\nChurch because it is \"gentlemanly,\" and another because there is a fat\nliving in the family, and another because he is too stupid for any other\nprofession, we can scarcely help wondering at the workings of the Holy\nSpirit in the heart of man. They are also asked if they \"unfeignedly\nbelieve all the Canonical Scriptures.\" If they really do believe them at\ntheir ordination much change must take place in after life, judging by\nthe amount of scepticism among the clergy. Much of the fault lies in\npledging young men of three-and-twenty to absolute belief in what they\nhave probably studied but little; at college all their instruction is in\nChristian _Evidences_, not in attacks on Christianity; they really know\nbut little of the anti-Christian arguments, and therefore are naturally\nshaken when they learn them further on. Then the deacon is to read\nHomilies in Church, and promises to do so, although he never fulfils the\npromise, and he vows to obey his \"Ordinary and other chief ministers\nof the Church... following with a glad mind and will their godly\nadmonitions.\" How well the deacons and priests keep this pledge may be\nseen in the daily struggles between them and their bishops, and in the\nnecessity of passing a Public Worship Regulation Act for the easier\nsuppression of rebellious priests. A year must intervene between the\ndiaconate and the priesthood, and when this year has run, the youthful\naspirant to the power of the keys presents himself once more before the\nFather in God, and the same farce of question and answer is repeated.\nThe service runs as in that for deacons, save the special Epistle\nand Gospel, until after the Oath of Supremacy; and then comes a long\nexhortation, wherein what strikes us most is the complete contrast\nbetween the priest in theory and the priest in practice: \"If it shall\nhappen the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or\nhindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the\nfault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue see that you\nnever cease your labour, your care and diligence, until you have done\nall that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty, to bring all such\nas are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that agreement in the\nfaith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age\nin Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in\nreligion, or for viciousness in life.\" Now change the scene to six weeks\nlater, and our young priest is playing croquet and flirting meekly with\nhis rector's daughters, oblivious of the \"horrible punishment\" he\nis incurring from Hodge at the public-house getting drunk unrebuked.\n\"Consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the\nScriptures... and for this self-same cause how ye ought to forsake and\nset aside (as much as you may) all worldly cares and studies.\" Alas for\nthe special vanities of country clergymen; this one botanizes, and that\none zoologizes, and another one geologizes, and a fourth is devoted to\nhis garden, and a fifth to his poultry, and a sixth to his farming,\nnot to speak of those who adorn the bench of magistrates and sternly\nsentence wicked poachers, and sinful old women who pick up sticks, and\nchildren who steal flowers. It may be urged that no set of men could\npossibly live the life sketched in this exhortation: granted; but,\nthen, why pretend that they are bound to live it, and threaten horrible\npunishments if they do not perform the impossible? Besides, the bishop\nexpresses his hope that they have well considered the whole matter,\nand have \"clearly determined, by God's grace... you will apply yourself\nwholly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way.\"\nWhen the time comes to put the questions to the candidates, this very\npoint forms one of them: \"Will you be diligent in prayers, and in\nreading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the\nknowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the\nflesh?\" And the candidates solemnly promise to do that which they must\nknow they have no intention of doing. One might further urge, that the\nperpetual meddlesomeness enjoined in this Office on the priest would\nmake that individual a perfect nuisance to his parishioners if he tried\nto carry it into practice, and that he would probably very often find\nhis ministrations cut short with unpleasant emphasis. The consecration\nfollows in due course: \"Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work\nof a priest in the Church of God... Whose sins thou dost forgive they\nare forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.\" And\nyet some people pretend that the Church of England does not sanction an\nabsolving priesthood! If these words have any meaning, they mean that\nthe young men now ordained have the most awful power given into their\nhands, that they can, in very truth, lock and unlock heaven, for by\ntheir absolution the forgiven sinner may enter, while through their\nretainment of his sins he may be shut out. How tremendous then is the\nauthority thus given into hands so young and so untried! And surely such\npower is not to be wasted? Surely it is the duty of these priests to\nbe continually urging people to seek, and continually to be giving,\nabsolution. Why should one sinner die unshriven, when such death may be\nprevented by the diligence of the priest? Life would be impossible were\nall this really believed; what priest could live in reasonable comfort\nif this were true and were realised? All earthly things would sink into\ninsignificance, and life would become a desperate struggle to save\nand absolve the perishing; real belief would end its days in a lunatic\nasylum.\n\nThe Consecration of Archbishop or Bishop is somewhat more ceremonious,\nbut is one in character with the preceding offices. The promise to\nbanish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to\nGod's word is one the fulfilment of which brings unfortunate bishops\nnowadays into much trouble in the flesh. For when a Colenso \"comes down\nlike a wolf on the fold,\" and a faithful Bishop of Oxford forbids him\nto tear the lambs of his flock, immediately people mutter \"bigoted,\"\n\"narrow-minded,\" \"tyranny,\" with sundry other unpleasant adjectives and\nnouns. Yet can there be no doubt that he of Oxon was only obeying his\nordination vow. In truth the present spirit of liberty is thoroughly\nat issue with the spirit of these offices, and the only effect of\nmaintaining them is to create hypocrites and vow breakers. Nor is it\nfair to-judge too harshly those who break these foolish vows, for a man\nmay honestly think that he can best serve his generation as clergyman,\nand may have a general belief in Christianity, and he may then argue\nthat he cannot permit himself to be kept out of a wide sphere of\nusefulness by a few obsolete vows. The pity is that men, whose common\nsense is too strong to be bound by foolish promises taken in ignorance\nin their youth, do not join earnestly together to remove this\nstumbling-block from before the feet of the next generation, so that, if\nthey deem their church valuable, they may preserve her by adapting her\nto the realities of the nineteenth instead of the sixteenth century,\nand may make her services something more than a farce, her ceremonies\nsomething better than a show.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ARTICLES.\n\nIt is a little difficult to make out how far the Thirty-nine Articles\nof the Church of England--\"the forty stripes save one\"--are binding or\nnon-binding on her members. There is, of course, no question that they\naccurately sketch her doctrines, and that all her faithful children\nshould accept and believe them with devout piety, but scarcely any dogma\ncan be enforced by law against the laity, the whole spirit of the time\nbeing directly antagonistic to such enforcement. But there is no doubt\nthat these Articles are both legally and morally binding on the clergy,\nas they voluntarily submit themselves to them, and declare their full\nand free belief in them when entering upon the enjoyment of any benefice\nof the Establishment. The Royal Declaration, prefixed to the Articles,\nis sweeping and decisive enough. \"The Articles of the Church of England\ndo contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's\nword; which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving\nsubjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting\nthe least difference from the said Articles.\" After this distinct\ndeclaration we are commanded \"That no man hereafter shall either print,\nor preach, to draw the Article aside either way, but shall submit to it\nin the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense\nor comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in\nthe literal and grammatical sense.\" When any outsider has read this\ndeclaration it becomes to him one of the mysteries of the faith how it\nis that English gentlemen, honest, honourable men in everything else,\nmanage to accept livings on condition of declaring their full concord\nwith these Articles, and then deliberately twist them into non-natural\nmeanings, in order that they may be Roman Catholic or Latitudinarian,\naccording to the opinions of the readers. It may, certainly, be conceded\nthat the \"literal and grammatical sense\" is very often nonsense, and\ntherefore cannot be believed; perfectly true: but these honest men\nhave no right to give the weight of their culture and their goodness\nto bolster up this falling Church, whose dogmas they can never accept,\nexcept by transfiguring their unreason into reason, and their folly into\nwisdom. Many who are ignorant, and careless, and uncultured are kept as\nnominal members of the Anglican Church because a glamour is thrown over\nit by the Broad Church clergy; but their position cannot be too strongly\nreprobated, _so long as they make no effort to alter that in which they\ndo not believe, so long as they silently support superstitions which\nwithout their aid would, long ago, have crumbled into ruin._\n\nArticle I. deals with \"Faith in the Holy Trinity.\" Most creeds,\ncertainly all Oriental creeds, cluster around a Trinity; the root of the\nworship of the Trinity is struck deep into the nature of man, for it is\nthe worship of the life universal, localised in the giver of the life\nindividual, under the symbol of the phallic emblem, the creator of each\nnew existence. The Christian Trinity has, naturally, outgrown the primal\nbarbarism of Nature-worship, although preserving the Trinity in unity:\n\"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts,\nor passions... and in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of\none substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy\nGhost\" So far have we travelled under the guidance of the Church, and\nwe have before our mind's eye, one God, uncorporeate, passionless,\nindivisible, and yet divided into three \"persons,\" thus implying three\nindividualities, separate the one from the other. Let us remember that\nthe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, but that\nsince there is but one God, the Father is the Son, and the Son is the\nHoly Ghost, and since the Father is the same as the Son, and the Son\nis the same as the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Holy Ghost must\nnecessarily be identical. Article II. teaches us that \"the Son, which\nis the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the\nvery and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's\nnature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance;\" the Son:\nthat is, the Second Person in the undivided and indivisible Trinity:\n\"begotten from everlasting of the Father;\" but the Father is one with\nthe Son, for both are God, and yet there is but one God, and therefore\nSon and Father are interchangeable terms; the Son then is begotten from\neverlasting of himself, for in the one true God no division is possible,\nand \"such as the Father is such is the Son;\" and further, the Son, being\nthe Son, and at the same time identical with his own Father, takes man's\nnature: then the Father and the Holy Ghost must also take man's nature,\nfor \"such as the Son such is the Father, and such is the Holy Ghost:\"\nand God, \"without body,\" takes man's body, and \"without parts\" is\ncrucified, and \"without passions\" suffers. But the Son dies \"to\nreconcile his Father to us;\" but he is his Father, and his Father is\nhimself. Can the one living and true God die to reconcile himself to\nhimself, and to offer himself up a sacrifice to himself to appease his\nown wrath? The bodiless is nailed on the cross: the impassible suffers:\nthe undying dies: the one God on earth is offered to appease the one\nGod in heaven, and there is but one living and true God. If this be so,\neither the God in heaven or the God on earth must have been a false God,\nfor there is but one true God: and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who\nmust be kept indivisible in thought, hang upon the cross, as a sacrifice\nto the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and cry, being the one true God, to\n\"my God, my God\" who has forsaken himself. And all this \"to reconcile\nthe Father to us:\" the Father who is \"without passions,\" and who\ntherefore cannot be angry or need reconcilement. \"As Christ died for\nus, and was buried, so also it is to be believed that he went down into\nhell.\" _Down_ into hell; which way is down from a round globe? In the\nancient conception of the universe the earth was flat, with heaven\nabove and hell underneath, and Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, when the earth\nopened her mouth, \"went down quick (alive) into hell:\" did Jesus do\nthe same? But, hanging on the cross, he said to the penitent thief:\n\"_To-day_ shalt thou be with me in Paradise:\" is Paradise the same hell?\nand is heaven identical with both? Jesus ascended, went up, not down, to\nheaven: if this be so, might not some confusion arise on the way, for\na soul starting downwards from Australia on its way to hell, might\nbe found soaring upwards from England after a few hours' journey. Are\nheaven and hell both all round the world, and if so, why is one \"up\" and\nthe other \"down\"? Rome was right and wise when she set her face sternly\nagainst the heliocentric theory; a revolving globe destroys all the old\nnotions of the \"heaven above,\" and of \"the water under the earth,\" and\nof hell below; and it was a strong argument against the sphericity of\nthe earth that \"in the day of judgment, men on the other side of the\nglobe could not see the Lord descending through the air.\" The Fourth\nArticle teaches us that Christ \"took again his body, with flesh,\nbones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature;\n_wherewith_ he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth.\" Body, flesh,\nbones, and all things appertaining to man's nature; wishes, and\nappetites, and needs, heart and lungs, for instance; and he took these\nbeyond the atmosphere? lungs to breathe where no air is? heart to\npulse where no oxygen can purify the blood? flesh and bones among pure\nspirits? the form of man sitting on the throne of God? and this flesh,\nbones, &c, all one with the indivisible, from the God without body\nand parts, and Jesus the Son of Mary, the crucified man, sitting in his\nflesh and bones in heaven, not to be separated in thought from the one\nliving and true God, without body, parts, or passions.* Such is the\n\"literal and grammatical sense\" of the first four Articles, and to\nanalyse the Fifth, \"of the Holy Ghost,\" would be simply to repeat all\nthat has been said above, since \"such is the Son, such is the Holy\nGhost.\" May it not justly be said that belief in the Trinity in Unity\nis the negation of thought, and that faith is only possible where reason\nends?\n\n     * 1 Cor. xv. 50.\n\nArticle VI. deals with \"the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for\nSalvation,\" and lays down the Canon that anything not capable of proof\nfrom the Bible must not be \"required of any man that it should be\nbelieved as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or\nnecessary to salvation.\" The converse of this proposition, that dogmas\nthat can be proved therefrom _are_ necessary to salvation, is said\nnot to be binding on the Church, and some notable \"depravers\" of the\nScriptures have successfully slipped through this Article. The list\nof books given as those \"of whose authority was never any doubt in the\nChurch\" seems open to grave objections, as the authority of many of\nthe books now accounted canonical has been distinctly challenged. \"The\nhistory of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.\"\n\"Job spake not therefore as it stands written in his book.\" \"Isaiah hath\nborrowed his whole art and knowledge from David.\" Thus, among many other\nstaid criticisms, wrote Luther. To go further back, is to find much\nsharp challenging. The Epistle to the Hebrews is of most doubtful\nauthenticity. The 2nd Epistle of Peter and that of Jude are debatable.\nThe Revelation of St. John the Divine was very slowly received, and the\ntwo shorter Epistles which bear his name are dubiously recognised. If\nonly the books are to be received of which there \"was never any doubt in\nthe Church,\" the canonical list must be shorn of most of its ornaments.\nWhen Article VII. tells us that the ceremonial and civil precepts of the\nOld Testament are not binding upon us, it seems a pity that some test\nis not given whereby unlearned people may be able to distinguish between\nthe \"Commandments which are called moral\" and the others. Is the command\nto persecute non-believers in Jehovah (Deut. xiii., xvii. 2--7) binding\nto-day? Is the command to put Witches to death (Lev. xx. 27) binding\nto-day? John Wesley said that belief in witchcraft was incumbent on all\nthose who believed the Bible, and if witchcraft was possible then, why\nnot now? or has God changed his mind as to the proper method of dealing\nwith such persons? Are the commands enjoining and regulating Slavery\n(Ex. xxi. 2--6, and 20, 21; Lev. xxv. 44--46; Deut. xv. 12--18) intended\nfor the guidance of slave-holders to-day? What is there to make the\n\"Commandments which are called moral\"--by which we may presume are meant\nthe Ten Commandments--more binding on \"Christian men\" than the other\nparts of the law? The Fourth Commandment is essentially a Jewish one,\nand is not obeyed among Christians. The Second Commandment is invariably\nignored, and the Fifth promises a reward which is not given. The\nCommandments touching murder, adultery, stealing, lying are not peculiar\nto the Mosaic code. They are found in all moral legislation, and are\nbinding--not because taught by Moses or by Buddha, but--because their\nobservance is necessary to the existence of society. Of the three\nCreeds of the Church we have already spoken, so pass to Article IX., \"of\nOriginal or Birth-sin.\" It seems that a fault and corruption of Nature\nare naturally \"engendered of the offspring of Adam,\" and that this\nfault \"in every person born into the world deserveth God's wrath and\ndamnation.\" That seems scarcely fair, since the infant's consent is not\nasked before he is born into the world, and the fault of being born is,\ntherefore, none of his. How, then, can the babe _deserve_ God's wrath\nand damnation? And seeing that the very next Article (X.) informs us\nthat our condition is such that a man \"cannot turn and prepare himself,\nby his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon\nGod,\" it appears terribly unjust that either child or man should be\nheld accursed because they do not do what God has made them incapable of\ndoing. It would be as reasonable to torture a man for not flying without\nwings, as for God to punish man for being born of the race of Adam, and\nfor not turning to God when the power so to do is withheld; for \"we have\n_no power to do good works_.... without the grace of God by Christ,\" and\nwhen that grace is not given we lie helpless and strength-less, unable\nto do right. Nor can any deed of ours make us fit recipients of the\ngrace of God, for (Article XIII.) \"works done before the grace of Christ\nand the Inspiration of his Spirit _are not pleasant_ to God.... neither\ndo they make men meet to receive grace.... yea, rather, for that they\nare not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, _we doubt\nnot but that they have the nature of sin_.\" So that if a good and noble\nheathen, who has never heard of Christ, and whose good deeds cannot\ntherefore \"spring of faith in Jesus Christ,\" does some high-minded\naction, or shows some kindly charity, his good deeds are of \"the nature\nof sin,\" and in fact make him rather worse off than he was before: as\nMelancthon said, his virtues are only \"splendid vices\" because done\nwithout faith in a person of whom he has never heard. For (Art. XVIII.)\nthey \"are to be accursed that presume to say that every man shall be\nsaved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to\nframe his life according to that law, and the light of nature:\" \"we are\naccounted righteous before God (Art. XI.) _only_ for the merit of our\nLord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and _not for our own works and'\ndeservings_.\" Thus we learn that God cares not for righteousness of\nlife, but only for blind faith, and that he sends us out into a world\nlying under his curse, without any chance of salvation except by\nattaining a faith which he gives or withholds at his pleasure, and which\nwe can of ourselves do nothing to deserve, much less to obtain. To crown\nthis beautiful theory we learn,--Article XVII. \"of Predestination\nand Election:\"--predestination to life, it seems, \"is the everlasting\npurpose of God whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid)\nhe hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from\ncurse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind,\nand to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made\nto honour.\" But if this be true, man has no choice of any kind in the\nmatter; for not only is grace to do right the gift of God, but man's\nacceptance of the gift is also compulsory. God has arranged, before he\nmade the world how many and whom he will save. What, then, becomes of\nman's boasted free will? Before the creation God drew the plan of every\nhuman life, and as the potter moulds the ductile clay into the shape\nhe desires, so God moulds his human pottery after his own will into\n\"vessels made to salvation\" or made to dishonour. To talk of man's\nfreedom is a mockery. What freedom had Adam and Eve in Paradise? \"They\nmight have stood:\" nay; for was not \"the Lamb slain from the foundation\nof the world?\" Before the sin was committed God had made the atonement\nfor it. If Adam were free not to sin, then it would be possible that\nhe might not have sinned, and then God would have offered a needless\nsacrifice, and would have a Saviour with no one to save, so that it\nwould have been necessary to provide a sinner in order to utilise the\nsacrifice. All idea of justice is here hideously impossible; God has\npredestinated some human beings _out of mankind_. These \"in due season\"\nhe calls; \"through grace they obey the calling;\" \"they be justified\nfreely... and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting\nfelicity.\" And the rest--those who are _not_ predestined; those who are\n_not_ called; those to whom _no_ grace is given; those who are _not_\njustified freely; those who have no God's mercy to aid them;--what\nof them? Made by God, the creatures of his hand, the vessels of his\nmoulding, the clay of his shaping, are they cast into the lake of\nbrimstone, into the fire that never shall be quenched, simply because\nGod in \"his sovereignty\" put them--unconscious--under his curse and left\nthem there, adding to the cruelty of creation the more savage cruelty\nof preservation? No! whether such deeds should be wrought by God or man,\nthey would be wickedly wrong. Almighty power is no excuse for crime, and\nthe God of the Articles of the Church of England is a gigantic criminal,\nwho uses his Almightiness to make life that he may torment it, and to\ncreate sentient beings foredoomed to bitterest agony, to keenest woe.\nSuch frightful misuse of power can only meet with strongest reprobation\nfrom all moral beings; unlimited power turned to evil purposes may\ntrample upon and crush us into helplessness, but it can never force us\nto worship, nor compel us to adore.\n\nThese first eighteen Articles of the Church may be said to contain the\nmore salient points of the Church's teaching, and it is needless to\npoint out the utter impossibility of reasonable and gentle-hearted men\nand women believing in the \"plan of, salvation\" sketched out in them.\nThey are instinct with the cruel theology of Calvin and of Zwingli,\nand imply (though they do not so plainly word) the view of the Lambeth\nArticles of 1595, that \"God from eternity hath predestinated certain men\nunto life; _certain he hath reprobated_.\" These Anglican Articles\nmust be taken as teaching predestination to damnation as well as to\nsalvation, since those not called to life must inevitably fall to\ndeath. The next section--so to speak--of the Articles deals with\nChurch affairs, defining the authority of Churches and of Councils, and\nexplaining the 'doctrine of the Sacraments. It is with these that\nthe High Church party chiefly fall out, for the Twenty-first Article,\nacknowledging that General Councils may err and have erred, strikes at\nthe root of the infallibility of the Church Universal, so dear to the\npriestly soul. The Articles on the Sacraments also tend somewhat to the\nLow Church view of them, and dwell more on the faith of the recipient\nthan on the consecration of the priest. The Article (XXXIII.) levelled\nagainst \"excommunicate persons,\" commanding that such an one shall\n\"be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and\nPublican, until he be openly reconciled by penance,\" is duly believed\nand subscribed by clergymen, but has no real meaning to-day. If the\nThirty-fifth Article were acted upon, some curiosities of English\nliterature would enliven the Churches; for this Article bids the\nclergy read the Homilies: \"we judge them to be read in Churches by the\nMinisters, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of\nthe people.\" It is really a pity that this direction is not carried out,\nfor some of the barbarous doctrines of popular Christianity would then\nbe seen as they are described by men who thoroughly believed in them,\ninstead of being known only as they are presented to us to-day, with\nsome of their deformity hidden under the robes woven for them by modern\ncivilisation, wherein humanity has outgrown the old Christianity, and\nmen's reason chastens their faith. The last three Articles touch on\ncivil matters, acknowledging the Royal Supremacy and dealing with other\nmatters pertaining to Caesar, but on the borderland between him and God.\n\nSuch are the Articles of the Church; believed by few, unknown to\nmany, winked at by all, because religion is practically a matter of\nindifference to most, and while custom and fashion enforce conformity\nwith the Church, the brain troubles not itself to analyse the claim, or\nto weigh the conditions of allegiance. Men have become so sceptical as\nto regard all creeds with indifference, and the half-conceived unbelief\nof the clergy, sighing with mental reservations, and formally asserting\nbelief where the thought and the lips are at variance, appears to have\neaten the heart out of all religious honesty in England, and men lie to\nGod who would revolt at lying to man. If belief in the Articles is now a\nthing of the past, then the Articles should also pass away; if Churchmen\nhave outgrown these dogmas, why do they suffer them to deface their\nPrayer-Book, to barb \"the shafts of the sceptic, and to give power to\nthe sneer of the scoffer?\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM\n\nWISE men, in modern times, are striving earnestly and zealously to, as\nfar as possible, free religion from the cramping and deadening effect of\ncreeds and formularies, in order that it may be able to expand with the\nexpanding thought of the day. Creeds are like iron moulds, into which\nthought is poured; they may be suitable enough to the way in which they\nare framed; they may be fit enough to enshrine the phase of thought\nwhich designed them; but they are fatally unsuitable and unfit for\nthe days long afterwards, and for the thought of the centuries which\nsucceed. \"No man putteth new wine into old bottles, else the new wine\ndoth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will\nbe marred; but new wine must be put into new bottles.\" The new wine\nof nineteenth century thought is being poured into the old bottles of\nfourth century creeds: and sixteenth century formulas, and the strong\nnew wine-bursts the bottles, while the weak new wine that cannot:\nburst them ferments into vinegar in them, and often becomes harmful\nand poisonous. Let the new wine be poured into new bottles; let the\nnew thought mould its own expression; and then the old bottles will be\npreserved unbroken as curious specimens of antiquity, instead of being\nsmashed to pieces because they get in the way of the world. Nothing is\nmore to be deprecated in a new and living movement than the formulating\ninto creeds of the thoughts that inspire it, and the imposition of those\ncreeds on those who join it. The very utmost that can be done to give\ncoherency to a large movement is to put forward a declaration of a few\ncardinal doctrines that do not interfere with full liberty of divergent\nthought. Thus, Rationalists might take as the declaration of their\ncentral thought, that \"reason is supreme,\" but they would be destroying\nthe future of Rationalism if they formulated into a creed any of the\nconclusions to which their own reason has led them at the present time,\nfor by so doing they would be stereotyping nineteenth century thought\nfor the restraint of twentieth century thought, which will be larger,\nfuller, more instructed than their own. Freethinkers may declare as\ntheir symbol the Right to Think, and the Right to express thought, but\nshould never claim the declaration by others of any special form of\nFreethought, before acknowledging them as Freethinkers. Bodies of\nmen who join together in a society for a definite purpose may fairly\nformulate a creed to be assented to by those who join them, but they\nmust ever remember that such creed will lose its force in the time to\ncome, and that while it adds strength and point to their movement\nnow, it also limits its useful duration, if it is to be maintained as\nunalterable, for as circumstances change different needs will arise,\nand a fresh expression of the means to meet those needs will become\nnecessary. A wise society, in forming a creed, will leave in the hands\nof its members full power to revise it, to amend it, to alter it, so\nthat the living thought within the society may ever have free scope. A\ncreed must be the expression of _living thought_, and be moulded by\nit, and not the skeleton of dead thought, moulding the intellect of its\nheirs. The strength of a society lies in the diversity, and not in the\nuniformity, of the thought of its members, for progress can only be\nmade through heretical thought, _i.e_., thought that is at variance\nwith prevailing thought. All Truth is new at some time or other, and\nthe fullest encouragement should therefore be given to free and fearless\nexpression, since by such expression only is the promulgation of new\ntruths possible. An age of advancement is always an age of heresy;\nfor advancement comes from questioning, and questioning springs from\ndoubt, and hence progress and heresy walk ever hand-in-hand, while an\nage of faith is also an age of stagnation.\n\nEvery argument that can be brought against a stereotyped creed for\nadults, tells with tenfold force against a stereotyped catechism for\nchildren. If it is evil to try and mould the thought of those whose\nmaturity ought to be able to protect them against pressure from without,\nit is certainly far more evil to mould the thought of those whose still\nunset reason is ductile in the trainer's hand. A catechism is a sort of\nstrait-waistcoat put upon children, preventing all liberty of action;\nand while the child's brain ought to be cultured and developed, it ought\nnever to be trained to run in one special groove of thought. Education\nshould teach children _how_ to think, but should never tell them _what_\nto think. It should sharpen and polish the instruments of thought, but\nshould not fix them into a machine made to cut out one special shape\nof thought. It should send the young out into the world keen-judging,\nclear-eyed, thoughtful, eager, inquiring, but should not send them out\nwith answers cut-and-dried to every question, with opinions ready\nmade for them, and dogmas nailed into their brains. Most churches have\nprovided catechism-sawdust for the nourishment of the lambs of their\nflock; Roman Catholics, Church of Englanders, Presbyterians, they have\nall their juvenile moulds. The Church of England catechism is, perhaps,\nthe least injurious of all, because the Church of England is the result\nof a compromise, and has the most offensive parts of its dogmas cut out\nof the public formularies. It wears some slight apron of fig-leaves in\ndeference to the effect produced by the eating of the tree of knowledge.\nBut still, the Church of England catechism is bad enough, training the\nchild to believe the most impossible things before he is old enough\nto test their impossibility. To the age which believes in\nJack-and-the-bean-stalk, and the adventures of Cinderella, all things\nare possible; whether it be Jonah in the whale's belly, or Tom Thumb in\nthe stomach of the red cow, all is gladly swallowed with implicit faith;\nthe children grow out of Tom Thumb, in the course of nature, but they\nare not allowed to grow out of Jonah.\n\nWhen the baby is brought to the font to make divers promises, of the\nmaking of which he is profoundly unconscious--however noisily he may at\ntimes convey his utter disgust at the whole proceeding--the godfathers\nand godmothers are directed to see that the child is \"brought to the\nbishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the creed, the\nLord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and be\nfurther instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.\"\nIt is scarcely necessary to say that these words--being in the\nPrayer-Book--are not meant to be taken literally, and that the bishop\nwould be much astonished if all the small children in the Sunday School\nwho can glibly repeat the required lesson, were to be brought up to him\nfor confirmation. As a matter of fact, the large majority of godfathers\nand godmothers do not trouble themselves about seeing their godchildren\nbrought to confirmation at all, and the children are sent up when they\nare about fifteen, at which period most of them who are above the Sunday\nSchool going grade, are rapidly \"crammed\" with the Catechism, which they\nas rapidly forget when the day of confirmation is over.\n\nThe Christian name of the child being given in answer to the first\nquestion of the Catechism, the second inquiry proceeds: \"Who gave you\nthis name?\" The child is taught to answer--\"My godfathers and godmothers\nin my baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of\nGod, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.\" Thus, the first lesson\nimprinted on the child's memory is one of the most objectionable of the\ndogmas of the Church, that of baptismal regeneration. In baptism he\nis \"made\" something; then he becomes something which he was not before;\naccording to the baptismal office, he is given in baptism \"that thing\nwhich by nature he cannot have,\" and being under the wrath of God, he\nis delivered from that curse, and is received for God's \"own child by\nadoption;\" he is also \"incorporated\" into the \"holy Church,\" and thus\nbecomes \"a member of Christ,\" being made a part of the body of which\nChrist is the head; this being done, he is, of course, an \"inheritor of\nthe kingdom of heaven\" through the \"adoption.\"\n\nThus the child is taught that, by nature, he is bad and accursed by God;\nthat so bad was he as an infant, that his parents were obliged to wash\naway his sins before God would love him. If he asks what harm he had\ndone that he should need cleansing, he will be told that he inherits\nAdam's sin; if he asks why he should be accursed for being born, and\nwhy, born into God's world at God's will, he should not by nature be\nGod's child, he will be told that God is angry with the world, and that\neveryone has a bad nature when they are born; thus he learns his first\nlesson of the unreality of religion; he is cursed for Adam's sin, which\nhe had no share in, and forgiven for his parent's good deed, which he\ndid not help in. The whole thing is to him a play acted in his infancy\nin which he was a puppet, in which God was angry with him for what\nhe had not done, and pleased with him for what he did not say, and he\nconsequently feels that he has neither part nor lot in the whole affair,\nand that the business is none of his; if he be timid and superstitious,\nhe will hand over his religion to others, and trust to the priest to\nfinish for him what Adam and his parents began, shifting on to them all\na responsibility that he feels does not in reality belong to him.\n\nThe unreality deepens in the next answer which is put into his\nmouth--\"What did your godfathers and god-mothers then for you?\" \"They\ndid promise and vow-three things in my name: First, that I should\nrenounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of this\nwicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh. Secondly, that I\nshould believe all the articles of the Christian Faith. And thirdly,\nthat I should keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the\nsame all the days of my life.\" Turning to the Baptismal Service again,\nwe find that the godparents are asked, \"Dost thou, _in the name of this\nchild_, renounce,\" &c, and they answer severally, \"I renounce them all,\"\n\"All this I steadfastly believe;\" and, asked if they will keep God's\nholy will, they still answer for the child, \"I will.\" What binding force\ncan such promises as these have upon the conscience of anyone when he\ngrows up? The promises were made without his consent; why should he\nkeep them? The belief was vowed before he had examined it; why should he\nprofess it? No promise made in another's name can be binding on him who\nhas given no authority for such use of his name, and the unconscious\nbaby, innocent of all knowledge of what is being done, can never, in\njustice, be held liable for breaking a contract in the making of which\nhe had no share. Bentham rightly and justly protests against \"the\nimplied--the necessarily implied--assumption, that it is in the power of\nany person--not only with the consent of the father or other guardian,\nbut without any such consent--to fasten upon a child at its birth, and\nlong before it is itself even capable of giving consent to anything,\nwith the concurrence of two other persons, alike self-appointed, load it\nwith a set of obligations--obligations of a most terrific and appalling\ncharacter--obligations of the nature of oaths, of which just so much\nand no more is rendered visible as is sufficient to render them\nterrific--obligations to which neither in quantity nor in quality are\nany limits attempted to be, or capable of being, assigned.\"\n\nThis obligation, laid upon the child in its unconsciousness, places\nit in a far worse position, should it hereafter reject the Christian\nreligion, than if such an undertaking had not been entered into on\nits behalf. It becomes an \"apostate,\" and is considered to have\ndisgracefully broken its faith; it lies under legal disabilities which\nit would not otherwise incur, for heavy statutes are levelled against\nthose who, after having \"professed the Christian religion,\" write or\nspeak against it. Thus in early infancy a chain is forged round the\nchild's neck which fetters him throughout life, and the unconsciousness\nof the baby is taken advantage of to lay him under terrible penalties.\nIn English law a minor is protected because of his youth; surely we\nneed an ecclesiastical minority, before the expiration of which no\nspiritual contracts entered into should be enforceable. From the\nreligious point of view, apostacy is far more fatal than simple\nnon-Christianity. Keble writes:\n\n     \"Vain thought, that shall not be at all\n     I Refuse me, or obey,\n     Our ears have heard the Almighty's call,\n     We cannot be as they.\"\n\nIs it fair not to ask the child's assent before making his case worse\nthan that of the heathen should he hereafter reject the faith which his\nsponsors promise he shall believe?\n\nBesides, how absurd is this promising for another; a child is taught not\nto break _his_ baptismal vow, when he has made no such vow at all; how\ncan the god-parents ensure that the child shall renounce the devil and\nbelieve in Christianity, and obey God? It is foolish enough to make a\npromise of that kind for oneself when changing circumstances may force\nus into breaking it, but it is sheer madness to make such a promise on\nbehalf of somebody else. The promise to \"believe all the Articles of the\nChristian Faith,\" cannot take effect until the judgment has grown ripe\nenough to test, to accept, or to reject, and who then can say for his\nbrother, \"he shall believe.\" Belief is not a matter of will, it is a\nmatter of evidence; if evidence enough supports an assertion, we must\nbelieve it, while if the evidence be insufficient we must doubt it.\nBelief is neither a virtue nor a vice; it is simply the consequence\nof sufficient evidence. Theological belief is demanded on insufficient\nevidence; such belief is called, theologically, \"faith,\" but in\nordinary matters it would be called \"credulity.\" First amongst the\nrenouncings comes \"the devil and all his works.\" Says Bentham--\"The\nDevil, who or what is he, and how is it that he is _renounced?_\nThe works of the Devil, what are they, and how is it that they are\nrenounced? Applied to the Devil, who or whatever he is--applied to\nthe Devil's works, whatever they are--what sort of an operation is\n_renouncement or renunciation?_\"\n\nPertinent questions, surely, and none of them answerable. A Court of Law\nlately sat upon the Devil, and could not find him; \"how is the Christian\nto explain to the child whom it is he has renounced in his infancy? And\nin the first place, the Devil himself--of whom so decided and familiar a\nmention, as of one whom everybody knows, is made--where lives he? Who is\nhe? What is he? The child itself, did it ever see him? By any one, to\nwhom for the purpose of the inquiry the child has access, was he ever\nseen? The child, has it ever happened to it to have any dealings with\nhim? Is it in any such danger as that of having, at any time, to his\nknowledge, any sort of dealings with him? If not, then to what purpose\nis this _renouncement?_ and, once more, what is it that is meant by it?\"\n\nBut supposing there were a devil, and supposing he had works, how could\nthe child renounce him? The devil is not in the child's possession that\nhe might give him up as if he were an injurious toy. In days gone by the\nphrase had a definite meaning; people were supposed to be able to hold\ncommerce with the devil, to commune with familiar spirits, and summon\nimps to do their bidding; to \"renounce the devil and all his works\" was\nthen a promise to have nothing to do with witchcraft, sorcery, or magic;\nto regard the devil as an enemy, and to take no advantage by his help.\nAll these beliefs have long since passed away into \"The Old Curiosity\nShop\" of Ecclesiastical Rubbish, but children are still taught to repeat\nthe old phrases, to rattle the dry bones which life has left so long.\nThe \"pomps of this wicked world\" might be renounced by Christians if\nthey wanted to do so, but they show a strange obliviousness of their\nbaptismal vow. A reception at court is as good an instance of the\nrenunciation of the vain pomp and glory of this wicked world as we could\nwish to see, and when we remember that the children who are taught the\nCatechism in their childhood are taught to aim at winning these pomps in\ntheir youth and maturity, we learn to appreciate the fact that spiritual\nthings can only be spiritually discerned. Would it not be well if the\nChurch would publish an \"Explanation of the Catechism,\" so that the\nchildren may know what they have renounced?\n\n\"Dost thou not think that thou art bound to believe, and to do as they\nhave promised for thee?\" \"Yes, verily; and by God's help so I will. And\nI heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he hath called me to this\nstate of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. And I pray unto\nGod to give me his grace, that I may continue in the same unto my life's\nend.\" \"Bound to believe... as they have promised for thee!\" In the name\nof common sense, why? What a marvellous claim for any set of people to\nput forward, that they have the right to promise what other people\nshall believe. And the child is taught to answer to this preposterous\nquestion, \"Yes, verily.\" The Church does wisely in training children to\nanswer thus before they begin to think, as they would certainly never\nadmit so palpably unjust a claim as that they were bound to believe or\nto do anything simply because some other persons said that they should.\nThe hearty thanks due to God \"that he hath called me to this state of\nsalvation,\" seem somewhat premature, as well as unnecessary. God, having\nmade the child, is bound to put him in some \"state\" where existence\nwill not involve a curse to him; the \"salvation\" is very doubtful, being\ndependent on a variety of things in addition to baptism. Besides, it\nis doubtful whether it is an advantage to be in a \"state of salvation,\"\nunless you get finally saved, some Christian authors appearing to think\nthat damnation is the heavier if it is incurred after being put in the\nstate of salvation, so that, on the whole, it would probably be less\ndangerous to be a heathen. The child is then required to \"rehearse the\narticles of his belief,\" and is taught to recite \"the Apostles' Creed,\"\n_i.e_., a creed with which the apostles had nothing in the world to do.\nThe act of belief ought surely to be an intelligent one, and anyone who\nprofesses to believe a thing ought to have some idea of what the thing\nis. What idea can a child have of conception by the Holy Ghost and being\nborn of the Virgin Mary, in both which recondite mysteries he avows his\nbelief? Having recited this, to him (as to everyone else) unintelligible\ncreed, he is asked, \"What dost thou chiefly learn in these articles of\nthy belief?\" a most necessary question, since they can have conveyed no\nidea at all to his little mind. He answers: \"First, I learn to believe\nin God the Father, who hath made me and all the world. Secondly, in God\nthe Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind. Thirdly, in God the Holy\nGhost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.\" Curiously,\nthe last two paragraphs have no parallels in the creed itself; there is\nno word there that the Son is God, nor that he redeemed the child, nor\nthat he redeemed all mankind; neither is it said that the Holy Ghost is\nGod, nor that he sanctifies anyone at all. How is the child to believe\nthat God the Son redeemed _all mankind_, when he is taught that only by\nbaptism has he himself been brought into \"this state of salvation?\" if\nall are redeemed, why should he specially thank God that he himself is\ncalled and saved? if all are redeemed, what is the meaning of the phrase\nthat \"all the elect people of God\" are sanctified by the Holy Ghost?\nSurely all who are redeemed must also be sanctified, and should not the\ntwo passages touch only the same people? Either the Holy Ghost should\nsanctify all mankind, or Christ should redeem only the elect people of\nGod. A redeemed, but unsanctified, person would cause confusion as to\nhis proper place when he arrived in the realms above; St. Peter would\nnot know where to send him to. Bentham caustically remarks: \"Here, then,\nin this word, we have the name of a sort of _process_, which the child\nis made to say is going on within him; going on within him at all\ntimes--going on within him at the very instant he is giving this\naccount of it. This process, then, what is it? Of what feelings is it\nproductive? By what marks and symptoms is he to know whether it really\nis or is not going on within him, as he is forced to> say it is? How\ndoes he feel, now that the Holy Ghost is _sanctifying_ him? How is it\nthat he would feel, if no such operation were going on within him? Too\noften does it happen to him in some shape or other, to commit _sin_; or\nsomething which he is told and required to believe is _sin_: an event\nwhich cannot fail to be frequently, not to say continually, taking\nplace, if that be true, which in the Liturgy we are all made so\ndecidedly to confess and assert,--viz., that we are all--all of us\nwithout exception--so many _'miserable sinners.'_ In the schoolroom,\ndoing what by this Catechism he is forced to do, saying what he is\nforced to say, the child thus declares himself, notwithstanding, a\nsanctified person. From thence going to church, he confesses himself\nto be no better than '_a miserable sinner.'_ If he is not always this\nmiserable sinner, then why is he always forced to say he is? If he is\nalways this same miserable sinner, then this sanctification, be it what\nit may, which the Holy Ghost was at the pains of bestowing upon him,\nwhat is he the better for it?\" Besides, how can the child be taught to\nbelieve in one God if he finds three different gods all doing different\nthings for him? As clear a distinction as possible is here made between\nthe redeeming work of God the Son and the sanctifying work of God the\nHoly Ghost, and if the child tries to realise in any fashion that which\nhe is taught to say he believes, he must inevitably become a Tri-theist\nand believe in the creator, the redeemer, the sanctifier, as three\ndifferent gods. The creed being settled, the child is reminded: \"You\nsaid that your godfathers and godmothers did promise for you that you\nshould keep God's commandments. Tell me how many there be? Ans. Ten.\nQues. Which be they? Ans. The same which God spake in the twentieth\nchapter of Exodus, saying, I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out\nof the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none\nother gods but me.\" But God has not brought the child, nor the child's\nancestors, out of the land of Egypt, nor out of the house of bondage:\ntherefore the first commandment, which is made dependent on such\nout-bringing, is not spoken to the child. The argument runs: \"Seeing\nthat I have done so much for thee, thou shalt have no other God instead\nof me.\" The second commandment is rejected by general consent, and it is\nalmost certain that the child will be taught that God has commanded that\nno likeness of anything shall be made in a room with pictures on the\nwalls. Christians conveniently gloss over the fact that this commandment\nforbids all sculpture, all painting, all moulding, all engraving; they\nplead that it only means nothing that shall be made for purposes of\nworship, although the distinct words are: \"_Thou shalt not make any\nlikeness of anything._'\" In order to thoroughly understand the state of\nthe child's mind who has learned that \"I the Lord thy God am a jealous\nGod, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children,\" when he comes\nto read other parts of the Bible it will be well to put side by side\nwith this declaration, Ezekiel xviii. 19, 20: \"Yet say ye, why? doth\nnot the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that\nwhich is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done\nthem, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son\nshall not bear the iniquity of the father.\" The fourth commandment is\ndisregarded on all sides; from the prince who has his fish on the Sunday\nfrom the fishmonger down to the costermonger who sells cockles in the\nstreet, all nominal Christians forget and disobey this command; they\nkeep their servants at work, although they ought to \"do no manner of\nwork,\" and drive in carriage, cab, and omnibus as though God had not\nsaid that the cattle also should be idle on the Sabbath day. Although\nthe New Testament is, on this point, in direct conflict with the\nOld,--Paul commanding the Colossians not to trouble themselves about\nSabbaths, yet Christians read and teach this commandment, while in\ntheir lives they carry out the injunction of Paul. To complete the\ndemoralising effect of this fourth commandment on the child, he is\ntaught that \"in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and\nall that in them is,\" while, in his day-school he is instructed in\nexactly the opposite sense, and is told of the long and countless\nages of evolution through which the world passed, and the marvellous\ncreatures that inhabited it before the coming of man. The fifth\ncommandment is also evil in its effect on the child's mind from that\nsame fault of unreality which runs throughout the teaching of the\nEstablished Church. \"Honour thy father and thy mother _that thy days may\nbe long in the land._\" He will know perfectly well that good children\ndie as well as bad, and that, therefore, there is no truth in the\npromise he recites. The rest of the commandments enjoin simple moral\nduties, and would be useful if taught without the preceding ones; as it\nis, the unreality of the first five injures the force of the later ones,\nand the good and bad, being mixed up together, are not likely to be\ncarefully distinguished and thus they lose all compelling moral power.\n\nThe commandments recited, the child is asked--\"What dost thou chiefly\nlearn by these commandments?\" and he answers that--\"I learn two things:\nmy duty towards God and my duty towards my neighbour.\" We would urge\nhere that man's duty to man should be the point most pressed upon\nthe young. Supposing that any \"duty to God\" were possible--a question\noutside the present subject--it is clear that the duty to man is the\nnearest, the most obvious, the easiest to understand, and therefore the\nfirst to be inculcated. Surely, it is only by discharge of the immediate\nand the plain duty that any discharge becomes possible of one less near\nand less plain. Besides, the duty to God taught in the Catechism is of\nso wide and engrossing a nature that to discharge it fully would take up\nthe whole time and thoughts. For in answer to the question, \"What is thy\nduty towards God?\" the child says:--\"My duty towards God is to believe\nin him, to fear him, and to love him with all my heart, with all my\nmind, with all my soul, and with all my strength; to worship him, to\ngive him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to call upon him, to\nhonour his holy name and his word, and to serve him truly all the days\nof my life.\" First, \"to believe in him;\" but how can the child believe\nin him until evidence be offered of his existence? But to examine such\nevidence is beyond the still weak intellectual powers of the child, and\ntherefore belief in God is beyond him, for belief based on authority is\nutterly valueless. Besides, it can never be a \"duty\" to believe; if the\nevidence of a fact be convincing, belief in that fact naturally follows,\nand non-belief would be very stupid; but the word \"duty\" is out of place\nin connection with belief. \"To fear him:\" that the child will naturally\ndo, after learning that God was angry with him for being born, and that\nanother God, Jesus Christ, was obliged to die to save him from the angry\nGod. \"To love him;\" not so easy, under the circumstances, nor is love\ncompatible with fear; \"perfect love casteth out fear... he that feareth\nis not made perfect in love.\" \"With all my heart, with all my mind, with\nall my soul, and with all my strength.\" Four different things the\nchild is to love God with: What does each mean? How is heart to be\ndistinguished from mind, soul, and strength? In human love, love of the\nheart might, perhaps, be distinguished from love of the mind, if by love\nof the heart alone a purely physical passion were intended; but this\ncannot explain any sort of love to God, to whom such love would be\nclearly impossible. Once more, we say that the Church of England should\npublish an explanation of the Catechism, so that we may know what we\nought to do and believe for our soul's health. Bentham urges that to put\nthe \"whole trust\" in God would prevent the child from putting \"any part\nof his trust\" in second causes, and that disregard of these would not be\ncompatible with personal safety and with the preservation of health and\nlife; and that further, as all these services are \"unprofitable\" to God,\nthey might \"with more profit be directed to the service of those weak\ncreatures, whose need of all the service that can be rendered to them\nis at all times so urgent and so abundant.\" The duty to God being thus\nacknowledged, there follows the duty to the neighbour, for which there\nseems no room when the love, trust, and service due to God have been\nfully rendered. \"_Ques_. What is thy duty toward thy neighbour? _Ans_.\nMy duty towards my neighbour is to love him as myself, and to do to all\nmen as I would they should do unto me. To love, honour, and succour my\nfather and mother. To honour and obey the king, and all that are put\nin authority under him. To submit myself to all my governors, teachers,\nspiritual pastors, and masters. To order myself lowly and reverently to\nall my betters. To hurt nobody by word or deed. To be true and just in\nall my dealings. To bear no malice nor hatred in my heart. To keep\nmy hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil-speaking,\nlying, and slandering. To keep my body in temperance, soberness, and\nchastity. Not to covet nor desire other men's goods; but to learn and\nlabour truly to get mine own living, and to do my duty in that state\nof life unto which it shall please God to call me.\" The first phase\nreproduces the morality which is as old as successful social life. \"What\nword will serve as a rule for the whole life?\" asked one of Confucius.\n\"Is not reciprocity such a word?\" answered the sage. \"What thou dost\nnot desire done to thyself, do not to others. When you are labouring\nfor others, let it be with the same zeal as if for yourself.\" The second\nphrase is true and right; the next is often foolish and impossible. Who\ncould honour such a king as George IV.? while to \"obey\" James II.\nwould have been the destruction of England. Honour and obedience to\nconstituted authorities is a duty only when those authorities discharge\nthe duties that they are placed in power to execute; the moment they\nfail in doing this, to* honour and to obey them is to become partners in\ntheir treason to the nation. The doctrine of divine right was believed\nin when the Catechism was written, and then the voice of the king was\na divine one, and to resist him was to resist God. The two following\nphrases breathe the same cringing spirit, as though the main duty\ntowards one's neighbour were to submit to him. Reverence to any one\nbetter than one's-self is an instinct, but \"my betters\" is simply a\ncant expression for those higher in the social scale, and those have no\nright to any lowlier ordering than the simple respect and courtesy that\nevery man should show towards every other. This kind of teaching saps a\nchild's mental strength and self-respect, and is fatal to his manliness\nof character if it makes any impression upon him. The remainder of the\nanswer is thoroughly good and wholesome, save the last few words about\n\"that state of life unto which it shall please God to call me.\" A\nchild should be taught that his \"state of life\" depends upon his own\nexertions, and not upon any \"calling\" of God, and that if the state be\nunsatisfactory, it is his duty to set diligently to work to mend it; not\nto be content with it when bad, not to throw on God the responsibility\nof having placed him there, but so to labour with all hearty diligence\nas to make it worthy of himself, honourable, respectable, and\ncomfortable. At this point the child is informed: \"Thou art not able to\ndo these things of thyself, nor to walk in the commandments of God, and\nto serve him, without his special grace; which thou must learn at all\ntimes to call for by diligent prayer.\" But if the child cannot do these\nthings without God's \"special grace,\" then the responsibility of his not\ndoing them must of necessity fall upon God; for the child cannot pray\nunless God gives him grace; and without prayer he can't get special\ngrace, and without special grace he can't \"do these things;\" so that\nclearly the child is helpless until God sends him his grace, and\ntherefore the whole responsibility lies upon God alone, and he can never\nblame the child for not doing that which he himself has prevented him\nfrom beginning. Diligent prayer for special grace being thus wanted,\nthe child is taught to recite the Lord's Prayer, in which grace is not\nmentioned at all, and he is then asked--\"What desirest thou of God in\nthis prayer?\" \"I desire my Lord God, our Heavenly Father, who is the\ngiver of all goodness, to send his grace to me and to all people; that\nwe may worship him, serve him, and obey him, as we ought to do.\" We rub\nour eyes; not one word of all this is discoverable in the Lord's Prayer!\n\"Send his grace to me and to all people\"? not a syllable conveying any\nsuch meaning: \"that we may worship him, serve him, and obey him \"? not\nthe shadow of such a request. Is it supposed to train a child in the\nhabit of truthfulness to make him recite as a religious lesson what is\nutterly and thoroughly untrue? \"And I pray unto God that he will send\nus all things that be needful both for our souls and bodies, and that he\nwill be merciful unto to us, and forgive us our sins.\" \"All things that\nbe needful both for our souls and bodies\" is, we presume, summed up\nin \"our daily bread.\" Simple people would scarcely imagine that \"daily\nbread\" was all they wanted both for their souls and bodies; perhaps the\nsouls want nothing, not being discoverable by any real needs which\nthey express. \"And that it will please him to save and defend us in all\ndangers, ghostly and bodily; and that he will keep us from all sin and\nwickedness, and from our ghostly enemy, and from everlasting death.\"\nHere, again, nothing in the prayer can be translated into these phrases;\nthere is nothing about saving and defending from all dangers, ghostly\nand bodily, nor a syllable as to defence from our ghostly enemy, by whom\na child will probably understand a ghost in a white sheet, and will\ngo to bed in terror after saying the Catechism which thus recognises\nghosts--nor from everlasting death. The prayer is of the simplest, but\nthe translation of it of the hardest. \"And this I trust he will do of\nhis mercy and goodness, through our Lord Jesus Christ; And therefore I\nsay Amen, so be it.\" Why should the child trust God's mercy and goodness\nto protect him? There would be no dangers, ghostly and bodily, no\nghostly enemy, and no everlasting death, unless God had invented them\nall, and the person who places us in the midst of dangers is scarcely\nthe one to whom to turn for deliverance from them. Mercy and goodness\nwould not have surrounded us with such dangers; mercy and goodness would\nnot have encompassed us with such foes; mercy and goodness would have\ncreated beings whose glad lives would have been one long hymn of praise\nto the Creator, and would have ever blessed him that he had called them\ninto existence.\n\nThe child is now to be led further into the Christian mysteries, and\nis to be instructed in the doctrine of the sacraments, curious\ndouble-natured things of which we have to believe in what we don't see,\nand see that which we are not to believe in. \"How many sacraments hath\nChrist ordained in his Church?\" \"Two only as generally necessary\nto salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.\"\n\"Generally necessary\"; the word \"generally\" is explained by commentators\nas \"universally,\" so that the phrase should run, \"universally necessary\nto salvation.\" The theory of the Church being that all are by nature the\nchildren of wrath, and that \"_none_ are regenerate,\" except they be born\nof water and of the Holy Ghost, it follows that baptism is universally\nnecessary to salvation; and since Jesus has said, \"Except ye eat the\nflesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you\"\n(John vi. 53), it equally follows that the Lord's Supper is universally\nnecessary to salvation. Seeing that the vast majority of mankind are not\nbaptized Christians at all, and that of baptized Christians the majority\nnever eat the Lord's supper, the heirs of salvation will be extremely\nlimited in number, and will not be inconveniently crowded in the many\nmansions above. \"What meanest thou by this word _sacrament?_ I mean an\noutward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us,\nordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and\nas a pledge to assure us thereof.\" If this be a true definition of a\nsacrament, no such thing as a sacrament can fairly be said to be in\nexistence. What is the inward and spiritual grace given unto the baby in\nbaptism? If it be given, it must be seen in its effects, or else it is\na gift of nothing at all. A baby after baptism is exactly the same as\nit was before; cries as much, kicks as much, fidgets as much; clearly\nit has received no inward and spiritual sanctifying grace; it behaves as\nwell or as badly as any unbaptized baby, and is neither worse nor better\nthan its contemporaries. Manifestly the inward grace is wanting, and\ntherefore no true sacrament is here, for a sacrament must have the grace\nas well as the sign, The same thing may be said of the Lord's Supper;\npeople do-not seem any the better for it after its reception; a hungry\nman is satisfied after his supper, and so shows that he has really\nreceived something, but the spirit suffers as much from the hunger of\nenvy and the thirst of bad temper after the Lord's Supper as it did\nbefore. But why should the grace be \"inward,\" and why is the soul\nthought of as _inside_ the body, instead of all through and over it?\nThere are few convenient hollows inside where it can dwell, but people\nspeak as though man were an empty box, and the soul might live in it.\nThe sacrament is \"a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to\nassure us thereof.\" God's grace, then, can be conveyed in the vehicles\nof water, bread, and wine; it must surely, then, be something material,\nelse how can material things transmit it? And God becomes dependent on\nman to decide for him on whom the grace shall be bestowed. Two infants\nare born into the world; one of them is brought to church and is\nbaptized; God may give that child his grace: the other is left without\nbaptism; it is a child of wrath, and God may not bless it. Thus is God\ngoverned by the neglect of a poor, and very likely drunken, nurse,\nand the recipients of his grace are chosen for him at the caprice or\ncarelessness of men. Strange, too, that Christians who received God's\ngrace need \"a pledge to assure\" them that they have really got it; how\ncurious that the recipient should not know that so precious a gift has\nbeen bestowed upon him until he has also been given a little bit of\nbread and a tiny sip of wine. It is as though a queen's messenger put\ninto one's hand a hundred L1000 notes, and then said solemnly: \"Here is\na farthing as a pledge to assure you that you have really received the\nnotes.\" Would not the notes themselves be the best assurance that we had\nreceived them, and would not the grace of God consciously possessed\nbe its own best proof that God had given it to us? \"How many parts are\nthere in a sacrament? Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward\nspiritual grace.\" This is simply a repetition of the previous question\nand answer, and is entirely unnecessary. \"What is the outward visible\nsign, or form, in baptism? Water; _wherein_ the person is baptized _in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_.\"\nThis answer raises the interesting question as to whether English\nChristians--save the Baptists--are really baptized. They are not\nbaptized \"in,\" but only \"with\" water. The rubric directs that the\nminister \"shall _dip it in_ the water discreetly and warily,\" and that\nonly where \"the child is weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it\" It\nappears possible that the salvation of nearly all the English people\nis in peril, since their baptism is imperfect. The formula of baptism\nreminds us of a curious difference in the baptism of the apostles from\nthe baptism in the triune name of God; although Jesus had, according to\nMatthew, solemnly commanded them to baptize with this formula, we\nfind, from the Acts, that they utterly disregarded his injunction,\nand baptized \"in the name of Jesus Christ,\" instead of in the name of\n\"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\" (See Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x 48, xix. 5,\netc.) The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is, that if the\nActs be historical, Jesus never gave the command put into his mouth in\nMatthew, but that it was inserted later when such a formula became usual\nin the Church. \"What is the inward and spiritual grace? A death unto\nsin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in\nsin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of\ngrace.\" What? a baby die unto sin? how can it, when it is unconscious of\nsin, and therefore cannot sin? \"A new birth unto righteousness?\" but it\nis only just born, surely there can be no need that it should be born\nover again so soon? And if it be true that this is the inward grace\ngiven, would it not be well--as did many in the early Church--to put off\nthe ceremony of baptism until the last moment, so that the dying man,\nbeing baptized, may die to all the sins he has committed during life,\nand be born again into spiritual babyhood, fit to go straight into\nheaven? It seems a needless cruelty to baptize infants, and so deprive\nthem of the chance of getting rid of all their life sins in a lump later\non. This is not the only objection to baptism. Bentham powerfully urges\nwhat has often been pressed:--\n\n\"Note well the sort of story that is here told. The Almighty God,--maker\nof all things, visible and 'invisible,'--'of heaven and earth, and all\nthat therein is.'--makes, amongst other things, a child: and no sooner\nhas he made it, than he is 'wrath' with it for being made. He determines\naccordingly to consign it to a state of endless torture. Meantime\ncomes somebody,--and pronouncing certain words, applies the child to a\nquantity of water, or a quantity of water to the child. Moved by these\nwords, the all-wise Being changes his design; and, though he is not\nso far appeased as to give the child its pardon, vouchsafes to it a\n_chance_,--no one can say _what_ chance,--of ultimate escape. And this\nis what the child gets by being 'made'--and we see in what way made--'a\nchild of grace.'\"\n\n\"What is required of persons to be baptised? Repentance, whereby they\nforsake sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of\nGod made to them in that Sacrament. Why then are infants baptised when\nby reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? [Why, indeed!]\nBecause they promise them both by their sureties, which promise, when\nthey come of age, themselves are bound to perform.\" Surely it would be\nbetter if these things are \"required\" before baptism, to put off baptism\nuntil repentance and faith become possible, instead of going through it\nlike a play, where people act their parts and represent somebody else.\nFor suppose the child for whom repentance and faith are promised does\nnot, when he comes to full age, either repent of his sins or believe\nGod's promises, what becomes of the inward and spiritual grace? It\nmust either have been given, or not have been given; if the former,\nthe unrepentant and unbelieving person has got it on the faith of his\nsureties' promises for him; if the latter, God has not given the grace\npromised in Holy Baptism, and his promises are therefore unreliable in\nall cases.\n\n\"Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained? For the continual\nremembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits\nwhich we receive thereby.\" What very bad memories Christians must have!\nGod has come down from heaven on purpose to die for them, and they\ncannot remember it without eating and drinking in memory of it. The\nchild is then taught that the outward part in the Lord's Supper is bread\nand wine, and that the inward part is \"The Body and Blood of Christ,\nwhich are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the\nLord's Supper,\" the body and blood nourishing the soul, as the bread\nand wine do the body. If the body and blood convey as infinitesimal an\namount of nourishment to the soul as the small portions of bread and\nwine do to the body, the soul must suffer much from spiritual hunger.\nBut how do they nourish the soul? The body and blood must be somehow in\nthe bread and wine, and how is it managed that one part shall nourish\nthe soul while the rest goes to the body? \"verily and indeed taken and\nreceived.\" From the eager protestation one would imagine that there\nmust be some doubt about it, and that there might be some question as to\nwhether the invisible and intangible thing were really and truly taken.\nIt needs but little insight to see how woefully confusing it must be to\nan intelligent child to teach him that bread and wine are only bread\nand wine one minute and the next are Christ's body and blood as well,\nalthough none of his senses can distinguish the smallest change in them.\nSuch instruction will, if it has any effect on his mind, incline him to\ntake every assertion on trust, without, and even contrary to, reason and\nexperiment; it lays the basis of all superstition, by teaching belief in\nwhat is not susceptible of proof.\n\n\"What is required of them who come to the Lord's supper? To examine\nthemselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins,\nsteadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's\nmercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be\nin charity with all men.\" It is the custom in many churches now to have\nweekly, and in some to have daily, communion; can the communicants who\nattend these steadfastly purpose to lead a new life every time? and how\nmany \"former sins\" are they as continually repenting of? Here we find\nthe overstrained piety which throughout disfigures the Prayer-Book;\npeople are moaning about their sins, and crying over their falls, and\nresolving to mend their ways, and vowing they will lead new lives, and\nthe next time one sees them they are once more proclaiming themselves\nto be as miserable sinners as ever. How weary the Holy Ghost must get of\nsanctifying them!\n\nSuch is the Catechism that \"The curate of every parish shall diligently\nupon Sundays and Holy Days, after the second lesson at evening prayer,\nopenly in the Church\" teach to the children sent to him, and which\n\"all fathers, mothers, masters, and dames shall cause their children,\nservants, and apprentices (which have not learned their Catechism) to\ncome to the Church at the time appointed,\" in order to learn; such\nis the nourishment provided by the Church for her lambs: such is the\nteaching she offers to the rising generation. Thus, before they are able\nto think, she moulds the thinking-machine; thus, before they are able\nto judge, she biases the judgment; thus, from children puzzled and\nbewildered, she hopes to make men and women supple to her teaching, and\nout of the Catechism she winds round the children's brains, she forges\nthe chain of creeds which fetters the intellect of the full-grown\nmembers of her communion.\n\nLondon: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, 28, Stonecutter\nStreet, E.C\n\nFebruary, 1885.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"My Path to Atheism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110461}