{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45053/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45053","id":"gutenberg_45053","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45053","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rationalism"],"text":"THE CHURCHES AND MODERN THOUGHT\n\n                     AN INQUIRY INTO THE GROUNDS OF\n                   UNBELIEF AND AN APPEAL FOR CANDOUR\n\n\n                                   BY\n                             PHILIP VIVIAN\n\n\n                        \"Men are never so likely to settle a question\n                         rightly as when they discuss it freely.\"\n                                                            --Macaulay.\n\n\n                                London:\n                              WATTS & CO.,\n                17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET. E.C.\n                                  1911\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n                          MY WIFE AND CHILDREN\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface to First Edition\n\nPreface to Second Edition\n\nPreface to Third Edition\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nTHE GRAVITY OF THE PRESENT SITUATION\n\n    \u00a7 1. The Truth of the Matter\n    \u00a7 2. The Attitude of the Laity\n    \u00a7 3. Christianity and Science not Reconciled\n    \u00a7 4. The Genesis and Character of the New Outburst\n    \u00a7 5. Apologetics \"Found Wanting\"\n    \u00a7 6. More Things Which Confuse the Issue\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nTHE EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF APOLOGETICS WITH REGARD TO MIRACLES\n\n    \u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks\n        The View of Science\n        Why Have Miracles Ceased?\n        Belief in Miracles Essential\n    \u00a7 2. Miracle Apologetics\n    \u00a7 3. The Fundamental Miracles\n        The Resurrection\n        The Ascension\n        The Incarnation\n        Concluding Remarks\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nTHE DESTRUCTIVE CHARACTER OF MODERN BIBLE CRITICISM\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Clashing Views on Bible Criticism\n    \u00a7 2. A Summary of the Results of Bible Criticism\n    \u00a7 3. By Whom the \"Higher Criticism\" is Accepted\n    \u00a7 4. Admissions by Orthodox Apologists\n    \u00a7 5. Some Remaining Difficulties\n        We Must Accept the Whole or Reject the Whole\n        Silence of Historians\n        Thoughts on \"Tradition\" As God's Method for The Transmission\n                of Truth To Posterity\n        The Alleged Sinlessness of Jesus Christ\n        The Ignorance of Jesus Christ\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nTHE GRAVE SUSPICIONS AROUSED BY THE STUDY OF ANCIENT BELIEFS\n\n    \u00a7 1. The New Theological Theory of a Progressive Revelation\n    \u00a7 2. Parallels in Ancient Religions, and Some Remarks\n            Upon Them\n        Krishna and Buddha\n        Parallels Other Than Krishna and Buddha\n        Are the Krishna and Buddha Legends Borrowed from Christianity?\n    \u00a7 3. Parallels in the Beliefs of Primitive Man, And Some Remarks\n            Upon Them\n        The Religions of Ancient America\n        Vegetation Gods\n        Why Men Eat Their God\n    \u00a7 4. The Solar Myth\n        Jonah and the Whale\n        Anticipations of Christianity in Solar Myths\n        The Christian Theory Ignored by Science\n        The Sun As a Symbol\n    \u00a7 5. Concluding Remarks on Christian and Anti-Christian Theories\n        Argument from Essenism\n        Argument from Mithraism\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nIRRECONCILABLE DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH EVOLUTION\n\n    \u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks\n        The Doctrine of Evolution\n        Darwinism\n        The Average Person's Ideas on the Evolution of Man\n        The Attitude of the Church\n    \u00a7 2. \"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw\"\n    \u00a7 3. The Bible Account of Creation Irreconcilable with Science\n            in Each and Every Respect\n    \u00a7 4. Proofs of our Animal Origin\n        The Extraordinary Affinity of Bodily Structure\n        The Revelations of Embryology\n        The Tale Told by the Useless Rudimentary Organs\n    \u00a7 5. The Overthrow of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin\n        The Importance of the Question\n        An Instructive Criticism\n        The Bishop of Worcester's Theory\n        The Archdeacon of Manchester's Theory\n        The Rationalist's Theory\n        Conclusions\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nTHE FAILURE OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS\n\n    \u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks\n        Theism, and Who Are Theists\n    \u00a7 2. The Existence of a First Cause--An Uncaused Cause\n    \u00a7 3. The First Cause an Intelligence\n        Design and Directivity\n        Directivity\n        Design\n        Differences of Opinion Among Theistic Apologists\n    \u00a7 4. The First Cause a Beneficent Intelligence\n        A Personal God\n        Divine Immanence in Nature\n        A Fact in History\n        The Past and Present Position of the Ethical Argument\n        Evil for which Man is not Held Responsible\n        Evil for which Man is Held Responsible\n        Conscience\n        Free-will\n    \u00a7 5. Religious Experience\n        Mysticism and Conversion\n        The Psychology of Prayer\n        The Religious (?) Experiences of Intoxication\n        Music and the Emotions\n        Sexual Love\n        Revivalism\n    \u00a7 6. The Inevitable Conclusion\n    Note on Religion and Philosophy\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nFALLACIES IN POPULAR ARGUMENTS\n\n    \u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks--The Power of Christianity for Good\n    \u00a7 2. Christianity Woman's Best Friend\n    \u00a7 3. The Overthrow of Christianity Would Endanger Society and\n            the Nation\n    \u00a7 4. The Spread of Christianity a Proof of its Truth\n    \u00a7 5. The Noble Army of Martyrs\n    \u00a7 6. The Universality of the Religious Instinct\n        The Hypothesis Stated\n        The Rationalist's Contention\n        The Apologist's Views concerning Superstition and the Religious\n            Instinct\n        Beliefs of Savage Man\n        Magic and Religion\n        Religion in Modern China\n        Apostates in Christendom\n        Religion in Modern Japan\n        Classical History\n    Note on Human Sentiment as to a Future Life\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n    \u00a7 1. A Summary\n    \u00a7 2. Why Lead a Moral Life?\n        Preliminary Remarks\n        The Necessity for Morality\n        Uselessness of Vague Threats\n        The Need for an Early Education in Ethical Principles\n        The Object-Lesson Furnished by the Japanese\n        Criminality\n        Our Aids\n        The Importance of a Knowledge of the Origin of Morality\n        Opinions of Ethicists\n    Note on Systematic Moral Instruction\n    \u00a7 3. Should the Truth be Told?\n        (a) \"Magna est veritas et pr\u00e6valebit\"\n        (b) Obscurantism has had its Day\n        (c) The Effect on Morality\n        (d) The Real Danger\n        (e) The Consolations of Belief, and the Distress we may Cause\n                by our Candour\n        (f) Can we Alter People's Beliefs?\n        (g) Can Beliefs be Useful though False?\n        (h) Is a New Religion Required?\n        (i) Why be so Impatient of Error?\n    \u00a7 4. The Outlook\n    \u00a7 5. Concluding Remarks\n\n\nAppendix\n\nIndex\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n               An edition of this book is issued in cloth\n                at 1s. 6d. net, and another on superior\n                 paper, gilt lettered, at 3s. 6d. net.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO FIRST EDITION\n\n\nWhat does a man seek when he examines his religious creed? To this\nquestion Canon Liddon replies as follows:--\"He seeks intellectual\nsatisfaction and moral support. His intellect asks for reliable\ninformation upon certain subjects of the most momentous importance. How\ndoes he come here? Whither is he going? What is the purpose and drift\nof the various forms of existence around him? Above all, what is\nthe nature, what are the attributes and dispositions, of that Being\nto whom the highest yearnings of his inmost self constantly point\nas the true object of his existence? In asking that the answers to\nthese questions shall be definite, that what is certain shall be\naffirmed as certain, what is doubtful as doubtful, what is false as\nfalse, he is only asking that his religious information shall be\npresented in as clear and practical a shape as his information on\nother subjects. In no department of human knowledge is haziness deemed\na merit; by nothing is an educated mind more distinguished than by a\nresolute effort to mark the exact frontiers of its knowledge and its\nignorance; to hesitate only when hesitation is necessary; to despair\nof knowledge only when knowledge is ascertainably out of reach. Surely\non the highest and most momentous of all subjects this same precision\nmay be asked for with reverence and in reason; surely the human mind\nis not bound to forget its noblest instincts when it approaches the\nthrone and presence of its Maker?\" (Some Elements of Religion, p. 24).\n\nAgain, in his New Year's message for 1905, the Archbishop of Canterbury\ncondemns indifference to truth as a vice, and \"drifting along the\ncurrent of popular opinion\" as a sin. He invites and persuades us to\nuse \"the sadly-neglected powers and privileges of rational thought\nand common sense.\"\n\nThe duty of thinking, therefore, is now recognised by the Church--it\nwas not formerly. But what will be the result of this thinking? In\nhis book, The Hearts of Men, Mr. Fielding tells us that \"no man has\never sat down calmly unbiassed to reason out his religion, and not\nended by rejecting it.\" Mr. Fielding adds: \"The great men, who have\nbeen always religious, do not invalidate what I say.... There is no\nassumption more fallacious than that, because a man is a keen reasoner\non one subject, he is also on another. Men who are strictly religious,\nwho believe in their faith, whatever their faith may be, consider it\nabove proof, beyond argument.... It is emotion, not reason; feeling,\nnot induction.\" (The Hearts of Men, pp. 142-3.)\n\nDoes not this deep and sympathetic writer furnish us with a true\npicture of men's hearts? What if, after exercising their privileges\nof rational thought and common sense, the majority of men find that\nChristianity no longer gives them either intellectual satisfaction\nor moral support? What if they finally arrive at the conclusion that\nChristianity and all supernatural beliefs are but the survival of\nprimitive superstitions which can no longer bear the light of modern\nknowledge? These are the grave questions which now confront us.\n\nA man may enter, and generally does enter, upon his inquiry biassed in\nfavour of religious belief of some kind. He approaches the subject in a\nreverent frame of mind. In his private prayers to his God he does not\nneglect to ask for heavenly guidance. He evinces precisely the spirit\nwhich a divine would consider becoming. But as his inquiry proceeds\nthere comes a time when his religious bias disappears--when he can\nno longer feel what he could honestly call reverence. He discovers\nthat what he thought was known, and had actually been revealed, is\nunknown. How can he believe in and worship the Unknown? More than ever\nhe feels his own insignificance and ignorance; but the feeling thus\nexcited, while akin to awe, is divested of reverence. Pursuing his\nsearch far enough, he succeeds in extricating himself from a quagmire\nof demonstrably false superstitions. Finally he reaches solid ground,\nand builds his life upon it.\n\nUnfortunately, many never pursue their inquiry up to this stage;\nthey become fearful, or they give it up as a hopeless entanglement,\nor they find they have not the requisite leisure. Perhaps, therefore,\nthe information gained by one of the more fortunate may be of some\nlittle service to others. It will be my endeavour to set forth in this\nbook not only the destructive, but also the constructive, results of\na search for truth.\n\n\nP. V.\n\nJanuary, 1906.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO SECOND EDITION\n\n\n\"This book,\" writes one of its clerical critics, [1] \"is evidently the\nhonest, outspoken opinion of one who, having been brought up in an\nunquestioning acceptance of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity,\nhas gradually drifted into the extreme of Rationalism.\" Up to a\ncertain point my friend is right. I was indeed brought up in an\nunquestioning acceptance of the orthodox teachings of Christianity;\nbut, while my conversion to Rationalism has certainly been gradual,\nI may fairly claim that the process has been something very different\nfrom merely drifting. Long and careful study, the reluctant abandonment\nof a cherished belief, the adoption of an attitude which is unpopular\nand which distresses many who are near and dear to me, the practical\napplication of the principles of Rationalism to daily life, involving\nas it does the serious step of bringing up my children in strict\naccordance with my firm convictions--these are surely not the ways\nof one who has permitted himself to drift. A man might--he often\ndoes--drift into indifferentism, or, now that theology is so liberal\nand heterodoxy so rife, into latitudinarianism, but hardly into\n\"the extreme of Rationalism.\"\n\n\n\nI take this opportunity of cordially thanking all who have\nassisted me, and specially I have to thank Mr. Joseph McCabe and\nDr. H. D. R. Kingston for reading the MS. and the proofs in all\ntheir stages, and for pointing out verbal inaccuracies and suggesting\nimprovements both in the matter and in the manner of presenting it. I\nam also much indebted to a lady, who does not wish her name to appear,\nfor lightening the task of proof correction.\n\n\nP. V.\n\nJanuary, 1907.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THIRD EDITION\n\n\nThe present edition consists of 10,000 copies, bringing the total\nissue to 31,000. Apart from a few alterations in the chapter dealing\nwith ancient beliefs, the work is unchanged.\n\n\nP. V.\n\nApril, 1911.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SITUATION\n\nChapter I.\n\nTHE GRAVITY OF THE PRESENT SITUATION\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The Truth of the Matter.\n\nBefore entering upon an inquiry into religious unbelief, we need to\nform a correct estimate of its prevalence. If, as many would have\nus think, there is nothing unusual in the present situation--if the\nage of faith is returning, [2] it is hardly worth while to enter upon\nthis inquiry at all. If, on the other hand, the forces hostile to the\nChristian faith differ essentially from those that stirred up waves\nof scepticism in the past--if there is overwhelming evidence that\nbelief among educated men is fast decaying, it is surely high time\nto investigate the grounds of unbelief, and to welcome the fullest\ndiscussion concerning the best means of dealing with an entirely\nnew and extremely grave situation. It is only the shortest-sighted\npolicy that would shelve a disagreeable question until mischief had\noccurred. It is better to face the facts. From every point of view,\nconcealment regarding a question of such vital importance as the truth\nof Christianity is to be deplored; while an attitude of indifference\non a subject that should be of surpassing interest to us all can only\nbe characterised as amazing--unless, indeed, the real explanation be\nthat men have ceased to believe.\n\nWe must, then, determine, in the first place, whether we are witnessing\nsimply a wave of scepticism that will shortly subside again, or\nwhether the present situation in the religious world is altogether\nunprecedented. The truth of the matter will best be learnt from\nthe lips of those to whom pessimistic admissions must be peculiarly\ndistressing, and who would therefore be the last either to raise a\nfalse alarm or to be guilty of an exaggeration. The Bishop of London\nhas warned us [3] that \"the truth of the matter really is that all\nover Europe a great conflict is being fought between the old faith in\na supernatural revelation and a growing disbelief in it.\" The Bishop of\nSalisbury lately [4] said: \"There has been revealed to us the terrible\nand painful fact that a great many are giving up public worship,\nand that a large proportion of the people of England pay little\nattention to religion at all.\" Not long ago Lord Hugh Cecil expressed\n[5] the same opinion in the following words: \"On all sides there are\nsigns of the decay of the Faith. People do not go to church, or, if\nthey go, it is for the sake of the music, or for some non-religious\nmotive. The evidence is overwhelming that the doctrines of Christianity\nhave passed into the region of doubt.\" From Dr. Horton we learn that\n\"vast numbers of people in England to-day have forsaken the best and\nhighest ideal of life known to them before they have found a better\nand higher.... While Professor Haeckel and Professor Ray Lankester do\nin their way offer an alternative, and present to us the solution of\nthe great enigma according to their light, the bulk of people in our\nday surrender the old and tried ideal, fling it aside, assume that\nit is discredited, live without it, and make no serious attempt to\nfind a better ideal.\" [6]\n\nAre there not indications, moreover, everywhere in the literature of\nthe day? The works of some of our greatest scholars are either covertly\nor openly agnostic. The more thoughtful of our magazines, such as the\nNineteenth Century, Fortnightly Review, Hibbert Journal, Independent\nReview, etc., are continually publishing articles which teem with\nheterodoxy. The \"Do We Believe?\" correspondence in the Daily Telegraph\n(not to mention the more recent controversies in the Standard, Daily\nMail, and Daily News) was without precedent, and highly significant\nof the present state of religious unrest. In a lecture reported in the\nTablet, Father Gerard voiced the growing feeling of apprehension when\nhe referred to the \"Do We Believe?\" controversy and the \"amazing\nsuccess\" of the Rationalist Press Association as indicating a\nsituation of \"the utmost gravity, as gravely disquieting as any with\nwhich in her long career the Church has ever been confronted.\" Also\nit may be noticed that organised efforts have commenced all over\nEngland to answer inquiries concerning the truth of Christianity by\nmeans of apologetic literature and lectures. What do these inquiries\nportend? The reply is given in the warning of the Rev. Mark Pattison\nin his essay on \"Tendencies of Religious Thought in England.\" \"When\nan age,\" he says, \"is found occupied in proving its creed, this is\nbut a token that the age has ceased to have a proper belief in it.\"\n\nWhichever way we turn the same spectacle confronts us. In France\nespecially, and also in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium,\nItaly, Spain, the United States, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, and\nArgentina (where the men are practically all agnostics), freethought\nis making rapid progress. Only in Russia, where ninety per cent. of\nthe population are uneducated, is the growth small and confined to the\n\"intellectuals.\" Never in the world's history has there been so much\ndisbelief in the \"supernatural\"; and, with the advance of science\nand education, this disbelief appears likely to be one day almost\nuniversal. Militant Rationalism is jubilant; while the pastor of\nthe Theistic Church [7] proclaims: \"I see a battle coming. I do not,\nlike Froude, predict that it will be fought once more, as of old, in\nblood and tears; but I am as certain as I am of to-morrow's dawn that\na mighty conflict is at hand which will revolutionise the religious\nthought and feeling of Christendom.\"\n\nIt is sheer folly for the Church to comfort herself with the reflection\nthat this is not the first time in the history of Christianity\nthat disbelief has manifested itself. In the early days of the\nChurch the heretic was not in possession of the knowledge that we\nhave since acquired. He could not support his views, as he can now,\nwith the facts of science. At every step he could be met by arguments\nwhich he had no adequate means of refuting, and if he dared to deny\nthe \"supernatural\" there was an enormous preponderance of public\nopinion against him. Indeed, he himself generally believed in the\n\"supernatural,\" though he was sceptical of the particular evidence of\nit on which Christianity had been founded. Retarded by Christianity\nitself--or, shall we say, by its interpreters?--knowledge was unable\nto advance; it receded, and the clock was put back in scientific\nresearch. Darkness reigned supreme for over a thousand years. At last\nthe dawn began to break. What was the result? The children of light\nsuffered for their temerity; but their ideas were eventually absorbed,\nand beliefs were suitably reformed. Thus the Copernican system was\ngradually accepted, and so were the discoveries which followed, up\nto fifty years ago. Then, however, the established beliefs received\nshock after shock in rapid succession--shocks from which they do\nnot yet show any promise of recovering. The myriads of worlds in\nthe processes of birth and death; the vast antiquity of the earth;\nthe long history of man and his animal origin; the reign of natural\nlaw, and the consequent discredit of the supernatural; the suspicions\naroused by the study of comparative mythology; the difficulties of\n\"literal inspiration\"; the doubt thrown by the Higher Criticism\non many cherished beliefs--these and the like have shaken the very\nfoundations of our faith, and are the cause of agnosticism among the\nvast majority of our leaders of thought and science.\n\nEcclesiastics, however, with certain notable exceptions, appear\nto be labouring under the delusion that a reconciliation has taken\nplace of late between Religion and Science, and that the voice of\nthe Higher Criticism has been hushed--at least, they are continually\nassuring us to this effect. They remain under this delusion for two\nreasons. First, because they are more or less ignorant of science\nand of the preponderating opinion of the scientific world concerning\nthe truth of Christianity. Secondly, because they are lulled into a\nfeeling of security through misconceptions regarding the attitude\nof the laity. There appears to be the same, or nearly the same,\naverage of religious conformity as heretofore, and the consensus\nof opinion seems to be all on the side of church and chapel. Any\nfalling off in religious fervour is attributed to sheer carelessness\nrather than to unbelief. From the days of Huxley until quite lately\nthere have been no attacks upon Christianity worth mentioning. The\nChurches fail to realise that this religious conformity and goodwill\ntowards the Christian faith has generally no connection whatever with a\nconviction of the truth of Christianity, and that, where there is this\nconviction, it is usually among those who are ignorant of the chief\ncauses for suspicion. I propose, therefore, in the first instance,\nto examine some of the more usual types among the laity. Obviously, in\ndoing so I shall be omitting a great many shades of thought. I shall\nsay very little about the opinions of the genuine believer or of the\nhopelessly thoughtless, and nothing of the opinions of evil-livers. My\nobject is to set forth the types which are most likely to have been\nmisunderstood by the clergy.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Attitude of the Laity.\n\nLet us commence, then, with the sceptical. They are not inclined, for\nthe present at least, to propagate their views. Rightly or wrongly,\nthey still hold the popular opinion that, while they themselves\ncan dispense with belief, the masses cannot. All that is asked of a\n\"cultured\" man is that he keep his opinion to himself. He may be an\nagnostic or--whether he realises it or not--practically an atheist;\nbut he must not think of calling himself by such ugly names. \"The\nuneducated freethinker,\" our modern philosopher will say, \"manifests\na Philistine Voltaireanism--a spirit now disapproved by scholars\nand philosophers, who regard with serious consideration all the\nmanifestations and products of human thought, from the earliest\nfetichism to the most recent developments of that religious tendency\nwhich appears to be a constitutional element in man.\" Such high\nthoughts, according to this philosopher, are not for the common herd,\nwho must continue to wallow in their ignorance, feeding on husks,\nwhich, however unsuitable for his own refined digestion, will serve\nwell enough to nourish the religious instincts of the masses.\n\nIf of a mystical turn of mind, he will tell you that Christianity,\nlike all other religions, may be but a symbol of a great Reality;\nand this person, though sceptical regarding the Christian dogmas,\nwill possibly consider himself a Christian. Or, again, he may be\nwithout any leaning towards mysticism, and merely hold that religion,\nif sincere, is better for the mind than scepticism. \"Better a belated\nand imperfect religion,\" he will say, \"than none at all. The heart\nhas its claims on our consideration as well as the intellect. Study\nComte's General View of Positivism.\"\n\nMany agnostics are just as firmly convinced as believers that their\ncountry's prosperity is bound up with the Christian belief. This is\nlargely due to their still clinging to the Church's teaching concerning\nbelief and morals. It is well to remember, however, that the feeling\non this point of the average cultured Frenchman or Italian is quite\nthe opposite. The measures now being taken by the French Government\nagainst the clergy are based upon the contention that the Church's\ninfluence is injurious to the State's welfare; and this feeling has\nreached such a pitch that Republican employees hardly dare admit their\nattendance at divine worship. During September, 1904, the Italian\nGovernment extended a cordial welcome to a Freethought Congress, and\nthe proceedings were opened by the Minister of Public Instruction. But\nthe average Englishman, be he ever so sure of the falsity of the\nChristian dogmas, can foresee nothing but immorality and anarchy as the\nresult of the overthrow of Christianity. \"Cui bono?\" \"Quo vadis?\" he\ncries. \"Leave well alone!\" \"It is easy enough to show that Christianity\nis false, but what have you to put in its place? What we want now is\nconstruction, not criticism and the flogging of a dying creed.\" He\nforgets, it seems to me, that people cannot be hoodwinked for ever,\nand that, as Mr. Froude tells us, the Reformation was brought about\nby people refusing any longer to believe a lie. In addition to this\nconcern for the public weal, the sceptic is influenced by motives of\nexpediency. He is well aware of the odium he would incur should he\nproclaim his heterodox views concerning the popular religion. Such\npublicity might spoil his professional career, be the death-blow of\nhis ambitions, cause him considerable pecuniary loss, alienate the\nfriends he most values, and, worst of all, destroy the happiness of\nhis home life. For these and similar reasons we find, in the case of\nthe half-believer, that he does not care to verify his doubts, but\nprefers to leave his opinions vague enough to be able to call himself a\nbroad-minded Christian. Whether half-believing or distinctly agnostic,\nhe usually holds that very common opinion regarding women, children,\nand religion--that, however little store a man may set by belief, it\nis wise to encourage it in the women folk, and also to hand over the\nchildren to them for their religious instruction. Besides, militant\nagnosticism is not the fashion. It is looked upon as \"bad form,\"\nor as smacking of socialism. Indifference is much the easier attitude.\n\nOr, again, the average man is disposed to trust to the progress\nof science and the ultimate triumph of truth, and sees no reason\nwhy he should make any effort towards shortening the period of\ntransition. In his contempt for the efforts of the \"lowly born\" and\nindigent secularists, he forgets that the greatest changes in the\nworld's history have been brought about from the smallest beginnings\nby these very \"lower orders\" he affects to despise. In our own times,\nwas it not working men who first set in motion a revolution that\nwill eventually reform Russia? Perhaps the commonest attitude of\n\"the man in the street,\" whatever his manner of belief may be,\nis one of good-natured indifference--an acquiescence in things as\nthey are. Absence of the critical spirit or of anxious-mindedness,\nor of both, renders it easy for him to take things as he finds them,\nmuch after the manner of his primeval ancestors. His mind will not\noccupy itself with aught but the present. Naturally, too, he feels\nvery strongly that what appears to make others happy should not be\ndisturbed. In all this he makes various questionable assumptions,\nwhich I am considering in subsequent chapters of this book.\n\nIt is unnecessary to refer to the opinions of the militant agnostic,\nas this type could never be accused of deceiving the Church. However,\nit maybe noted that Mr. Blatchford says, in the Clarion of February\n3rd, 1905: \"So far as I am concerned, I attacked religion because I\nbelieve it to be untrue, and because it seems to me to bar the way\nto liberty and happiness. The attack upon religion is a part of a\ntask I have set myself.\" There are statesmen and other persons of\ninfluence who are as incredulous as Mr. Blatchford regarding the truth\nof Christianity; but they do not, apparently, hold that Christianity\nbars the way to liberty and happiness (I give them credit for being\nruled by the highest motives), and so the Church has their support. It\nis a weird arrangement between Unbelief and Belief, which cannot\npossibly last much longer; meanwhile, it tends to confuse and delay\nthe answer to that gravest of questions: \"Is Christianity true?\"\n\nLeaving the sceptic, let us examine another extremely common type--the\nman who is under the impression that he is a Christian, without either\nbeing particularly devout or having inquired at all deeply into\nthe grounds of his faith. He is ignorant of the causes for doubt,\nbecause he has not had, or has not cared to afford, any time for\nsuch matters. I do not refer so much to the masses, who obviously\nhave very little leisure, but to the more leisured and influential\nclasses. Such a man's scientific education, if he ever had any, was\nbroken off early in life. A large proportion of those all-important\nyears of his boyhood were devoted probably to an unwilling study\nof the \"humanities.\" His faith is decidedly vague, and according to\nhis own peculiar interpretation, an adjustment between his heavenly\naspirations and his earthly inclinations. It has never been thought\nout, and is not the result of a thorough study of its tenets. He\nwas born and bred a Christian, and all the nicest people he knows\nare Christians, or he thinks they are. He is, all unconsciously, a\nsocial chameleon taking his colour from the conditions in the midst\nof which he happens to live. He, too, like his heterodox brother,\nsneers at organised Freethought in this country, because it owes\nits inception and conduct chiefly to poor and lowly men, forgetting\nthat it was from such a source that the mighty creed of Christendom\nitself arose. He forgets that the first Christian apostles were\nmostly working men. If he has heard or read anything of a sceptical\nnature, he has never stopped to inquire any further into it. He has\nno idea that the central features of the Bible have been attacked\nby men of the greatest learning and integrity, with the result that\neven the defenders of the faith ask for a reverent agnosticism as\nto the historical circumstances out of which, in the first instance,\nbelief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ arose. [8] Not knowing that\nthe essentials are called in question, he sees no reason to trouble\nhimself about mere details. It is enough for him that he feels sure\nthat there must be some object in our existence, and that there must\nbe a First Cause. It never occurs to him to consider whether his and\nthe Christian conception of God can be reconciled. For him the truth of\nthe Christian dogma is proved sufficiently by the unsatisfying nature\nof materialism. Has he not been taught that he must have faith, and\nthat faith is a feeling of trust divinely implanted, and not needing\nto be fed on evidences? Is not Christianity the civilising agent of\nthe world, and the origin of all morality and all good works? Does\nnot scepticism lead to atheism? If thought only leads to disbelief\nin God, he for one is not going to think.\n\nIn addition to the now fast dwindling band of sincere and thoughtful\nChristians there are, of course, many professing religionists who do\nthink a little, a very little, on religious subjects; but the bulk\nof the male element are absolutely indifferent to the question of\nreligion at all. The average subaltern is as good a sample of the\nlatter type as any other. Speak to him about religion, and he is\nunutterably bored. A certain amount of church-going forms part of\nhis ordinary round of duties. This is the sum-total of his \"religious\nexperiences.\" For the rest, religion, or any question as to its truth\nin this or that particular, is, so far as he is concerned, a matter\nof supreme indifference.\n\nPeople are usually (though less so now perhaps than formerly) so\ncareful to keep their thoughts about religion to themselves that it is\nno wonder the Church is ignorant of the extent to which heterodoxy is\nrife. The colossal hypocrisy which speaks of \"the reserve of Englishmen\nabout their religion\" needs exposure. Why should there be this dislike\nto talk upon religion--a religion which, if true, should make all\nworldly affairs sink into infinitesimal insignificance? Is it from a\nspirit of reverence, or is it not rather because the interpretations\nof God's alleged revelation differ so widely that people neither\nwish to \"give themselves away\" by stating their own interpretations,\nnor to hear the distasteful interpretations of others? If they were\nperfectly straightforward, they would run the danger both of hurting\nthe feelings and falling in the estimation of their friends.\n\nSometimes there is a dread of appearing ridiculous, sometimes a dislike\nof appearing to cant. Yet surely, if we believe what we profess,\nthere is nothing to be ashamed of, and we ought openly to testify to\nour faith. I can speak from personal experience when I say that the\nbelieving heathen of India, whether Hindoos, Mussulmans, or Parsees,\nhave no qualms on this score. They see no necessity for \"reserve\"\nin the profession of their faith. They testify to it openly at all\ntimes and in all places. It forms, as it ought, an integral part of\ntheir every-day life.\n\nThis so-called \"reserve\" is also occasioned by the inability to live\nup to the ethical ideals demanded by our creed. Men wish neither to\nbe hypocrites nor to be thought hypocrites. It is an inherent fault\nin Christian ethics that certain portions are not practicable. They\nare too much dominated by a belief in the near approach of the end of\nthe world. \"If we mechanically applied, as rules of conduct, Christ's\nideals of temper, we are certain, from common sense, that universal\npauperism, lawlessness, and national extinction would follow.\" [9]\nThen, again, there is too much of the presumption that all men have\nan equal chance in the battle against temptations, and too little\nacknowledgment of the part played by heredity and environment; and\nthus the root of the evil is overlooked. Also, if we have a strong\n\"conviction of sin,\" which, according to our spiritual advisers,\nis essential, and if we cannot hope to shake off the burden of\nsin by our own unaided endeavours, our moral fibre is liable to be\nweakened, and we may cease to cultivate the all-important qualities\nof self-reliance and self-respect. Emerson's advice is far healthier:\n\"The less we have to do with our sins the better.\"\n\nWhatever the many causes of this \"proud reserve\" may be, one of\nthe consequences is that we remain in ignorance of our neighbour's\nbeliefs. If people discussed religious matters among themselves, they\nwould make some surprising discoveries. The agnostic would find that\n\"believers\" are not the hypocrites he sometimes puts them down to be,\nfor he would learn, to his surprise, that they are supremely ignorant\nof much that he assumed they would be sure to know. The believer would\nfind that there are many more agnostics than he had ever dreamt there\nwere, and he would also learn that their reason for abandoning belief\nwas of a very different nature from what he had supposed.\n\nWhen agnostics read the lessons in church, as they frequently do,\nand when, with their aid and the aid of others in various stages of\nheterodoxy, congregations in church and chapel on Sunday only amount to\ntwenty-two per cent. [10] of the population, and these chiefly women,\n[11] what must not be the sum-total of agnosticism, heterodoxy,\nand indifference among men in this most Christian of nations? The\nextent of unavowed or unconscious scepticism far exceeds that which\nis openly avowed or consciously felt. Laxity in keeping the Sabbath\nis now notoriously on the increase. Nothing can be more sensible\nthan that people who have slaved for six days in the atmosphere of\nthe office, etc., should go off for their \"week end's\" golf, etc.;\nbut for the clergy to attribute the consequent falling-off in church\nattendance solely to the extra facilities of travel tempting people to\ncarelessness about religion is to adopt the method of the proverbial\nostrich in the desert at the approach of a dreaded enemy. Unbelief\nand the advance of rationalism are really at the bottom of this new\ndevelopment; for all the carelessness, all the temptations in the\nworld, would not persuade sane people to throw away their claims\nto eternal happiness by neglecting to worship their God--a God\nthat demands this worship. How little do the clergy really know,\nor attempt to know, of the beliefs of the cultured portion of their\ncongregations! As I write these words I receive, curiously enough,\na letter which shows how unusual it is for the pastor to question\nhis flock. The writer of the letter, a lady, says: \"Isn't Mr. X (the\nrector of a certain country parish) a gauche man? Mr. Z (an influential\nparishioner) didn't go to Holy Communion, and so Mr. X asked him if he\nhad been confirmed. Since then Mr. Z goes elsewhere to church.\" Now,\npersonally, I admire X's courage. What he did would not be done by the\nordinary run of parsons. If they did that sort of thing, they would\nsoon become exceedingly unpopular in the neighbourhood, and lose most\nof their fashionable and opulent congregation. But they would begin\nto learn the true state of affairs. They would learn, for instance,\nthat some of the most regular and respectable of the male portion\nof their congregations were agnostic or heterodox, and that their\nattendance at divine worship was merely to set a good example to the\n\"lower orders,\" or to please their women-folk, or for some cause or\nother utterly unconnected with any desire to worship or any belief in\nthe efficacy of so doing. There is doubtless a great deal to be said in\nfavour of a spirit of toleration which inculcates non-interference with\na man's belief; but it all helps to hide the true state of affairs,\nand is surely overdone when it encourages men to attend a service where\nthey are acting a part and making solemn declarations untruthfully.\n\nThere is one more type of person I should include among the many\nstrange buttresses of the Church--namely, the person who refuses\npoint blank to be enlightened. The Churches have been lulled into\na sense of security by many causes, but chief among them, perhaps,\nthere stands out the fact that people not only will not take the\ntrouble to inquire into the grounds of their faith, but consider\nthat it would be positively wicked to do any such thing. To such I\ncan only repeat the words of the Rev. J. W. Diggle, now Bishop of\nCarlisle. \"There are,\" he says, \"perhaps, few things, and certainly\nnothing of similar moment, about which men give themselves so\nlittle trouble, and take such little pains, as the ascertainment,\nby strict examination, of the foundations and the evidences of their\nreligion. Hence so many religious persons are like children who have\nnot learned things accurately. They are fearful of being questioned,\nand are out of temper in an examination.\" However, as an excuse for\nthis timidity--for it is often nothing else--it must be conceded\nthat a deep study of the evidences does, more often than not, end in\nagnosticism. This gives rise to the serious question: \"If it is God\nwho assists us to remain staunch to our creed, why does He so often\nforsake us, just when we are trying to lead more thoughtful lives and,\nconsequently, study more deeply the faith we profess?\" On the one hand,\nwe find that modern agnosticism is not the result of carelessness,\nbut of thoughtfulness. On the other hand, we observe that the Church\nnumbers among some of its firmest adherents not only those who are\nignorant through circumstances over which they have no control, or\nthrough thoughtlessness, but also those who remain ignorant through\nfear to inquire.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Christianity and Science not Reconciled.\n\nHas the Church, then, been deceived in her impression that a\nreconciliation has taken place between Christianity and Science? Most\ncertainly. I grant that to some extent there exists a patched-up\npeace. The modern apologist no longer adopts the unwise course of\nmaintaining every strange phenomenon to be miraculous as long as it is\nunexplained, whereby each advance of physical science used necessarily\nto be hostile to theology. He even goes further, and says that the\nResurrection and all the miracles may be only the manifestation of some\nlaw which is as yet beyond the analysis of our short experience. But,\nas I shall show later on, the new interpretations tone down hostility\nin one respect only to raise fresh and greater difficulties in another.\n\nThe manner in which misunderstandings occur on the subject of a\nreconciliation is well seen when we look into one of the Church's\nmost popular arguments in its favour--the appeal to the pronouncement\nby Lord Kelvin in support of a Creative Power. Lord Kelvin assured\nthe world that modern biologists were \"coming to the belief in the\nexistence of a vital principle.\" [12] That this pronouncement raised\na perfect storm of protest in the world of science is wholly ignored\nby the world of religion. Suppose, however, that the consensus\nof opinion had been otherwise, what conclusion could we draw? We\nsimply obtain an argument for some form of Theism. The probability\nof the existence of a Creative Power would not in itself prove the\ntruth of the Christian dogmas, although it would be a very necessary\nlink in the chain of evidence. It is extremely doubtful whether any\nscientist or philosopher really holds the doctrine of a personal\nGod, certainly not of the anthropomorphic God of Christianity. Let\nus take Sir Oliver Lodge, for example. He is continually being held\nup to us by the Church as an instance of a man of science who finds\nhimself able to believe in the supernatural; but does the Church\nclaim him as one of her fold? In the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904,\nhe makes out a strong case for the entire re-interpretation of the\nChristian doctrine, in which, among other dogmas, the Atonement and\nVirgin-birth are completely surrendered. He has never yet professed\nbelief in a personal God, and seems to question His omnipotence. [13]\nAgain, in a paper which he contributed lately to a book of essays\nentitled Ideals of Science, he owns that science is a long way from\nactively supporting religion. In spite of this, no name is, or used\nto be, more frequently quoted than his, in support of the Church's\ncontention that a reconciliation has taken place.\n\nThe admissions of Sir Oliver Lodge are, in a certain sense, all\nthe more important because he undoubtedly is one of the few men of\nscience who still retain a strong belief in a spiritual world. In\nthe Hibbert Journal for January, 1905, he informs us that he is\nopposed to a materialistic monism, such as Haeckel's, and that\n\"the progress of thought has left him [Haeckel], as well as his\ngreat English exemplar, Herbert Spencer, somewhat high and dry,\nbelated and stranded by the tide of opinion which has now begun to\nflow in another direction.\" [14] This is the sort of statement which\nis eagerly seized upon by the Church; but it neither witnesses to the\ntruth of Christianity, nor does it voice the opinion of the scientific\nworld. It is the opinion of a scientist who believes that he has had\n\"communication with spirits.\" [15] Professor Ray Lankester, one of\nour leading biologists in England, indignantly refutes Sir Oliver's\nstrictures on Professor Haeckel. [16]\n\nNow, it is, of course, quite true that there are schools of thought\nopposed to Haeckel's. There is, for instance, the school which\nconsiders that science has no business to concern herself with\ntheology; and there are the metaphysicians. But the point I wish\nto make clear is that all these schools are heterodox. They do not\naccept the Christian dogmas. It is so easy for false impressions\non such matters to get about, and, I regret to add, this does not\noccur altogether by chance. When Haeckel, one of our greatest living\nbiologists, was caught tripping in his knowledge of theology by a\nprofessor of that subject, the Church explained to the laity that\nthe great Dr. Loofs had shown that Haeckel had forfeited his claim\nto consideration as a reliable man of science; and, on this basis,\nhis Riddle of the Universe was held up to obloquy and derision. The\nChurch, however, did not mention at the same time that Haeckel had\nexpressly said that he was not skilled in theology, and that it was\nonly in his own branch of knowledge that he spoke with authority. Nor\ndid the Church mention that their champion, the learned theologian,\nDr. Loofs, himself discredits the notion of the Virgin-birth, and\nthat the chief bone of contention between the two professors was\nsimply the question of the parentage of Jesus.\n\nIt is just because science and religion are in conflict that the\nreligious naturally wish to discredit science. They will, if they are\nsufficiently ignorant, go so far as Lady Blount, [17] and hold that\nthe earth is flat and without motion. But such persons should note\nthat in the Church itself there are a few--the few best qualified\nto form an opinion--who accept all the main facts of science, and\ndo not think, or pretend that they think, that there has been any\nreconciliation. The Rev. P. N. Waggett is one of these. He is an\napologist of unusual scientific competence, and his new handbook\nfor the clergy, Religion and Science, simply bristles with problems\nwhich he confesses have yet to be solved. However, he does not allow\nhimself to be disturbed. Conclusions adverse to theology are to\nbe resisted. In other words, we must possess our souls in patience\nuntil we can see a way out of our difficulties. He remarks: \"There\nare conclusions which are to be dissolved, and conclusions which\nare to be avoided; but there are also conclusions which have to be\nresisted, held at bay--'held up,' I think some adventurous Western\npeople call it--until we can see our way to destroy them. Such a\nresistance is not irrational.\" He personally prefers \"the positive\nor scientific treatment and pursuit of religion,\" and he goes on to\nsay that \"this positive pursuit of the facts of the spirit must be\nmaintained in spite of difficulties. It must be maintained in spite\nof outstanding discrepancies with science.\" To my mind, the position\nhere taken up by Mr. Waggett is the only possible one for a convinced\nChristian who has a real knowledge of science. He avoids the snares\ninto which so many of his fellow clerics have fallen. For he does not\njump at the conclusion that every \"gap\" in our knowledge of life's\nmysteries is a proof of the supernatural. Nor does he attempt to show,\nas many other apologists are wont to do, that there is no direct\nconnection between science and religion. He does not try to escape\nthe criticism of metaphysical conclusions which a scientific habit\nof thought engenders. But, while his position may appear at first\nsight a tenable one, whether it be so or not depends entirely upon\nthe correctness of the assumption on which his argument is really\nbased--the true witness of the heart, as against the false witness of\nthe reason. It is interesting to compare Mr. Waggett's position with\nthat of another of the progressives. The Rev. John Kelman writes in\nIdeals of Science and Faith [18]: \"So far as we have gone, the history\nof the past, viewed by the light in which the newer conceptions of\nthe Bible have placed it, shows that, at the present moment in the\nprogress of thought, science and religion are not in the least degree\nat strife. They need no reconciliation.\" Suppose the Rev. J. Kelman\nto be right and the Rev. P. N. Waggett to be wrong, what then? It\nis the newer conceptions of the Bible which make it possible for\nMr. Kelman to speak of a reconciliation--the very conceptions which\nthe orthodox cannot and will not accept. The orthodox believer is\ntold that religion and science are reconciled; but he is not told by\nwhat means. Thus the orthodox, who would never think of accepting\nthe \"terribly heterodox\" ideas of the advanced school, are all the\ntime accepting a result which could only be arrived at by the help\nof those self-same ideas. In fact, it was the very necessity for a\nreconciliation which originated their invention.\n\nSo much is said about \"scientific doubt\" in these days that it\nis well to remember that doubts as to the truth of the Christian\nbelief are not caused alone by purely scientific difficulties of\nfaith. Carlyle refused to accept Darwin's theories. His temperament was\nstrongly inclined to a stern Puritanical piety, and his whole nature\nwas antipathetic to science. Yet he did not think it possible that\n\"educated honest men could profess much longer to believe in historical\nChristianity.\" Renan, a profound scholar in Oriental languages, shows,\nin his famous work, The Life of Jesus, that, while keenly appreciative\nof all that was beautiful in the life and teaching of Jesus, he\nwas forced, by his study of the Scriptures [19] in the original,\nto the conclusion that the miraculous part of the narrative had no\nhistorical foundation. Leo Tolstoi, the helper of the helpless, whose\nvoice is ever raised in the cause of universal love and peace, vainly\nsought an answer to religious doubts, and finally renounced Christian\ndogmas, building up a religion of his own. Numerous instances could be\ngiven showing that well-known and pious-minded thinkers have rejected\nChristianity on grounds other than scientific. And this diversity in\nthe reasons for negation further tends to strengthen those suspicions\nregarding our faith which it is now the apologist's task to dispel.\n\nA significant circumstance is the far more tolerant attitude of the\nbetter-informed clergy towards the unbeliever. There still remain\npersons of the Dr. Torrey and the Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon [20] type,\nready to vilify the agnostic; but their number is rapidly on the\ndecrease. The clergy, as a whole, are more tolerant now than many of\nthe pious laity. Why is this? Is it not because they are beginning\nto appreciate the perplexities of faith, and to learn that agnostics\nas a body can be, and are, good men? Under certain conditions they\nthemselves have severe wrestlings with the dictates of reason, and\nit is only by prayer [21] and occupying their minds in their work\nthat they are able to dispel dark doubts. They will tell you that\na faith such as theirs, and such as they hope you will attain after\nemergence from doubt, is a real faith, with which the faith of the\nordinary person, accepting everything on trust, is not to be compared.\n\nIt is all very well to talk glibly, as so many do nowadays, of an age\nof tolerance. How can man be tolerant in matters concerning which God\nis alleged to have distinctly told us that He is not tolerant? It has\noften occurred to me that, were there such a person as the Devil, he\nmust be much puzzled over the case of the high-minded agnostic, and\nmore especially so if the latter conceived it his duty to propagate\nhis views. In other words, if he were a militant agnostic--a Huxley\nor a Holyoake. For, on the one hand, if the Devil could persuade the\nagnostic to adopt religious conformity at the expense of self-respect,\nhe would ruin the agnostic's character, and so drag one more soul\ninto perdition; but he would at the same time be rendering the whole\nChristian community a service by saving them from the dangerous advice\nof the agnostic. On the other hand, if Satan aided the agnostic in\nthe line of conduct which he was at present conscientiously pursuing,\nthe soul of the latter would slip from Satan's grasp (for I presume\nthere can be no punishment for honesty); but, as Anti-Christ, Satan\nwould reap a grand harvest from the seeds of unbelief sown by the\nagnostic. And the purer and more unselfish the life of the agnostic,\nthe more the latter would influence people to share his opinions. How\ndoes God view this perplexing situation? We are told from the pulpit\nnowadays, by the broader-minded parson, not only that agnostics may\nbe good men, but that they \"exhibit the very temper which Christ\nblesses.\" [22] This curious truce between Believer and Unbeliever,\neach still holding fast to his belief or unbelief, only serves\nto demonstrate with added force that there is not, and cannot be,\na reconciliation between Faith and Knowledge.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Genesis and Character of the New Outburst.\n\nIt is imperative that the Churches should appreciate the real character\nof the new outburst of scepticism. The controversy with rationalism\nhas entered upon another phase--a phase far more dangerous to the\nsecurity of Christendom. As was inevitable, the suspicions regarding\nthe faith have filtered down to classes that are not content to be\nduped because, forsooth, it is said to be for their good. They have\nnone of the reasons of the upper-class agnostic for \"lying low.\" The\nenlightenment of the working man has been accelerated during the\npast year or so by the issue of cheap reprints from the books of our\ngreat scientists and thinkers, and by a direct attack upon religion\nby the well-known editor of the Clarion, Robert Blatchford. That the\nChurches are already partly alive to the new danger is evinced by their\npresent anxious attitude towards the spread of knowledge likely to be\ndamaging to the Faith. It was one of the subjects discussed at the\nCanterbury Diocesan Conference in June, 1904, and will, doubtless,\nbe earnestly discussed at the next Church Congress, together with\nthe whole question of the rapid increase in unbelief. While, however,\nthe Church inveighs against the \"reprints,\" she gives out, also, that\n\"Christianity is always strengthened by being attacked.\" This is hardly\nconsistent. For why not, then, allow the process of strengthening\nto continue by these means? Certainly, if Christianity be true,\nthe Church ought to be strengthened. How could it be otherwise? It\nmight compel her to discard some of her dogmas; but that would only\nbe if they were false, and, in such case, she is better without\nthem. Nothing but good should arise from a thorough examination of\nher tenets. She would be enabled to find out where her weakness lies,\nand thus to emerge from the ordeal stronger than ever.\n\nThose who wish, as I do, to learn the whole truth concerning\nChristianity, hope that she will no longer postpone a complete\nand unbiassed investigation of the whole of the anti-Christian\narguments. Doubtless we shall get our wish in time; but meanwhile we\ndeplore the delay, for reasons I have more particularly set forth in\nthe concluding chapter of this book. If the honest truth be that she\nis not confident of the security of her position, are we to understand\nthat the cause of Untruth is thought to be more likely to prosper\nthan the cause of Truth?\n\nOf the two conflicting views regarding the effect of anti-Christian\nattacks--the pessimistic and the optimistic--it is the former which\nappears to me the more likely to be correct. For consider what\nwould occur should attacks of far greater severity be delivered--a\ncontingency by no means impossible in the near future. Suppose the\n\"rational\" propagandists, instead of being hampered by the want of\nfunds and influential support, were to become endowed with a fraction\nof the wealth of the Church, and were thus in a position to popularise\ntheir views by spending money in extensive advertisement of every\ndescription, by subsidising platform orators who would propound\nrationalism and non-theological ethics in every town and village,\nby relieving distress, and so on, would the Christian Faith be\nstrengthened? Has it not already suffered since the sixpenny reprints\nbegan to bring knowledge within the reach of the people--the people\nwho have, many of them, little or nothing to fear from an expression of\ntheir agnosticism? If militant rationalists were sufficiently possessed\nof this world's goods to start an adequate fund for the lucrative\nemployment of clergymen who find they can no longer subscribe to the\narticles of the Christian Faith, and who would leave the Church if\nthey could do so without having to face absolute ruin, would not the\nsecessions increase in direct proportion to the increase of the fund\nand the consequent means of support? [23] If those men of note who\nare even now agnostics at heart were to proclaim the fact and assist\nin propagandism, would not the flock follow the bell-wethers?\n\nWhether hastened or not by the action of the propagandist, the masses,\nin these days of universal education, are bound to hear sooner or\nlater of these grave doubts. The questioners of the Faith are no longer\nonly the philosophers, scientists, and those who join hands with the\nChurches in prescribing a dietary of fairy tales for the preservation\nof the moral health of the masses. Many of the working class [24] are\nfar more thoughtful and intelligent regarding questions of science\nas it affects religion than is generally supposed. Hitherto they\nhave been under two very considerable disadvantages--the costliness\nof the books and the want of leisure to read them. The leisure\ndisability still holds good, though less so now that temperance is\non the increase; but the books are to-day offered at popular prices,\nand are also finding their way into public libraries. The Church can,\nperhaps, depend for some time to come upon the non-interference and\neven active support of the upper classes, however sceptical they\nmay be; but it is the proletariat which she will in future have to\ndeal with more and more. She is in a dilemma; her hand is forced. She\nrealises that discussion will cause the unsettlement of minds hitherto\nunclouded by doubt, and yet matters have reached a stage when silence\nis impossible. It is doubtful whether she has yet fully realised the\ngravity of the task before her. I have explained how she seems to\nhave been deceived as to the real meaning of the apparent suspension\nof hostilities during the past few years. She has also to learn how\nimpossible it will be for the ordinary mind to accept the unconvincing\nand contradictory expositions of the Faith which are now offered to\nus under the title of Christian apologetics.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Apologetics \"Found Wanting.\"\n\nThe time, then, has arrived when the pastor can no longer ignore or\ngloze over the thoughts that are stirring the minds of the intelligent\nportion of his flock. The cheap literature problem cannot be solved\nby applying disparaging adjectives, such as \"shallow,\" to writings\nemanating from the pens of Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall, S. Laing, Matthew\nArnold, Sir Leslie Stephen, Renan, Haeckel, etc., easy though it be\nto excite prejudice by the use of a condemnatory adjective. Books\nthat are still costly will some day be available at popular prices,\nand increase the perplexities of the people. I refer to books of the\ntype of Lecky's Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe, Buckle's\nHistory of Civilisation in England, Frazer's Golden Bough, Forlong's\nShort Studies of the Science of Comparative Religions, Doane's Bible\nMyths and their Parallels in other Religions, J. M. Robertson's\nChristianity and Mythology and Pagan Christs, Spencer's Principles\nof Sociology (Vol. I., Part I., giving the Data of Sociology),\nMetchnikoff's The Nature of Man, Haeckel's The Evolution of Man, [25]\netc. Will not the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica, with a title so innocent,\nand with an editor and many of its contributors in Holy Orders, soon\nfind its way into our public libraries and be a thorn in the side of\nthe orthodox? Think how a book such as Nunquam's (Robert Blatchford)\nGod and My Neighbour must already have been read by and have affected\nthe convictions of thousands of the working class. And the grave doubts\nof a hard-headed artisan are not in the least likely to be dispelled\nby Anti-Nunquam, [26] or any of the literature so far published as a\npanacea \"in relief of doubt.\" [27] Indeed, some apologetic works are\nenough in themselves to create mistrust, though the reader had not\nread a single anti-Christian work! The extraordinary divergence in\nthe views of the authors, to say nothing of the transparency of some\nof their arguments, prevents all chance of apologetics convincing any\nbut those already determined to be convinced. The writer in one stage\nof thought absolutely contradicts a writer in another stage. Compare\nGoulburn and Pusey in their awful assertions of everlasting punishment\nwith Allin's Universalism Asserted and Larger Hope leaflets, or the\nviews of a Wace regarding Evolution with the views of a Waggett. If\nwe confine ourselves to making comparisons only between the advanced\nthinkers themselves, compare the opinions of Dr. Gore, Bishop of\nBirmingham (late of Worcester), with those of Canons Henson and\nCheyne. The deplorable state of religious apologetics is becoming\nnotorious, and articles bearing on the subject are now appearing from\ntime to time in our leading magazines. [28]\n\nIn defending the Faith the advanced school of the Church now frankly\nadmit the difficulties of the old belief, and ask us to accept their\nnew interpretations of Christianity. The older school of theologians,\nthe school who can bring themselves neither to assert the truth of\nevolution nor to give a decided opinion on the verbal inspiration of\nthe Bible, are unwillingly, very unwillingly, beginning to follow in\ntheir wake. The views of the two schools being in conflict on many\nvital points, it is impossible that they can ever be brought into\nagreement. Yet, unless concerted measures are soon taken, confusion\nwill be worse confounded. To add to the perplexity of the situation,\nthere are also the various views of the Nonconformists to be taken into\naccount. Then there are the Scottish Churches, having on the one side\nthe law-supported minority, standing for an infallible Bible and all\nthe doctrines of John Calvin; and, on the other, the majority standing\nfor a form of Christianity which is really Calvinism with a somewhat\nunequally-applied veneer of Higher Criticism. Finally there is the\nIrish Roman Catholic Church still sunk in the gross superstitions of\nthe Dark Ages.\n\nThe advanced school represent the section which is in close touch\nwith modern thought, so that their new interpretations of the\nFaith constitute the one and only hope of arresting the advance\nof agnosticism. On the other hand, the justice of the objections\nto these new interpretations is borne out by the circumstance that\nmany of the older school would no more think of accepting them than\nthey would of giving up their belief; rather than accept them they\nprefer to deny the facts of science. Both sides do violence to their\nreason--the enlightened in using the subtleties of their intellect\nfor interpretations which appear transparently false alike to the\northodox and to the unbeliever; the obscurantist in denying established\nfacts. Consider for a moment what all this means. It means that the\nmodern sceptic has the support of the strictly orthodox when he refutes\nthe only explanations as yet offered to dispel his doubts. It means\nthat the validity of the agnostic's objections to these new-fangled\ninterpretations is fully borne out by the common sense of Christians\nthemselves, and that a denial of the facts of science and of the\nresults of Biblical research is the only way we can escape from\nunbelief. If a puzzled truth-seeker tried to take a middle course,\nhe would have to believe that black and white were the same colour,\nand his belief would degenerate into an exceedingly unedifying\ngrey. There is a large proportion of this \"grey\" belief just now.\n\nI cannot too strongly reiterate that this complete divergence in the\ninterpretation of a revelation alleged to have been vouchsafed by God\ncannot but give rise to the most intense suspicion. The very word\n\"apologetics\" is self-condemnatory. How is it that the claims of\nChristianity require all this vindication? Heresies and schisms and\nthe need for apologetics form the constant note of Christian history\nfrom first to last. True there was a lull in the questionings of the\nFaith; but that was during the Dark Ages, when the priests adopted\nthe policy of keeping the world in ignorance, and of destroying\nall the evidences against Christianity that they could lay their\nhands upon. If the events said to have happened really happened,\nand if God wished the world to know of them, why all this mystery,\nwhy the need for all these apologetics concerning them? Which of the\nconflicting explanations are we to take as correct?\n\nThe late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Westcott, in a passage in his book,\nLessons from Work, says: \"It would be easier if we might divest\nourselves of the divine prerogative of reason. It would be easier,\nbut would that be the life which Christ came down from heaven to show\nus and place within our reach?\" It is not for me to quarrel with so\nemphatic a pronouncement in favour of using our reason; but such\nadvice cannot be reconciled with the teaching of Christ or of our\nown Church--that we should receive God's word as \"babes.\" Remember\nthose strange words attributed to Him: \"I thank Thee, O Father, Lord\nof heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise\nand prudent and revealed them unto babes.\" From this one would gather\nthat it was God's pleasure to hide Himself from the wise, and therefore\nthat the increase of agnosticism alongside the spread of knowledge\nwas all part of the Divine plan. The Roman Catholic Church is more\nconsistent. She obeys the alleged teaching of Christ in this respect\nto the letter. The truth is that when Jesus spoke these words, if He\never did speak them, the vast majority of mankind were \"babes.\" His\ndisciples were \"babes\"; His enemies the more enlightened. He did not\nforesee the advance of knowledge and the spread of education. Nor\ndid the Church anticipate this increase in \"wisdom,\" or rather, I\nshould say, she employed every possible means to hinder it. If God's\nrevelation may be understood by babes, it must be very simple. How,\nthen, do we find it requiring all this explanation--explanation which\nno ordinary adult can understand? Who could call modern theology\nsimple? Can we say that of our philosopher-Premier's books, A Defence\nof Philosophic Doubt and The Foundations of Belief? Is it not because\nthe Church recognises that the masses will never understand all these\nsubtle explanations and pleas for a re-statement of Christianity that\nshe is in no hurry to impart the new ideas from the pulpit? Even the\nmore intellectual truthseeker is constantly recommended to trust less\nto his reason, and \"to come to Christ as a little child.\"\n\nThe objections of the more conservative to the new interpretations\nof Christianity are well expressed in the solemn words of a former\nDean of St. Paul's Cathedral, himself inveighed against, in his day,\nas somewhat of a freethinker. \"Many,\" writes Dean Mansell, \"who would\nshrink with horror from the idea of rejecting Christ altogether,\nwill yet speak and act as if they were at liberty to set up for\nthemselves an eclectic Christianity, separating the essential from the\nsuperfluous portions of Christ's teaching, deciding for themselves how\nmuch is permanent and necessary for all men, and how much is temporary\nand designed only for a particular age and people. Yet if Christ is\nindeed God manifest in the Flesh, it is surely not less impious to\nattempt to improve His teaching than to reject it altogether. Nay,\nin one respect it is more so, for it is to acknowledge a doctrine as\nthe revelation of God, and, at the same time, to proclaim that it is\ninferior to the wisdom of man.\"\n\nThe Athanasian Creed controversy furnishes some striking examples of\nboth conservative and latitudinarian opinions. Dr. Pusey is related\nto have said: \"If the Athanasian Creed is touched, I see nothing\nto do but to give up my canonry.\" Yet we find the present Primate,\nDr. Randall Davidson, replying to a deputation of clergymen who desired\nto be relieved from the obligation of reciting this Creed: \"I am in\ncomplete sympathy with the object you have at heart.\" Presumably he is\nin agreement with Dr. Barnes, Hulsean professor of divinity, who, when\nlecturing lately at Cambridge on the Athanasian Creed, declared that\nthere was \"no authority in Scripture for its minatory clauses.\" The\nwell-meant attempt of the Dean of Westminster to smooth down the\nasperities of the Creed by singing instead of saying it, is typical of\nthose pitiful attempts to tide over difficulties which are now so much\nin evidence. \"We make,\" says one of the old school, \"unsuitable persons\npartakers of the Divine service of the Church, and then it is proposed\nto alter the Divine service to suit them. Let honest Unbelievers or\nHalf-Believers absent themselves from the Assembly of the Faithful,\nand let the Faithful worship faithfully.\" Yet, if this line of conduct\nwere put into practice, if the modern Origens were anathematised and\nonly those laymen admitted to Divine service who held all the articles\nof the Christian faith without mental reservations of any kind, every\nsingle advanced theologian would be degraded from his office, and the\npresent twenty-two per cent. who are church and chapel-goers would\nbe reduced to--what shall we say? Well, the churches having cultured\ncongregations would be almost empty. The modern spirit of toleration,\nadmirable as it is in many ways, assists in preventing the discovery of\nthe real truth of the matter. The Church is grossly deceiving herself\nif she really thinks that the apparent adherence of the majority\nof the well-to-do classes indicates that burning suspicions of the\nChristian dogmas have been quenched by Christian apologetics.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. More Things which Confuse the Issue.\n\nIn the early part of this chapter I have alluded to the real causes\nfor the apparent acquiescence of the majority in the claims of the\nChristian religion. Among these causes there is a somewhat complex one\nrequiring, special notice, for it tends to confuse the main issue, more\nperhaps than any other. The Church is now appearing in an altogether\nnovel role. Until quite recently her concern was only for the spiritual\nwelfare of man, and she expected to gain her purpose by supernatural\nrather than by natural means. This plan, after many centuries of\ntrial, has proved a terrible failure. It has not contributed either\nto man's spiritual or material improvement. Now, in England, she\nis emulating the thorough-paced humanitarian in her devotion to the\nbetterment of humanity by natural means. Never before has there been\nthat interest in the material condition of the people which is now\nevinced by such institutions as the Church Temperance Society and\nHomes for Inebriates, the Church Army, the Church Lads Brigade, the\nChurch Rescue Societies, Homes for Waifs and Strays, etc. The Church,\ntoo, is now concerning herself with the better housing of the poor,\nthe improvement of our jail system, and other rational methods for\nraising the social condition of the people and creating an environment\nlikely to improve the moral atmosphere. All such measures, in fact,\nas have long ago been advocated by rationalists and social reformers\nare now taken up vigorously by the Churches. \"Better late than never,\"\nyou will say. Quite so; but that is not the point. Far be it from\nme to decry these excellent results of \"modern thought\"; still, the\nfact remains that the issue is thereby confused, and will continue\nto be thus confused for some time to come. People will only look at\nwhat the Churches, in Protestant countries at least, are now doing,\nand see in it another proof of Christianity's power for good. They\nwill not trouble their heads to consider why it should have taken\nnearly 2,000 years before the Christian Church recognised such an\nessential portion of her duties towards her poorer neighbours. [29]\n\nNor is it only this increase of zeal for \"raising humanity out of the\ngutter\" which has confused the issue. Numerous are the ways in which\nChristianity obtains a prestige sometimes partly deserved, sometimes\nwholly undeserved. Good works belong to the former class. The\nChurches of all denominations have always occupied the position\nof grand almoners, and, in that they have carried out that trust\nconscientiously, they have fully earned the confidence of the rich and\nthe gratitude of the poor. But people are liable to forget that the\nhuge donations given during their lifetime, and left in their wills by\ncharitably disposed persons, are given usually from true humanitarian\nprinciples, and that kind hearts are to be found all over the world,\nquite apart from belief or unbelief. These gifts to the needy are not,\nlet it be said to the credit of mankind, a mere soul-insurance, like\nthe donations given, and often extorted, in the Roman Catholic and\nGreek Churches, for \"Masses,\" \"Indulgences,\" etc. All this charitable\nwork, for which the Church is the agent employed, is usually put down\nentirely to the credit of the Church and Christianity. It does not seem\nto be realised that the \"Golden Rule\" is far older than Christianity,\nand is practised in other than Christian countries; and that the\nChurch, in being entrusted very largely with the dispensation of\ncharity, obtains credit for a service for which she is after all well\npaid, and which any properly selected body of laymen would perform\nquite as well, and possibly with more discrimination.\n\nIf all the good and none of the bad works performed in Christendom\nare to be attributed to the working of the Christian faith, the same\nargument must hold good of the Hindu or Buddhist faith, when the\npeople are Hindoos or Buddhists. The code of ethics attached to a\nreligion does, of course, make a difference; but it neither proves\nthat the belief is correct, nor that it is impossible to have the\nethics without the belief. Confucianism is an agnostic ethical system\nwhich the educated classes of Japan have adopted for centuries, and\nits splendid results are just now much in evidence. Only a few days\nago I received a letter from an agnostic supporter of Christianity who\nsaid: \"Look at the good that Christianity does, look at its endless\ncharitable organisations\"; and he asked, \"Could the Clarion people\ndo anything of this kind?\" It never occurred to him, and it never\noccurs to many of his way of thinking, that the \"Clarion people\"\nhave very slender funds at present; and the charitable work that\nthey do, though proportionately large, is not likely to come to his\nnotice unless he takes the trouble to inquire. The vast majority of\nEnglish people are professing Christians, and if any charitable work\nis to be done agnostics give their support to it, although the agents\nfor it are Christians. However, I have not received a brief from the\n\"Clarionettes.\" My object is to show how the issue becomes confused,\nand, if my agnostic friend is correct in considering Christianity false\nand yet indispensable, the future is indeed full of alarms. What will\nhappen, for instance, when the knowledge of this falsehood becomes\ncommon property? I am fully aware that my friend voices the opinion\nof many fairly thoughtful Englishmen; but this is because they are in\nthe habit of hearing every useful advance in civilisation accredited to\nChristianity:--hospitals, though they existed long before Christianity,\nand only fell out of use after its introduction--the raised status\nof women, though it was on the introduction of Christianity that\nthe status was lowered--abolition of slavery, though among the most\nstrenuous advocates for the abolition were such well-known freethinkers\nas Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill, and Moncure Conway, while the\nwhole of Tory England shouted its approval when General Lee drew his\nsword on behalf of the rights of \"Old Virginia,\" and while Gladstone,\nin his first Newark address, 1832, owned that slavery was justified\nby the Bible--efforts for superseding the horrors and clumsiness of\nwar, though freethinkers to a man are supporters of the movement,\nwhile Bishops from the pulpit offer up prayers for peace and in\nthe same breath expatiate on the ennobling effects of war upon the\nrace, and while the head of a mighty theocratic-autocratic Christian\nGovernment calls the nations to a peace conference, and then takes\nthe first opportunity to prosecute the most unnecessary and bloody\nwar the world has ever known.\n\nIt is erroneous assertions such as these which tend, perhaps, more\nthan anything else, to confuse the simple question before us--the\ntruth of Christianity. They are therefore discussed at greater length\nin a separate chapter devoted to popular fallacies. Meanwhile, in\nthe present chapter I hope I have succeeded in giving some insight\ninto the true nature of the present situation.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMIRACLES\n\nChapter II.\n\nTHE EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF APOLOGETICS WITH REGARD TO MIRACLES\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks.\n\nIn this and the following chapters I hope to show how matters stand\nwith reference to the more important points at issue between the\nChristian apologist and the Rationalist. The truth or otherwise\nof the Bible miracles being of supreme importance, I begin with an\nexamination of the position of apologetics with regard to them.\n\n\n\nTHE VIEW OF SCIENCE.\n\nProfessor Huxley once made the following remark: \"The miracles of\nthe Church are child's play to the miracles I see in nature.\" This\nhas been hailed by the apologist as a satisfactory admission that\nscience concedes the possibility of miracles. It is continually being\nquoted in apologetic works and from the pulpit, and is apparently\nconsidered as a conclusive piece of evidence that science has nothing\nto say against miracles. But, Professor Huxley went on to explain:\n\"On the strength of an undeniable improbability, however, we not\nonly have a right to demand, but are morally bound to require,\nstrong evidence in favour of a miracle before we even take it into\nserious consideration. But when, instead of such evidence, nothing\nis produced but stories originating nobody knows how or when, among\npersons who could firmly believe in devils which enter pigs, I confess\nthat my feeling is one of astonishment that anyone should expect a\nreasonable man to take such testimony seriously.\" [30] We never hear\nof this from the pulpit! Possibly Professor Huxley would not have\nbeen thus misrepresented--or shall we say misunderstood?--if he had\nspoken of the wonders of nature, and had not used a word popularly\nunderstood to signify that break in nature's laws which it has yet\nto be proved has ever occurred, or can ever occur. The wonders of\nnature take place in accordance with natural laws; miracles do not.\n\n\n\nWHY HAVE MIRACLES CEASED?\n\nAn obvious objection to miracles is the one often propounded\nby an inquiring child, \"Why do we no longer have miracles?\" The\nrationalist's reply, of course, is that, so soon as nature's laws were\nbetter understood, trustworthy evidence was demanded and miracles\nceased. Paley tries to parry the question by saying: \"To expect,\nconcerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon repetition is\nto expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle; which is\ncontrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use\nand purpose for which it was wrought.\" [31] But, as Cotter Morison\nremarks: [32] \"Assuming that a miracle reveals the presence of a\nsupernatural power, why should its repetition destroy its miraculous\ncharacter? Above all, why should it destroy its use? If miracles are\nintended to convert the stiff-necked and hard-of-heart, what more\nlikely way of bringing them to submission than the repetition of\nmiracles? And, according to Scripture, this was precisely the way in\nwhich Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was humbled. He resisted the miracles\nwrought by Moses and Aaron with stubbornness all through the first\nnine plagues; but the universal slaying of the first-born broke even\nhis spirit.... It may suit Paley to say that repetition of miracles\nwould destroy their use; but he must be a luke-warm theologian who\ndoes not at times wish from the depth of his heart that an authentic\nmiracle could be produced. Yet it is at this momentous crisis in\nthe religious affairs of the world, when the enemy is carrying one\nposition after another, and has all but penetrated to the citadel of\nbelief, that no miracles occur, that no miracles are claimed, except,\nindeed, of the compromising species made at Lourdes.... When no one\ndoubted the possibility of the frequency of miracles they abounded,\nwe are told--that is, when, by reason of their number and the ready\ncredit accorded to them, their effect was the least startling, then\nthey were lavished on a believing world. Now, when they are denied and\ninsulted as the figments of a barbarous age; when the faith they might\nsupport is in such jeopardy as it never was before; when a tithe of the\nwonders wasted in the deserts of Sinai and the 'parts beyond Jordan'\nwould shake the nations with astonishment and surprise--when, in short,\nthe least expenditure of miracle would produce the maximum of result,\nthen miracles mysteriously cease. This fact, which is beyond contest,\nhas borne fruit, and will yet bear more.\"\n\nSome pious Christians, feeling the force of arguments such as these,\ncontend that Christ's promises to believers do indeed apply to all\ntime; that supernatural manifestations have not ceased; and that,\nwhen there is no exercise of the supernatural in the visible Church\nof Christendom, it is owing to lack of faith. \"Can you give me,\" asks\nFather Ignatius, [33] \"one single text in Holy Scripture to prove that\nmiracles and visions are to cease with the apostles? When we hear,\nin all directions, of the supernatural being manifested, we need\nnot wonder, for we are living in a day which demands supernatural\nmanifestations more than any other epoch in the Christian Church.\"\n\n\n\nBELIEF IN MIRACLES ESSENTIAL.\n\nThe old argument in support of miracles and inspiration was clearly\nvitiated by its circular nature, for it was to the effect that\nmiracles were true because asserted to be so in the Bible, which was\nthe inspired word of God, and that the Bible was inspired because the\nmiracles proved it to be so. This argument is gradually being dropped,\nand I have only alluded to it to show how much importance used to\nbe, and, for the matter of that, still is, attached to miracles, as\nproving the truth of the Bible. Butler, Paley, Mansel, Mozley, Farrar,\nWestcott, Liddon, and a host of other authorities, could not conceive\nthat revelation could be made in any other way than by miracles,\nand felt that without them Christianity would be proved false and\noverthrown. Such also appears to be the opinion of the majority of\nour living dignitaries. On the other hand, the minority, which we may\ntake to be represented by the able writers in Contentio Veritatis\nand elsewhere, maintain that \"the time is past when Christianity\ncould be presented as a revelation attested by miracles.... We must\naccept Christianity, not on the ground of the miracles, but in spite\nof them.... There has been no special intervention of the Divine Will\ncontrary to the natural order of things.\" That is, by ruling miracles\nto be out of court, the new school are able to reconcile the facts of\nscience with the Christian faith. \"Our belief in Jesus Christ must be\nbased upon moral conviction; not upon physical wonder.\" [34] The old\nschool, on the other hand, consider Christianity to be untrue without\nmiracles. \"The miraculous element,\" they say, \"cannot be weeded out of\nthe Gospel narratives without altogether impugning the historical value\nof these documents.\" [35] They are able to maintain this position,\nand yet remain believers, by disallowing the facts of science. It is\nan extraordinary state of affairs, and who can wonder that many of\nthe laity who know of these things are meanwhile fast lapsing into\nagnosticism? As a matter of fact, no bishop, no clerk in Holy Orders,\ncan honestly retain his preferment unless he believes in miracles. He\nwould have to follow the example of the late Sir Leslie Stephen,\nand resign.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Miracle Apologetics.\n\nThe question arises, \"How, then, do the majority of our spiritual\nguides regard the accounts of miracles in the Bible?\" Broadly\nspeaking, miracles are divided by them into three classes--(1)\nmythical, but containing spiritual truths; (2) explicable naturally;\n(3) historical and vital. Should their views be of a very advanced\ntype, all the miracles will be relegated to the first two classes. If\nadvanced, but not quite so much advanced, the fundamental miracles\nof the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension will be taken into\nthe third class; the miracles deemed to be not indispensable, or\nnot serving a useful purpose, being explained away. Continuing to\ndescend the scale of enlightenment, more and more miracles will\nfind their way into the third class, until no miracles alleged to\nhave been performed by Christ himself will be discredited--except,\nperhaps, those that appear particularly incredible or useless, such\nas sending devils into swine, turning water into wine, or withering a\nfig tree. Regarding the miracles alleged to have been performed by the\nApostles we hear very little. Concerning the Old Testament miracles,\nhowever, opinions are freely expressed, and range between those of\nthe Broad Church, who consider the miracles all belong to the first\ntwo classes, and those of the strictly orthodox, who maintain all\nthe miraculous events to be facts, on the principle that, whether\nthe whale swallowed Jonah or Jonah swallowed the whale, they must be\ntrue because they are related in the Holy Scriptures--the Scriptures\nthat were accepted as historical by their Lord and Saviour Jesus\nChrist. People who are the children of Christian parents have been\nbrought up from childhood to a literal acceptance of the miracles, and\nnow they are not only asked to give up the convictions so sedulously\nimplanted while their minds were most receptive, but to choose between\nthe conflicting views of the expounders of God's word.\n\nLet us consider some examples of the latest interpretations, and see if\nthey appeal to our hearts and minds. \"In John v. (the authenticity of\nthe passage is of no moment to this argument) we read that the stirring\nof the waters and the consequent healing virtue was attributed to the\npresence of an angel. The modern would speak of the pool as a medicinal\nspring. The fact is the same. The mode of description is different. The\nancient knew little of what are called natural causes.\" [36] The\nexplanation is sensible enough; but, while incidentally showing that\nthe Evangelists were just as credulous and ignorant as other people\nof their times, it is a dangerous concession. For directly a natural\nexplanation of this kind is allowed in one case, it must also be\nallowed as possible in another, and thus the fundamental miracles might\nbe shorn of all that renders them of any value for substantiating our\nfaith. Regarding the particular explanation under consideration, one\nmay be permitted to ask, How is it the water has lost its medicinal\nqualities? Also, How is it the ancient's belief is still foisted on\nthe credulous modern? When visiting the traditional Pool of Bethesda,\nnow in the custody of the Greek Church, I saw documents exposed in\nthe gateway giving the words from the fifth chapter of St. John in\nfifty-six different languages!\n\nThe healing miracles performed by Jesus are now frequently attributed\nto the use of the same power as that by which faith-cures are effected\nat the present time--a power upon which the science of psychology\nis shedding a new light, and which mental therapeutics will one day\nplace at the disposal of the human race. Apart from this disappointing\nalteration in the character of the \"mighty works\" which were supposed\nto betoken the divinity of Christ, is there not something abhorrent in\nthe thought that He should take advantage of a secret knowledge of the\npowers of nature, in order to impose upon the credulity of the age in\nwhich He lived, and thus secure the worship of His disciples? At least,\nif we are Christians, let us assume that Christ, as man, believed He\nwas using supernatural powers, and that His disciples, if they had\nfaith enough, could remove mountains, just as He undoubtedly believed,\naccording to such an eminent authority as Dr. Sanday, that He really\nwas casting out devils when He cured \"the epileptic,\" etc. It is\ncertainly difficult to understand this ignorance of the Son of God;\nbut, when apologists attempt to extricate Christian dogmas from the\nquagmire of doubt by such methods, they only succeed in causing them\nto disappear into it beyond all hope of recovery.\n\nAs I have alluded to the subject of Christ's belief in\n\"devil-possession,\" I should mention here that there are still many\ncultured ecclesiastics, especially among those who still believe that\nthere is such a personage as the Devil, who argue that there was such\na malady as devil-possession in those days. Some even hold that it\nstill exists. On the other hand, the Rev. David Smith, in his book,\nThe Days of His Flesh, which professes to bring the Gospels \"up to\ndate,\" holds that Jesus, \"after his wont, fell in with the delusion,\"\nand that in the case in which the Gadarene swine play so important\na part, He, \"like a wise physician, humanised the madman's fancy,\nand feigned acquiescence in his lunatic craze.\" Exorcism, it may be\nremarked, has been practised, in all times, wherever a belief has\nexisted in literal demoniacal possession. In the Latin and Greek\nChurches it is used in the baptism of both adults and infants, in\nthe consecration of water, salt, oil, etc., and in specific cases\nof individuals supposed to be possessed by evil spirits. Exorcism\nin baptism is still retained also in some Lutheran Churches. In\nJerusalem, at the present time, there are three dissenting sects,\nwhose ministers practise the exorcism of spirits.\n\nOpinions differ widely as to whether certain miracles actually\noccurred, or whether they admit of a natural explanation. Take the\nmiracle of \"the Feeding of the Five Thousand.\" The school, of which the\nBishop of Birmingham, late of Worcester, and the learned Dr. Sanday are\nthe mouthpieces, consider that, \"whatever may have actually occurred,\na nineteenth-century observer would have given, if he had been present,\na different account from that which has come down to us.\" On the other\nhand, the Bishop of London believes this miracle to have occurred\n\"because of the very humble, unimaginative [?], and truthful men who\nreported it.\" [37] Could any two views be more diametrically opposite?\n\nObviously, as has already been pointed out, destructive admissions\nconcerning any one of the miracles tend to invalidate the truth of all\nthe rest; and, therefore, we find that apologists of a less advanced\nstamp are still inclined to the view that the miracles connected\nwith the life of Christ are miracles pure and simple. Godet, in\nhis Defence of the Christian Faith, explains that \"It will become\neasy to understand why the prodigies which signalised the advent of\nJesus Christ upon earth do not occur in our day.... The appearance\nof the perfectly Holy Man was so trenchant a break in the life of\nhumanity up to that moment that from the shock it produced there\nresulted consequences which have not repeated themselves at any\nother period.... One condition was requisite--viz., that there should\nexist a Man fit to be associated with the exercise of the Creative\nOmnipotence.\" Many doubters may be prepared to admit the necessity\nof miracles as explained by the learned Professor; but they contend\nthat, up to the present time, there is no instance of a miracle having\nbeen proved, not even the alleged sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and\nthey ask why, if God graciously furnished proofs to one generation,\nHe did not, in His infinite wisdom, ordain that these proofs should\nbe established for all time, beyond all possibility of cavil?\n\nPassing on to the miracles of the Old Testament, we often find\nthat those who still maintain that only the first chapters of the\nBible are legendary will adopt a variation of the second class of\ninterpretation--they will say that the events were of an ordinary\ncharacter, but occurred in answer to prayer. Joshua is for them an\nhistorical character. However, Joshua x. 12-14 must not be taken\nliterally, but allowance should be made for poetical licence. Joshua,\nit is explained, never really committed himself to the extent of\ncommanding the sun and the moon to stand still, but only \"besought\nGod that the black clouds of the storm driving up the pass from\nthe sea might not be allowed to blot out the sun and bring night\nprematurely before his victory was complete.\" [38] This prayer,\nbe it remembered, was for the sake of a work of butchery which God\nwas supposed to have sanctioned! Besides, as the sun is said to have\nobeyed Joshua, and, further, it is said that \"there was no day like\nthat before it or after it,\" at least we are to infer that something\nvery unusual happened at Joshua's request. The explanation we meet\nwith in what are considered by some to be the \"best\" apologetics is\nthat the language used is purely figurative, just as one might say,\n\"I hope the sun won't set too soon,\" or \"We never had such a day.\"\n\nSimilarly there is the north-east wind theory as a possible explanation\nof what might have happened, if the \"crossing of the Red Sea\" ever\ntook place, and if Moses be not as mythical as the rod with which he\ndivided the waters.\n\nPerhaps the most unsatisfactory explanation of all is that regarding\nthe rainbow. It is agreed, there being no other alternative, that\n\"it is not meant that the rainbow appeared for the first time to\nNoah [another purely legendary character] after the Flood [although\nthis is certainly what the Bible leads one to suppose], but that it\nwas adopted then as a visible sign of God's covenant, as water is\nadopted for a somewhat similar covenant in the New Testament.\" [39]\nIt is now known for a fact that, if there are any historical data\nfor the story, the Flood could only have been local; but let that\npass. Has the rainbow-covenant prevented millions of people perishing\nsince then in many a mighty flood? Looking at God's promise as a\ntoken of His pity for suffering humanity, are not deaths occurring\nevery moment, accompanied by agony so prolonged and supreme that,\ncompared with them, a death by drowning would be a happy release? If\nJews and Christians still really believe in this story, how is it\nthat the rainbow attracts not the slightest devout attention? I\nhave never yet heard this beautiful spectacle alluded to with any\nparticular reverence. The reason is obvious. We know that the bow\nconsists of all the prismatic colours produced in the atmosphere by\nthe refraction and reflection of the sun's light from the rain drops,\nand no one regards the Bible story seriously. Yet our divines try to\nsave the credit of the Bible by interpretations which are obviously\n\"catching at straws.\" Such methods are as harmful as they are pitiful.\n\nIn all these examples the explanations offered to us seem to come to\nthis--the phenomena were purely natural from start to finish, only\nthey occurred opportunely and were afterwards poetically embellished;\nor they contain a spiritual meaning. Perhaps the most extraordinary\nargument ever brought forward concerning the \"sun standing still\"\nis that urged by the learned Bishop Westcott in his Gospel of the\nResurrection. He says (pp. 38-9): \"It would be positively immoral\nfor us now to pray that the tides or the sun should not rise on a\nparticular day; but, as long as the idea of the physical law which\nruled them was unformed or indistinct, the prayer would have been\nreasonable, and (may we not suppose?) the fulfilment also.\" It is\ndifficult to believe that these can really be the words of one of the\nChurch's greatest scholars. To what extent will not bias influence\nthe brain to use its powers perversely? It is far-fetched arguments of\nthis kind that increase rather than dispel doubt in the normal mind,\nand especially when they are brought forward in all seriousness by\nthe very pillars of the Church. We are sometimes asked to banish our\ndoubts and \"craving for intellectualism,\" as it is called, and \"to come\nto Christ as little children and in Him to find rest.\" Certainly it\nis only by letting our minds sink to the level of a little child's,\nor, what is the same thing, to the level of a primeval man's, that\nwe could bring ourselves to accept such childish nonsense. A child\nasks for the moon, but does not know the physical impossibility of\nobtaining his desire. His prayer is therefore reasonable, and (may\nwe not suppose?) the fulfilment also. This unconscious trifling with\nthe truth--for in reality it is nothing else--reminds me of a passage\nin Dr. Smith's orthodox, but somewhat out of date, Dictionary of the\nBible, where an attempt is made to reconcile the Mosaic narrative of\nCreation with the discoveries of modern science. It runs as follows:\n\"The very act of creation must have been the introducing of laws;\nbut, when the work was finished, those laws may have suffered some\nmodification.\" [40]\n\nWe have seen that, while one section of apologists contend that\nbelief in the miraculous is essential, other advocates of Christianity\ntry to get rid of all difficulties by suggesting that such words as\n\"miracles\" and \"supernatural\" ought not to be used. In a paper on\n\"The Effect of Science upon Christianity,\" which he has contributed\nto the Christian Commonwealth, the Rev. R. F. Horton, M.A., D.D.,\naffirms that \"the word 'supernatural' is ill-chosen,\" and he adds that\n\"it is unknown in the New Testament, and introduces ideas which are\nalien to those of Christ.\" The word \"miracles,\" [41] he holds, is\nequally unfortunate, and represents a notion which is not contained\nin the New Testament terms \"signs\" and \"mighty works.\" If this be\nnot word-spinning, then what is? Does it matter whether we call the\nraising of Lazarus a \"miracle\" or a \"sign\"? Is the miraculous feeding\nof the multitudes rendered more credible if we call it a natural\ninstead of a supernatural occurrence? Is not the whole point of the\nsign lost, too, if it be no longer supernatural--if it becomes a sort\nof juggling feat? Dr. Horton leaves us in no doubt as to the object\nof his play upon words. He aims at disposing of the difficulties\nconnected with Christian miracles by affirming that everything in\nnature is miraculous. He observes: \"There is no miracle in the New\nTestament so amazing as the fact that from protoplasm has developed\nthe spiritual life of the saint.\" He is voicing one of the latest\npleas of the \"advanced\" apologists--a plea which is transparently\nvain and futile. Development from protoplasm, like all the other\nwonders of the universe, takes place in accordance with natural\nlaws more or less perfectly understood; and these things have no\nsort of connection with the \"signs\" and \"mighty works\" of the New\nTestament. Miracles are rejected not because they are amazing,\nbut because they are contradictory to experience and at variance\nwith the laws of nature. So far the scientist considers the \"reign\nof law\" to be an established scientific fact, and he is naturally\nloth to conclude, without the strongest evidence, that, after all,\nhe has been deceived. Much less would he come to such a conclusion\nwhen there is not even a particle of trustworthy evidence. There is\nthe significant circumstance, too, that the laws now discovered were\nunknown at the time of the alleged performance of miracles, and that\nthe belief in miracles, and in the supposed continuance of miracles,\nvaries in inverse proportion to knowledge.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Fundamental Miracles.\n\nThe above samples of apologetics fairly represent the various ways in\nwhich miracles are now explained. Even if the reasoning were sound,\nit would hardly serve to strengthen the arguments for those miracles\nwhich cannot and must not be explained away--the miracles on which are\nbased the central doctrines of the Christian Faith. Christianity stands\nor falls according as the Resurrection and Ascension are facts or\nnot. The Rationalist's criticisms have been presented in many articles\nand books, but perhaps nowhere more clearly and forcibly than in the\nwell-known work, Supernatural Religion; and it is worthy of note that\nthese criticisms have been further strengthened by the latest \"Higher\nCriticism,\" as set forth in the articles on the Resurrection and\nAscension narratives in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica. I have specially\nreferred to Supernatural Religion, because this book created a\nconsiderable stir in theological circles when it first appeared,\nsome years ago, and also because its arguments are popularly supposed\nto have been completely demolished by Bishop Lightfoot in his Essays\non the Work Called \"Supernatural Religion.\" But--and here is a good\ninstance of the ease with which the laity can be deceived--if anyone\nwill take the trouble only to glance at these two works, he will find,\nto his astonishment, that the whole of the overwhelmingly important\nportion of the book under review, such as the chapters on miracles,\non the Resurrection, on the Incarnation, and on the Ascension, has\nreceived no attention! Besides, there is A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's\nEssays [42] which completely demolishes the Bishop's arguments.\n\n\n\nTHE RESURRECTION.\n\nAdvanced modern criticism shows that the Resurrection can no longer\nbe regarded as a historical fact, the evidence being unreliable. This\nis the sober opinion of professors of theology formed on the results\nof the most careful research, and with no preconceived opinion as\nto its scientific impossibility. What have the apologists to say to\nthis? While the obvious discrepancies and deficiencies in the accounts\nof the Resurrection are left practically unexplained, the old argument\nfrom the \"empty tomb\" [43] is being discarded as worthless by the best\nscholars. Again, the new science of psychology robs \"the appearances,\"\nsupposing that they ever occurred, of any meaning that could be\nconstrued into a proof of the Resurrection. Only one argument of any\naccount is left, and on this the apologist chiefly pins his faith,\nmore than on anything else. A certain contemporary of Christ wrote\nsome letters in which he shows a firm belief in the Resurrection: his\nname was Paul. The evidence of this one man is considered sufficient\nto substantiate a miracle, which is contrary to all human experience,\nand upon the truth of which depend the Christian Faith and our hope\nof immortality! Moreover, St. Paul was not present himself on any of\nthe occasions of the alleged appearances; and, except with regard to\nhis own particular \"religious experience,\" his evidence is therefore\nhearsay. The statement that Jesus was seen by 500 brethren at once is\nof little value, and St. Paul omits to mention what steps he took to\nascertain the accuracy of his information--who the individuals were,\nwhat the various impressions made upon them were, etc. The appearance\nto 500 brethren is not mentioned in any of the Gospels. That St. Paul\nheard such a report does not prove that the report was true, or, if\ntrue, that the 500 had clear and unmistakable evidence of Christ's\npresence.\n\nThere are critics who could not accept the evidence of St. Paul, for\nthe simple reason that they conclude that we possess no Epistles of\nSt. Paul; that the writings which bear his name are pseudepigrapha,\ncontaining seemingly historical data from the life and labours of the\nApostle borrowed from Acts of Paul--a work containing, so far as is\nknown to us, both truth and fiction. [44] Less advanced criticism\nlays down the broad thesis that all the Pauline epistles are real\nletters written by him, but that \"Paul, who reckoned the future of this\npresent world not by millennia or centuries, but by a few short years,\nhad not the faintest surmise of the part his letters were destined\nto play in the providential ordering of the world.\" [45]\n\nAccepting the genuineness of the Epistles, and therefore of the passage\nin 1 Cor. xv. 3-8, let us pause and think over the chief features\nof the argument. In the first place, it seems to me that the fact of\nSt. Paul having been a contemporary of the Messiah really only adds to\nour perplexities. When there were so many who were eye-witnesses of\nHis life, why should God single out one who was not thus favoured as\nHis chief witness for all posterity? He was living at the same time\nand in the same country as Christ, and yet never knew Him. Surely\nit stands to reason that an eye-witness is of more value than a mere\nvisionary who wrote letters revealing a remarkable ignorance of the\ngreater part of the narrative of the Gospels, and indeed of the whole\nbody of teachings there ascribed to Jesus. That St. Paul would believe\nin the Resurrection before he took up the Christian cause goes without\nsaying; but that he believed everything he heard from the followers\nof Christ, and everything he thought he heard when in a trance, does\nnot, I fear, amount to much in the way of evidence--and especially so\nwhen we know that this was an age when the resurrection of any great\nprophet was taken to be a normal event. How often, I wonder, in the\nworld's history have not the disciples of great teachers attributed\nmiraculous powers to their beloved master, even when with them alive,\nand still further magnified these powers after his death? How often has\nit not occurred that these same stories have been further exaggerated\nin the course of their transmission to succeeding generations? Nothing\nis more conceivable than that the Bible story may spuriously embellish\nthe real life of Jesus as much as the mythical accounts of Buddha, for\ninstance, spuriously embellish the real life of Prince Sidd\u00e2rtha. Of\nall old-world legends, the death and resurrection of a virgin-born\nor in some way divinely-born Saviour was the most widespread. Saul,\nthe Pharisee, would have been imbued with this prevalent notion,\nand so could never get away from the thought that some kind of\npropitiation had to be made for the sins of men. Time after time\na terrible suspicion must have crossed his mind--what if he were\ncommitting a heinous crime in persecuting the Christians? What if,\nafter all, the Crucified One were the real Saviour of mankind? Doubts\nsuch as these may well have deeply agitated him. The living figure so\noften described to him by the Christians must have stood out before\nhim. On his own testimony, as well as that of the Acts, he was prone to\nvisions and other ecstatic conditions (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; 1 Cor. xiv. 18;\nActs ix. 12, xvi. 9, xxii. 17, xxvii. 23). What more natural than that\nafter his \"religious experience\" near Damascus he should be convinced\nthat he had been specially favoured by an interview with the Saviour?\n\nSo many \"spiritual experiences\" of a like nature are on record\nthat it is difficult to know which is the best to select for\ncomparison. Professor Huxley, in his essay on \"The Value of Witness to\nthe Miraculous,\" takes the cases of Eginhard (born about A.D. 770), who\nwrote The History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs of Christ,\nS.S. Marcellinus and Petrus; and George Fox, who, about the year 1647,\nheard voices and saw visions which assured him that \"there is a living\nGod who made all things.\" Perhaps the case of Emanuel Swedenborg [46]\nmay be worth a moment's consideration. He was the son of a bishop,\nand was carefully educated. Endowed with unusual intellectual powers\nand an iron constitution, he acquired vast stores of learning. From\nearly childhood he evinced a serious turn of mind, combined with a\nremarkable tendency to indulge in religious speculations. Eventually\nhe received an extraordinary \"call\" in the shape of a vision. This\nconverted the scientific inquirer into a supernatural prophet. He was\nnow the mouthpiece of God. \"The Lord Himself hath called me, who was\ngraciously pleased to manifest Himself to me, His unworthy servant,\nin a personal experience in the year 1745.\" \"I have never,\" he says in\nhis work on True Christian Religion, \"received anything appertaining\nto the doctrines of that Church from any angel, but from the Lord\nalone, while I was reading the Word.\" Swedenborg was a man who won\nthe respect, confidence, and love of all who came in contact with\nhim. He had a peculiarly abstract metaphysical character of mind,\nand was firmly convinced that he had \"conversed with spirits\" and\n\"seen the Lord.\" So was Martin Luther perfectly convinced that he had\nseen the Devil when he threw his ink-pot at him. So was the peasant\ngirl of Lourdes convinced that she had seen the Virgin Mary. So is\nEvan Roberts convinced that he has seen his Saviour. So have many good\nChristians from time to time been convinced that they have seen Christ,\nthe Virgin Mary, saints, and angels. Father Ignatius, the Evangelist\nmonk, may be, as I have heard him called, an emotional wreck; but he\nis also a most earnest Christian, and he is quite sure that he has seen\nthe Virgin Mary. [47] John Wesley, whose followers throughout the world\nto-day number 30,000,000, was also a visionary. Thousands and thousands\nof heathens as well as Christians have had visions of their saviours;\nbut such experiences could scarcely be brought forward seriously as a\nproof of the existence of the divinities believed to have been seen,\nor of their ascension after a life upon earth. Visual and auditory\nhallucinations are now the subject of a searching inquiry by the\nSociety for Psychical Research, and, willing as some of its members\nare to explain metapsychical phenomena by the simple theory of the\nspiritists, the growing opinion is that these apparitions and voices\nare purely hallucinatory and due to causes which are not extra-human.\n\nAs Mr. Lowes Dickinson pertinently remarks when speaking of\n\"Conversions\" in his article on Revelations, in the Independent Review:\n\"The important question is whether the belief of the recipient in the\nevidential value of the experience is justified; and I think that a\nlittle consideration will show that it is not so, for it is noticeable\nthat the truth supposed to be revealed in the moment of conversion\nis commonly, if not invariably, the reflection of the doctrine or\ntheory with which the subject, whether or no he has accepted it, has\nhitherto been most familiar. I have never heard, for example, of a\ncase in which a Mohammedan or a Hindoo, without having ever heard of\nChristianity, has had a revelation of Christian truth. Conversion,\nin fact, it would seem, is not the communication of a new truth;\nit is the presentation of ideas already familiar in such a way that\nthey are accompanied by an irresistible certainty that they are\ntrue.... A religious revelation cannot be distinguished from what\nwould be admitted to be the hallucinations of disease. A man may be\nconvinced, with equal assurance, that he is a poached egg or a saint;\nthat he has a mission to assassinate the king or redeem the world;\nthat he is eternally damned or eternally saved; that he has had a\nvision of the Virgin Mary or a vision of Nirvana.\"\n\nAnother argument for considering the Resurrection as an historical\nfact is that brought forward by the Rev. D. S. Margoliouth. The\nlearned Professor argues in the Expositor that the Gospel narrative is\nlocated within historic times. So are the narratives of King Arthur\n(the Celtic Messiah), or William Tell, or Robin Hood; but historians\nare silent about all these narratives, sacred and profane alike. There\nwas probably a real Arthur, however different from the hero of the\ntrouv\u00e8res, and a real Robin Hood, however now enlarged and disguised\nby the accretion of legend. Similarly there was a real Jesus Christ;\nbut the marvellous event of His resurrection is unrecorded by any of\nthe celebrated historians of the period.\n\nThe final argument is that \"the Resurrection is, so to speak, of a\npiece with the whole character and the claims of Christ.... Even had we\nno Testament at all, we should be obliged to postulate something very\nmuch like either the Resurrection or the belief in the Resurrection in\norder to account for Christianity.\" No one disputes, I should think,\nthis necessity for the Resurrection, if we are to remain Christians;\nbut it is of the fact of the Resurrection that unfortunate doubters\nwish to be assured. The Bishop of Ripon argues that the miraculous\naccessories connected with the birth and resurrection of Jesus\nChrist find a place only in the group of secondary witnesses, and\nadds significantly: \"Our belief in Jesus Christ must be based upon\nmoral conviction, not upon physical wonder.\" The meaning of this, in\nplain English, is clear enough, and I leave it for the honest-minded\nreader to decide whether this is a satisfactory foundation for the\nChristian dogmas. Is this what he was taught, or what his children are\nnow being taught? Will it suffice? Can he remain a Christian? Will\nhis children, when they grow up and begin to think for themselves,\nremain Christians? The Dean of Westminster writes to the Archbishop\nof Canterbury: \"Students of natural science find themselves left\nwith St. Luke as the strongest historical evidence within the New\nTestament.\" Now, the author of St. Luke is also the author of the\nActs, and his propensity for miraculous decoration is by no means\nreassuring. Besides, he was not an eye-witness. Then, too, we have\nCanon Henson, in the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904, informing us that\n\"Any candid Christian reading through the accounts of the New Testament\nevidences ... cannot escape the inference that the evidence for the\nquasi-historical statements of the Creed is of a highly complicated,\ndubious, and even contradictory character.\" He then asks us: \"Is an\nhonest belief in the Resurrection really inconsistent with a reverent\nagnosticism as to the historical circumstances out of which in the\nfirst instance that belief arose?\" The reply of an ordinary candid\nlayman is, I think, sufficiently obvious. Similarly, Abb\u00e9 Loisy,\nthe champion of advanced theology in the Roman Catholic Church,\nconsiders the Resurrection to be a spiritual fact only, and not a\nfact of the historical order. \"La R\u00e9surrection n'est pas proprement\nun fait d'ordre historique.\" The powerful article in the Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBiblica also leads us to the same conclusion.\n\nThose who believe in the fact of the Resurrection, and have not Canon\nHenson's reverent agnosticism concerning the event, must believe also\nin all the facts related in connection with it, including the account\nof Jesus having eaten and having been touched, and of his bodily ascent\nup into the clouds. If any one portion of the story be considered\nincredible or untrustworthy, the whole collapses. It may be useful,\ntherefore, to put to ourselves some questions concerning any one of the\nmany marvellous accessories of the Resurrection. How few of us have\never had our belief tested by searching questions such as a cultured\nheathen would put if we tried to convert him? For instance, what would\nyou reply if you were asked by an intelligent native of India, China,\nor Japan: \"Who were the saints of whom Matthew speaks as having risen\nfrom their graves? To whom did they appear? And how was it that their\ngraves were opened as Jesus died, while their bodies did not come out\ntill after His Resurrection? What also became of them afterwards?\" To\nthis the only candid reply possible would be: \"I am unable to give\nyou any information on this subject. Their not appearing till after\nJesus rose from death would seem to have been introduced so as not to\ngive them the precedence over Him in the exercise of the privilege\nof resurrection. He is said to be 'the first that should rise from\nthe dead' (Acts xxvi. 23), 'the first fruits of them that slept'\n(1 Cor. xv. 20), 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18).\" This,\nhowever, would hardly satisfy your questioner, who would reply:\n\"Your inability to give me this information excites my suspicions,\nand your further statements seem to me to be very clumsy. To mark and\nenhance the death of the Messiah, nature is said to be convulsed, and\ngraves thrown open; but the exit of the saints who were to come out\nof them is restrained till He should first have made His egress from\nthe tomb three days later. And, after all, He had no such precedence\nin resurrection, for several persons are said to have been raised\nfrom the dead by the prophets of old and by Himself; two passed into\nheaven without ever being in their graves, and one of them--namely,\nElias--appeared to Him with Moses in risen life at the time of His\ntransfiguration. May I ask, Are the disturbances of nature which are\nsaid to have occurred at the crucifixion--namely, the preternatural\ndarkness for three hours and the earthquake--mentioned by historians\nof the time?\" You would have to confess, \"They are not.\" Thus you\nwould fail to convert your heathen interlocutor, whose final fling\nat you would be: \"That seems to demonstrate that nothing of the kind\ncould really have occurred. Moreover, had there been such phenomena,\nthe other evangelists would not have failed to support their position\nwith these divine manifestations.\"\n\n\n\nTHE ASCENSION.\n\nIf apologetics dealing with the Resurrection are unconvincing,\nstill more so are those regarding the Ascension. There is little\nor no attempt to explain the meagreness of the Gospel narratives,\nhow all mention of it is omitted in the Gospels of St. Matthew and\nSt. John; and one vague sentence is all we are given in St. Mark\nand St. Luke--sentences which, according to the Higher Critics, were\nnever penned by these persons. In \"The Acts\" the \"St. Luke\" writer\nfurnishes the detail that \"a cloud received him out of their sight,\"\nand that, \"as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white\napparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up\ninto heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.\" In\nthese days \"ascending up\" has no meaning for us. Candidly, if the\nwriter had had our astronomical knowledge, would these words ever\nhave been written? Certainly they would not. Then is the Ascension a\nfact or is it not? How is it possible that St. Matthew and St. John\ncould have remained silent regarding such an event if they had really\nwitnessed it? Or granting, in the case of the writer of \"St. John,\"\nthat he was not St. John the Apostle, though he distinctly says he\nwas, it is still astounding that he should have omitted to record\nsuch important evidence of Christ's divinity, if it was an accepted\nfact at the time he wrote.\n\nArchdeacon Wilson, in a paper read at the Diocesan Conference at\nManchester, October 22nd, 1903, asks: \"What do we mean in our Creed\nwhen we say: 'He came down from heaven'? We explain away 'down,' we\nexplain away 'heaven' in the sense in which the word was originally\nused. What do we mean by 'descended into Hell'? by 'Sitteth on the\nright hand of God'?... Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned,\nand do not admit of final intellectual definitions. We can only\navert the rejection of theology by recognising its limitations.\" Is\nit possible for the bulk of humanity, I ask, to possess the requisite\nspiritual discernment? Is it not far more likely that, with the spread\nof education, they will finally reject theology?\n\nThe Rev. David Smith, in his book, The Days of His Flesh, [48]\ndismisses the Ascension with the words: \"When Jesus parted from\nthe eleven on Olivet, He did not forsake the earth and migrate to a\ndistant Heaven. He ceased to manifest Himself; but He is here at this\nhour no otherwise than during those forty days.\" One can but wonder\nhow Ascension Day is kept in Mr. Smith's church, and how he brings\nhimself to repeat the Apostles' Creed.\n\nLeaving aside the thoroughly unreliable nature of the Bible accounts\nof the Ascension, consider how easy it is for the superstitious,\nthrough optical illusions or subjective visions (or whatever name\nit may please the neologist to give to these \"experiences\"), to be\nhonestly convinced of the occurrence of a supernatural event, and to\ntake care that it should lose nothing of its marvellous character in\nthe telling. Only the other day the good people of Sudja saw a mighty\niris-coloured cross appear over the cathedral during divine service,\nand regarded the phenomenon as a sign of heaven's resolve to bestow\nvictory upon Christian Russia. This \"miracle\" was witnessed by all\nthe notabilities of the city, who forwarded a description to General\nKuropatkin in a document duly attested with their signatures. For the\nstupendous and absurdly impossible miracle of the Ascension we have not\neven got a satisfactory description, much less an attested document. Is\nit not time that we should ask ourselves the plain question, Do we\nreally believe that an extraordinary levitation occurred, and that\nJesus Christ was seen to be rising in the air until some passing\nclouds concealed Him from view? If we do not so believe, why do we\nsay we do when we repeat the Creed? Why do we pretend we do when we\nsit in church and listen to the account of the Ascension, and perhaps\nto a sermon on it? Why do we allow our friends to think that we do\nso believe? Why is Ascension Day one of our Holy Days? And, finally,\nwhy do we teach, or allow others to teach, our children what we know\nto be untrue? Surely these are serious questions to ask ourselves.\n\n\n\nTHE INCARNATION.\n\nThere remains the miracle of the Virgin-birth. That this is under\ndispute among Christian theologians is notorious, and the controversy\nhas but served to show with ever-increasing clearness how untrustworthy\nis the evidence for this miracle. Christian Biblical experts inform us\nthat it belongs to the latest strata of the New Testament tradition,\nand that no trace of the story can be found before 120 A.D. In\nother words, that it is an obvious interpolation in St. Matthew and\nSt. Luke. Adolf Harnack, the learned Professor of Church History\nin the University of Berlin, is looked upon, even by the orthodox,\nas one of our greatest living Biblical scholars, and we learn from\nhim that we must disregard the history of Jesus' birth given in these\ntwo Gospels; for not only is it untrustworthy, but \"the evangelists\nthemselves never refer to it, nor make Jesus Himself refer to His\nantecedents. On the contrary, they tell us that Jesus' mother and\nHis brethren were completely surprised at His coming forward, and did\nnot know what to make of it. Paul, too, is silent; so that we can be\nsure that the oldest tradition knew nothing of any stories of Jesus'\nbirth.\" [49]\n\n\"Moral fitness\" appears to be the only argument that we can fall\nback upon, and this is now the apologists' last stronghold. If they\nbelong to the Church of England, they should remember that it was this\nidentical line of reasoning that gave rise to the \"pious opinion\" that\nthe Mother of Christ had herself been miraculously preserved from all\ntaint of original sin from the first moment of her conception in the\nwomb of her mother. As Bernard of Clairvaux vigorously argued (in 1140\nA.D.): \"On the same principle you would be obliged to hold that the\nconception of her ancestors, in an ascending line, was also a holy one,\nsince otherwise she would not have descended from them worthily.\" Yet,\nin spite of the absurdity, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\nwas formally defined, as a dogma binding on the acceptance of all the\nfaithful, by the bull Ineffabilis Deus (December 8th, 1854). Certainly\nthere is a moral fitness in the Virgin-birth of the Son of God, and it\nis also fit that His mother should have been immaculately conceived;\nand those who hold to the one doctrine may well hold to the other.\n\nSome apologists appear almost in despair of a continuance of belief\nin this dogma. The learned Dr. Sanday says we ought to regard the\nVirgin-birth \"as one of those hidden mysteries which, whether or not\nGod wills that we should believe them now, He has, at all events,\nwilled that men should believe in times past.\" Is not this tantamount\nto giving up belief in the Virgin-birth?\n\n\n\nCONCLUDING REMARKS.\n\nBecause God once willed that men should have all kinds of absurd\nsuperstitions, and now wills that they should acknowledge their\nabsurdity, are we, as Dr. Sanday appears to recommend, to keep up\nthe pretence of believing in them on the ground that they are hidden\nmysteries? Surely not; but, speaking of mysteries, there is one which\nought to be cleared, or at least receive a much fuller investigation\nthan it has yet received at the hands of the Church. I refer to\nthe fact that, ages before the Christian era, certain miracles were\nbelieved to have taken place, and that these were of precisely the\nsame nature as those recorded in the Bible. For instance, numerous\nsaviours were believed to have been born of virgins, to have died\nfor the sins of mankind, to have risen again from the dead, and\nto have ascended into heaven. Thus not only are the Bible miracles\nscientifically impossible; not only are they unsupported by anything\napproaching adequate evidence; not only do the specious explanations\nof apologists serve but to confirm our scepticism concerning them;\nbut we find that they are not even original--that they form part of\nancient superstitions. That these fresh grounds for suspecting the\ntruth of Christianity are of the gravest character will be shown in\nthe chapter on Comparative Mythology.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBIBLE CRITICISM\n\nChapter III.\n\nTHE DESTRUCTIVE CHARACTER OF MODERN BIBLE CRITICISM\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Clashing Views on Bible Criticism.\n\nSuch, then, is an outline of the state of apologetics on the subject of\nMiracles in general, and of those connected with the central doctrines\nof the Church in particular. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory,\nnothing more calculated to arouse suspicion of the Faith; and now,\nif we turn our attention to the \"Higher Criticism,\" and to the\napologetics it has called forth, we shall find these suspicions still\nfurther strengthened. On the one hand a considerable proportion of\nthese criticisms are accepted by the more enlightened divines, and,\non the other hand, those who refuse to accept any of them urge that\nthey undermine Christianity.\n\nThe Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Wace, is one of the latter class. Speaking\nat a men's service (at St. Mary Bredin's Church, Canterbury, on\nDecember 4th, 1904), he justly twits the critics for describing\na considerable part of the Bible, and particularly the early\npart, as \"not historical,\" when \"what they mean is that it is not\ntrue.\" No subtle theories are required to support Dr. Wace's belief\nin Christianity, for even the first chapter of Genesis is, in his\nopinion, a \"substantially accurate\" account of \"that which happened\non earth before there were any men upon it,\" and \"is the best proof\nthat the Bible proceeded from God.\" He remains among the dwindling\nnumber of those who, in these days of Christian storm and stress,\nstill cling to the old ideas about the Bible. His reasons for doing so\nare apparently similar to those given by \"Roger\" in a little pamphlet\nentitled Roger's Reasons (by John Urquhart), where it is sought to\nreconcile the Bible and Science at the expense of accuracy, logic,\nand common sense. For the obscurantist, belief is made easy, and the\napologies for the Faith can be comparatively straightforward. For the\n\"enlightened\" the conditions are reversed.\n\nAn example of the advanced views of a Church of England divine, and\nof the objections to these views of a strictly orthodox Churchman,\nmay prove instructive. Reviewing the Bishop of Winchester's book,\nOn Holy Scripture and Criticism, the Church Times (of February 10th,\n1905) pertinently observes: \"Attacks upon the Gospel narratives of the\nVirgin Birth and the Resurrection, made with such persistence from\nwithin the Church, are ugly developments which were not anticipated\nin 1890. Yet, strange to say, there is no recognition of the new\nsituation in the Bishop of Winchester's book.\"\n\nThis silence regarding points especially requiring explanation is,\nI fear, a common feature in religious apologetics. Look again at\nthe reviewer's next remark: \"The Bishop forgets that the truth of\nthe message is intimately connected with the authenticity of the\nrecord, and a critical theory which assails the one assails the\nother.\" Here, then, we have an elementary truth frankly recognised;\nand, in plain English, it means that, if the Bishop's criticisms be\ntrue, Christianity is untrue. Entering into more detail, the writer\ngoes on to say: \"For example, the Bible record of the Fall and the\ntruth of our Lord's 'atoning death on the Cross' are closely connected\nwith each other. Modern criticism discards the former as a myth, and\nindications abound on every side that the denial of the Fall leads\nto a denial of the Atonement. It is not too much to say that the\nnew method of interpreting the Bible has helped to overthrow belief\nin Christ as a Divine Redeemer. His redemptive work and mediatorial\noffice have been thrust into the background.\"\n\nThe situation could not be put more lucidly. There is no hair-splitting\nor glozing here. The reviewer characterises this silence on crucial\npoints as \"grave omissions,\" and he might have added that such\nomissions are calculated to arouse suspicions of the Faith. He\ncontinues: \"Again the Bishop says:--\n\n\n    Think of the use made of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Apostles in\n    the Acts, or by St. Paul in his Epistles. It is ever the spiritual\n    and moral lesson.\n\n\nIt is by no means 'ever' the spiritual and moral lesson only. Both\nin the Book of the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles the historical and\npredictive portions of the Jewish Scriptures are constantly appealed\nto, and used as the basis of argument. The suggestion that the Apostles\nattached little importance to the latter is far from being borne out\nby the evidence. One of the chief things in which they differ from\nwriters of the modern school is their use of Old Testament history and\nprediction. Compare the place which prophecy occupies in the Epistle\nto the Romans with the place it holds in the Bishop of Winchester's\nbook, where no more than sixteen lines in 187 pages are allotted to it.\n\n\"Each of the Synoptic Gospels describes the scene at the\nTransfiguration, when Moses and Elias talked with our Lord in the\nsight of three of His disciples. St. Luke mentions that they talked\nabout His approaching death. In the face of that narrative, those who\nsay that our Lord knew no more of Moses than any Jew of the period are\nbound to explain how they reconcile the statement with the Evangelists'\naccount of the Transfiguration. No Jewish scribe of the first century\na.d. could pretend to have seen or conversed with either Elijah or\nMoses. Bishop Ryle says of our Lord:--\n\n\n    In His incidental references to Moses, He adopts the language of\n    the Scribes.... He never displayed knowledge of facts which could\n    not be possessed by those of his own time.... To His intellectual\n    powers in His humanity there seem to have been assigned the\n    natural barriers of the time in which he lived.\n\n\n\"The Bishop does not perceive apparently that these arguments cut\nboth ways, so that they tell against our Lord's claim to foreknow\nthe future quite as much as against His knowledge of the past. And\nwe are entitled to ask how they can possibly be made to agree with\nthe express testimony of the Evangelists that Moses and Elijah were\nseen in Christ's company, and 'spake of the decease which He should\naccomplish at Jerusalem.'\"\n\nI have quoted these apposite remarks at length because they will\ncome with more force from the mouth of an orthodox believer than\nfrom anyone in doubt like myself. One cannot help wondering what the\nBishop could have to urge in reply; for the ground is cut from under\nhim by his own acceptance of so much of modern criticism. As he is a\nhigh dignitary of the Church, it is all the more puzzling. Referring\nto the remarks concerning Moses, it may be mentioned that, according\nto the critics, Moses is not a historical personage. [50] Whether the\nBishop accepts this or not it is difficult to say; but apparently he\ndoes, from his desire to explain that, \"in His references to Moses,\"\nChrist \"adopts the language of the Scribes.\"\n\nDr. Driver's new book on Genesis has also called forth some adverse\ncriticisms from the less advanced. For example, Dr. Lock, the Warden\nof Keble, enumerates several considerations in support of the general\ntrustworthiness of the patriarchal narratives, and observes that the\nfact of inspiration, once admitted on the higher level of a moral and\nspiritual tone, may \"well carry its influence over into details of\nfact, and turn the balance when otherwise uncertain.\" Personally,\nI very much doubt whether the general public, once informed of\nthe truth, will ever be induced to look at facts through Dr. Lock's\nspiritual spectacles. Dr. Driver, it should be added, informs us that\nAbraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were presumably monotheists, though\ntheir monotheism is rudimentary, and the terms in which they express\nthemselves \"suggest much riper spiritual capacities and experiences,\"\nbeing, \"in some cases, borrowed evidently from the phraseology of a\nmuch later age.\" Can we depend upon such narrators to furnish us with\ntrue history? Commenting on Dr. Driver's \"impossible interpretations\"\nof the words, \"it shall bruise thy head,\" and of \"the story of the\nFall,\" his reviewer in the Church Times asks: \"Was it, or was it not,\na promise made by God? This is the plain question which Dr. Driver's\nreaders are forced to ask.\" Sceptical truthseekers, also, are asking\nthe same question. When will they receive a \"straight\" answer?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. A Summary of the Results of Bible Criticism.\n\nThe general public know little or nothing of the results of Bible\ncriticism. Why should they? Not only do they deem it a dull subject,\nbut those who attend church are being informed from the pulpit that\n\"the Gospels have been battered by years of criticism, but have\ncome out of it stronger than ever.\" [51] It is easy enough to make\nstatements of this kind, and, doubtless, they serve temporarily\nto quiet the fears of a congregation who know very little of the\nsubject, and are only too glad to believe what they are told so\nauthoritatively; but, unfortunately, such statements are, to put\nit mildly, misleading. The ordinary man is wofully ignorant of the\n\"Higher Criticism.\" His ideas of Bible difficulties are mostly confined\nto common sense. He knows, perhaps, that scoffers of the London parks\nfreethinking type gibe at Holy Writ, and he may himself have made fun\nof some passages that appear absurd; but here his knowledge of Bible\ncriticism ceases. He is not aware that the critics are a body of the\nmost erudite experts in theology, whose only motive for offering\ntheir opinion is to give to the world the result of their arduous\nresearch--the motives, in fact, of a Bruno, a Darwin, or a Pasteur.\n\nIn view of this widespread ignorance, I propose to enumerate briefly a\nfew of the results of modern criticism, and, in giving these results,\nI shall omit those arising from a study of comparative mythology and\nof evolution, as I have devoted separate chapters to that purpose.\n\nA work has been issued lately which sums up the conclusions of Bible\ncriticism--higher, [52] lower or textual, and historical. It is\ncalled the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica. Its four massive volumes set forth\nthe new views, and support them by a mass of learning which deserves\nour serious consideration. [53] Space permits of my giving only a\nfew notes of its conclusions, and but meagre details of the wealth\nof evidence in support of them.\n\nThe Creation Story a Myth.--The story of the Creation as given in\nGenesis originated in a stock of primitive myths common to the Semitic\nraces. Its coincidences with the Babylonian myth are so numerous that\nit is impossible to doubt the existence of a real historical connection\nbetween them. Many indications show that not till after the Exile in\nthe sixth century B.C. did the story take its present shape.\n\nThe Patriarchs Unhistorical Figures.--Then, again, all the stories\nof the Patriarchs are legendary; they may contain some truth, though\nhow much will probably never be known; to suppose them entirely true\nis to throw historical criticism altogether overboard. Dr. Peters\nis the Episcopal rector of a large parish in New York, who has done\ngood service in the past, both as Professor of Biblical Literature\nin the Episcopal Seminary at Philadelphia and as the first leader of\nthe expedition to Babylonia sent out in 1888 by the University of\nPennsylvania. He has lately written a book called The Early Hebrew\nStory: Its Historical Background. Canon Cheyne, reviewing this book in\nthe Hibbert Journal for January, 1905, remarks: \"It will be granted\nthat Dr. Peters's view of the origination of the stories of Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, and, to some extent, of Joseph, in myths, legends,\nand traditions of sanctuaries, is a sound one.\"\n\nBook of Genesis Legendary.--The book of Genesis is a composite\nnarrative based on older records long since lost. It appears to have\nbeen compiled in the seventh century b.c., and to have been added\nto again later. The story of the Deluge is a Hebrew version of the\nBabylonian epic.\n\nBook of Exodus Legendary.--The book of Exodus, too, is another\ncomposite legend which has long been mistaken for history. Sober\nhistory gives no warrant for supposing that the signs and wonders\nwrought by Moses ever occurred, that the first-born of Egypt were\never slain, or that Pharaoh was ever drowned in the Red Sea.\n\nMoses a Legendary Character.--The historical character of Moses has\nnot been established, and it is doubtful whether the name is that\nof an individual or that of a clan. The alleged origin of the Ten\nCommandments is purely legendary; it is probable that they were\nframed not earlier than the time of Amos. It is admitted even by\nconservative critics that the original worship of the Israelites was\nnot of an ethical character.\n\nOne of the first suspicions that ever crossed my mind was with\nregard to the sudden and complete disappearance of the \"two tables\nof testimony, tables of stone written with the finger of God.\" [54]\nLater on, when I knew of the Moabite stone [55] and the Rosetta stone,\n[56] and especially when I learnt that there were inscriptions on\nbricks and cylinders of a far earlier date than that ascribed to the\ngiving of the Ten Commandments, the old perplexity returned with\nadded force. I remember, too, the same feeling of dissatisfaction\nand suspicion as I gazed on the clearly-cut Pali inscriptions in the\nBuddhist caves near Poona, and thought of those lost tables said to\nhave been inscribed by the finger of God. I once put the question to a\nwell-read clerical friend of mine: \"How can these tables, written by\nthe finger of God or by His direct inspiration, have been lost? How\nis it that they have simply disappeared without a word of explanatory\ncomment in the Bible? It is inconceivably strange. What a witness\nwould they not have been to the truth of the Old Testament account,\nand to the Divine authority for the Commandments!\" His reply was:\n\"It would never have done for these stones to have been preserved,\nfor they would have become objects of worship.\" Granted that they\nmight have become objects of adoration, which is worse--to worship\nfaked relics such as the water in which Joseph of Arimathea washed the\nblood-stained body of Jesus, portions of wood from the true Cross,\nbits from the crown of thorns, and thousands of odd pieces of bone\nfrom the anatomy of the Saints; or to venerate stones that would at\nleast have had the merit of being genuine? Why are we left without\nany reliable evidences of God's miraculous revelation of Himself to\nmen, while we have abundant evidence for occurrences of trifling\nimportance to mankind that happened thousands of years before the\nalleged revelation? Hammurabi (a Babylonian monarch who flourished\ntwo thousand years or more before the Christian era) inscribed a very\nexcellent, if somewhat drastic, code of laws upon a pillar of black\ndiorite, and we have now got the stone and read the inscriptions;\nbut the stone inscribed by God is lost!\n\nThe Book of Deuteronomy.--Evidence of every kind concurs to prove\nthat in its original form it was a product of the seventh, not of the\nfifteenth, century B.C. In its present form, Deuteronomy is a composite\nand considerably modified version of the older work. Originally it\nmay have consisted merely of the long speech attributed to Moses,\nand this may have been the book which was \"found\" in the temple in the\nreign of Josiah, the rest of the work being added shortly afterwards.\n\nAs it is difficult to believe that such a work would have remained in\nthe temple undiscovered for eight hundred years, is it not reasonable\nto conclude that the book was placed there by men who thought the\ntime ripe for religious reforms--in fact, that a \"pious fraud\"\nwas perpetrated?\n\nThe Psalms a Composite Book.--The fond delusion that all the Psalms\nwere written by David (though why we should be anxious to ascribe\nwhat is really of much ethical value to a person confessedly immoral\nI never could understand) has been entirely dispelled. It is doubtful\nwhether David wrote any of the Psalms.\n\nPoetry and Prophetic Literature.--The book of Job is not a literary\nunity, nor was it written with any particular purpose; it is not a\nmanufacture, but a growth.\n\nJonah is a Jewish midrash, or tradition, like the histories of Tobit\nand Susanna, and was certainly written after the Exile. Even orthodox\nclergymen now admit (in private) that the Jonah story is a fairy tale.\n\nThe great book of Isaiah is the work of several authors.\n\nThe book of Daniel was once assumed to be the most definitely\nprophetical of the Old Testament writings--a notion which is seriously\ndiscounted by the discovery that it was beyond question written in\nthe time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after or during the happening of the\nevents which were supposed to be foretold, and nearly 500 years after\nthe time of its supposed author. It is questionable whether such a\nperson as Daniel ever existed; but it is certain that his adventure\nin the den of lions, and that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in\nthe fiery furnace, are as fabulous as any in the collection of \u00c6sop.\n\n\"As a rule,\" says Canon Cheyne, \"the prophets directly connect the\nfinal restoration with the removal of the sins of their own age, and\nwith the accomplishment of such a work of judgment as lies within\ntheir own horizon; to Isaiah the last troubles are those of the\nAssyrian invasion; to Jeremiah the restoration follows on the exile\nto Babylon; Daniel connects the future glory with the overthrow of\nthe Greek monarchy.\" [57]\n\nReferring to non-Christian parallels to the belief in a Messiah,\nCanon Cheyne draws special attention to a Babylonian parallel, and\nconcludes that \"it is historically very conceivable that a Babylonian\nbelief may be the real parent both of this and of all other Messianic\nbeliefs within the sphere of Babylonian influence.\" [58]\n\nThe manner in which these so-called prophets can be looked upon as\nforetelling is explained elsewhere [59] as follows: \"The prophets\nin the Old Testament, being inspired to interpret human needs,\nbecame unconscious prophets of the Christ.... It is quite true that\nprophecy explained in this way is no longer available for the truth\nof Christianity to the same extent that it once was--at any rate,\nfor the convincing of unbelievers.\"\n\nNew Testament Chronology.--We do not know exactly when or where [60]\nJesus was born, when He died, or how long He ministered. As to the\nbirth of Jesus, the only account which claims to give indications of\ndate rests on a series of mistakes. No census was possible under Herod,\nand none took place under \"Cyrenius\" until A.D. 7. The only results\nwhich have a high degree of probability are the date A.D. 30 for the\ndeath of Jesus, and the period of about one year--conservative opinion\nestimates it to be three years--for the length of His public ministry.\n\nThe Virgin Birth.--The Gospels themselves afford the amplest\njustification for a criticism of their narratives. Jesus Himself made\nno appeal to His supposed miraculous birth. The only two verses in\nthe first chapter of St. Luke which clearly express the idea of a\nsupernatural birth so disturb the connection that we are impelled to\nregard them as an interpolation. It is Joseph, and not Mary, whose\ndescent is traced from the son of Jesse. The genealogy of Joseph,\ngiven in the first Gospel, is prior in date to the story of the Virgin\nBirth, and could have been drawn up only while he was regarded as the\nreal father of Jesus. Also St. Paul's statement that Jesus was born\nof the seed of David according to the flesh cannot be reconciled with\nthe account of his having been born of a virgin. There is no recorded\nadoration of the Virgin by St. Paul, or, for the matter of that,\nby any of the Apostles or disciples.\n\nApologists point out that among the Jews, generally, the notion\nof supernatural birth did not attach to their conception of the\nMessiah. This is true; but in the school of thought of which Philo was\nhead there were traditions that every child of promise was born of a\nvirgin. Now Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of Alexandria,\nwas a contemporary of Christ, and the influence of his school is\nnot disputed. Speaking of him in the article on Alexandria in his\nDictionary of the Bible, Dr. Smith says: \"It is impossible not to feel\nthe important office which the mystic philosophy, of which Philo is\nthe representative, fulfilled in preparing for the apprehension of the\nhighest Christian truth.\" In the next chapter we shall see that this\n\"mystic philosophy\" sprang from a heathen source, and that for the\nwhole birth and childhood story of St. Matthew, in its every detail,\nit is possible to trace a pagan substratum.\n\nJesus.--Professor A. B. Bruce, [61] writer of the article on \"Jesus,\"\npoints out that, while the Gospels may be regarded as, in the\nmain, a trustworthy tradition, they are unreliable in many of their\ndetails. Those details turn out to be the all-important ones, for he\ngoes on to show that: The Temptation is a symbolic representation of a\nspiritual experience; the story of the Crucifixion is not pure truth,\nbut truth mixed with doubtful legend; the night trial, the mocking,\nthe incident of Barabbas, the two thieves, and the preternatural\nconcomitants of the death are picturesque accessories of doubtful\nauthenticity; Christ's conceptions of Messiahship were greatly\ninfluenced by the later Isaiah; while His spiritual intuitions are\npure truth valid for all ages, His language concerning the Father\nshows limitation of vision; His acts of healing are considered to be\nreal, though it does not follow that they were miraculous. Referring\nto the strange statement that Jesus declined to expound His parables\nto the people, lest they should be converted, we are assured that\n\"it is not credible that Jesus would either cherish or avow such an\ninhuman intention, though it is possible that in His disappointment\nHe may have expressed Himself in such a way as to be misunderstood.\"\n\nThis is all very well; but, if this be granted, we are naturally\nanxious to know in how many more matters Jesus may not have\nbeen misunderstood. What is the use of a revelation which can be\nmisunderstood in this way? What can be the motive of the Omnipotent\nRevealer in allowing Himself to be misunderstood? Were not His hearers\nwho misunderstood Him His own selected expositors?\n\nWe even find suspicion thrown on the supposed early belief in the\ndivinity of Jesus. For the writer points out that, while in the\nGospel of St. Luke Jesus is called \"the Lord\" about a dozen times,\nthe earlier Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark refer to Him simply\nas \"Jesus\"--\"a fact which seems to indicate the gradual evolution of\nthe belief in His divinity.\"\n\nThe conclusions of Professor Schmiedel, D.D., of Z\u00fcrich, one of the\nwriters of the article on the Gospels, are still more destructive. He\nadmits [62] that his criticisms \"may have sometimes raised a doubt\nwhether any credible elements were to be found in the Gospels at\nall,\" and that there are only nine passages which \"might be called\nthe foundation-pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus.\" He\nadmits also \"the meagreness of the historical testimony regarding\nJesus,\" as well \"in canonical writings outside of the Gospels\" as\n\"in profane writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny.\"\n\nThe Resurrection.--The all-important subject of the \"Resurrection\" is\ntreated by Professor Schmiedel, who tells us that the Gospel accounts\n\"exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind.\" The actuality\nof the Resurrection depends for its establishment upon these very\nnarratives, and in such a case unimpeachable witnesses are naturally\ndemanded. Such witnesses do not exist. The reality of the appearances\nhas ever been in dispute. The account of the watch at the sepulchre\nand the sealing of the tomb is now given up as unhistorical even by\nthose who accept the story as a whole. \"The statements as to the empty\ntomb are to be rejected.\" [63] The silence of St. Paul with regard\nto these details is unaccountable, if the story of the Resurrection\nbe true. For him nothing less than the truth of Christianity rested\non the actuality of the Resurrection of Jesus. During his visit to\nJerusalem he had had opportunities of acquiring knowledge relating\nto it, and it may naturally be assumed that, when endeavouring to\nprove to the Corinthians the truth of the Resurrection, he would\nstate fully and clearly all that he knew about it. It is admitted on\nall hands that the appearance recorded by him was in the nature of\na vision--a purely subjective experience. And it is well known that\nSt. Paul uses the same Greek word to describe both the appearance to\nhimself and the appearances to the original disciples, thereby implying\nthe possibility that the latter also were of a visionary or subjective\ncharacter. An apologetic tendency is perceptible in the Gospel account,\nand this may help to explain the rise of unhistorical elements. It is\nprobable that, in the absence of knowledge, conjectures were freely\nmade, and many questions asked, the replies to which were afterwards\nassumed to be facts.\n\nThe Gospels.--The article on the Gospels by Dr. E. A. Abbott [64]\nand Professor Schmiedel is crowded with damaging criticism. The view\nhitherto current that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John, and appeared thirty or forty years after the death of\nJesus, can, it is stated, no longer be maintained. The four Gospels\nwere compiled from earlier materials which have perished, and the\ndates when they first appeared in their present form are given as\nfollows:--Mark, certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem in the\nyear 70 [65]; Matthew, about 119 A.D.; Luke, between 100 and 110; and\nJohn, between 132 and 140. But, even if we accept more conservative\nopinions which place the earliest Gospel about 65 A.D., that would not,\nof course, make any material difference, nor affect the conclusions\nof criticism as to their contents. Some of their statements of fact\nare quite erroneous, and the data are often in direct contradiction\nto one another. The evangelists made it clear that they wrote with\na \"lack of concern for historical precision.\" The imperfection of\nthe Gospel accounts is everywhere manifest. Even if His ministry\nlasted only a few months, He must have said a thousandfold more,\nand repeated His sayings with many variations. The text must not\nbe taken as a trustworthy guide to His original meaning. It merely\nshows us what the evangelists or their predecessors believed him to\nmean. The situations in which the words of Jesus are said to have\nbeen spoken cannot be implicitly accepted.\n\nBoth St. Matthew and St. Mark seem to have read into the utterances\nof Jesus details borrowed from subsequent facts or controversies. The\nhistorical value of the third Gospel is lowered by evidence of the\nwriter's errors and misunderstandings. It has been widely assumed\nthat it was written by the physician Luke, and that Luke was a\ncompanion of Paul. This view of its Pauline character, however,\ncan now be maintained only in a very limited sense. It is clear\nthat the third Gospel and the Acts are by the same author, but that\nauthor was not Luke. In the fourth Gospel we find more ambiguities\nthan in all the other three together. The story of the raising of\nLazarus cannot be considered historical. The common-sense view of the\nSynoptic omission of the raising of Lazarus is that earlier authors\nomitted the tradition because they did not accept it, and probably had\nnever heard of it. \"Is, then, the record of the raising of Lazarus a\nfiction?\" asks Dr. Abbott. \"Not a fiction, for it is a development. But\nit is non-historical, like the history of the Creation in Genesis,\nand like the records of the other miracles in the fourth Gospel,\nall of which are poetic developments.\" [66]\n\nLastly, we are plainly warned that \"it is vain to look to the Church\nfathers for trustworthy information on the subject of the origin of\nthe Gospels.\" [67] This is an exceedingly grave admission when we\nremember that these same untrustworthy fathers of the Church did the\nwork of sifting the wheat from the chaff--settling what was and what\nwas not canonical.\n\nIt need hardly be said that these general conclusions, which are\nsupported by evidence that has satisfied numerous Christian scholars,\nentirely do away with the idea that the Gospels are credible and\ntrustworthy narratives.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles.--The sections of this book in which the\nnarrative is written in the first person plural (says Professor\nSchmiedel) can be implicitly accepted; but it is equally certain that\nthey are not by the same hand as the rest of the book. Apart from the\n\"we\" sections, no statement merits immediate acceptance on the mere\nground of its presence in the book. The speeches are constructed by\nthe author in accordance with his own conceptions. This book does\nnot come from a companion of St. Paul; its date may be set down as\nbetween A.D. 105 and 130.\n\nThe Epistles of St. Paul.--The genuineness of the Pauline Epistles does\nnot appear to be so clear as was once universally supposed. Advanced\ncriticism, Professor van Manen [68] tells us, in his elaborate article\non \"Paul,\" has learned to recognise that none of these Epistles is\nby him, not even the four generally regarded as unassailable. Van\nManen's position, however, is exceptional. In the article on\n\"Epistolary Literature\" the Epistle to Philemon and the Epistles to\nthe Philippians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians,\nand even the Epistle to the Romans, are recognised as real letters\nwritten by St. Paul. The genuineness of four of the Epistles is, in\nany case, generally accepted. As these include the first Epistle to the\nCorinthians, this conclusion is of the greatest importance. The Bishop\nof London is \"content to rest his case, for not being intellectually\nashamed of the documentary evidence, on the four undisputed Epistles\nof St. Paul.\" [69]\n\nThe Apocalypse.--Criticism has clearly shown that the Book of\nRevelation can no longer be regarded as a literary unit, but is an\nadmixture of Jewish with Christian ideas and speculations. Ancient\ntestimony, that of Papias in particular, assumed the Presbyter John,\nand not the Apostle, to be its author.\n\n\n\nThis completes a summary of conclusions, arrived at by eminent\nChristian scholars of the more advanced school. Though they, or the\nmajority of them, would be the last to make any such admission, the\nnet result amounts practically to a surrender of the Christian dogmas.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. By Whom the \"Higher Criticism\" is Accepted.\n\nThese criticisms are, I repeat, the work not of anti-Christians,\nbut of Christians, who have devoted themselves to Biblical research,\nand who are among the greatest living experts in that sphere of\nknowledge. Canon Cheyne, one of the two editors of the Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBiblica, has now written a volume on Bible Problems and the New\nMaterial for their Solution, in which he appeals to Churchmen and\nscholars and all who are interested in Bible criticism for thoroughness\nof investigation. There can be no doubt that there is a crying need for\nthis thorough investigation, which at present is being shirked. While\nthe main results arrived at by the Higher Criticism are, it is true,\nlargely accepted by enlightened divines, the usual policy so far has\nbeen not to disseminate such knowledge. On this I shall have more to\nsay in the concluding chapter of this book.\n\nDr. Harnack in Germany, and M. Loisy in France, may be cited as types\nof liberal theologians who proclaim their acceptance of the Higher\nCriticism. They both detach Christianity from mere narrative, and\nseek to appreciate it as a spiritual reality, which appeals to the\nimagination, the emotions, and the soul. Dr. Harnack is the Professor\nof Church History in the University of Berlin, and member of the Royal\nPrussian Academy, and a book called What is Christianity? is an English\ntranslation of sixteen lectures delivered by him in the University of\nBerlin, 1899-1900. In this book the effort to prove that the Gospels\nthough unhistorical are yet historical, that Christianity though untrue\nis yet true, is strongly in evidence to any impartial reader. Take his\nremark on the \"Miraculous Element\" in Lecture II.; we find the same\nkind of specious argument on which I have already animadverted in the\nchapter on Miracles. He says: \"Miracles, it is true, do not happen;\nbut of the marvellous and the inexplicable there is no lack--that the\nearth in its course stood still, that a she-ass spoke, that a storm\nwas quieted by a word, [70] we do not believe, and we shall never again\nbelieve; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard,\nwill not be so summarily dismissed as an illusion.\" Why? Because,\nafter all, these may have been accomplished by the operation of\na natural law with which we are as yet unacquainted! \"Although the\norder of Nature be inviolable, we are not yet by any means acquainted\nwith all the forces working in it and acting reciprocally with other\nforces. Our acquaintance even with the forces inherent in matter,\nand with the field of their action, is incomplete; while of psychic\nforces we know very much less.\" He gives the whole situation away,\nhowever, by making excuses for the Evangelists, such as \"we know that\nthe Gospels come from a time in which the marvellous may be said to\nhave been something of almost daily occurrence,\" and \"we now know\nthat eminent persons have not to wait until they have been long dead,\nor even for several years, to have miracles reported of them; they\nare reported at once, often the very next day.\" Again, speaking of\nthe first three Gospels, he says: \"These Gospels are not, it is true,\nhistorical works any more than the fourth; they were not written with\nthe simple object of giving the facts as they were; they were books\ncomposed for the work of evangelisation.\" Such reasoning serves only\nto confirm one's suspicions. Here is the unedifying spectacle of an\nerudite scholar using his intellectual powers to make out a case for\na Faith built upon foundations which he has himself destroyed. We do\nnot wish to be told that there is a substratum of truth in the Gospel\nnarratives. The ordinary man feels strongly that the whole should\nbe true if it be God's Word. That this is, and always will be, the\ncommon-sense view of mankind is proved by the fact that it is held\nby the vast majority of the strictly orthodox, as well as by every\nAgnostic and every cultured heathen.\n\nM. Loisy writes in much the same strain as Dr. Harnack, and finds\nadherents in both English and Roman Catholic Churches, as may be seen\nfrom the correspondence in the Church Times during April, 1904.\n\nIn the Hibbert Journal (January, 1905) an Oxfordshire rector, the\nRev. C. J. Shebbeare, presents the same aspect of liberal theology by\nmeans of various illustrations. He remarks: \"It is evident that the\nlesson taught by our new teachers must have an important bearing upon\npopular religious conceptions and upon religious practice. Its chief\neffect will be to deliver us from the error of identifying religion\nwith belief in the supernatural--an error of which it is not difficult\nto see the pernicious consequences\" (italics are mine). This is all\nvery well for those who can divest the Christian religion of its\nsupernatural element, and yet remain honest believers. To my mind,\nthis is simply non-Christian Theism, and the Theistic Church, Swallow\nStreet, is the place where such persons should perform their devotions.\n\nI crave the reader's patience while I give one more example of\nadvanced apologetics. The Rev. Arthur Moorhouse, M.A., B.D., Tutor in\nOld Testament Languages and Literature at Didsbury College, offers,\nin a lecture [71] delivered at Manchester on \"The Inspiration of the\nOld Testament,\" \"an unhesitating and emphatic denial\" to the statement\nthat there is any \"untruth in the Old Testament.\" Yet he tells us that\n\"the early chapters of Genesis are not historical in our modern and\nscientific sense,\" and asks us to remember that, \"in the nature of\nthings, it could not be history, for it deals with facts which are,\nof necessity, prehistoric\"! Such pitiful shifts and evasions seem\nto many of us wholly unworthy of earnest men. \"Our fathers,\" says\nMr. Moorhouse, \"may have thought that this was history miraculously\ndictated, but the Bible does not say so.\" No, and the Bible does not\nsay that it is speaking the truth, but \"our fathers\" were simple-minded\nenough to forget that such a guarantee was necessary on the part of\na book which they, like Mr. Moorhouse, believed to be the inspired\nWord of God.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Admissions by Orthodox Apologists.\n\nI cannot conclude this review of Bible criticism without an allusion to\nthe opinions of those theologians who agree with the \"Higher Critics\"\nto an extent far exceeding anything the pious layman suspects. I\nshall omit, as being too advanced, the views of Dr. Driver, given in\nhis \"Genesis,\" or of Canon Henson, as expressed in the Contemporary\nReview and in his book, The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons,\nor of Archdeacon Wilson, shown in his various interesting books\nand pamphlets; and will confine myself to comparatively conservative\ntheology. I select, as representative of this type, The Divine Library\nof the Old Testament, by Dr. A. F. Kirkpatrick (Master of Selwyn\nCollege, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge,\nand Canon of Ely Cathedral), and The Study of the Gospels, being a\n\"Handbook for the Clergy,\" by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson (Dean of\nWestminster).\n\nIn the former, which is among the books selected by the Christian\nEvidence Society for their Examination in March, 1907, we read: \"The\nlectures do not attempt to deal with many of the graver questions\nwhich are being raised as to the Old Testament.\" But it is just\nthe more difficult questions, such as those examined with such\ndestructive effect by the Higher Criticism, which specially require\nto be answered. Why are they neglected? The author goes on to confess\nthat \"the books were constructed out of earlier narratives; some were\nformed by the union of previous collections of poetry or prophecies;\nsome betray marks of a reviser's hand; and even books which bear the\nnames of well-known authors in some cases contain matter which must be\nattributed to other writers.\" Also we find the following significant\nadmissions. Referring to the important last twenty-seven chapters\nof Isaiah, he accepts Dr. Driver's criticisms, and says: \"I do not\nsee how we can resist the conclusion that these chapters were not\nwritten by Isaiah, but by an unknown prophet towards the close of the\nBabylonian Exile\"; and he owns that \"it will inevitably seem to many\nstudents of the Bible that, in assigning the prophecy to a date so\nnear to the events which it foretells, we are detracting from its truly\npredictive character and diminishing its value.\" However, he considers\nthat \"Isaiah is great enough to share his glory with this disciple,\nin whom, being dead, he yet spoke; and, paradox as it may seem, the\ntruly prophetic character of the work gains by being referred to the\ntime of the Exile.\" By what process of reasoning he arrives at this\nastonishing conclusion it is exceedingly difficult to comprehend.\n\nFurther admissions by Dr. Kirkpatrick must be noticed more\nbriefly. They are: \"The first chapter of Genesis is not, as we now\nknow, a scientifically exact account of Creation.\" \"The account of\nthe Fall is, it may be, an allegory rather than a history in the\nstrict sense of the term.\" \"The Deluge was not universal in the sense\nthat the waters covered the whole surface of the entire globe.\" \"The\nPsalms, like the Proverbs, have a long literary history. They are\npoems by different authors, and David may be one of them.\" \"Modern\ncriticism claims, and claims with justice, that the Hexateuch, like\nso many of the other books, is composite in its origin, and has a\nlong literary history.\" \"That the Pentateuch was entirely written by\nMoses is merely a Jewish tradition, which passed into the Christian\nChurch and was commonly accepted until modern times. [Yet how much\nhangs upon the trustworthiness of this same Jewish tradition, and\nhow much else may not the Church have wrongfully accepted?] Some\nof the variations of the LXX. [72] from the Hebrew text are due,\nno doubt, to errors and interpolations and deliberate alterations;\nbut after all allowance has been made for these, I do not see how any\ncandid critic can resist the conclusion that many of them represent\nvariations existing in the Hebrew text from which the translation\nwas made.\" \"It was probably at the very beginning of this period\n[from the Fall of Jerusalem to the end of the fifth century], towards\nthe close of the first century a.d., that the final settlement of\nan authoritative text took place.... How came it that all the copies\ncontaining other readings have disappeared?... Copies differing from it\n[the standard text] would die out or be deliberately destroyed.\" \"The\noldest Hebrew MS. in existence of which the date is known was written\nin 916 A.D.--i.e., separated by more than a thousand years from the\nlatest of the works included in the Canon.\"\n\nFinally, the following crucial questions are offered (pp. 88-9) and\nleft unanswered: \"In what sense, it is asked, can this legislation,\nwhich is now said to be Mosaic in elemental germ and idea only,\nand to represent not the inspired deliverance of a supremely great\nindividual, but the painful efforts of many generations of law-makers;\nthese histories which have been compiled from primitive traditions,\nand chronicles, and annals, and what not; these books of prophecy\nwhich are not the authentic autographs of the prophets, but posthumous\ncollections of such writings (if any) as they left behind them,\neked out by the recollections of their disciples; these Proverbs\nand Psalms which have been handed down by tradition and altered and\nedited and re-edited; these histories which contain errors of date\nand fact, and have been, perhaps, 'idealised' by the reflection of the\ncircumstances and ideas of the writer's own times upon a distant past;\nthese seeming narratives which may be allegories; and these would-be\nprophecies which may be histories; in what sense can these be said\nto be inspired? The problems raised are grave.\" My own thoughts,\nand the thoughts of many like myself, are here candidly expressed. I\nhave nothing to add, and can only echo this learned divine's solemn\nwords--the problems raised are grave!\n\nTurning now to the Study of the Gospels, we learn from Dr. Robinson as\nfollows: There is no proof that St. Matthew is the author of the first\nGospel. He is unable to fix the date himself, but quotes Dr. Harnack,\nwho says \"probably 70-75,\" and who also adds the important reservation,\n\"except certain later additions.\" St. Mark's authorship, he thinks, is\npractically certain, and the year 65 is the probable date. \"It is,\" he\nsays, \"exceedingly probable that St. Peter would not write or preach,\neven if he could speak at all, in any language but his mother tongue,\nthe Aramaic of Galilee, a local dialect akin to Hebrew. When he wrote\nor preached to Greek-speaking people, he would use Mark or some other\ndisciple as his interpreter.\" What, then, may I ask, had become of the\n\"gifts at Pentecost\"?\n\nSt. Luke is, according to Dr. Robinson, the fellow-traveller of\nSt. Paul, and the date of his Gospel shortly after 70. Regarding\nSt. John's, we are informed that Dr. Harnack fixes the date between\n80 and 110, and thinks that it was written by another person of the\nsame name--John the presbyter, or elder, of Ephesus. Dr. Robinson,\nhowever, in a chapter he devotes to the subject of the fourth Gospel,\nattempts to show its apostolic authorship.\n\nDr. Robinson admits that the authorship of all four Gospels is\ndoubtful, but thinks that, regarding the second Gospel, we may accept\nthe second-century tradition that it was written by St. Mark, and that\nSt. Mark was the \"interpreter\" of St. Peter and wrote the Gospel in\nRome from information derived from that Apostle. Very good; let us\naccept this conclusion. We have it, then, that one of the Gospels\nis from the mouth of an eye-witness. This eye-witness, however,\nwas, after all, an eye-witness of only one year (or, according to\nconservative criticism, three years) of Christ's life; he was an\nilliterate person, and the information he imparted after thirty or\nforty years had to be written down by another person in another\nlanguage, and there is no telling how faithful or unfaithful the\ntranslation may have been. Besides, as Dr. Robinson points out in\nhis chapters on \"The Great Sermon\" and \"The Non-Marcan Document,\"\nthere are very important omissions in St. Mark's Gospel. Referring to\na supposed source for the information furnished by other evangelists,\nbut omitted by St. Mark, he says: \"You may gain some general idea\nof the scope of this document (the Non-Marcan [73]) by underlining\nin St. Luke's Gospel all those portions which are to be found in\nSt. Matthew, but are not to be found in St. Mark.\"\n\nNow, what are these omissions in St. Mark? Are they trivial? Let us\njudge for ourselves by taking a few selections. There is no mention\nwhatever of the story of Christ's miraculous birth, nor of the\nother incidents of His childhood which are said to be in fulfilment\nof prophecy, and there is no mention of the great Sermon on the\nMount. The story of the Resurrection is told in a few sentences,\nand the Ascension in one sentence. Unfortunately, too, these very\nsentences are admittedly interpolations, and St. Mark really ends\nat xvi. 8. [74] So there is no account of either the Incarnation,\nResurrection, or Ascension, and we are left with oral traditions,\n\"lost\" documents, and unknown copyists, as the only source from which\nto obtain any detailed information concerning the very groundwork of\nour Creed! Could anything be more unsatisfactory, more calculated to\narouse suspicion of the \"Christian Verities\"--the Gospel truths? I am\ncompletely at a loss to understand how the Bishop of Gloucester [75]\ncan say that the \"Higher Criticism\" has been a \"gain to the Church,\"\nor the Bishop of London1 that \"the New Testament stands ten times\nas strong as it did fifty years ago.\" It would seem to be a case of\n\"where ignorance is bliss,\" etc., or else of the wish being father\nto the thought.\n\nThere is much more that I should wish to call attention to, did space\npermit, but I have now, I think, given some insight into modern Bible\ncriticism, and the extent to which it is accepted by Christians. It\nonly remains, in conclusion, to ask for earnest thought on this new\naspect of \"the Word of God.\" In doing so the following additional\nconsiderations may be borne in mind.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Some Remaining Difficulties.\n\n\nWE MUST ACCEPT THE WHOLE OR REJECT THE WHOLE.\n\nThe orthodox and traditional view of the Old Testament is preserved\nin the unrepealed \"Blasphemy Act,\" 9 and 10, William III., cap. 32,\nwhich enacts that any person who shall deny the \"Holy Scriptures\nof the Old and New Testament\" to be of \"divine authority\" shall be\nincapable of holding any public office or employment, and shall, on\na second conviction, also suffer imprisonment for a space of three\nyears. The Vatican Council of 1870, \"speaking under the inspiration of\nthe Holy Ghost,\" declared that the books of the Old and New Testament\n\"have God for their author, and, as such, have been delivered to\nthe Church.\" The Council, therefore, ordained that the man should\nbe anathema who refused \"to receive, for sacred and canonical, the\nbooks of the Holy Scripture in their integrity, with all their parts.\"\n\nDr. Bayley expressed the opinion of his day when he wrote [76]:\n\"The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired. Every word, every\nsyllable, every letter, is just what it would be had God spoken from\nheaven without any human intervention. Every scientific statement is\ninfallibly correct; all its history and narratives of every kind are\nwithout any inaccuracy.\"\n\nListen, again, to the words of a well-known divine of our own\nChurch, spoken but yesterday: \"The whole of the teaching of the New\nTestament is based upon the supposition that God made a covenant with\nAbraham.\" [77] \"You have our Lord Jesus Christ building His whole life\non the Scriptures, and submitting to death in obedience to them.\" [78]\nThis is the strictly orthodox opinion, and it is consistent with\nChristian doctrine. Yet, for obvious reasons, the Old Testament is now\nregarded as an incubus by an increasing number of earnest Christians.\n\nIn the New Testament there are many cruel sayings attributed to\nJesus. Only the few are to be saved from the eternal torments\nof the damned (St. Matt. xiii. 10-13, xxii. 14, xxv. 41; St. Mark\niv. 11-12, xvi. 16, etc.). Happily, owing to the rise of Rationalism\nand the consequent subjection of the Bible to criticism, the dogma\nof eternal torment is disputed on all sides, and the Athanasian\nCreed will soon no longer be forced upon us. The principle of the\n\"chosen few\" is so clearly Christ's teaching, and furnishes such\na convenient explanation for the attitude of the many, that it is\ncommonly adhered to; but liberal theologians no longer hold that \"he\nthat believeth not shall be damned,\" or that the punishment of the\nsinner is to be excruciating torture for all eternity. Unbelievers and\nsinners may all ultimately be saved, or at the worst their existence\nwill end with this life. Good, very good; such views appeal to us\nas being more humane and rational; but are they compatible with the\ntruth of the Bible? Mark the words of the late Bishop of Manchester:\n\"The very foundation of our Faith, the very basis of our hopes, are\ntaken from us when one line of that sacred volume, on which we base\neverything, is declared to be untruthful and untrustworthy.\" Thus it\nis that there are many who would still retain the inhuman doctrines\nascribed to the Master. Fearful of losing the basis of their hopes,\nand unconscious, apparently, of their sublime egoism, they reason,\nand reason with logic: We must accept the whole or reject the whole.\n\n\n\nSILENCE OF HISTORIANS.\n\nThat the Bible should be open to criticism at all seems to me\ninconceivable if it really be God's gift to mankind. How could God,\nhaving determined after \u00e6ons of time to make a definite revelation of\nHimself to His human creatures, permit the account of this revelation\nto be handed down in such a haphazard fashion that future generations\ncannot be sure that they possess a reliable record? This, too, when a\ntrustworthy record was the more essential on account of the miraculous\nnature of the narrative. As Professor Schmiedel remarks, the meagreness\nof the historical testimony regarding Jesus, whether in canonical\nwritings outside of the Gospels or in profane writers such as Josephus,\nTacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, is most pronounced. Not a single\npassage can be produced from the writings of the great historians\nand philosophers who flourished between A.D. 40 and A.D. 140 which\nmakes the slightest allusion to the astounding phenomena connected\nwith the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nIt was at one time claimed that Josephus spoke of Jesus. That this\nhas been given up by theologians may be verified by a reference\nto Canon Farrar's Life of Christ, vol. i., p. 63 (and p. 31 of\nthe cheap edition), where we read that \"The single passage in\nwhich he (Josephus) alludes to Him is interpolated, if not wholly\nspurious.\" There is also a disputed passage [79] in Tacitus, where\nhe speaks of Christians having \"their denomination from Christus,\nwho, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the\nprocurator, Pontius Pilate.\" And that is all! Could anything be more\ndisappointing than this must be to thoughtful Christians who wish to\nestablish the historical accuracy of the miraculous story of God's\nlife on earth? Eusebius (A.D. 315-340), the celebrated ecclesiastical\nhistorian, is apparently reduced to appealing to a Pagan oracle for a\nproof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for he says to the heathen:\n\"But thou at least listen to thine own gods, to thy oracular deities\nthemselves, who have borne witness, and ascribed to our Saviour (Jesus\nChrist) not imposture, but piety and wisdom, and ascent into heaven.\"\n\nThe silence of secular historians is accounted for, by certain divines,\nby falling back on a theory of hostility or contempt. Thus Dean Farrar\nthinks that Josephus's silence on the subject of Jesus and Christianity\nwas as deliberate as it was dishonest (see his Life of Christ, vol. i.,\np. 63). Except that this offers a much-needed explanation, I am not\ncognisant of any reason for suspecting the famous secular historian,\nalthough, of course, the untrustworthiness of the Christian historians\nis notorious. Eusebius, for example, the gravest of the ecclesiastical\nhistorians, confesses, with commendable frankness: \"We have decided\nto relate nothing concerning them [the early Christians] except the\nthings in which we can vindicate the divine judgment.\" [80]\n\nWith regard to the prodigy of the darkness, etc., that occurred at\nthe death of Jesus, Gibbon informs us as follows: \"It happened during\nthe lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced\nthe immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the\nprodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded\nall the great phenomena of Nature--earthquakes, meteors, comets,\nand eclipses--which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But\nthe one and the other has omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon\nto which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the\nglobe.\" [81] Any attempt to explain this away by supposing that the\ndarkness of three hours was local only detracts from the magnitude\nof the miracle, which was intended, by its very magnitude, to be one\nof the proofs of the death of a God.\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS ON \"TRADITION\" AS GOD'S METHOD FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF TRUTH\nTO POSTERITY.\n\nHave you ever, in the days of your early youth, played the game of\n\"gossip\"? It is an amusing game, and also points a moral. A number\nof persons put themselves in a long row, and the first will think\nof some little incident, which he will carefully whisper to his\nneighbour, who will then pass it on, and so on, and so on, till it\nreaches the last person, who will proceed to repeat out loud the\nstory he has heard. The original story will then be divulged, and\nmuch amusement is caused by the differences that are found between\nthe two stories. This illustration of what occurs in \"gossip\" came\nback to my mind with much misgiving when I first heard how the story\nof my Saviour's life on earth was handed down for a long period \"by\ntradition.\" Apparently, Christian theologians look quite complacently,\nand without any misgiving, upon this process for the transmission of\nthe Christian verities; but, for myself, whether it were a century,\nor whether it were only a matter of thirty or forty years, before the\nfinal committal to writing, it was a heartrending discovery, and all\nmy confidence in the truth of the Bible story was shaken. My dismay\nwas not diminished when I learnt also that it was extremely doubtful\nwhether the authors were eye-witnesses of the events, or especially\ninspired by God for their task; also, that there had been subsequent\ninterpolations by equally unknown and uninspired writers, who, to speak\nplainly, were nothing more nor less than forgers, actuated, possibly,\nby pious motives. That the writers of the Gospels were vouchsafed\nany unusual facilities through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit\nis discredited by the remarks of the apologists themselves. Thus,\nDr. Robinson, in his book already referred to, alludes to St. Peter's\nilliteracy, St. Mark's poor literary attainments, and the limitations\nto which all the evangelists in ancient times were subjected.\n\nWe find ourselves asking the questions, \"Did not God know that a time\nwould come when we should discover that nature's laws were not of the\nfragile or elastic character which our forefathers had supposed? Did\nHe not know that we should therefore require absolute proof before\nwe could believe that they had been broken in a bygone and credulous\nage?\" Instead of this, the only proofs afforded us are copies of\ndocuments concocted from hearsay--we are not sure when or by whom--and\nfrom time to time fraudulently manipulated by interested though \"pious\"\nforgers. Did He, in His Omniscience, purposely allow events to take\ntheir course, and intend the story of His Son's life upon earth to be\nhanded down to us by the same unsatisfactory process as that of many\nanother ancient tradition now known to be historically worthless? If\never special interference with the course of nature were necessary,\nsurely it would be here--a miracle to prove the miracle on which our\nhopes are staked. Or, if this be asking too much, if it be argued that\nit is no longer God's pleasure to break the laws which He has made,\nand that He now accomplishes His purposes by means of these laws\nonly, how comes it that, for the safeguarding of this great truth,\nthe most ordinary precautions have been neglected?\n\nWe are often asked to consider the yearnings of man as a proof that\nthe thing yearned for is a reality. His yearnings, therefore, are not\na negligible quantity. Do not, then, the yearnings of millions of\nChristians in the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches for miraculous\nproofs of God's residence once upon earth count for something? Are\nnot all the \"miraculous\" relics and \"wonder-working\" ikons a proof\nthat man feels that God's revelation ought to be assured to us by the\ncontinuance of miracles? In our own Church, Holman Hunt's painting\nof \"The Light of the World\" is being sent round our colonies, to\nstrengthen people's belief in Jesus Christ. Why, oh why, have we\nnot the real picture of our Saviour, bringing our God nearer to us,\nand enabling us to focus our thoughts on Him? I once mentioned my\nfeeling on this subject to a clergyman, a doctor of divinity, well\nversed in Church history. He replied by suggesting that there was a\ntradition which indicated that the true likeness of our Lord had been\nmiraculously transmitted, and that from this the great Italian painters\nhad caught their inspiration. [82] It seems hardly necessary to have\nrecourse to the supernatural when there were natural sources available\nin the shape of representations of pagan gods. Thus Mercury, attired as\na shepherd, with a lamb upon his shoulders, was no infrequent object\nin ancient art, and this has, in some cases, led to a difficulty\nin distinguishing between Mercury and Jesus Christ. Similarly we\nknow that the pictures and sculptures wherein Isis is represented\nin the act of suckling her child Horus formed the foundation for the\nChristian figures and paintings of the Madonna and child.\n\n\n\nTHE ALLEGED SINLESSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\nIt may be urged that we have, what is of far more importance,\nthe picture of His character. Have we? The absolute sinlessness of\nChrist is one of the chief proofs held out to us of His divinity. It\nis described as being in itself a miracle so great that it furnishes\nus with sufficient grounds for belief in other miracles. Many pious\nand learned theists feel that the character of Christ as portrayed\nin the Gospels betrays imperfections. But let this pass. What do we\nknow of His life? Let us assume that in the Gospel of St. Mark we are\nput in possession of the impressions of an eye-witness. St. Peter's\npersonal knowledge of the private life of Jesus was confined to\nhis recollections concerning a beloved Master during the period\nof His public ministry. And that ministry extended over one year,\nor at most three years. Have not the disciples of great teachers in\nthe past invariably extolled the perfections of their masters? Have\nthey ever dwelt upon their imperfections? Has not the picture handed\ndown by tradition, and afterwards committed to writing, often been\nthat of a perfect man? That the writers of the Gospels recognised the\nneed for Christ to appear sinless, and adopted questionable methods\nfor their purpose, is only too evident. Dr. Robinson explains [83]\nthe disappearance from the other Gospels of St. Mark's references to\n\"anger,\" \"grief,\" \"groaning,\" \"vehemence,\" etc., as being \"the result\nof a kind of reverence which belonged to a slightly later stage of\nreflection, when certain traits might even seem derogatory to the\ndignity of the sacred character.\" Comment is superfluous.\n\n\n\nTHE IGNORANCE OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\nThere is another difficulty of belief in the divinity of Christ,\nwhich it is all the more essential to bring into prominence because\nit usually receives but scant notice from the pulpit. I refer to the\n\"ignorance\" of Jesus Christ. In a review of Le R\u00e9alisme Chr\u00e9tien et\nl'Id\u00e9alisme Grec, par L. Laberthonni\u00e8re, the Church Times praises\nthe Abb\u00e9's conception of Christian realism, and then goes on to say:\n\"Here is found the key to the mystery of the ignorance of Jesus Christ,\nand of the other limitations attributed to Him in the Gospels. There\nare two untenable theories--the one that He deliberately kept things\nback from His disciples; the other that He was Himself ignorant of\nHis own true nature, which afterwards became known to the Church. The\ntruth is that He had to reveal Himself by living among men, and not by\ngiving them an abstract doctrine about Himself--a doctrine which must\nhave been either inadequate because adjusted to their comprehension,\nor else incomprehensible because adjusted to a reality which was\nbeyond them.\" The plain question, however, is--Had He, or had He not,\nthe attribute of Omniscience? Did He, or did He not, know what we now\nknow? Are we to suppose that He pretended to be ignorant? Was He God\nor was He man? The usual answer is that, as Very Man, He had only the\nknowledge of His age (or, should we not say, of the very restricted\nenvironment selected by Himself for His activities upon earth?),\nbut that as Very God he performed miracles, taught spiritually, as\nnever man taught, and was sinless. This answer, however, would not\nbe accepted by the Venerable W. M. Sinclair, Archdeacon of London,\nwho conjectures that \"when our Lord said, 'Greater works than these\nshall ye do,' He was perhaps thinking of the marvellous discoveries\nof surgeons and physicians in times of advanced science\" [!]. [84]\nNor would it be accepted by the Rev. David Smith, who holds that\nJesus accommodated Himself to the popular idea, and \"after His wont\nfell in with the delusion\" [!]. [85]\n\nSurely an Omniscient God must have known that grave doubts would\narise in the future from the real or apparent ignorance of His Son,\nand, vice versa, that any prescience shown by Him would be hailed\nwith delight as a proof of His divinity. If it be urged that such\ntrials of faith are useful, why should it be the thoughtful of future\ngenerations who are chiefly to be so tried? If Christ had chosen His\ndisciples from among the \"wise men of the East\" (or West), instead\nof from among men of the lowest order of intelligence and education,\nthere would then have been no necessity for the doctrine to \"have\nbeen either inadequate because adjusted to their comprehension,\nor else incomprehensible because adjusted to a reality which was\nbeyond them.\" Only a very small and remote corner of the world was\nfavoured by the presence of God when revealing Himself in human form\nfor the benefit of mankind. Only the most ignorant, for the most\npart, heard His personal teaching. Had He revealed Himself to all,\nor to a far greater number of persons then living, and satisfied\nthe ardent longings of the wise men and philosophers of those times,\nwould this not have conduced to the rapid recognition of Christianity\nand to its firm establishment over the whole world for all ages?\n\nThe tiny Sea of Galilee, the birthplace of the Gospel, is only\nabout twelve miles long and seven miles in its widest part, and\nChorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were all situated close together\nat the northern end. Here Jesus made his permanent home after His\nfellow-townsmen at Nazareth had rejected Him; here He preached,\nand here He performed many mighty works. Not till I had visited the\nspot did I fully realise the insignificance of the area to which\nthe Saviour of mankind confined His ministry. Round the lake stood\nsuch important cities as Tiberias and Tariche\u00e6. They were studiously\navoided by Jesus. (This would account, perhaps, for their great men\nhearing nothing of the new teaching, though hardly for their hearing\nnothing of stupendous miracles performed at their very door.) The\ncities of the Decapolis were also flourishing in this neighbourhood at\nthe time of Christ's ministry, and were the centre of great literary\nactivity. Gadara produced Philodemus the Epicurean, a contemporary of\nCicero; Meleager the epigrammatist; Menippus the satirist; Theodorus\nthe rhetorician, the tutor of Tiberius; and others. Gerasa, also,\nwas a mother of great teachers. In the words of George Adam Smith:\n\"Philodemus, Meleager, Menippus, Theodorus, were names of which one\nend of the Lake of Galilee was proud, when Matthew, Peter, James,\nand John were working at the other end.\" [86] If it be argued that\nfor some inscrutable reason God sent His Son only to the lost sheep of\nthe house of Israel and intended His preaching to reach the Gentiles\nthrough the medium of His chosen people, why was such a learned and\npious Jew as Philo left out in the cold?\n\nApologists do not explain at all convincingly why the Almighty\ncould not, or preferred not to, make Himself understood. If He\ncould say \"Let there be light,\" He could also have said \"Let\nthere be knowledge.\" Besides, after all, what is there in the\nbroad facts of modern science which could not be explained to an\nintelligent savage to-day? The shape and movements of the earth are\nexplained in the most elementary geography books, and the theory of\nEvolution can be made quite clear to comparative children (I speak\nfrom personal experience). Recent discoveries have revealed to us\nthat ancient nations must have reached an extraordinarily high state\nof civilisation. Six thousand years ago, in the valley of the Nile,\nthere existed a standard of civilisation incomparably higher than that\nof the Jews at the time when God is alleged to have selected them as\nHis chosen people. \"The Old Testament,\" says Canon C. H. Robinson, \"is\nthe history of a people insignificant in number, occupying a country\nabout the same size as the county of Yorkshire; remarkable neither for\ntheir superior learning, civilisation, nor military power; remarkable,\nif for anything, for their obstinate, grasping, usurious character;\nwho, nevertheless, were chosen out of all the nations of the ancient\nworld to be the recipients of peculiar blessings and favours.\" [87]\nThis incomprehensible selection of ignorant Jews to be the special\nrecipients of Revelation only emphasises the contention that we have\nno right to assume that learned men of two thousand years ago could\nnot have understood plain facts, or that it was necessary for them to\nbelieve in purely imaginary explanations of the cosmos, in a flat,\nstationary earth, in a blue-basin sky, in an \"Adam and Eve\" origin,\nin devil-possession, in absurd miracles, etc. Their ignorance, which\nwas natural enough considering their opportunities, could easily\nhave been dispelled when God graciously condescended to come and live\namong them. What a proof would that not have been of His Divinity!\n\nIn any case, we are to understand that the Apostles were inspired by\nthe Holy Ghost, so that they might be able to work miracles and be\nwitnesses unto Christ, even to the utmost parts of the earth. Surely,\nthen, they could and should have been enlightened for their\nmission work up to the level, say, of some of our twentieth-century\ntheologians? The miracle of an intelligence and knowledge equal\nto that of the average modern apologist is not, after all, so very\ninconceivable, and it would, at least, have been more useful than\nmiracle-working in a miracle-believing age. Christians, who glibly\nadmit that Jesus had only the knowledge of His age, cannot, I think,\nfully realise the force of such an admission. One reason for this\nmay be that their own knowledge is not completely up to date. That\nJesus had no knowledge of nature's inviolable laws and shared many of\nthe gross superstitions prevalent around Him; that He accepted the\nScriptures as literally true, and not in the sense now attributed\nto them by the Higher Critics; that He believed that He would come\nagain \"in the clouds of heaven with power and great might,\" and that\nthe generation in which He lived would not pass away till this had\nbeen fulfilled--of all this they may be dimly conscious; but what\nremain still to be studied by them are the startling disclosures of\nComparative Mythology, and of the now fully-established theory of\nEvolution, and their bearing upon the Christian Faith. The matter\nis one of the utmost importance, as will be seen by a perusal of the\nfollowing chapters.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY\n\nChapter IV.\n\nTHE GRAVE SUSPICIONS AROUSED BY THE STUDY OF ANCIENT BELIEFS\n\n\n\u00a7 1. The New Theological Theory of a Progressive Revelation.\n\n\nThe facts and truths established by Science are no longer made the\nsubject of attacks by Christian apologists in the manner that they\nused to be; they are now considered by them to be the unfolding,\nthrough God's Providence, of pieces of information hitherto concealed\nfrom us. A scientific discovery (by men who are more often than not\nAgnostics) simply means that God wills to reveal another detail of His\neternal methods. There must be, we are told, a frank modification,\nor even the abandonment, of certain preconceived ideas which,\nfaulty as they were, had sufficed for man in an earlier stage of\nhis development, and had come to be regarded as integral parts of\nhis religious faith. This is the substance of the modern apologist's\nargument which is intended to reconcile all outlying discrepancies\nbetween our new knowledge and our old beliefs. The new explanation,\nbased upon the assumption that revelation is progressive, will\ncome as a surprise to the rank and file of Christendom, who have\nhitherto been given to understand that the Bible contained the one,\nonly, and sufficient revelation of God to man. However, there is\nno alternative. If accepted, many grave difficulties of faith are\nswept away. Nay, more; the reasonableness of our faith is immensely\nstrengthened, and the facts of science and research become a valuable\nadjunct to the armour of the Christian apologist. On the other hand,\na refusal to accept spells disaster to the Christian faith. The truth\nof progressive revelation is, therefore, a matter of life or death\nfor the Christian religion; and, of all branches of modern research,\nit is Comparative Mythology which absolutely demands the complete\nestablishment of this theory. If true, our belief is further verified\nby the startling discoveries of the ethnologist; if untrue, it is\nirrevocably shattered. Accordingly, in this chapter I am giving a\nprominent place to the discussion of this theory.\n\nI think I may safely say that there is no department of knowledge about\nwhich so little is known by the ordinary man, and even, I regret to\nsay, by the majority of ecclesiastics, as Comparative Mythology. Yet\nit is the study of this science perhaps more than of any other which is\ncausing well-informed men and women to lose faith in Christianity. Ask\nChristian professors in our universities who are in touch with the\nthought around them, and you will hear that their sceptical friends are\nall telling them the same thing; they cannot get over anthropology,\nand especially that branch of it which concerns itself with the\ntraditions and beliefs of primitive peoples. Recent ethnological\nresearch has thrown an entirely new light upon old problems. The\ndiscoveries of science, including the animal origin of man, may,\nby a stretch of imagination and faith, be reconciled with belief;\nso also the disclosures of the Higher Criticism; but the very origin\nof Christianity is exposed by the study of Comparative Mythology. \"It\nis indeed a melancholy and in some respects thankless task to strike\nat the foundations of beliefs in which, as in a strong tower, the\nhopes and aspirations of humanity through long ages have sought a\nrefuge from the storm and stress of life. Yet sooner or later it is\ninevitable that the battery of the comparative method should breach\nthese venerable walls, mantled over with the ivy and mosses and wild\nflowers of a thousand tender and sacred associations.\" [88]\n\nSome years ago there were ecclesiastics who took a lively interest\nin Comparative Mythology. Students of Pagan religions as well as\nChristian missionaries were bent on discovering more striking and\nmore startling coincidences in order to use them in confirmation\nof their favourite theory that some rays of a primeval revelation,\nor some reflection of the Jewish religion, had reached the uttermost\nends of the world. Subsequently the study of comparative mythology\nseems to have lost much of its charm. Why?\n\n\"The theory that there was a primeval preternatural revelation granted\nto the fathers of the human race, and that the grains of truth which\ncatch our eye when exploring the temples of heathen gods are the\nscattered fragments of that sacred heirloom--the seeds that fell by the\nwayside or upon stony places--would find but few supporters at present;\nno more, in fact, than the theory that there was in the beginning\none complete and perfect primeval language, broken up in later times\ninto the numberless languages of the world.\" \"The opinion,\" again,\n\"that the Pagan religions were mere corruptions of the religion of\nthe Old Testament, once supported by men of high authority and great\nlearning, is now as completely surrendered as the attempts to explain\nGreek and Latin as corruptions of Hebrew.\" [89]\n\nIt will be as well, in the first place, to see exactly what the\nChurch herself now says on the matter; how far she recognises that\ngigantic strides have been made in a study formerly pursued in a manner\nnecessarily elementary by the Alexandrian schools; how far she concedes\nthe conclusions of the modern ethnologist; and how far she approves\nof progressive revelation as the explanation for the whole enigma of\nthe parallels between ancient beliefs and our own. For this purpose\nI think I cannot do better than quote from two striking articles on\nthe subject in the Church Times. They were contributed by the editor\nof The Treasury magazine. \"The study,\" he says, \"of folk-lore, of\nanthropology, of primitive myth and ritual, has made enormous strides\nwithin the last quarter of a century, and the fruits of that study\nare now forced, for the first time, [90] upon the attention of the\ngeneral public. Presented in outline, the situation is as follows:\nWe have been accustomed to consider Christianity apart from all other\nreligions. We have recognised, indeed, the historical preparation\nfor it so far as that is described in the pages of the Old Testament;\nbut we have thought of that preparation as conducted among a single\npeople, and by means of a unique revelation. Of pagan religions we have\nknown practically nothing. The mythology of the Greeks and Romans,\nwhich some of us had to learn at school, seemed to be a collection\nof pointless fairy tales. And as regards other and more primitive\nraces, both ancient and modern, the statement that 'the heathen,\nin his blindness, bows down to wood and stone' comprised accurately\nthe sum of our knowledge. That there could be any but the vaguest\nlikeness between them and our own beliefs was unimaginable. Possibly\nthere was a belief in the Fatherhood of some supreme being, some vague\nconception of a future life; while sacrificial rites, as we knew,\nwere not peculiar to the Jews. But the other doctrines of our Creed\nwe regarded as exclusively our own. The ideas of a Triune God-head,\nof an Incarnate Saviour, of the Virgin Birth, of the Second Advent,\nof the Sacraments, of the Communion of Saints--these seemed to\nbe the distinctive possessions of Christianity; these were marks\nclearly dividing it from any form of paganism. So, at least, we\nimagined. [Had we not every reason thus to imagine on the authority of\nHoly Scripture?] But it proves that we were completely mistaken. The\nmodern study of primitive religion shows that every one of these\nbeliefs is, or has been, held in some part or other of the pagan world\nquite independently of Christian influence, and that, while we are\nbound to speak of these beliefs as, in a sense, distinctly Christian,\nto term them exclusively Christian is no longer possible.... In\nthese early mythologies we can discern the longing for a personal\nGod, capable of direct communication with man, and for some sort of\nunion between the divine and human natures. Whence did these instincts\nthemselves originate? The one tenable reply seems to be that they were\nGod-implanted.... The Zoroastrian anticipates the advent of a 'Saviour'\n(Saoshyas), who will end the strife between good and evil, personified\nas Ormuzd and Ahriman, by sweeping away evil from the earth. In the\nancient Vedic and Scandinavian religions, in the Old-World creeds of\nEgypt and Babylon, in the legends of Mexico and Polynesia, is found,\nin a variety of guises, the same fundamental idea. Always there\nis a sense of a supremely righteous Power; of a world tainted with\nevil, and out of harmony with the Power above it; of the coming of\nsome Deliverer, who will establish a kingdom of righteousness. Once\nmore, in many mythologies the idea of a Virgin Birth is associated\nwith that of a Divine Incarnation. Men felt instinctively that the\nentrance of a Divine Being into the human race must take place in\na miraculous way. And thus the Spirit of God, working by means of\nwhat we may term the instinctive feelings of mankind, prepared the\nhuman race throughout the world for the coming of the Son of God, to\nbe born of a pure Virgin, to take our nature upon Him for evermore,\nand to redeem us from the power of sin.... We find conceptions, such\nas that of the Hindu Trimurti, which seem to remember the doctrine\nof the Trinity. In the sacramental meals of totem-worship, when a\nsacred animal is killed, and partaken of by the worshippers in order\nthat its power may be communicated to them [not to mention \"sacred\"\nmen killed with the same idea], there seems a dim anticipation of\nthe highest Christian rite. Baptism as a cleansing and symbolical\nceremony was known centuries before the Christian era.... These rites\nand beliefs, obscured by superstition and insufficient to satisfy\nthe longing which brought them into existence, were designed to serve\nas the schoolmasters who would lead the heathen at length to Christ\"\n(cf. Galatians iii. 24).\n\nThese remarks, by a clergyman of the Church of England, will enable\nthe ordinary person, who for the most part knows nothing whatever\nabout these things, to realise the immense importance of the questions\nraised by Comparative Mythology.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Parallels in Ancient Religions, and Some Remarks Upon Them.\n\nBefore proceeding any further, it will be advisable to consider some\nconcrete examples of the parallels between the beliefs and teachings\nof ancient religions and those of the Christian religion.\n\n\n\nKRISHNA AND BUDDHA.\n\nKrishna.--Krishna was a miraculous incarnation of Vishnu in the\nwomb of Devaki. A chorus of angels exclaimed: \"In the delivery of\nthis favoured woman nature shall have cause to exult.\" The birth\nwas indicated in the heavens by a star. On the morning of his birth\nthe spirits of heaven danced and sang, and the clouds emitted low,\npleasing sounds. Though royally descended, he was actually born in a\ncave. [91] The divine child was recognised and adored by cowherds. He\nwas presented with gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. The holy Indian\nprophet, Nared, paid him a visit, consulted the stars and declared\nhim to be of celestial descent. His birth was beset by peril, and his\nfoster father was warned by a heavenly voice to fly with the child,\nas the reigning monarch, King Kansa, might take his life. The king\nordered the massacre in all his States of all the male children born\nduring the night of the birth of Krishna. One of the first miracles\nperformed by Krishna, when mature, was the curing of a leper. A lame\nwoman came with a vessel filled with spices and sweet oil, and anointed\nhis head. Krishna was slain. At his death a black circle surrounded the\nmoon, and the sun was darkened at noonday. Spirits were to be seen on\nall sides. Krishna descended into hell, rose again from the dead, and\nascended bodily into heaven, many persons witnessing his ascent. He\nis to come again on earth in the latter days. He will appear as an\narmed warrior riding a white horse. At his approach the sun and moon\nwill be darkened, the earth will tremble, and the stars fall from the\nfirmament (compare Rev. vi. 2, 12, 13). He is to judge the dead at the\nlast day. Krishna is the Creator of all things visible and invisible,\nand is the beginning, middle, and end of all things. Krishna was\ntransfigured before his beloved disciple, Arjuna. Krishna was the\nmeekest of beings. He preached sublimely. According to the purer\nVaishnava faith, he was pure and chaste in reality; any amorousness\nrelated of him is to be explained allegorically, as symbolising\nthe longing of the human soul for the Supreme; just as the amorous\n\"Song of Solomon\" is said to be allegorical, and to mean \"Christ's\nlove for his Church.\" Krishna even condescended to wash the feet of\nthe Brahmins. He is the incarnation of Vishnu, the second person in\nthe Hindoo Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva; and Vishnu in his\nincarnations is a saviour, protector, and friend. Krishna said: \"Let\na man, if seeking God by deep abstraction, abandon his possessions and\nhis hopes, betake himself to some secluded spot, and fix his heart and\nthoughts on God alone.\" And, again: \"Then be not sorrowful; from all\nthy sins I will deliver thee.\" Many other such remarkable passages\nmight be adduced from the Bhagavad-gita. Justice, humanity, good\nfaith, compassion, disinterestedness--in fact, all the virtues--are\nsaid to have been taught by Krishna, both by precept and example;\nbut we must remember, as Monier Williams informs us in his Hinduism,\nthat Krishna, in the ancient epic poems, is simply a great hero, and\nit is not until about the fourth century B.C. that he is deified and\ndeclared to be an incarnation of Vishnu. In conclusion, the accounts\nof Krishna's childhood agree very closely with the apocryphal accounts\nof Christ's childhood.\n\nBuddha.--If the similarity between the histories of Krishna and Jesus\nis remarkable, what shall we say of that between the mythological\n[92] portions of the history of Gautama Buddha and the history of\nJesus? Looked upon as a confirmation of Progressive Revelation, it\nis nothing short of marvellous, whether we regard the similarity\nin events, characters, actions, or sayings. From Buddha's divine\nincarnation until his ascension into the celestial regions,\nalmost every important episode of the life of Christ appears to\nbe paralleled. Attendant miraculous events, spotless character,\nwonderful doings, cherished sayings--all are here.\n\nBuddha was miraculously [93] born of the pure and holy Maya. He\ndescended into her womb from heaven in a spiritual manner. There\nwas joy in heaven, the Devas singing: \"To-day Bodhisatwa is born on\nearth, to give joy and peace to men and Devas.\" He was recognised by\nthe aged and devout Asita as the perfect Buddha come to the world for\nits salvation. His life was threatened by the King Bimbisara, who was\nadvised to destroy the child. He was presented in the temple. When\nstill a mere child he was found to be as proficient as his masters,\nand he disputed with learned doctors. His ancestry was traced from\nhis father to Maha Sammata, the first monarch of the world. He bathed\nin water, the spirits making their presence known as he did so. When\nabout to adopt a religious life, he fasted for a long time, and was\ntempted by Mara, the author of Evil; but he heeded not the words\nof the Evil One, and bade him depart from him. The heavens showed\ntheir appreciation of this defeat by raining flowers. Towards the end\nof his life he was transfigured when on a mountain in India called\nPandava. He performed great miracles. For instance, on one occasion he\nfloated through the air across a river; and, on another, he caused a\ntempest to cease, and so saved a disciple, who was in imminent danger\nof shipwreck. Shortly before his death a weeping woman embraced his\nfeet. When Buddha died many miracles occurred. The coffin was opened,\nand the body uncovered, supernaturally. He promised that another\nBuddha would be sent to them. He foretold his departure, and after\ndeath entered Nirvana. He was very early regarded as omniscient and\nabsolutely sinless. Earth and heaven did homage to him at birth and\ndeath. A great earthquake occurred at his Temptation. He is represented\nas saying: \"Let all the sins that are committed in the world fall\nupon me, that the world may be delivered\"; and again: \"Hide your good\ndeeds, and confess before the world the sins you have committed\";\nand again: \"Though the great world be swallowed up and pass away,\nyet be assured the words of Buddha are true\"; and again: \"Beware of\nfixing your eyes upon women\"; \"A wise man should avoid unchaste life,\nas if it were a burning pit of live coals\"; \"One who is not able to\nlive in a state of celibacy should not commit adultery.\" According to\nBuddha, the motives of all our actions should be pity, or love for our\nneighbour. Those who became his disciples were told they must renounce\nthe world, give up their riches, and take the vow of poverty. Finally,\nwe should note that Buddha aimed to establish a \"Kingdom of Heaven\"\n(Dharmachakra); that the account given by St. Peter (Ep. ii., ch. 3) of\nthe earth once destroyed by water, and about to be destroyed by fire,\nis in agreement with the Buddhist story; and that the Jews believed\nin the pre-existence of souls and a modified form of metempsychosis\n(transmigration of the soul).\n\nIt is difficult to separate fiction from fact; but the generally\naccepted records show that, together with superior natural endowments,\nGautama Buddha attained to an exceptional purity of life and integrity\nof purpose. Probably he never arrogated to himself any higher authority\nthan that of a teacher; but his followers, turning for consolation\nto the theory that he still lived, exalted him, within a quarter of\na century of his death, to a place among their deities. As already\nmentioned, he was very early regarded as omniscient and absolutely\nsinless. [94] All sorts of legends, borrowed from current myths,\nattach themselves to the story of his life, while his teaching as a\nsimple-hearted, truth-seeking philanthropist became encrusted with\nthe superstitions and religious speculations that were current. As\nwith Krishna, so here there are stories of Buddha's childhood of\nwhich the apocryphal stories of Christ's childhood are an almost\nexact reproduction.\n\n\n\nPARALLELS OTHER THAN KRISHNA AND BUDDHA.\n\nIn the case of Krishna and Buddha it is contended by some Christian\nwriters that the stories must have been borrowed from Christian\nsources both canonical and apocryphal. This contention, founded on the\nlateness of the mythical stories in literary form, will be considered\nin due course; but first let us have clearly before our minds those\nparallels concerning which there is no such contention, for the simple\nreason that there is no getting away from the fact that the beliefs\nexisted long before the advent of Christ. In ancient religions other\nthan Hindooism and Buddhism, there are, among many others, distinct\nparallels to--the Virgin Birth; the Heavenly Choir; the Epiphany;\nthe Slaughter of the Innocents; the Temptation and Forty Days' Fast;\nthe Miracles; the Crucifixion Darkness, and Descent into Hell; the\nResurrection and Ascension; the Second Coming and Day of Judgment.\n\nThe Virgin Birth.--According to Chinese legends, the sages Fohi\n(? 3468 B.C.) and Lao-Kiun (about 600 B.C.) were born of virgins. Dean\nMilman mentions in his History of Christianity that the first\nJesuit missionaries who went to China were appalled at finding in the\nmythology of that country a counterpart of the story of the Virgin. In\nPersia, Zoroaster, [95] the founder of the Perso-Iranian national\nreligion, was miraculously conceived. All attempts to connect him\nwith Hebrew influences are groundless. In Egypt, Horus, who had the\nepithet of Saviour, was born of the virgin Isis. The Egyptian Bible,\nremember, is the oldest in the world! Plutarch mentions the notion\nof the Egyptians that a woman might conceive by the approach of some\ndivine spirit. Egyptian monuments represent the infant saviour in\nthe arms of his virgin mother, or sitting on her knee. The image\nof the child was worshipped just as the Bambino is worshipped in\nRome to-day. Women then, as now, believed in its efficacy for their\nrelief in time of nature's sorrows. In Grecian and Roman mythology\nthe \"Sons of Jove\"--Hercules, Bacchus, Amphion, Perseus, Mercury,\n\u00c6olus, Apollo, and others--have mortal mothers. Speaking of this,\nthe Christian Father, Justin Martyr, declared that the myths regarding\nthe multitude of sons of gods, and especially the myth regarding the\nvirgin's son Perseus, had been invented by the demons in order to rob\nthe manifestation of Jesus, the true Son of God, of its importance. He\nalso insisted that, with their doctrine of the Virgin-birth of Jesus,\nof His passion, and of His ascension, the Christians were affirming\nnothing new as compared with what was alleged of the so-called\nsons of Zeus. [96] Even regarding Plato there was a legend that his\nmother, Perictione, had experienced a miraculous conception through\nthe influences of the God Apollo, and that the God had declared to\nAris, to whom she was betrothed, the parentage of the child (compare\nSt. Matthew i. 20). This was believed in by the disciples of Plato\ncenturies before the Christian era. Among northern nations the sons\nof Odin take the place of the sons of Jove. Thus \"Baldur the Good,\"\nthe Beneficent Saviour, was the son of Odin and Friga. The worship of\nFriga was continued until that of the Virgin Mary took its place. In\nMexico, the \"Saviour\" Quetzalcoatl was born of a pure virgin, who was\ncalled the \"Queen of Heaven.\" An ambassador from heaven announced\nto the virgin Sochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl, that it was\nthe will of God that she should conceive a son without connection\nwith man. Here we have an exact parallel to the annunciation of the\nVirgin Mary (St. Luke i. 26-35), in a part of the globe that was not\ndiscovered by Christians till nearly 1,500 years after the birth of\nChrist! Similar traditions of Saviours are found among various tribes\nof North and South America.\n\nRegarding the tendency to believe in incarnations, Dr. Illingworth\n[97] explains that \"a general tendency in the human mind to expect\na thing cannot possibly be twisted into a presumption against its\noccurrence.... The fact of the expectation does not logically make\ninvention a likelier alternative than occurrence, except upon one\nhypothesis--namely, that the occurrence is impossible.\" This argument\nskims over--or, I might almost say, neglects--the real contention of\nthe Rationalist. Let us assume that incarnation is not ruled out of\ncourt as being \u00e0 priori impossible; the virgin-birth of Jesus was\nsubsequently invented by the Christian Church because its eminent\nsuitability necessitated its invention. Only thus could the divinity\nand sinlessness of Jesus Christ be firmly established. More especially\nwould this be the case in an age when everyone was familiar with the\nnotion of virgin-born Saviours. The minds of men were deeply imbued\nwith the idea of miraculous birth in the case of anyone claiming to\nbe of divine origin. Only on this understanding would the heathen,\nalready believing in their own virgin-born Saviours, have accepted\nChristianity.\n\nThe Heavenly Choir.--Even Confucius, the celebrated philosopher\n(born 551 B.C.), was ushered into the world with dragons and angels\nhovering about the couch, and with the sound of heavenly music in the\nair. At the birth of Osiris, the father of Horus, another Egyptian\n\"Saviour,\" a voice was heard proclaiming that the \"Ruler of all the\nearth is born.\" There was joy in Olympus when Apollo was born, and at\nthe time of the birth of Hercules his father Zeus spake from heaven,\nand said: \"This day shall a child be born of the race of Perseus,\nwho shall be the mightiest of the sons of men.\"\n\nThe Epiphany.--Legends of the coming of wise men to see an infant\ngrew up in various places. Krishna was visited by sages who brought\nperfumes. Confucius has a somewhat similar legend, and one occurs\neven in connection with the birth of Plato.\n\nThe Slaughter of the Innocents.--The story of the \"dangerous child\"\nis almost universal. Horus, Zoroaster, and Bacchus, for example, were\n\"dangerous\" children.\n\nThe Forty Days' Fast and the Temptation.--According to Pliny,\nZoroaster lived for thirty years in the wilderness upon cheese. The\nDevil made Zoroaster magnificent promises; but the temptations\nwere in vain. The ancient Persians had a religious festival, which\nthey annually celebrated, called the \"Salutation of Mithras (the\nsun-god),\" and during it forty days were set apart for sacrifice\nand thanksgiving. Among the ancient Egyptians the priest submitted to\nabstinence of the most severe description. \"The priests in Heliopolis,\"\nsays Plutarch, \"have many fasts, during which they meditate upon\ndivine things.\" Fasting and self-denial were observances required\nof the Greeks who desired initiation into the mysteries. The same\npractice was found among the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians. The\nMexicans had a forty days' fast, in memory of Quetzalcoatl, who was\ntempted and fasted forty days on a mountain. Lord Kingsborough says:\n\"The temptation of Quetzalcoatl and the fast of forty days ... are very\ncurious and mysterious.\" [98] Mr. Bonwick says: \"The Spaniards were\nsurprised to see the Mexicans keep the vernal forty days' fast.\" [99]\n\nTurning to the Old Testament, we may remind ourselves that Moses\nwent up into a mountain to receive certain instructions from God,\nand \"was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights, and he did\nneither eat bread nor drink water.\" On a second occasion, when he\nreceived the Ten Commandments, he was again with the Lord forty days\nand forty nights, and did neither eat bread nor drink water. Elijah\nfled to the desert, where an angel gave him cake and water, and in\nthe strength of that meat he went for forty days without food. The\nnumber \"forty\" occurs over and over again in that portion of the Old\nTestament which the Higher Criticism has shown to be unhistorical. The\nRationalist avers that the number \"forty\" is mythological, and that\nwe have this story of the Forty Days' Fast and the Temptation in the\nNew Testament because the writer wishes to show that Jesus Christ was\nproof against all temptation; that He, too, as well as other Christs,\ncould resist the powers of the Prince of Evil. It may be urged that\nin all these cases the number is quite immaterial. Are we not, then,\nto take the author of \"The Acts\" literally when he informs us that\nChrist spent forty days on earth after His resurrection?\n\nThe Miracles.--Not only Krishna and Buddha, but all leaders\nof religious movements, had the reputation of having performed\nmiracles. Religions were established as much by the miracles as by\nthe preachings. Miracles were needed in those days on all special\noccasions. Many of them are attested in the gravest manner by\nthe gravest writers, and were firmly believed at the time by the\npeople. Healing miracles, such as those performed by Jesus, were the\ncommonest of all. The Gospel miracles are in no respect singular\nor more wonderful. Horus, as well as Krishna, raised the dead to\nlife. Bacchus changed water into wine. \u00c6sculapius not only cured the\nsick, but raised the dead. Pausanias, the eminent Greek geographer\nand historian, writes that in the temple of \u00c6sculapius at Epidaurus\nthere was an old pillar dedicated to the memory of Hippolytus,\nwho had been raised from the dead. [100] Apollonius of Tyana was\ncelebrated for the wonderful miracles he performed. He caused a devil\nto depart out of a youth, and he restored a dead maiden to life. The\nChristian Fathers inform us that Simon Magus, with the Devil's aid,\ncould make his appearance wherever he pleased at any moment; could\npoise himself in the air; produce trees from the earth suddenly\n[the mango tree trick?]; fling himself from high precipices unhurt\n[the very feat suggested by the Devil in the Temptation]; and walk\nthrough the streets accompanied by spirits of the dead. Tacitus, the\ncelebrated Roman historian, tells us that the Emperor Vespasian (born\n9 A.D.) performed wonderful miracles for the good of mankind, and among\nothers he describes the cure of a blind man with the emperor's spittle.\n\nThe Atonement.--In China the Holy One (Tien) dies to save the\nworld. \"The sufferings and death of Osiris were the great mystery of\nthe Egyptian religion. His being the divine goodness, and the abstract\nidea of 'good,' his manifestation upon earth (like an Indian god),\nhis death and resurrection, and his office as judge of the dead in a\nfuture life, look like the early revelation of a future manifestation\nof the deity converted into a mythological fable.\" [101] While Osiris\nis the judge, Horus, his son, is the mediator. In the Judgment scene\nin the Book of the Dead, Horus, the son of Isis, leads the deceased,\nafter his heart has been weighed, into the presence of Osiris (see\nPapyrus of Ani, plates 3 & 4). Mithras, the sun-god of the Persians,\nwas a \"Mediator\" between God and men--the \"Saviour,\" who, by his\nlaborious conflicts, worked their salvation. He was also called the\n\"Word.\" Attys, called the \"Only Begotten Son\" and the \"Saviour,\" was\nworshipped by the Phrygians, and represented by them as a man tied or\nnailed to a tree. Adonis was another virgin-born \"Saviour\" who suffered\nfor mankind. The yearly festival of Adonis in the spring was a special\nfavourite with women. In the Old Testament reference is made to the\nweeping of the women over Tammuz, the Babylonian equivalent of Adonis\n(Ezekiel viii. 14). According to the Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, [102] he was\nthe crucified Tao (divine love personified). The Rev. Dr. Parkhurst,\nin the chapter on the Resurrection in his Hebrew lexicon, says:\n\"I find myself obliged to refer Tammuz to that class of idols which\nwere originally designed to represent the promised Saviour, the\ndesire of all nations.\" Prometheus was a Saviour who suffered the\nmost fearful tortures as the friend of the human race. \u00c6schylus's\ntragedy, Prometheus Vinctus, was acted in Athens five hundred years\nbefore the Christian era. Even Bacchus, whom most of us think of as\nthe rollicking wine-god of classical mythology, was a slain Saviour.\n\nWhen we turn to the New World we find the worship of a crucified\nSaviour among the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians. Lord Kingsborough\ntells us that, according to the belief of the ancient Mexicans, \"the\ndeath of Quetzalcoatl upon the cross\" was \"an atonement for the sins of\nmankind.\" [103] Dr. Daniel Brinton relates how the Aztecs had a feast\nwhich they celebrated in the early spring, when \"victims were nailed\nto a cross and shot with an arrow.\" [104] Alexander von Humboldt, in\nhis American Researches, also speaks of a feast, at which the Mexicans\ncrucified a man and pierced him with an arrow. The Rev. J. P. Lundy,\nspeaking of this, says: \"Here is the old story of Prometheus crucified\non the Caucasus, and of all other pagan crucifixions of the young\nincarnate divinities of India, Persia, Asia Minor, and Egypt.\" [105]\n\nMoral Teaching.--There is not only an extraordinary similarity in\nbeliefs, but also in moral teachings. The teachings of Confucius,\nMencius, and Wang Yang Ming might, as Professor Nitobe points\nout, [106] just as well be considered plagiarisms from the Divine\nlibrary, for they furnish numerous remarkable parallels to the New\nTestament teaching. Taoism, the philosophy of Laotze, for a long\ntime successfully rivalled the more utilitarian system of Confucius,\nand its close agreement with many of the teachings of Christ is most\nnoticeable. The morals of the ancient Egyptians are clearly set forth\nin the Book of the Dead, which came into use after 2000 B.C. They\nindicate a far higher standard than existed in Israel in David's\ntime. \"Yet,\" as Dr. Callaway remarks, [107] \"in traditions which\nstill linger among us, the law under which David lived and reigned\nwas perfect and divine; while the name of Egypt stands for darkness\nand sin.\"\n\nWith regard to the parallels in the moral teaching, Dean Farrar,\nin his work, Seekers after God, has clearly shown that \"to say that\npagan morality kindled its faded taper at the Gospel light, whether\nfurtively or unconsciously, that it dissembled the obligation and\nmade a boast of the splendour, as if it were originally her own,\nis to make an assertion wholly untenable.\" He points out that the\nattempts of the Christian Fathers to make out Pythagoras a debtor\nto Hebraic wisdom, Plato an \"Atticising Moses,\" Aristotle a learner\nof ethics from a Jew, Seneca a correspondent of St. Paul, were due\n\"in some cases to ignorance, in some to a want of perfect honesty in\ncontroversial dealing.\"\n\nApocryphal Gospels.--We are assured by Christian writers that the\nparallels between the accounts of Krishna's and Buddha's childhood\nand those in the apocryphal gospels of Christ's childhood are due\nto the Hindoos having borrowed legends current among the early\nChristians. Dr. Wallis Budge, the keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian\nantiquities in the British Museum, informs us, however, that \"several\nof the incidents of the wanderings of the Virgin with the child\nin Egypt, as recorded in the Apocryphal Gospels, reflect scenes in\nthe life of Isis as described in the texts found on the Metternich\nStele.\" [108] And, again, he says: \"In the apocryphal literature of\nthe first six centuries which followed the evangelisation of Egypt,\nseveral of the legends about Isis and her sorrowful wanderings were\nmade to centre round the mother of Christ.\" [109] The evidence is\nconclusive that certain legends prevalent among the early Christians\nwere borrowed from the ancient Egyptian religion; yet we are to\nbelieve that where the Krishna and Buddha parallels are concerned the\nborrowing process was the other way! So be it. Let us suppose that\ncertain Egyptian superstitions reached the Hindoo through the medium\nof the Christian; the fact remains that beliefs once held by devout\nbut unlettered Christians have a heathen origin. This is of serious\nimport, for it lends weight to the suspicion that the marvellous tales\nin the canonical gospels have been similarly derived from heathen\nlegends--legends from which some of the more glaring absurdities and\nall that would mar the ethical ideals of the Christian religion were\neclectically expunged.\n\n\n\nARE THE KRISHNA AND BUDDHA LEGENDS BORROWED FROM CHRISTIANITY?\n\nI have indicated a few of the more striking parallels in other\nreligions besides Krishnaism and Buddhism. Did space permit, it\ncould be shown that there are also parallels to the teaching of\nChrist, the darkness at the Crucifixion, the descent into Hell,\nthe Resurrection, the claim of Jesus Christ to be \"Alpha and Omega\"\n(according to the Revelation of St. John), the prophecy of the\nSecond Coming, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the doctrine\nof the Trinity, the worship of the Blessed Virgin, the Christian\nsymbols (cross, triangle, I.H.S., fish, serpent, dove, and lamb). I\ncannot understand what the Christian cause can gain by ascribing the\nparallels in Hindoo mythology to Christian sources, when there is all\nthis mass of evidence for parallels that are quite as extraordinary\n(though less numerous) in those ancient religions where the priority\nto Christianity cannot reasonably be denied. Certainly the Krishna\nand Buddha parallels are extremely numerous and strikingly exact;\nbut a policy which seeks to explain them in a different manner from\nthat adopted in the case of the same phenomena in other religions,\nwhile it serves to confirm the suspicions of the sceptic, is doomed\neventually to failure. This being so, it is unnecessary, I think,\nto enter at any great length into the controversy.\n\nIn Mr. J. M. Robertson's book, Christianity and Mythology, there\nis a scholarly investigation from which I extract the following\nleading points [110]:--Hindoos, as Professor Tiele urges, could\nperfectly well have borrowed, if they did borrow, from Egypt before\nChristianity was heard of. There is hardly a leading detail in the\nKrishna birth legend which is not variously paralleled in other early\nnon-Christian mythology. The more we collate the main Christian\nmyth-notions with those of Krishnaism, the more clearly does it\nappear that, instead of the latter being borrowed from the former,\nthey are, not indeed the originals from which Christianity borrowed,\nbut always presumptively the more ancient, and in one or two cases they\ndo appear to be the actual sources of Gospel stories. The lateness\nof the Pur\u00e2nic stories in literary form is no argument against their\nantiquity. Scholars are agreed that late documents often preserve\nextremely old myth-material. The leading elements in the Krishna myth\nare inexplicable save on the view that the cultus is ancient. The\nclose coincidences in the legends of Krishna and Buddha are to be\nexplained in terms of borrowing by the latter from the former, and\nnot vice versa. I should add here that the denial of the \"Christian\naccretions\" theory does not convey also the implication that the Bible\nstory was borrowed from the Krishna and Buddha myths. On the contrary,\nthe strong probability is that there has been little or no borrowing\neither way--that there is a common source for both in earlier Aryan\nand Semitic myths.\n\nIn the Introduction to his standard work, The Romantic History\nof Buddha, [111] Mr. Beal refers to the legends concerning\nthe pre-existence of Buddha in heaven--his miraculous\nincarnation--salutation by angels--recognition by Asita\n(Simeon)--presentation in the Temple--baptism by fire and\nwater--disputation with doctors--temptation in the wilderness--life\npassed in preaching and working miracles, etc.--and frankly admits\nthat, \"if we could prove that they were unknown in the East for\nsome centuries after Christ, the explanation would be easy; but\nall the evidence we have goes to prove the contrary.\" Regarding the\nparallelisms with the Apocryphal Gospels, he says: \"It would be a\nnatural inference that many of the events in the legend of Buddha\nwere borrowed from the Apocryphal Gospels (compare, for example, the\nGospel of the Infancy, chap. xx.: 'Our Lord learning his alphabet,'\nwith the account given in chap. xi. of this volume), if we were quite\ncertain that these Apocryphal Gospels had not borrowed from it.\" In\nhis later work, Buddhist Literature, Mr. Beal modifies his position.\n\nNeither Max M\u00fcller in his Introduction to the Science of Religion, nor\nForlong in his Short Studies of the Science of Comparative Religions,\nnor Senart in his learned work, La L\u00e9gende du Buddha, nor Seydel in\nhis Evangelium von Jesu and his Buddha Legends, nor Pfleiderer in his\nUrchristentum, supports the theory of Christian accretions. Bunsen, in\nhis Angel-Messiah, maintains (p. 18) \"that, according to Sanscrit and\nChinese scriptures and the stone-cut edicts of Asoka and the Senchi\nTope, certain legends about Buddha circulated in India and China,\nnot only before the apostolic age, but more than three centuries\nearlier,\" and that \"among these legends the most ancient are those\nwhich refer to the incarnation of Buddha as the Angel Messiah.\"\n\nOn page 10 of Rhys Davids' well-known little work, Buddhism (published\nunder the direction of the S.P.C.K.), we read: \"There is every reason\nto believe that the Pitakas now extant in Ceylon are substantially\nidentical with the books of the Orthodox Canon, as settled at the\nCouncil of Patna about the year 250 B.C. As no works would have been\nreceived into the canon which were not then believed to be very old,\nthe Pitakas may be approximately placed in the fourth century B.C.,\nand parts of them possibly read back very nearly, if not quite,\nto the time of Gautama himself.\" On page 15 it is explained that,\nwhen the statements in the Sanscrit and Pali texts agree, the greatest\nreliance may be placed upon them, \"not indeed as to the actual facts of\nGautama's life, but as to the belief of the early Buddhists concerning\nit.\" Professor Rhys Davids enumerates the more important of these\nearly beliefs, and they include many of the startling coincidences\nwhich I have noticed. The later beliefs he passes over for the most\npart in silence; but, speaking generally, he is of opinion that the\ngreater portion, if not all, of the legends could be explained by\nhero-worship, mere poetical imagery, misapprehension, the desire\nto edify, applications to Gautama of previously existing stories or\nsun-myths, and so on. Nowhere does he state or imply that in any of\nthe legends, early or late, there can be any application to Gautama\nof the Gospel stories of the life of Christ; while he considers\nM. Senart's theory of the almost complete dependence of the Buddha\nlegends on solar myths \"most interesting.\" Now, it is just those\nvery ideas of virgin-birth, resurrection, and ascension appearing\nin the later legends which were nothing more nor less than solar\nmyths. In any case, whatever their origin, they were world-wide very\nmany centuries before the Christian era; so any argument from the\nlateness of these legends is founded upon sand. In his Buddhism,\nas also in his article on Buddhism in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica,\nthe Professor steers clear of the question of the parallels; but in\nhis Buddhist Suttas, translated by him from the Pali and appearing in\nthe \"Sacred Books of the East\" series, we read (in the Introduction,\np. 165) that while he \"ventures to disagree with writers who argue that\nthe resemblances in the Pali Pitakas and passages in the New Testament\nindicate that the New Testament as the later must be borrowed,\" he\nholds that the resemblance is due not to any borrowing on the one\nside or the other, but \"solely to the similarity of the conditions\nunder which the two movements grew\" [and, the Rationalist would add,\na similarity in the myths afloat is a part, and a very essential part,\nof the similarity of the conditions].\n\nSo also with regard to the lateness of the Krishna legends in literary\nform, it is futile to argue that they are, to use a familiar term,\ncribbed from the canonical and apocryphal gospels, when most of them\nare obviously plagiarisms of the ancient sun-myths. The Rev. Sir\nG. W. Cox, speaking on this subject in his Aryan Mythology, says:\n\"There is no more room for inferring foreign influence in the growth\nof any of these myths than, as Bunsen rightly insists, there is room\nfor tracing Christian influence in the early epical literature of the\nTeutonic tribes. Practically the myths of Krishna seem to have been\nfully developed in the days of Megasthenes (fourth century B.C.), who\nidentifies him with the Greek Hercules.\" [Megasthenes wrote a work\non India, which was the chief source of the later Greek information\non the subject.] Professor Monier Williams, the accepted authority\non Hinduism, writing for the S.P.G., in his book, Indian Wisdom,\nand speaking of the Bhagavad-gita, says: \"It may reasonably be\nquestioned whether there could have been any actual contact of the\nHindoo system with Christianity without a more satisfactory result\nin the modification of Pantheistic and anti-Christian ideas.\" Again,\nhe says: \"The religious creeds, rites, customs, and habits of thought\nof the Hindoos generally had altered little since the days of Menu, 500\nyears B.C.\" In his Hinduism (p. 19) he shows that \"we may be justified\nin assuming that the hymns of the Veda were probably composed by a\nsuccession of poets at different dates between 1500 and 1000 years\nB.C.\" This is an important concession, because the ancient hymns of\nthe Veda furnish the germs of those sun-myths which tell of the death,\nresurrection, and ascension of a virgin-born saviour.\n\nWhatever may be thought of the conclusions of the highest authorities\nregarding Krishnaistic and Buddhistic beliefs, I hope I may have so far\ncarried the reader with me that he will be prepared to admit that there\nare very many striking resemblances to the Gospel stories in those\nancient beliefs whose priority to Christianity is not disputed. Now\nthat these resemblances are no longer attributed to a device of the\nEvil One, an explanation for them is urgently required. The explanation\nfrom the Christian side is the theory of a Progressive Revelation;\nand, apparently, there can be no other, if Christianity be true. The\nreader has been put in possession of a few details of the remarkable\nparallels, and he should apply this theory for himself to each and\nall of them, and see whether it furnishes a fair working hypothesis,\nwhether his mind can accept the explanation now offered to him, and,\nI might almost add, whether he can honestly continue to call himself\na Christian believer. Let him ask himself which is the more probable,\nthat in the common mythos we have marvellous anticipations of the Bible\nstories, or that in the latter we have reproductions of the former?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Parallels in the Beliefs of Primitive Man, and some Remarks\nUpon Them.\n\nI must ask the reader's patience if I postpone my final remarks on\nProgressive Revelation until I have adduced some illustrations of\nthe beliefs and customs of primitive man, as here also this same\ntheory has to apply. Thus far the pagan beliefs have appeared to\nbe of a comparatively harmless character; but this can by no means\nbe said of the beliefs of savage man. He does not confine himself,\nlike his more civilised brother, to mystical beliefs in Saviours who\nonce upon a time suffered for him, and whose body and blood are to be\nsymbolically assimilated; but, being of a realistic (or shall we say\nmaterialistic?) turn of mind, he prefers (the inevitable result of a\nrestricted intellectual development) [112] to satisfy his religious\nemotions with the spectacle of a real human-divine sufferer, and by a\nsacrificial feast of real flesh and blood. Can this be God's method\nof revealing Himself? True, the religious convictions of civilised\nman have been a fruitful source of human agony, both physical and\nmental, in many a bloody fight and massacre, in cruel and relentless\npersecutions, in every refinement of excruciating torture and pitiable\ndistress to body and mind; but it is possible to gloze over all this\nwith various specious arguments. It is not so easy to do so with\nexamples drawn from the history of savage races. The only thing\nis that so few have ever had these examples brought before them,\nor, at least, have ever thought of connecting them with anything\nthat has to do with the truth of Christianity. I shall, therefore,\nnow give some illustrations of the beliefs and customs of primitive\nman. A vivid description may succeed in convincing the reader of\nthe absurdity of the new theory, where mere vague ideas of savage\nritual would fail. \"Of the human sacrifices of rude peoples, those\nof the Mexicans are perhaps the most instructive, for in them the\ntheanthropic character of the victim comes out most clearly.\" [113]\n\"When we go to the records of the cultures and creeds of Mexico and\nPeru, records wonderfully preserved in the teeth of the fanaticism\nwhich would have destroyed them all if it could, we stand clear of\nthe frauds and prejudices alike of Jew and Christian.... We are faced\nby a civilisation and a religion that reached wealth and complexity\nby normal evolution from the stages of early savagery and barbarism\nwithout ever coming in contact with those of Europe till the moment\nof collision and destruction.\" [114] We shall begin, therefore,\nwith the ancient American.\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA.\n\n\"Terrible was the prestige of the priesthood of Mexico. The greater\nthe State grew, the larger were the hecatombs of human victims. Almost\nevery god had to be propitiated in the same way; but above all must\nthe war-god be for ever glutted with the smoking hearts of slain\ncaptives. Scarcely any historian, says Prescott, estimates the number\nof human beings sacrificed yearly throughout the Empire at less than\n20,000, and some make it 50,000. The Franciscan monks computed that\n2,500 victims were annually sacrificed in the town and district of\nMexico alone. Of this doomed host, Huitzilopochtli had the lion's\nshare; and it is recorded that at the dedication of his great new\ntemple A.D. 1486 [that is to say, nearly 1,500 years after God was\npleased to reveal Himself definitely to mankind] there were slain in\nhis honour 70,000 prisoners of war, who had been reserved for the\npurpose for years throughout the Empire. They formed a train two\nmiles long, and the work of priestly butchery went on for several\ndays.\" [115]\n\n\"At every festival of the God there was a new hecatomb of victims,\nand we may conceive how the chronic spectacle burnt itself in on the\nimagination of the people.... And then the horror of the sacrificial\nact! In the great majority of the sacrifices the victim was laid\nliving on the convex stone and held by the limbs, while the slayer\ncut open his breast with the sacred flint (or rather obsidian)\nknife--the ancient knife used before men had the use of metals, and\ntherefore most truly religious--and tore out the palpitating heart,\nwhich was held on high to the all-seeing sun, before being set to\nburn in incense in front of the idol, whose lips, and the walls of\nwhose shrines, were devoutly daubed with blood.\"\n\n\"In connection with one annual festival of Tezcatlipoca, the\nCreator and 'soul of the world,' who combined the attributes of\nperpetual youthful beauty with the function of the God of Justice and\nRetribution, as the Winter Sun, there was selected for immolation a\nyoung male captive of especial beauty, who was treated with great\nreverence for a whole year before being sacrificed.... When all\nwas over the priests piously improved the occasion, preaching that\nall this had been typical of human destiny, while the aristocracy\nsacramentally ate the victim's roasted limbs.\"\n\n\"They [Christians] mystically eat the body of the slain God. Now,\nthis very act was performed by the Mexicans, not only literally as\nwe have seen, but in the symbolic way also; and they connected their\nsacraments with the symbol of the cross.\"\n\n\"That the Mexicans were no longer cannibals by taste is shown by the\nfact that in the great siege by Cortez they died of starvation by\nthousands. They never ate fellow citizens: only the sacrificially\nslain captive.\"\n\n\"The strangest thing of all is that their frightful system of sacrifice\nwas bound up not only with a strict and ascetic sexual morality,\nbut with an emphatic humanitarian doctrine. If asceticism be virtue,\nthey cultivated virtue zealously. There was a Mexican Goddess of\nLove, and there was of course plenty of vice; but nowhere could men\nwin a higher reputation for sanctity by living in celibacy. Their\nsaints were numerous. They had nearly all the formulas of Christian\nmorality, so-called. The priests themselves mostly lived in strict\ncelibacy; and they educated children with the greatest vigilance in\ntheir temple schools and higher colleges. They taught the people to\nbe peaceful, to bear injuries with meekness, to rely on God's mercy\nand not on their own merits; they taught, like Jesus and the Pagans,\nthat adultery could be committed by the eyes and the heart; and, above\nall, they exhorted men to feed the poor. The public hospitals were\ncarefully attended to, at a time when some Christian countries had\nnone. They had the practice of confession and absolution, and in the\nregular exhortation of the confessor there was this formula: Clothe\nthe naked and feed the hungry, whatever privations it may cost thee;\nfor remember their flesh is like thine, and they are men like thee;\ncherish the sick, for they are the image of God. And in this very\nsame exhortation there was further urged on the penitent the special\nduty of instantly procuring a slave for sacrifice to the deity.\"\n\nThe Mexican believed in the resurrection of the Man-God. Dr. Frazer\nrelates how \"the idea that the God thus slain in the person of\nhis representative comes to life again immediately was graphically\nrepresented in the Mexican ritual by skinning the slain man-god,\nand clothing in his skin a living man, who thus became the new\nrepresentative of the god-head.\" [116]\n\nIt is civilisation that determines the tone of religion. In Peru,\nwhere the civilisation was higher and the priesthood less powerful,\nthe sacrificial system was less burdensome and less terrible. Thus\nhuman sacrifices were practically extinct. The Peruvians had the\ninstitution of a Holy Communion, in which they ate of a sacred bread,\nsancu, sprinkled with the blood of a sacrificed sheep, the priest\npronouncing this formula: \"Take heed how ye eat this sancu; for he who\neats it in sin and with a double will and heart is seen by our Father,\nthe Sun, who will punish him with grievous troubles.\" The Spaniards\nthemselves recognised that the Mexicans ate the mystical body of\nthe God with every sign of devotion and contrition; and they were\nso far from depreciating the Peruvian Communion that they supposed\nSt. Bartholomew had established it. [117]\n\nWith these facts confronting us, it is nothing short of marvellous to\nfind many learned divines completely ignoring them in their apologetic\nefforts. I say marvellous, for I assume they possess honesty of purpose\nand some acquaintance with ancient beliefs; but perhaps I am wrong in\nthe latter assumption. The continuance of the celebration of the Holy\nEucharist until the present day is held to be one of the evidences\nfor the Christian faith, and this on the ground that the rite could\nnot have survived if Christ had not founded it. For some reason,\nbest known to the apologist, the almost universal observance of\nthe same ceremony, ages before the Christian era, and its survival\namong the nations who finally adopted Christianity, are entirely\noverlooked. Thus Dr. Maclear, in his book, The Evidential Value of\nthe Holy Eucharist, says: \"The singular rite has survived all the\nvicissitudes of more than 1,000 years.... The early Christian would\ninform a supposed questioner that the meal was a sacrificial feast,\ninstituted by Him from Whom we are called Christians, and Who died\nfor us on the Cross. Here, then, we are on solid ground. The rite,\nso unique and so unprecedented, rests on an objective historical\nfact.\" One would think that Dr. Maclear had entirely neglected the\nstudy of ancient and even modern non-Christian [118] beliefs.\n\n\n\nVEGETATION GODS.\n\nThere is another class of primitive sacrificial custom which claims\nour careful attention, in order that we may see whether it manifests\nthe beginning of a revelation from God. Even if we could agree\nthat all these gruesome details represent a savage's glimmerings\nof the truth, we must allow that the theory collapses when the\nobject of the custom can be shown to have little or nothing to do\nwith religion in any true sense of the word. Subtle intellects are\ncapable of maintaining that the worship of ancestors, or of the Sun,\nor of imaginary devils, betokens a dim perception of God; but when it\ncomes to the propitiation of a vegetation-god solely for the sake of\nthe material benefits expected to be derived from his cult, surely\nit is time to dismiss the theory as worthless. \"All the world over,\nsavages and semi-civilised people are in the habit of sacrificing human\nvictims, whose bodies are buried in the field with the seed of corn,\nor other bread stuffs. Often enough the victim's blood is mixed with\ngrain in order to fertilise it. The most famous instance is that of\nthe Khonds of Orissa, who chose special victims, known as Meriahs,\nand offered them up to ensure good harvests. The Meriah was often kept\nyears before being sacrificed. He was regarded as a consecrated being,\nand treated with extreme affection, mingled with deference.\" [119]\n\"The periodical sacrifices,\" says Dr. Frazer, in The Golden Bough,\n\"were generally so arranged by tribes and divisions of tribes that\neach head of a family was enabled, at least once a year, to procure a\nshred of flesh for his fields, generally about the time when his chief\ncrop was laid down.\" Khonds in distress often sold their children\nas Meriahs, \"considering the beatification of their souls certain,\nand their death, for the benefit of mankind, the most honourable\npossible.\" Their children were representatives of the Deity. With\nadvancing civilisation we have the substitution of an animal in\nplace of the human representative of the God. In some cases the\nworshippers tore the living animal to pieces with their teeth. The\nrending and devouring of live bulls, calves, and goats seems to have\nbeen a regular feature of the Dionysiac rites, the participators in\nthe orgy fancying that they were devouring the actual body and blood of\nthe god. With the further advance of civilisation (or, according to the\nlatest Christian theory, with the further advance of God's revelation),\nas in the Mediterranean region, the bodies of the gods of agriculture\nwere eaten by their votaries in the shape of cakes of bread, or other\nfood stuffs, and their blood was drunk in the form of wine. [120]\n\nIf Dr. Frazer be right as to the priority of the idea of a\nvegetation-god in cults commonly associated with the Sun, then Krishna,\nOsiris, Dionysus or Bacchus, Adonis, Attis, and other Saviours whose\ndeaths and resurrections were annually celebrated at the spring equinox\n(our Easter), may have been primarily vegetation-victims, the abstract\nideas which identified the death and resurrection of the god with\nthe annual winter sleep and spring revival being finally fathered\nupon the worship. Whatever explanation may be the correct one for the\nphenomenon of a common mythos over the greater portion of the globe, it\nis certainly not that of a Progressive Revelation. Such an explanation\nhas never been mooted by anyone but the Christian apologist. \"Among\nearly men and savages every act of life has a sacred significance,\nand agriculture especially is everywhere and always invested with\na special sanctity. To us it would seem natural that the act of\nsowing seed should be regarded as purely practical and physiological;\nthat the seed should be looked upon merely as the part of the plant\nintended for reproduction, and that its germination should be accepted\nas a natural and normal process. Savages and early men, however, had\nno such conceptions. To them the whole thing is a piece of natural\nmagic.\" [121] Are we, then, to regard this working of primitive\nthought as the working of the Holy Spirit? Surely we may dismiss such\na preposterous theory? It will serve the Church no good purpose; for,\nwhile thinking men will be further than ever estranged, it will furnish\nthe militant agnostic with a fresh weapon for his attacks upon her.\n\n\n\nWHY MEN EAT THEIR GOD.\n\nWhatever may have been the ultimate origin of the idea of God, and\nof the belief in His expiatory death and subsequent resurrection,\nthe origin of the custom of eating Him sacramentally permits of\na very simple explanation. \"Du Chaillu notes that some of his West\nAfrican followers, when going on an expedition, brought out the skulls\nof their ancestors (which they religiously preserved) and scraped\noff small portions of the bone, which they mixed with the water and\ndrank, giving as a reason for this conduct that their ancestors were\nbrave, and that by drinking a portion of them they too became brave\nand fearless. Here we have a simple and early case of that habit of\n'eating the god' to whose universality and importance Dr. Frazer has\ncalled attention.\" [122] It is a common early belief, which may still\nbe met with, that by eating a certain animal the consumer will become\npossessed of its qualities. It is notorious, for instance, that the\nMiris of Northern India prize tiger's flesh for men, because it gives\nthem strength and courage. And apparently the same belief exists also\nin Southern India, for I remember our Madrassi ayah--a Christian by\nthe bye--begging for the hind leg of a panther (shot by my wife),\nand explaining that she wanted to eat it in order to make her muzbut\n(strong). I may mention also that certain religious rites still in\nvogue among the Hindoos--disgusting as they are, not only to our ideas,\nbut in fact--arise from a similar notion.\n\nHerbert Spencer discusses this primitive idea in his Principles of\nSociology. He explains how \"attributes or properties, as we understand\nthem, are not recognisable by the savage--are abstractions which\nneither his faculties can grasp nor his language express. Hence\ncertain beliefs, everywhere conspicuous among the uncivilised. A\nspecial potency which some object or part of an object displays\nbelongs to it in such a wise that it may be acquired by consuming or\npossessing this object or part. The powers of a conquered antagonist\nare supposed to be gained by devouring him. The Dakotah eats the\nheart of a slain foe to increase his own courage; the New Zealander\nswallows his dead enemy's eyes that he may see further; the Abipone\nconsumes tiger's flesh thinking so to gain the tiger's strength\nand ferocity--cases which recall the legend about Zeus devouring\nMetis that he might become possessed of her wisdom. Clearly the\nimplied mode of thought, shown even in the medical prescriptions\nof past ages, is a mode of thought necessarily persisting until\nanalysis has disclosed the complexities of causal relations.\" [123]\n\"The belief that the qualities of any individual are appropriated by\neating him is illustrated by the statement of Stanbridge, that when\nAustralians kill an infant they feed an older child with it, believing\n'that by its eating as much as possible of the roasted infant it will\npossess the strength of both.' Elsewhere dead relations are consumed\nin pursuance of an allied belief. We read of the Cucamas that, 'as\nsoon as a relation died, these people assembled and ate him roasted\nor boiled, according as he was thin or fat!'\" [124]\n\nIt is easy, then, to understand why a savage should desire to partake\nof the flesh of an animal or man whom he regards as divine. By eating\nthe body of the god he shares in the god's attributes and powers. \"And\nwhen,\" as Dr. Frazer points out, [125] \"the god is a corn-god, the\ncorn is his proper body; when he is a vine-god, the juice of the\ngrape is his blood; and so by eating the bread and drinking the wine\nthe worshipper partakes of the real body and blood of the god.\" If\nthe apologist, nothing daunted, maintains that there is a religious\ngerm in these primitive superstitions, it is practically tantamount to\nsaying that every superstition contains such a germ; that superstition\nand religion are, in fact, often synonymous terms. I thought it\nwas only the sceptic who said that. Before committing himself any\nfurther to a supernatural theory which is so obviously untenable,\nI do entreat the average apologist to read carefully the works of\ngreat thinkers who have made primitive man their especial study. Let\nhim read, for instance, Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology,\nwhere he will find a natural and mind-satisfying explanation of\nprimitive ideas concerning supernatural agents, ghosts, spirits,\ndemons, gods, resurrection, another life, inspiration, divination,\nsacrifices, fasting, propitiation, and prayer. He will learn, also,\nmuch that he ought to know concerning ancestor-worship, idol-worship,\nfetish-worship, animal-worship, plant-worship, nature-worship, and\nthe heathen deities generally. He should also read Frazer's Golden\nBough, J. M. Robertson's Pagan Christs and Christianity and Mythology,\nand other scholarly and informing works of this description, instead\nof confining his studies to works of an apologetic character, where\neverything incompatible with existing Christian theories is carefully\nomitted, or coloured out of all recognition.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Solar Myth.\n\n\nJONAH AND THE WHALE.\n\nThe resemblances to ancient myths are not confined to the principal\nincidents in the life of Christ. Many of the most noteworthy events\nrelated in the Old Testament have their counterpart in widespread\nlegends. That the stories of the Creation, Fall, and Deluge are legends\nis well known--a visit to the British Museum should convince the most\ncaptious critic on this point--but it is not so well known that ancient\nfolk-lore contains stories similar to those of the Tower of Babel,\nthe trial of Abraham's faith, Jacob's vision of the ladder between\nearth and heaven, the finding of Moses in an ark, the transformation\nof Moses' rod into a serpent, the Israelites' passage through the\nRed Sea on dry land, Moses smiting the rock and thus producing\nwater, the reception by Moses of the Ten Commandments from God,\nBalaam's expostulating ass, Joshua's command to the sun and the sun's\nobedience, Samson and his exploits, Elijah's ascent to heaven, and\nJonah's sojourn for three days and three nights in the belly of a fish.\n\nThis Jonah episode has an important bearing on the subject under\ndiscussion, as it is a typical case of an absorption of the universal\nmythos. Among other authorities, Godfrey Higgins tells us: \"The story\nof Jonas swallowed up by a whale is nothing but part of the fiction\nof Hercules, described in the Heracleid or Labours of Hercules, of\nwhom the same story was told, and who was swallowed up at the very\nsame place, Joppa, and for the same period of time, three days.\" [126]\nAgain, with the exception of those who refuse to acknowledge anything\ndamaging to the literal truth of Holy Writ, all professors of theology\nare agreed that the miracle recorded in the book of Jonah is not a\nhistorical fact. This in spite of the alleged personal interviews with\nGod as there recounted; while the plea that we must make allowance for\noriental imagery serves only to throw discredit upon historians on\nwhom we are relying for facts upon which the scheme of Christianity\ndepends. Now, the story of the three days' sojourn of Hercules and\nother heroes in the bowels of the earth, or the belly of a fish,\nis only a different version of the myth concerning the death and\nresurrection of a god which we find to be prevalent over nearly the\nwhole world. And, according to the new Christian theory, this shows\nan intuition of Christ's death and resurrection!\n\n\n\nANTICIPATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY IN SOLAR MYTHS.\n\nThe advanced theologians, who are presenting us with this theory, have\nto explain, among other things, how it was that Christ himself took the\n\"Jonah and whale\" story seriously, treating it as sober history. He\nspoke of no mere allegory when He said: \"For as Jonas was three days\nand three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be\nthree days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" [127] Neither\nChrist himself nor the Apostles spoke of any revelation embodied in\nheathen beliefs. Very much the reverse. Yet the Bishop of Birmingham\n(late of Worcester), speaking to the adversaries of Christianity,\ninforms them: \"You say that we find in Christianity the relics of\npaganism. On the contrary, we find in paganism, intermingled with\nmuch that is false, superstitious, and horrible, the anticipations\nof Christianity.\" Is that why we have paid them the compliment of\nadopting their dates for the birth and death of their Saviours? [128]\nCanon P. H. Robinson goes so far as to say that Christianity has\nbenefited by the addition of heathen thought [N.B. He owns there has\nbeen this addition], and that it is yet to benefit by further contact\nwith heathen thought! His actual words are: \"If Greek and Roman thought\nwere needed for a full appreciation of the meaning of the Incarnation,\nwhy may we not say the same of Indian and Chinese thought? Surely we\nare justified in believing that every country and every people have\nsomething to contribute to Christianity and that the completion of\nthe Christian revelation awaits the contribution of each. We believe\nthat there are many important aspects of the Christian truth which\nhave never been understood, simply because Christianity has not yet\nbeen reflected in the experience of those nations of the world which\nare still heathen.\" [129]\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN THEORY IGNORED BY SCIENCE.\n\nThe earliest attempts at a crude science of mythology were efforts\nto reconcile the legends of the gods and heroes with the religious\nsentiment which recognised in these beings objects of worship and\nrespect. When the Christians first approached the problem of heathen\nmythology, they agreed with St. Augustine that the gods were real\npersons--but diabolical, not divine. \"Some later philosophers,\nespecially of the seventeenth century, misled by the resemblance\nbetween Biblical narratives and ancient myths, came to the conclusion\nthat the Bible contains a pure, the myths a distorted, form of an\noriginal revelation.\" [130] Now, however, in tracing myths and legends\nto their probable origins, the modern mythologist never dreams of\ncalling to his aid any supernatural theory.\n\nMyths present, I take it, two main problems--first as to their origin,\nand second as to their resemblances to Biblical narratives. Some\nmythologists, while no longer allowing orthodox tradition to hamper\nthem, only profess to answer the first question. They disclaim the\nobligation of entering the arena of theological controversy. It is\nimportant that the Church should thoroughly realise this, and that\nany disagreement there may be among mythologists as to the solution\nof the first problem--the origin of myths--has little or no bearing\nupon the solution of the second problem--the Bible parallels. What\ndoes it matter whether the gods had a vegetable or a solar origin,\nor arose, as Max M\u00fcller thought, from \"a disease of language\"? The\nall-important question for Christians is: Can any of these possible\norigins point to a Progressive Revelation, and, if not, how are we\nto account for the Bible parallels?\n\n\n\nTHE SUN AS A SYMBOL.\n\nSuppose that, whatever the ultimate origin may have been, certain\nmyths containing the parallels are, as we know them, solar myths\n(and on this point mythologists are now in complete accord); how\ncan a belief be, at one and the same time, a solar myth and also\nan allegory expressing a spiritual truth? The sun is the object of\nworship, and its apparent movements give rise to myths concerning\nthe birth, death, and resurrection of a Saviour. [131] Can we call\nthis Progressive Revelation? \"Certainly,\" the apologists may reply;\n\"is there no bright Sun of Righteousness--no personal and loving\nSon of God, of whom the material sun has been the type or symbol, in\nall ages and among all nations? What power is it that comes from the\nsun to give light and heat to all created things? If the symbolical\nsun leads such a great and heavenly flock, what must be said of the\ntrue and only begotten Son of God? If Apollo was adopted by early\nChristian art as a type of the Good Shepherd of the New Testament,\nthis interpretation of the sun-god among all nations must be the\nsolution of the universal mythos. What other solution can it have? To\nwhat other historical personage but Christ can it apply? If this\nmythos has no spiritual meaning, all religion becomes mere idolatry,\nor the worship of material things.\" [132]\n\nWill this sort of reasoning satisfy the average man? To begin with,\nthe sun-worshippers themselves had no idea that the sun was, as is now\nalleged, the symbol of a great Truth. The sun, or their conception\nof the sun as a divine person in a blazing car, was the object of\ntheir worship. What a waste of worship for thousands upon thousands of\nyears!--worship that might have been centred upon the true God. Even\nnow, nigh on 2,000 years after God was pleased at last to reveal\nHimself, as we are told, to all mankind, the greater portion do not\nknow Him, or they deny Him. If God intended the sun to be a symbol\nof Christ, why have we never been told this before? Why even now\nis it only put forward by a certain school of apologists in costly\nbooks that few will ever set their eyes upon? It is noteworthy, too,\nthat the horrors that accompanied the worship of this same \"bright\nSun\" are discreetly kept in the background by these advocates of the\n\"symbol\" theory.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Concluding Remarks on Christian and Anti-Christian Theories.\n\nIf Progressive Revelation be true, it is the most marvellous proof of\nthe truth of Christianity--far the greatest proof that has ever yet\nbeen presented to us. Far greater, for instance, than the prophecies of\nthose so-called prophets of the Old Testament, who, it now transpires,\nwere only anticipating or describing events of their own times. It is\nsuch a proof as Christianity is in dire need of just now--a proof that\nwill save her from a peril which every hour brings nearer. Why, then,\ndo we hear so little of this great discovery from the pulpit? [133] How\ncomes it that it is discovered so many years after the fulfilment of\nthese unconscious prophecies of the pagans? Why is it produced merely\nto confute the sceptic and restore confidence to that infinitesimally\nsmall number who happen to have studied, and therefore to have\nhad their suspicions aroused by, Comparative Mythology? We are\nto believe that God revealed Himself by an exceedingly slow and\npainful process, extending over thousands upon thousands of years,\nand entailing the most horrible customs among savages. This process,\nmark you, not only led to the establishment of Christianity as the\nworld became more civilised, but to the establishment of those other\ngreat religions which to this day are hostile to the reception of\nChristianity! Simple-minded people will never be induced to agree\nthat revelation can be progressive in the manner now indicated to\nus by the apologist. Rather they will agree with the nationalist,\nwho denies the originality of Christianity, contending that it is a\ncult which adopted, step by step, the mysteries, the miracles, and\nthe myths of the popular Gentile religions. Some freethinkers, indeed,\ngo so far as to say that the whole Gospel story is nothing more than\na myth; but the greater number consider that there is a substratum of\ntruth, and that round this have slowly gathered the religious ideas\nand doctrines that were current in the old pagan world. The precise\nmanner in which, they conjecture, the transformation actually took\nplace is a large subject, and there are differences of opinion--e.g.,\nsome are inclined to think that Essenism, others that Mithraism,\nplayed a leading part; but the point to be borne in mind is that\nthere is no difficulty whatever in understanding how the absorption\nof myths could have taken place, or how the Christian cult could have\narisen and prospered.\n\nI especially mention this, as some apologists argue that there\nwas not sufficient time for heathen accretions between the death\nof Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I can only reiterate the\nremark of the well-known professor of Church history, Dr. Harnack:\n\"We know that the Gospels come from a time in which the marvellous\nmay be said to have been something of almost daily occurrence. We now\nknow that eminent persons have not to wait until they have been long\ndead, or even for several years, to have miracles reported of them;\nthey are reported at once, often the very next day.\" Also, I should\ncall attention to the notes on Essenism and Mithraism at the close of\nthis chapter, as they contain the answer to this final objection. But,\npersonally, I fail to see how the \"time\" objection can in any case\nbe maintained when we remember that the whole world had already\nbeen conversant for ages past with stories of suffering Saviours,\nsimilar in all essentials to the Gospel narratives. Besides, we know\nthat documents have been tampered with more or less (the sceptic says\n\"more,\" the apologist \"less\"), and that the composition of the Gospels\ntook place many years after the events they purport to describe;\nwhile the age was one when men were extremely credulous, and when,\nconsciously and unconsciously, imposing upon this credulity was the\nordinary method of propagating a Faith.\n\n\n\nARGUMENT FROM ESSENISM.\n\nRegarding the difficulty of supposing that Jesus or the Evangelists\ncould have been imbued with any sun-myth ideas, we must take into\nconsideration the existence at that time of the Jewish sect, the\nEssenes. It seems quite possible that they considered Jesus of\nNazareth to be the Messiah they were expecting, and that they came\nover to Christianity in a body. This monastic brotherhood, living in\nsettlements in the desert west of the Dead Sea--i.e., within a day's\njourney of Bethlehem and Jerusalem--not only placed love of God, of\ngoodness, and of man as articles in their programme, but also sought\nwith wonderful energy, according to their lights, to realise them\nin their life. Bunsen assures us (p. 158 of his Angel-Messiah), and\nfurnishes strong grounds for his opinion, that the Essenes introduced\nthe new doctrine of an Angel-Messiah, and with it the doctrine of the\natoning death of the Messiah, into Judaism and Christianity. Canon\nCheyne likewise places them among the number of those who prepared\nthe way for the new world-religion. This seems to have been the very\nreason of their disappearance in the second century A.D.--Christianity\ndissolved them. So much so that the Essenes (often called Therapeut\u00e6\nor healers) are identified by Eusebius with the Christian monks, and\nthis opinion was generally adopted by the Fathers (see chap, xvii.,\nbk. ii., p. 117, of The Church History of Eusebius, translated by the\nRev. A. C. McGiffert, under the editorial supervision of Henry Wace,\nD.D., and Philip Schaff, D.D.).\n\nFrom a perusal of the article on the \"Essenes\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBiblica, it will be seen that Essenism is not a purely Jewish\nproduct, but that \"Persian and Babylonian influence may reasonably\nbe admitted.\" \"Oriental influences were,\" Canon Cheyne informs us,\n\"so to speak, in the air, and it is probable that the belief in the\nresurrection was not the only great debt which Jewish religionists\nowed to Zoroastrians.\" Bishop Lightfoot describes the Essenes as\nsun-worshippers. Is there, then, no likelihood of Jesus and His\ndisciples being familiar with the ideas of sun-worshippers?\n\nBut, it may be urged, the teaching of Jesus Christ was opposed to\nEssenic doctrines in the matter of asceticism. True; but, in one\nway, this makes the case for the absorption of Essenic ideas all the\nstronger, for it would account for the strange fact that the Christians\napproved of asceticism in spite of their own Master's example to the\ncontrary. I do not wish to press this anti-Christian theory further\nthan to say that it appears to me that, among others, it is one\ndeserving of consideration. Presuming that in Jesus the Apostles\nwere confronted with a personality of overwhelming attractiveness\nand power of appeal to themselves, their language can be interpreted\nthroughout as their attempt to expound and pass on their experience\nto the world. In this attempt they were naturally driven to employ\nsuch conceptions as were current in their day, and notably those\nof Messianic anticipations and Greek philosophy. Assuming that the\nGospels are without any important interpolations, and that the authors\nare the Evangelists, even then the partial insertion of solar-myths\nwould not necessarily be tantamount to any conscious dishonesty on\nthe part of the Evangelists; it only points to their impregnation\nwith the Jewish beliefs, such as those of the Essenes, that were\naround them. If this theory be correct, the difficulty arising from\nthe shortness of the time between the Resurrection and the writing\nof the Gospels vanishes, since accretions of a later date would no\nlonger be the sole cause for the events recorded by the Evangelists\nbecoming inextricably entwined with mythical beliefs.\n\n\n\nARGUMENT FROM MITHRAISM.\n\nThis argument is fully developed in Part III. of Mr. J. M. Robertson's\nbook, Pagan Christs, from which the following are quotations:\n\"Mithraism was in point of range the most nearly universal religion\nof the Western world in the early centuries of the Christian era. As\nto this students are agreed. [Here Mr. Robertson gives in a footnote\na formidable array of authorities.] To the early Fathers, we shall\nsee. Mithraism was a most serious thorn in the flesh; and the\nmonumental remains of the Roman period, in almost all parts of the\nempire, show its extraordinary extension.\" Mr. Robertson points out\nthat there are a number of monuments in honour of Mithra in England,\nFrance, Italy, Germany, and in many Mediterranean ports. He then\nproceeds to give us some exceedingly important information regarding\nMithraism, out of which I select the following extracts for the more\nparticular attention of Christians:--\n\n\"We have the culture of Mithra as the Sun-god, the deity of light\nand truth, created by, and yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity, and\nfighting on the side of the good against the evil power, Angra-Mainyu\n(Ahriman)--this at a period long before the Christian era.... Mithra\ncomes to occupy a singular position as between the two great powers of\ngood and evil, Ormuzd and Ahriman, being actually named the Mediator,\nand figuring to the devout eye as a humane and beneficent God,\nnearer to man than the Great Spirit of Good, a Saviour, a Redeemer,\neternally young, son of the Most High, and preserver of mankind from\nthe Evil One.... The first day of the week, Sunday, was apparently\nfrom time immemorial consecrated to Mithra by the Mithraists; and as\nthe Sun-god was pre-eminently 'the Lord,' Sunday was the 'Lord's Day'\nlong before the Christian era.... We have some exact information as\nto the two chief Mithraic ceremonies or festivals, those of Christmas\nand Easter, the winter solstice and the vernal equinox, the birthday of\nthe Sun-god, and the period of his sacrifice and his triumph.... There\nwere in antiquity, we know from Porphyry, several elaborate treatises\nsetting forth the religion of Mithra; and every one of these has\nbeen destroyed by the care of the Church.... Of course, we are told\nthat the Mithraic rites and mysteries are borrowed and imitated from\nChristianity. The refutation of this notion, as has been pointed out\nby M. Havet, lies in the language of those Christian fathers who spoke\nof Mithraism. Three of them, as we have seen, speak of the Mithraic\nresemblances to Christian rites as being the work of devils. Now,\nif the Mithraists had simply imitated the historic Christians,\nthe obvious course for the latter would be simply to say so.... The\nMithraic mysteries, then, of the burial and resurrection of the Lord,\nthe Mediator, the Saviour; burial in a rock tomb and resurrection\nfrom the tomb; the sacrament of bread and water, the marking on the\nforehead with a mystic mark--all these were in practice before the\npublication of the Christian Gospel.... Nor was this all. Firmicus\ninforms us that the devil, in order to leave nothing undone for the\ndestruction of souls, had beforehand resorted to deceptive imitations\nof the Cross of Christ.... Still further does the parallel hold. It\nis well known that, whereas in the Gospels Jesus is said to have been\nborn in an inn-stable, early Christian writers, as Justin Martyr and\nOrigen, explicitly say he was born in a cave. Now, in the Mithra myth,\nMithra is both rock-born and born in a cave; and the monuments show\nthe new-born babe adored by shepherds who offer first-fruits.... Now,\nhowever, arises the great question. How came such a cultus to die\nout of the Roman and Byzantine Empire after making its way so far,\nand holding its ground so long? The answer to that question has never,\nI think, been fully given, and is for the most part utterly evaded,\nthough part of it has been suggested often enough. The truth is\nMithraism was not overthrown; it was merely transformed.... Though\nMithraism had many attractions, Christianity had more, having\nsedulously copied every one of its rivals and developed special\nfeatures of its own.... In the Christian legend the God was humanised\nin the most literal way; and for the multitude the concrete deity\nmust needs replace the abstract. The Gospels gave a literal story:\nThe Divine Man was a carpenter, and ate and drank with the poorest\nof the poor.... Gradually the very idea of allegory died out of\nthe Christian intelligence; and priests as well as people came to\ntake everything literally and concretely.... This was the religion\nfor the Dark Ages.... Byzantines and barbarians alike were held by\nliteralism, not by the unintelligible: for both alike the symbol had\nto become a fetish; and for the Dark Ages the symbol of the cross\nwas much more plausibly appealing than that of the god slaying the\nzodiacal bull.... A Mithraist could turn to the Christian worship\nand find his main rites unimpaired, lightened only of the burden of\ninitiative austerities, stripped of the old obscure mysticism, and\nwith all things turned to the literal and the concrete, in sympathy\nwith the waning of knowledge and philosophy throughout the world.\"\n\nBut I must now close these quotations, apologising to Mr. Robertson\nfor making such a free use of his book, and advising my readers to\nstudy it. They will find that his facts are reliable; they are all\nbacked by the highest authorities, however much the conclusions drawn\nfrom them may, at present, be a matter of opinion. Suffice it to\nsay here that the coincidences between Mithraism and Christianity\nare indescribably marvellous, and require further explanation,\nif Mr. Robertson's theory of the absorption of the former by the\nlatter be not very largely true. Whatever the substratum of real\nhistory may be, there is no doubt that there was every opportunity\nfor an early absorption of Mithraism, and every probability that it\ntook place to an extent which throws a new flood of light upon many\nChristian doctrines. \"The first six centuries were characterised\nby fierce controversies as to the most fundamental verities of the\nChristian faith, by the wholesale introduction of adult converts, who\nbrought with them heathen and Jewish habits of thought, and who were\nin many cases of a low type of civilisation; and the adulteration of\nthe Gospel was further facilitated by the purely nominal adhesion of\npersons anxious to stand well with the first Christian Emperors. The\nperiod was one of incessant fermentation and of rapid and continuous\nchange.\" These are not the words of Mr. Robertson, nor of any other\nfreethinker, but are an extract from the resolution adopted by the\nChurch Association in connection with the appeal by Dean Wace and\nothers to the authority of the First Six Centuries. What a period to\nappeal to! When we know what we do of the credulity and the methods\nof those \"Fathers\" of the Church, how can any rational being place\nin them any confidence whatsoever?\n\nWhat steps do the Churches propose to take concerning these\ndisclosures? Will they proclaim from the pulpit their new theory of a\nProgressive Revelation, or will they by their silence evince their own\nwant of faith in this precious theory, and allow the storm of unbelief\nslowly to gather force until it bursts and overwhelms the Christian\nbelief? Knowledge of the facts, so ably discussed by Mr. Robertson,\nwill soon be widely disseminated. Let there be no mistake on this\npoint. Here, for instance, are some instructive passages appearing\non page 496 of the Nineteenth Century, September, 1905:--\n\n\"It has been truly observed that the recovery, only partial as it\nis, of the history of this religion [the Mithraic] is one of the most\nremarkable triumphs of historical and antiquarian research. Originating\nin Persia, it was spread through the Roman Empire by poor and humble\nconverts, who were at first mainly soldiers; but gradually, like\nChristianity, it permeated all ranks, and its temples are found\nscattered over the whole civilised world, from Babylon to the\nhills of Scotland. Just as the religion of Isis did, it resembled\nthat of Christ in being a religion of inward holiness, of austere\nself-discipline and purity; but the details of its resemblance are\nincomparably more close and curious. The briefest sketch of the\nmatter is all that can be attempted here. According to Mithraic\ntheology, God considered in His totality is a Being so infinite and\nso transcendent that His direct connection with man and the universe\nis inconceivable. In order to become the father of man and creator,\nHe manifested Himself in a second personality--namely, Mithra, who\nwas in his cosmic character identified with the 'unconquered sun,'\nand, as a moral and intellectual Being, was the Divine Word or Reason,\nand, in more senses than one, 'the mediator' between man and the Most\nHigh. Life on earth, according to the Mithraic doctrine, is for man a\ntime of trial. The Spirit of Evil, his adversary, is always seeking to\ndestroy him--to crush him with pain and sorrow, or to stain his soul\nwith concupiscence; but in all his struggles Mithra is at hand to aid\nhim, and will at the last day be at once his judge and advocate, when\nthe graves give up their dead, when the just are separated from the\nunjust, when the saved are welcomed like children into eternal bliss,\nand the lost are consumed in the fire prepared for the Devil and his\nangels. This Divine Saviour came into the world as an infant. His\nfirst worshippers were shepherds; and the day of His nativity was\nDecember 25th. His followers preached a severe and rigid morality,\nchief among their virtues being temperance, chastity, renunciation,\nand self-control. They kept the seventh day holy, and the middle day\nof each month was a special feast of Mithra, which symbolised his\nfunction of Mediator. They had seven sacraments, of which the most\nimportant were baptism, confirmation, and a Eucharistic supper, at\nwhich the communicants partook of the divine nature of Mithra under\nthe species of bread and wine.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION\n\nChapter V.\n\nIRRECONCILABLE DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH EVOLUTION\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks.\n\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION.\n\nGeneral views of the development or evolution of the visible order\nof nature have been entertained by philosophers from the earliest\nhistorical times. There were pioneers of Evolution from Thales to\nLucretius (600 B.C.-50 A.D.). The inquiry was then arrested for nearly\nsixteen hundred years--that is, until the renascence of Science. As\nknowledge, in spite of ecclesiastical discouragement, again slowly\nadvanced, the science of biology gained in strength, and the work of\nLinn\u00e6us, Buffon, Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and others, paved the way\nfor that modern theory of Evolution which Darwin, Wallace, Spencer,\nHuxley, and Haeckel have demonstrated to us. This doctrine of Evolution\nis no longer a mere speculative theory, possibly or probably true,\nbut an established fact accepted by the whole scientific world with\nhardly a single dissentient voice. We know that everything as it\nnow exists is the product of Evolution--the solar system, the earth,\nall lower forms of life, and lastly man, together with his languages,\narts, sciences, theology, social habits, instincts, and, according to\nmany high authorities, morals, conscience, and consciousness. Yes,\n\"man, perfect as he may appear to us, is still not a being apart in\nnature, but by his whole organisation is continuous with the other\nzoological species.\" \"Anthropology, properly so-called, is, in fact,\nmerely a chapter of zoology.\" \"The homological structure of man, his\nembryological development, and the rudiments which he still retains,\nall declare in the plainest possible manner that he is descended\nfrom some lower form.\" He \"derives his moral sense from the social\nfeelings which are instinctive or innate in the lower animals.\" [134]\n\nIt is in the special sense of explaining how living things came into\nbeing, and how they have acquired their present characters, that the\nteaching of Evolution appears to be most in conflict with that of the\nChurches and the Bible. It is, therefore, this aspect of Evolution\nwith which we are here chiefly concerned, and we may remember that,\nsince Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species (1859) and\nDescent of Man (1871), his main conclusions have been confirmed by\nevery branch of anthropological research--by pal\u00e6ontology, zoology,\ncomparative anatomy, physiology, pathology, teratology, psychology,\nand more especially by embryology, a science in which there has been\na remarkable progress during the past thirty years. Professor Haeckel\npoints out on page 24 of his important work, The Evolution of Man\n(translated by Joseph McCabe), that \"even when human anatomy began\nto stir itself once more in the sixteenth century, and independent\nresearch into the structure of the developed body was resumed,\nanatomists did not dare to extend their inquiries to the unformed\nbody, the embryo, and its development. There were many reasons\nfor the prevailing horror of such studies. It is natural enough,\nwhen we remember that a Bull of Boniface VIII. excommunicated every\nman who ventured to dissect a human corpse. If the dissection of\na developed body were a crime to be thus punished, how much more\ndreadful must it have seemed to deal with the embryonic body still\nenclosed in the womb, which the Creator Himself had decently veiled\nfrom the curiosity of the scientist.\" Pal\u00e6ontology is another very\nyoung science that has contributed greatly towards the evidence of\nour origin. Professor Huxley informs us, in his essay on \"The Rise\nand Progress of Pal\u00e6ontology,\" that the first adequate investigation\nof the fossil remains of any large group of vertebrated animals\ndates from 1822, and that in the last fifty years the number of\nknown fossil remains of invertebrated animals has been trebled or\nquadrupled. Fossils were at one time believed to have been sown by\nthe devil, whose fell purpose was to throw discredit upon the Bible\nstory of Creation. Perhaps this pious opinion may have had something\nto do with the slow progress of pal\u00e6ontology?\n\n\n\nDARWINISM.\n\nTo prevent the chance of any misunderstanding, some explanation may be\nnecessary for the benefit of those who are not in touch with scientific\nthought, and who hear that \"Darwinism\" is out of date. They should\nunderstand that, although the doctrine of Evolution as applied to\norganic life used to be widely spoken of by the term \"Darwinism,\"\nthe latter is now only used by scientists in a special sense, to\ndesignate the belief in the gradual origin of species by natural\nselection. There are some who deem this hypothesis to be untenable. But\nthere is no dispute whatever concerning the doctrine of the derivation\nor descent, with modification, of all existing species, genera, orders,\nclasses, etc., of animals and plants, from a few simple forms of life,\nif not from one. Modern evolutionary theories, however, are more\nparticularly concerned with the question of the ways and means by\nwhich living organisms have assumed their actual characters or forms,\nand on these points there are many shades of individual opinion.\n\nIgnorance of the gist of the Darwinian theory, \"natural selection,\"\n[135] has been fruitful in misunderstandings and objections regarding\nit, so that it is advisable to mention here that the author of the\ntheory states explicitly that it does not account for the origin of\nvariations in individuals, still less in species; but that, given the\norigination and existence of variations, it shows that some of these\nare preserved, while others are not--that favourable variations tend\nto be perpetuated, and unfavourable variations to become extinct; that\nthose variations which best adapt an organisation to its environment\nare most favourable to its preservation, and, consequently, that the\ntheory of natural selection is adequate to explain the observed fact\nof the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. \"Natural\nselection ... implies that the individuals which are best fitted for\nthe complex and changing conditions to which, in the course of ages,\nthey are exposed, generally survive and procreate their kind.\" [136]\nNatural selection does not, it may be added, imply conscious\nselection. It would be equally true to call it natural murder, or\nnatural weeding-out. But, whether Darwin and Weismann be right or wrong\nin attributing so much to natural selection, what I wish particularly\nto point out is that the hypothesis of Evolution is nowise invalidated\nbecause, out of the various causes at work, we are not quite sure as\nyet which is the most efficient. It is necessary to make this clear,\nfor, hearing that \"Darwinism\" is under dispute, the uninitiated might\ncome to the conclusion that the animal origin of man is discredited.\n\n\n\nTHE AVERAGE PERSON'S IDEAS ON THE EVOLUTION OF MAN.\n\nWith but very few exceptions, every biological student admits\nour animal origin. The ideas of most people, however, on this\nsubject are hazy in the extreme, and no wonder, when the study of\nEvolution has never been included in their school curriculum. Men\n(and in very rare cases women) pick up a few crumbs of knowledge\nconcerning the scientific theory of their origin, and then, from\nwant of leisure or from religious motives, or from various causes,\nthey drop the subject. Often they are put off by the dry details\nof the evidence and the technical phrases before they have obtained\na real grip of the subject. They do not even know some of the more\nsimple and obvious proofs which alone would have sufficed to convince\nthem. One finds that men's views concerning Evolution are coloured\nby the opinion prevailing at the time when they themselves were once\nfaintly interested in the subject; and thus there is, at present,\nan inertia of ignorance, due to the misconceptions and prejudices of\nolder generations. The opinions of our elders, being formed on a riper\nexperience, very properly enlist our respect; but, unfortunately,\nin this instance they are based upon false premises, and so lead us\nastray. People who remember when Darwin first propounded his theory,\nand the violent, not to say virulent, opposition with which it was\nreceived by the Church, only too often remain in blissful ignorance of\nall that has since transpired. It is quite enough for them that they\nare erect, tailless, speaking, reflecting bipeds. With attributes such\nas these, they fondly imagine that they are separated from the beast\nby a gulf that neither Evolution nor any other theory could possibly\nbridge. Whatever the reasons may be--and there are many--the vast\nmajority of Christians not only remain woefully ignorant of Evolution,\nbut have no desire to learn anything more about it. They know it is\nopposed to Bible teaching. They prefer, as it has been well said,\nto consider themselves fallen angels rather than elevated apes.\n\nWe are not, however, concerned here with likes and dislikes, but only\nwith the truth as far as our reason allows us to discover it. Moreover,\nif it be objected that we can take no pride in an animal ancestry,\nsurely we may say the same of our savage ancestry. \"He who has seen\na savage in his native land will not feel much shame if forced to\nacknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his\nveins. For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic\nlittle monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the\nlife of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the\nmountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of\nastonished dogs, as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies,\noffers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse,\ntreats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by\nthe grossest superstitions.\" [137] \"We must acknowledge, as it seems\nto me, that man, with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which\nfeels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only\nto other men, but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like\nintellect, which has penetrated into the movement and constitution\nof the solar system--with all these exalted powers--man still bears\nin his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.\" [138]\n\n\n\nTHE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH.\n\nNow let us consider the opinions of our spiritual guides. At the\nShrewsbury Church Conference, in 1896, Archbishop Temple said that,\n\"in his opinion, the full acceptance of the doctrine of Evolution\nwould prove a great help to Christian thought and Christian life.\" In\nhis book, The Relations between Religion and Science, he states that\n\"the doctrine of Evolution leaves the argument for an intelligent and\nbeneficent Creator and Governor of the world stronger than it was\nbefore.\" A decade has passed, and still how few Christians know of\nthis \"help,\" of this \"stronger argument\"! In the course of his address\nat the Weymouth Church Conference in 1905, the Bishop of Gloucester\nadmitted that \"Darwin's teaching on evolution and development\" had\n\"revolutionised our ideas of God's action in nature.\" If this be\nso, how comes it that such a vast number of the pious still adhere\nto the old ideas? Is it not the duty of the pastor to educate his\nflock? What \"ideas of God's action in nature\" are missionaries even\nnow putting into the heads of their converts? If we inquired of the\naverage religionist, should we find that his or her ideas had been\nrevolutionised? Not only are worshippers in the House of God kept in\nignorance, but theological students are distinctly warned against the\nfull acceptance of the doctrine of Evolution. For instance, Dr. Orr,\na professor of apologetics, delivered a course of lectures before the\nprofessors and students of the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1903,\nthe object of which was to show the dangers that must accrue to the\nFaith if the theories of Darwin were accepted in their entirety. He\nstoutly denied that man and woman were an evolution by slow stages\nfrom creatures that had gone before, and asserted that the first\nman came into being, as did the first woman, by a special act of\ncreation. Unfortunately for the validity of his assertion he labours\nunder the delusion that science concedes that man, or anything like\nman, cannot be traced further back than the post-glacial period,\nand that the brain capacity and physical characteristics of primeval\nman stood on as high a level as the average man of to-day! [139]\n\nIn a recently-published letter, [140] written by Charles Kingsley to\na correspondent, we read: \"My own belief in the general truth of my\nfriend Darwin's views--which deepen day by day as I verify them--has\nonly given me wider and deeper and nobler notions of God's works in the\nmaterial universe.\" He then proceeds to illustrate his own thoughts\nby a charming little story of a certain old heathen Khan, who was\ndelighted with the idea of a God so wise that he made all things make\nthemselves. This old Khan and Charles Kingsley overlook an objection\nwhich to myself, and to many others, seems quite insuperable--namely,\nthat a God so wise and merciful would have seen his way to prevent\nthat frightful wastefulness and cruelty which is part and parcel of\nthe evolutionary process. But more of this difficulty anon.\n\nTo give another example of a clerical evolutionist: the\nRev. G. S. Streatfield, vicar of Christ Church, Hampstead, on May\n22nd, 1901, read a paper at the Southport Conference on \"Questions\nthat Must be Faced,\" in which he conceded that \"the fact of Evolution\nis now hardly questioned in the scientific world--one might almost say\nin the world of thought.\" He, too, is charmed with the new theory, for\nhe says: \"It is, I suppose, generally agreed that the evolutionist has\nworthier, more rational, more truly philosophical views of the Divine\nWill and Action than those who hold the traditional theory.\" Clerics\nof his stamp and school are now becoming more outspoken, and admit\ntheir convictions in public instead of in writings that are likely\nto be seen only by a select few. Only lately the Dean of Westminster,\naddressing a large gathering of Sunday-school teachers, told them that\nthe idea that the human species was separately created was given up,\nand the fact of man's descent from lower organisms accepted. While\nadmiring his candour, one cannot help calling to mind that in 1860\nProfessor Huxley was utterly ridiculed by erudite scholars of the\nChurch for making a precisely similar statement.\n\nBetween those who accept and those who entirely reject Evolution there\nare various shades of opinion. There are those who accept everything\nshort of the evolution of certain mental faculties; although students\nof comparative psychology now admit that the intellectual faculties\nof animals differ from those in man in degree only, not in their\nessence. There are those like the Rev. John Urquhart, author of a\nbrochure called Roger's Reasons, who seek to reconcile the Bible\nstory of creation with the Evolution theory, although any such\ninterpretation was put out of court long ago by Professor Huxley's\nreply to Mr. Gladstone. [141] There are those who, like Dr. Torrey,\n[142] persist in altogether denying our animal origin, although\nthere is hardly a single scientist, hardly a single thoughtful man,\nwho has studied the subject without bias, who believes anything else.\n\nThe number of clergymen who openly admit the truth of Evolution is as\nyet comparatively small. The few who do express their opinion openly,\nprofess to be delighted with the new light that has now been shed upon\nGod's methods. The question arises, How is it, then, that we hear so\nlittle about Evolution from the pulpit, and that, consequently, the\nfaithful are kept in ignorance of this fresh revelation? The answer\nis obvious: It is because the advanced divines have yet to educate\ntheir congregations up to their way of thinking, and the process has,\nfor many reasons, to be conducted with extreme caution. They know full\nwell that they have a difficult and dangerous task before them; that\nthose who accept Evolution, but are unable to accept their opinions\nconcerning its spiritual helpfulness, will lapse into agnosticism. They\nalso know that their views are not popular with conservative believers.\n\nThe chief reason, perhaps, for pulpit reticence is that the\nenormous majority in the Church still remain hostile to this new\ndoctrine. They consider it to be dangerous, and likely to unsettle\npeople's minds. Possibly in their inmost souls, if they have studied\nEvolution at all, they agree with a certain distinguished essayist\nwho says: \"A God who could have been deliberately guilty of them (the\nEvolutionary processes) would be a God too absurd, too monstrous, too\nmad to be credible.\" [143] The cruelty of the law of prey and struggle\nfor existence, and the wastefulness of Nature's arrangements for the\nreproduction of life (plant and animal alike), do, indeed, appear\nsufficient warrant for some such painful impression; while, as if this\nwere not enough, there is for the Christian the additional difficulty\nof reconciling Evolution with the Bible story of the Creation and Fall\nof man. These various difficulties must now be carefully investigated.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. \"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw.\"\n\nDarwin tells us that \"there is no exception to the rule that every\norganic being naturally increases at such a high rate that, if not\ndestroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single\npair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and\nat this rate in less than a thousand years there would literally not\nbe standing room for his progeny.\" [144] [I commend this passage to\nthe notice of President Roosevelt and others who are so anxious that\nwe should obey God's command to Noah, and \"be fruitful and multiply,\nand replenish the earth.\"] \"If all the offspring of the elephant,\nthe slowest breeder known, survived, there would be, in seven hundred\nand fifty years, nearly nineteen million elephants, descended from\nthe first pair. If the eight or nine million eggs which the roe of\na cod is said to contain, developed into adult codfishes, the sea\nwould quickly become a solid mass of them. It is the same with the\nplants. The lower organisms multiply with an astonishing rapidity, some\nminute fungi increasing a billion-fold in a few hours. But we need not\ngive further examples of this fecundity whereby Nature, 'so careless\nof the single life,' secures the race against extinction. The result\nis obvious--a ceaseless struggle for food and place. In that struggle\nthe race is to the swift, and the battle to the strong; the weaker,\nbe it in brain or body, going to the wall; the vast majority never\nreaching maturity, or, if they do, attaining it only to be starved or\nslain. As among men competition is sharper between those of the same\ntrade, so throughout the organic world the struggle is less severe\nbetween different species than between members of the same species,\nbecause these compete more fiercely for their common needs--plants\nfor the same soil, carnivora for the same prey.\" [145]\n\nThe problem of evil has exercised the mind of man from all time, and\nhas never yet been solved. In our own time the solution by theology\nseems farther off than ever, now that the existence of the Devil is\ndenied, while the law of prey and struggle for existence is admitted\nto be the Creator's own handiwork--to be His Divine plan for the\nevolution of all living things. Surely we must admit the inherent\ncruelty of the process? Professor Huxley, in an article on the\n\"Struggle for Existence,\" concludes that, \"since thousands of times\na minute, were our ears sharp enough, we should hear sighs and groans\nof pain like those heard by Dante at the gate of hell [not to mention\nwhat we should not hear--the anguish and terror borne in silence],\nthe world cannot be governed by what we call benevolence.\" [146]\n\nWinwood Reade, in his striking book, The Martyrdom of Man, says:\n\"But it is when we open the Book of Nature, that book inscribed in\nblood and tears; it is when we study the laws regulating life, the\nlaws productive of development, that we see plainly how illusive\nis this theory that God is Love. In all things there is cruel,\nprofligate, and abandoned waste. Of all the animals that are born a\nfew only can survive; and it is owing to this law that development\ntakes place. The law of murder is the law of growth. Life is one long\ntragedy; creation is one great crime. Is it the law of a kind Creator\nthat no animal shall rise to excellence except by being fatal to the\nlife of others? It is useless to say that pain has its benevolence,\nthat massacre has its mercy. Why is it so ordained that bad should be\nthe raw material of good? Pain is not less pain because it is useful;\nmurder is not less murder because it is conducive to development. There\nis blood upon the hand still, and all the perfumes of Arabia will\nnot sweeten it.\" [147]\n\nRobert Blatchford (Nunquam), in his book, God and My Neighbour,\nwhich has caused no little stir of late in certain quarters, speaks\nto the same effect: \"On land and in sea the animal creation chase and\nmaim and slay and devour each other. The beautiful swallow on the\nwing devours the equally beautiful gnat. The graceful flying fish,\nlike a fair white bird, goes glancing above the blue magnificence of\nthe tropical seas. His flight is one of terror; he is pursued by the\nravenous dolphin. The ichneumon-fly lays eggs under the skin of the\ncaterpillar. The eggs are hatched by the warmth of the caterpillar's\nblood. They produce a brood of larv\u00e6 which devour the caterpillar\nalive.... A germ flies from a stagnant pool, and the laughing child,\nits mother's darling, dies dreadfully of diphtheria. A tidal wave rolls\nland-ward, and twenty thousand human beings are drowned or crushed\nto death. A volcano bursts suddenly into eruption, and the beautiful\ncity is a heap of ruins, and its inhabitants are charred or mangled\ncorpses. And the Heavenly Father, who is Love and has power to save,\nmakes no sign.... Only man helps man. Only man pities; only man tries\nto save.\"\n\n\"But,\" it may be said, \"you are giving only the one side--the\nfreethinker's side--of the question. What are the Christian\nevolutionist's replies to these terrible attacks upon our Heavenly\nFather?\" You shall hear them, and judge for yourself whether they\nare likely to convince the multitude.\n\nIn the second chapter of his book on Darwinism, Dr. Alfred Russel\nWallace lays himself out to say all that can be said, and a\ngreat deal that cannot reasonably be said, in extenuation of God's\nplan. He owns that, \"to many persons, Nature appears calm, orderly,\nand peaceful. They see the birds singing in the trees, the insects\nhovering over the flowers, and all living things in the possession\nof health and in the enjoyment of a sunny existence. But they do\nnot see, and hardly ever think of, the means by which this beauty\nand harmony and enjoyment is brought about. They do not see the\nconstant and daily search after food, the failure to obtain which\nmeans weakness or death; the constant effort to escape enemies;\nthe ever-recurring struggle against the forces of Nature. This daily\nand hourly struggle, this incessant warfare, is, nevertheless, the\nvery means by which much of the beauty and harmony and enjoyment\nin Nature is produced, and also affords one of the most important\nelements in bringing about the origin of the species.\" After showing\nthat the struggle for existence has proved a stumbling-block in the\nway of those who would fain believe in the all-wise and benevolent\nRuler of the universe, he goes on to say that \"all this is greatly\nexaggerated\"; that \"the supposed torments and miseries of animals\nhave little real existence, but are the reflection of the imagined\nsensations of cultivated men and women under similar circumstances\";\nand that \"the amount of actual suffering caused by the struggle for\nexistence among animals is altogether insignificant.\" Space, and\na consideration for a possibly impatient reader, prevent my wading\nthrough the paltry reasons he proceeds to bring forward in order to\ntry to prove that pain is not pain, and that the less degree of pain\nsuffered by an animal or a savage is an excuse for its infliction.\n\nThe Rev. Professor Flint's book on Theism [148] is much patronised by\nthe Church as an apologetic book of the highest order. The Professor\ntries to show (p. 204) that, although the process of development\ninvolves privation, pain, and conflict, it is subservient to the\nnoblest end, because the final result is, as he alleges, order and\nbeauty. All the perfections of sentient creatures are, he owns, due to\nthis painful process. \"Through it the lion has gained its strength,\nthe deer its speed, the dog its sagacity. The suffering which the\nconflict involves may indicate that God has made even animals for\nsome higher end than happiness--that He cares for animals' perfection\nas well as for animals' enjoyment. The ends are eminently worthy of a\nDivine intelligence.\" The Professor does not explain why, to paraphrase\none of Mr. Lowes Dickenson's sage remarks, the less perfectly evolved\ngenerations should be sacrificed in order that future generations may\nbe heirs of an unearned increment. Myself, I fail to see that even\nthe ends, whatever they may happen to be--and they appear distinctly\nnebulous--can ever justify the cruel means; and I feel sure that our\ndumb fellow-creatures, the principal parties concerned, would agree\nwith me, had they the power of reflection and speech. How can they,\nhow can we, profess to approve of a plan that brings only unhappiness\nin its train? Suppose it were necessary in order to give more happiness\nin an after-life, the creature might meekly wonder why he or she had\nfirst to suffer pain, but could imagine, as the pious imagine, that\nit must be for some good purpose. Does Dr. Flint mean to say that\nthere is an after-life for all living things? The learned Professor\ntries to explain pain away by describing its preservative use. He\nsays (p. 246): \"Were animals insusceptible of pain, they would be\nin continual peril.\" That would certainly spoil the evolutionary\nCreator's plans; but it hardly excuses His methods. Professor Flint,\nhowever, argues that, though pain is not an end in itself, it is a\nmeans to an end, and \"its end is a benevolent one.\" How, I ask does it\nprofit the creature itself to become ever so graceful in appearance,\never so perfect in mind and body, if it is only to gratify its Maker,\nwho has an end in view with which it is in no wise itself concerned,\nand to attain which infinite pain has to be endured? Which would you\nor I rather be--lovely and unhappy, or ugly and happy?\n\nThere is another of these attempts to relieve doubt which I should\nlike to bring to notice. The little book entitled In Relief of Doubt,\nby the Rev. E. Welsh, highly recommended by the Bishop of London,\nand one of the books selected by the Christian Evidence Society for\ntheir examination in March, 1907, is quoted from by Dr. Warschauer\n[149] when refuting Mr. Blatchford's remarks on the cruelty of\nNature. Dr. Warschauer selects the passage where Mr. Welsh says\n(p. 103): \"We probably overstate the actual anguish of the lower\ncreatures, imagining that they are bundles of sensitive nerves\nand quick brains like our own, and that they therefore have our\nsensibility to pain. A trodden worm writhes, and we credit it with\nall the pain that the foot of a Brobdingnag would inflict on a\ndelicate child under his heel.\" Now, I am quite sure we credit no\nsuch thing. If we did, we, and especially the Isaak Waltons among us,\nwould be perfect monsters of cruelty. Mark, too, how Messrs. Welsh and\nWarschauer carefully select for their illustration a worm--one of the\nlowly organised invertebrates! I may mention that Dr. Warschauer's\nbook was particularly recommended to me by a well-read cleric,\nwho thought that it was an admirable and complete refutation of\nMr. Blatchford's arguments. Dr. Warschauer will hardly advance his\ncause by transparently omitting all mention of the higher animals,\nor of that bundle of nerves called man.\n\nNor will the average man agree with Professor Wallace that \"it is\ndifficult even to imagine a system by which a greater balance of\nhappiness could have been secured.\" Was it, for example, impossible for\nGod to have decreed that sentient life should feed only on non-sentient\nlife? Could He not have brought about development without all this\nterrible struggle? One would think that Messrs. Warschauer and Wallace\nmust not only have had a particularly good time themselves in this\nworld, but must have purposely shut their eyes to the misery all round\nthem. If they had to change places with a wounded Russian or Japanese\nwrithing in agony on the battlefield, I wonder whether their optimism\nwould stand the test? The bravest of us shudder at the idea of being\nburied alive, and yet this was just the very fate of many a poor fellow\nin that truly terrible war. Not that man did not do his utmost. \"One\nby one the dead and injured were carefully and tenderly taken out,\"\nrelates an eye-witness, \"and many a tear was shed by strong men at\nthe terrible sights we had to witness. The worst part of our work was\nto have to endure the agonising cries of the men who were suffering\nterrible torture; but everyone helped so willingly that we felt that\nwe were not doing enough.\" Please note, on the one hand, the cruel\ntorture, and, on the other, the sympathy of man.\n\nI will not weary or distress you further, gentle reader, with harrowing\ndetails of the pain that is endured alike by man and beast. It is\nall so well known. I shall only ask you to listen to a little story\nfrom the leaves of a naturalist's note-book, and to put to yourself\na few questions. \"A sparrow-hawk suddenly dashed under the branches\nof a hedgerow oak, and seized a linnet. But the bird of prey had not\ncalculated upon the missel-thrush whose nest was in the oak, and who\nmade it his business to have no suspicious strangers loitering in\nthe neighbourhood. With an angry 'jarr,' and a swoop that would have\ndone credit to the hawk himself, the plucky missel-thrush was upon\nthe marauder almost at the same instant that the linnet was seized;\na feather--a hawk's feather--floated in the air, and the astonished\nbird of prey flung himself sideways, and spread his talons to meet\nthe next assault. This action released the linnet, who sped away into\nthe next parish like a bullet, while the missel-thrush, perched in\nthe oak tree again, noisily threatened to repeat the attack. So the\nsparrow-hawk departed in the opposite direction to the linnet, and\nin two minutes all birddom was twittering and squabbling as before\non the site of what was so very nearly a sudden tragedy.\" Is not your\nsympathy, humane reader, all with the linnet and its gallant rescuer,\nalthough the hawk was but carrying out the behests of its Maker! Does\nit not give us a thrill of pleasure when the lion is baulked of his\nprey--when the pet lamb is rescued from the butcher? Are we, then,\nmore merciful than God? Was it Jesus or was it the gentle Gautama\nthat marked\n\n\n        \"How lizard fed on ant, and snake on him,\n        And kite on both; and how the fish-hawk robbed\n        The fish-tiger of that which it had seized;\n        The shrike chasing the bulbul, which did hunt\n        The jewelled butterflies; till everywhere\n        Each slew a slayer, and in turn was slain,\n        Life living upon death. So the fair show,\n        Veiled one vast, savage, grim conspiracy\n        Of mutual murder, from the worm to man,\n        Who himself kills his fellow\"? [150]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Bible Account of Creation Irreconcilable with Science in\nEach and Every Respect.\n\nThe hypothesis respecting the past history of Nature, which was\nformerly, and is still very largely, accepted by Christians, is\nthe doctrine fully and clearly stated in the immortal poem of John\nMilton--the English Divina Commedia--Paradise Lost. There is the best\nof reasons for the popularity of this doctrine. It agrees literally\nwith the plain words of the Bible. The hypothesis is briefly this:\n\"That this visible universe of ours came into existence at no great\ndistance of time from the present, and that the parts of which it is\ncomposed made their appearance, in a certain definite order, in the\nspace of six natural days, in such a manner that on the first of these\ndays light appeared; that on the second the firmament or sky separated\nthe waters above from the waters beneath the firmament; that on the\nthird day the waters drew away from the dry land, and upon it a varied\nvegetable life, similar to that which now exists, made its appearance;\nthat the fourth day was signalised by the apparition of the sun, the\nstars, the moon, and the planets; that on the fifth day aquatic animals\noriginated within the waters; that on the sixth day the earth gave\nrise to our four-footed terrestrial creatures, and to all variations of\nterrestrial animals except birds, which had appeared on the preceding\nday; and, finally, that man appeared upon the earth, and the emergence\nof the universe from chaos was finished.\" [151] This interpretation\nis that which has been instilled into most of us in our childhood;\nbut, \"if we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority,\nwe must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis--as if\nvery great pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of\nmistake--is not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided\ninto periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience\nrequires. We are also to understand that it is consistent with the\noriginal text to believe that the most complex plants and animals\nmay have been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of\nyears, out of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew\nscholar can only stand aside and admire the marvellous flexibility\nof a language which admits of such diverse interpretations.\" [152]\n\nFurthermore, we are to understand that there is no disagreement\nbetween theology and science in the sequence of the six acts of\ncreation. Here at least we are not asked to twist words round so that\none may mean a million. We have a definite statement which science\neither supports or it does not. The reader who knows that the verdict\nof science is negative may ask: \"What is the use of wasting my time\nover a Christian argument which has long since been exploded?\" I\ncrave his pardon and patience; but, however true it may be that\nMr. Gladstone's position was shown to be untenable, it is equally\ntrue that an enormous number of persons still persist in maintaining\nthat there is a remarkable coincidence of the Pentateuchal story with\nthe result of modern investigation, and that science supports them in\nthis conclusion. The Very Rev. Henry Wace, D.D., Dean of Canterbury,\nin his address before the Christian Association of University College,\nLondon, on May 7th, 1903, reminded his hearers that a President of the\nBritish Association (Sir William Dawson) had stated that \"it would\nnot be easy even now to construct a statement of the development\nof the world in popular terms so concise and so accurate\" as the\nfirst chapter of Genesis. And Dr. Wace asks: \"From whence could have\ncome this marvellous approximation, to say the least, to the facts\nwhich science has been slowly revealing but from the Divine wisdom\nwhich alone was cognizant of them, and could alone make them known\nto mankind?\"\n\nA short time ago a lady very kindly sent me a little pamphlet,\nentitled Roger's Reasons; or, The Bible and Science, written by the\nRev. John Urquhart. In this there is a resurrection pie of the old,\nold arguments, dished up again in such a guise as to take in the\nunwary and ill-informed, who would have no suspicion that the food\nthus given them for their refection was not only stale, but had\nbeen condemned as unfit for mental consumption by the whole of the\nscientific faculty. The lady above mentioned considered the reasoning\nperfectly convincing, and so possibly would ninety-nine Christian\nladies out of a hundred. Mr. Urquhart is now much in evidence as a\nChristian apologist, and his pamphlet is being distributed broadcast\n(81,000 have already been issued), so that it does seem worth while\ntaking some notice of the attempts that are still being made to treat\nthe Creation myth as a Divine revelation. That modern science does\nnot support either the interpretation put upon the Bible story of the\nCreation by Mr. Urquhart or by Mr. Gladstone, or any interpretation\nwhich is compatible with the general sense of the narrative, can\nbe ascertained by anyone who will read Professor Huxley's essays,\n\"The Interpreters of Genesis\" and \"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis.\" A few\nquotations from these essays may enable the reader to form a slight\nidea of the decisive manner in which the assertion that modern science\nsupports the Bible narrative is controverted by science herself.\n\nSpeaking of Mr. Gladstone's contention that the statements in the\nfirst two verses of Genesis are supported by the nebular hypothesis,\nProfessor Huxley remarks: \"But science knows nothing of any stage\nin which the universe could be said, in other than a metaphorical\nand popular sense, to be formless or empty; or in any respect less\nthe seat of law and order than it is now. One might as well talk of\na fresh-laid hen's egg being 'without form and void' because the\nchick therein is potential and not actual, as apply such terms to\nthe nebulous mass which contains a potential solar system.\"\n\nIn a note at the end of the second essay, \"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis,\"\nthere is an excellent exposition of the \"Proper Sense of the 'Mosaic'\nNarrative of the Creation.\" Among other points, Huxley, of course,\nnotices how the stars are, as it were, thrown in--\"He made the stars\nalso.\" These words have always struck me as making it peculiarly clear\nthat the \"Mosaic\" narrative originated from man, and not from God. The\nunknown authors of the Hexateuchal compilation were almost as ignorant\nof the nature of the stars and of their unthinkable distance away\nfrom us as a camel-driver in Sind, who gravely informed a friend of\nmine that the stars were once quite close to the earth, until one fine\nday a certain woman (it is always the woman who causes the mischief)\ngrabbed hold of one and used it for cleaning her child, whereupon\nthe gods, much annoyed at such presumption on the part of mankind,\nmoved them far enough off to be safe from further desecration.\n\nThat the order of Creation as given in the Bible cannot be maintained\nwill be clearly seen if we take the particular case of the birds and\ncreeping things. Science does not affirm that the birds were made\nbefore \"everything that creepeth upon the earth.\" Mr. Gladstone\ntries to get over the difficulty by excluding reptiles, lizards,\netc., from the category of creeping things. This will appear in the\ncourse of the following quotations from Professor Huxley's essay on\n\"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis\":--\n\n\"Mr. Gladstone's views as to the proper method of dealing with grave\nand difficult scientific and religious problems had permitted him\nto base a solemn 'plea for a revelation of truth from God' upon an\nerror as to a matter of fact, from which the intelligent perusal of\na manual of pal\u00e6ontology would have saved him.... He does, indeed,\nmake a great parade of authorities, and I have the greatest respect for\nthose authorities whom Mr. Gladstone mentions. If he will get them to\nsign a joint memorial to the effect that our present pal\u00e6ontological\nevidence proves that birds appeared before the 'land population'\nof terrestrial reptiles, I shall think it my duty to reconsider my\nposition--but not till then.... I have every respect for the singer\nof the Song of the Three Children (whoever he may have been);\nI desire to cast no shadow of doubt upon, but, on the contrary,\nmarvel at, the exactness of Mr. Gladstone's information as to the\nconsiderations which 'affected the method of the Mosaic writer';\nnor do I venture to doubt that the inconvenient intrusion of these\ncontemptible reptiles--'a family fallen from greatness,' a miserable,\ndecayed aristocracy reduced to mere 'skulkers about the earth,'\nin consequence, apparently, of difficulties about the occupation\nof land arising out of the earth-hunger of their former serfs,\nthe mammals--into an apologetic argument, which would otherwise run\nquite smoothly, is in every way to be deprecated. Still, the wretched\ncreatures stand there, importunately demanding notice; and, however\ndifferent may be the practice in that contentious atmosphere with\nwhich Mr. Gladstone expresses and laments his familiarity, in the\natmosphere of science it really is of no avail whatever to shut one's\neyes to facts, or to try and bury them out of sight under a tumulus\nof rhetoric.... However reprehensible, and, indeed, contemptible,\nterrestrial reptiles may be, the only question which appears to me\nto be relevant to my argument is whether these creatures are or are\nnot comprised under the denomination of 'everything that creepeth\nupon the ground.'... Hence I commend the following extract from the\neleventh chapter of Leviticus to Mr. Gladstone's serious attention:--\n\n\n    And these are they which are unclean unto you among the creeping\n    things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse,\n    and the great lizard after its kind, and the gecko, and the\n    land-crocodile, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon. These\n    are they which are unclean to you among all that creep (v. 29-31).\n\n\nThe merest Sunday-school exegesis, therefore, suffices to prove that,\nwhen the Mosaic writer in Genesis 1. 24 speaks of 'creeping things,'\nhe means to include lizards among them. This being so, it is agreed\non all hands that terrestrial lizards and other reptiles allied to\nlizards occur in the Permian strata. It is further agreed that the\nTriassic strata were deposited after these. Moreover, it is well known\nthat, even if certain footprints are to be taken as unquestionable\nevidence of the existence of birds, they are not known to occur in\nrocks earlier than the Trias, while indubitable remains of birds are\nnot to be met with till much later. Hence it follows that natural\nscience does not 'affirm' the statement that birds were made on the\nfifth day, and 'everything that creepeth on the ground' on the sixth,\non which Mr. Gladstone rests his order; for, as is shown by Leviticus,\nthe 'Mosaic writer' includes lizards among his creeping things.\" [153]\n\nThe crust of the earth is a book having for its pages strata that have,\nfortunately, been upturned for our perusal, and the story it tells\nmust be true. The series of fossiliferous deposits which contain the\nremains of the animals which have lived on the earth in past ages\nof its history afford the evidence required concerning the order of\nappearance of the different species. As Professor Huxley says elsewhere\n[154]: \"When we consider these simple facts, we see how absolutely\nfutile are the attempts that have been made to draw a parallel between\nthe story told by so much of the crust of the earth as is known to us\nand the story which Milton tells.\" Still, the story which Milton tells\nis in accord with the story which the Bible tells to those who are\nnot given to playing conjuring tricks with the plain meaning of words.\n\nFinally, we must remember that \"hundreds of thousands of animal\nspecies, as distinct as those which now compose our water, land, and\nair populations, have come into existence and died out again.\" \"If the\nspecies of animals have all been separately created, then it follows\nthat hundreds of thousands of acts of creative energy have occurred,\nat intervals throughout the whole time recorded by the fossiliferous\nrocks; and, during the greater part of that time, the 'creation' of\nthe members of the water, land, and air populations must have gone\non contemporaneously.\" [155]\n\nThe common-sense view of the Creation story, and one that is now widely\naccepted even by orthodox Christians, is that it is a myth. Many\nof us will, therefore, agree with Professor Huxley when he says:\n\"I suppose it to be an hypothesis respecting the origin of the\nuniverse which some ancient thinker found himself able to reconcile\nwith his knowledge, or what he thought was knowledge, of the nature\nof things, and therefore assumed to be true. As such, I hold it to be\nnot merely an interesting, but a venerable, monument of a stage in the\nmental progress of mankind; and I find it difficult to suppose that\nany one who is acquainted with the cosmogonies of other nations--and\nespecially with those of the Egyptians and the Babylonians, with whom\nthe Israelites were in such frequent and intimate communication--should\nconsider it to possess either more or less scientific importance than\nmay be allotted to these.\" [156]\n\nIt may not be inappropriate to conclude this section with Milton's\nconception of the last act of creation, so charmingly simple and so\nstrictly according to the Bible and what Christ Himself believed,\nand yet so completely untrue:--\n\n\n        The sixth, and of creation last, arose\n        With ev'ning harps and matin, when God said,\n        Let the earth bring forth soul living in her kind:\n        Cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth,\n        Each in their kind. The earth obey'd, and straight\n        Op'ning her fertile womb teem'd at a birth\n        Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms,\n        Limb'd and full grown....\n\n        There waited yet the master-work, the end\n        Of all yet done; a creature who, not prone\n        And brute as other creatures, but indu'd\n        With sanctity of reason, might erect\n        His stature, and upright with front serene\n        Govern the rest, self knowing:...\n\n        ... Therefore the omnipotent\n        Eternal Father--for where is not he\n        Present?--thus to his Son audibly spake:\n        Let us make now man in our image, man\n        In our similitude, and let them rule\n        Over the fish and fowl of sea and air,\n        Beast of the field, and over all the earth,\n        And every creeping thing that creeps the ground.\n        Thus said, he form'd thee, Adam, thee, O man,\n        Dust of the ground, and in thy nostrils breath'd\n        The breath of life: in his own image he\n        Created thee, in the image of God\n        Express, and thou becam'st a living soul.\n\n            --Paradise Lost, Book VII., 449-456, 505-510, 516-528.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Proofs of Our Animal Origin.\n\nThe third and last of the Evolution stumbling-blocks is that connected\nwith the dogma of the Fall and Atonement. Before considering this, it\nwill be better, I think, to summarise as briefly and simply as possible\nsome of the chief proofs of our animal origin. The well-informed can\nskip this section, which is intended for the benefit of that vast\nmajority--the ill-informed. Space will not permit me to do much more\nthan allude to the proofs; but anyone really desirous of convincing\nhimself or herself of the truth of the doctrine, and at the same\ntime wishing to avoid details that might possibly prove wearisome,\nwill find it popularly treated in Huxley's work on Man's Place in\nNature (Macmillan); in Dennis Hird's An Easy Outline of Evolution\n(Watts & Co.; 2s. 6d.); in Edward Clodd's The Story of Creation\n(Watts & Co.; 6d.); in S. Laing's Modern Science and Modern Thought\n(Watts & Co.; 6d.); in Haeckel's Riddle of the Universe (Watts & Co.;\n6d.), though this can hardly, perhaps, be described as popular; and in\nMetchnikoff's The Nature of Man (Heinemann, 1903; 12s. 6d.). The most\ncomplete work on the subject is Haeckel's The Evolution of Man (Watts\n& Co., 1905; 42s.; abridged edition, 2s.). This is in two volumes,\ncopiously illustrated, of which the first is entirely devoted to human\nembryology or ontogeny, a branch of science which furnishes the most\noverwhelming evidence.\n\n\n\nThe proofs may, roughly speaking, be grouped under three heads--the\nextraordinary affinity of bodily structure, the revelations of\nembryology, and the tale told by the useless rudimentary organs. We\nwill commence with\n\n\n\nTHE EXTRAORDINARY AFFINITY OF BODILY STRUCTURE.\n\n\"It is notorious that man is constructed on the same general type\nor model with other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can be\ncompared with corresponding bones in a monkey, bat, or seal. So it\nis with his muscles, nerves, blood-vessels, and viscera. The brain,\nthe most important of all the organs, follows the same law, as shown\nby Huxley and other anatomists.\" [157] Man's nearest animal relations\nare the tailless anthropoid or man-like apes--namely, the gorilla,\nthe chimpanzee, the orang, and the gibbon. \"Now that all the details\nof the human organisation have been studied, and the anatomical\nstructures of man and large monkeys without tails have been compared,\nbone with bone, and muscle with muscle, a truly astonishing analogy\nbetween these organisms is made manifest--an analogy apparent in every\ndetail.\" [158] The following are some of the points more particularly\ncalling for notice:--\n\nDentition.--In the natural history of mammals the teeth play\nan important part as a means of determining differences and\nrelationships. \"Everyone knows the milk teeth and the permanent\nteeth of man. The anthropoid apes bear in this respect an astonishing\nlikeness to man. The number (thirty-two in the adult), the form and\ngeneral arrangement of the crown, are identical in man and anthropoid\napes. The differences are to be found only in minor details.\" [159]\n\"But the fact must not be lost sight of that all these differences\nare less pronounced than those which exist between the dentition of\nanthropoid apes and that of all other monkeys.\" [160]\n\nThe Foot.--Anti-evolutionists have laid great stress on the difference\nbetween the foot of a man and that of an anthropoid ape. But it is\nclearly shown by Huxley that in all essential respects the hinder\nlimb of the gorilla terminates in as true a foot as that of man,\n[161] and \"that, be the differences between the hand and foot of man\nand those of the gorilla what they may, the differences between those\nof the gorilla and those of the lower apes are much greater.\" [162]\n\nThe Sacrum.--\"In monkeys, as a whole, the sacrum is composed of\nthree, or rarely four, vertebr\u00e6, while in anthropoid apes it contains\nfive--that is to say, just as many as in man.\" [163]\n\nThe Skull.--Here the differences are more marked; but again we must\nremind ourselves that, as regards the osteology, Professor Huxley tells\nus that \"for the skull, no less than for the skeleton in general,\nthe proposition holds good that the differences between man and the\ngorilla are of smaller value than those between the gorilla and some\nother apes.\" [164]\n\nThe Brain.--Several distinguished zoologists at one time insisted on\nthe absence in all monkeys of certain parts of the brain peculiarly\ncharacteristic of man, but now it is unanimously accepted that\nthe parts of the brain in question are \"precisely those structures\nwhich are the most marked cerebral characters common to man with the\napes. They are among the most distinctly simian peculiarities which\nthe human organism exhibits.\" [165]\n\nThe difference between the brain of the orang and that of man is a mere\ndifference of degree, and not of kind; and most students of comparative\npsychology now admit that the intellectual faculties of animals differ\nfrom those in man in degree only, not in their essence. Replying to\nhis opponents, Professor Huxley compares the brain of man and that\nof ape with two watches, one of which will, and the other will not,\nkeep accurate time. He exclaims: \"A hair in the balance-wheel, a little\nrust on a pinion, a bend in a tooth of the escapement, a something so\nslight that only the practised eye of the watchmaker can discover it,\nmay be the source of all the difference.\" [166]\n\nThe late Sir Charles Lyell mentions in his Antiquity of Man how\nDr. Sumner, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, brought out in strong\nrelief fifty years ago, in his Records of Creation, one essential\ncharacter separating man from the brute. As the same argument is still\nbeing \"brought out,\" and is, on the face of it, exceedingly plausible,\nand as the answer to it has to do with the brain, it cannot be passed\nover. Dr. Sumner said: \"It has been sometimes alleged, and may be\nfounded on fact, that there is less difference between the highest\nbrute animal and the lowest savage than between the savage and the\nmost improved man. But, in order to warrant the pretended analogy,\nit ought to be also true that this lowest savage is no more capable\nof improvement than the chimpanzee or orang-outang.\" This objection\nis met by some such consideration as the following:--When you examine\nthe enormous difference in the formation of the skull in man and ape\n(look, for instance, at plate xvii., vol. ii. of Haeckel's Evolution\nof Man), and when you remember that this sets hard at an early date,\nyou surely have a good reason for limited improvability. Further, the\nbrain of even the lowest savage represents a development of some half\na million years above the ape along the line of intelligence. How,\nthen, can we dream of making this up in one or a few generations by\nartificial training of the ape? Lastly, we have the enormous leverage\nof language, the inherited wealth of thousands of speaking generations,\nand an incalculable aid to thought. How much is the intelligence of\nthe Microcephal\u00e6, the clucking \"small heads\" lately on show at the\nHippodrome, capable of rapid improvement? Our experiments do not show\nthat the ape is not improvable, but only that we cannot, in a single\ngeneration, lift it over a gulf representing 500,000 years of human\ndevelopment. How can we expect it?\n\nThe Blood.--In the last few years an astonishing confirmation of our\nrelationship to the anthropoid ape has been discovered. We are blood\nrelations. Elie Metchnikoff, Professor at the Pasteur Institute, shows\nthis clearly in his book, The Nature of Man. [167] Until quite recently\nit was not known how to distinguish human blood from that of other\nmammals. A method giving conclusive results has now been discovered,\nand is used in forensic medicine. The same method has been employed in\ncomparing the blood of man and the anthropoid apes, resulting in the\ndiscovery [168] that, in their case, there is practically no blood\ndifference whatever!\n\n\n\nTHE REVELATIONS OF EMBRYOLOGY.\n\nThe opponents of Evolution used to appeal to the special features of\nhuman embryology, which were supposed to distinguish man from all\nthe other mammals; but in 1890 Emil Selenka proved that the same\nfeatures are found in anthropoid apes, especially in the orang,\nwhile the lower apes are without them.\n\n\"When Huxley wrote, the embryological history of anthropoid apes was\npractically unknown. Darwin, Vogt, and Haeckel, in their attempts to\nsupport the theory of the animal origin of man, had not sufficient\nknowledge of the embryology of monkeys. It is only recently that\nimportant work on this subject has been published.... The placenta\noften gives information of great importance in the classification of\nmammals. It is sufficient to glance at the zonary placenta of dogs and\nseals to be convinced of the relationship of these two species which at\nfirst sight seem so different. Now, the placentas of all the anthropoid\napes examined up to the present are of the same discoid type as that of\nman. The arrangement of the umbilical cord of man, which was formerly\nconsidered as quite peculiar to him, is found in anthropoid apes,\nas has been established by Deniker and Selenka. It is striking that\nthe anthropoids resemble man rather than the lower monkeys in the\nrelation of the foetus to the foetal membranes. With regard to the\nembryos themselves, the similarity between those of monkeys and man\nis very great.... The youngest stages of human development that have\nbeen obtained can hardly be distinguished from those of the lower\nmonkeys either in position or shape. More advanced stages exhibit\ngreater differentiation, and the later embryos of man resemble those\nof anthropoids much more closely than those of the lower monkeys. The\nresemblance between the nearly mature foetus of anthropoids and human\nembryos of about the sixth month is evident enough.\" [169]\n\nWe are thus bound, in all honesty, to own up to our ape-like\nprogenitors. But this is only a small portion of the wonderful tale\ntold by Embryology. \"Man is developed from an ovule about 125th of an\ninch in diameter, which differs in no respect from the ovules of other\nanimals,\" [170] and, marvellous to relate, from that stage upwards the\nembryo is one continuous epitome of the history of man's evolution from\nlower forms of life. [171] Up to a certain point the germs, not only\nof all mammals, but of all vertebrate animals, fishes, reptiles, and\nbirds, are scarcely distinguishable. A sceptic may convince himself\nby studying the plates given in Haeckel's The Evolution of Man, and\nespecially plates ix. to xiv., where the embryos of various animals\nare compared. At the more advanced stage, where the embryo has already\npassed the reptilian form, we find that for a considerable time the\nline of development remains the same as that of other mammalia. The\nresemblance, for example, after the first four weeks' growth,\nbetween the embryo of a man and that of a dog is such that it is\nscarcely possible to distinguish the one from the other. Even at the\nage of eight weeks the embryo man is an animal with a tail, hardly\nto be distinguished from an embryo puppy. [172] After this period\nthe embryo emerges from the general mammalian type into the special\norder of primates to which man belongs. Thus does the growth of the\negg from which man springs compress into a few weeks the results of\nmillions of years, and set before us the history of his development\nfrom fish-like and reptilian forms (which, as we have seen, p. 211,\nMr. Gladstone deemed so contemptible and \"fallen from greatness\"),\nand of his more immediate descent from a hairy, tailed quadruped,\nthe extinct common ancestor of man and monkey. As evolution proceeds\nthe embryo rises up to man, and the differences specialising the\nhuman infant at its birth, such as the largeness and more complex\nconvolutions of the brain, become more and more accentuated as its\ngrowth proceeds.\n\nRegarding the question of \"gaps,\" we have to bear in mind that it is\npart of the evolutionary theory that the active processes of evolution\nhave very largely ceased, that existing forms are but a surviving\nremnant with enormous gaps, and that the survivors are so fitted at\npresent to their surroundings that evolutionary forces are causative\nof equilibrium rather than change. We have already seen, too, that\nin the struggle for existence it is among the closely-allied species\nthat the contest is more strenuous, and that the weakest, or least\nfitted to survive, has to go to the wall--to be wiped out. Thus it\nis that there is a tendency for species to become extinct, and for\nthe gaps to be widened. The extraordinary thing is not that we have\nso little direct evidence of descent, but that we have so much. That\nthere are not more links missing is due principally to the discovery\nof fossil remains. When an animal dies, the probabilities are, of\ncourse, enormously against geological preservation of its bones, yet\nthe gaps are continually being filled up by geological finds, and,\nthough the remaining gaps may be great, they are not unaccountable.\n\nI must now pass on to the remaining set of proofs of our origin.\n\n\n\nTHE TALE TOLD BY THE USELESS RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.\n\nPerhaps nothing furnishes a more conclusive proof of our animal origin\nthan the study of rudimentary structures--muscles, sense-organs,\nhair, bones, reproductive organs, etc. There are some which are\n\"either absolutely useless, such as the mamm\u00e6 of the male quadrupeds\nor the incisor teeth of ruminants which never cut through the gums;\nor they are of such slight service to their present possessors that\nwe cannot suppose that they were developed under the conditions which\nnow exist.\" [173] Of useless rudimentary organs, or parts of organs,\nthere are not less than one hundred and seven in man. [174] To this\ncategory belong the coccyx--the vestige of a tail--the muscles of\nthe ear, the vermiform appendage, etc.\n\n\"The os coccyx in man, though functionless as a tail, plainly\nrepresents this part in other vertebrate animals. At an early embryonic\nperiod it is free, and, as we have seen, projects beyond the lower\nextremities.\" [175] It sometimes happens that we find external relics\nof a tail. Professor Haeckel, in Fig. 195, vol. i. of The Evolution\nof Man (library edition), shows the tail of a six months' old boy,\nwhich Granville Harrison removed by operation. The anthropoid ape,\nlike man, has only the rudiment of a tail.\n\nThe ear muscles are rudimentary in man. \"It is well known how readily\ndomestic animals--horses, cows, dogs, hares, etc.--point their\nears and move them in different directions. Most of the apes do the\nsame, and our earlier ape ancestors were also able to do it. But our\nlater simian ancestors, which we have in common with the anthropoid\napes, abandoned the use of these muscles, and they gradually became\nrudimentary and useless. However, we possess them still. In fact,\nsome men can still move their ears a little backward and forward by\nmeans of the drawing and withdrawing muscles; and with practice this\nfaculty can be much improved. But no man can now lift up his ears by\nthe raising muscle, or change the shape of them by the small inner\nmuscles. These muscles were very useful to our ancestors, but are of\nno consequence to us. This applies to most of the anthropoid apes as\nwell.\" [176]\n\nThe vermiform appendage of the coecum is not only practically useless,\nbut the source of that extremely dangerous complaint, appendicitis. It\nis remarkable that this organ is practically identical with the\nvermiform appendage of anthropoid apes, yet none of the other\nmonkeys present any such resemblance with men. Professor Haeckel,\nspeaking of the vermiform appendage, says: \"The only significance\nof it in man is that not infrequently a cherry-stone or some other\nhard and indigestible matter penetrates into its narrow cavity,\nand by setting up inflammation and suppuration causes the death\nof otherwise sound men. Teleology has great difficulty in giving a\nrational explanation of, and attributing to a beneficent Providence,\nthis dreaded appendicitis. In our plant-eating ancestors this\nrudimentary organ was much larger, and had a useful function.\" [177]\n\n\"In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we\nhave only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts\nin question in a perfect state, and that under changed habits of\nlife they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse or\nthrough the natural selection of those individuals which were least\nencumbered with a superfluous part, aided by the other means previously\nindicated.\" [178]\n\nWhatever the precise explanation may be, can we bring ourselves\nto suppose that God created us with a number of useless organs, or\nthat He placed them there as a snare to entrap our judgment? Again,\n\"rudimentary organs, for the most part, display a congenital lack of\nthe power of resistance, and, as Darwin suggested, for this reason\nthey are frequently the seats of disease.\" [179] Can anyone imagine\nhis Maker arranging all this on purpose? I can not. We are assured\nby pious apologists that God has instituted pain in order to save us\nfrom injuring ourselves; how can He, then, have specially provided\nus with organs whose only function is to be a source of danger?\n\nMany other examples might be given bearing on this line of argument;\nbut enough has been said, I hope, to convince the reader that in\nthese rudimentary organs there is overpowering evidence against\nseparate acts of creation, and in favour of an animal origin of the\nhuman race. Besides this, we have also the evidence derived from the\nstudy of our bodily structure and embryonic development. The bearing\nof these three great classes of fact is, as Charles Darwin remarks,\nunmistakeable. \"It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance\nwhich made our own forefathers declare that they were descended from\ndemi-gods, which lead us to demur to this conclusion.\" [180]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. The Overthrow of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin.\n\n\nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION.\n\nNo Biblical standpoint is more directly opposed to modern evolutionary\nviews than the doctrine of the Fall and Atonement. We have seen, in\nthe chapters on the Higher Criticism and on Comparative Mythology,\nthat the Bible story of Creation is nothing but a borrowed legend;\nand we have now seen that it could not in any case be true. If it\nwere, Evolution would be untrue. Now, the account of the fall of man\nis an exceedingly important portion of the Bible, the whole fabric of\nthe Christian faith being constructed upon it; and there is no doubt\nwhatever that the average Christian realises this, and continues to\nbelieve in the \"Fall.\" He may accept the doctrine of the evolution of\nthe physical nature of man; but he flatly denies that his intellect and\nmoral attributes were a part of the process, although such authorities\nas Darwin, Huxley, and Romanes clearly point out that man's intellect\nand moral sense have arisen from lower stages of the same faculties\nin his primate ancestors.\n\nThe conservative Christian believes that man was originally endowed\nwith a lofty moral nature; that he succumbed to temptation; that he\nbecame a degraded being; that he has been working out his punishment\never since; and that his hope of escape from the curse laid upon all\nmankind lies in the atonement made by Jesus Christ. Even if inclined to\nhave views less strictly in accord with the Christian teaching of the\npast eighteen hundred years, he still believes that all this is true in\nsome sort of allegorical sense which cannot be exactly defined. Lastly,\nthere is an ever-swelling host of perplexed Christians who, in their\nheart of hearts, feel much as Mr. Blatchford does when he says:\n\"God is all-powerful. He could have made Adam strong enough to resist\nEve. He could have made Eve strong enough to resist the serpent. He\nneed not have made the serpent at all. God is all-knowing. Therefore,\nwhen He made Adam and Eve and the serpent He knew that Adam and Eve\nmust fall. And if God knew they must fall, how could Adam help falling,\nand how could he justly be blamed for doing what he must do? God made\na bridge--built it Himself, of His own materials, to His own design,\nand knew what the bearing strain of the bridge was. If, then, God\nput upon the bridge a weight equal to double the bearing strain,\nhow could God justly blame the bridge for falling?\" [181]\n\nThe average divine, whatever his denomination, is usually in no\nhurry to accept Evolutionist theories of the Fall, or, if he does,\nhe keeps it to himself. Dean Wace thinks the tale of Eden and the\nFall is partly historical, partly allegorical, and, in any case,\ntrue to Christian experience; and Cardinal Newman considered that the\nwhole orthodox Christian scheme stood or fell with a belief in some\ngreat \"aboriginal catastrophe.\" Progressive divines teach, on the\ncontrary, that the narrative of the Fall is not to be understood as\nliteral history, any more than the visions of the Apocalypse are to\nbe understood as a literal description of heaven. \"For us,\" they say,\n\"the underlying truth, and not the outward form in which that truth is\nclothed, is the essential thing.\" [As our first parents are represented\nas being in a state of guileless simplicity, and subsequently falling\nin with the tempting serpent, who, in obvious contrast with their\nuntried innocence, is described as a being of special subtilty, the\n\"underlying truth\" appears to be that, with God's cognisance, man\nis continually being taken advantage of by a crafty spirit of evil;\nor, to keep more closely to the religious evolutionist's idea, man's\nbetter nature, implanted by God, is being continually got the better\nof by animal instincts implanted by ----?] These enlightened clerics\nare in a somewhat delicate position, and none probably recognise this\nmore than they do themselves, as testified lately by the fact of over\na hundred of their number distributing a manifesto to all the clergy\nof the Church of England, in which they express a desire to receive\nauthoritative encouragement to face critical problems with entire\ncandour. [182]\n\n\n\nAN INSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.\n\nThe gravity of the situation and the divergence of the new from the old\nteaching are summed up by the Church Times in the following pertinent\nremarks:--\"It is impossible for Christians to affect nonchalance as to\nthe result of the controversy between anthropologists like Lubbock,\nLyell, Huxley, Haeckel, and Fiske, who assert the human race to have\ncontinuously (with whatever relapses) progressed out of brutish and\nsqualid barbarism, and those who, like the late Duke of Argyll, Lang,\nTylor, Hartmann, [183] Renouf, and most missionaries, maintain that\nsavagery is a declension from higher things, and that 'man's natural\nstate is civilisation'--not, of course, the civilisation of Paris and\nLondon, of trousers and half-penny papers, nor yet Rousseau's anarchic\ngolden age, but creation in God's image after His likeness. It is said\nthat we need believe no more about our first parents than that they\nwere innocent--i.e., had not yet made trial of good and evil; that the\n'former Adam,' even after he had ceased to be a pithecoid hanging\nby his tail from boughs, and long after his mollusc [184] stage of\nexistence, was still as primus homo, a demi-witted creature, burrowing\nin holes, gnawing roots, grunting, grimacing, snarling, shuddering; not\neven a noble savage, but bestial and grovelling. As moral consciousness\nslowly woke in him, he misused his powers; but such a 'fall' was really\nan advance. Such is the latest version of Paradise lost--of that great\ndisinheritance, that moral and spiritual catastrophe, which, St. Paul\navers, was the entrance of death into the world by one man, and which,\nhe seems to say, dragged down the lower creation when the son of God,\n'paragon of animals, noble in reason, infinite in faculty,' fell in\nEden. We do not urge that the two teachings cannot be reconciled;\nbut it is clear that the immense difficulty is not to be dismissed\nby saying that the Bible is a mosaic, not Mosaic, or that it does\nnot profess to instruct us in anthropology.\" [185]\n\nThere is a downrightness and lucidity about this criticism of advanced\ntheology which one cannot but admire, although one may not be able to\nshare its optimism as to the chance of the two teachings ever becoming\nreconciled. How can they? Consider the unsatisfactory nature of the\nfollowing speculations by means of which the clerical evolutionist\nhopes to surmount the stumbling-block of the Fall.\n\n\n\nTHE BISHOP OF WORCESTER'S THEORY.\n\nDr. Gore, Bishop of Worcester, now of Birmingham, who is an adherent\nof Evolution, speaks mysteriously of a \"fall from without.\" [186] As\nthe question is of enormous importance to the truth of Christianity,\nI propose to examine Dr. Gore's thesis at some length. He grants\nthat the idea of special creation is inconceivable, and that our race\nhas an animal ancestry, and then gives us the following description\nof primeval man, which (shades of our forefathers!) he assures\nus is according to the Bible and the enlightened ideas of early\nChristianity: \"Man began at the bottom, immature, in the fullest\nsense of immaturity, totally undeveloped, but with a capacity for\ndevelopment.\" A correspondent of Dr. Gore's, anxious possibly to be\nlet down gently in the matter of his ancestor, suggested \"immature,\nbut not deformed.\" This Dr. Gore accepted as a good phrase. Most\nof us would think that when our ancestor was at the stage, say, of\nthe ape-like man he would be deformed according to existing notions\nof the human form divine, while, if only at the protoplasm stage,\nthe question of form would hardly matter.\n\nIt has been explained to me by a clerical biologist that the Bishop\nmeant that the Fall was not a fall from a completely developed form to\none less developed, but that there was perversion of the development,\nso that a rudimentary life which might have been developed one way\nhas developed along a less favourable path--a common occurrence in\nontogeny. However that may be, and whatever the physical or mental\nstate of this creature at the time he \"fell,\" was his previous state\none of beautiful innocence and purity? What about those inherited\nanimal instincts? Dr. Gore goes on to say that \"humanity might have,\nwith infinitely more rapidity, developed upward; it has been delayed,\nretarded by sin.\" Granted; but at what stage of development did this\npoor wretch ever get a proper chance? The Christian faith inculcates\nthat there is no chance for him without belief. What belief did this\nimmature man have to guide him?\n\nHowever, let us see what more Dr. Gore may have to tell us on the Fall\nand Atonement. The words already quoted are from his second lecture\nto the Birmingham working men. In his third and last lecture he says:\n\"He (God) appointed that man alone of creatures should have a twofold\nnature--that he should have fellowship with physical nature, but\nalso that he should have fellowship with God. He (man) fell through\na suggestion from without, and preferred wilfulness to obedience;\nhe thus fell into sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth\ndeath. Note that, if sin is said to have caused death, Christ is\nsaid to have abolished death. 'He that believeth on Me shall never\ndie.' It is death as men have known it, the end of their hopes,\nthat sin introduced and Christ abolished.\"\n\nHere, then, is the Bishop's answer regarding the \"Fall\" question. There\nhas been a \"fall through a suggestion from without,\" whatever that\nmay happen to mean. I should have thought that, if there was a fall\nat all, it was through a suggestion from within, much as Canon Wilson\nputs it. [187] Bishop Gore, however, probably feels that it has to\nbe from without to agree with the Bible story of the temptation. We\nare told nothing further about this mysterious \"without,\" and I ask:\n\"Could anything be more vague and unsatisfactory than this explanation\nof the Fall?\"\n\nAssuming that determinists are wrong, and that the Creator is not\nresponsible for the shortcomings of His creatures, the only fault for\nwhich primeval man could possibly be held to be answerable is that\nof not controlling his animal instincts so soon as he commenced to be\nconscious and could no longer claim the excuse of innocence. Probably\nhe did his best, and began to improve himself ever so little. In that\ncase, as the Church Times sapiently remarks, there was no Fall, but an\nadvance. Or, adopting a compromise suggested by an American divine,\nhe fell upward! If he did not strive as much as he might have done,\nthere was, at all events, no sudden leap over a precipice; for the gift\nof increased consciousness, such as the human being now possesses,\nmust have evolved very gradually. However, the creation of the world\nand all that therein is was also exceedingly gradual, and yet the pious\nfind themselves able to consider the Bible account to be an accurate\nthough allegorical representation of the process; so there is really\nnothing to prevent them from considering the account of a remarkable\nincident in a certain garden during a hot summer's day, shortly after\nman put in his appearance on this globe, to be a true representation\nof the perverse conduct of their ancestors through countless ages.\n\nFor this so-called \"Fall\" we are to be visited with a death which will\nbe the end of our hopes if we do not believe in Christ. This, then,\nis the new threat held over the unbeliever: he will forfeit his right\nto immortality. As it is in place of the old-fashioned consignment\nto hell, we may hope, for the sake of the human race as a whole, past\nand present, that the new Christian dogma is nearer the truth than the\nold. Most of us, however, will, I think, come to the conclusion that\nthere has never been a \"Fall\" at all in any sense. Dr. Gore in one\nbreath asks us to think man so much above the ape that his spiritual\npowers cannot have been evolved; yet, when science points out that\nthey were evolved--that man rose so much above his relations--he\nstill speaks of a fall! It is an outrage to our common sense. And,\nif there were a Fall, may we not say with the Persian poet?--\n\n\n        Oh Thou who didst with Pitfall and with Gin\n        Beset the Path I was to travel in,\n          Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round\n        Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin.\n\n\n\nTHE ARCHDEACON OF MANCHESTER'S THEORY.\n\nArchdeacon J. M. Wilson tells us [188] that \"We are taking our\npart in the long struggle of good against evil. This has been often\npictured to us as the struggle of God against some Personal Power\nof Evil which we call Satan, the fact of struggle suggesting two\nrival powers. But the evolutionary way of regarding it presents the\nstruggle as one of the divine element in man struggling to overcome\nthe purely animal inheritance of lust and passion inherited from a\nfar by-gone stage.\" Dr. Wilson, therefore, believes, as every thorough\nevolutionist must believe, that we have to look to an animal and not\na human ancestor for the ultimate origin of what we call sin. But\nwe want to know where the \"Fall\" comes in, and this he has explained\nelsewhere, [189] in what seems to me to be the only possible way open\nto an evolutionist. He says: \"Man fell, according to science, when\nhe first became conscious of the conflict of freedom and conscience;\nand each individual man falls as his ancestor fell.\" Dr. Wilson does\nnot attempt to make out that there was any particular \"fall\" at any\nparticular period in man's history, such as Dr. Gore apparently still\nclings to; but he plainly tells us: \"I do not mean to say that there is\na particular moment at which men fell: it is not so. It is a continuous\nstruggle of good and evil.\" He continues: \"I see in this nothing to\nconflict with a legitimate interpretation of the story of the Fall\nin the third chapter of Genesis. Such a narrative is not an illusion,\nstill less a mere fiction; it is, as all teaching of spiritual truth\nmust be, a temporary and figurative mode of expression.\" In other\nwords, Dr. Wilson considers these early chapters of Genesis, and\nprobably a great deal more of the Old Testament and some of the New,\nto be only an allegory. With regard to the Atonement difficulty,\nDr. Wilson's argument is simply that \"We need only to look at the\nworld as it is to see the struggle of the two-fold nature in man;\nto see that it has need of a Redemption, of a Saviour.\" Few, I\nfear, will accept this latest explanation by a learned and earnest\nbeliever. Theologians, in Dr. Wilson's opinion, have made a grievous\nmistake when they say: \"If the story of the Fall is not literally true,\nthen it is literally false, and with it goes the need of a Redemption,\nof a Saviour.\" Yet most people--and these will include the whole\nbody both of the old-fashioned orthodox and of the unbelievers--will\ncertainly side with those \"grievously mistaken\" theologians.\n\n\n\nTHE RATIONALIST'S THEORY.\n\nTo many of us there seems no need whatever to have recourse to the\nsupernatural in order to account for the origin of sin. It is not\none of the mysteries of life. When we know who our ancestors were,\nand hence why we possess certain instincts, it is quite unnecessary\nto predicate a \"Fall.\" Details of the Rationalist's view of sin\n(and of the reasons for morality) will be found in the last chapter\nof this book.\n\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\nThese, then, are the difficulties created by the doctrine of\nEvolution. They are difficulties which appear completely to impugn\nthe very nature of God, the veracity of the Bible, and the dogmas of\nsin and its atonement. We have already seen, by our study of Bible\ncriticism and comparative mythology, how grave are the grounds for\ndistrusting the Faith, and Evolution seems to be just the finishing\nstroke that was required for confirming our suspicions. We must now\nsee whether there are any other arguments for belief of sufficient\nweight to warrant us in over-stepping the boundaries of reason by an\nact of faith.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHEISM\n\nChapter VI.\n\nTHE FAILURE OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks.\n\nOur next task is to study the arguments for theism. Under these may\nbe ranged--the cosmological argument, which concludes that there must\nbe one eternal, unconditioned, self-existent cause; the teleological\n[190] argument, which concludes that nature's first cause must be an\nintelligence; and the ethical argument--the proof from the moral order\nand conscience--which concludes that the supreme intelligence must\nbe a moral, a beneficent being. To these may be added the argument\nfrom religious experience.\n\n\n\nTHEISM, AND WHO ARE THEISTS.\n\nFirst a word about theism. Theism is belief in the existence of a\nGod as the creator and ruler of the universe. It assumes a living\nrelation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. Although\nTheos and Deus are equivalent, theism has come to be distinguished\nfrom deism. The latter, according to some theologians, while equally\nopposed to atheism, denies or ignores the personality of God,\nand therefore denies [191] Christianity. Theism, on the contrary,\nunderlies Christianity. Accordingly, in considering the truth or\nuntruth of Christianity, we are concerned only with theism. However,\nit should be borne in mind that, although a man cannot be a Christian\nwithout being a Theist, he may be, and very often is in these days,\na Theist without being a Christian. Of the cultured men who think they\ncan still lay claim to the name of Christian, the bulk are, in point\nof fact, non-Christian Theists. Some of these quiet their conscience\nby the thought that they are still preserving a \"reverent agnosticism\"\nwith regard to Christian dogmas; while certain anti-Haeckelites of the\ntype of Professor E. Armitage (who urges scientific men to \"remember\nthat we only know appearances, and that whenever we affirm anything\nabout what lies behind appearances we are making hazardous inferences\"\n[192]) do not seem to be aware that they are adherents of one of the\nfundamental principles of agnosticism.\n\nTheism in its modern Unitarian form is the creed of many of the most\ncultured and most religious minds of our time, alike in Europe and\nAmerica; and it has also signally shown its power in contemporary\nIndia. Before I left the latter country a few years ago, I had an\ninteresting discussion with one of the leading spirits of the Brahmo\nSamaj movement, and, in answer to my queries, he replied that it\nwas with the Unitarians that he and his fellow thinkers were most in\nsympathy, and that they were never likely to turn Christians. This\nUnitarian theism, it may be remarked, is often seen to approximate\nto, or become absorbed into, pantheism or agnosticism. But it is not\nof Unitarians that I would speak so much as of the man who calls and\noften thinks himself a Christian proper, notwithstanding the admission\nthat the Christian dogmas may be partially or wholly false. This\nmisconception of \"What it is to be a Christian\" [193] is one of the\nmany that tend to confuse and delay a straight reply to the question,\n\"Is Christianity true?\" Having digested these prefatory remarks,\nlet us now proceed to consider the Theistic arguments.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. The Existence of a First Cause--An Uncaused Cause. [194]\n\nThe hypothesis of modern science is that everything as it now exists\nin the universe is the result of an infinite series of causes and\neffects; everything that happens is the result of something else that\nhappened previously, and so on backwards to all eternity. The agnostic\nscientist says that we know nothing about this Infinite Cause, and\nthat the idea of a First Cause is absurd. The Theist affirms that\nthere is an Eternal Infinite Being who is the First Cause. He says\nthat it is absurd not to believe in a First Cause, that materialistic\ntheories are so absurd compared with his that for this reason alone he\nwould remain a Theist. He appears entirely to lose sight of the fact\nthat by predicating a First Cause he only removes the mystery a stage\nfurther back. He tells us nothing about the origin of the First Cause\nor the state of things that preceded it. The appearance of a First\nCause upon the scene only increases the great mystery. Certainly it\ndoes not solve it. We are no forwarder. The creation of a mystery to\nexplain a mystery is a very ancient custom, but it is a custom that\nhas not met with the approbation of science.\n\nThe Theist apparently thinks, however, that he has science on his\nside. Thus, in the Baird Lectures of 1876, Dr. Flint stated that \"the\nprogress of science has not more convincingly and completely dispersed\nthe once prevalent notion that the universe was created about 6,000\nyears ago than it has convincingly and completely established that\neverything of which our senses inform us has had a commencement in\ntime.\" [195] This opinion is still proclaimed by the Church to be the\nopinion of science. But modern science does not point to a beginning\nof the scheme of things. The consensus of opinion is entirely the\nother way. So far as we know, the ultimate cause recedes for ever and\never beyond the time when there was no distinction of earth and sea\nand atmosphere, all being mingled together in nebulous matter. Where\nwould the Theist fix the \"commencement\"? The gaps on which theology\nat one time relied are rapidly disappearing. The apparent chasm\nbetween the organic and inorganic, between the lifeless and that\nwhich lives, according to the latest conceptions of science, no\nlonger exists. Man may even succeed in manufacturing life, so that\nyet another teleological argument may collapse.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The First Cause an Intelligence.\n\n\nDESIGN AND DIRECTIVITY.\n\nThe argument from design is one which appeals perhaps more than any\nother to the average man. As he looks around and reflects, he feels\nthat there must be design, and, therefore, a Designer. He feels\nalso that God must be constantly present directing the carrying\nout of His design. He is in accord with the Theist who maintains\nthat purpose and plan are manifest throughout the cosmos, and that,\nalthough it might be conceded that every step of the process has been\nachieved by the forces of Evolution, it is impossible to exclude\nthe presiding activity of a mind which has planned the whole and\npredetermined the movements of every portion. We are to believe, then,\nthat the Designer Himself put the forces in motion for the first time,\nthat He knew exactly what would be the product of those forces down\nto the minutest detail and for all time, and yet, in face of the\nundeviating law-regulated cosmos which He has created, He in some\nway continues to guide these forces. From the very first step, the\nmaking of the electron and thence the atom, to the last, the making of\nman's brain, the Theist sees the finger of God. The mystery of life\nis thus taken to be explained or diminished by asserting that it is\nproduced and controlled by some other mystery. The only alternative\nto this belief, so he maintains, is a universe of random chance and\ncapricious disorder. But \"Haeckel and his colleagues hold that the\ndirection which the evolutionary agencies take is not 'fortuitous';\nthat they never could take but the one direction which they have\nactually taken.\" [196] While \"the Theist says the ultimate object\nmust have been foreseen and the forces must have been guided, or\nthey would never have worked steadily in this definite direction,\nthe Monist says that these forces no more needed guiding than does\na tramcar; there was only one direction possible for them.\" [197] To\nrefute this the apologist gravely replies that, \"if you cast to the\nground an infinite (or a finite) number of letters, they might after\ninfinite gyrations make a word here and there; but we should think\nthe man an enthusiast who expected even a short sentence, and a fool\nif he ever expected them to make a poem.\" We are expected, it seems,\nto regard it as a miracle that natural forces should not lose their\nuniform character, and act miraculously! Evidently, either the question\nis begged or the analogy is absurd. An argument of this kind is worse\nthan useless, for it only serves to demonstrate the hopelessness of\nthe teleologist's position. Spinoza's position is more reasonable;\nfor he conceives that all is the outcome of inexorable necessity--that\nneither chance nor purpose governs the eternal and the infinite.\n\n\n\nDIRECTIVITY.\n\nDirectivity has hitherto been insisted upon by Theists. It would\nnot conform with our ideas of God that He should remain a passive\nobserver so soon as He had invented a machine that would never stop,\nand had started it going. Yet interference with the machinery is\ninconceivable, the universe being ruled by eternal, immutable, and\nirrefragable laws. \"The only possible conception of telic [purposeful]\naction on a cosmic scale is that, from the start, the matter-force\nreality was of such a nature that it would infallibly evolve into the\ncosmos we form part of to-day. Any other conception of 'guidance' and\n'control' is totally unthinkable. And, as a fact, Theists are settling\ndown to formulate their position in that way. The interference, as\nWard says, took place before the process began.\" [198] A Law Maker\ncan be postulated, but there is not a particle of evidence that He\nis also a Law Breaker.\n\nAttempts are still made, however, by clerical scientists to prove\nthat there is directivity. The Rev. Professor George Henslow, in\nhis book, Present-Day Rationalism Critically Examined, argues that\nthe tendency which living organisms show to develop in one direction\nrather than another, and their capacity to respond to environment,\nbetoken a directing Mind. Granting, for the moment, that the doctrine\nof Natural Selection is false or inadequate, it seems to me that the\nacknowledged facts of the \"struggle for existence\" and \"survival of the\nfittest\" sufficiently dispose of this new apology. Organisms do not\nall adapt themselves to environment, and their fate, in consequence,\nis first one of increasing misery, and finally of extinction. Only\nthose that do adapt themselves survive. It appears that a scientist\nwhen he turns apologist is conveniently able to forget all but the\nmore fortunate organisms.\n\n\n\nDESIGN.\n\nIf the evidence for a directing Mind has to be given up, the\ndifficulties of a Theist are certainly increased. There would be\ndifficulties, for instance, regarding the utility of prayer. Still,\nhe could think with Father Waggett that \"the interaction of forces\ninherent in the whole produces the infinite variety of living\nbeauty which we see.\" [199] And he can still join with Dr. Flint in\nexclaiming: \"Every atom, every molecule, must, even in what is ultimate\nin it, bear the impress of a Supernatural Power and Wisdom; must\nreflect the glory of God, and proclaim its dependence upon Him.\" [200]\nTo remain a Theist, however, one must have not only evidence of design,\nbut of the benevolent intention of the Designer. Before considering\nthe latter question, I venture to offer a few further remarks about\nthe former. Is there consistent evidence of design?\n\nBeauty.--As a proof of design we are asked by the Theist to\ncontemplate the beauty and sublimity which the universe exhibits. Let\nus contemplate, then, the beauty of the Bay of Naples. Is it not purely\naccidental, purely the outcome of natural agencies, of effects produced\nby position, distance, etc.? Again, \"the beauty of the diatoms that\nare brought from the lowest depths of the ocean, the beauty of the\nradiolaria that swarm about the coast, and the beauty of a thousand\nminute animal structures, are obviously not designed and purposed\nbeauties. They were unknown until the microscope was invented; the\npolariscope reveals yet further beauties; the telescope yet more. The\nidea of these being designed for our, or for God's, entertainment\nbelongs, as Mr. Mallock says, 'to a pre-scientific age.'\" [201]\nIt is sometimes urged that the tendency of evolution is towards\ngreater beauty. Is it? That all depends upon what your idea of beauty\nmay be--whether you will consider the structure best suited to its\nenvironment beautiful or otherwise. We are told that there are signs\nthat the human race will one day be toothless. At present we admire\npretty teeth; perhaps our descendants will go into raptures over a\ntoothless gum. That their sense of beauty may not be outraged, let\nus hope it may be so. The hideous pigmies of Central Africa probably\nthink themselves beautiful, and in the distant future, when the\nconditions of existence on this globe have radically changed, and when\nits inhabitants have adapted themselves to those conditions, the new\n\"beauties\" may possibly be quite as ugly as \"missing links.\" After\nall, beauty is a matter of taste. The sufficient objection to the\n\"beauty\" argument is, to my mind, contained in a very few words:\n\"Look at the ugliness! Who designed that?\"\n\nHarmony.--But, it will be urged, if beauty is a poor argument, at least\nyou must grant that the general harmony in Nature still remains to\nbe accounted for. Beauty is only one of its countless harmonies. The\nobjection to this argument is a very simple one. Nature is full of\ndiscords. Ugliness is by no means the only discord. It is because\nthis is so little realised that M. Elie Metchnikoff has devoted\nnearly the whole of his book, The Nature of Man, to the discussion\nof the disharmonies in man's nature alone. There are disharmonies\nin the organisation of the digestive system, in the organisation\nand activities of the reproductive apparatus, in the family and\nsocial instincts, and in the instinct of self-preservation, etc. For\ninstance, in the human body there are disharmonies of the wisdom teeth,\nthe b\u00eate-noire of dentistry; of the useless vermiform appendage,\nthe seat of the disease appendicitis; of the large intestine, which\ncould very well be dispensed with, and is the seat of many grave\ndiseases, such as dysentery, and so on. The perversions of instinct\namong human beings (another disharmony) are likely to be attributed by\nthe conservative Theist to the Devil, and by the liberal to Dr. Gore's\n\"Fall from Without,\" so it will be better to take an example from the\nanimal world. Darwin informs us that the \"female of one of the emus\n(Dromoeus irroratus), as soon as she catches sight of her progeny,\nbecomes violently agitated, and, notwithstanding the resistance of\nthe father, appears to use her utmost endeavours to destroy them\"\n(Descent of Man, vol. ii., chap, xvi., pp. 204-205). To those who\nstill hold by this argument I can only recommend a perusal of Professor\nMetchnikoff's book of disharmonies, and would beg them to remember that\nit has been written by a man whose profession and attainments entitle\nhis opinions on such a subject to the highest consideration. The\ncruelty attending the process by which harmony is attained has already\nbeen commented upon by me in \u00a7 2 of the previous chapter.\n\n\n\nDIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG THEISTIC APOLOGISTS.\n\nI have finally to call attention to the fact that even among the\napologists themselves there is considerable difference of opinion\nas to the value of these arguments for Theism. Dr. Flint exclaims:\n\"Strange as it may seem, there are many Theists at the present day\nwho represent it [revelation of God in the whole of nature external to\nus] as insufficient, or even worthless, and who join the Atheists in\ndenying that God's existence can be proved, and in affirming that all\nthe arguments for His existence are inconclusive and sophistical. Such\nTheists seem to me not only the best allies of Atheists, but even\nmore effective labourers in the cause of unbelief than Atheists\nthemselves.\" [202] Since Dr. Flint wrote these words the number of\n\"such Theists\" has vastly increased. It is owned on all sides by the\nadvanced school of apologists that God's existence cannot be proved\nby an appeal to the reasoning faculties; and, among other arguments,\nthat from design is gradually being discarded.\n\nFather Waggett offers us interesting information regarding this\nargument in his little book, Religion and Science. [203] He considers\nthat Paley and others of the old teleologists were wrong in leaning\nupon a narrow argument from design. \"It need not here be repeated,\"\nhe says, \"that the evidence of such workmanship cannot prove God\nin the true sense of an infinite and all-wise Cause; but only a\ncause possessed of immense wisdom and immense though limited power,\na Demiurgus of the greatest force and the most minute care, but not\na Creator in the sense of theology.\" [204] Father Waggett, who is\na biologist, and, therefore, necessarily an Evolutionist, would not\nbe disconcerted if living things were manufactured in the laboratory\nto-morrow. In his opinion, \"If anywhere we catch nature in the making,\nif we surprise the sequence by which even man himself gained his\ndifference from other things, we shall not by this find reverence\nlowered.... It is a theological readjustment which is required,\nand not one in 'natural science.'\" [205] The position here taken up\nis wise, and one that all who remain Theists will eventually have\nto adopt. But for most of us these theological readjustments are\nno easy matter. We reason that Paley's Evidences have in their time\nassisted men to be Theists, and now his arguments are condemned by\nthe better informed. How do we know that the same fate may not await\nthe new arguments of the Christian evolutionist? How is it that God\nallowed earnest and learned divines to commit themselves to arguments\nin proof of His existence, the subsequent overthrow of which has been\na potent cause for unbelief?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The First Cause a Beneficent Intelligence.\n\n\nA PERSONAL GOD.\n\nAs ages roll on, God's attributes--or rather, we should say, the\nattributes given Him by man--are continually altering. All that the\nearly gods demanded was fear and worship. Even the Jehovah of the Jews\nasked at first little else than this. Anthropomorphic conceptions of\nGod are now admitted by the cultured to be a thing of the past. Do\nthey not, however, still survive when human emotions, such as love\nand anger, happiness and sorrow, are attributed to the Deity? We\nacknowledge God to be infinite, and, consequently, incomprehensible by\nfinite minds; yet we imagine and attempt to argue that He possesses\nthe same qualities--those we most admire--as ourselves! \"How can\nwe believe in a personal God?\" asks the Rationalist. \"A person\nmust have limitations, or he ceases to be a person.\" However, we\nmust not forget that in philosophy and theology the word \"person\"\nsimply implies \"a nature endowed with consciousness,\" and does not\ninvolve limits. Demurring to this definition, there still remains\nanother difficulty. In all our experience and knowledge, emotions\nand intelligence are connected with nerve structures; how, then,\ncan we attribute these qualities to a Being who is described to us\nas devoid of any nerve structure? I know of no answer that could be\ncalled satisfactory from a Theistic standpoint.\n\nIn the previous section we considered the doctrine of final\ncauses. This doctrine, as Spinoza points out, [206] \"does away with\nthe perfection of God; for, if God acts for an object, He necessarily\ndesires something which He lacks.\" The Theist goes a step further than\nthe mere teleologist, and insists on a benevolent purpose throughout\nnature. Is he, then, oblivious to Spinoza's objection? No, he is not;\nand therefore it is that he struggles to save his personal God by an\ninfinite extension of the limits of His personality. In fine, Theism,\nin the hands of its modern advocates, and in spite of the seeming\northodoxy of the phrase, \"Divine Immanence,\" is often nothing less\nthan another form of Pantheism.\n\n\n\nDIVINE IMMANENCE IN NATURE.\n\nThe Church's great philosopher to-day, the Rev. J. R. Illingworth,\nD.D., argues [207] that \"Divine Immanence in Nature\" excludes\nPantheism--the belief that God is merely immanent in nature--as well\nas Deism and Monism, while it harmonises with Trinitarianism. We are to\n\"conceive of God as at once transcending and immanent in nature.\" [208]\nHe admits that \"this relationship may be incomprehensible,\" [209] but\nstates that \"we know it in our own case to be a fact.\" [210] Afterwards\nhe puts the question, \"Is the universe His body or His work?\" [211] and\nproceeds to explain that the Trinitarian conception of God furnishes,\nor helps to furnish, an answer to this question. \"It is,\" he maintains,\n\"intellectually the most satisfactory.\" [212] It apparently is so to\ncertain subtle and biassed intellects; but the question is, Is it so,\nwill it ever be so, to the average mortal?\n\n\n\nA FACT IN HISTORY.\n\nIn another place, [213] when speaking again of the doctrine of the\nTrinity, he says: \"Men forget that it supports and is supported by\nthe whole weight of a fact in history, with which nothing else in\nthe wide world can even for a moment be compared. That fact is the\nage-long empire of Jesus Christ over the hearts of men.\" This, then,\nis the final argument in support of the Christian dogmas, including\nthis the most incomprehensible of them all. Why should not the Buddhist\nclaim the same authority for the dogmas of his faith? The evidential\nvalue is precisely the same. Turn to any well-known work bearing on\nthis phase of the question. Read, we will say, Edwin Arnold's poem,\nThe Light of Asia; or, better still, read Mr. Fielding's books,\nThe Soul of a People and The Hearts of Men, and hear the words of\none who has lived for years among Buddhists and studied their hearts.\n\nThat an ideal should reign over the hearts of men is no new thing;\nmuch less is this a cause for marvel when \"One has come, claiming to\nbe God made manifest--manifest in order to attract our love.\" [214]\nChristian apologists urge that He has not only attracted the hearts\nof men in the past, but still retains His hold upon their affections,\nand that therein lies an essential difference between Christianity\nand all other religions. Christianity, say they, in this respect\nat least, stands pre-eminently alone. Is not Buddhism, then,\none of the great living religions of the present day? Has it not\nexisted during twenty-four centuries? Does it not at the present\ntime surpass, in the number of its followers and the area of its\nprevalence, any other form of creed? Is not Gautama Buddha worthy\nof men's love, if we are to credit the best authenticated records\nof his life? \"Discordant in frequent particulars,\" writes [215]\nSir Edwin Arnold, \"and sorely overlaid by corruptions, inventions,\nand misconceptions, the Buddhistical books yet agree in the one\npoint of recording nothing--no single act or word--which mars the\nperfect purity and tenderness of this Indian teacher, who united\nthe truest princely qualities with the intellect of a sage and the\npassionate devotion of a martyr.\" Loving disciples, living in an age\nof ignorance and superstition, piously ascribed to him divine powers,\nand, disobeying his mandate, gave him fervent worship. That worship,\nthat adoration, still persists. So likewise the adoration of Jesus\nChrist still persists. This is certainly a fact in history; but can we\nsafely build upon it the metaphysical theories of the Christian Faith?\n\n\n\nTHE PAST AND PRESENT POSITION OF THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.\n\nIn my comments upon Dr. Illingworth's views regarding \"Divine\nImmanence\" I fear I have digressed somewhat from the subject at\npresent under consideration--the Theistic argument from a Beneficent\nIntelligence. \"The ethical argument held a very subordinate place in\nthe estimation of writers on natural theology until Kant rested on it\nalmost the whole weight of Theism. It has ever since been prominent,\nand has been the argument most relied upon to produce practical\nconviction.\" [216] What was once the weakest argument has now become\nthe strongest. Why? Not, I take it, because anything has occurred to\nmake the weaker any stronger, but because what was thought to be the\nstrongest is now found to be weaker than the weakest! How can the\nethical argument be maintained in face of objections which continue\nto become ever graver as our knowledge increases? Theists contend\n[217] that there must be a future life if only because the glaring\nwrongs of this world have to be righted. What is this but a na\u00efve\nadmission that the proofs of the Deity's benevolence are sadly wanting?\n\n\n\nEVIL FOR WHICH MAN IS NOT HELD RESPONSIBLE.\n\nThe problem of pain, and of evil generally, has been partially\ndiscussed in the chapter on \"Evolution.\" The importance of this\nproblem is very great, for, by the universal consent of Christendom\n(not of mankind, as we shall see later on), the very name of God\ncarries with it the sense of goodness, the highest and best that\nwe know of or can imagine. For this reason it is customary for the\npious to regard every calamity reverently as a punishment from God,\nor as serving some good purpose. Thus the German Emperor, imbued from\nchildhood with this pious theory, warned his people that the Japanese\nhad been sent as a scourge from God, and Father Bernard Vaughan\n(preaching at Lancaster on August 26th, 1906) declared that God had\nuttered warnings to England by the eruption of Vesuvius and the San\nFranciscan and Chilian earthquakes. Can this supposition be maintained\nwhen the catastrophe occurs in the wrong place, when tornadoes and\nearthquakes destroy God's own temples, and when the innocent suffer\nfor the guilty? With the opinion of the scientist we are, or ought to\nbe by now, familiar. \"The fundamental axiom of scientific thought is\nthat there is not, never has been, and never will be, any disorder\nin Nature. The admission of the occurrence of any event which was\nnot the logical consequence of the immediately antecedent events,\naccording to those definite, ascertained, or unascertained rules which\nwe call the 'laws of Nature,' would be an act of self-destruction on\nthe part of science\" (Huxley on Catastrophes, p. 247 of his Essays\non Controverted Questions).\n\nI remember, at the time of the terrible catastrophe in Martinique,\ndue to the eruption of Mont Pel\u00e9e, asking a lady: \"Do you think\nthis wholesale slaughter and awful suffering has any connection with\nthe wickedness of the afflicted people?\" \"Certainly,\" she replied;\n\"they must have been very wicked people.\" It just so happened that\nthe only man who escaped scatheless was a murderer who had been\nimprisoned in a cell below ground. So the theory she and I had been\nbrought up to believe in would not work, whichever way you looked at\nit. The apologist has usually a number of strings to his bow; and,\nas the Old Testament teaching concerning bad men descending \"quick\ninto the pit\" would not suit, he might argue that the criminal was\ngiven an opportunity for repentance. In that case, we must suppose\nthat all the others who perished had no need of repentance. Again,\nwith regard to the terrible tortures that many endured, it could be\nargued that those \"whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth\"; but what\npossible object could there be in this chastening during the last\nmoments of their life upon earth? The agony of the death-struggle,\nsuffered by the good and the bad alike, has yet to be shown to be in\naccord with the theory of a benevolent Deity.\n\nThe old-fashioned idea that catastrophes, plagues, famines, etc.,\nwere sent as punishments for our misdoings is gradually being\nmodified. Dr. Flint says distinctly: \"I cannot agree with those\nwho think there is no mystery in mere pain--that it is sufficiently\naccounted for by moral evil.\" [218] It seems a pity that his advocacy\nfor benevolence in the Deity should lead him afterwards to qualify\nthis sensible statement by an amazing assertion which begs the\nwhole question. \"The character of pain itself,\" he says, \"is such\nas to indicate that its author must be a benevolent being--one\nwho does not afflict for his own pleasure, but for his creatures'\nprofit.\" [219] The profit consists, we are told, in the fact that\nwe are prevented through fear of pain from running into danger. How\npeculiarly appropriate and consolatory such a view of pain must be\nto, let us say, a person crippled with rheumatoid arthritis! Man's\nhighly sensitive and delicate organisation inevitably entails pain\nwhen no useful purpose of this kind can possibly be served; yet we\nare to suppose that an Omnipotent Being devised this crude and cruel\nmethod for teaching us to avoid the perils with which He Himself has\nsurrounded us! One of our greatest living surgeons, Sir Frederick\nTreves, assures us [220] that \"the symptoms of disease are marked by\npurpose, and the purpose is beneficent.\" \"The processes of disease,\"\nhe goes on to explain, \"aim not at the destruction of life, but at\nthe saving of it.\" Here, indeed, is more grist for the mill of the\napologist. But what does this special pleading amount to? To this:\nBecause through suffering we may survive a dangerous disease, we should\nbe grateful to the Supreme Intelligence who created the preservative as\nwell as the destructive microbes; we should be grateful to the Almighty\nwho has fashioned friend and foe, and who, much to our discomfort,\nhas selected our interior economy for the battlefield! Surely, if\nthe surmise of benevolence is to be entertained at all, it must be at\nthe sacrifice of the surmise of omnipotence. The Supreme Intelligence\ncannot be an \"Almighty God\" if He be the \"Father of all mercies.\"\n\nThere are Theists who candidly admit the perplexities of the\nsituation. On the horns of a dilemma they have no option but to fall\nback upon the primitive theory: All unaccountable evil is the work\nof a hostile and evil power which seeks continually to frustrate\nthe benevolent intentions of the Creator. \"Speaking for myself,\"\nsays the author of Pro Fide, [221] \"I am unable to believe that\nhideous and excruciating diseases, such as cancer, which affect\nboth men and animals, and which cannot, in the case of animals at\nleast, be explained as a moral discipline, are the work of a good and\nbenevolent God. I endorse absolutely the words of Dr. E. A. Abbott. 'I\ncannot think,' he says, 'of diseases and pain, and the conflict\nin the animal world for life and death, as being, so to speak,\npart of God's first intention.'\" Disease, suffering, the struggle\nfor existence, and the law of prey are then, after all, the Devil's\nhandiwork, and so is also, presumably, the law of the survival of\nthe fittest. (Christian evolutionists, take note! In exonerating and\nextolling the evolutionary processes, you are exonerating and extolling\nthe works of the Devil!) \"The Zoroastrian view,\" he continues,\n\"must be rejected because it postulates two first principles, which\nis a plain metaphysical impossibility.\" The view which is not open\nto this or any other objection, and which he calls the Theistic view,\n\"supposes that a large share of the government of the material universe\nwas committed, at the creation, to a personal spirit, of great, but not\nunlimited, power and intelligence, who, having been originally created\ngood, subsequently fell, and introduced evil and disorder into the\nworld.... This hypothesis of a personal devil has many advantages. It\nexplains the whole of the facts; it avoids the postulation of two\nfirst causes; it vindicates the moral perfection of the Deity; and\nit allows the optimistic hope to be entertained that in the end good\nwill triumph over evil.\" All this is highly instructive. For it means\nthat, in the opinion of an erudite apologist of the Church of England,\nflourishing a.d. 1906, the moral perfection of the Deity can only\nbe vindicated on the hypothesis of a personal devil! Doubtless this\nhypothesis--and, remember, it is nothing more than a hypothesis,\nand one that is now generally discredited--fits in admirably; but\nthe question is, Are we to accept it, however imaginary and opposed\nto the facts of science, just because it is so suitable?\n\nThere remains the usual retort of the religionist when closely\ncornered: \"The finite mind cannot expect to understand the\nInfinite.\" He appears to forget entirely that when he advances proofs\nof the God of his heart he himself is using his finite mind, and\nthat his opponents therefore have an equal right to use theirs when\ncriticising his \"proofs.\" This by the way. The particular point we have\nto notice is that the appeal to this negative argument amounts to an\nadmission that the proofs do indeed appear all the other way. Thus\nin the question now before us, \"Is the First Cause a beneficent\nintelligence?\" we find that a statement confidently proclaimed by\nthe pious is not only unsupported by evidence, but in spite of it--a\nmere assertion suggested by the emotions. With more modesty and (may\nI add?) with more common sense, the agnostic disclaims any knowledge\nof God, holding that human knowledge is limited to experience, and\nthat, since the absolute and unconditioned, if it exists at all,\ncannot fall within experience, we have no right to assert anything\nwhatever with regard to it.\n\n\n\nEVIL FOR WHICH MAN IS HELD RESPONSIBLE.\n\nThe very existence of the God of our hearts depends upon the proof\nof His morality. The argument from moral order seems at first sight\na strong one. Morality, even adopting the naturalist's explanation\nthat it is only a social instinct, can be regarded as the result of\na divine spark. Its beneficial influence on the happiness of the\nindividual and the well-being of the race cannot be too strongly\ninsisted upon as a well-ascertained fact. \"Virtue is self-rewarding,\nand vice is self-punishing.\" [222] But the Rationalist asks: \"Why\ndesign man's nature so that he is more likely to go wrong, when he\ngets the chance, than to go right; and this in despite of the moral\nor social instinct?\" The usual answer of the religionist is that,\nif we could not do wrong, we should be mere machines. \"No doubt,\"\nsays the author of Pro Fide, \"if God had made us what Mr. Huxley says\nwe are, conscious automata, we should have been incapable of sin;\nbut it is better to be men, with all the glorious possibilities of\nfreedom and virtue, than to be machines, however excellent.\" Now,\ndo we allow our children to choose for themselves when we know they\nwill choose wrongly? Do we not guard them against the inglorious\npossibilities--the slavery of vice? If we fail in our duty to them\nand they fall, should we add to our guilt by perpetrating on them\nunimaginable cruelties? Again, do we not prefer the fellowship of the\ngood-natured? Yet these, according to the religionist, are the veriest\nautomata compared with those who have inherited vicious or disagreeable\ncharacteristics, and do their best to fight against them. Be this as\nit may, the fact remains that the less fortunately endowed are seldom\nable to raise themselves up to the level of the more fortunately\nendowed--environment may, of course, elevate the one, as it may also\ndegrade the other--and there is no doubt whose society we prefer. Why\nshould it be better for men to be capable of--or, rather, may we\nnot say prone to--sin? Why should their Maker grant them \"glorious\npossibilities\" which He has denied to Himself? Why should He alone be\na machine that cannot go wrong? Surely there is something amiss in an\nargument that furnishes such inadequate excuses in order to explain\nwhy the Designer gave us natures infinitely inferior to His own.\n\n\n        Oh, Thou who man from basest clay didst make,\n        And e'en for Paradise devised the snake,\n        For all the sin wherewith the face of man\n        Is blackened, man's forgiveness give--and take!\n\n\nSome of Nature's plans would appear to be specially designed to bring\nout the worst side of the diverse nature implanted in man. The plan of\nthe struggle for existence is a palpable instance. Take another--take\nthe plan for the reproduction of life. Could any Omnipotent Being\nbe proud of it? Let alone the unfair division of pain, which the\ndiscredited Eden story can now no longer account for, is it helpful to\nman in his struggle to improve his nature? The plan being God's plan,\nit is enjoined upon us that the procreation of children is a sacred\nduty; but it is also plainly intimated that to abstain from marriage\naltogether is yet more meritorious. Similarly in Mithraism, Buddhism,\nthe religions of ancient America and other pre-Christian cults, the\nsanctity of the celibate life is upheld. If man is not doing his best\nin obeying the behests of his Maker, how can he do right? Has he been\ngiven a fair chance when an instinct so hurtful is implanted in him\nthat even its natural gratification in the divinely appointed manner\nis likely to hinder him in the cultivation of his spiritual nature;\nthis although matrimony was ordained--so our prayer-book tells us--for\na remedy against sin? The truth is that this necessary instinct,\nquite apart from its responsibility for much sorrow and strife and\nquite apart from its terrible tendency to perversion, is innately\nprejudicial to our moral elevation, and, in order to preserve a\nhealthy, happy mind, the less we allow our thoughts to dwell upon\nits fulfilment the better.\n\nAgain, \"a very little disorder in the organisation of the brain\nsuffices to cause hallucinations of the senses, to shake the intellect\nfrom its throne, to paralyse the will, and to corrupt the sentiments\nand affections.\" [223] \"How precise and skilful,\" remarks Dr. Flint,\nlost in admiration of the Designer, \"must be the adjustment between\nthe sound brain and the sane mind!\" \"How fiend-like,\" says the\nhorrified Rationalist, \"would be the Intellect which could have\nexercised its ingenuity to devise a mechanism inherently liable to\nget out of order, and thereby to transform its unhappy possessor into\na fool or villain.\" In the event of the latter result, moreover, man,\naccording to Christ's teaching (if honestly interpreted), is to suffer\neternal torment!\n\n\n\nCONSCIENCE.\n\nRegarding theories of the origin of conscience such as those\nof J. S. Mill, Bain, Darwin, and Spencer, Dr. Flint remarks:\n\"It does not matter whether conscience be primary or derivative;\nit exists.\" [224] That it does matter is shown by the fact that the\nbulk of the apologists still stoutly maintain that conscience is a\nspecial attribute of man--a divine instinct--and is not derived from\nthe lower animals. We have, I think, gone into this sufficiently\nin the previous chapter, and I shall confine my remarks to another\naspect of the question--the fallibility of the moral consciousness.\n\n\"The existence,\" it is urged, \"of a moral principle within us, of\na conscience which witnesses against sin and on behalf of holiness,\nis of itself evidence that God must be a moral being, one who hates\nsin and loves holiness.\" [225] Given the existence of a personal God,\nthis argument is plausible enough till we examine it more closely. The\nliability of conscience to err is, or should be, a platitude. Its\ntwo components--the reason and the emotions--both being fallible,\nit necessarily follows that conscience must have the same quality. We\nhave only to think for a moment to discover innumerable examples in\nproof of this. An illustration which occurs to me, and which will\nhurt no one's susceptibilities, is that of the Wa Daruma. This is\nan East African tribe practising a strict morality which is all the\nmore remarkable on account of the gross immorality of the neighbouring\ntribes. Nevertheless, the conscience of the Wa Daruma bids them kill\ntheir twin offspring. If conscience, then, be fallible, how is it\na Theistic proof? Because, though it may make a mistake through an\nuntutored reason, or through a reason clouded by deceptive emotions,\nthe consciousness that there is a right or wrong at all is sufficient\nproof of a moral intelligence? So be it; but it is passing strange\nthat God should allow conscience to deceive us. John Locke well\nsaid, many years ago: \"Children are travellers newly arrived in a\nstrange country: we should therefore make conscience not to deceive\nthem.\" Are we not children of God in a strange country? We would not\ndeceive our children. The acquittal of conscience gives pleasure,\nas the condemnation gives pain--remorse--and every man must obey his\nconscience if he would be happy. What a thousand pities it seems that\nit should ever lead him into error! Should it not be a divine intuition\nof the right both in our religious beliefs and in our conduct?\n\nIt is an intuition of the right, the believer will say, when it\ntells you to believe in Christ and God. I would gladly think so;\nbut every believer of every creed on the face of the earth says\nthe same about his belief, and hence the amazing persistence of\nerroneous beliefs. When the voice of conscience is composed of a\nblind reliance on intuition (i.e., on the emotions) and a distrust\nof reason, how can the result be otherwise? The whole question of the\ntruth of beliefs hinges upon whether intuition can or cannot be relied\nupon. We know that mistakes do occur through trusting to intuition,\nespecially in the matter of beliefs; how, then, can we assume that\nit is infallible? Strange as the freaks of faith among cultured\npersons may appear, they are perfectly intelligible. They are the\nresult of reliance on intuition rather than on reason. I will give\nan example. Who more logical, apparently, than John Henry Newman,\nthe coadjutor of Whately in his popular work on logic? His illogical\nconduct is, therefore, particularly instructive. In 1832, after a\nvisit to Rome, he wrote describing the Roman Catholic religion as\npolytheistic, degrading, and idolatrous, [226] and then, after all,\nentered the Roman Catholic Church in 1845. He did so because he found\nthat the difficulties of the creed and of the canon of Scripture were\ninsurmountable unless over-ridden by the authority of the Church. To\nescape becoming an agnostic he elected to join a Church calling herself\ninfallible. He was able to come to this decision although, to his own\nknowledge, her infallibility was belied by her conduct! Further, so\neloquent was his reasoning on the subject, so apparently logical, that\nsome hundreds of clergymen joined him in making their submission to\nthe Church of Rome. Underlying all this apparent inconsistency is the\nassertion, so eloquently pleaded by Cardinal Newman, of the supremacy\nof conscience and the correctness of intuition. So also have asserted\nthe followers of every religion from all time, and to what have their\nconsciences and intuitions led them--to truth, or to a pot-pourri of\nabsurd and conflicting beliefs? We have the testimony of all history\nto prove the extreme fallibility of conscience. Conscience possesses no\ndivine spark to keep a man from acting wrongly through ignorance. Even\nwhen knowledge is present we see, as in Cardinal Newman's case, that\nthe voice of conscience may still speak incorrectly; for reason is\nswamped when emotion's flood-gate is left ajar.\n\nCardinal Newman's opinions have a special interest for us at the\npresent time. He held that, \"apart from an interior and unreasoned\nconviction, there is no cogent proof of the existence of God\"; that\n\"the man who has not this interior conviction has no choice but to\nremain an agnostic, while the man who has it is bound sooner or later\nto become a Roman Catholic.\" [227]\n\nSo inexplicable did his motives appear that Charles Kingsley accused\nhim of saying that \"truth for its own sake need not be, and, on\nthe whole, ought not to be, a virtue of the Roman clergy.\" Newman's\nApologia pro Vita Sua, however, leaves no doubt of the author's own\npersonal rectitude. His premises--the infallibility of conscience\nand intuition--were false. But that is not an unusual feature of\nChristian apologetics. The keen intellects of the two pious brothers,\nJohn Henry and Francis William, were really buried beneath a mass of\npreconceptions. That of the latter, however, being less submissive,\nproceeded to a slow and sure upheaval, and finally Francis Newman\nrejected Christianity altogether. [228] In the Apologia pro Vita\nSua we find, I think, the key to Cardinal Newman's convictions. He\nwas intensely superstitious, and inclined also to be timid. On the\nopening page, where he gives the recollections of his boyhood, we read:\n\"I used to wish the Arabian tales were true.\" And again: \"I was very\nsuperstitious, and for some time previous to my conversion (when I\nwas fifteen) used constantly to cross myself on going into the dark.\"\n\n\n\nFREEWILL.\n\nIn my remarks on the \"evil for which man is held responsible,\"\nI have alluded to the Rationalist's contention that man cannot be\njustly blamed for his actions, and that, if there be a God, He alone\nis to blame. This opens up the question of Freewill v. Determinism--a\nthorny question, which I should prefer, if only for considerations of\nspace and my readers' patience, to leave severely alone. A whole volume\nwould be necessary to present the case for Determinism adequately, and\nI am fully aware that a few brief words will fail to convince; but,\nif I can remove a single iota of the misconceptions on this subject,\nI shall feel rewarded.\n\nKant defines an act of volition as an act which is determined by the\nanticipatory idea of the result of the act. Although he maintains\nthat there must be a moral God, he fully admits that the forecast or\nanticipatory idea is the inevitable effect of precedent conditions,\nsuch as temperament (heredity), education (environment), and the\nlike; and in a well-known passage he says that, if the whole history\nof the subject could be known, the voluntary acts of a man might be\npredicted with the same certainty as an eclipse. The tendency of modern\npsychology is in the same direction. All voluntary acts, we are told,\ndepend on the memory of involuntary acts of the same sort previously\nperformed. It is true that a few Christian psychologists leave room\nfor a \"sheer heave\" of the will by means of which an idea naturally\nfeeble is fortified and held in place; but when they speak in this wise\nthey speak as metaphysicians. No metaphysical argument, it seems to me,\ncan reconcile this inflexible causality with true freedom of will. How\ncan the will be at one and the same time fettered and free? There is,\nI grant, every appearance of freewill; but it belongs to the category\nof appearances which deceive.\n\nIf we accept the Christian contention, we have to believe that a\nbenevolent God gives us a free will, the power to choose between\nHim and the Devil, knowing, as in His omniscience He must, that the\nvast majority will make a sad use of their gift! The modern Christian\nadmits that heredity and environment have their say also. Thus there\nare, in all, four forces struggling for the mastery--God, the Devil,\nheredity and environment; and it is the duty of the divinely-implanted\nfree will to choose between them. Rather, is it not that there are\ntwo forces, and two forces only--heredity and environment--acting upon\nour brain, and our choice is the resultant of them? Undoubtedly man,\nas a self-conscious and reflecting animal, has what may be called\nthe power of choice; but the way this power will be used would be\na foregone conclusion did we know the sum-total of the effect of\nheredity and environment up to the moment of its use. \"But,\" it\nmay be objected, \"surely there is such a thing as will-power. We\ncan overcome our heredity and environment by the exercise of our\nwill. Temptations to which the weak-willed succumb do not affect the\nstrong-willed. Here, at least, we have a distinct instance in which\nheredity and environment are overcome.\" Yes, it is true, of course,\nthat heredity and environment are continually being overcome by\nthe happy possessor of sufficient will-power; but what we have to\nbear in mind is that it is not a portion, but the whole, of a man's\nheredity and environment which must be taken into consideration. In\nthe case of the man with the strong will, it is still his heredity\nand environment which have in the first instance settled the line of\nconduct to which, once resolved upon, he adheres so tenaciously. And,\nagain, this particular quality of the mind which enables him to keep\nto his resolution is, like all other qualities of the mind, itself\nthe product of heredity and environment.\n\nThe Determinism of science and the Freewill of metaphysics are\nessentially antagonistic. Determinism is completely subversive\nof Christian teaching. It is directly opposed to the Thirty-nine\nArticles of religion. Not only does it imply that man is not to blame\nfor his actions, but that, if there be a God, He, and He alone, is to\nblame. Christian theologists are therefore its strenuous opponents. In\ntheir apologetic efforts one finds the strangest misconceptions\nof what is meant in a broad sense by heredity and environment. The\nbest apology I have seen so far is by the Rev. P. N. Waggett, in a\ntractate called Science and Conduct. [229] Father Waggett seems to\nrealise better than most of his fellow-clerics the enormous influence\nof heredity and environment. Still he comes to the conclusion that\n\"when, under given circumstances,\" a man \"does what, under those\ncircumstances, and with his given constitution, he usually does\nnot do,\" he is exercising \"some inward spring.\" The fallacy in this\nargument is the common one. The effect of environment up to the moment\nof action has not been considered. The obscurity of the expression\n\"given constitution\" is doubtless unintentional, but it is none\nthe less misleading. Father Waggett would be the first to admit that\nsomething must have occurred meanwhile to account for the new frame of\nmind. It is for him to show that an alteration in environment is not\nall that has occurred, and that there is room for this \"inward spring.\"\n\nWill not the acceptance of this doctrine have a paralysing effect\nupon us? On the contrary. We shall be better able to discern where\nour salvation lies. We shall pay far more attention to the real\nforces which determine conduct. We shall devote our energies to\ncombating bad heredity with good environment; and we shall do this\nwith the knowledge that not only ourselves and our associates, but our\ndescendants also, will reap the benefit. We shall fly from unhealthy\nthoughts, and avoid the surroundings likely to give rise to them. We\nshall welcome healthy thoughts and seek helpful surroundings.\n\nThe doctrine of determinism is thought likely to corrupt our moral\ncharacter, but, in reality, it compares favourably with religious\ndoctrines. The belief in God's omniscience leads the Mohammedan to\nfatalism, and the Christian to the doctrine of predestination. If\na Christian really believed as he professes, if he could honestly\nsubscribe to the seventeenth article of his Creed--in which it is\nstated that \"before the foundations of the world were laid God hath\nconstantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse\nand damnation those whom He hath chosen [the italics are mine, of\ncourse] in Christ out of mankind\"--God's Predestination would indeed\nbe \"a dangerous downfall,\" \"thrusting men into desperation.\" The\ndoctrine of predestination, therefore, appears, without doubt, to\nbe ethically mischievous. The doctrine of Determinism, on the other\nhand, teaches a man to fight pernicious hereditary instincts with the\nweapon of environment, and to keep a tender place in his heart for\nunfortunates who succumb. [230] Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Religious Experience.\n\n\nMYSTICISM AND CONVERSION.\n\nOf late, the argument from \"Religious Experience\" has been much to\nthe front, and nothing written on the subject has created a deeper\nimpression, or been more cordially welcomed by the supernaturalist,\nthan Professor W. James's book, The Varieties of Religious\nExperience. Professor James is a prominent member of the Society\nfor Psychical Research, and no one is better able than he to give\ndescriptions of psychic phenomena; but the conclusions he comes to as\nto the spiritual signification of some of them will strike the normal\nman as too absurd to be taken seriously. More than this. Indirectly he\nfurnishes one of the very best weapons for attacking supernaturalism\nthat has ever yet been put in the hands of the naturalist. I have\nalready given some examples of so-called religious experiences (in\nChap. II., pp. 59-61). These are still regarded by the superstitious\nas spiritual manifestations; but Professor James discovers a spiritual\ninterpretation in still more palpable hallucinations. Unwittingly\nhe spoils the case for religious experience by trying to prove too\nmuch. I will give an instance. He describes how an intimate friend\nof his kept experiencing a \"horrible sensation\" of the presence of\nsomething, which he \"did not recognise as any individual being or\nperson.\" Professor James admits that \"such an experience as this does\nnot connect itself with the religious sphere.\" [Why not? It might\nhave been the Devil that time.] Later on his friend had a pleasanter\nexperience. \"There was not a mere consciousness of something there,\nbut, fused in the central happiness of it, a startling awareness of\nsome ineffable good. Not vague either--not like the emotional effect\nof some poem or scent or blossom or music, but the sure knowledge of\nthe close presence of a sort of mighty person; and, after it went,\nthe memory persisted as the one perception of reality. Everything\nelse might be a dream, but not that.\" Professor James then remarks:\n\"My friend, as it oddly happens, does not interpret these later\nexperiences theistically, as signifying the presence of God.\" Why\noddly? The explanation seems simple enough. It was just because his\nfriend was not odd, but a normal individual of modern times. Perhaps,\nafter all, the secret lay in the well-known reply to the question,\n\"Is life worth living?\"--It all depends on the liver. One may also\nrecall the words of the celebrated clerical wit who said: \"They think\nthey are pious when they are only bilious.\"\n\nProfessor James then relates various experiences of other persons\nwho, unlike his friend, were positive they had felt \"the presence\nof God.\" And he tells us: \"Nothing is more common in the pages of\nreligious biography than the way in which seasons of lively and\nof difficult faith are described as alternating. Probably every\nreligious person has the recollection of particular crises in which\na direct vision of the truth, a direct perception, perhaps, of a\nliving God's existence, swept in and overwhelmed the languor of the\nmore ordinary belief.\" If this sort of thing accounts for the faith of\nevery religious person, the mystery (in these days) of the great faith\nof the few and the little faith of the many is completely solved. So\nfew, relatively speaking, have this experience; so few are by nature\nmystics. Also it helps to explain the prevalence of supernatural\nbelief in bygone ages. Thoughtful unbelievers have long ago come to\nthe conclusion that some such psychical experiences largely account\nfor religious superstitions, and now an eminent psychologist and\nreligious apologist confirms their theories.\n\nProfessor James argues that \"the neurotic temperament naturally\nintroduces one to regions of religious truth which are hidden from\nthe robust Philistine type of nervous system, that thanks heaven it\nhasn't a single morbid fibre in its composition.\" This kind of \"robust\nPhilistine\" is, one is glad to think, a very common type. I hope I am\na fairly robust Philistine myself. The Rationalist may, or may not, be\nemotional, but he certainly prefers to be without morbid fibres. Why,\nof all the most undesirable states of mind, should morbidity assist\nthe human being to have faith in God? Why should spirituality and\nstrong faith be possible only for a person of nervous instability\nwhose intellectual canon (unacknowledged no doubt) is \"Credo quia\nimpossibile\"? Why, in the name of all that is reasonable, should\nspiritual experiences be the prerogative of exceptional temperaments\nonly? Why, in all fairness, if there be any spiritual meaning in\nhallucinations, should not the Agnostic be at least vouchsafed the\nconsciousness of the Devil's presence to cure him of his unbelief?\n\nProfessor James thinks \"there can be no doubt that as a matter of\nfact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the\nperson exceptional and eccentric.\" He refers to \"geniuses in the\nreligious line,\" who, \"like many other geniuses ... have often shown\nsymptoms of nervous instability.\" \"Even more perhaps,\" he says, \"than\nother kinds of genius, religious leaders have been subject to abnormal\npsychical visitations ... often, moreover, these pathological features\nin their career have helped to give them their religious authority and\ninfluence.\" All this is exceedingly instructive, coming as it does from\nthe mouth of an earnest champion of religion [231] specially suited,\nby his researches in psychical phenomena, to speak with authority on\nthe psychology of religion. His belief in the interference in human\nlife of spiritual agencies, and the whole tenour of his book, render\nit certain that he is not consciously bringing any arguments to bear\nagainst supernaturalism, but, on the contrary, intends to adduce new\narguments in its favour.\n\nHave we not here a satisfactory and perfectly natural explanation\nof the phenomena of conversion? The religionist is apt, I think,\nto lose sight of the fact that conversion is not confined to any one\nparticular creed; that it cannot witness to the truth of the one and\nnot of the other. \"The mystical feeling,\" remarks Professor James\n(pp. 425-6), \"of enlargement, union, and emancipation ... is capable\nof forming matrimonial alliances with material furnished by the most\ndiverse philosophies and theologies, provided only they can find\na place in their framework for its peculiar emotional mood.\" The\nmost striking examples of conversion are those of the instantaneous\nkind, of which St. Paul's is held out to us as the most eminent. I\nhave already outlined the probable explanation in St. Paul's case,\nand other cases may be similarly explained. The supernaturalist's\ninterpretation of conversion cannot be considered seriously until\nproofs are forthcoming of an instance in which nothing was known\npreviously of the truth alleged to have been revealed. Like Mr. Lowes\nDickinson, I have never, for example, discovered a case in which a\nMohammedan or a Hindoo, without having heard of Christianity, has\nhad a revelation of Christian \"truth.\"\n\nOf all visions, those of the death-bed especially invite our\nattention, for they are looked upon by many pious persons as sure\nevidence in favour of the truth of their Faith. Will this argument\nbear analysis? We know that good men and women have had heavenly\nvisions during their last moments. We know also that others of equally\nblameless lives have been terrified at the last by the sight of some\nsupreme horror. How can any argument be based upon the phantasms of a\ndisordered brain? Do not these visions, too, usually take their form\nfrom the teaching with which the mind has been imbued? The Mohammedan\nsees a heaven peopled with houris; do we on that account accept the\nKoran as our guide? A dying Hindoo may have a vision of a heathen\ndeity of questionable character, and derive comfort from it. I have\nmyself stood by the bedside of a dying Mahratta whose ravings during\nthe delirium of fever indicated such a vision. There are, it is true,\ncases where the visions of the dying may seem utterly unlike those we\nshould expect. But the brain retains impressions of things of which the\nconscious memory has long ago passed away, and, if the early history of\nthe ecstatic could be fully known, we should, as Proctor points out,\n[232] find nearly every circumstance of his vision explained, or at\nleast an explanation suggested. It may be said again of death-bed\nvisions, as of visions generally, that there has never yet been a\ncase of a Mohammedan or a Hindoo or any other non-Christian who has\nhad a revelation of Christian \"truth.\"\n\nProfessor James is not the only person having the curious notion that\nan abnormal state of mind admits the nearer presence of God. To take a\npeople possessing a marvellous self-control over their emotions, and,\ntherefore, the last among whom you would expect to find such ideas,\nI may mention that the more ignorant and superstitious among the\nJapanese throw themselves into hypnotic trances, and then fondly\nimagine that a god is present in their body, and is making use\nof them as a mouthpiece. [233] Again, no superstition is commoner\namong the ignorant natives of India, Mohammedan and Hindoo alike,\nthan that people of unsound mind have some sort of special means of\ncommunication with God; but that educated persons, having fairly normal\nminds themselves, should hold such an opinion is yet another example\nof the hallucinations to which religious enthusiasts are liable.\n\nThe folly of attributing any spiritual significance to these\nexperiences will be better understood if we compare them with cases\nwhere there is no religious element whatsoever. A lady, a friend of\nmine, is continually subject to a curious experience, which may serve\nto illustrate this point. I give the account of it in her own words:--\n\n\n    As a child I was always a bad sleeper, and got into the habit of\n    making up stories to amuse myself when lying awake in bed. This\n    habit continued as I grew older; but, after a time, the stories\n    ceased to be connected in any way with myself. Years ago I began\n    a story which has grown gradually through three generations,\n    and there are signs of the coming of a fourth. The old house\n    has remained as the centre of the story for years; most of the\n    characters are men, and no one of either sex bears any possible\n    relationship to me. They have all become far more real to me\n    than my own relations; at bed-time, on long railway journeys\n    (sometimes), or when I am walking or doing needlework, they are\n    there. If I get to the house at bed-time, I sleep well. If I\n    am there when travelling, I don't get tired, and the characters\n    grow and develop quite naturally. It is my inner life, and, if I\n    were given that way, it might become a series of visions. I can\n    quite understand men having ecstasies in which the ideals they\n    have always before them become apparently materialised.\n\n\n\nTHE PSYCHOLOGY OF PRAYER.\n\nI cannot too strongly insist that all this is extremely instructive. It\nexplains so many things that still have to be explained, if religion be\nuntrue. The new science of psychology has already accounted for many\nabnormal phenomena that were formerly considered miraculous--\"faith\ncures,\" [234] for instance. Does it not account for the effects\nof prayer? We know nothing of the efficacy of prayer in securing\nmaterial benefits--there is no proof either way; but we do know that\nit has often an ethical value, and is also a means of strengthening\nfaith. Does it necessarily follow that a Supernatural Being hears\nand answers the suppliant's prayers? I think not. Suggestion, it is\nnow known, exercises an extraordinary influence over the subjective\nmind. In prayer auto-suggestion undoubtedly plays its subtle r\u00f4le.\n\nLet me give an example of the benign results that may be effected\nby suggestion without any appeal to the supernatural. Often a moral\nchange for the worse in a most estimable person is distinctly traceable\nto causes over which he or she had no control, and the physician or\nsurgeon, having diagnosed the case, proceeds to do his best to bring\nabout a cure. Where it is some nervous malady, mental therapeutics\nor psychic healing is sometimes extremely efficacious. [235] Vices\nand weaknesses are now looked upon by many in the light of diseases\nand ailments--curable, ameliorable, or incurable, as the case may\nbe. Disease or Devil, the fact remains that medical treatment may\neffect a cure even where the patient's disorder has been brought on\nby, as we say, his own fault. Dipsomania, morphinomania, kleptomania,\nnymphomania, satyriasis, and various moral perversions may yield to a\npurely natural treatment, whether it be the method of a Milne Bramwell\n(by suggestion) or of Keeley.\n\nWhen denouncing Mariolatry (in his sermon at the opening of the\nChurch Congress, October, 1905), the Bishop of London said: \"It is not\nrevealed that the cry to any saint or to the Virgin Mary ever reaches\nthem at all.\" Apparently, therefore, the Bishop admits that appeals\nto the supernatural may be wasted, and this in spite of the suppliant\nbeing very much in earnest. Yet who would be prepared to say that\nthe Roman Catholic who prays to the Virgin Mary and to innumerable\nsaints does not derive quite as much benefit from the process as the\nProtestant who directs his worship solely to the Holy Trinity, or\nthe Shintoist who invokes the benign spirits of his ancestors? [236]\nThe effect of the suggestion is the same in each case, and has all\nthe appearance of an answer to prayer.\n\nAgain, putting aside abnormal phases of the mind, is it not, as\nRalph Waldo Trine puts it (in his little book, Character Building:\nThought Power), a simple psychological law that any type of thought,\nif entertained for a sufficient length of time, will, by and by,\nreach the motor tracts of the brain, and finally burst forth into\naction? There seems no need for the introduction of a supernatural\nhypothesis to explain the moral effect of prayer. So, also, with\nregard to faith, it is only natural that the believer, racked with\ndoubt, should find reassurance in prayer.\n\nThe Theist who lays store by the evidence from \"religious experience\"\nwill do well to ponder over the following words of one of Professor\nJames's critics: \"Instead of producing anything that would strengthen\nthe belief in extra-human spirit agents influencing human destinies,\npsychology has made intelligible, conformably to the rest of our\norganised knowledge, most, if not all, of the striking phenomena which\nhave been the empirical props of the popular faith in spiritism,\nwhether Christian or not. We refer to an\u00e6sthesias, analgesias,\nhallucinations, monitions, trances, the sense of illumination in\necstasy, etc., including the facts considered in Professor James'\nlectures. In making this statement, I do not forget the work of the\nSociety for Psychical Research. Its achievements may be declared\nto have been so far, and without prejudice of the future, absolutely\ninconclusive with regard to spiritism.\" [237] In other words, psychical\nresearch, if conducted by the experimental method and without bias,\nmay be pregnant with consequences hardly in accord with the hopes of\neither the spiritist or spiritualist (in its religious sense). For,\nshould abnormal phenomena of all kinds admit of a natural explanation,\ntheir present obscurity will no longer furnish grounds for supernatural\nspeculation.\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS (?) EXPERIENCES OF INTOXICATION.\n\nAccording to Professor James's theory, it is the person who chances to\nhave a well-developed subliminal life who is predestined to be saved,\nfor then God will be able to reach him. As Professor James informs\nus that \"nitrous oxide and ether, especially nitrous oxide, when\nsufficiently diluted with air, stimulate the mystical consciousness\nin an extraordinary degree,\" so that \"depth beyond depth of truth\nseems revealed to the inhaler,\" the unbelieving Philistine ought\nto be recommended to inhale this truth-revealing, and therefore\nfaith-producing, gas. Like music, it must be meant as an aid to\nworship. The new beatitude will then be, as Mr. Leuba remarks,\n\"Blessed are the intoxicated, for to them the kingdom of spirits is\nrevealed!\" I can quite understand the interest aroused by Professor\nJames's remarkable book; but that Theists and would-be Theists\nshould take its chief conclusion seriously is beyond me--or, rather,\nI should say it is one more proof to me that the inherited capacity\nfor superstition is still strong within us. We can understand why\nsupernatural beliefs die hard.\n\n\n\nMUSIC AND THE EMOTIONS. [238]\n\nAre our emotions reliable guides, or are they not? Though the\nmotive-power in our nature, though they go to make up that heart\nupon which Mr. Fielding so eloquently discourses in his Hearts of\nMen, do they not need to be carefully controlled by reason? Are they\nnot the very same emotions which, in all but religious matters, are\nadmittedly a fruitful source of self-deception? Take the emotion\nexcited by music. I know many good people who think they possess\nconsiderable religious feeling, and have had a religious experience,\nbecause they are peculiarly affected by music, and especially by fine\nsacred music. [239] Similarly, Dr. Torrey's \"Glory Song\" appeals to the\nuntrained ear of his emotional audiences, and the Salvation band, all\nout of tune, elevates the soul of the Salvationist. Yet lower down the\nscale of musical culture we find a clash of discordant sounds exciting\nthe religious emotions of the savage. Is it too much to say that these\n\"experiences\" differ only in degree from those of the dog who howls as\ncertain notes affect him? Granted that music, suited to the taste of\nthe worshipper, is an aid to worship, we have to remember that there\nare those whose temperaments are so constituted that they are more\nor less unaffected by music--good, bad, or indifferent--and, if the\nreligious feeling evoked be from God, may we not ask in all reverence:\n\"Why should the unmusical be debarred from this means of feeling His\npresence? Why should the man without a note of music in his composition\nhave this much less chance of eternal salvation?\" Surely we are not to\ntake seriously and literally the words of our great philosopher-poet\nwhen he says: \"Let no such man be trusted\"?\n\n\n\nSEXUAL LOVE.\n\nAgain, there is the religious feeling evoked by that strongest emotion\nof all--sexual love; the one excites the other, and the effect produced\nmay be beneficial or may be mischievous. But sexual love appears to me\na strange aid to the worship of God; and persons who really imagine\nthey are nearer Him when in this state of emotion most certainly\ndeceive themselves. The ascetic who is debarred from this particular\n\"religious\" experience should agree with me.\n\n\n\nREVIVALISM.\n\nAn examination of religious experiences, however brief, cannot well\nomit all mention of the question of revivalism. Has it an ethical\nvalue? Has it a spiritual meaning? To the latter question the answer of\nthe Church is for the most part in the affirmative. In his Pentecostal\nmessage for Whitsuntide, 1905, the Archbishop of Canterbury refers,\nwithout directly naming them, to the extraordinary movement of which\nthe young Evan Roberts has been the leader, and to the preaching\nof Messrs. Torrey and Alexander in London. \"To whatever cause or\ncombination of causes we may attribute it,\" he says, \"the fact\nappears to be certain that expression has this year been given in\nan unusual degree to a desire for increased spiritual earnestness\nin the Christian life.\" I shall not embark upon the question of the\nspiritual signification of revivalism. My remarks on other religious\nexperiences may be taken to apply here also. Regarding its ethical\nvalue, I fancy most thoughtful onlookers will be with me when I\nsay that it is unadvisable to stir up hysteria in hysterical people\njust for the sake of effects, the usefulness of which is extremely\nproblematical--effects which, if they benefit a few, are harmful to\nthe majority, and, in any case, are unlikely to be of a permanent\nnature. We have it on excellent authority that \"emotional appeals and\nrevivals do not destroy carnal sin in schools, and it is well known\nhow often they seem to stimulate, to increase, immorality.\" [240]\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Inevitable Conclusion.\n\nA candid and unbiassed examination of the so-called theistic proofs\ncan but lead to the one conclusion: they are worthless. Even if the\ncosmological and teleological arguments were satisfactory, and even\nif \"religious\" experiences proved the existence of a spirit world,\nthe ethical argument undoubtedly breaks down, carrying along with\nit all that fragile structure of which the theist's theories are\ncomposed. Yes, the problem of evil is insoluble. \"We have not,\"\nsays John Stuart Mill, [241] \"to attempt the impossible problem of\nreconciling infinite benevolence and justice with infinite power in\nthe Creator of such a world as this. To attempt to do so not only\ninvolves absolute contradiction in an intellectual point of view,\nbut exhibits to excess the revolting spectacle of a Jesuitical defence\nof moral enormities.\" The latest defence by an approved apologist of\nthe Church of England will be found in chap. xiv. of Pro Fide. It\nhas been conducted with conspicuous candour, and such harsh terms\nas \"Jesuitical\" and \"revolting\" are no longer applicable. Whether,\nhowever, this is likely to prove any more successful than previous\nattempts, and to serve as an antidote to scepticism, may be seen by a\nglance at the following summary of the line of argument. The author\nrelies, to begin with, upon the theological assumption that moral\nevil arises from the abuse of God's gift to man of a free will. He\nalso argues that the transmission of a tendency to sin is not unjust,\nbecause a remedy for it has been provided. As for physical evil,\nthis, he maintains, subserves important moral purposes in the case\nof man, and in the case of animals it is more than compensated for\nby physical good. In the end, however, he is forced, as we have seen,\nto fall back upon the hypothesis of a personal devil. In other words,\nhe presents us with those sophistical arguments of theistic apologists\nwhich we have been investigating, and then, finding, as a perfectly\nhonest mind must find, that these are inadequate, he has, after all,\nto rely upon those ancient theological dogmas which owe their origin\nto the insolubility of the problem. Let those accept his special\npleading who can. There are many who read an apologetic work with\nminds already made up to be persuaded by it, and where there is this\nbias there cannot be straight thinking. For those who keep an open mind\nthe conclusion is inevitable: apart from the revelation which has been\ncalled in question there is no proof, there never can be any proof, of\nthe existence of the God of the Christian. If there be a First Cause,\nif there be a Supreme Intelligence, if there be a Deity at all, we know\nnothing of His nature and nothing of His intentions with regard to us.\n\n\n\nNOTE ON RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY.\n\nAn examination of the development of philosophy leads to conclusions\nof considerable import. Our present inquiry can be only an exceedingly\nrapid one; but anyone wishing to study the subject a little more fully\nwill find it concisely treated in a book called Science and Faith,\nby Dr. Paul Topinard, late General Secretary of the Anthropological\nSociety of Paris. From Chapter VIII. I cull the following:--\n\n\"Animals, in the presence of phenomena which they do not understand,\nretire confounded. Savage man does the same. But he, at least, hazards\nthe attempt of an explanation by investing the objects or phenomena in\nquestion with life and sentiments similar to his own. Later this same\nsavage, discovering or believing to discover in himself a double being,\nthe one corporeal and the other spiritual, transfers the new notions\nregarding himself to objects without himself, to stones, plants,\nanimals, or stars.... Religions, at first more or less elementary,\nwith their founders and priests, do not appear until later.... For\na long time the sorcerer--that is to say, a man less credulous than\nthe rest, and adroit in the sense of knowing how to reap personal\nadvantage from the beliefs of his fellows--stood alone in his\nclass. Sorcerer and medicine man at once, he distributed amulets,\ndrove out spirits from the bodies of the deceased, and caused the\nrains to fall.... The sacerdotal caste arose, at times recruiting\nitself from the outside and at times hereditary. More intelligent\nthan the others, more disposed to reflect, the priests were naturally\ninclined to seek more satisfactory explanations from the phenomena\nof nature, to distinguish general causes from particular causes,\nto reduce the number of the spirits, to champion the most important\nof these, and even to symbolise many of them. The cult of heroes,\nof personages in the tribe who had rendered it valuable services,\nand of ancestors, was mingled with the preceding beliefs. Having\nto speak to simple people, for whom it was necessary to materialise\nthings, they were obliged to recast their ideas and to expound them\nby the help of fables and myths, which soon essayed to explain in a\ntangible form the origin of things, the existing phenomena of nature,\nand often to guide the conduct of men. These were the first attempts\nof philosophy, already as utilitarian as they were mystical.\"\n\n\"Religions consecrated a multitude of usages and ceremonies from which\nthe sacerdotal class lived, and which greatly augmented its power;\nand they also exerted a strong political influence. Again, they\nled up to genuine moral codes, such as those of Brahma and Buddha in\nIndia, and Confucius in China.... The utilitarian idea appears to have\ndominated among the Phoenician and Canaanite peoples. It gave rise to\nthe doctrine of a personal national God, who had created man and the\npeople whom he had chosen and whose destinies he directed. He exacted\nfrom them blind and exclusive worship and obedience to the laws which\nhe promulgated. In return he protected them, reserving his right of\nterrestrial punishment.... The Egyptians are related to the Hindus by\ntheir belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls from\nanimal to animal.... The conception of a judgment after death passed\nthrough these peoples [the Egyptians] to the polytheism of Greece and\nRome.... Greek philosophy rose audaciously to the loftiest and boldest\nconceptions, not conceptions crowning an intellectual edifice, but\nconceptions which dominate it in imaginary realms of space. Aristotle\nbelongs apart. He is at once scientist and philosopher. He observes\nnature. He is the founder of natural history, of anthropology, of\npolitical science, and of political economy. According to Graef,\nhe is also the founder of political philosophy, because he was the\nfirst to introduce positive facts into philosophy.... In the general\nrun, they [the Greek philosophers] were dialecticians, sophists, and\nintellectual gymnasts only. But, such as they were, they founded free\ninquiry, disintegrated the national polytheistic beliefs, and prepared\nthe way for the revolution which was on the verge of accomplishment.\"\n\n\"In an unknown [?] corner of Jud\u00e6a, on the banks of a lake, the glad\ntidings burst forth of a coming regeneration, and a voice was heard\npleading the cause of the feeble, the humble, and the oppressed,\nand saying: 'Love ye one another!' The doctrine, at first local\nand inculcated by a small number of apostles, soon extended with\nSt. Paul to the Gentiles, and thenceforward its progress was rapid\n[?]. Philosophy was not indifferent to it.... Christianity, in effect,\ninstead of conquering the pagan world, was conquered by it, as Huxley\nhas remarked.... During the Middle Ages science had disappeared from\nthe West. Philosophy, hemmed in between metaphysics and theology,\nbecame scholasticism, which sought to reconcile Plato, Plotinus, and\nAristotle with the needs of orthodoxy, and split hairs over subtle\nessences and entities.... Then a concourse of circumstances occurred\nwhich, as fifteen centuries before, was to transform the Western world,\nalthough differently, and which inaugurated modern times, to wit: The\nreturn to the West of the knowledge that had taken refuge among the\nArabs; the discovery of printing, which spread everywhere trustworthy\ntexts; the discovery of the New World, which quadrupled the surface\nof the earth to be observed and studied; the awakening of science,\nwith Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Rondelet, Vesalius, Harvey; and,\nfinally, the Reformation.\"\n\n\"On the downfall of scholasticism the first care of philosophy\nwas not the renouncing of what had been its essence, the search\nfor the absolute by intuition [italics are mine] and reason, but\nthe overhauling of its methods, which it sought to render more\nprecise.... The subsequent divergencies were rooted less in the\nvarying intellectual and logical make-up of each philosopher and in\ntheir method of applying their faculties than in their individual ways\nof feeling and conceiving. Philosophy in effect is simply a struggle\nbetween these elements.... Nevertheless, the conquests of science began\nto make themselves felt. There was now less insistence on God and more\non the world, man, morals, and the conditions of social life. The\nover-hanging metaphysical cloud is still more or less heavy, but at\nspots it suffers the light to pass through. There are two streams:\nthe one continues Descartes--in France with Pascal, Bossuet, F\u00e9n\u00e9lon,\nand Malebranche, in Germany with Spinoza and Leibnitz; the other, in\nEngland, is represented by Bacon, Hobbes, and Locke.... Bacon, Hobbes,\nand Locke are the inaugurators of a school which is characterised by\nits practical spirit, its observation and analysis of psychological\nfacts, and by its disposition to refer the conduct of man to the\nadvantages which he draws therefrom. It led to Adam Smith, who\ndiscovers the sanction of morality in the public approbation of what\nis right; to Bentham, who sees it in interest rationally understood;\nto Hume and the Scottish school; and finally to the existing school\nof John Stuart Mill, Darwin, and Herbert Spencer. Locke, on the other\nhand, is also the starting-point of the French school of the eighteenth\ncentury, which is characterised by a tendency at once anti-clerical,\naltruistic, and sentimental.\"\n\n\"We shall say nothing of the philosophy of the nineteenth century\nof the German school, which represents speculative philosophy, and\nthe English, which is physiological in bent, and of which we have\nthe highest opinion. In France the most notable achievement is the\nattempt which was made by Auguste Comte. For Comte metaphysics must\nbe entirely eliminated. The day of intuitions, \u00e0 priori conceptions,\nentities, innate ideas, is past. If a problem cannot be solved, it is\nto be let alone. Psychology is only a branch of physiology, and the\nlatter a division of biology. Morals rest not upon any imperative\nobligation, but upon the altruism which education developes. There\nare no rights besides those which society confers. Human knowledge\nhas passed through three stages: one of faith or theology, one of\nconceptions or metaphysics, and one of observation or science. These,\nin turn, are the basal principles of science, and would be perfect\nif the positivist school were faithful to them. But in its own bosom\neven there are refractory spirits who suffer themselves unconsciously\nto be ruled by their sentiments rather than by observation, and who\nare constantly lapsing back into the old methods.... For me there\nis but one method of knowing what is, and of inducing therefrom what\nhas been and what will be--and that is observation; all suggestions\nwhich transgress this method are void.\"\n\nFrom his examination of the evolution of philosophy Dr. Topinard draws,\nby way of r\u00e9sum\u00e9, the following conclusions:--\n\na. Philosophy, like religion, is the outcome of the belief in the\nsupernatural held by man in his more or less primitive state.\n\nb. The philosophic spirit and the spirit which created the arts and\nletters have as common characters their subjectivity, their need of\nimagining and of constructing, and their firm belief in the reality\nof their conceptions.\n\nc. Philosophy is opposed to science. It answers to the impatient need\nof man to explain at once things which elude his comprehension.\n\nd. At the present day philosophy still lives, but is losing its\ninitial character and sees itself obliged more and more to reckon\nwith science and practice.\n\ne. We are obliged to admit that the group of human faculties which\nhas given birth to philosophy has a less prolonged future than the\ngroup which has given rise to science.\n\nf. Philosophy, although on the wane, and apparently in disaccord with\nthe end of the nineteenth century, has nevertheless a beautiful domain\nto exploit.\n\nThese conclusions concerning the past and present of philosophy cannot\nbe disseminated too widely. So many refuse point-blank to inquire\ninto their belief, because they have been led to think that this\nwill entail their wading through a mass of philosophical writings,\nand because they expect to find these either incomprehensible or\nunconvincing. Properly speaking, Christians should be the first to\nadmit that apologists who attempt to defend their Faith by abstruse\narguments are sadly inconsistent. For it is written, Jesus rejoiced\nin spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and\nearth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent,\nand hast revealed them unto babes. Let the humble truth-seeker take\nheart. Whatever the value or present tendency of philosophy may or\nmay not be, the truth about the Christian religion can be ascertained\nwithout a knowledge of metaphysics.\n\nMetaphysics does not, and never will, appeal to the average man. He\nagrees with the scoffer, who says: \"When the man who is speaking no\nlonger knows what he is talking about, and the man who is listening\nnever knew what he was talking about, that is metaphysics!\" The\nobscurity inherent in profound and abstract philosophy may well be\nobjected to, not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable\nsource of uncertainty and error. \"Here, indeed,\" exclaims Hume,\nin his essay on The Different Species of Philosophy, \"lies the\njustest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of\nmetaphysics, that they are not properly a science, but arise either\nfrom the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate\ninto subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from\nthe craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend\nthemselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles to cover\nand protect their weakness.\" It is accurate and just reasoning like\nthat of Hume, in his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, which,\nto quote his words again, \"is the only catholic remedy, fitted for\nall persons and all dispositions; and is alone able to subvert that\nabstruse philosophy and metaphysical jargon which, being mixed up\nwith popular superstition, renders it in a manner impenetrable to\ncareless reasoners, and gives it the air of science and wisdom.\"\n\nIt may be urged that the famous Scottish philosopher and historian\nhas been unduly severe in his sceptical views concerning speculative\nphilosophy, or that he would have been less severe upon the later\nmetaphysical thinking which was affected by his criticisms. There\nstill remains, in any case, one feature common to all philosophies:\ntheir difficulty. Philosophy is only studied, and, indeed, can only be\nthoroughly understood, by the few. Take, for example, that intellectual\nphenomenon, Hegelianism, the spirit and method of which have leavened\nthe whole mass of philosophical thought in Germany. It is confessedly\none of the most difficult of all philosophies. One has heard what\nHegel himself is supposed to have said: \"Only one man ever understood\nme, and even he couldn't.\" This difficulty of comprehension has an\nimportant bearing on the argument for Agnosticism. Granting that there\nis such a God as Hegel would have us accept, how can anyone suppose\nfor a moment that a Deity wrapping Himself up in such obscurity\nwould be unreasonable enough to expect all mankind to believe in\nHim? He must not only pardon, but approve of, Agnosticism. A God,\nwhose existence can only be proved, if it can be proved at all, by\nthe abstruse arguments of a Hegel, is not a God anxious to reveal\nHimself to His creatures.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPOPULAR ARGUMENTS\n\nChapter VII.\n\nFALLACIES IN POPULAR ARGUMENTS\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Preliminary Remarks. The Power of Christianity for Good.\n\n\nFinally we have to consider some arguments that have often quite\nas much weight with the believer as Bible apologetics or Theistic\nproofs. They are: (1) The power of Christianity for good; (2) the\nmarvellous spread of Christianity; (3) the witness of the Christian\nmartyrs; and (4) the universality of the religious instinct. The\nfirst of these--the power of Christianity for good--opens up a large\nquestion, and I have thought it advisable, therefore, to select\nfor special investigation two popular beliefs springing from this\nsource--namely, the belief that woman owes her present position to\nChristianity, and the belief that the overthrow of Christianity would\nendanger society and the nation. The point now under consideration is\nnot whether Christianity ought to have been, but whether it has been,\na power for good. Although the apologist, when hard pressed as to\nthis or that evidence of failure, attributes it to the fault of man,\nhe nevertheless continues stoutly to maintain that Christianity has\nindeed worked wonders for mankind. This we should certainly expect of\nit, if it be a true belief, and it is a claim therefore which cannot\nbe too closely investigated.\n\nIt would be a comparatively easy, though lengthy, task to make out\nan exceedingly strong case against Christianity by enlarging upon\nthe inhumanity and immorality of the Dark Ages, and comparing this\nwith the far more humane and moral conduct of men in pre-Christian\ncivilisations. One could point to the rock-graven edicts of King\nAsoka (263-226 B.C.), and show that in the matter of discountenancing\nslavery, of humanity to prisoners, of denouncing war, of founding\nhospitals, of abolishing blood sacrifices, of inculcating religious\ntoleration, and of teaching purity of life, all that is now so\ncomplacently claimed for Christianity was anticipated. Or again,\none might dwell on the dark side of Christendom, even in this year of\ngrace 1907, and draw some very odious comparisons, especially as we\nhave so recently been presented with the object-lesson of a heathen\nrace which excels many, and equals any, of the Christian races in\nnearly all those virtues we prize and call Christian. But I have no\nintention of embarking upon such a wide sea of controversy.\n\nOne controversial subject, however, I feel bound to notice, because\nthe disputed point is at the root of the whole matter. We are so\naccustomed to hear every humane or unselfish deed, and every moral act,\ndescribed as Christian that \"good\" and \"Christian\" have almost become\nsynonymous terms. It never occurs to us to ask, or we never give a\nsecond thought to the question, how much the humane principles now\naccepted among civilised nations may be due to education, experience,\nand evolution, and how much to Christian influence. The Rationalist\nattributes the improvement chiefly to the former, and, in any case,\nto the working of natural forces; the Christian chiefly to the latter,\nand, in any case, to the working of supernatural forces.\n\nAll that is beneficial in civilisation, both on its material and on\nwhat is called its spiritual side, is placed by the Christian to the\ncredit of Christianity, and the hand of God is traced with becoming\nreverence in every discovery which ameliorates our lot. This, although\nthe promoters and discoverers are often non-Christians, and although\nit is well known that it is the Church that has chiefly delayed the\nadvance of science. Whatever may be the case now, the education of\nthe masses never concerned her in olden times. Rather her concern was\nthen that the people should not be educated, much as it is in Russia at\nthe present time. Such education as she did encourage was of the type\nimparted in the Mohammedan University at Cairo to-day--the three R's\nand the Koran--and for similar reasons. As late as 1846 Cobden writes\nto a friend on the subject of national education: \"I took the repeal\nof the Corn Laws as light amusement compared with the difficult task\nof inducing the priests of all denominations to agree to suffer the\npeople to be educated.\" Again, Lord Macaulay, speaking of the Roman\nCatholic Church, in the first chapter of his History of England,\nsays that \"during the last three centuries to stunt the growth of\nthe human mind has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom,\nwhatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth,\nand in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has\neverywhere been in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and\nmost fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in\npoverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor.\"\n\nSo long as organisms are adapted to their environment, neither\nprogressive nor retrogressive development will occur. Because,\nafter the Dark Ages, Europe progressed while Asia stagnated and\nAfrica retrogressed, is modern civilisation to be placed to the\ncredit of the Christian religion? As rationally might any one of the\nancient civilisations be credited to the popular superstition of the\ncountry then in the van of progress. To such absurd lengths are these\npretensions carried that we find persons ignorant enough and fanatical\nenough to attribute the present predominance of Christian nations to\ntheir religion. For a reply to such I cannot better that given by a\nlearned Buddhist monk to a missionary who had told him that nations\nof the West had become powerful because of their Christianity. \"The\nfact is,\" retorted the monk, \"that nations have become powerful in\nthe degree to which they have rejected the precepts of Christianity,\nin the extent to which they have substituted for the Christian maxim\nof 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' that other maxim which shoots 300\nbullets a minute.\"\n\nReturning to the only contention really worth considering, let us\nassume that there has been moral progress in Christendom, and let\nus assume also that this has nothing to do with the advance of\nHumanitarianism in the present, or with pre-Christian (Buddhist,\nfor instance) teaching in the past. Are we to conclude that this is\na proof of the divine origin of Christianity? I must confess I fail\nto see how any improvement which there may be in the matter of coarse\nvice among the proletariat, of dishonesty among the commercial classes,\nof corruptness among the professional, and of sensuality among the\nleisured classes, can be any proof that Jesus, one of the world's\nreformers, was God Incarnate. Christian teaching embodies precepts\nof the greatest ethical value, borrowed, as we now know, from the\ndoctrines of ancient moralists and religious teachers. Would it not\nindeed be strange if this teaching had done no good whatever--if the\nleaven had had no elevating influences at all, whereas the teachings of\nConfucius and Buddha have produced those admirable results which even\nChristians are at last prepared to admit? Dr. Warschauer explains in\nAnti-Nunquam, p. 72, that Agnostics are good men, \"because, willingly\nor unwillingly, they have taken in Christian ideas through every\npore.\" How, then, does he explain the virtues of the Japanese?\n\nLet us now leave generalisation, and investigate in some detail an\nimportant Christian argument which has the contention of Christianity's\npower for good as its source. It forms a striking illustration of the\nway fallacies may arise from a hard-and-fast adhesion to convictions\nthat are justified rather by the heart than by history.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Christianity Woman's Best Friend. [242]\n\nThe majority of women still remain true believers. There appear\nto be numerous reasons, psychological and educational, for their\nattitude. Woman is more imaginative, more emotional, and more\nsensitive to external suggestion than man. As to her education,\nmen, even those who have no religious belief whatever, prefer to\nkeep her in ignorance of their views, partly under a vague notion\nthat unbelief would undermine her virtue and lessen her amiability,\nand partly because they deem her religious influence an essential\nelement in the upbringing of their children. In addition to all\nthis, woman is taught by the Church that Christianity is her best\nfriend. Prominent prelates of the Church proclaim that \"the Gospel\nhas given woman the position she holds to-day.\" [243] Nothing could\nvery well be more contrary to fact. One can only suppose that these\nexpounders of the truth are speaking according to the dictates of\ntheir hearts, and without having really studied the question, or else\nthat they believe their cause is served by deliberately closing their\neyes to inconvenient facts. The question is one of supreme importance,\nas it is chiefly women who are now the mainstay of the Faith.\n\nPeople with little or no knowledge of those portions of history that\nspecially bear upon the question are easily deceived. The average\nwoman's ideas concerning the pre-Christian civilisations are decidedly\nvague. Her ideas may also be further confused by lurid accounts from\nthe pulpit of the licentiousness prevalent among the upper classes\nduring the earlier and also the last years of the Roman Empire;\nwhile nothing is told her about the unrestrained licence of the\naristocracy during the Middle Ages, and the degraded condition of the\nmasses during, say, the eighteenth century, \"when,\" says Sir Walter\nBesant, \"for drunkenness, brutality, and ignorance, the Englishman\nof the baser kind reached the lowest depth ever reached by civilised\nman.\" Clerics who unconsciously mislead their congregations with this\nargument cannot be aware of those hard facts of history which render\nit untenable. For their benefit, and for the benefit of their dupes,\nlet us glance at a few of these facts.\n\nThe status of women among the \"barbarians\" is vouched for by the\nRomans, their enemies, and therefore unexceptionable witnesses. Nothing\nimpressed the Romans more than the equality of the sexes among the\nnorthern nations, the man's reverence for womanhood, the woman's\nsympathy with manhood, and the high code of morality that was the\nnatural outcome of this well-balanced state of society.\n\nAt a time when the men of the \"Chosen People\" were insulting and\nunjust to their women, heathen women enjoyed a position which their\nChristian, not to mention their Mohammedan, descendants might well\nenvy. \"Polygamy only began to disappear among the Jews in the fifth\ncentury B.C., and so curious was the influence of the Old Testament\non the early Christian Church that several of the Fathers could not\nbring themselves to condemn it, and it was not officially suppressed\nby the Church until A.D. 1060. Luther and the Reformers allowed it\neven later. Yet polygamy was one of the surest signs of a contempt\nof woman, and it had been rejected by Greeks, Romans, and barbarians\nlong before the Hebrews began to perceive its enormity.\" [244]\n\n\"The part women played in old Japan,\" writes the founder of the\nfirst university for women in Japan, [245] \"was very remarkable,\nespecially before the arrival of Buddhism and Confucianism. Men\nand women were almost equal in their social position. There was\nthen no shadow of the barbarous idea that men were everything and\nwomen nothing. Women's power even in politics was great, and history\ntells us that there were nine women who ascended the throne in olden\ntimes. Women in general were not inferior to men physically, mentally,\nor morally. They were noted for their bravery, and distinguished\nthemselves on the field of battle. In the literary world they were\nnot less noted for their brilliant productions. Their moral conduct\nwas most blameless, and commanded universal respect. Their natural\ntemperament was cheerful and optimistic, and charmed the sterner\nsex. Such being the attainments and characteristics of women in\nolden times, we can fairly believe that they were as well educated\nas men were, although there were not existing any institutions of\ninstruction for women. This was the springtime of Japanese womanhood,\nwhen it blossomed undisturbed, and exerted a strong and beneficial\ninfluence on the life of old Japan. The introduction of Buddhism and\nConfucianism, however, began to create great changes in the position\nof women. And yet so powerful were women in society when these two\nreligions came to Japan that their rapid spread in our country was\ndue to the earnest endeavours of women.\" Speaking of the feudal age,\nhe remarks: \"The social environment of the age and the prevalence\nof Buddhism and Confucianism worked hand in hand to bring about the\nsubjection of women.\" The analogy between the experiences of the\nJapanese lady and her European sister is a striking one. (There is an\nanalogy, too, between the conduct of the Buddhist priests and that of\nthe Roman Catholic priests in the Middle Ages, or even in Southern\nItaly to-day. \"The sins of the present generation of priests,\" said\nCount Okuma in the course of an interview, \"are many, and the hells\nabout which they preach are prepared for the like of them.\" [246]\n\"The majority of the priests are utterly degenerate and hopelessly\nignorant.\" [247])\n\nLook on these pictures, one of 2000 B.C. and the other of A.D. 1850:--\n\nPicture I.--Two thousand years before the Christian era \"woman was\nmore free and more honoured in Egypt than she is in any country of\nthe world to-day. She was the mistress of the house. [248]... She\ninherited equally with her brothers, and had full control of her\nproperty. She could go where she liked, or speak with whom she\nliked. She was 'juridically the equal of man,' says M. Paturet,\n'having the same rights and being treated in the same fashion'; and\nthe same authority observes that it was not as mother, but as woman,\nas a being equal in dignity, that she was thus honoured. There was\npolygamy in theory, but the first wife was generally able to exact\nconditions in her marriage contract which effectually prevented it. The\ninscriptions show, says Masp\u00e9ro, that she remained to the end of her\nlife 'the beloved of her husband and the mistress of the house.'\" [249]\n\nPicture II.--In enlightened Boston, about 1850 (under the English\nCommon Law), woman could not hold any property, either inherited or\nearned. A woman, either married or unmarried, could hold no office of\ntrust or power. She was not recognised as a citizen. The status of a\nmarried woman was little better than that of a domestic servant. By\nthe English Common Law her husband was her lord and master. He had\nthe sole custody of her person, and of her children while minors. He\ncould punish her \"with a stick no thicker than his thumb,\" and she\ncould not complain against him. He was the owner of all her real\nestate and of her earnings. She had no personal rights, and could\nhardly call her soul her own. Her husband could steal her children,\nrob her of her clothing, neglect to support the family: she had no\nlegal redress. [250]\n\nNot until near the middle of the nineteenth century did that movement\ncommence which has radically improved, and will continue to improve,\nthe position of women. And who took the chief, and, in the initial\nstage, the only, part in this reform movement? Freethinkers. Who were\nsilent when they were not active opponents? The clergy. \"It was just\nthose who most radically abandoned Christianity--Owen, Holyoake,\nand Mill--that were the most logical and ungrudging in their plea\nfor woman. It was the Mary Wollstonecrafts, Harriet Martineaus,\nFrances Wrights, George Eliots, Helen Taylors, and Annie Besants that\ndistinguished themselves by fearlessness and unselfishness... The\nclergy never discovered any injustice to woman; and only one in\na thousand could see it when it was pointed out.... All honour\nto the memory of those clergymen who, like Kingsley and Farrar,\nprotested against the injustice to the full extent of their idea\nof womanhood.... On the Continent there has been the same story of\ngeneral clerical opposition and general heterodox support.\" [251]\n\"Mr. Pinchwife,\" [252] too, has undoubtedly had a hand in the\nsubjection of woman; but we are investigating the grounds for the\ncontention that Christianity has laid on woman a burden of gratitude,\nand that, if Christianity were overthrown, women would sink into\nunknown depths of degradation. Do the above-stated facts bear out\nthat contention?\n\nThe question arises: Why has Christianity stood in the way of woman's\ncause? The answer is simple enough: Christianity, in adopting the\nOld Testament, adopted with it the Hebrew conception of woman. Her\ninferiority to man was established by her origin from his rib and the\nleading part she took in his fall. The Vicar of Crantock tabulates\n[253] the reasons why a Christian woman should cover her head in\nchurch, as follows:--\n\n\n    (1) Man's priority of creation. Adam was first formed, then Eve.\n\n    (2) The manner of creation. The man is not of the woman, but the\n    woman of the man.\n\n    (3) The purport of creation. The man was not created for the woman,\n    but the woman for the man.\n\n    (4) Results in creation. The man is the image of the Glory of God,\n    but woman is the glory of man.\n\n    (5) Woman's priority in the Fall. Adam was not deceived; but the\n    woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.\n\n    (6) The marriage relation. As the Church is subject to Christ,\n    so let the wives be to their husbands.\n\n    (7) The headship of man and woman. The head of every man is Christ,\n    but the head of the woman is man.\n\n\nThe Jews' idea of a woman was sanctioned by no less an authority than\nJehovah; nor did the Christ of the Gospels give one word of clear\nguidance on this or any other social problem, or enter one word of\nexplicit protest against the injustice of the Judaic treatment of\nwomen. Again, the teaching of St. Paul was based on the Old Testament,\nand the teaching of the Fathers was based on the Old Testament and\nSt. Paul. A few quotations from the sayings of some of these Fathers,\nwhose contempt of marriage became one of the great errors of the\nChurch, may prove instructive:--\n\n\n    Fornication is a lapse from one marriage into many.--Clement\n    of Alexandria.\n\n    Digamists (widowers who re-marry) are saved in the name of Christ,\n    but are by no means crowned by him.--Origen.\n\n    Second marriage is \"a decent sort of adultery.\"--Athenagoras.\n\n    It was no part of God's primitive design that the race should\n    be continued by sexual union. Marriage is the outcome of\n    sin.--St. Gregory of Nyssa (a married bishop).\n\n    Blessed is the one who leads a celibate life, and soils not the\n    divine image within him with the filth of concupiscence.\n\n        Fierce is the dragon, and cunning the asp;\n        But woman has the malice of both.\n\n                            --St. Gregory of Nazianzum.\n\n    Why was woman created at all?--St. Augustine.\n\n    Thou art the devil's gate, the betrayer of the tree, the first\n    deserter of the divine law!\n\n    Marriage is not far removed from fornication.--Tertullian.\n\n    She is more fitted for bodily work.... Remember that God took a\n    rib out of Adam's body, not a part of his soul, to make her.\n\n    She was not made to the image of God, like man.--St. Ambrose.\n\n    Woman is the root of all evil.--St. Jerome.\n\n    At the Council of Auxerre, in 578, the bishops forbade women,\n    on account of their \"impurity,\" to take the sacrament in their\n    hands as men did.\n\n\nIf women only knew of these sayings, would they approve of the\n\"appeal to the first six centuries\"?\n\nBad as the position of woman was under the influence of the early\nChurch teaching, it was, in many respects, still worse during the\nMiddle Ages. \"Life-long seclusion in the inner apartments of the\nhouse of a man she has not chosen, or internment in a nunnery--that\nis, either degraded or unnatural--is the choice (within limits) of\nthe daughter of the wealthy. Life-long drudgery, with few and coarse\npleasures, with a long vista of sticks and whips, and scold's bridles,\nand ducking stools--with, perhaps, the brutal 'ordeal' on the slightest\nsuspicion, or the ghastly death of the witch, is the prospect of the\ndaughter of the poor.\" [254] Even the Reformation altered more than\nit improved the condition of woman. How could it be otherwise when\nthe Reformers were nothing if not Bibliolaters?\n\nOf the movement for the betterment of woman's position that eventually\ntook place, not by the aid, but in spite, of the Church, I have\nalready spoken. All the evidence we possess regarding the history\nof Heathendom and Christendom conclusively shows that Christianity\nhas done much to lower, and but little to elevate, the position of\nwomen. Should I have succeeded in arousing the interest of my gentle\nreaders, or should they wish to verify my statements, I implore them\nto read well-known works of competent authorities on this subject. The\nastounding but apparently prevalent idea, that woman is only secured\nby Christianity from the brutal assaults of man, will appear in the\nnext argument we are about to consider.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. The Overthrow of Christianity would Endanger Society and the\nNation.\n\n\nI have elsewhere commented on the opinion prevalent in England (and\nin some other, but not all other, Christian countries) that, to quote\nCanon Henson, \"the real elements of the Christian Faith are those that\nhave made European nations the most powerful in the world,\" [255] and\nthat the overthrow of Christianity would endanger the nation. Many go\nstill farther, and prophesy absolute chaos. People who have been imbued\nwith the Church's teaching, and who have spent their lives in Christian\nsurroundings, are naturally convinced that belief and morality are\nindissoluble partners--that Christianity is a power for good in this\nrespect above all others. Therefore, when Professor Flint says, \"It\n[the Christian Faith] could not be displaced without shaking society\nfrom top to bottom,\" [256] he expresses a very popular opinion among\nbelievers and semi-believers. Even among Agnostics there are many who,\nwhile recognising the fallacy so far as they themselves are concerned,\nstill seem to consider that society would be insufficiently protected\nfrom criminals by its own instinct of self-preservation, and that,\nto maintain order among the masses, the hand of the law must, for\nthe present, be strengthened by appeals to a supernatural sanction\nof conduct. Both Herbert Spencer and Matthew Arnold, for example,\nthought the world at large stood in peril of a moral collapse, while,\nas the latter puts it, \"the old (theologically-derived) sanction of\nconduct is out of date, and the new is not yet born.\" \"Few things can\nhappen more disastrous,\" writes Herbert Spencer, \"than the decay and\ndeath of a regulative system no longer fit, before another and fitter\nregulative system has grown up to replace it\" (see Preface, dated July,\n1879, to The Data of Ethics). It is for reasons such as these that\nso many Agnostics still lend their moral support to the Churches;\nfor men rightly uphold what they deem essential to the common weal,\nwhether it be Christ-worship in England or ancestor-worship in Japan.\n\nThis deeply-rooted conviction regarding belief and conduct has been\npartially considered in the first section of this chapter, and, the\nsubject being one of the greatest importance, I am also devoting to\nits consideration a portion of the concluding chapter of this book. I\nshall confine myself here to the warning given to us by the Church and\nthe pious laity--that we must expect nothing less than chaos should\nthe Resurrection, and along with it, of course, the whole fabric of\nChristianity, be ultimately disproved.\n\nThis view has been illustrated in Mr. Guy Thorne's book, When it was\nDark. The book may be seen on every bookstall, has had an extraordinary\nsale, [257] and has been much appreciated by many pious-minded\npersons (especially by those of the High Church persuasion, the\nbook being written by a partisan of that cult). The anti-Christian\npropagandist is here represented as knowing that Christ is God; but,\nfor some unexplained and exceedingly mysterious reason, utilising\na huge fortune and a powerful intellect in unscrupulous endeavours\nto spread disbelief. He is a deceiver of mankind, a genuine Satan\nin human shape. He leads the life of an ascetic, so the usual\ngrounds given for disbelief are removed. With the assistance of\nanother man (a real villain, this time, of the lowest type), one of\nthe greatest savants of the day, a gigantic fraud is perpetrated,\nand the Resurrection thereby definitely disproved. Immediately an\nepidemic of crime breaks out among quondam Christians, which nothing\ncan quell. The restraints of order are paralysed, and the criminal\nelement is rampant. The violence and viciousness of men were, please\nto note, specially directed against the weaker sex, who had to keep\nat home and bar the door. Not only Agnostics, but any who happened\nto differ in their views from this champion of Christianity, come in\nfor a share of Mr. Thorne's invective. The wonder is how an author of\nhis ability could be capable of penning such an effusion; and that\nit can be read and appreciated, as it undoubtedly has been by many\nexcellent persons of his way of thinking, only shows how easily bias\nmay cloud the intellect. It requires an effort, too, to understand how\nthis book can appeal to one of the chief dignitaries of the Church;\nbut there, conspicuously printed on the cover, we are treated to an\nextract from his sermon in praise of the book.\n\nI submit that there is not a Rationalist in the world, however\nmilitant, who would descend to forgery to promote his cause. He would\nnot hold the pious opinion that the end justifies the means. On the\ncontrary, the curtain has but now fallen upon a scene where a Christian\nChurch ranged herself on the side of forgers while freethinkers like\nZola and Cl\u00e9menceau fought the battle of truth.\n\nAccording to Mr. Guy Thorne and the admirers of his book, the\nChristian races are innately far worse than Jews, Turks, infidels,\nand heretics--far worse, indeed, than savages and animals--for they\nare only held in check from the commission of the vilest excesses by\ntheir belief in the Resurrection. Chaos and crime are rife in certain\ncities in Russia and Poland to-day. What is the cause? Unbelief? Is\nit not rather the result of the cruel laws and despicable methods of a\nChristian government, aided by Christian butchers, calling themselves\nsoldiers, and by a Christian hooligan element such as it would be\nhard to find outside a Christian city? This chaos occurs, mind you,\nunder a powerful Christian theocratic government; and the head of\nthe Holy Synod, Pobiedonostseff, was, before his removal, one of the\nprime movers. The terrible atrocities of which the unfortunate Jews\nhave been the victims were undoubtedly connived at by the authorities,\nand inhuman crimes have been perpetrated by Christians that would be\nimpossible in humane Japan. The policy of keeping the masses steeped\nin the grossest superstitions of the orthodox Church is now bearing\nfruit, adding to the chaos and bloodshed and hindering the work of\nreform. It is belief, not unbelief, that has played a leading part\nin creating this chaos, and in stirring up man's cruellest passions.\n\nAs to the safety of women (in the event of the Resurrection being\ndiscredited), where in civilised Christendom, may I ask, could a lady\nbe left for days and nights alone in a tent or open house? She can be,\nin the Indian jungle or in the Australian bush. For such protection\nas may there be necessary (and the open house testifies how little it\nis required) she relies upon her heathen servants. Almost the only\ndanger in India is from religious fanatics, and in Australia from\nChristian criminals. In what Christian country would it be safe to\nhave paper windows and walls, as in Japan? My wife and I slept in\nstrange, out-of-the-way native hotels in Japan in perfect security,\nthough a would-be criminal had only to tear through a thin piece\nof paper! Belief in the Resurrection is rapidly decaying in France\nto-day. Are cases of assault on women any the more prevalent on that\naccount? If belief in the Resurrection is so essential, how comes it\nthat we have allied ourselves to a heathen nation, and made friends\nwith another that is fast giving up this belief? How comes it that in\nour own Government two of the most responsible posts are now occupied\nby declared Agnostics?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Spread of Christianity a Proof of its Truth.\n\n\"What, then,\" asks the Rev. Prebendary W. A. Whitworth, [258]\n\"was the original gospel of power which overran the world with\nsuch astonishing success?\" The spread of Christianity is thought by\nnearly all good Christians to have been marvellous. Was it? That is\nthe question we have next to consider. In the first place, let us see\nwhat we are told on this point by recognised theologians. In his book,\nThe Bible in the Church, we are reminded by the learned Dr. Westcott,\nthe late Bishop of Durham, that the dispersion of the Jews exercised\na great influence upon the spread of Christianity. \"The pagans got\nthe idea of monotheism, while the Jews themselves dropped the idea\nof a 'kingdom' and substituted a 'faith.'\" He also reminds us of the\nbroad unity of the Roman Empire, and of the dispersion of the Jews\nbeing co-extensive with its limits, and concludes that \"during the\nlifetime of St. Paul every condition was realised for proclaiming\nthe Gospel to the world.\" \"Without such preparation,\" he says, \"the\nspread of Christianity would be historically inconceivable, and it\nis a remarkable example of Divine Providence.\" Here, then, we have\nan admission of purely natural causes, and, although the believer\nmay be able to look upon them with reverence, as Providential, he\ncan hardly claim them to be at the same time a witness to the power\nof the Gospel. Also, we shall see that there were many other natural\ncauses at work, and that among them were some which the pious would\nbe the last to connect with a Divine Providence.\n\nHistorians find that the rapidity of the spread has been much\nexaggerated, and that it was not until the Emperor Constantine\nconvened the Council of Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 that the spread commenced\nto emerge from insignificance. Even then the adhesion to the\nnew Faith was for a long period of a purely nominal character,\nthe unwilling converts remaining, to all intents, pagans after\nthey were baptised. The spread of Christianity was for a long time\nconfined to cosmopolitan trading towns only, the villagers remaining\npagans--hence the name. (Mutatis mutandis, it is the villagers who are\nnow the last to be touched by the spread of \"paganism.\") What were\nthe \"Providential\" methods of conversion? The prevailing ignorance\nand superstition were taken advantage of by the propagators of the\nGospel and frauds freely perpetrated, while \"edicts of toleration\nremoved the temporal disadvantages which had hitherto retarded the\nprogress of Christianity.\" [259] After the Emperor Constantine had\nbeen converted, \"the cities which signalised a forward zeal, by the\nvoluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished by municipal\nprivileges, and rewarded with popular donations.\" [260] When these\nmeasures failed, Church and State had recourse to persecution, quite\nas cruel as, and on a scale that far exceeded, the persecution of the\nearly Christians by the heathen. For instance, the Emperor Theodosius,\nat the suggestion of the ecclesiastics who governed his conscience,\npromulgated, in the space of fifteen years (A.D. 380-394), \"at least\nfifteen severe edicts against the heretics, more especially against\nthose who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.\" [261] Buddhism, on\nthe contrary, unlike Christianity and Mohammedanism, was promulgated\nwithout persecution or religious wars, and spread far more rapidly\nthan Christianity. In his apologetic work, Anti-Theistic Theories,\nDr. Flint refers to Buddhism thus: \"The very marvellous system of\nthought called Buddhism, which originated in India about 500 years\nB.C., has spread over a greater area of the earth and gained more\nadherents than even Christianity, and by peaceful means--by the power\nof persuasion--not by the force of arms, not by persecution.\"\n\nWhy did the Emperor Constantine embrace Christianity? Was it not mainly\nbecause he believed that it had a power to wipe away his own heinous\ncrimes? [262] Even his old age \"was disgraced by the opposite, yet\nreconcilable, vices of rapaciousness and prodigality.\" [263] Although\nhe acknowledged the Faith, he put off his baptism till he was on his\ndeath-bed, in order that he might continue to lead a wicked life as\nlong as possible. [264] As an instrument for spreading God's word\nhe is even worse than that royal adulterer and murderer whom we are\nasked to look upon as a prototype of Christ and His prime ancestor.\n\nOn all these matters of history the learned Bishop Westcott is\nsilent, although, as examples of Divine Providence, they would\nappear sufficiently remarkable. Lest Gibbon's testimony be deemed\nuntrustworthy on account of his anti-Christian bias, the following\nextract from a prize essay in Christian apologetics may be noted. Not\nonly does it bear out some of the historian's statements concerning\nthe causes of the spread of Christianity, but it discloses the\nsignificant fact that the clergy increased their power and influence\nby working upon the emotions of wealthy women, and that \u00a3.s.d. and its\nfemale contributors were then, as now, a sine qua non. [265]--\"Nine\nyears after the conversion of Constantine to the Christian faith he\npromulgated that great edict which, more than any other enactment,\nmay be said to have lain at the foundation of clerical power during\nthe ensuing centuries, and relieved the Christian Church from that\nrestriction under which, in common with the Jews, they had so long\nlaboured--the incapacity of profiting by the testamentary liberality\nof their wealthy proselytes. To convince us of the abundance in which\nthe stream of wealth flowed into the newly opened channel, and of the\ninfluence obtained by the clergy, in those days as in the present,\nover the piety and pliability of the weaker sex, more especially at\nRome, we possess not only the testimony of a Pagan historian, [266]\nbut the less suspicious evidence of an edict published by the Emperor\nValentinian [267] fifty years after that of Constantine, addressed to\nDamasus, Bishop of that city, and imposing a limit to the extravagant\ndonations of females. The clergy, moreover, might look for an increase\nof worldly substance not only from the prosperity of their friends,\nbut from the downfall of their enemies; for the Theodosian code\ncontains a series of stringent enactments by the Emperor Honorius,\n[268] in terms of which not only the deserted temples of Paganism,\nbut even the meeting-houses and possessions of Donatists, Manich\u00e6an,\nand other heretical corporations, were made over to the Catholic\nChurch.\" [269]\n\nThere was yet another, and possibly the chief, cause for the ultimate\nspread of Christianity. In the chapter on comparative mythology I\nhave described and commented upon the various rationalistic theories\nconcerning the origins of Christian beliefs and ceremonies. As a matter\nof fact, Mithraism spread just as much, or more, until Christianity\nobtained the necessary political power to suppress it. Not only\nfrom these anti-Christian theories, but also from the admissions of\napologists concerning them, it appears that Christianity gained ground,\nnot so much because there was something new either in its dogma or in\nits promise, but rather because these were so closely paralleled in\nmany pagan cults. Let us take, for example, the spread of Christianity\nin Egypt. \"The Egyptians who embraced Christianity found that the\nmoral system of the old cult and that of the new religion were so\nsimilar, and the promises of resurrection and immortality in each so\nalike, that they transferred their allegiance from Osiris to Jesus\nof Nazareth without difficulty. Moreover, Isis and the child Horus\nwere straightway identified with Mary the Virgin and her Son.\" [270]\n\"The knowledge of the ancient Egyptian religion which we now possess\nfully justifies the assertion that the rapid growth and progress\nof Christianity in Egypt were due mainly to the fact that the new\nreligion, which was preached there by St. Mark and his immediate\nfollowers, in all its essentials so closely resembled that which was\nthe outcome of Osiris, Isis, and Horus that popular opposition was\nentirely disarmed.\" [271] We have, then, here one of the main factors\nin the growth of Christianity. I cannot find that Bishop Westcott\nrecognises this as a part of the preparation in which the hand of\nGod can be traced; but advanced apologists very largely do so now,\nand hence the precious theory of progressive revelation.\n\nWe may now pass on to another very popular argument.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. The Noble Army of Martyrs.\n\nMy allusions to religious persecutions may remind some of my readers\nof the experiences of the early Christians, and of the witness to the\ntruth of Christianity furnished by the \"noble army of martyrs\"; and\nthey may say: \"Admitting that there be nothing extraordinary in the\nmere fact of Christianity's spread, you must allow that its power over\nmen's minds is little, if at all, short of miraculous. Men could not\nhave given their lives for a falsehood.\" This argument will not bear\nthe slightest scrutiny. \"Steadfastness under persecution says much for\nthe sincerity, and still more for the tenacity, of the believer, but\nvery little for the objective truth of that which he believes.\" [272]\nSupposing the noble army were a historical fact, the argument based\nupon it would be adequately met by pointing to the last Ghazi who ran\namok in the hope of a speedy delivery from a dirty and ugly spouse on\nearth, and of reaping the reward of a clean and lovely houri in heaven.\n\nBut the noble army is not altogether a historical fact. The truth is\nthat martyr-making became an ecclesiastical industry. The historian\nGibbon estimates that at most about two thousand Christians fell in the\nDiocletian persecution--which was the only general persecution--and\nthis estimate is now commonly accepted. \"Since,\" says Gibbon,\n\"it cannot be doubted that the Christians were more numerous, and\ntheir enemies more exasperated, in the time of Diocletian than they\nhad ever been in any former persecution, this probable and moderate\ncomputation may teach us to estimate the number of primitive saints\nand martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the important purpose\nof introducing Christianity into the world.\" [273] Compare these\nfigures with the numbers who have suffered death in modern times\nfor the sake of introducing a non-Christian faith. The Bab Abbas\nEffendi suffered martyrdom for his zeal in 1850, and between that\ndate and now the most conservative opinion on the Babi martyrdoms\nputs them at ten thousand. (N.B.--No hopes of wealth and honours,\nno imperial edicts, have assisted the really remarkable spread of\nBabism.) As a matter of fact, a considerable portion of the history\nof man is a history of his martyrdom. \"Our own prosperity is founded\non the agonies of the past.\" [274] If religious ladies could spare\nthe time (from the absorbing occupation of reading the very latest\nworks of fiction or the lives of the \"grandes amoureuses\") to read\nWinwood Reade's Martyrdom of Man, a book none the less interesting\nbecause it treats of historical facts, they would begin to realise\nthat martyrs are not a Christian monopoly.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. The Universality of the Religious Instinct.\n\n\nTHE HYPOTHESIS STATED.\n\nThe fact that a large proportion of the human race, including some\nof the greatest [275] in thought and action, continue, or appear to\ncontinue, to believe in God and immortality, is considered by many\nto furnish the best proof for the truth of the belief. The Church\nnaturally encourages this opinion, and proceeds to strengthen it\nfurther by asserting that the religious instinct is, and always has\nbeen, universal. This assertion must now be examined, and, to avoid\nany misconceptions, it will be advisable in the first place to have\nsome specimens of it before us.\n\nCanon Liddon informs us that \"man is ever feeling after God,\" and that\n\"the thought of God is always latent in the mind of man.\" \"Cicero's\nstatement that there is no nation so barbarous and wild as not to\nhave believed in some divinity is still, notwithstanding certain\napparent exceptions, true. A nation of pure Atheists has yet to be\ndiscovered.\" [276] Dr. Flint devotes the seventh of his Lectures on\nAnti-Theistic theories to the discussion of the question, \"Are there\ntribes of Atheists?\" and he comes to the conclusion that \"an impartial\nexamination of the relevant facts shows that religion is virtually\nuniversal.\" [277] The Bishop of London is of opinion that \"man is a\npraying animal. He always has prayed throughout his history. It is\na human instinct. This instinct of prayer points to the existence\nof God.\" [278] Dr. Warschauer affirms that the spiritual faculty--a\nconsciousness of \"the existence of spiritual realities, of a world\nbeyond the senses\"--\"constitutes a universal human endowment.\" [279]\nBishop Diggle bids us remember that \"human nature is ineradicably\nreligious.\" [280]\n\n\n\nTHE RATIONALIST'S CONTENTION.\n\nThe Rationalist asks: What grounds have we for assuming that the\nexistence of religious belief points to the existence of a religious\ninstinct? Is not a man's religion determined by the geographical\naccident of his birth? Has not his religion to be diligently instilled\ninto him from the cradle? How, then, can it be said that man is by\nnature religious? How can it be said that the craving for a deity is\ninstinctive? To this the Christian apologist may reply that, however\nmuch the precise form of the religious belief may be due to education,\nno belief of any kind could be engendered without a predisposition\nto accept it. Have we not seen, however, that primitive beliefs\nwere the natural offspring of fear and wonder? Inability to account\nfor phenomena, ignorance of the laws of nature, and those abnormal\npsychical experiences concerning which science has but now commenced to\nfurnish natural explanations, all combined to turn primitive men into\nstaunch supernaturalists. For the same reasons, children in years as\nwell as children in knowledge have always been predisposed to belief\nin the supernatural. This predisposition (it can hardly be called an\ninstinct) may be universal, but it does not lead necessarily to belief\nin a deity. For that there must be education. If it be an instinct,\nit is not a religious instinct, although a soil eminently suitable\nfor the sowing of supernatural dogmas.\n\nAdmitting, for the sake of argument, that the origin of religious\nbeliefs and the process by which ancestral beliefs have been\nassimilated can be left out of consideration--in other words, that\nthe ethnologist's theories of the evolution of the idea of God and\nthe educational factor may be disregarded--the supposition that there\nis a universal religious instinct must be relinquished if, as the\nRationalist contends, religious belief itself is not universal. Is\nsuch a contention warranted by acknowledged facts? Into this we shall\nnow inquire.\n\n\n\nTHE APOLOGIST'S VIEWS CONCERNING SUPERSTITION AND THE RELIGIOUS\nINSTINCT.\n\nAt the outset of the inquiry we at once experience a difficulty. It\nis not at all clear what the apologist includes under the category\nof religious beliefs. If it be taken as an axiom that the grossest\nsuperstition, the mere belief in the supernatural, is the germ of a\nreligious belief, and therefore that all ignorant or superstitious\npersons have the religious instinct, then the proposition will be\ntrue for practically the whole of mankind in the remote past, and\nfor a very large proportion in the present. Whether it be primeval\nman who frequently believed only in magic, usually in devils, and\nrarely in divinities, or whether it be the twentieth-century lady\nof fashion who wears a white elephant amulet to bring her luck at\n\"Bridge,\" both are imbued with the religious instinct. The absurdity\nof the supposition is fully apparent if we only carry it far enough.\n\nIt is by no means easy to understand where the apologist draws the\nline. He may not say so, but his contention really does seem to point\nto the absurdity that almost any crude superstition springs from a\ndivine spark. The neo-apologist, however, will do well to reflect that\nthe establishment of any connection between superstition and religion\nonly plays into the hands of the Rationalist, who maintains that there\nis certainly the closest connection between the two. I am compelled\nto enter into these details, for, among the facts which I am about to\nbring forward in contradiction of the assertion of universality, some\nrelate to instances of pure superstitions which might nevertheless\nbe construed into signs of the religious instinct. If the apologist\ndoes not go quite so far as this, my task will be rendered much\neasier. Perhaps, as Dr. Flint is recognised as one of the most eminent\nof the Christian apologists, the conclusions to which he comes will\nrepresent the unspoken opinion of others. He says that, \"if savage\ntribes have some sort of superstitious belief, it would only be in\naccord with modern theories regarding the evolution of the idea of\nGod.... The presence of false religion is as good evidence of the\nexistence of religion as the presence of true religion.... Perhaps, if\nwe may say that religion is man's belief in a being or beings mightier\nthan himself and inaccessible to his senses, but not indifferent to\nhis sentiment and actions, with the feelings and practices which\nflow from such belief, we have a definition of the kind required,\none excluding nothing which can be called religion, and including\nnothing which is only partially present in religion.\" [281] This\ndefinition would not, one may presume, include mere belief in magic,\nbut might be taken to include a man's belief in devils. As there are\nmany who would not agree that devil-worship and the like can have any\nconnection with god-worship, I shall follow the ethnologist in citing\nexamples of the absence of god-worship as evidence of the absence\nof the religious instinct; but I shall also give examples in which\nthere is no appearance of worship either of god or devil. These will\nchiefly be drawn from present-day beliefs and customs, because now,\nif ever, the contention of the religionist should hold good, and also\nbecause it has been incidentally examined with reference to ancient\nbeliefs in a previous chapter.\n\n\n\nBELIEFS OF SAVAGE MAN.\n\nAmong the concluding remarks of Darwin's Descent of Man we read:\n\"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest,\nbut the most complete, of all the distinctions between man and\nthe lower animals. It is, however, impossible, as we have seen,\nto maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On\nthe other hand, a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems\nto be universal, and apparently follows from a considerable advance\nin the reasoning powers of man, and from a still greater advance in\nhis faculties of imagination, curiosity, and wonder. I am aware that\nthe assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons\nas an argument for His existence; but this is a rash argument, as we\nshould thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel\nand malignant spirits, possessing only a little more power than man;\nfor the belief in them is far more general than the belief in a\nbeneficent Deity.\" [282]\n\nAgain, in Huxley's essay on \"The Evolution of Theology\" we read: \"In\nits simplest condition, such as may be met with among the Australian\nsavages, theology is a mere belief in the existence, powers, and\ndisposition (usually malignant) of ghost-like entities who may be\npropitiated or scared away; but no cult can properly be said to\nexist. And in this stage theology is wholly independent of ethics.\"\n\nSir John Lubbock, now Lord Avebury, states the argument against the\nuniversality of religion in his Prehistoric Times. He asks: \"How can\na people who are unable to count their own fingers possibly raise\ntheir minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of religion?\" And\nhe sums up his observations on various tribes by saying: \"Indeed,\nthe first idea of God is almost always an evil spirit.\" [283]\n\n\"The idea that the northern tribes [of America] venerated one\nsupreme and all-powerful 'great spirit,' by whom man and the world\nwere created, is based on erroneous interpretation; Wakanda of the\nDakotas, and Manito of the Algonquins, in no wise coming under such\na designation.\" [284] \"These terms,\" writes Mr. W. J. McGee, \"cannot\njustly be rendered into Spirit, much less into Great Spirit.\" [285]\n\"Their religion,\" writes another well-known ethnologist, Mr. G. Mooney,\n\"is zootheism, or animal-worship, with the survival of a still earlier\nstage, which included the worship of all tangible objects, combined\nwith the beginnings of a higher system in which the elements and the\ngreat powers of nature are deified.\" [286] Zootheism, the religion\nthat has survived, does not embrace a belief in a Mightier Being, nor\ndoes this deterioration in \"religion\" suit the theory of a progressive\nrevelation. We may also note that the belief of the North American in\nwitchcraft has led to terrible slaughter, human life being sacrificed\non an enormous and frightful scale.\n\nAndrew Lang (in the third chapter of his book, Magic and Religion)\ninstances Australian tribes, and says: \"Nobody dreams of propitiating\ngods or spirits by prayer [compare Bishop Ingram's statement that man\nis a praying animal!] while magic is universally practised.\" There\nis, as Mr. Lang observes, \"no room for a God, nor for an idea of\na future life, except the life of successive re-incarnations.\" \"I\ndo not think,\" writes [287] Professor Baldwin Spencer, \"that there\nis really any direct evidence of any Australian native belief in a\n'Supreme Being' in our sense of the term.\"\n\nSimilarly among the Fuegians (another of the lowest races of mankind)\n\"almost every old man is a magician, who is supposed to have the power\nof life and death, and to be able to control the weather. But the\nmembers of the French scientific expedition to Cape Horn could detect\nnothing worthy of the name of religion among these savages.\" [288]\nHere, then, even if we adopt Dr. Flint's broad definition, we surely\nhave examples of the absence of the religious instinct. There is a\nfundamental distinction, and even opposition of principle, between\nmagic and religion, as we shall see by a study of the opinions of\nthose best qualified to offer them.\n\n\n\nMAGIC AND RELIGION.\n\n\"Wherever sympathetic magic occurs,\" says Dr. Frazer, \"in its pure\nunadulterated form, it assumes that in nature one event follows\nanother necessarily and invariably without the intervention of any\nspiritual or personal agency\" [289] (the italics are mine). \"The\nmagician supplicates no higher power; he sues the favour of no fickle\nand wayward being; he abases himself before no awful deity.\" [290]\n\"I have,\" says Dr. Frazer, [291] \"come to agree with Sir A. C. Lyall\nand Mr. F. B. Jevons in recognising a fundamental distinction, and even\nopposition, of principle between magic and religion.\" This opinion\nmust be shared by every unbiassed mind, and it is curious, and not\nwithout importance, to observe, with Dr. Frazer, that the \"fundamental\nconception\" of sympathetic magic \"is identical with that of modern\nscience.\" [292] \"Underlying the whole system is a faith--implicit,\nbut real and firm--in the order and uniformity of nature.\" [293]\n\nThe belief in the efficacy of magic, it should be remembered,\nis exceedingly widespread, even at the present time. According\nto Mr. Haddon [294] (citing Dr. Jevons), \"four-fifths of mankind,\nprobably, believe in sympathetic magic.\" Dr. Frazer, too, reminds us\nthat among the ignorant and superstitious classes of modern Europe it\nis very much what it was thousands of years ago in Egypt and India,\nand what it now is among the lowest savages surviving in the remotest\ncorners of the world. \"If the test of truth,\" exclaims Dr. Frazer,\n\"lay in a show of hands or a counting of heads, the system of magic\nmight appeal, with far more reason than the Catholic Church, to the\nproud motto, 'Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' as the sure\nand certain credential of its own infallibility.\" [295]\n\nNot only is there an opposition of principle between magic and\nreligion, not only is belief in the former a universal faith, a truly\ncatholic creed, but it is now generally recognised by ethnologists\nthat \"in the evolution of thought, magic, as representing a lower\nintellectual stratum, has [as 'has been plainly suggested, if not\ndefinitely formulated, by Professor H. Oldenberg in his able book,\nDie Religion des Veda'] probably everywhere preceded religion.\" [296]\n\nThe popular notion that the religious instinct is universal is perhaps\nnatural enough, but it is not borne out by these significant facts\nand conclusions. Indeed, it would be far more correct to say that\nan instinct, the very antithesis of what the Church would mean by\nthe religious instinct, was at one time, and even now is, well-nigh\nuniversal.\n\n\n\nRELIGION IN MODERN CHINA.\n\nSo far we have seen that the opponents of the \"Universal\" theory\npresume in their argument that devil-worship has no relation to\ntrue god-worship, and we may note that it never even entered the\nheads of such men as Darwin and Lubbock that it would ever be held\nthat these are essentially identical. Nor is this peculiar opinion\nheld by clerics who have studied devil-worship on the spot. Thus the\nRev. Arthur H. Smith, D.D., twenty-two years a missionary in China,\ndescribes [297] the fear of goblins and devils which figures so largely\nin Taoism; but, far from suggesting the presence of the religious\ninstinct, he laments its total absence. Among his many pertinent\nobservations I commend the following to the serious consideration\nof those who believe in a universal religious instinct and in a\nprogressive revelation: \"If the Chinese ever did recognise the true\nGod, that knowledge has certainly been most effectually lost, like\nan inscription on an ancient coin now covered with the accumulated\nrust of millenniums. [298]... Sir Thomas Wade, whose long familiarity\nwith China and the Chinese might be supposed to entitle him to speak\nwith authority on so plain a question as whether the Chinese have or\nhave not a religion, has recently published his opinion as follows:\n'If religion is held to mean more than mere ethics, I deny that the\nChinese have a religion.'\" [299]\n\nSpeaking of Chinese nature-worship, Dr. Smith says: \"No prayer is\nuttered.... What is it that at such times the people worship? Sometimes\nthey affirm that the object of worship is heaven and earth. Sometimes\nthey say that it is heaven, and again they call it 'the old man of the\nsky.' The latter term often leads to an impression that the Chinese do\nhave a real perception of a personal Deity. But when it is ascertained\nthat this supposed person is frequently matched by another called\n'grandmother earth,' the value of the inference is open to serious\nquestion.\" [300]\n\nAs to there being no such thing as an atheistic people, are we to take\nno account of the cultured classes? Mark the following: \"The polytheism\nand pantheism of the lower classes of Chinese are matched in the upper\nclasses by what appears to be pure atheism.... There never was on this\nearth a body of educated and cultured men so thoroughly agnostic and\natheistic as the mass of Confucian scholars. [301]... Its absolute\nindifference to the profoundest spiritual truths in the nature of man\nis the most melancholy characteristic of the Chinese mind--its ready\nacceptance of a body without a soul, of a soul without a spirit,\nof a spirit without life, of a cosmos without a cause, a universe\nwithout a God.\" [302]\n\nAlluding to the mixture of Confucianism with Taoism and Buddhism,\nhe remarks: \"Any kind of a divinity which seems adapted to exert a\nfavourable influence in any given direction will be patronised, just\nas a man who happens to need a new umbrella goes to some shop where\nthey keep such goods for sale. To inquire into the antecedents of\nthe divinity who is thus worshipped no more occurs to a Chinese than\nit would occur to an Englishman who wanted the umbrella to satisfy\nhimself as to the origin of umbrellas, and when they first came into\ngeneral use.... The Chinaman has carried 'intellectual hospitality'\nto the point of logical suicide, but he does not know it, and cannot\nbe made to understand it when he is told.\" [303]\n\nThree questions suggest themselves. If the pious lady who contributes\ntowards mission work in China only knew of this, would she be\npleased? [304] Are there not many English people strangely like the\nChinese in an umbrella-patronage of Christianity? Finally, does not\nthe modern apologist (with his theory of Progressive Revelation and\nhis idea that Christianity has yet much to learn from, and will be\nimproved by contact with, the faiths of the East) carry \"intellectual\nhospitality\" to the point of logical suicide?\n\nThe advice of Confucius was to reverence the gods as if they existed,\n[305] but in any case to keep them at a distance, and have as little to\ndo with them as possible; and his advice has been followed. Dr. Smith\ntells us that the popular instinct has taken at its true value the\nuncertainty conveyed in the words \"as if,\" and has embodied them in\ncurrent sayings which accurately express the state of mind of the\nmass of the people. Thus:--\n\n\n        Call on the gods as if they came;\n        But, if you don't, it's all the same.\n\n\nAnd again:--\n\n\n        Worship the gods as if the gods were there;\n        But, if you worship not, the gods don't care. [306]\n\n\nThe absence of the instinct of reverence may be judged by the following\nepisode related by Dr. Smith: \"A District Magistrate tried a case\nwhich involved a priest, and, by implication, the Buddha which was\nthe occupant of the temple. This god was summoned to appear before\nthe magistrate and told to kneel, which he failed to do, whereupon the\nmagistrate ordered him to be given five hundred blows, by which time\nthe god was reduced to a heap of dust, and judgment was pronounced\nagainst him by default.\" [307] (Of their manner of treating devils\nI had, not long ago, a personal experience. Standing on the quay at\nShanghai, I was deafened by the bang, bang, bang of ear-splitting\nbombs exploded by a crowd of Chinamen. However crude their method,\ntheir intentions were excellent. They wished to scare away the devils\nwho might have elected to accompany their friends on the voyage\nto England.)\n\nFinally, as a commentary on the oft-repeated assertion that the great\ndifference between the sacred books of the East and of the Bible is\nthe low plane of morality in the former, the following words quoted by\nDr. Smith are of considerable interest: \"No people,\" says Mr. Meadows,\n\"whether of ancient or modern times, has possessed a sacred literature\nso completely exempt as the Chinese from licentious descriptions,\nand from every offensive expression. There is not a single sentence\nin the whole of the Sacred Books and their annotations that may not\nbe read aloud in any family circle in England.\" [308] Can this be\nsaid of our Bible?\n\n\n\nAPOSTATES IN CHRISTENDOM.\n\nIf I have given the religious attitude of the modern Chinese the\nlargest share of attention, it must be remembered that they far\noutnumber any other nation in the world. Also I think the fallacies\nregarding the religious instinct will perhaps stand out more clearly\nif we consider the present twentieth century, instead of millenniums\nB.C. I have said nothing as yet of the apostates in Christendom--the\nDarwins, the Huxleys, and the Spencers--who declare that they are\nwithout the religious instinct. We must consider them ruled out of\ncourt, for are we not told [309] that \"there are men with faculties\nof insight amounting to genius in other regions of mental activity\nwho have never developed the spiritual faculty, and are thus debarred\nthe privileges of spiritual geniuses--geniuses in the region in which\nman holds communion with God\"?\n\nLately much capital has been made out of the following statement\nappearing in Darwin's Autobiography: \"Up to the age of thirty or\nbeyond it, poetry such as Milton, Byron, Wordsworth, etc., gave\nme great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read\na line of poetry. I have lost my taste for pictures and music. My\nmind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general\nlaws out of large collections of facts.\" This loss of certain tastes\nindicated--so the pulpit would have the pew suppose--that that portion\nof Darwin's mind which was competent to understand spiritual things\nhad atrophied. Does God reveal Himself, then, only or especially to the\n\u00e6sthetic? The artist--and here I include the poet, painter, sculptor,\nmusician, artistic novelist, and also the man who has created nothing,\nbut who has the artistic temperament--will, if he has a religion,\nhave one of a sort harmonising with his artist soul. It must be a\nreligion which allows scope for the cultivation of the beautiful,\nwithout being necessarily too closely associated with a rigid code\nof ethics. Is the \u00e6sthetic mind always perfectly balanced? How does\nit compare on an average with that of the moral philosopher guiding\nhis life by the light of reason and living up to the standard of\nhis professions? Darwin has assisted in establishing a great truth\nconcerning the development of the world. He has been, according to the\nChristian evolutionist, the chosen instrument for a fresh revelation of\nGod's majesty. Yet, in spiritual endowments, every pious Christian,\nhowever ignorant and unintellectual, ranks before him! Strange,\npassing strange. The very qualifications necessary for accomplishing\nGod's purpose debarred Darwin from fellowship with Him! For such an\nargument to be worth a moment's consideration it should at least\napply generally. This it most distinctly does not. Preachers, who\nfind Darwin's candid remark about himself a convenient one upon which\nto base a homily, have neglected to acquaint themselves with the\nstatements of other agnostic scientists--of Huxley, for instance. \"I\nhave yet,\" he declared, \"to meet with any form of art in which it has\nnot been possible for me to take as acute a pleasure as, I believe,\nit is possible for men to take.\" [310]\n\n\n\nRELIGION IN MODERN JAPAN.\n\nAt the risk of increasing the citation of examples ad nauseam, I cannot\nomit a passing reference to the Japanese. I shall reserve for the last\nchapter my remarks on the \"phenomenon\" of their non-theological moral\ntraining, and confine myself to the present condition of their faith as\ngiven by a clergyman, the Rev. Herbert Moore, who was for some years\na missionary in Japan. Mr. Moore tells us: \"We are all Shintoists\nto a certain extent, for Shinto is the non-Christian version of the\nCommunion of Saints. And we recognise the truth that Buddhism contains\nwhen we read Ecclesiastes in church.... But these old faiths are fast\nperishing from the hearts of the Japanese, leaving behind them blank\ngodlessness, indifference, and materialism.... Out of 942 students in\nTokyo who recently gave an account of their religious position, 555\ndeclared themselves unbelievers in any religion, 68 were Christians,\n18 Shintoists, and most of the remaining 319 Buddhists.\" [311]\n\nMr. Moore, in chapter xiv. of his book, quotes a summary of the\nsituation by the Japan Times, which all who are interested in the\nquestion whether Japan is likely to adopt Christianity would do well\nto read. As bearing on the particular point we are now discussing,\nthe following may be noted: \"We cannot believe that it [Christianity]\nwill ever succeed in getting a firm hold upon the minds of the educated\nclasses. Men of these classes have for centuries lived and died under\na system of morality which inculcates virtue for virtue's sake, and\nentirely dispenses with supernatural sanctions of any sort.... We\ncannot agree with those who, like Mr. Toyama and Mr. Fukuzawa,\nrecommend it to their countrymen, while they themselves refuse to\nbelieve in it, except as a collection of useful superstitions.\" [312]\nHow many Toyamas and Fukuzawas are there not in modern Christendom?\n\n\n\nCLASSICAL HISTORY.\n\nIt matters not where you direct your searchlight, you cannot fail to\ndiscover instance upon instance confuting the pious assertion of a\nuniversal religious instinct. Take the case of the great Roman poet\nand philosopher, Lucretius, whose unique poem, De Rerum Natura, has\nacquired a new interest in the present day. He set before himself\nthe task of finally crushing that fear of the gods, and that fear\nof death resulting from it, which he regarded as the source of all\nhuman ills. He denied the two bases of all religion (as we understand\nit)--the doctrines of a supernatural Governor of the world, and of\na future life.\n\nI will not continue to multiply examples. It is surely clear that\nthe religious instinct is not universal.\n\n\n\nNOTE ON HUMAN SENTIMENT AS TO A FUTURE LIFE.\n\nWhat is the Rationalistic explanation of that essence of the\n\"religious instinct,\" belief in an after life? It may, I think, be\nsummed up briefly in some such words as these: \"The conception of\nnon-existence is an effort beyond the power of human intellect. As\nlong as man thinks, his ego is fully conscious of its existence,\nand not able to grasp the idea of non-existence. Thus religion is a\nfunctional weakness.\" [313] The instinct of self-preservation does\nthe rest; it transforms the speculation into an ardent desire. \"The\ntheory of a continued existence after death is nothing more than a\ncertain manifestation of the impulse for self-preservation, as the\ninstinct for self-preservation itself is nothing more than the form\nunder which our vital energies, that have their seat in every cell of\nour organism, manifest themselves to our consciousness.\" [314] Is not\nthis a perfectly natural explanation of the craving for immortality?\n\nThis craving, as we have seen, is not universal; while, in Buddhism, it\nis assumed that man ought to strive for extinction. Even among Western\nnations the craving is not so common as it is generally supposed to be,\nand as the Church confidently takes for granted. In support of this\nconclusion, I should mention that my readers will find a startling\nconfirmation in an article on \"Human Sentiment with regard to a Future\nLife,\" which appears in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical\nResearch for October, 1904. The article is written by a well-known\npsychologist, Mr. F. C. S. Schiller, Fellow and tutor of Corpus Christi\nCollege, Oxford, and author of various well-known works on the mind\n(Riddles of the Sphinx, 1891; Humanism, 1903, etc.). He reviews the\nresults of a laborious inquiry by the American branch of the S. P. R.,\nand comes to the conclusion that \"the returns show a hitherto hardly\nsuspected weakness of the desire for knowledge of a future life,\"\n[315] and that, \"amid all the various phenomena of human psychology,\ndistress due to uncertainty about one's fate after death seems to\nbe one of the rarest.\" [316] Mr. Schiller, the apostle of Professor\nW. James in this country, shows that he himself possesses the craving\nfor an after life in no ordinary degree, and this adds all the more\nforce to his statement that the instinct is in nowise universal. I,\ntoo, once had a craving so intense that hell itself seemed less awful\nthan total annihilation. To those who have built up high hopes their\ndestruction must come as a terrible shock--a shock eventually relieved\nby a feeling of resignation to the inevitable.\n\nWhat we, as anxious parents, have to ask ourselves is: Do we not\nagree with St. Paul when he says, \"If Christ be not risen, then is\nour preaching vain, and your faith is also vain\"; and are we not\naware that, with the advance of knowledge, the present widespread\ndisbelief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ will become more and\nmore general? Even now how many disbelieve or preserve an agnosticism\nregarding the chief dogmas of the Christian creed? How many are\nsceptical concerning the continuance of consciousness after death? Does\neither science or common sense support a belief in the survival of\npersonality? Are we right, then, in permitting our children's minds\nto be imbued with a \"sure and certain hope of the resurrection to\neternal life\"? Is it a kind act to expose our children to the pain\nof a rude awakening by instilling hopes that are destined to be\nultimately shattered? Is it a wise act to allow their morality to be\nbased upon foundations that are doomed to destruction? It is not as\nif we were forced into telling fairy stories because we shrink from\nnegative teaching. It is not as if there were no natural incentives\nto right conduct, no positive teaching possible, without an admixture\nof theological speculations. Non-theological moral instruction is\nnot only possible, but is urgently wanted and will be extremely\nbeneficial. This will appear more fully in the following chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\n\u00a7 1. A Summary.\n\nThe hostile evidence appears to be overwhelming. Christianity cannot\nbe true. Provided that we see things as they really are, and not as\nwe wish them to be, we cannot but come to this conclusion. Let me\nrecall to the reader's mind the more salient points.\n\nChapter I.: The Situation.--All over Christendom a great conflict has\ncommenced between naturalists and supernaturalists. The real attitude\nof the laity, and especially of the cultured portion of it, is far more\nsceptical than the clergy imagine, or, at any rate, are prepared to\nadmit. They do not realise that agnostics and semi-believers have, not\ndeliberately perhaps, but none the less really, joined in a conspiracy\nof silence, either on account of their conviction of the need for\nChristianity as a restraint during the prevalence of ignorance, or\non account of their regard for public and private opinion and vested\ninterests, or last but not least, on account of sheer indifference. To\nput it frankly, the Churches have for their chief ally nowadays the\ntrinity of ignorance, insincerity, and indifference. Not only is this\nalliance one which they ought to be the first to repudiate, but it\ncannot be depended upon in the near future. Though a mind be built,\nas it were, in water-tight compartments, a flood of truth that is\nstrong enough will burst them open.\n\nChristianity and science are not reconciled. The character of the\npresent wave of scepticism differs from that of all others in the\nhistory of Christianity or of mankind, in that it has the support\nof modern knowledge. It has all the appearance of a wave that will\nincrease in strength, and finally destroy all the present faiths of\nthe world. Plenty of \"cheap\" agnosticism, of a priori \"infidelity,\" is\nstill to be met with, and of this, as Professor Huxley once remarked,\na man of the calibre of Butler, of the \"Analogy,\" can easily make\nshort work; but the scepticism of the modern scientist is of another\nkind. It arises from a mastery of the laws of Nature. The Christian\napologies to meet this scepticism are unsatisfactory to the last\ndegree. Often they are based on premises the truth of which is open to\nthe gravest doubt, or they betray ignorance of established facts. They\nare also conflicting, so that the arguments of the advanced and the\narguments of the conservative are mutually destructive, the latter\nfrequently bearing out the contentions of the rationalist regarding\nthe former. For these reasons they are totally unconvincing. Meanwhile\nthe main issue of the conflict is confused and delayed by various\nside issues, which have nothing really to do with the question of\nChristianity's truth. There is further delay through the currency of\na number of popular fallacies.\n\nChapter II.: Miracles.--Belief in miracles is necessary if Christianity\nbe true. The various attempts to explain miracles are evasions,\nnot solutions of a difficulty, and are as specious as they are\nconflicting. Few thinkers could bring themselves to agree with Canon\nMason that miracles are no longer needed because \"the Holy Spirit,\nwith His eternal freshness of life, does not cramp Himself by obsolete\nand antiquated methods of action.\" [317] The fundamental miracles\nare not historical facts. The evidence for all miracles is totally\ninadequate. No miracle has ever occurred.\n\nChapter III.: Modern Bible Criticism.--All non-Christian and\nsome Christian theologians accept the conclusions of the Higher\nCriticism in their entirety, while many learned divines accept much\nthat is destructive of beliefs that have been held for nearly two\nmillenniums. The critics show that the Bible is not historically true,\nand explain that \"we must turn from external details to the great\nspiritual truths which underlie them.\" As observed by the Dean of\nCanterbury, [318] \"they only say that they are not historical; what\nthey mean is that they are not true.\" The strictly orthodox and the\nrationalist are at one in agreeing that historic truth is essential\nto Christianity; that Christianity claims to be built not on ideas,\nbut on facts; and that the far-fetched explanations of the advanced\nschool cannot be accepted. The rationalist, however, finds himself\nforced to admit the validity of the destructive criticisms, and also\nfinds further grounds for unbelief in the silence of historians,\nin the manner in which the alleged revelation was transmitted, and\nin those sober facts which so completely impugn the divinity of Jesus.\n\nChapter IV.: Comparative Mythology.--The similarity of beliefs,\ncustoms, and teachings in ancient religions with those in the\nChristian religion are as numerous as they are remarkable. These\nparallels deprive Christianity of any claim to originality, and\nfurnish an explanation of its origin which completely destroys our\nbelief in its truth. The theory of a progressive revelation is the\noutcome of dire necessity, for the survival of Christianity depends\nupon its acceptance. This theory is for many and cogent reasons\nquite untenable. It is not, and cannot be, accepted by the strictly\northodox. The latter endeavour, therefore, to disprove the closeness\nof the parallels, or, failing this, to prove that they are Christian\naccretions. Enlightened divines, on the other hand, acknowledge the\nparallels, and rely upon the theory of progressive revelation to\nexplain them.\n\nChapter V.: Evolution.--For the benefit of those who may be\nill-informed on the subject, the theory of evolution is explained,\nand convincing proofs of our animal origin are submitted. The theory\nis generally accepted by the cultured, though much ignorance and\nprejudice concerning it still prevail. The evolutionary processes are\ncompletely at variance with the Bible and with our ideas of God. The\nChurches as a body do not accept evolution willingly, and are chary\nin acknowledging its truth in their public utterances. Many of their\nmost distinguished members are, however, evolutionists, and these\nprofess that evolution is helpful to belief. Their arguments are\nsingularly unconvincing. The doctrine of the Fall is untenable.\n\nChapter VI.: Theistic Proofs.--Many, honestly deeming themselves to be\nChristians, are in reality either deists or non-Christian theists. The\nrecognised arguments for Theism are the evidences of a First Cause,\nof design and directivity, and of benevolence. Not one of these is\naccepted by more than a very small minority of scientific men. The\nevidence of design and directivity is more apparent than real, while,\nwith regard to benevolence, it would be easier to demonstrate the very\nreverse. The evidence from religious experience is another argument,\nwhich has recently been submitted to the cultured, as a final proof\nof the existence of the spiritual world. This argument is shown not\nonly to be full of absurdities, but indirectly to furnish natural\nexplanations for much that has hitherto puzzled mankind, and led to\nbelief in the supernatural.\n\nChapter VII.: Popular Arguments.--Finally, there are certain popular\narguments which help to confirm the believer, and to determine the\nfriendly attitude of the average unbeliever. Broadly speaking, they\nare all comprised under two main assertions--Christianity's power\nfor good, and the universality of the religious instinct. So long as\nwe confine ourselves to a shallow and biassed examination, the flaws\nin these assumptions will pass unnoticed; but when we submit them to\na closer examination, with open minds, we find that they cannot be\nsubstantiated by the facts of either ancient or modern history.\n\nI may be permitted to add that I attach the greatest importance to\nthe object-lesson now presented to us by Russia and Japan. Not only\nhave we here an excellent illustration of the fallacies concerning the\npower of Christianity and the connection between conduct and belief,\nbut this illustration has been given to the whole world. Among the\nmillions who have watched events, thousands upon thousands must have\nsome inkling of the place that religion holds in the minds of these\ntwo peoples, and, therefore, must have found much that will cause\nthem to modify their opinions concerning these popular arguments. I\ncannot imagine any other conjunction of circumstances which could\nhave resulted in such a broadcast sowing of the seeds of scepticism.\n\nThe Main Conclusion.--It is customary in Christian apologetics\nto palliate the inadequacy of any one particular argument or set\nof arguments for belief by reminding us that we must take into\nconsideration the combined weight of all the other (equally inadequate)\narguments. The apologist of unbelief has no need to ask this of\nhis readers. On the contrary, he is able to point out a number of\narguments, each of which is, of itself, fully sufficient to warrant\ntheir joining the ranks of the unbelievers. For instance, he can point\nto any one of the following as fairly conclusive evidence:--The dismal\nfailure [319] of Christianity after nearly two thousand years' trial;\nthe apparent impossibility of and complete want of evidence for the\nmiracles on which Christianity is founded; the destructive criticism\nof the Bible, which cannot be gainsaid; the intensely grave suspicions\nthrown upon the originality of Christianity by the revelations of\ncomparative mythology; the various dilemmas arising from the accepted\ndoctrine of evolution; the inadequacy and conflicting character of the\nso-called Theistic proofs (proofs of a personal Deity); and, finally,\nthe fallacies in arguments hitherto so popular and faith-producing. We\ncannot get away from facts. Modern knowledge forces us to admit that\nthe Christian Faith cannot be true.\n\nHaving arrived at this main conclusion, the unbeliever is at once\nconfronted with many burning questions. I shall endeavour to outline\nthe answers to those that seem the more pressing; but the subject\nis a large one, and cannot be adequately treated in a few short\nparagraphs. The main difficulty is, of course, the morality problem,\nand, if that admits of a favourable solution, we shall be in a better\nposition to consider the next question: Should the unbeliever keep\nhis unbelief to himself, or should he speak out?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Why Lead a Moral Life?\n\n\nPRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\nLet me say at once that if, after the elimination of all untruths\nfrom Christianity, we could build a belief in God and immortality on\nthe residue, we should then have a far more powerful incentive to\nright conduct than anything that I am about to urge. I fully admit\nthat to tell the ordinary mortal brought up in the Christian faith\nto do right for right's sake will often be futile, inspiring though\nthe sentiment may be for some few of us. I admit also the fact that\nmorality always tends to the well-being of the individual and the\nrace. It is the one and only sound argument for the working of any\nethical purpose in nature, and, if we can feel that in leading the\nmoral life we are helping to carry out some high purpose in which we\nare personally concerned, such a belief will certainly be of great\nethical value. In the following argument, however, I hope to show that,\neven without a religious incentive, we have all-sufficient reasons\nfor leading the moral life. At present our morality is bound up with\na belief which is false, and which people are beginning to feel and\nknow to be false. Therefore it is more than ever necessary that we\nshould learn more of those reasons for morality which do not depend\nupon this or that belief.\n\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY FOR MORALITY.\n\nThe man who does not realise that any such cogent reasons exist\nwill argue: \"I quite understand that the welfare of society depends\nupon the moral conduct of its members; but why should I care for\nthe good of society? There are many immoral things which I can do\nwithout being found out--without any harm coming to me, directly or\nindirectly. Neither do I believe in the familiar adage, 'Follow nature,\nand you cannot go wrong.' Civilisation is continually wrestling with\nnature; we go against nature a thousand times a day. Why should I not\nfollow nature just so far as I can get out of my nerves a maximum\nof pleasure at the expense of a minimum of pain? Tell me, then,\nyou who do not believe in hell or heaven, you who think we can live\nunder a system of morality which entirely dispenses with supernatural\nsanctions, why should I lead a moral life?\"\n\nTo this question I would reply by another: \"Have you no self-respect,\nthe commonest and most universal incentive to right conduct, and one\nwhich necessarily includes respect for others? Even if your body had\nhealth, would your mind have peace without morality?\" The essence of\nhappiness is a contented mind. Bodily ailments and other misfortunes,\nnot of your own making, may often mar your efforts to obtain this\ndesirable frame of mind; but the nearest approach to it that is\npossible will be gained by leading the moral life. Righteousness\ncontributes usually to success and invariably to happiness, because\nit is in harmony with the needs and laws of health and social\nlife. Note, please, that I say \"contributes.\" We are not speaking now\nof circumstances beyond man's control--the calamities and catastrophes,\ndaily and hourly occurring, in accordance with nature's inexorable\nlaws, which would not be affected either way by man's conduct. Also,\nas there are conditions under which the body may not be affected\nby immorality discreetly pursued, it will be better to confine our\nattention to that which is always affected--the mind. This will be\nrecognised more clearly when we grasp the fact that the true origin of\nthe guide to conduct lies in the instincts inherited from our animal\nancestors. [320]\n\nMan is a social animal, and in his relations with his fellow-men his\nmoral instinct is largely a development of the social instinct. To\nsecure the happiness of the individual as well as of the community,\nthis instinct demands satisfaction. There is nothing which depresses\nthe mind of man or beast more than a thwarted instinct. Life, as\nAristotle has well said, is energy which each individual exercises\non those subjects in which he most delights. Man's proper and natural\npleasures must consist in the operations by which his work is done and\nhis task accomplished. But various circumstances will often prevent\na man or woman from exercising his or her special aptitudes. Thus a\nnatural instinct is disappointed, and complete happiness is out of the\nquestion. In the case of the social instinct, its satisfaction, so far\nas possible, is a supreme necessity, if there is to be any approach to\ncontentment of mind. To attain it there is only one course open--the\nmoral life. Should the individual choose the immoral life, and should\nhe even succeed in following it without suffering social ostracism,\nhe will certainly injure not only the happiness of the community,\nbut also his own chances of such real and permanent happiness as this\nworld might otherwise have afforded him.\n\n\n\nUSELESSNESS OF VAGUE THREATS.\n\nBut, it may be objected, the average man will not be deterred from\nwrong-doing by the fear of vague consequences; he is only concerned to\nsnatch the immediate pleasure (or what seems to him to be a pleasure),\nto satisfy a momentary lust, to secure the gratification of his senses\non the \"bird-in-the-hand\" principle. That is all very true, of course,\nand incidentally it accounts for the failure of Christianity or any\nother belief that relies for its ethical effect on a system of vague\nthreats and promises. But once get rid of the nebulosity, and all is\nchanged--so long, that is, as the brain is healthy, and the supremacy\nof reason acknowledged. Emotions of hate, cupidity, sensuality, and\nthe like, are always liable, as are all other emotions, to cloud the\nreason--to derange the brain temporarily; how much more so when there\nis no clear perception of disagreeable consequences? No man in his\nsenses will act with entire disregard of consequences; it is only\nwhen they are not sufficiently clear that they are disregarded. It\nis absurd to suppose that the ordinary man is such an unthinking\nanimal that he never studies ultimate consequences. The most selfish\nmen and women--and the religious world is not without its fair share\nof them--think of the morrow. No one more so. It is the exceptional\nindividual of the happy-go-lucky sort, with no enemy but himself,\non whom it is difficult to impress the need of thinking ahead.\n\n\n\nTHE NEED FOR AN EARLY EDUCATION IN ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.\n\nMy contention, then, is that a feeling of certainty regarding\nultimate consequences is, above all others, the most powerful factor\nin influencing conduct. This certainty will be attained through, and\nonly through, the medium of education. Knowing this, it is the duty of\nparents and teachers to be continually implanting in the minds of the\nyoung the objects of right-doing and the consequences of wrong-doing,\nwholly apart from questions of belief, not only because such teaching\nenshrines a great truth, but because this truth is liable to be\nlost sight of in the mists of theological dogmas and metaphysical\ntheories. Children, it is true, adopt moral principles out of regard\nfor social and parental authority, and not as the result of reasoned\nconviction, so that at first the scientific reasons for right conduct\nwill doubtless be to some extent unappreciated. But, meanwhile, a habit\nof mind will be forming, and, as the new teaching will appeal to the\ncommon sense of the growing mind, and not to its credulity, a reasoned\nconviction will shortly follow. Conduct developed in this manner,\nfree from theological speculations, is based on a firm foundation,\nwhich no later experiences in life will be able to upset. It is not\nnebulous. It is not susceptible of change through an alteration in\nreligious views. It is true. The future generation, so brought up,\nwill regard the consequences of immorality with complete certitude,\nand will do so without having to extricate themselves, as the present\ngeneration must, from objectionable habits of thought and conduct\nengendered by erroneous teaching.\n\n\n\nTHE OBJECT-LESSON FURNISHED BY THE JAPANESE.\n\nThis is no abstract theory. We have a concrete and magnificent\nexample before us in a nation whose character is formed entirely by\nnon-theological instruction. I refer, of course, to the Japanese. There\nare no people more refined, courteous, gentle, amiable, and innately\n\u00e6sthetic than these Latins of the Orient; no people more brave,\nhardy, and self-controlled; none more cleanly and healthy in body and\nhappy in mind. The Japanese army, by its perfection of transport,\ncommissariat, and equipment, its surgical and sanitary work, its\ndiscipline and dash, its passionate patriotism and its humanity to\nthe conquered, surpasses the armies of the Christian nations who\nsend their missionaries to Japan. With regard to sexual morality,\n\"it must be remembered,\" as Professor Inazo Nitobe remarks, \"that,\nwhatever charges may be made against the Japanese people, the same\ncharge can be, and is, actually made against every country, England\nnot excluded, by travellers, since it is usually the worst, the\nlax, side of life to which a foreigner is first introduced.\" [321]\nPersonally, I should say that the charge could be met by pointing\nto the acknowledged virtues and physical condition of the Japanese,\nand asking, \"Can these be the result of vicious habits?\"\n\nThere are certain significant circumstances in connection with the\npresent moral condition in Japan which we must not omit to take into\nconsideration. \"Untruthfulness, dishonesty, and brutal crime,\" says\nLafcadio Hearn, speaking of Old Japan, \"were rarer then than now,\nas official statistics show; the percentage of crime having been for\nsome years steadily on the increase--which proves, among other things,\nthat the struggle for existence has been intensified. The virtue\nof Japanese wives was generally in all ages above suspicion.\" [322]\n\"If there has been a serious relapse among us,\" says another writer,\n\"it has been the result of the shock occasioned by our contact with the\nnew civilisation, and fortunately not the consequence of the abandoning\nof a belief in future punishment by an offended God.\" [323] (What food\nfor thought--falling off in morality attributed to over-population and\ncontact with a Christian civilisation!) How do the Japanese hope to\nsolve this new problem? By Christianity? Not at all. \"Men are beginning\nto see,\" continues the same writer, \"that in the domain of morality the\nexcellent precepts and propositions by which their fathers were guided\nunder the old r\u00e9gime, but which have since fallen into disrepute,\nare fundamentally correct, and that, with slight adaptations in the\nlight of the new civilisation, the old code of morality will serve\ntheir purpose under the altered circumstances of the new era.\"\n\nOnly the charge of lack of commercial morality has any foundation\nin fact, and, with regard to this, here is the true explanation,\ngiven, not by a Japanese apologist, but by a Christian missionary:\n\"The Japanese are often charged, and with good reason, with a lack\nof commercial morality. In days when the military virtues reigned\nsupreme, the handling of trade was deemed an employment which no\ngentleman would take up; hence the commerce of the country is largely\nin the hands of men who do not represent her best traditions. Again,\ncertain restrictions of mercy were always granted in the undertaking\nof a contract, whereas foreigners naturally regard a contract as\nbinding unconditionally. But, in both respects, methods of trade are\nimproving, and in the excellent commercial schools it is taught that\n'Honesty is the best policy.' Among members of the humblest ranks\nof life the most striking instances of honesty will be met with; a\njinrikisha man will run after you with the parcel you have forgotten,\na shopkeeper will walk to your house to bring you a few cents he\naccidentally overcharged you.\" [324]\n\nAs to their purely secular education and the severance of belief from\nconduct, Baron Suyematsu remarks that, \"to the outsiders who have\nnot grown up in an atmosphere of this kind, it may appear somewhat\ndifficult to comprehend how boys and girls could be thoroughly\nimbued with moral sentiments without connecting them in some way\nwith religion; but when these are taught with thoroughness, basing\ntheir systematic exposition on the duties of human beings towards one\nanother and to the State, and on the noble tradition of their [the\nchildren's] own community and the characteristic virtues of their\nforefathers in which they ought to rejoice, and when appeals are\nmade to the honour and pride which one should feel and value, and,\nabove all, to the conscience of individuals, one's thoughts appear\nto become imbued with the lessons conveyed, and moral notions thus\ntaught seem to become, per se, a kind of undefined, but nevertheless\npotent and serviceable, religion.\" [325] Again, Baron Suyematsu tells\nus elsewhere that \"the educated classes consider that he who does what\nis good for good's sake, and not for a fear of anything exterior, is\nthe most courageous man, and to be courageous is the most important\nfeature of Bushido. The probability is that, were a Japanese gentleman\na devout adherent of any particular form of religion, he would rather\nconceal it than make a display of it.\" [326]\n\nThe words of other than Japanese writers may not be without some\ninterest. A Christian friend of mine, once an English professor\nin a Japanese college, wrote to me lately: \"I must admit that the\nJapanese do seem to have attained without Christianity a higher\nstatus than most Christian nations. Indeed, they appear to attain\npersonal and national excellence without religion at all.\" Again,\nanother Englishman, who has spent a lifetime and occupies a high\nposition in Japan, remarks (in the course of a letter replying to my\nqueries): \"There is not the remotest chance of Christianity becoming\nthe religion of the State. For the last two centuries and a half the\neducated class have adopted the Agnostic ethical system of Confucius,\nwhich, once understood and embraced, can never be dislodged by the\nChristian or any other variety of theologian.\"\n\nYet Dr. Boyd Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon, closes his book, The\nWitness of the Influence of Christ, with the familiar assertion of\nthe inseparability of religion and ethics. It is an assertion which,\nnow more than ever, the Churches are reiterating. Why? Is it not\nbecause they find that many are beginning to doubt its truth? I fear\nreiteration will not make it any truer. Only facts will appeal to\nthe man who looks below the surface, and these all tend the other way.\n\nIn the Hibbert Journal for October, 1905, there is an article\ncontributed by the editor which deserves the earnest attention of all\nthoughtful men. It is entitled \"Moral Supremacy of Christendom.\" The\nfollowing quotations from it will suffice to show the far-reaching\nimportance of the questions it raises: \"Christendom, as a whole, long\naccustomed to treat all pagan races as morally inferior to herself,\nnow stands confronted by a non-Christian civilisation, of vast power\nand splendid promise, whose claim to moral equality, at least, cannot\nbe disregarded, except by those who are morally blind.... The hold of\nChristianity upon the peoples of the Western world is rooted in the\nconviction that this is the religion which produces the best men. To\na greater degree than is commonly recognised, each Church or sect of\nChristendom thus derives its confidence from the final court of ethical\nappeal. Whatever ground be alleged for a given doctrine, whether of\nScripture, authority, or reason, the argument would instantly lose\nits force if it were to appear that the ethical result of denying\nthe doctrine was superior to that which followed its acceptance.\"\n\n\n\nCRIMINALITY.\n\nTo return to the arguments of rational morality. A man may say:\n\"I don't care a bit about this social instinct you tell me of; I\ndon't know that I possess it. It is no use your prating to me about\nmy happiness of mind, and the necessity of my being in harmony with\nmy surroundings. I prefer to gratify the instinct--the passion--that\nI do feel, regardless of the consequences to others. Of course, I\nshouldn't like everybody else to do the same. That is the beauty of my\nscheme, and I am not going to miss my opportunity in the short space\nof existence you tell me is all that lies before me. If it pleases\nme to make a beast of myself, I shall do so.\" All I can say is that\na man who really means that this is what he would do, if not deterred\nby belief, is an unfortunate, with criminal tendencies--is, in fact,\nof unsound mind. His reasoning, too, is unsound. He must expect others\nto follow his example, as his argument is that the whole world would\nbecome immoral and lawless without belief. He would suffer, therefore,\nwith the rest, and then would be the first, if sane, to co-operate\nwith his fellow-sufferers in putting down lawlessness. The most savage\ntribe looks after its own interests according to its lights. A man\nwho disregards the interest of all but himself becomes an Ishmael, an\noutlaw, a criminal; and, in the approaching Rationalistic age, he will\nbe specially \"taken care of,\" and treated as any other insane person.\n\nWhat are the causes of criminality? The Devil--man's sinful nature--the\nReligionist will reply. What does Science reply? Dr. McEwen, of\nGlasgow, relates in the Lancet how a labourer, after falling on his\nhead from a scaffolding, developed immoral tendencies. A tumour had\nformed on his brain. This was successfully removed by trepanning, and\nthe immoral tendencies disappeared. Again, Dr. Lydston tells us that\nFlesch examined the brains of fifty criminals, and found imperfections\nin all. \"Vice and crime,\" says Dr. Lydston, \"will one day be shown more\ndefinitely than ever to be a matter to be dealt with by medical science\nrather than by law.\" [327] When brain defects (whether inherited or\ncaused by environment) affecting the moral faculties, are universally\nrecognised as the real source of criminal tendencies; when disease\nof the brain is no longer regarded as a disease of the soul--then,\nand not till then, will criminality materially diminish. Science will\ntriumphantly succeed where Religion has dismally failed.\n\nThe sooner, therefore, criminality is looked upon as a disease of the\nbrain, and dealt with accordingly, the better it will be for the human\nrace. A day will surely come when, as Mr. Wells predicts, [328] \"crime\nand bad lives will be the measure of a State's failure.\" The modern\nTheist now admits that it is God's pleasure to employ law, and not the\nsuspension of law, to work out His purposes. Why, then, whether we are\nTheists or Agnostics, should we not study and apply those laws for our\nmoral improvement? Even now we are doing so. Rationalism has taught\nus that prevention is better than cure, and its great ally, Science,\nis helping both in the prevention and the cure. But the process will\nbe considerably accelerated when our energies and our fortunes are\nspent altogether in this direction, instead of being frittered away\nin futile attempts to obtain the same results by \"spiritual\" methods.\n\n\n\nOUR AIDS.\n\nAgain the supernaturalist may say: \"I grant you, for the sake of\nargument, that, setting aside the ills of 'outrageous fortune,' the\nsecret of happiness lies in obeying the social instinct; but human\nnature is weak, and requires assistance. How do you propose to replace\nthe aid derived from belief? I am not a Japanese. I am not an Oriental,\nwith an extraordinary power of self-abnegation for the sake of an\nidea. I am a phlegmatic Englishman, and I am not at all sure that, even\nif I had had this Bushido instilled into me, my character would have\nbeen any stronger than it is now after a Christian education.\" Here\nlet me again repeat that I do not for one moment contend that, if\nChristianity were true as now interpreted by liberal theology, or,\nagain, if Theism, with its assurance of a benevolent God, were true,\nthat, as Neo-Christians or Theists, we should not find belief helpful\nin our efforts to lead a moral and therefore innocently happy life;\nbut an agnosticism regarding all supernatural beliefs appears to\nbe the only possible attitude for an enlightened world, and it is\nthis situation that we have now to face. Is there anything, then,\nthat can in any way take the place of the ethical assistance [329]\nafforded by belief in God and an after-life?\n\nThe answer of Rationalism has already been indicated--it is to the\nforce of environment (in its broadest sense) that we must look in our\nstruggle with hereditary weaknesses. We cannot get rid of our inherited\nqualities; but we can modify them by changing our environment. If our\nearly education, our early environment, has been neglected, we still\nhave it in our power to remedy, or partly remedy, this unfortunate\ncircumstance by our choice of present environment. The hard case is\nthat of a man so situated that to change his evil environment seems\nwell-nigh impossible. Therefore it is that the reduction of pernicious\nenvironments is of paramount importance to the race, and this truth\nthe rationalistic spirit of the age is now forcing to the front. Also,\nif the individual takes no interest in posterity, and refuses to study\nthe question of heredity, the day will come when the law of the land\nwill see to it that the sins or diseases of the fathers shall not be\nvisited upon the children \"unto the third and fourth generation.\" It is\nthe quality, not the quantity, of our children that we have to keep to\nthe forefront. [330] The methods will be simple, if somewhat drastic;\nbut the need to apply them will continue to lessen in proportion as\nthe laws of heredity and environment are better kept in view. \"Over\nthe past, represented by our own heredity, we have no control. We\ncannot change the facts which have made the degenerate, the neurotic,\nthe hysterical, and the criminal; but these are only names for human\nbeings who, by a certain train of causation, have had certain impulses\ndeveloped and others left fallow or suppressed. A different train of\ncausation will awaken the capabilities to hold these impulses in due\ncheck. This future, now represented by the environment, is greatly\nwithin our power. Heredity being but the transmitted effects of past\nenvironments, we have to make a suitable environment for growing\norganisms if we wish to mould them to our ideals; and this is the\nmeaning of education.\" [331]\n\n\n\nTHE IMPORTANCE OF A KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGIN OF MORALITY.\n\nFinally, it is very necessary that the origin of morality (as indicated\nby Spencer in his Data of Ethics, by Darwin in his Descent of Man,\nby Prince Kropotkin in his Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, and by\nDr. C. W. Saleeby in his Evolution: The Master-Key) should be better\nunderstood. Hitherto the question of morality has been dealt with\non wrong lines, [332] and this applies to the teaching not only\nof Christian but also of non-Christian religionists. It applies\nto the works of those speculative philosophers who have denied the\nempirical origin of man's moral feeling, and who have had recourse\nto subtle and unconvincing theories in order to assign a supernatural\norigin to the moral senses. These thinkers, in attempting to explain\nthe \"distinction of man,\" the \"why of existence,\" and the \"aim of\nnature,\" set themselves the hopeless task of explaining a process which\nentails untold suffering upon sentient beings, and in which the modern\nRationalist is unable to discover any ethical principle whatsoever.\n\nToo much prominence cannot be given to the later conclusions of\nmodern thought so eloquently set forth by Prince Kropotkin. Much as I\nappreciate all Mr. S. Laing's writings, and especially, perhaps, the\nchapter on \"Practical Life\" with which he closes his admirable work,\nModern Science and Modern Thought, I cannot agree with him when he\nsays (p. 113 of the R. P. A. Cheap Reprint): \"For practical purposes\nit is comparatively unimportant how this [the moral] standard got\nthere.\" It is, in my humble opinion, very important, for the reasons\nthat are clearly demonstrated by Prince Kropotkin and other modern\nethicists. So soon as the Darwinian theory of the origin of morals\nis fully accepted, great strides in the development of an improved\nmorality will surely follow. In fine, \"science, far from destroying\nthe foundations of ethics, as it is so often accused of doing,\ngives to evolutionist ethics a philosophical certitude where the\ntranscendental thinker had only a vague intuition to rely upon.\" [333]\n\n\n\nOPINIONS OF ETHICISTS.\n\nLet me now quote some instructive utterances by Rationalists [334]:--\n\n\"The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all,\nwith lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there\nis no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about\nthings beyond the possibilities of knowledge. She [Science] knows\nthat the safety of morality lies neither in the adoption of this or\nthat philosophical speculation, nor this or that theological creed,\nbut in a real and living belief in that fixed order of nature which\nsends social disorganisation upon the track of immorality, as surely\nas it sends physical disease after physical trespasses. And of that\nfirm and lively faith it is her mission to be priestess.\" [335]\n\"Theological apologists, who insist that morality will vanish if\ntheir dogmas are exploded, would do well to consider the fact that,\nin the matter of intellectual veracity, science is already a long way\nahead of the Churches; and that, in this particular, it is exerting\nan educational influence on mankind of which the Churches have shown\nthemselves utterly incapable.\" [336]--Huxley.\n\n\"A moral life is that form of existence which is based upon obedience\nto natural and social law.... By long transmission and inheritance\nof mental and physical qualities a certain moral sense, so to say,\nhas been developed, now called 'conscience,' which suggests acts\noften amounting to self-sacrifice, and condemns and represses others,\npleasant and even profitable to the individual, because detrimental to\nthe race. Altruism and Utilitarianism have come to be so insensibly\nblended that it is difficult to detect where the one ends and\nthe other begins.... We have attained a natural and instinctive\npreference for what is good and noble in conduct, irrespective of\nself-interest, just as we have risen to an instinctive appreciation of\nfine music and delicate perfume.... The moral life is derived from the\nuniversal experience of mankind, approved by the wisdom of the wise,\nand justified by the fate of the foolish.\" [337] [\"We needs must love\nthe noblest when we see it.\"]--The Author of \"Supernatural Religion.\"\n\n\"The Supernaturalists charge the system of the Rationalists with a\nlack of any effective motive that can constrain ordinary and average\nmen to live a moral life. 'It is all very well,' they say, 'for your\nSpinozas, your Stuart Mills, and such like, to affect independence\nof supernatural sanctions, because they are exceptional men, and\nhave powers of discernment and will, by which they appropriate to\nthemselves the moral doctrine and practice of Christianity, while\nthey refuse to acknowledge their debt.'... I daresay I might, with\nsome success, retort the argument of Supernaturalism. 'It is all very\nwell,' I might say, 'for your apostles and saints, for your Augustines\nand Luthers and Bunyans, to depend on supernatural sanctions, because\nthey are exceptional men, and have powers of imagination which turn\nshadows into substance.'... There is such a thing as self-respect;\nno man likes to feel ashamed of himself. There are very few who are\nnot strongly moved by a desire to see wife and children or parents\nhappy. Such influences as these have far more to do with moulding human\nlife and resisting selfish passion than any fear of hell or desire of\nheaven, or any philosophical principles. And such influences as these\nwill survive even when open denial of supernatural sanction becomes\nas general as tacit disbelief is now.\" [338]--J. Allanson Picton.\n\n\"For the mass of mankind two motives serve to direct the main course\nof ethics. These are Prudence and Sympathy.... Prudence is the\nfirst step in morality.... Sympathy did not wait to be called into\nlife by religion. It was born among the brutes.... In the case of\nman the sympathy which issues first through the natural emotions of\nfamily and sex is spread over an ever-widening area by the power of\nimagination. A greater faculty of entering into the feelings of others\ngoes along with a deeper sensitiveness to their pains and joys. Their\nexperience becomes ours. Our self is blended with theirs. We pity\ntheir actual sufferings, and, calling up in imagination the suffering\nour conduct might entail, we shrink from committing a wrong.... Pity\nis the characteristic mark of the later ethics.\" [339]--F. J. Gould.\n\n\"One can say without exaggeration that the most religious times\nand the most religious peoples, or those in which or among whom the\npower of the Church has been the strongest, have, generally speaking,\nbeen the most immoral. One has evidence enough in the horrors of the\nMiddle Ages, and, if to-day it be otherwise, it is not to religion\nwe owe the change, but to the spread of education and the progress\nof intelligence.... It is one of the fatalest and most widespread of\nerrors that morality without religion is impossible. It has long been\nscientifically acknowledged that morality, as such, is far older than\nreligion.... Morality comes only as the consequence and result of the\ninevitable necessities of social intercourse.\" [340]--Ludwig B\u00fcchner.\n\n\"The religion of the lower orders of Welshmen may be said to be high\nin the scale, while their morality is decidedly low.... What savage\nnations have been raised out of their degradation by Christianity?... I\nlook upon the doctrine of future rewards and punishments as radically\nbad, and as bad for savages as for civilised men.\"--Alfred Russel\nWallace. [341]\n\n\"Heaven and hell have no more relation to the question than any other\npunishments. The hell which a thoroughly bad man dreads can only be a\nhell of physical suffering; and, if he abstains from crime through fear\nof fire, he is not a good man, but a bad man in chains.\" [342]--Leslie\nStephen.\n\n\"Where is the seat of authority for what is moral? This is a very\nold question. Manu, the Indian law-giver, answers it in four ways:\nIt rests on revelation (scuti); it rests on tradition (smriti);\nit rests on the behaviour of good people; and, lastly, it rests on\ninward satisfaction. I believe that, in the end, the last is the\nsupreme authority.\" [343]--F. Max M\u00fcller.\n\n\"Whatever power the threats of punishment and the promises of reward\nin an after-life may have had in lawless and superstitious ages,\nthey have now but the smallest effect on conduct; their remoteness\nexhausts their power, and, moreover, the belief in them is slowly\ndecaying.... All the law and commandments are in the Golden Rule;\nall ethics in the teaching that, if man be true to himself, he cannot\nbe false to his fellows.\" [344]--Edward Clodd.\n\n\"The first step towards the elaboration of a morality which should\nexercise a lasting influence is to base it upon an ascertained\ntruth.... The function of ethics is not so much even to insist upon the\ndefects of man, and to reproach him with his 'sins,' as to act in the\npositive direction by appealing to man's best instincts.... It tells to\nman that, if he desires to live a life in which all forces--physical,\nintellectual, and emotional--should find a full exercise, he must,\nonce and for all, abandon the idea that such a life is attainable\non the path of disregard for others.... What is wanted now is a\nnew comprehension of morality in its methods, which must be freed\nfrom both the transcendental survivals and the narrow conceptions\nof Philistine utilitarianism. The importance of mutual aid in the\nevolution of the animal world and human history may be taken as\na positive established scientific truth.... Mutual aid, justice,\nmorality, are thus the consecutive steps of an ascending series,\nrevealed to us by the study of the animal world and man. It is not\nsomething imposed from the outside: it is an organic necessity which\ncarries in itself its own justification.\" [345]--Prince Kropotkin.\n\n\"We do not see any convincing reason why morals should be based upon\nthe teaching of a special denomination, in face of the fact that we\ncan be upright and brave without the help of a creed with a God or\ndeities at its other end.\" [346]--Professor Okakura.\n\n\"I regard religion itself as quite unnecessary for a nation's life;\nscience is far above superstition; and what is religion, Buddhism or\nChristianity, but superstition, and therefore a possible source of\nweakness to a nation? I do not regret the tendency to freethought and\natheism, which is almost universal in Japan, because I do not regard\nit as a source of danger to the community.\" [347]--Marquis Ito.\n\n\"Cardinal Newman once said: 'Give me the children of England,\nand England shall be Roman Catholic.' We say: 'Put the children\nof England under the best moral influences, and England shall be\nrighteous.'\" [348]--The Moral Instruction League.\n\n\n\nNOTE ON SYSTEMATIC MORAL INSTRUCTION.\n\nA Memorial was lately addressed to the Local Education Authorities of\nthe country. Among the signatories are Lord Rosebery, Lord Roberts,\nLord Wolseley, Lord Kelvin, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York,\na number of bishops, \"General\" Booth, Dr. Horton, Dr. Campbell,\nthe Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,\netc. They recommend that the eight or ten years of school life\nshould provide the opportunity, not only for imparting knowledge,\nbut for inculcating those habits of self-restraint, conscientiousness,\nfidelity, honour, and kindness which are needful alike for individual\nself-respect and national well-being. (The Code of Regulations for\nPublic Elementary Schools [1906] has since appeared. It states\nemphatically: \"Moral Instruction should form an important part\nof every elementary school curriculum.\") Sir Oliver Lodge has\nurged the same thing in the Nineteenth Century. At last, then,\nit has been influentially recognised that these things are not\ntaught in schools, or, if so, are taught in an indifferent and\nunsystematic manner. What a reflection upon Christian methods of\nupbringing hitherto! Unfortunately, coupled with this desire for\neffective moral training, the signatories of the Memorial express a\nhope that Bible teaching will be continued. I say \"unfortunately,\"\nbecause the ethical value of the Bible is inextricably intertwined\nwith supernatural beliefs that are demonstrably false. Any temporary\nsuccess of such teaching, while the children are still uninformed of\nthe real nature of the Bible, will be heavily discounted in after\nyears--at a time, too, when assistance from the ethical teaching\nof childhood will be most needed. It is an unfortunate circumstance\nthat the Church must necessarily be fearful regarding the separation\nof belief and morality--must set her face against non-theological\nmoral instruction. It is no use disguising the fact. Her fears are\nperfectly well founded--such teaching would tend to the further\nspread of unbelief. On the other hand, it is equally clear that,\nif any temporary harm comes of this spread--a spread which, in any\ncase, cannot be stopped, though it can be delayed--it will be because\nour children have been taught that religious belief is the chief,\nif not the only, sanction for the moral life. The Church, in fact,\nwill be directly responsible for the evil. Is it not time, then,\nfor all thoughtful men and women to be up and doing? Is it not time\nthe truth should be told? In the following sections we shall see that\nthis course is advisable on every ground.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Should the Truth be Told?\n\n\n    \"Wise and prudent conduct demands before all things that we should\n    see the facts as they are; and those are not least among England's\n    helpers who, regardless of consequences, in all ages have taught\n    her children, by using their reason, to distinguish what is false\n    from what is true.\" [349]\n\n\nPresuming that we have come to the conclusion that Christianity is\nnot true, are we to say so, or are we to be silent? A believer,\nwith ideas so advanced that his belief amounts to little more\nthan \"a reverent agnosticism\" concerning the fundamental dogmas of\nChristianity, is still able to speak out, because while he destroys\nhe also constructs. He has new interpretations of Christianity to\noffer us. The unbeliever can offer no such interpretations. He simply\nbelieves Christianity to be untrue, and, should he give his reasons,\nhe knows he may persuade others to think so also. He must, therefore,\nit seems, keep his unbelief to himself, unless he is prepared to show\nthat the destruction of belief will be beneficial. In considering this\nquestion of frank avowal of our unbelief, we must not forget that,\ntry as we may to avoid it, we are bound from time to time to find\nourselves in a position where we have to choose between telling the\ntruth or telling a lie; while our silence, or any manoeuvre with\nintent to deceive, is one continual evasion of the truth. Is it\nnot time, as John Morley urges, [350] to abandon \"those habits of\nhypocritical conformity and compliance which have filled the air of\nthe England of to-day with gross and obscure mists\"? In moral life\ntruth is our guide, so that the arguments for its repression must be\nirrefutable. Now, if it can be shown that the objections to candour\nare more imaginary than real, not only are we robbed of the excuse\nfor further concealment, but we are morally bound to fly our true\ncolours openly. Nor is this all. Should it become plain to us that\nactual good will come of truth-telling, or that the probable good far\noutweighs the possible evil, it behoves us to take an active part in,\nor at least to lend our support to, the spread of truth.\n\n\n\n(a) \"MAGNA EST VERITAS ET PR\u00c6VALEBIT.\"\n\nOne very natural objection of unbelievers, who are not actually\ndisbelievers, is that there may be, after all, some truth in\nChristianity. We find here every shade of opinion, from that of\nthe man who still hopes that Christianity may be proved true in\nall essentials, to that of the man who thinks that Christianity\nmay be the symbol of a truth. But, I ask, Will not Christianity,\nif true in any shape or form, benefit by truth-telling? Will it not\nthereby assume its true form, whatever that may eventually prove to\nbe, and is not that a consummation to be desired? Many believers\nstoutly maintain that Christianity can be only strengthened by\nattack; so that, on the face of this assertion, it would appear both\njustifiable and desirable to take them at their word, and, without\nmore ado, proceed to attack Christianity. Certain it is that, so far,\nRationalistic attacks have done inestimable good in disclosing its\nerrors in doctrine and practice. As Mr. Morley caustically remarks, the\nefforts of the heterodox have taught the Church to be better Christians\nthan they were a hundred years ago. If Christianity, purified in the\ncleansing fire of modern criticism, be the true faith, and the theory\nof progressive revelation can be accepted, are not this truer faith\nand this peculiarly rapid progress of revelation during late years\nthe product of scepticism? It is the sceptics who have succeeded\nin forcing the Church to reconsider her doctrines and discover new\ntruths, and, wonderful as it may appear, they have thus been God's\nspecial instruments in this more perfect revelation of Himself. Why,\nthen, should you hesitate to speak out? Christianity evidently has\nto be re-stated if it is to survive, and this re-statement must be\ncomplete, for on it rests the only chance of reclaiming the unbeliever,\nof arresting the further spread of infidelity, and of converting the\ncultured heathen--the only chance of a universal belief in God and\nImmortality. Of the result you have no cause for fear. If there be\na God, He is a God of Truth, and the Truth will prevail.\n\n\n\n(b) OBSCURANTISM HAS HAD ITS DAY.\n\nThe Rev. V. F. Storr, at the Liverpool Church Congress (1904),\nadvocated telling the truth regarding established facts, and asked:\n\"In how many pulpits are the opening chapters of Genesis frankly\ntreated as legendary? How many teachers in schools, if called upon to\ngive a lesson on the Fall, would make plain to the children that the\nframework of the story is imaginative? Are not the teachers creating\nfor them the very difficulties which, when they come to mature years,\nwill make shipwreck of their faith?\" These remarks were received in\ndead silence by the audience, and the President was vociferously\ncheered when he asked: \"Are we to tell the children that these\nnarratives are mere fables, with a moral teaching, or, as Dr. Wace\nsays, that they are true and historical, only clothed in an Eastern\nsymbolism? I prefer to stand with Dr. Wace.\" On the other hand, Dean\nFarrar advocated a diametrically opposite course. \"We must,\" he said,\n[351] \"vaccinate them [the children] with criticism to save them\nfrom the small-pox of scepticism.\" His successor at Canterbury has,\nit would appear, a \"conscientious objection\" to this vaccination;\nand well he may, for it would be far more likely to promote the\ndisease than to bestow immunity from it.\n\nI should mention that Dr. Wace also said, at the same Church Congress:\n\"If I were on Mr. Blatchford's side, and wanted to attack Christianity,\nI should desire nothing better than that the results of criticism\nconcerning Genesis, as these results predominate even in the most sober\ncritical circles, should be adopted by the Christian Church, because\nthis would afford a means of attacking Christianity with greater\nforce than anything else, since it would enable me to start with this\nvantage-ground, that all the Jews and all the apostles--I dare not\nspeak of our Lord--were mistaken in their view of God's relation to His\nown people.\" Obscurantism is therefore recommended because the purpose\nis a pious one--namely, to confute the unbeliever and to maintain\nthe Faith. The anti-Christian must be deprived of his vantage-ground\nby the denial of truth. It is the old, old story of \"pious fraud,\"\nthe mainstay of the Christian Faith. We are to imitate (though in a\nlesser degree) the practices of the Latin and Greek Churches, and\ncontinue to play upon people's credulity and ignorance. We are to\nunderstand that pious frauds are still considered legitimate weapons\nto employ in the defence of Christianity. Surely such weapons should\nbe allowed to fall into disuse for the simple reason--if on no higher\ngrounds--that the spread of education is rendering them obsolete.\n\nThe days of obscurantism are numbered. \"Many a man in the workshop\nto-day knows more about the Bible and Church history than many a monk\nand bishop a few generations ago.\" [352] The Church of England cannot\n\"shut herself in behind walls of tottering traditions.\" [353] Christian\nFathers can no longer publish their own writings in the names of\ndisciples and apostles in order to insure their acceptance. Evidence\nagainst the truth of Christianity can no longer be destroyed or\nsuppressed by persecution. \"Miracles\" can no longer be worked,\nexcept where people are still grossly credulous or ignorant. True it\nis that passages of the Bible can still be read in church which every\neducated man knows to be (to use a mild term) unhistorical, and which,\nto console his conscience, he calls allegorical. True, in our churches,\nwith but few exceptions, the white lie of silence is daily told. But\neven mild pious frauds of this nature will soon be a thing of the\npast. The Higher Critics and the advanced school of the Church will\nsee to it. They are beginning to speak out--why should not you?\n\nThe obscurantist would do well to take to heart the answer of Bishop\nColenso to the clergyman who reproached him with depraving one of his\nparishioners by criticisms of the Pentateuch. \"The blame,\" he replied,\n\"would be more fittingly attached to the teachers who lead people to\nrest their faith in God and duty on a foundation of falsehood which\nevery new wave of thought is sweeping away.\" [354] Shall we, to give\na glaring instance of pious obstruction, revert to the time--not many\nyears ago--when the use of an\u00e6sthetics in surgery was denounced from\nthe pulpit, on the ground of impiety? I think not. Nowadays one can\nhardly keep one's countenance in recalling the words of those who\nseriously, and, as they thought, piously, said that they would rather\nsuffer any pain than \"enter the presence of their Maker in a state\nof intoxication.\" We no longer listen to those who would forbid us\neither to taste the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge or to give it to\nothers. Obscurantism, dogma's best friend, is breathing its last. It\ncan therefore no longer be depended upon.\n\n\n\n(c) THE EFFECT ON MORALITY.\n\nAnxiety with regard to the effect on morality, private and public,\nchiefly accounts, no doubt, for the present conspiracy of silence. I\nhave already gone into this question in some detail, [355] and we have\nseen that belief and morality are not necessarily Siamese twins, and\nthat, when the belief is false, and still more, of course, when it\nis suspected or known to be false, it is no longer of any possible\nethical value, but quite the reverse. Should you demur, I have a\nquestion to ask, which is this: Now that, whether we wish it or no,\nthe truth about Christianity is fast leaking out, and, consequently,\ndisbelief is rapidly spreading, how is it that you, how is it that\nthe State, how is it that the majority outside the Church, display\nso peculiarly little anxiety? I confess I am at a loss to understand,\nunless it be that you and they have realised that morality is a thing\napart from belief, and therefore feel that there is little cause for\nuneasiness. There is, however, an element of danger, and, temporary\nthough it may be, it is sure, if disregarded, to affect the private\nand public morality of our own times.\n\n\n\n(d) THE REAL DANGER.\n\nThe real danger lurks, where least suspected, in the very method which\nyou advocate as the safest--the method of a gradual infiltration. In\nmany matters such a method is undoubtedly sound. A reformation\ninvolving a complete revolution in opinions is best carried out\ngradually and tentatively, and, in this respect, nature's slow\nprocesses of evolution provide a useful lesson for the too ardent\nreformer. I do not suggest a cataclysm, or suppose it possible. But I\ndo say that your infiltration process must be carefully watched and\ntended, although a policy of masterly inactivity and laissez-faire\nmay appeal to you as the easiest; I do say with Mr. Trevelyan that\n\"true opinions do not spread always, and of their own force; but\nsometimes, and only by dint of courageous avowal\"; [356] I do say that\nin this particular instance it is absolutely necessary that, side\nby side with a knowledge of the untruth of the Christian religion,\nthere should be inculcated a knowledge of the true origin and need\nof morality; I do say that the infiltration process need not and\nought not to be prolonged indefinitely, and that insincerity of\nany kind affects character banefully; I do say that you should not\nallow your children to be taught a false belief and a false basis of\nmorality. This conspiracy of silence is as mistaken and mischievous as\nthat by which boys and girls are allowed to find out for themselves\nwhat they should have had properly put to them by their parents and\nguardians. When the Church teaching, when the dogmas contained in the\nThirty-nine Articles of Religion, are removed, the rational teaching\nmust take its place at once.\n\n\n\n(e) THE CONSOLATIONS OF BELIEF, AND THE DISTRESS WE MAY CAUSE BY\nOUR CANDOUR.\n\nWe cannot stop to inquire how this or that private interest will suffer\nwhen the theological mist has been dispelled. When machinery was\ninvented--or, again, when slavery was abolished--enormous interests\nwere affected. Such things will always adjust themselves. There is\none difficulty, however, which we all feel very strongly, and which\ncannot be passed over lightly. We have to consider the distress of mind\nwhich the truth will cause to those who still firmly believe, and for\nwhom their religion is so great a consolation that to be robbed of\nit would make life objectless--a dreary desert of despair. Have we,\nthen, any right to disturb people's belief, and to lacerate their\nfeelings? It would almost appear, as Mr. Winwood Reade remarks,\nthat \"we can do nothing that is exclusively and absolutely good. Le\ngenre humain n'est pas plac\u00e9 entre le bien et le mal, mais entre le\nmal et le pire.\" Just as multitudes of martyrs are now suffering in\nunhappy Russia for the sake of its eventual reform, just as throughout\nhistory mankind owe their elevation to misfortune and their happiness\nto misery, so here, also, it seems as if the elevation and happiness\nin store for mankind after their liberation from superstition can\nonly be achieved through suffering. The revolution will be bloodless,\nbut it cannot be altogether tearless. Let us see whether the mental\nanguish will be as great as we imagine, and also whether it is not\nin the power of each one of us to adopt a line of conduct which will\ntend towards a vast reduction in the number of those who must pass\nthrough the vale of tears.\n\nAre you and I any unhappier than the believer? Many of us have gone\nthrough an ordeal more or less severe before finally relinquishing\nour cherished beliefs. I will speak of that presently. But are we\nnow any less happy than our fellows who are believers? Except for the\nunhappiness which our outspoken confession of belief may have brought\nupon us, surrounded as we are by believers and professing believers,\nI think we can, with confidence, say we are not; while this possible\ncause of unhappiness is precisely the one which will disappear as soon\nas the vast multitude of unbelievers agree to tell the truth. No longer\nthen shall we seem, as now, to be in a minority. Very good. We are,\nor should be, quite as happy as believers; may we not suppose that,\nafter the effect of a rude awakening from a beautiful dream has passed\noff, the convert to unbelief will settle down into the same condition\nof mind as ourselves? We are free from anxiety regarding the terrible\nfate that some of our Christian brethren still see fit to hold over\nus; but in place of their anxiety concerning an eternal after-life,\nwhich may be blissful or may be gruesome, the worst we expect is an\neternal peace--an undisturbed sleep, such as we hope for every night\nwhen we retire to rest.\n\n\n    After life's fitful fever he sleeps well.\n\n\nWe are Agnostics, and, though some may preserve an agnosticism\nconcerning the continuance of consciousness after death, we are all\nof us resigned to the inevitable.\n\n\n    And if there be no meeting past the grave,\n    If all is darkness, silence, yet 'tis rest;\n    Be not afraid, ye waiting hearts that weep,\n    For God still \"giveth his belov\u00e8d sleep,\"\n    And if an endless sleep He wills, so best. [357]\n\n\nCan we state it as our honest opinion that the consolations of\nbelief enter into the every-day life of the average man, influencing\nthereby his happiness? We cannot. Only on rare occasions, in times\nof bereavement, or in time of his own approaching death, will he turn\nto his belief for consolation. Does he obtain then the consolation he\nlooks for? Again the answer must be in the negative. Here and there we\ncome across examples of a happy resignation such as we should expect\nto find; but usually it is far otherwise. No one nurses his grief\nlonger than the average Christian; no one is more unwilling to die--he\nis really more anxious to live than Hindoo, Parsee, Mohammedan, or\nBuddhist believer, or Japanese Agnostic. Whether it be that Agnosticism\nengenders a spirit of resignation, it is difficult to say; but the\nfact remains that no one accepts the ills of life more cheerfully,\nno one meets his death more bravely, than the average Agnostic. How\noften one hears of the deaths of unbelievers quite as beautiful in\ntheir serene calm as those of devout believers. To give examples\nrecently before the public, we have the heart-stirring accounts of\nthe last moments of two well-known Agnostics, the late Sir Leslie\nStephen, the author of An Agnostic's Apology, and the late George Jacob\nHolyoake, the founder of Secularism. These may be exceptional cases;\nbut such are exceptional, also, among believers. According as a man\nis possessed of self-control, or is naturally fearless or resigned,\nso will his conduct or feelings be affected. We are speaking, mind\nyou, of averages; and I maintain that bereavements and death are met\nby the average Agnostic with as much resignation as by the average\nChristian who has religious consolation to fall back upon.\n\nThe fear of death supplies the chief motive for religion. Even the\nemotion called forth by the death of a friend is not solely the feeling\nof the loss. It is partly because death has been brought very near to\nus. Now, as the consolation afforded by religion in our last hours\nis continually held up to us by the priest as a reward for belief,\none would expect to find that occasions where this consolation was\nunnecessary would be few and far between. It is, however, quite the\nreverse. Eliminating the cases of sudden death, how seldom are these\nconsolations of utility? Inquire, if you doubt, from any medical\nman what are his experiences among the dying; how many are not even\naware that they are dying; how many are too much taken up with their\nphysical sufferings, and too anxious to be relieved from them, to\nthink of anything else; how many die in a space of time so brief,\nreckoning from the moment when they are first made aware of their\ndying condition, that the case is practically one of sudden death;\nhow many are unconscious from the time when their life is first\nin danger; how many have the knowledge of their approaching death\ncarefully concealed from them by kind-hearted doctors and relations,\nalbeit both the patient and his attendants say they believe in a\nsupremely happy existence after death? Far more often than not the\nreligious consolation so frequently and solemnly held up to us by\nthe priest as an inducement to believe is never enjoyed. Does it not\nfurnish a damaging commentary on one of the strongest arguments for\nbelief--the argument from religious consolation?\n\nTaking these facts into consideration, we find ourselves able to\napproach the question of disturbing belief with a somewhat lighter\nheart. Still, we have to remember that these hopes and fears,\nsedulously implanted by the Church, have taken deep root. Could we\nbe sure of impressing believers with our own convictions concerning\nthe consolations of religion, all would be well; but we cannot be\nsure. Here lies the crux. The idea that they are deriving, and will\nderive, consolation when the dread moment is at hand has become far\ntoo fixed for painless extraction. You may only succeed in partially\ndivesting them of their belief, making them thoroughly miserable to\nno purpose; or, if you do succeed, it may only be after you have put\nthem to considerable mental distress. What is to be done, then? It\nis a hard question. Feeling this, we give the matter up in despair,\nand remain silent. And so the truth which we might have spread,\neach one of us in his own circle, remains unspoken.\n\nWorse still, the untruth is perpetuated by permitting our children to\nbe brought up in the false beliefs of our believing friends. This,\nat least, should make us pause and reflect. Are we justified in\nkeeping silence? Are we justified in making no effort to save the\nfuture generation from mental distress, or from what is far worse, a\ndemoralising indifference? The dilemma is great, but that is no reason\nfor shirking it. It must be faced, and the pros and cons carefully\nweighed. Is there, haply, no middle course that we may steer? We should\nnot unnecessarily cause distress to the aged who have, all their days,\ncherished this belief, who have arrived at a time of life when ideas\nare not easily changed, and who feel that that life is now drawing\nto a close, and that they now more than ever require the consolation\nthey have built their hopes upon. We should spare their feelings all\nwe can; but we must, so it seems to me, put both them and ourselves to\nsuch distress as may arise from telling them plainly, when absolutely\nnecessary, that we do not believe in the truth of Christianity, and\ndo not think it right to bring up our children to what we consider\nis a false belief. We have seen that religious tolerance is the\ngrowing spirit of the age, that some of our greatest divines extol\n[358] the virtues of the Agnostic, and condemn [359] obscurantism\nand the odium theologicum. Shall we then, after all, in these days,\ncause so very much distress by our confessions of unbelief? As a rule,\nI think we shall not.\n\n\n\n(f) CAN WE ALTER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS?\n\nAnother objection to \"speaking out\" is that we can never alter people's\nbeliefs. Many well-known Agnostics still hold this opinion. In his\nessay, \"The Religion of All Sensible Men,\" Sir Leslie Stephen expresses\nthis opinion in the following words: \"I do not wish to underrate modern\nprogress; but surely there is something grotesque in the hypothesis\nthat the average shopkeeper or artisan of the present day is too\nclever to believe in the creeds of his forefathers. I fancy that no\none has yet ascertained that the brain of to-day is more capacious\nthan the brains of the contemporaries of C\u00e6sar or St. Paul.... Can you\npierce his [the intelligent citizen's] armour of stolid indifference\nby arguments about the principle of evolution and the survival of the\nfittest?... The improbability that ancient creeds should simply survive\nmust, therefore, depend upon other conditions than the increase of the\naverage intelligence.... I would not conceal my own views, but neither\nwould I feel anxious to thrust them upon others; and for the very\nsimple reason that conversion appears to me to be an absurdity. You\ncannot change a man's thoughts about things as you can change the books\nin his library.\" [360] With all due respect to the late Sir Leslie\nStephen, I contend that there is one gigantic fallacy underlying this\nargument. He forgets, or appears to forget, that beliefs are built\nupon premises, the errors in which one may be able to demonstrate\nabsolutely without having to enter into learned dissertations on the\nprinciple of evolution. He declares that he does not wish to underrate,\nbut he certainly does underrate, modern progress. Surely the average\nshopkeeper or artisan of the present day is capable of understanding\nthat practically nothing is left of the foundations upon which his\nforefathers built their beliefs; that they have crumbled away under\nthe influence of a knowledge that was not in the possession of the\ncontemporaries of C\u00e6sar or St. Paul? \"The laws of thought,\" as Herbert\nSpencer says, \"are everywhere the same, and the ideas of a rational\nbeing are, under the conditions in which they occur, rational.\" [361]\nIt is ignorance, coupled with superstition, that is at the root of\nall the different beliefs of mankind. Superstition may remain, though\neven this may be questioned, considering that people brought up from\ntheir childhood as Agnostics are wholly devoid of any superstitious or\nso-called religious instinct. Ignorance can in any case be dispelled,\nand if this does not actually destroy supernatural beliefs, it will at\nleast modify them. Even the working man will not remain satisfied with\na theology which maintains the necessity for a foundation of facts,\nand yet is unable to prove them. Therefore, confident of the utility,\nlet us unravel all that is clearly false in belief, and disseminate\nthe result of our investigations among our fellows. In this way,\nmen who are in all essentials seeking the same goal may be led to\npursue, if not the same path, yet at least convergent paths. The\ncommon sophisms that it is useless to inquire too deeply into beliefs,\nsince you will never arrive at the absolute truth, and that you will\nnever get two men to think alike, account for much of the prevalent\nindifference. Absolute truth may always remain beyond the ken of man;\nbut that is no reason why he should not go on trying to get as near\nit as possible, and the first step is the elimination of untruth.\n\n\n\n(g) CAN BELIEFS BE USEFUL THOUGH FALSE?\n\nIt is strange to find non-Christians arguing that the persistence\nof the Christian belief is a sign of its utility; it is no more so\nthan it is of its truth. Christianity did not make good men what they\nare, but good men have made Christianity what it is. Besides, a false\nbelief cannot possibly serve a good purpose after its real character\nhas become known. Mr. Fielding urges [362] that whatever exists,\nwhatever persists, does so because it fills a want, because it is of\nuse. He points his argument by alluding to the fact that when anything\nis useless it atrophies, and he instances how the snake and the whale\nhave lost their legs, human kind their hairy skin and keener sense of\nsmell, and so on. In this simile he is making an assertion which begs\nthe question. He assumes that supernatural belief is not an atrophied\norgan; the Rationalist contends that it is, and that it has been proved\nto be so. Belief, indeed, is strikingly analogous to an organ which,\nowing to its having no further useful purpose, has atrophied and become\nrudimentary. It may have served some purpose in bygone ages; but now,\nin its present state, it is a source of weakness, like the splint\nbone of a horse--or rather of danger, like the vermiform appendage of\nman. The analogy, fortunately, does not hold good in every respect,\nfor a false belief is an appendage of human nature which can be\nsafely, though perhaps not always painlessly, removed. Indeed, it\nis an open question whether all religion (in its theological sense)\nis not \"an unessential quality which has been mechanically attached\nto it, and which, consequently, it may at any time throw off without\nexperiencing any serious loss.\" [363]\n\n\n\n(h) IS A NEW RELIGION [364] REQUIRED?\n\nIf the latter be a correct estimate of the place religion occupies in\nman's nature, it furnishes a reply to one of the objections to Agnostic\npropaganda--the objection that, before we discard an existing belief,\nwe must be prepared to substitute a new belief in its place. It is\nthis objection that has given rise to those speculative philosophies\nwhich the common sense of the vast majority has rightly decided are\nunsatisfactory; a decision that the Church has not unnaturally seized\nupon as a triumphant vindication of the truth of Christianity.\n\nAgainst this objection to militant Rationalism, this plea for silence,\nI may be permitted to enter my protest in the weighty words of a\nwell-known writer. \"It is alleged,\" says the author of Supernatural\nReligion, \"that, before existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast\nis bound to provide a substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may\nreply that speech or silence does not alter the reality of things. The\nrecognition of truth cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be\ntrammelled by considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in\na serious and suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can\nnever be premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a\nhumiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality\nis concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,\nalthough of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,\nhave promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages,\nand even in our own times; but it may, we think, be shown that\neducation and civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its\nspirit. How far Christianity has promoted education and civilisation\nwe shall not here venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically\nassert, however, that whatever beneficial effect Christianity has\nproduced has been due, not to its supernatural dogmas, but to its\nsimple morality. Dogmatic theology, on the contrary, has retarded\neducation and impeded science.... Even now the friction of theological\nresistance is a constant waste of intellectual power.... The choice of\na noble life is no longer a theological question, and ecclesiastical\npatents of truth and uprightness have finally expired. Morality,\nwhich has ever changed its complexion and modified its injunctions\naccording to social requirements, will necessarily be enforced as\npart of human evolution, and is not dependent on religious terrorism\nor superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed to say: Cui bono? and\nonly practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to gain a\nheaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such a grudging\nand calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can as\nwell be produced by social compulsion.\" [365] \"If,\" as George Eliot\nonce pithily remarked, \"you feel no motive to common morality but\na criminal bar in heaven, you are decidedly a man for the police on\nearth to keep their eye upon.\"\n\n\n\n(i) WHY BE SO IMPATIENT OF ERROR?\n\nThere is one more argument against militant Rationalism which demands\nour attention. \"Why should we be so impatient of error?\" asks Sir\nLeslie Stephen. \"The enormous majority of the race has, on any\nhypothesis, been plunged in superstitions of various kinds, and, on\nthe whole, it has found that it could thrive and be decently happy and\ncontented in its ignorance. Science declines to accept catastrophes;\nand no catastrophe would be more startling than a sudden dispersal\nof the mists that have obscured the human intelligence for so many\nages. If they grow a little thinner in our time, we may well be\ncontent; but is it not childish to be impatient about the rate of\ndevelopment of these vast secular [age-long] processes? Why be in\nsuch a hurry to 'change the errors of the Church of Rome for those of\nthe Church of the Future'?\" [366] I hope I have already answered this\nquestion to the satisfaction of some at least of my readers. I have\nshown that there is a very real danger in further concealment--in\nkeeping up the farce. But let this pass. The reason why we should\nbe impatient of error--why the truth should be told--is that the\nelimination of error will usher in an era of greater happiness.\n\nIn order that we may the more clearly perceive this, I shall\nnow conclude this book with a rapid survey of the arguments for\nRationalism.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. The Outlook.\n\nWhen Rationalism reigns supreme,--\n\n1. Morality will be founded on a firm basis. Its origin and necessity\nbeing better understood, it will also be better practised, whether\nin commerce, in politics, or in our social relations--i.e., both in\nour public and in our private conduct. Also the present atmosphere of\nreligious insincerity will be cleared. Relieved of this temptation\nto deceive our neighbour and even ourselves, our moral fibre will\nbe strengthened, and we shall be far less likely to be hypocrites in\nother matters.\n\n2. Social evils will stand a better chance of being redressed.\n\n3. All religious intolerance will disappear once and for all.\n\n4. An era of peace and happiness may at last be realised, because the\nmethods of its attainment will be scientific and rational. We shall\nhave recognised the fact that a gospel which proclaims a sword and\neternal damnation cannot at the same time be a gospel of good tidings,\ncannot bring \"Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.\"\n\nIt may be said that such optimism is absurd, but is it really so?\n\nMorality.--Have we not seen [367] that morality can be taught apart\nfrom belief, and, indeed, that it is better so taught? May we not\nreasonably expect, therefore, that morality will advance side by\nside with Rationalism? In the famous words of Kant, \"The death\nof dogma is the birth of morals.\" Our moral progress has not been\nchecked by the machinations of devils, but rather by our belief in\nsuch personages. Also by our ignorance--ignorance of the origin and\npurpose of morality, ignorance of the true causes of immorality,\nignorance of the laws of heredity and environment. Science is the\ngood fairy who will assist moral weaklings, and reduce their numbers\nin succeeding generations. Supernatural religion was perhaps a phase\nthrough which humanity had to grope towards the light of reason and\nknowledge. \"But we are now facing the dawn of that better and happier\nday when piety shall be confined within the sphere of the natural, when\nmorals shall be looked upon and cultivated as essential conditions\nof a truly blessed social life, and when all mankind shall aim,\nnot at imaginary happiness in a purely imaginary realm, but at real\nprosperity in a profoundly real world. This would be the exaltation,\nnot destruction, of morality; the glorification, not annihilation,\nof the sense of responsibility; the enthronement, not repudiation,\nof the joy of altruistic service.\" [368]\n\nSocial Problems.--Broad-minded divines are now exalting the service\nof man as it has never before been exalted. \"Serve men,\" they say,\n\"and you will find God. Help men, and Christ is here.\" [369] \"The\ntest of Christianity is,\" Canon Wilson informs us, \"the resolve\nand the power of Christians to solve social problems. If the Bible\ninspires Christians with the zeal and the wisdom and the love\nneeded for this task, no one will dispute its claims to be verily\n'the Word of God.'\" [370] This inspiration to improve the lot of\nour fellow-creatures furnishes, we are told, the final test of the\nBible's truth. We are entitled to ask, therefore, How comes it that\nthe inspiration has hitherto so signally failed to manifest itself, and\nthat it only appears now when the aspirations of the democracy can no\nlonger be disregarded? To give an example from history, did not slavery\nflourish side by side with the Christian Church? [371] Was it not\nabolished only when the further development of humanitarian principles\ncaused men's hearts to rebel against its cruelty and injustice?\n\nThe Church is at last devoting more attention to social evils and\nto the removal of their causes. What has taught her this duty if it\nbe not the growing spirit of nationalism? [372] The Church has been\nforced, as it were, to keep pace with the rise of Rationalism. It\nis her only chance of prolonging her existence. Her new attitude in\nthis respect will undoubtedly be the means of confusing the issue--the\ntruth of Christianity--for some years to come. Therefore it is that,\nwhile thankful for the improvement, it is our bounden duty to expose\nthe real truth of the matter--to see that Rationalism is not robbed of\nits due meed of praise, that the merit of the improvement is ascribed\nto its proper source.\n\nAlso we are to see that the process of improvement is not\ndelayed. Undoubtedly the progress of Rationalism will ultimately\ninvolve important changes in political institutions and philosophic\ntheories; but it is the cure of social evils which cannot be wrought\ntoo soon. In proportion as we accept the natural and reject the\nsupernatural diagnosis of social diseases so shall we alleviate and\npossibly cure them.\n\nReligious Tolerance.--Have we not seen that religious intolerance has\nbeen the evil genius which throughout the history of Christianity has\nbeen an enemy of progress and a lively cause of strife and misery? \"The\nChristian Church has been more cruel and shed more human blood than\nany other Church or institution in the world. Let the Jew alone bear\nwitness among the crowd of victims.\" [373] Also, Christians, in the\ncourse of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater\nseverities on each other than they have ever experienced from the\nzeal of infidels. [374]\n\n\n        Christians have burnt each other, quite persuaded\n        That all the Apostles would have done as they did.\n\n\nTo-day, despite the rise and influence of Rationalism in Europe,\n\"racial and religious prejudice are certainly present among us, and\nthey form a latent source of cruelty and injustice which can at any\ntime, if we are weak enough or wicked enough to give it free play,\nstain the land with the most amazing oppressions.\" [375] Religious\nanimus, even in a country priding itself on its tolerant spirit, has\nby no means burnt itself out. Do we not see it flaring up again in the\n\"War of the Kirks,\" the Education controversy, and the arguments for\nthe retention of the Athanasian Creed?\n\nIt is necessary, as Buckle observes, [376] that men should learn to\ndoubt, before they begin to tolerate; and that they should recognise\nthe fallibility of their own opinions, before they respect the opinions\nof their opponents. We may never entirely agree on questions that\nare for the present at least shrouded in mystery; but, though the old\nadage, \"Quot homines, tot sententi\u00e6,\" may remain true for all time,\nwide differences of opinion will disappear, and with them the odium\ntheologicum. There can only be intolerance where belief is dogmatic,\nand that the religion of the future will never be. The uncertainty, the\nreasons why others may not be able to accept this or that philosophic\nspeculation, will be recognised.\n\nIf any discoveries await us, we are sure, at all events, that they will\nnot confirm a dogma that would consign the greater portion of the human\nrace to unspeakable and eternal torment; they will not confirm Christ's\ndescription of the Last Judgment, when the Son of Man is to say:\n\"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the\nDevil and his angels.\" It is the fashion nowadays for Latitudinarians\nto explain away everything that appears too incongruous or vindictive,\nand the word \"everlasting\" is said to be a mistranslation; but the\nmeaning of one at least of the sayings attributed to Jesus is only too\nclear: \"Many are called, but few are chosen\" (Matt. xxii. 14.) What,\nthen, is to become of the many? If we are to believe the \"Word of God,\"\ntheir awful fate, temporary or otherwise, is certain--\"Whosoever was\nnot found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire\"\n(Rev. xx. 15); or again, \"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:\nthere shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth\" (Matt. xiii. 42). It is\ncruel doctrines of this kind that have arrested the growth of love and\npity, and Rationalism is therefore the sworn enemy of such doctrines,\nas well as of the religious intolerance which springs from them.\n\nPeace. [377]--In an address by the late Archbishop of Canterbury,\nwhen Bishop of London, delivered at the Polytechnic, Regent Street,\n[378] we are presented with an argument of Christian apologetics, the\nweight of which rests upon the presumption that Christ did not wish the\nChurch to begin with any bloodshed! \"It is sometimes questioned,\" said\nDr. Temple, \"by those who would throw discredit upon the narrative,\nthat our Lord tells them [the disciples] to go into Galilee, and yet\nHe intended to see them that evening. But the whole thing is perfectly\nclear to those who consider the circumstances. Our Lord appeared to\nthem in the evening, and there can be no doubt that He intended to\ndo so even when He told these women that they were to desire all the\ndisciples to go down into Galilee. But it was of great importance that\nthere should be no gathering of the disciples in Jerusalem, because the\ninevitable result would have been an alarm on the part of the Jews,\nand Pontius Pilate would have been compelled, in order to keep the\ncity perfectly quiet, to disperse such an assembly by force; and it\nis likely enough that the Church would have begun with bloodshed. But\nour Lord did not choose to have any such beginning. He told them all\nto go into Galilee.\" Are there any grounds for this presumption, any\ngrounds for presuming that God ever wishes to prevent bloodshed? None\nwhatever from a study of history. None whatever from a study of the\nBible. None whatever from a study of Christ's own words: \"Think not\nthat I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace,\nbut a sword.\"\n\nLook at the present day! \"We live in a time,\" exclaims the Kaiser,\n[379] \"in which every young German capable of bearing arms must be\nready to step forward for his Fatherland.\" \"The signs of the times\nmake it the duty of the nation to strengthen its defences against\nunrighteous attacks.\" [380] \"History, viewed as a whole,\" says Major\nStewart Murray, [381] warningly, \"is nothing but a succession of\nstruggles for existence among rival nations, in which, in the long run,\nonly the strong armed survive.\" Similar notes of warning are echoing\nand re-echoing through the length and breadth of Christendom. Is\nthis no reflection upon Christianity's power for good? Look at\nthe picture! Christian nations all armed to the teeth, with their\n\"powder dry\" and their \"swords keen,\" each distrustful of the other,\neach ready to spring at the other's throat.\n\nWhat has the Rationalist to say to this state of things? What\nremedy does he propose to apply? The prophets foretell that we\ncan look forward to the abolition of war only when the engines of\ndestruction--flying ships armed with weapons of death, for example--are\nof so fearful a nature that it will at last be brought home to mortals\nthat this clumsy and barbarous machine for settling disputes is too\nabsurd, too suicidal for further employment. But need we wait long\nweary years, burdened with the thousand and one curses of war and\nmilitarism, [382] till this supreme horror has been invented?\n\nIn the resolution adopted at the Fourteenth Peace Congress [383] we\nfind the following stirring appeal: \"We are beginning to understand\nthat the rights of the citizen within the State can only be fully\nrespected when, by the establishment of international juridical\norder, absolute security shall be obtained for all nations. The\ndemand for this international security is becoming daily more urgent,\non the one hand because modern progress binds together millions of\nthe most diverse interests, on the other hand because the stream of\ndemocracy, or what it would be more proper to call the aspirations of\nthe masses of the people after happiness, is rising continually in\nan immense and irresistible flood. International security can only\nbe assured by federation; so federation will come about, for it is\nindispensable as liberty to the citizen, as air to the lungs. But it\nbehoves us to see that it comes before we are laid in the tomb. What\nwe ought to labour for with an unresting ardour is that federation\nshould be accomplished while we are yet alive, so that we may not\nbe thwarted of the legitimate share of happiness that belongs to us\nhere below.\" Yes, this strikes the right chord; but before the hopes\nof these peace enthusiasts can be fulfilled Rationalism must have\nadvanced considerably further than it has up to the present. At the\nthird National Peace Congress held at Birmingham on June 13th and 14th,\n1906, the opinion was expressed that the King and the working classes\nwere already on the side of peace, and it only remained, therefore,\nto convert the Church and the middle classes. How are we to set about\ntheir conversion? Even if we could persuade the Church that war was\nnot an essential to the welfare of nations, we could hardly expect her\nto agree with us at present either as to the cause or the cure of the\nevil. The prime cause of war is Nature's cruel law, the \"struggle for\nexistence\"; and the Rationalist's proposals for its alleviation run\ncounter to the teachings of the Church. For this among other cogent\nreasons, I conceive that it behoves us to see that the truth about\nChristianity be known \"before we are laid in the tomb,\" and that \"what\nwe ought to labour for with an unresting ardour\" is that this \"should\nbe accomplished while we are yet alive, so that we may not be thwarted\nof the legitimate share of happiness that belongs to us here below.\"\n\nThe close association of war and religion has never ceased to act\nfor the injury of mankind. The \"Lord of Hosts,\" the \"Lord mighty in\nbattle,\" is expected to take interest in bloodshed rather than in the\npursuits of peace, and to be always ready to join in the fray--to\nfight for His People; both sides, be it remembered, claiming His\nassistance. True Christianity owns as its Master a Prince of Peace; but\nin no particular has its failure in practice been more marked than in\nits impotency to carry out this, one of its chief missions. Why? Apart\nfrom religion being frequently the actual occasion of the strife, [384]\nis it not because it has always meddled in politics, always supported\nrulers in their ambitions, in their land-hunger? Is it not because\nreligion has too often submitted to be \"a 'kept' priest to bless or\nban as the passion or self-interest of its employer dictated?\" [385]\n\nIt is as futile as it is insincere for a Tsar [386] to preach peace,\nwhen he, or rather his counsellors, are imbued with a hunger for\nother people's property, and, hypocrites that they are, hide their\nreal motives under the cloak of religion, calling it, forsooth,\nthe spreading of a Christian civilisation. Every Rationalist, every\nFreethinker, is an honest advocate of peace. [387] He is not so\nirrational, so immoral I might say, as to propose the settlement of\ndisputes by arbitration, and at the same time to entertain nefarious\nprojects calculated to render this method impracticable. So long\nas Christian nations remain unmindful of the Tenth Commandment, he\nacknowledges with sorrow that we must continue armed and ready to do\nbattle; but he looks forward with confidence to the day when there\nwill be such an overwhelming body of men earnestly and sincerely\ndesirous of peace that war will be impossible, simply because the\npreponderating voice of each and every nation will be against it--will\n\"seek peace and ensue it.\" He anticipates a time when men will realise\nthat they are not only citizens of this or that country, but fellow\ncitizens also on the same planet.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Concluding Remarks.\n\nAn eminent theologian tells us: \"Reason is the only faculty we have\nwherewith to judge concerning anything, even Revelation itself.\" [388]\nHow is it, then, that Religionist and Rationalist arrive at such\ncontrary conclusions? The explanation is simple enough: the Religionist\ntrusts, the Rationalist distrusts, his emotions. Which is in the\nright? The survival of religious belief will largely depend upon the\nview men may ultimately take upon this question. Whether religion be no\nmore than \"morality touched by emotion,\" as Matthew Arnold defines it,\n[389] or whether all religions are only different ways of expressing a\nreality which transcends experience and correct expression, we cannot,\non that account, accept dogmas that are untrue; we cannot pretend that\na supernatural revelation has been vouchsafed to us. We may surmise,\nas Sir Henry Thompson supposed, that the \"eternal and infinite energy\nbehind phenomena\" is what we call \"God\"; but we have to admit that\nthis God is an unknown God, and that all attempts to unravel the\nmystery that surrounds our own fate are the merest guesses in the\ndark. Does a surmise--a belief if you will have it so--of this kind\nafford any religious satisfaction? If this Eternal Energy possesses\nwhat we should call a mind, can we worship a Supreme Intelligence\n\n\n        \"Which stoops not either to bless or ban,\n        Weaving the woof of an endless plan\"?\n\n\nCan we worship the Unknown? Can we, like the Athenians of old,\nerect altars to the Unknown God? I trow not. The age of ignorance\nand superstition is slowly, but none the less surely, passing away,\nnever again to return.\n\nSir Oliver Lodge believes [390] in \"the ultimate intelligibility of\nthe universe,\" and with this opinion many of us will agree. Perhaps our\npresent brains may require considerable improvement before we can grasp\nthe deepest things by their aid, or perhaps they will suffice as they\nare, and only a further acquisition of knowledge may be required. In\nany case, one sees no reason why, because we have no acceptable theory\nof life or of death now, we must therefore be equally ignorant many\ncenturies, or even a single century, hence. On the other hand, it is,\nof course, quite possible that these mysteries may remain for ever\nunexplained. It may transpire that Haeckel's assumption of a monism\nin the physical world, and his identification of vital force with\nordinary physical and chemical forces, are incorrect. It may transpire\nthat Professor le Conte was wrong in regarding vital force as just\nso much withdrawn from the general fund of chemical and physical\nforces. Radio-activity and the cyanic theory [391] may not furnish a\nsatisfactory solution of the problem of the first appearance of life\nupon this globe. But one thing, at all events, our present knowledge\nseems clearly to indicate: the solution of the problem cannot be in\naccord with the Christian dogmas. Should the secrets of our existence\nstill lie concealed in the womb of time, their birth will be the death,\nnot the renascence, of the dying creeds of to-day.\n\nMeanwhile our present course is clearly defined: we should search\nout and expose all false premises of belief. Only in this way can\nwe hope to arrive a little nearer to the ultimate truth. Also,\nwhat is of much greater consequence, when all that is demonstrably\nuntrue in the world's beliefs has been pointed out and acknowledged,\nbelievers and unbelievers will be in far better accord concerning\nall that is vital to the well-being of the human race. \"We cannot,\"\nas Mr. Trevelyan pertinently remarks, [392] \"alter the nature of the\nUnknown by conceiving it to be other than that which it is; but we\ncan get a wrong basis for ethics, and a false sentimental outlook on\neverything, by reason of false beliefs.\"\n\nBy all means let those who can, continue to cherish the \"larger\nhope\"--why should they not, while all is unknown?--and let the\nmetaphysicians continue to translate their wishes and aspirations\ninto philosophical language; but the guiding spirit in human affairs\nshould be, and one day will be, a scientific humanitarianism working\non rational principles for the peace and happiness of all mankind.\n\n\n        \"Ring out the grief that saps the mind\n        For those that here we see no more;\n        Ring out the feud of rich and poor,\n        Ring in redress to all mankind.\n\n        Ring out a slowly dying cause,\n        And ancient forms of party strife;\n        Ring in the nobler modes of life,\n        With sweeter manners, purer laws.\n\n        Ring out false pride in place and blood,\n        The civic slander and the spite;\n        Ring in the love of truth and right,\n        Ring in the common love of good.\n\n        Ring out old shapes of foul disease,\n        Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;\n        Ring out the thousand wars of old,\n        Ring in the thousand years of peace.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nChapter I.\n\n\n    P. 5, lines 12-14.--The Copernican system was gradually accepted,\n    and so were the discoveries which followed up to fifty years ago.\n\n\nCopernicus's book, The Revolution of the Celestial Bodies, was printed\na few days before his death, in 1543. The system was condemned by\na decree of Pope Paul V., in 1616, which was not revoked till 1818\nby Pius VII. The great Kepler (d. 1630) was an astrologer as well\nas astronomer, and thought the stars were guided by angels. While\nhis mind had a strong grasp of positive scientific truth, it also\nhad an irresistible tendency towards mystical speculation. In those\ndays Science and Religion were easily reconciled. It was fortunate\nfor Newton that he made his discovery of the law of gravitation in a\nrather more enlightened age and country, otherwise he would inevitably\nhave shared the terrible fate of Giordano Bruno at the hands of the\nChurch's emissaries.\n\nEven in the early eighteenth century the light of science had hardly\ngot beyond the first glimmering of dawn. Mathematics and astronomy\nwere the only sciences which had passed into the positive and final\nstage. Chemistry, geology, biology, historical criticism, were not yet\nin a position to speak with authority even on subjects in their own\nprovince. Read a popular apologetic work of the eighteenth century;\nread Truth and Certainty of Christian Revelation, edition 1724,\nand you will find that a defender of the faith had in those days\na comparatively easy task. Science being still in its infancy,\nDr. Samuel Clarke gave reasons for the truth of Christian dogmas,\nwhich, though they could not be controverted then, would now be\nconsidered the most abject nonsense. Bead also Mr. S. Laing's remarks\non p. 13 of A Modern Zoroastrian, where he tells us that when he was\n\"a student at Cambridge, little more than fifty years ago, astronomy\nwas the only branch of natural science which could be said to be\ndefinitely brought within the domain of natural law, and that only\nas regards the law of gravity and the motions of the heavenly bodies,\nfor little or nothing was known as to their constitution.\"\n\n\n    P. 5, lines 18-19.--The vast antiquity of the earth.\n\n\n\"It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that 500 to 1,000 million\nyears may have elapsed since the birth of the moon\" (see Professor\nDarwin's Presidential address at the meeting of the British Association\nin Johannesburg on August 30th, 1905).\n\n\n    P. 8, lines 27-9.--He is well aware of the odium he would incur\n    should he proclaim his heterodox views concerning the popular\n    religion.\n\n\nNor is it easy for even a well-known man to get his heterodox views\npublished where they will be widely read. Sir Hiram Maxim wrote\nlately to the Literary Guide concerning his letter in the \"Do We\nBelieve?\" correspondence, saying \"it was necessary for my letter to\nhave a slight coating of ecclesiastical sugar, otherwise it would not\nhave been published.\" Does the Church realise the extent to which men\nof science coat their popular writings with \"ecclesiastical sugar\"? The\nretail bookselling trade in England is still largely in the hands of\npersons belonging to the various sects, and, even where this is not\nso, few dare to push the works of glaringly heterodox writers. As an\nexample of the difficulties which beset the way of a too truth-loving\nauthor, we may notice that it took three years before 2,000 copies of\nMr. Samuel Laing's Modern Science and Modern Thought could be sold,\nand its sale brought him no pecuniary profit.\n\n\n    P. 19, lines 2-3.--He [Sir Oliver Lodge] has never yet professed\n    belief in a personal God.\n\n\nHe has now done so. In an article entitled \"First Principles of\nFaith,\" appearing in the Hibbert Journal for July, 1906, he has\ndrawn up a new formula of faith, which commences: \"I believe in one\nInfinite and Eternal Being, a guiding and loving Father, in whom all\nthings consist.\" He continues: \"I believe that the Divine Nature is\nspecially revealed to man through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lived\nand taught and suffered in Palestine 1,900 years ago, and has since\nbeen worshipped by the Christian Church as the immortal Son of God,\nthe Saviour of the world.\" This reconstructed Christian (?) creed has\nbeen deftly worded; but this, at least, is clear--the Virgin-birth,\nResurrection, and Ascension form no part of the religious belief of Sir\nOliver Lodge. The full text of the \"Catechism\" which he has designed\nfor the use of teachers and others interested in the education of\nthe young appears in the Standard of December 14th, 1906.\n\n\n    P. 20, line 31.--The religious naturally wish to discredit science.\n\n\nIt is a common assertion of the pious that modern science has\ncontinually to retrace its steps, and admit that it was mistaken in\nits facts and theories. The following pronouncement by Professor Ray\nLankester, in his Presidential Address at the annual meeting of the\nBritish Association (held at York in 1906), should disillusion them:\n\"During the last few years an idea has spread abroad that some of\nthe more recent discoveries of science have revolutionised scientific\nideas--have upset former theories, or have reversed them. Nothing is\nfurther from the truth.\"\n\n\n    P. 25, lines 19-20.--They [Agnostics] \"exhibit the very temper\n    which Christ blesses.\"\n\n\nCanon Scott Holland's precise words were: \"It is no petulant boy\nmaking his petulant repudiation, but a man with steady and deliberate\njudgment, weighing, examining, testing, and still, at last to his own\nsorrow, to his own confessed cost, bravely facing what he deems to\nbe the fact, and pronouncing, 'I am not of the Body; I cannot share\nthe life of the Christian community.' And yet, if we look at him,\nwe recognise in every detail of his character the lines that lead\nto Christ. He illustrates and exhibits the very temper which Christ\nblesses; he is pure, unselfish, humble, and good.... He may say what he\npleases, but Christ has not forsworn him.\" Subsequently he acknowledges\nin moving terms that, as the populations are emerging from out of\ntheir darkness, so they are repudiating the name of Christ. But he\ngives no explanation for a circumstance so perplexing to a Christian.\n\nLet me not be misunderstood to say that this extremely lenient view\ntowards the Agnostic is the usual one at present. On the contrary, the\nBishop of Moray voices the opinion of the majority of the orthodox when\n(at the Diocesan Synod held at Inverness Cathedral in the autumn of\n1904) he challenges the wisdom of this sympathetic attitude, and asks:\n\"Is this a time to banish into silence, or relegate to an inferior\nposition, the great bulwark of the Faith--the Athanasian Creed?\" We\nare to understand that the curses of the Creed are reserved, not for\nthe man who is born of heathen parents, but for the man who, often\nwith much uprooting of his dearest hopes, and at the cost of losing\nmany friends and even his original means of livelihood, decides that\nhe must forsake the Faith. It seems to me that, before converting the\nheathen, it would be only fair that the terrible fate they will incur\nby any subsequent recantation should be distinctly explained to them.\n\nAgain, the Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon, in his pamphlet, Atheism and Faith,\nrepresents the Atheist in the guise of the Tempter \"holding out the\nbribe of free indulgence of all the passions to our youth, our working\nclasses, our governing classes, and our capitalists.\" Clergymen who\nspeak with such bitterness and make such sweeping assertions really\nbetray the weakness of their own case. For it is a psychological fact\nthat men are always angriest when they know they are not quite in\nthe right. It is also a statistical fact (so far as statistics can be\nrelied upon for facts) that crime among disbelievers is proportionately\nsmall, while among the staunchest believers, the Roman Catholics,\nit is proportionately large.\n\n\n    P. 29, line 23.--Excite prejudice by the use of a condemnatory\n    adjective.\n\n\nThe Riddle of the Universe was described as a \"book of rubbish\" by\nFather Gerard, a member of the \"Society of Jesus.\" He has not the\nleast authority for such an indictment. On the contrary, every single\nbiologist would tell him that he was himself talking rubbish. The\nTurin Academy crowned it as the best book written in the last four\nyears of the nineteenth century. Clergymen seem to prefer to get\ntheir science from apologetic works only. How many, I wonder, have\never read the masterly exposition of the case for Haeckel--Haeckel's\nCritics Answered, by Joseph McCabe?\n\n\n    P. 30, lines 13-14.--\"In relief of doubt.\"\n\n\nA work entitled In Relief of Doubt, by the Rev. R. E. Welsh, a\nPresbyterian minister, is an attempt by an exceedingly earnest man to\nremove doubts concerning the Bible. There is an introductory note by\nthe Bishop of London. The book is written in what the Bishop terms a\n\"racy\" style, and has the merit of much straightforwardness; but few\nwell-informed, and at the same time open-minded, readers would agree\nwith the conclusions of the author. The argument that St. Paul was\na contemporary of Christ is one of the principal features; but see\nChap. II., \u00a7 3, and Chap. III., \u00a7 2.\n\n\n    P. 31, lines 27-8.--The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.\n\n\nIn Priests and People in Ireland, by Michael McCarthy, there is a\ncomplete expos\u00e9 of the methods and results of Christian teaching in\nthis portion of the British Isles, and a portrait of a typical Roman\nCatholic priest which demonstrates his elevating (?) influence. Also\nsee Twelve Years in a Monastery and Life in a Modern Monastery,\nby Joseph McCabe.\n\n\n    P. 33, lines 32-3.--The Roman Catholic Church is more consistent.\n\n\n\"The Papal Church, founded, to a large extent, on superstition\nand ignorance, has ever been afraid of knowledge, of study, and\neducation; hence she only consulted her own life's interests when, in\nthe Middle Ages, she decreed knowledge to be identical with heresy,\nand heresy to be punishable by death.\" These words are quoted from\nThe Roman Catholic Church in Italy, by the Rev. Alexander Robertson,\nD.D., a book accorded a flattering reception by the King of Italy in\n1903. Again, Lord Macaulay, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church\nin the first chapter of his History of England, says that, \"during\nthe last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has\nbeen her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has\nbeen made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of\nlife, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been made\nin inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most fertile\nprovinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty,\nin political servitude, and in intellectual torpor.\"\n\n\n    P. 38, line 7.--Gifts for the needy.\n\n\nThe exhortation to \"give to the poor\" is a precept of all the great\nreligions. Indiscriminate giving was inculcated by the disciples of\nChrist, who were the poor, and Asiatic poor at that. The pity of\nit is that often more harm than good is done because the \"Divine\"\ncommand does not specify the deserving poor. Hence that wholesale\npauperisation of which the evil effects are especially apparent among\nthe Jews and in Oriental countries.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\n\n    P. 44, lines 22-3.--Mansel, Mozley, Farrar, Westcott, on Miracles.\n\n\nDean Mansel said: \"If there be one fact recorded in Scripture which\nis entitled, in the fullest sense of the word, to the name of a\nmiracle, the Resurrection of Christ is that fact. Here, at least,\nis an instance in which the entire Christian faith must stand or fall\nwith our belief in the supernatural.... A superhuman authority needs\nto be substantiated by superhuman evidence, and what is superhuman\nis miraculous\" (pp. 3 and 35 of Aids to Faith, 4th ed.).\n\nCanon Mozley said: \"Miracles and the supernatural contents of\nChristianity must stand or fall together\" (Bampton Lectures, 1865).\n\nDean Farrar said: \"However skilfully the modern ingenuity of\nsemi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is\nclear to every honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be\nincredible, Christianity is false\" (The Witness of History to Christ,\nHulsean Lectures for 1870, 2nd ed., p. 25).\n\nBishop Westcott said: \"The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle,\nand, if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or\nincredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history\nis superfluous from a religious point of view\" (The Gospel of the\nResurrection, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 34). See also Archbishop Trench's\nNotes on Miracles.\n\n\n    P. 44, lines 28-9.--The opinion of the majority of our living\n    dignitaries.\n\n\nThis has been made abundantly clear by the unanimous reply of a\nlarge number of Bishops to a correspondent of the Record, who had\nwritten letters to them stating that he had heard that \"not a single\nBishop on the bench to-day believed in the miraculous in religion\"\n(reported in the daily papers towards the close of January, 1905).\n\n\n    P. 48, lines 25-6.--Some even hold that it [devil-possession]\n    still exists.\n\n\nThus, in the introduction to Pastor Hsi (a book of which 24,000\ncopies were printed between 1903 and 1905), the Rev. D. E. Hoste,\nGeneral Director of the China Inland Mission, not only expresses\nthis belief, but seeks to explain why devil-possession should now\nbe chiefly confined to heathen lands. \"Careful observation and\nstudy of the subject have,\" he says, \"led many to conclude that,\nalthough in lands where Christianity has long held sway the special\nmanifestations we are now considering are comparatively unknown,\nthe conditions among the heathen being more akin to those prevailing\nwhen and where the Gospel was first propagated, it is not surprising\nthat a corresponding energy of the powers of evil should be met with\nin missionary work to-day.\" He would have us believe, apparently,\nthat the atmosphere of holiness in Christendom is so overpowering\nthat the Devil and his crew are rendered less active! Taking him\nseriously, can he also explain how it is that God permits devils\nto perform such pranks? Not only is the house \"swept and garnished\"\nthat they may \"enter in, and dwell there\"; but in the case of Saul\nwe are told that they were purposely sent by God! (See Luke xi. 25,\n26, and 1 Sam. xviii. 10 and xix. 9.)\n\nThe importance of this question is brought home to us by Mr. Benn in\nhis History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century, where\nhe says (p. 454): \"The witness of Jesus to the Fatherhood of God as\na personal spirit amounts to no more than his witness to personal\ndevils as authors of disease; and the witness of the Evangelists to\ntheir Master's authorship of the Sermon on the Mount is less unanimous\nthan their witness to the destruction by diabolical agency of the\nGadarene swine.\"\n\n\n    P. 49, lines 13-14.--The feeding of the five thousand.\n\n\nBishop Ingram attaches the utmost importance to the truth of this\nmiracle. In a sermon published in the Church Times of October 7th,\n1904, he is reported to have said: \"It is the worst policy of defence\nto throw over the miracle of feeding the five thousand, or our Lord's\npower over disease and death, and then expect to keep the faith of\nthe world in His incarnation, His Virgin-birth, and His resurrection.\"\n\n\n    P. 61, line 14.--The simple theory of the spiritists.\n\n\nDr. Moncure Conway relates, in his Autobiography, how it was a\nspiritualist s\u00e9ance which made him realise the kind of frenzy that\ntook possession of those early Christians who really believed that\na dead man had returned to life. See also Professor Lombroso on\n\"spiritualistic\" phenomena, p. 396.\n\n\n    P. 64, lines 20-1.--Few of us have ever had our belief tested.\n\n\nPersons who have never spent their lives, or a portion of their\nlives, among the heathen, have never had their faith put to the\nfullest test, for in such an environment they would find faith's\ndifficulties considerably enhanced. I remember, a few days after my\narrival in India, a certain Bishop looking me in the face and, with a\nkindly hand upon my shoulder, saying: \"You will find life much more\ndifficult in India.\" He referred, of course, to the religious life,\nand was quite right, although, probably, he was thinking chiefly of the\nexample that I should find set me by my fellow Christians; while, as\nmine was largely a camp life, it was more the insight into the belief\nof my native companions which affected me. There, all around you, are\nsimple folk believing in what you know to be absurd; you are brought\nface to face with ignorance and superstition; you see how faith can\nbe misplaced, and how trusting natures can be deceived. It sets you\nthinking whether, after all, you too may not be deceived; whether\nthe possession of an unlimited capacity for faith has the virtue in\nit which the priest tells you it has, whether, in fact, faith is a\nreliable guide. Should you attempt to convert an educated native,\nyou not only find that the task is hopeless, but that you are asking\nhim to accept a belief which is as unfounded and unproven as the one\nhe already holds. Anyone wishing to form some idea of an experience\nof this sort should read The Bible: Is it the Word of God? by Thomas\nLumsden Strange, formerly a judge of the High Court of Madras. The\nway the observations are cast in the shape of a conversation between a\nstudent of the Bible and a cultured native of India brings home many\nBible difficulties which largely escape the notice and consideration\nof the devout. I have taken my illustration from this book.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\n\n    P. 77, lines 11-12.--Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica.\n\n\n(My best thanks are due to Mr. C. T. Gorham for permitting me to make\na free use of his notes on the Enc. Bib.)\n\nIn case the reader may jump to the conclusion that this is a work\ncompiled by collecting the most heretical views from all parts of\nthe globe (as I was informed by the librarian when I inquired for\nthe book in a Cathedral library), let me call attention to the list\nof contributors, among whom will be found many English ministers of\nthe Gospel. For instance:--\n\n\n    The Rev. Archibald R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and\n    Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.\n\n    The Rev. C. F. Burney, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, and Fellow of\n    St. John's College, Oxford.\n\n    The Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A., Hon. Sec. Camb. Pupil\n    Teachers' Centre.\n\n    The Rev. George Adam Smith, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew\n    and Old Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.\n\n    The Very Rev. J. A. Robinson, D.D., Dean of Westminster.\n\n    The Rev. Owen Charles Whitehouse, M.A., Principal and Professor\n    of Biblical Exegesis and Theology in the Countess of Huntingdon's\n    College, Cheshunt, Herts.\n\n    The Rev. R. H. Charles, M.A., D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek,\n    Trinity College, Dublin.\n\n    The Rev. Samuel Rolles Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew,\n    Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.\n\n    The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor of the\n    Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Rochester.\n\n    The Rev. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament\n    Literature, North Wales Baptist College, Bangor; Lecturer in\n    Semitic Languages, University College.\n\n    The Rev. William E. Addis, M.A., Lecturer in Old Testament\n    Criticism, Manchester College, Oxford.\n\n    The Rev. William Henry Bennett, Litt.D., D.D., Professor of\n    Biblical Languages and Literature, Hackney College, London,\n    and Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, New College, London.\n\n    The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of\n    Divinity, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.\n\n    The Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old\n    Testament Exegesis, United Free Church New College, Edinburgh.\n\n    The Rev. George Buchanan Gray, M.A., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield\n    College, Oxford.\n\n\nThe rapid advance of Bible criticism in late years is well seen by\ncomparing articles in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1860), in\nthe Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, signed W. R. S. (between 1875 and 1888),\nand in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica (1899 to 1903). Even the comparatively\nconservative Hastings's Dictionary (1898-1902, with extra volume 1904)\ncontains articles which would have been condemned as heretical half\na century ago. Speaking of the Enc. Bib. and Hasting's Dictionary,\nMr. Benn remarks (in his History of Rationalism) that, \"as regards the\nOld Testament, their respective attitudes do not essentially differ,\nWellhausen's theory being accepted by both.\"\n\n\n    P. 80, line 18.--We have note got the stone and read the\n    inscriptions.\n\n\nFor a popular account of this interesting discovery (upon the site\nof Susa, the ancient city of the Persian kings, in December, 1901)\nsee The Hammurabi Code, by Chilperic Edwards.\n\n\n    P. 103, line 16-17.--A disputed passage in Tacitus.\n\n\nThe sceptical theory is that, had it been genuine, the passage would\nnot have been overlooked by all the early Christian writers in the\nvarious disputations with objectors, and especially by Tertullian,\nwho quoted largely from his works, and the ecclesiastical historian\nEusebius, who was zealous in his defence of the Faith and greedy of\nmaterials with which to support it. (An important French student\nof Tacitus holds that the whole Annals is medieval!) On the other\nhand, the style is thoroughly Tacitean, containing a number of\nwords and expressions elsewhere used by the author, and more or less\ncharacteristic of him, yet without any such elaborate over-imitation\nas we should expect to find even in a skilful forgery. Nor is the\nsubject-matter perhaps less characteristic, while the MS. evidence\nis in favour of the passage being genuine. Taking it to be so,\nwhat, after all, does it amount to? Merely this. Christ was put\nto death by Pontius Pilate, and a very large number of Christians\nwere put to death in a horrible manner by Nero. The passage occurs\nin Tacitus, Annals, XV., 44, and runs as follows: \"Consequently,\nto get rid of the accusation, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted\nthe most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,\ncalled by the populace 'Christians.' Christus, from whom the name\nhad its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of\nTiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,\nand a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,\nagain broke out not only in Jud\u00e6a, the first source of the evil,\nbut even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every\npart of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly,\nan arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their\ninformation, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the\ncrime of firing the city, as of hatred of mankind. Mockery of every\nsort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts,\nthey were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or\nwere doomed to the flames and burnt to serve as a nightly illumination\nwhen daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle.\"\n\n\n    P. 107, lines 19-20.--The true likeness of our Lord had been\n    miraculously transmitted.\n\n\nPresumably my informant was referring to the legend of St. Veronica,\nsince the equally absurd History of the Likeness of Christ (translated\nby E. A. Wallis Budge) closes with these words: \"And the angel took\nthe likeness from where it was standing, and he removed it; and no\nman hath ever seen it since.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\n\n    P. 121, line 22.--Born in a cave.\n\n\n\"Justin Martyr the Apologist, who, from his birth at Shechem, was\nfamiliar with Palestine, and who lived less than a century after the\ntime of our Lord, places the scene of the nativity in a cave. This is,\nindeed, the ancient and constant tradition both of the Eastern and the\nWestern Churches, and it is one of the few to which, though unrecorded\nin Gospel history, we may attach a reasonable probability\" (see p. 20\nof the cheap edition [1906] of Farrar's Life of Christ). The grotto of\nthe manger in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem is certainly a\ncave. Embedded in the rock is a much-kissed silver star bearing the\ninscription: \"Hic de Virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est.\"\n\n\n    P. 122, line 6.--Krishna was slain.\n\n\nThe Vishnu Pur\u00e2na speaks of his being shot in the foot with an\narrow. Other accounts state that he was suspended on a tree. \"On\nraconte fort diversement la mort de Crishna. Une tradition remarquable\net av\u00e9r\u00e9e le fait p\u00e9rir sur un bois fatal (un arbre), ou il fut\nclou\u00e9 d'un coup de fl\u00e8che\" (quoted from Mons. Guigniaut's Religion de\nl'Antiquit\u00e9, by Higgins; Anacalypsis, vol. i., p. 144). In the accounts\ngiven in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, and Bhagavat Pur\u00e2na, the\nslaying is unintentional, but predestined. There appears to have been a\ncrucifixion myth in ancient India; but Godfrey Higgins' assumption that\nKrishna was crucified rests mainly on an oversight of the arch\u00e6ologist\nMoor (see J. M. Robertson's Christianity and Mythology, pp. 294-9).\n\n\n    P. 123, lines 24-5.--Almost every important episode of the life\n    of Christ.\n\n\n\"With the remarkable exception of the death of Jesus on the cross\nand of the doctrine of atonement by vicarious suffering, which is\nabsolutely excluded by Buddhism, the most ancient of the Buddhistic\nrecords known to us contain statements about the life and the\ndoctrines of Gautama Buddha which correspond in a remarkable manner,\nand impossibly by mere chance, with the traditions recorded in the\nGospels about the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ\" (quoted from\np. 50 of Bunsen's Angel Messiah).\n\n\n    P. 124, line 1.--Buddha was miraculously born.\n\n\nMaya dreams that she is carried by archangels to heaven, and that there\nthe future Buddha enters her right side in the form of a superb white\nelephant. Rhys Davids relates this legend on p. 183 of his Buddhism,\nand in a footnote he says: \"Csoma Kor\u00f6si refers in a distant way\nto a belief of the later Mongol Buddhists that Maya was a virgin\n(As. Res. xx. 299); but this has not been confirmed. St. Jerome says\n(Adversus Jovin., bk. 1): 'It is handed down as a tradition among the\nGymnosophists of India that Buddha, the founder of their system, was\nbrought forth by a virgin from her side.'\" In Samuel Beal's Romantic\nHistory of Buddha (from the Chinese version) we read of Buddha's\nmiraculous birth, and that there is ground to assume the prevalence\nof this belief for centuries before Christ. Bunsen, again (p. x. of\nhis Angel-Messiah), speaks of the \"Virgin Maya, on whom, according to\nChinese tradition, the Holy Ghost had descended\"; and elsewhere (e.g.,\npp. 10 and 25) he adopts this version of the legend. Dr. Knowling,\nin his apologetic work, Our Lord's Virgin Birth and the Criticism\nof Today, pp. 53-4, lays stress upon the grotesqueness of the idea\nthat a man should enter his mother's womb in the form of a white\nelephant. But, as Dr. Rhys Davids explains (p. 184 of Buddhism),\nthere is nothing bizarre when the origin of the poetical figure has\nbeen ascertained. The belief was borrowed from the older sun-worship,\n\"the white elephant, like the white horse [cf. Rev. vi. 2 and xix. 11,\n14], being an emblem of the sun, the universal monarch of the sky.\"\n\n\n    P. 126, lines 1-2.--He was very early regarded as omniscient and\n    absolutely sinless.\n\n\nDr. Rhys Davids's remarks on the early growth of myths concerning\nBuddha, coming as they do from a champion of the Christian cause,\nare full of significance for anyone who permits himself to think and\nwho keeps an open mind. He says (p. 182 of Buddhism): \"The belief\nsoon sprang up that he could not have been, that he was not, born as\nordinary men are; that he had no earthly father; that he descended\nof his own accord into his mother's womb from his throne in heaven;\nand that he gave unmistakeable signs, immediately after his birth,\nof his high character and of his future greatness.\"\n\nWe have a perfect illustration of the possibility and rapidity of\nthe legend-making process in the nineteenth century. The Bab (or\n\"gateway\") was a Persian reformer who suffered martyrdom at the hands\nof the authorities in 1850. Within forty years an evidently mythical\nversion of his life was current among his followers in the form of a\nGospel. Babism inculcates a high morality, and there is a likelihood of\nits becoming paramount in Persia. For further information on this new\nreligion see Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi, by Myron H. Phelps\n(Putnam).\n\n\n    P. 127, line 10.--Born of the Virgin Isis.\n\n\nIt is true, as Dr. Knowling points out (p. 56 of The Virgin Birth),\nand as I have personally seen, that in the inscriptions and scenes in\nthe temple of Luxor \"we have at least some elements of the glorifying\nof sensual desire which is so far removed from the chaste restraint\nand simplicity of the Evangelists.\" But the parallel is not a whit\nthe less admissible because the same story appears in a fresh garb\nto suit the higher ideals of a new religion.\n\n\n    P. 130, note 1.--Mexican Antiquities.\n\n\nMost of Viscount Kingsborough's life and fortune was devoted to his\nillustrated work, Antiquities of Mexico (nine volumes and a portion\nof a tenth volume, imperial folio, London, 1830-48). No anti-Christian\nspirit inspired his labours; on the contrary, he attempted to prove a\nJewish migration to Mexico. Though the attempt failed, he bequeathed\nto posterity an invaluable work on the ancient religion of Mexico.\n\n\n    P. 131, line 26.--Healing miracles, such as those performed\n    by Jesus.\n\n\nConyers Middleton, formerly principal librarian of Cambridge\nUniversity, tells us that in the temples of \u00c6sculapius all kinds\nof diseases were believed to be publicly cured, by the pretended\nhelp of the Deity, in proof of which there were erected in each\ntemple columns of brass or marble, on which a distinct narrative of\neach particular cure was described. There is a remarkable fragment\nof one of these tables still extant, and exhibited by Gruter in\nhis collection (just as it was found in the ruins of the temple of\n\u00c6sculapius in the Tiber island), which gives an account of two blind\nmen restored to sight by \u00c6sculapius, in the open view, and with the\nloud acclamation of the people, acknowledging the manifest power of\nthe god. Compare St. Matthew ix. 27-30. Is it not truly marvellous to\nthink that exactly the same sort of thing is going on at the various\nmiracle-working shrines of Christendom at the present moment? Is it\nnot also surprising to hear certain divines in our own country speak\nof the alleged miracles of the early Church as if they were real,\nand as if it were a sort of lost art due to our poorer faith in modern\ntimes? I am referring to sermons preached lately from various pulpits\non the subject of Christian Science and Faith-cures.\n\n\n    P. 133, line 20.--Acted in Athens five hundred years before the\n    Christian era.\n\n\nIn the Nineteenth Century for March, 1905, Mr. Slade Butler points out,\nin his article on \"The Greek Mysteries and the Gospel Narrative,\"\nthat in the first century after Christ these mysteries, in one\nform or another, had become the recognised religion of the Greek\nworld. Mr. Butler takes in turn all the main features of the Gospel\nnarratives, and shows their close resemblance to incidents of the\nGreek mystery-dramas. The baptism of John, the triumphal procession in\nhonour of Jesus, His clearing of the temple, the cursing of the fig\ntree, the Last Supper, the mocking of Jesus in His death-agony, are\nshown to have striking parallels in the sacred mysteries of the Greeks.\n\n\n    P. 133, line 23.--Even Bacchus ... was a slain Saviour.\n\n\nDupuis, The Origin of all Religious Worship, pp. 135 and 258; Higgins,\nAnacalypsis, vol. ii., p. 102; Knight, The Symbolical Language of\nAncient Art and Mythology, p. xxii., note, and p. 98, note.\n\n\n    P. 134, lines 7-8.--Pagan crucifixions of the young incarnate\n    divinities of India, Persia, Asia Minor, and Egypt.\n\n\nWe have it on the authority of a Christian Father that the Pagans\nadored crosses; for Tertullian, a Christian Father of the second and\nthird centuries, writing to the Pagans, says: \"The origin of your\ngod is derived from figures moulded on a cross\" (Apol., chap. xvi.;\nAd Nationes, chap. xii.). At the present moment, both in Europe\nand America, the Egyptian cross or \"life\" sign is a fashionable\nornament, under the name of crux ansata (or cross with a handle). Its\npious wearers are, of course, quite unaware that it is the phallic\nemblem! Could anything more conclusively demonstrate the prevailing\nignorance of comparative mythology? [393]\n\n\n    P. 138, note.--The probable date of the origin of the story\n    [of Buddha, Chinese version].\n\n\n\"A very valuable date, later than which we cannot place the origin\nof the story, may be derived from the colophon at the end of the last\nchapter of the book. It is there stated that the Abhinish Kramana S\u00fbtra\nis called by the school of the Dharmaguptas Fo-pen-hing-king.... We\nknow from the 'Chinese Encyclop\u00e6dia,' Kai-yuen-shi-kian-mu-lu,\nthat the Fo-pen-hing was translated into Chinese from the Sanscrit\n(the ancient language of Hindostan) so early as the eleventh year\nof the reign of Wing-ping (Ming-ti), of the Han dynasty--i e., 69 or\n70 A.D. We may therefore safely suppose that the original work was in\ncirculation in India for some time previous to that date.\" (Quoted from\nthe Introduction to Mr. S. Beal's Romantic History of Buddha.) Thus,\nas the writer of the article on the Gospels in the Enc. Bib. observes,\nwhen referring to the parallels: \"The proof that the Buddhistic\nsources are older than the Christian must be regarded as irrefragable.\"\n\n\n    P. 148, line 21.--Modern non-Christian beliefs, Parallels in the\n    rites of.\n\n\nVery similar ceremonies are to be found among the heathen to-day. For\ninstance, something very like our Eucharistical rite is performed in\nmodern Japan. Looking on at a service in a Shinto temple, I was much\nstruck by the extraordinary similarity of the whole ceremony. It was\na sort of High Mass with Gregorian music. The blessed wafers are not\neaten on the premises, but are taken away by the worshippers to be\nused in time of sickness. The worshippers, I may mention, were all\nof the poorer and more ignorant classes.\n\n\n    P. 150, line 10.--Their blood was drunk in the form of wine.\n\n\nRegarding this, Mr. Grant Allen remarks: When Dionysus became the\nannual or biennial vine-god victim, \"it was inevitable that his\nworshippers should have seen his resurrection and embodiment in the\nvine, and should have regarded the wine it yielded as the blood of\nthe god.\"\n\n\n    P. 156, lines 19-20.--Adopting their dates for the birth and death\n    [and resurrection] of their Saviours.\n\n\nAt the winter solstice the sun seemed to the ancients to be commencing\nits annual journey round the heavens. Accordingly, December 25th was\nconsidered to be the sun's birthday, which was annually celebrated\nby a great festival in many parts of the heathen world--in China,\nIndia, Persia, Egypt, and also in ancient Greece, Rome, Germany,\nScandinavia, Great Britain, Ireland, and America. Similarly, at the\nvernal equinox, the sun, which has been below the equator, suddenly\nappears to rise above it, and so, usually upon a date calculated\nby the pagan astronomers (and corresponding roughly to our Easter),\nwe find that throughout a considerable portion of the ancient world,\nafter mourning the sun's death (sometimes for a period of three days),\nthe Resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicings. Primitive man\nregarded all sensible objects as instinct with a conscious life. He\nnoted the changes of days and years, and the objects which so changed\nwere to him as living things. The rising and setting sun, the return\nof summer and winter, became a drama in which the actors were his\nfriends or enemies. It was no allegory, but, strange as it appears\nto us now, all an absolute reality.\n\nChrist's birth was ultimately placed at the winter solstice, the\nbirthday of the sun-god in the most popular cults; and, while that is\nfixed as an anniversary, the date of the Crucifixion is made to vary\nfrom year to year in order to conform to the astronomical principle\non which the Jews, following the sun-worshippers, had fixed their\nPassover. This ignorance of the early Church concerning the dates\nof the Jesus' birth, death, and \"resurrection,\" is an exceedingly\nsuspicious circumstance. If the fundamental verities were an objective\nfact to the early Christians, how could the dates have been so utterly\nforgotten that dates belonging to idolatrous superstitions had to\nbe adopted? It is perplexing enough that God should have allowed the\nmemory of His Son's life on earth to be handed down for a considerable\ntime by tradition only; but that He should have permitted such lapses\nof memory and the substitution of the dates of pagan festivals is\nto me altogether inconceivable. It could not but raise suspicion\nconcerning His revelation in future thinking generations. We have a\ncertain knowledge of the dates of comparatively unimportant events\nin the world's history, ages before the Christian era. If these\nimportant dates could be forgotten, what else may not have been\nforgotten; what else may not have been substituted in the place of\nforgotten incidents? Again, did not the disciples and their converts\ncelebrate the anniversaries of these great events? And, if so, on\nwhat dates? The question is of more importance than perhaps at first\nsight it appears to be. The public will soon be asking the Church\nfor a satisfactory explanation, and she must be prepared to furnish\nit. In the Daily Telegraph, during the Christmas of 1904, the public\nwere informed that \"the most erudite arch\u00e6ologists and professors\nof Church history confess that there is not a particle of evidence,\neither Biblical or traditional, for the claim of December 25th to\nbe the birthday of Christ, and that everything goes to prove that\nour existing festival of the Nativity was introduced to replace the\nheathen festival of the 'sol invictus' in Southern Italy, and of the\nYule or Winter solstice festival among the ancient Teutons.\" Again, in\nthe Daily Graphic during the Easter of 1905, the public will have read\nthat \"there is no particular sanctity in the 'Table to Find Easter,'\nbased as it is upon the calculations of a pagan astronomer who lived\nfour hundred years before Christ.\" In France the Christian names of the\nfour statutory holidays have been abolished by law. Christmas is called\nthe Festival of the Family, and so on. The time is coming, and is even\nnow at hand, when the English public will discover ugly facts about\nChristianity without having to read books published by freethinking\nfirms--books which the parson advises us to leave severely alone.\n\n\n    P. 160, lines 3-4.--Why do we hear so little of this great\n    discovery from the pulpit?\n\n\nThe following from a sermon by the Bishop of Manchester, preached in\nManchester Cathedral on Sunday, September 4th, 1887, forms a striking\nexception to the rule. \"The sufficient answer,\" says the Bishop,\n\"to ninety out of a hundred of the ordinary objections to the Bible,\nas the record of a divine education of our race, is given in that\none word--development. And to what are we indebted for that potent\nword, which, as with the wand of a magician, has at the same moment so\ncompletely transformed our knowledge and dispelled our difficulties? To\nmodern science, resolutely pursuing its search for truth in spite of\npopular obloquy and--alas that one should have to say it--in spite\ntoo often of theological denunciation!\" (Quoted by Professor Huxley\nin his essay on \"An Episcopal Trilogy.\") Would that there were equal\ncandour all round! But this indebtedness of theology to science in\nspite of itself is certainly one of the many workings of the Holy\nSpirit which are quite inexplicable. All the more so when we remember\nthat truth-seeking scientists are, nowadays, usually Agnostics.\n\n\n    P. 165, lines 38-9.--A Mithraist could turn to the Christian\n    worship and find his main rites unimpaired.\n\n\nWe have the witness of the Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, after\ndescribing the institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Apol., chap. 66),\ngoes on to say: \"Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries\nof Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done. For that bread and\na cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic\nrites of the one who is being initiated, you either know or can\nlearn.\" Tertullian intimates that \"the devil, by the mysteries of\nhis idols, imitates even the main parts of the divine mysteries. He\nalso baptises his worshippers in water, and makes them believe that\nthis purifies them of their crimes. There Mithra sets his mark on\nthe forehead of his soldiers; he celebrates the oblation of bread; he\noffers an image of the resurrection, and presents at once the crown\nand sword; he limits his chief priest to a single marriage; he even\nhas virgins and his ascetics (continentes).\" (Pr\u00e6scr. c. 40. Cp. De\nBapt. c. 5; De Corona, c. 15. Quoted on p. 322 of J. M. Robertson's\nPagan Christs.) We have also the witness of modern discoveries. For\nexample, Professor Franz Cumont, in his work, Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra,\ngives a photograph of a recently-discovered bas-relief, representing\na Mithraic communion. On a small tripod is the bread, in the form of\nwafers, each marked with a cross.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\n\n    P. 172, lines 14-15.--Ignorance of the gist of the\n    Darwinian theory, \"natural selection,\" has been fruitful in\n    misunderstandings.\n\n\nIt is very necessary to understand exactly what the theory of natural\nselection is and is not; because champions of the Faith, even when\nbelieving in Evolution, base some of their arguments on the alleged\ncollapse of the Darwinian theory. Thus, in Present-day Rationalism\nCritically Examined, the Rev. Professor George Henslow affirms that,\nwhile the theory of Evolution stands on an impregnable basis, Haeckel's\nMonism and Rationalistic agnosticism are based on Darwin's doctrine of\nnatural selection, and he enters upon an elaborate argument--covering\nsixty pages of his book--to show that the origin of species by means\nof natural selection is false, and that the primary cause of Evolution\nis the definite action of the environment, combined with the adaptive\npowers of the living organism. Such arguments, coming from a clergyman\nhaving scientific attainments, are likely to impress the average\nChristian reader and confuse the main issue. Natural selection is \"the\naction of the environment\" (see The Origin of Species, chap. iv.),\nand even if it were not, and if natural selection (or elimination)\nwere not the primary cause, the doctrine of the action of environment\nwill suit the Monist just as well.\n\nRegarding the minor, but not unimportant, part played by sexual\nselection, Darwin writes: \"For my own part, I conclude that of all\nthe causes which have led to the differences in external appearance\nbetween the races of men, and to a certain extent between man and the\nlower animals, sexual selection has been by far the most efficient\"\n(Descent of Man, ed. 1871, ii., 367).\n\nScientists who are advocates of the Christian cause are not always\nas candid as one could wish. While the Church cited Sir Richard\nOwen \"as an authority against the Darwinian theory, especially in\nits application to man's descent, there remained in the memory of\nhis brother savants his lack of candour in never withdrawing the\nstatement made by him, and demonstrated by Huxley as untrue, that\nthe hippocampus minor in the human brain is absent from the brain of\nthe ape.\" (See p. 172 of Mr. Clodd's Pioneers of Evolution. See also\nremarks by Sir Charles Lyell, pp. 485 and 486 of his work, Antiquity of\nMan. On p. 290 he further tells us that \"we may consider the attempt\nto distinguish the brain of man from that of the ape on the ground of\nnewly-discovered cerebral characters, presenting differences in kind,\nas virtually abandoned by its originator.\")\n\n\n    P. 205, lines 18-20.--That there are not more links missing is\n    due principally to the discovery of fossil remains.\n\n\nThe greatest importance has been attached to a discovery in Java,\nmade in 1894 by Eugene Dubois. The remains consisted of the crown\nof the skull, two teeth, and a femur belonging to a creature for\nwhich the name Pithecanthropus erectus has been invented. This\npithecanthropus excited the liveliest interest as the long-sought\ntransitional form between man and the ape. Professor Haeckel writes\nconcerning this in his book, The Evolution of Man, vol. ii., p. 633:\n\"There were very interesting scientific discussions on it at the last\nthree International Congresses of Zoology (Leyden, 1895; Cambridge,\n1898; and Berlin, 1901). I took an active part in the discussion at\nCambridge, and may refer the reader to the paper I read there.\" (It has\nbeen translated by Dr. Gadow, under the title of The Last Link.) Since\nthen we have Professor Keasbey writing in 1901 that the remains have\nbeen \"pronounced genuine,\" and Professor Packard, in 1902, that it\nis now \"generally recognised.\"\n\nAgain, to give a still more recent \"find,\" Dr. Andrews, who accompanied\nthe Geological Survey of Egypt, has (as mentioned by Professor Ray\nLankester in his lecture at the London Institution on November 2nd,\n1906) discovered a remarkable skull (now in the Natural History Museum)\nwhich is the connecting link between elephants, ancient and modern,\nand other mammals.\n\nThere have also been discoveries of missing links among the living. The\nduck-bill, a four-footed animal which lays eggs, is an important link\nbetween reptiles and mammals. Cuvier, the celebrated French naturalist,\na persistent opponent of the evolutionary doctrines advanced by\nLamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, did not believe it possible that\nany four-footed animal could lay eggs, and it was not till long after\nhis time, and, indeed, only quite lately, that the statements of the\nnatives were verified, and the eggs of the duck-bill actually found.\n\n\n    P. 208, lines 14-18.--Enough has been said, I hope, to convince\n    the reader that ... there is overpowering evidence against\n    separate acts of creation, and in favour of an animal origin of\n    the human race.\n\n\nThis Family Tree of Life will enable him to form a brain-picture of\nthe various steps in the evolutionary process:--\n\n[Note.--It is now generally admitted that man goes back at least\n200,000 years.]\n\n[Illustration: Protoplasm plus Chlorophyll]\n\nThis diagram of development is taken from Edwards Clodd's work,\nThe Story of Creation, by the kind permission of Mr. Clodd and\nMessrs. Longmans.\n\nNote by Mr. Clodd.--The ascent of the higher life-forms from the\nlower is more lateral than the lines indicate, but the diagram is\nonly a rough attempt to show the relative places of the leading groups.\n\n\n    P. 218, lines 14-15.--The dogmas of sin and its atonement.\n\n\n\"Astronomers tell us that there are some 500,000,000 suns visible\nfrom our earth, many if not most of them larger than our sun, and all\nof them presumably surrounded by planets at least as important as our\nearth; and to maintain the old theological view of the supreme value of\nthis little insignificant planet in the eyes of the 'Almighty Ruler'\nof such a universe, or to suppose that He would send His 'Only Son'\nto die for us little cosmic microbes, is presumption which, when one\nthinks of it, really seems to amount to insanity\" (quoted from p. 108\nof Richard Harte's Lay Religion).\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\n\n    P. 220, line 1.--Deism denies Christianity.\n\n\n\"God,\" says Canon Liddon, \"is banished from the world by deism, which\nputs nature in His place\" (Some Elements of Religion, pp. 56-7). The\nseventeenth and eighteenth-century deists, however, did not deny the\npersonality of God, but the fact of revelation. \"In recent theology\ndeism has generally come to be regarded as, in common with theism,\nholding in opposition to atheism that there is a God, and in opposition\nto pantheism that God is distinct from the world, but as differing\nfrom theism in maintaining that God is separate from the world,\nhaving endowed it with self-sustaining and self-acting powers, and\nthen abandoned it to itself\" (Enc. Brit., art. \"Theism\").\n\n\n    P. 221, line 8.--\"What it is to be a Christian.\"\n\n\nArchdeacon Wilson avers that \"We dare not deny the name of Christian\nto such as live in Christ's spirit and do His will, though they\nknow not for certain how God manifested himself in Christ, and will\nnot profess a certainty they do not feel.\" Again, he argues that\n\"We rest on the broad ground of the vast experience of the world,\nand the testimony of our own conscience, that Christ has lifted\nmankind up, and shown man what is good; and this we may describe\nas bringing man to God, and revealing God to man. This redemption,\nsalvation, we acknowledge as a fact. He who has this faith in Christ,\nand lets it work its natural result in making him more like Christ,\ndeserves to be called a Christian.\" This does, indeed, give plenty of\nlatitude--far more, in fact, than the Church as a body seems likely\nto give for some time to come. It, and the Rev. R. J. Campbell's \"New\nTheology,\" will certainly enable many who are in reality non-Christian\ntheists to continue calling themselves Christians.\n\n\n    P. 224, note.--\"Haeckel's Critics Answered.\"\n\n\nIn the chapter on \"God\" there is a striking exposition of the very\nlatest arguments for and against Theism. The opinions of Messrs. Ward,\nNewman, Smythe, Le Conte, Fiske, W. N. Clarke, Croll, Aubrey Moore,\nIverach, Dallinger, Ballard, Rhondda Williams, Profeit, Kennedy,\nW. James, and Royce are all considered. Many pious Christians may\nhave read the apologists' criticisms of Haeckel's well-known work, The\nRiddle of the Universe, but few will have studied the work itself, and\nstill fewer these clear and convincing replies to the criticisms. It\ncannot be on account of the cost, as a copy of the cheap edition of\neither of these works can be obtained for 4 1/2d.\n\n\n    P. 253, lines 25-6.--Some such psychical experiences largely\n    account for religious superstitions.\n\n\nWith regard to phenomena at present popularly known as spiritualistic,\nbut for which scientists have now adopted the term \"metapsychical,\"\nthe following declaration by Professor Lombroso (appearing in the\nreview La Lettura, November, 1906) is of considerable interest. \"As\nthe result,\" he writes, \"of our researches, I have been bound to admit\nthe conviction that these phenomena are of colossal importance, and\nthat it is the plain duty of science to direct attention towards them\nwithout delay.\" N.B.--The Professor, when interviewed subsequently by\nthe Turin correspondent of the Standard, repudiated any suggestion of\nsupernatural agency, and said: \"All spiritualistic phenomena can be\nunderstood and explained without any reference to the intervention of\nthe supernatural. Spiritualists affirm that the soul is an emanation\nfrom God, while I contend that it is an emanation of the brain. This is\nthe whole thing in a nutshell. You therefore see how, from this point\nof view, I cannot be called a spiritualist--at least, in the sense\nin which the term is generally understood. Almost all spiritualistic\nphenomena can be classed among those positive facts which science\ncan explain.\" However, in an article contributed by him to the Grand\nMagazine for January, 1907, and entitled \"Why I became a Spiritualist,\"\nProfessor Lombroso admits that he has felt himself \"compelled to\nyield to the conviction that spiritualistic phenomena, if due in\ngreat part to the influence of the medium, are likewise attributable\nto the influence of extra-terrestrial existences, which may, perhaps,\nbe compared to the radio-activity which still persists in tubes after\nthe radium which originated them has disappeared.\" Professor Cesare\nLombroso, it may be mentioned, is Professor of Psychiatry at the\nUniversity of Turin, and the author of standard works on criminology,\nhypnotism, and psychology, as well as of a number of valuable treatises\nrelating to cerebral study. Two of his publications, Man of Genius\n(1891) and Female Offender (1895), have been issued in English.\n\nThe phenomena Professor Lombroso refers to are those which have induced\nsuch eminent scientists as Wallace, Lodge, Hyslop, Barrett, and Crookes\nto remain or to become supernaturalists. One, and to my mind the chief,\nreason why these metapsychical phenomena are, as Professor Lombroso\ntells us, of colossal importance--why science should direct attention\ntowards them without delay--is that, so soon as they are universally\nacknowledged to be manifestations occurring in obedience to one of\nNature's laws--a law as yet not fully understood--the last excuse for\nbelief in the supernatural will have vanished. Supernaturalism will\nreceive its death-blow, and Rationalism be infused with fresh life.\n\n\n    P. 254, line 28.--Professor James--an earnest champion of religion.\n\n\nIn defining his philosophic position he admits his own \"inability\nto accept either popular Christianity or scholastic Theism\" (see\nhis Postscript, p. 521). He is of opinion that both the metaphysical\nargument for God's existence and the arguments for a God with moral\nattributes must be rejected, and \"the man who is sincere with himself\nand the facts, but who remains religious still,\" must soothe \"his\nperplexed and baffled intellect\" with \"a trustful sense of presence\"\n(ibid, pp. 445-8). A careful perusal of his book, however, makes it\ntolerably clear that this feeling of the presence of Spiritual Beings\nis simply a hallucination.\n\n\n    P. 256, lines 22-26.--There has never yet been a case of a\n    Mohammedan or a Hindoo, or any other non-Christian, who, without\n    having heard of Christianity, has had a revelation of Christian\n    \"truth.\"\n\n\nChet Ram, the founder of a sect whose numbers, according to the\nlast Indian census, \"are increasing day by day,\" began by being\na Hindu, and then became the disciple of a Mohammedan fakir in the\nPunjab. After following him for some years he had what he described as\na vision of Christ, who revealed Himself as the author of salvation,\nand commanded him (Chet Ram) to build a church and to place within\nit the Bible. He was himself illiterate, but immediately began to\nproclaim the divinity of Christ, and was soon followed by disciples\nrecruited alike from the Hindus and the Moslems. It is \"religious\"\nexperiences such as these which continue to deceive even educated\nmen and women, and hinder the growth of Rationalism.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\n\n    P. 285, lines 10-11.--The ghastly death of the witch.\n\n\n\"It is impossible to leave the history of witchcraft without reflecting\nhow vast an amount of suffering has, in this respect at least,\nbeen removed by the progress of rationalistic civilisation.... It\nis probable that no class of victims endured sufferings so unalloyed\nand so intense.... All these sufferings were the result of a single\nsuperstition, which the spirit of Rationalism has destroyed.\" (See\npp. 137-8 of Lecky's Rationalism in Europe, Longmans, Green, &\nCo., 1904.)\n\n\n    Pp. 290-96, and p. 294, note 4.\n\n\nThe following are some further notes on the spread of Christianity:--\n\nWhen, after more than three centuries, the spread became fairly rapid,\nowing, as we have seen, to circumstances of a distinctly mundane\ncharacter, what was the effect on public morality? The Roman Empire\npassed its zenith in the first half of the second century--under\nStoics. Historians agree that it was declining all through the third\ncentury. On the other hand, it was making fresh progress morally\nin the fourth century. It deteriorated morally after A.D. 380-90,\nthe date of the triumph of Christianity! Do these facts bear out the\nChristian contention that Christianity purifies empire?\n\nIf we continue the history of Christianity's spread, we find\nsimilar samples of Divine Providence and similar samples of moral\nprogress. Take, for instance, the facts connected with the conversion\nof the barbarians, as related by the author of the apologetic work,\nBeneficial Influence of the Ancient Clergy. We learn that \"Many\na deviation from primitive simplicity, dangerous though it might\njustly seem to the integrity of the Roman faith, was productive of\nconsequences the most momentous to tribes who reverenced principally\nthe pomp and mysterious ceremony attendant on the faith which they\nembraced, and would have scorned to bow down before priests or\naltars whose faultless humility merely recalled the rude shrines\nof their native forests.\" Also we learn that \"the lavish piety of\nbarbarian sovereigns\" directed \"the plunder of suffering lands into\nthe capacious coffers of the Church.\" Although this led to \"the most\nfatal period of clerical corruption,\" our apologist is yet able to\nsee in it the guiding hand of Providence establishing \"the constant\ngrandeur of the ecclesiastical edifice\"!\n\nIn Central Europe it was by force of arms that Charlemagne succeeded\nin spreading Christianity. \"It cannot be doubted,\" we are told,\n\"that the conquering hosts of the Franks were far more effective\nin the conversion of Central Europe than could have been the most\nself-denying of missionaries, or the most undoubtedly miraculous of\nItalian relics.\" This fresh spread took place towards the close of the\neighth century. After a hundred years or so for the leaven to work,\nwe should expect to see a distinct advance in morality among both\nthe clergy and the laity. We find, on the contrary, that during the\nwhole of the tenth century the spectacle presented by society was\n\"revolting.\" \"Not only did the clerical body present sure tokens of\nthat gigantic cancer which was wasting the energies of the Church,\nbut their degeneracy was relieved by nothing that was noble or\npraiseworthy among the laity.\"\n\n\n    P. 315, lines 3-4.--The Rationalistic explanation of that essence\n    of the \"religious instinct,\" belief in an after-life.\n\n\n\"Eternity is at best but an artificial idea; in reality, it is no true\nidea at all, since we cannot conceive it; it is only the negation of\nan idea, being, in fact, the negation of that which passes away. When\nwe begin discussing eternity we see that, from the point of view of\nnatural science, nothing is eternal except the ultimate particles\nof matter and their forces; for no one of the thousandfold phenomena\nand combinations under which matter and force present themselves to\nus can be eternal\" (Weismann on Heredity, vol. ii., p. 74 [Oxford,\nClarendon Press, 1892]).\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\n\n    P. 331, lines 15-16.--A kind of undefined, but nevertheless potent\n    and serviceable, religion.\n\n\nThe Rev. Henry Scott Jeffreys, of Sendai, contributed a paper,\nentitled \"Some of the Native Virtues of the Japanese People,\" to the\nJapan Evangelist. The following are some, out of many, exceedingly\nsignificant admissions:--\"After seven years' residence among this\npeople, I wish to place on record my humble testimony to their native\nvirtues. I refer to virtues that belong to the Japanese people without\nreference to their faith. In this connection it may be said that\nperhaps the most remarkable part is their devotion to ethics alone,\nutterly divorced from religion. They love virtue for its own sake,\nand not from fear of punishment or hope of reward.... They have\neliminated from their system of ethics not only heaven and hell,\nbut God also.... To be sure, there are religions (so-called), both\nnative and foreign; but they have little effect upon the popular\nconscience.... The conversion of this people to the Christian faith\nis a most complex and perplexing problem; not because they are so bad,\nbut because they are so good.\"\n\n\n    P. 334, lines 29-31.--Crime and bad lives will be the measure of\n    a State's failure.\n\n\nIt is customary to scout the idea of State control as the panacea\nfor social evils. One is warned against grandmotherly legislation,\ninterference with the liberty of the private individual, etc. I may\nbe permitted, therefore, to give an illustration of its beneficial\neffect. The Gothenburg system, by which the liquor traffic is\njudiciously controlled, has, in spite of all opposition, fought\nits way victoriously, and is now adopted, although partly modified,\nin most towns in Sweden, and also in Norway and Finland. Thus the\nevil effects of drink have been considerably mitigated; intemperance,\npauperism, and vice have been reduced. Would not legislation of this\nnature for the removal of England's greatest curse be far better than\nhalf-hearted measures that are palliative rather than remedial? Now\nthat the Church has taken up the temperance cause, could she not bring\nher great influence to bear towards the introduction of some such\nsystem, pitting herself against vested interests? Remarkable work is\nbeing carried on by the Danish temperance societies on the basis of\nallowing their members to regard beer of low alcoholic strength as\na temperance beverage. Australia has been watching New Zealand in\nthe matter of drink reform, and the Government of New South Wales,\nat any rate, has found it necessary to fulfil pledges given at the\nlast general election, with the result that, among a certain class,\nthere is an immense diminution in the temptation to drink. Where\nthe nature of the case demands it, more drastic remedies must be\napplied. Thus Belgium has forbidden the very presence of absinthe\nwithin her borders, and in Switzerland--in some of the cantons, at\nall events--the authorities have made up their minds to prohibit the\nmanufacture and sale of absinthe. Even in China an edict has now been\npromulgated for the abolition of the use of opium, and an anti-opium\nmovement is spreading which bids fair to embarrass the interested\nabettor of the vice--a Christian Government.\n\nIn their volume, The Making of the Criminal (Macmillan & Co.),\nMessrs. C. E. B. Russell and L. M. Rigby confirm the now generally\naccepted view that it is, as a rule, between the ages of sixteen\nand twenty-one that the habitual criminal is made, and show that\njuvenile crime is a product of the wretched economic, social, and\nfamily condition in which so many unhappy children are born and have to\nlive. The criminal is also recruited, as Dr. W. D. Morrison points out\n(in a review of their book appearing in the Tribune, December 12th,\n1906), from those whose home and social antecedents may be good\nenough, but who are themselves either mentally or physically below\nthe average of the general community, and who, therefore, when times\nare bad, drift insensibly into crime. When to all this unfavourable\nenvironment we add an unfavourable heredity, we get a conjunction of\ncircumstances against which it is quite impossible for the unfortunate\nto contend, even though he be aided by the \"gift of freewill\" and\nby all the intercessory prayers of the Churches. The Borstal system\nand other remedies recommended in The Making of the Criminal are\nexcellent in their way, but can be regarded only as palliatives. They\ndeal with the criminal after he has been made. What is wanted is,\nto quote Dr. Morrison, \"a wise and progressive statesmanship which\nwill cut off crime at its roots--a statesmanship which will devote\nitself with care and foresight to ameliorating the whole material\nand moral conditions of existence of the workman, the woman, and the\nchild.\" And this statesmanship will take an enlightened view of the\npopulation question, recognising that it is in the diminution of the\nstruggle for existence, not in the rise of the birth-rate, that the\nmaterial and moral condition of the people can be ameliorated.\n\n\n    P. 336, note.--Psychical research will lead to the discovery\n    of a complete and scientific method for the toughening of our\n    moral fibres.\n\n\nA quarter of a century ago Proctor remarked (see pp. 203-4 of his\nessays, Rough Ways Made Smooth) that the phenomena of hypnotism\n\"promise to afford valuable means of curing certain ailments, and\nof influencing in useful ways certain powers and functions of the\nbody.\" He recognised \"possibilities which, duly developed, might\nbe found of extreme value to the human race.\" Since these words\nwere uttered this branch of science has not stood still, and there\nseems every prospect that his prophecy will be fulfilled in the near\nfuture. There are now cliniques for hypnotic treatment in France\n(Dr. B\u00e9rillon's in Paris, for example), Germany, Belgium, Sweden,\nHolland, Switzerland, and America. \"The commencement of the present\nrevival of hypnotism in England, from its medical side, was apparently\ndue to Dr. Lloyd Tuckey, who happened to be in the neighbourhood\nof Nancy in August, 1888, and visited Li\u00e9beault out of curiosity\"\n(see p. 35 of Dr. Milne Bramwell's Hypnotism: Its History, Practice,\nand Theory [Alexander Moring, Hanover Square, London; 2nd ed., 1906]).\n\nThe following are some of the facts about the matter which should be\nclearly understood and widely made known:--\n\n(1) \"The object of all hypnotic treatment ought to be the development\nof the patient's control of his own organism\" (see p. 436 of Hypnotism:\nIts History, Practice, and Theory).\n\n(2) The hypnotic control may be obtained without any effort on the\npart of the operator, the effort formerly supposed to be required\nbeing purely imaginary, and the hypnotic state being, in fact, obtained\nwithout any operation whatever. Indeed, it has now been found that for\ncurative purposes the \"suggestion\" may be conveyed without throwing\nthe patient into the hypnotic condition, and that anyone not absolutely\nan idiot or insane may be amenable to the treatment.\n\n(3) \"Both 'Scientist' [the author is speaking of Christian Scientists]\nand Suggestionist also use the same method for creating belief--namely,\nAssertion.... Assertions are not made clumsily, ignorantly, and at\nrandom, as assertions are in our daily intercourse, but are made\nskilfully, with a purpose, and with a knowledge of the effects\nthey will produce\" (see p. 9 of the late Richard Harte's The New\nPsychology; or, The Secret of Happiness [Fowler & Co., London and\nNew York]). Is this one of the reasons why the believer is able\nto continue a believer in spite of all disproof? Certainly he is\nconstantly repeating assertions, and sometimes these must get through\nto his subliminal consciousness--his subjective mind.\n\n(4) Auto-suggestion. The suggestion should be made when you are\ncomposing yourself to sleep. Dr. Bramwell tells me that the best time\nis on first waking in the morning, before dozing off again.\n\n(5) \"Many cases of functional nervous disorder have recovered\nunder hypnotic treatment after the continued failure of other\nmethods.... Further, the diseases which frequently respond to\nhypnotic treatment are often those in which drugs are of little or\nno avail. For example, what medicine would one prescribe for a man\nwho, in the midst of mental and physical health, had suddenly become\nthe prey of an obsession?\" (see p. 435 of Hypnotism: Its History,\nPractice, and Theory).\n\n(6) \"The volition is increased and the moral standard raised\" (see\np. 437 of Hypnotism, etc.). \"Experience proves that 'principles'\ninstilled into anyone while in the hypnotic condition become\nirrevocably [?] fixed in the mind\" (p. 3 of Richard Harte's Hypnotism\nand the Doctors). Thus degenerates, dipsomaniacs, morphinomaniacs,\nkleptomaniacs, sexual perverts, and other unfortunates, may be\nreclaimed.\n\n(7) \"'Suggestion' is of universal application, and of incalculable\npower for good in almost every department of human life.... The\nthree principal ways in which suggestion (which has been called 'the\nactive principle' of hypnotism) affects human beings beneficially,\nin addition to curing diseases, are: By facilitating education;\nby preventing crime, and reforming the criminal; and by raising\nthe general standard of manliness--of courage, of independence of\ncharacter, and of respect for self and others\" (ibid, pp. 2-4).\n\nNote.--\"The Medical Society for the Study of Suggestive Therapeutics\"\nwas constituted at the close of 1906. Let us hope that it will soon\nrival the flourishing French Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d'Hypnotisme et de Psychologie.\n\n\n    P. 337, lines 5-6.--It is the quality, not the quantity, of our\n    children that we have to keep to the forefront.\n\n\n\"This is the great problem in a nutshell: to improve the quality and\ndiminish the quantity of mankind--that is, in proportion to the means\nof securing for each a truly human life.\" \"Is not the quality rather\nthan the quantity of children the thing to be aimed at?\" (Mona Caird\nand Lady Grove on \"The Position of Women,\" see pp. 118 and 128 of\nthe Fortnightly Review for July, 1905). Besides, \"if we continued to\nmaintain the high birth-rate of the mid-Victorian epoch, it is certain\nthat, in the course of a few generations, there would be no elbow-room\nleft in our little islands. Already, indeed, Great Britain is, from\nmany points of view, over-populated. If all the people who are now\ncrowded together in the slums of our great towns were scattered over\nthe country, there would be practically no country left. England would\nhave become a vast suburb. That is not an ideal to which any patriotic\nEnglishman would care to look forward. Space and quiet are essential\nfor the development of some of the best qualities of human beings,\nand those persons who too hastily regret a decline in the birth-rate\nmust explain how they propose to reconcile these essentials with an\nunlimited increase of our present population\" (The Daily Graphic,\nAugust 7th, 1905, art. \"A Declining Birth-rate\").\n\nOver-population spells strife, squalor, vice,\ncrime--misery. Dr. Barnardos and \"General\" Booths may get over the\n\"unemployed\" difficulty by schemes for emigration to Canada and\nelsewhere; but this is, at best, only a very temporary remedy. As it\nis, thousands of white men are living and dying in climates for which\nthey are unadapted; while in some cases--in certain portions of Africa,\nfor example--they are ousting and making life a burthen to the races\nthat are adapted. We have only to look far enough ahead to discover\nthat the time must come when the world would so teem with human-kind\nthat even a Bishop of London or a President Roosevelt would have to\ncry \"Hold! Enough!\"\n\nAt the present moment this problem presses for a very early solution\nin India. For many months in the year, as I have again and again seen\nwith my own eyes, masses of the agricultural population are entirely\nwithout employment. Hence the constantly recurring famines, or partial\nfamines, in years of bad or indifferent rainfall. The population\nproblem, being intimately connected with many another problem, is\none of the utmost gravity; but, so long as men hold that to increase\nand multiply is the command of God and a duty we owe to the State,\nit will never be rightly, never be sensibly, solved. P.S.--Millions\nare starving in China now (February, 1907).\n\n\n    P. 345, line 3.--The Moral Instruction League.\n\n\nThe object of the Moral Instruction League (19, Buckingham Street,\nStrand, London, W.C.) is to introduce systematic non-theological moral\ninstruction into all schools, and to make the formation of character\nthe chief aim of school life. Their contention is--and it seems a\nwise one--that ethical principles on which we all agree should not be\nassociated in the schools of the State with theological principles\non which we all differ. Already certain education authorities are\nproviding for systematic moral instruction of a purely secular\nnature. In the West Riding scheme it is expressly stated that it\nis to be \"part of the secular instruction,\" while the Cheshire\nscheme emphatically lays down that the moral instruction must be\nnon-theological. The authorities of Groton, Blackpool, Norwich, York,\nand elsewhere, have supplied all the teachers of their schools with\ncopies of the Moral Instruction League's Graduated Syllabus of Moral\nInstruction for Elementary Schools. The West Riding Education Authority\nhas adopted the Syllabus, and it is now in use in the 1,270 schools,\nProvided and Non-Provided, of that authority. In addition to these,\nnumerous education authorities have decided to make provision for\nmoral instruction a part of the secular instruction in their schools.\n\nSo much that is untrue has been said about the results of a purely\nsecular education by its strenuous opponents that it is high time for\nthe real truth to be known. This my readers will find in Mr. Joseph\nMcCabe's tractate, The Truth About Secular Education: Its History\nand Results (Watts & Co., 1906, paper covers, 6d.).\n\nAmong some excellent works intended to assist parents and\nteachers in the non-theological character-training of children,\nI may mention F. J. Gould's The Children's Book of Moral Lessons,\nin three series (Watts & Co.), Hackwood's Notes of Lessons on Moral\nSubjects, Alice Chesterton's The Garden of Childhood (Sonnenschein),\nDr. Felix Adler's The Moral Instruction of Children (Edward Arnold),\nthe Moral Instruction League and also the Leicester Syllabus,\nand A. J. Waldegrave's A Teacher's Handbook of Moral Lessons\n(Sonnenschein). Dr. F. H. Hayward's Secret of Herbart, a powerful\nappeal to the teacher on the scope and urgency of his moral mission,\nis now re-issued at 6d. (Watts). The translation of Dr. F. W. F\u00f6rster's\nLebenskunde, a book replete with illustrative matter for the teacher,\nhas been undertaken by the Moral Instruction League. Mr. W. M. Salter's\nessay, \"Why Live a Moral Life?\" is of exceptional merit. This and\nother ethical essays may be obtained from the Secretary of the Union of\nEthical Societies, 19, Buckingham Street, Strand, W.C.; price one penny\neach. One of the most important contributions to ethical sociology that\nhas appeared for many years is a work in two vols. entitled Morals in\nEvolution (Chapman & Hall; 1906), by Mr. L. T. Hobhouse. I venture\nto predict that it will ere long be recognised as the standard work\non the subject. Mr. Hobhouse, it should be noted, never wavers in\nhis assertion of the supremacy of ethics over all phases of religion.\n\n\n    P. 350, line 15.--The practices of the Latin and Greek Churches.\n\n\nDiaries recounting the sights seen by a lord of high degree in 1465\nwere published in 1851 by the Literary Society of Stuttgart. They\ninclude an interesting account of all the shrines and relics seen\nduring his travels through Western Europe. The account of the relics\nwhich he saw in our own Canterbury Cathedral admits of no curtailment:\n\"First we saw the head-band of the Blessed Virgin, a piece of Christ's\ngarment, and three thorns from His Crown; then we saw the bedstead\nof St. Thomas and his brain, and the blood of St. Thomas and of\nSt. John the Apostles. We saw also the sword with which St. Thomas of\nCanterbury was beheaded; the hair of the Mother of God, and a part\nof the Sepulchre. There was also shown to us a part of the shoulder\nof the Blessed Simeon, who bore Christ in his arms; the head of the\nblessed Lustrabena; one leg of St. George; a piece of the body and\nthe bones of St. Lawrence; a leg of the Bishop of St. Romanus; a cup\nof St. Thomas, which he had been accustomed to use in administering\nthe Sacrament at Canterbury; a leg of the Virgin Milda; a leg of the\nVirgin Eduarda. We also saw a tooth and a finger of St. Stephen the\nMartyr; bones of the Virgin Catherine, and oil from her sepulchre,\nwhich is said to flow to this day; hair of the blessed Virgin\n[sic!] Magdalene; a tooth of St. Benedict; a finger of St. Urban;\nthe lips of one of the infants slain by Herod; bones of the blessed\nClement; bones of St. Vincent. Very many other things were also shown\nto us, which are not set down by me in this place.\" Very many other\nthings have also been shown to me during my travels abroad (from\nSt. Anne de Beaupr\u00e9 in Quebec to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre\nin Jerusalem) which are not set down by me in this place, and I may\nsay that the grotesqueness of the frauds that are perpetrated is only\nequalled by the gross ignorance and credulity of the worshippers. The\nnumber of these \"relics\" scattered over Christendom must amount to\nthousands upon thousands. To stop the traffic in them, there is now a\nregulation that if you buy a relic you commit mortal sin. The relics\nare still sold, however; only the price is said to be for the frame\nor for the trouble, or something to that effect. For a description\nof La Bottega del Papa (the Pope's shop) or La Santa Bottega (the\nHoly Shop) see Dr. Robertson's book, The Roman Catholic Church in\nItaly. Regarding the early Church, see Bible Myths, pp. 434-40.\n\n\n    P. 359, lines 7-10.--Some of our greatest divines ... condemn\n    obscurantism and the odium theologicum.\n\n\nWe have a striking example of this in Dean Farrar's tractate, The\nBible and the Child (James Clarke & Co., 1897). The passage runs\nas follows: \"There are a certain number of persons who, when their\nminds have become stereotyped in foregone conclusions, are simply\nincapable of grasping new truths. They become obstructionists, and\nnot infrequently bigoted obstructionists. As convinced as the Pope\nof their own personal infallibility, their attitude towards those who\nsee that the old views are no longer tenable is an attitude of anger\nand alarm. This is the usual temper of the odium theologicum. It\nwould, if it could, grasp the thumbscrew and the rack of medi\u00e6val\nInquisitors, and would, in the last resource, hand over all opponents\nto the scaffold or the stake. Those whose intellects have been thus\npetrified by custom and advancing years are, of all others, the most\nhopeless to deal with. They have made themselves incapable of fair\nand rational examination of the truths which they impugn. They think\nthey can, by mere assertion, overthrow results arrived at by the\nlife-long inquiries of the ablest student, while they have not given\na day's serious or impartial study to them. They fancy that even the\nignorant, if only they be what is called orthodox, are justified in\nstrong denunciation of men quite as truthful, and often incomparably\nmore able than themselves. Off-hand dogmatists of this stamp, who\nusually abound among professional religionists, think that they can\nrefute any number of scholars, however profound and however pious,\nif only they shout 'Infidel' with sufficient loudness.\"\n\n\n    P. 367, lines 21-2.--Did not slavery flourish side by side with\n    the Christian Church?\n\n\nSerfdom in England was fully extinguished only in 1600, and the Act for\nthe Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies was passed\nonly in 1833. For eighteen long centuries Christianity countenanced\nthe atrocious inhumanities of the slave trade. The very irons used by\nthe native chiefs for shackling the prisoners when handing them over to\nthe Christian traders were made in Birmingham, and the greatest horrors\nof slavery have been exhibited only under the rule of the Christian\nslave-owner. We can form some idea of the inhumanity then displayed\nfrom the treatment of the coloured races by the white man in Africa\nto-day. Read, for instance, the accounts of the Congo atrocities, or\nof the German Colonial scandals. Read, again, some home-truths about\nour own Colonies in Labour and other Questions in South Africa, by\nMedicus (T. Fisher Unwin, 1903). The white man has indeed a burden\nto bear--the burden of his own iniquity. Regarding negro slavery,\nDr. Westermarck clearly shows (in his work, The Origin and Development\nof the Moral Ideas) that \"this system of slavery, which, at least\nin the British Colonies and the slave States, surpassed in cruelty\nthe slavery of any pagan country, ancient or modern, was not only\nrecognised by Christian Governments, but was supported by the large\nbulk of the clergy, Catholic and Protestant alike.\"\n\n\n    P. 368, lines 25-8.--The Christian Church has been more cruel\n    and shed more human blood than any other Church or institution\n    in the world. Let the Jew bear witness among the crowd of victims.\n\n\nHistory is repeating itself to-day, and my previous allusions to the\npresent situation in Russia are all too brief. I would ask my readers\nkindly to put to themselves the following crucial questions: To what\nparty do the religious bigots and their partisans belong? Is it not to\nthe reactionary party, the party that sets its face against reform? On\nwhat do the reactionaries chiefly rely for the retention of their hold\nupon the bulk of the people? Is it not on a peasantry wallowing in\nignorance and steeped in superstition? What are the actual instruments\nemployed for maintaining their power? Do they not consist of corrupt\nofficials and cruel Cossacks? Who are responsible for shameless acts of\npersecution, and, indeed, very largely for all the bloodshed, strife,\nand anarchy? Is it not the orthodox Church and her supporters? Is it\ntoo much to say, with the Rev. J. Lawson-Forster, that \"the Russian\nChurch has become the tool of murderers\"? (Mr. Lawson-Forster expressed\nhimself in these words when presiding at the great public meeting held\nat the Brondesbury Synagogue to protest against the recent outrages\nin Russia.) To what party do the Freethinkers belong? Are they not\nall, everyone of them, adherents of the party desirous of reform\nand of religious toleration? With regard to religious persecution\ngenerally, Christians might study with advantage Buckle's History of\nCivilisation in England, or Lecky's History of the Rise and Influence\nof the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, or C. T. Gorham's Faith: Its\nFreaks and Follies (Rationalist Press Association), or the latest work\non the subject, Religious Persecution, by E. S. P. Haynes (Duckworth;\na revised edition has now been issued by the R. P. A. at 6d.). Few\nrealise that the favourite method for overcoming the scruples of the\nheretic--torture--was used in England so late as 1640.\n\n\n    Pp. 371-2, lines 31 and 1-3.--History, viewed as a whole,\n    is nothing but a succession of struggles for existence among\n    rival nations.\n\n\nIf Major Murray had stopped short at offering us a somewhat highly\ncoloured picture of the past and present conditions ruling among\nChristian nations, and at inculcating the necessity of our being in\nreadiness to face the inevitable, few of us would be found to quarrel,\nin the main, with his conclusions. But when he tells us that \"Peace\nnever has been, and never will be [italics are mine], as long as the\npassions of mankind endure, more than a lull between the storms of\nwar,\" then the better-informed and peace-loving Rationalist will beg\nto differ with him. He feels that this gospel of universal hatred is\nbeing carried too far. Never is a very long time. Major Murray says:\n\"No great nation will ever submit to arbitration any interest that it\nregards as absolutely vital.\" Did not our British forefathers think,\nand with more reason, that \"men of honour\" could settle their disputes\nonly by the duel? May we not trust that the decisions of learned\nand unbiassed judges will be equitable, and therefore that their\nacceptance will redound to the honour of the great nations concerned?\n\nNatural selection, or, as we have elsewhere called it, natural murder,\nceased to have full power over men on the day that man commenced to\ncontrol his environment. Since then he has been constantly engaged in\nmaking nature do some work for him, in altering the environment in\nwhich he finds himself instead of letting it alter him. Now that he\nis equipped, better than ever before in his history, for this task,\nnow that he has learnt more of the secrets of Nature--of her crude\nand cruel processes--is he going to acquiesce tamely, and make no use\nof his knowledge? Now the nature of the malady has been diagnosed, and\nnow the proper remedies have been discovered, will he not set about the\ncure? Is the struggle for existence, with all its attendant horrors,\nto be perpetuated? Does the end--the survival of the fittest--justify\nthe means--over-production and murder? Cannot the same and better\nresults be attained by a process less crude, less cruel? Nature\nprocures adaptation to existing environment by methods fraught with\nuntold suffering for the sentient, and the obvious course is for man\nto reverse the process, bringing the environment into harmony with his\nexisting constitution. Of a truth, nature is, as Major Murray reminds\nus, red in tooth and claw; but science is both able and willing to\ntame the shrew.\n\n\n    P. 374, lines 15-19.--The \"Lord mighty in battle\" is expected to\n    take interest in bloodshed ... to fight for his people.\n\n\nA parody appearing in an evening paper on November 29th, 1901, conveys\na wholesome lesson on this subject. \"Lest we forget,\" I quote it\nat length:--\n\n\n        PROCESSIONAL.\n\n        Lord God of Battles, whom we seek\n          On clouds and tempests throned afar,\n        When tired of being tamely weak,\n          We Maffick into deadly war;\n        If it should chance to be a sin,\n        At least enable us to win.\n\n        Give to the Churches faith to pray\n          For what they know they shouldn't ask,\n        And such abounding grace that they\n          May cheerfully perform the task;\n        Wave flags and loyally discount\n        That fatal Sermon on the Mount.\n\n        Give to the people strength to be\n          Convinced all happens for the best,\n        To see the thing they wish to see,\n          And prudently ignore the rest;\n        So priest and people shall combine\n        To gain their ends, and call them Thine.\n\n\n    P. 374, lines 23-4.--Its [Christianity's] impotency to carry out\n    this, one of its chief missions.\n\n\n\"In no field of its work,\" exclaims Mr. Andrew Carnegie, \"does\nthe Christian Church throughout the whole world--with outstanding\nindividual exceptions--so conspicuously fail as in its attitude to\nwar. Its silence when outspoken speech might avert war, its silence\nduring war's sway, its failure during days of peace to proclaim the\ntrue Christian doctrines regarding the killing of men, give point to\nthe recent arraignment of the Prime Minister, who declared that the\nChurch to-day busied itself with questions [e.g., of vestments and\ncandles] which did not weigh even as dust in the balance compared\nwith the vital problems with which it was called upon to deal.\" (See\nreports of the ceremony at which Mr. Carnegie was installed as Rector\nof St. Andrew's University.)\n\n\n    P. 374, lines 24-5.--Religion being frequently the actual occasion\n    of, the strife.\n\n\nFrom the Crusades to the Crimea, religion has continually been\neither directly or indirectly the cause of war. Protestants, who may\nbe ready to excuse the wars undertaken to drive the infidels from\nthe \"Holy Land,\" will do well to remember that Pope Innocent III.,\nbesides proclaiming the fifth of these crusades, proclaimed also the\ninfamous crusade against the Albigenses (who opposed the corruptions\nof the Church of Rome), when Simon de Montfort and the Pope's legate,\nat the head of half a million of men, put to the sword friend and\nfoe, men and women, saying, \"God will find his own.\" In the case of\nthat mischievous and unnecessary blunder, the Crimean War, the great\nmasses of the Russian people saw but a spirited defence of the Cross\nagainst the Crescent, wherein, from their point of view, the infidel\nwas being supported by renegade Christians. It was an appeal to the\nreligious emotions of the Russian peasants--an insincere appeal,\nas history has discovered--that lent to the last Russo-Turkish war\na fictitious popularity.\n\n\n    P. 375, lines 6-7.--Every Rationalist, every Freethinker, is an\n    honest advocate of peace.\n\n\nNote these lines by an eminent divine and great dignitary of the\nChurch, Archbishop Alexander, of Armagh:--\n\n\n    And when I know how noble natures form under the red rain of war,\n        I deem it true\n    That He who made the earthquakes and the storm perchance made\n        battle too.\n\n\nAnd these by the gentle Wordsworth, the poet of sweet simplicity:--\n\n\n        But Thy most dreaded instrument\n        In working out a pure intent\n        Is man--array'd for mutual slaughter;\n        Yea, Carnage is Thy daughter!\n\n\nAnd compare: \"The very ideas and efforts which have led men to struggle\nagainst the Papal Church are exactly those which are exorcising the\ndemon of militarism from the soul of France\" (Contemporary Review\nfor January, 1905, art. \"France and Rome\"). Or again the following,\nreported in the daily papers: \"A petition to stop the war between\nRussia and Japan owes its inception to Signor Carlo Romissi, Deputy\nand editor of the Secolo of Milan. The petition has penetrated into\nevery workshop, household, and school, and roused the people to a\npassionate desire for peace, not only between the belligerents in the\nFar East, but between all nations.\" The Secolo is the most widely-read\nFreethought paper in Italy.\n\nThough it may be a long time before our efforts are rewarded, is that\nany reason for not making a commencement in the right direction? Let\nme give an instance. The effort now being made to popularise the\ninternational language \"Esperanto\" is one such commencement. Could\nnot the Church spare a little of her military ardour (exhibited in\nthe arm-chair and pulpit) for supporting peaceful projects of this\nnature? This one, at any rate, among the many to be found on the\nRationalist programme, is not contrary to her teaching; but I have\nnot as yet heard of any ecclesiastical support to a scheme that will\nundoubtedly conduce to a better acquaintance between the peoples\nof different nationalities. It is Rationalist and liberal-minded\nphilanthropists (Mr. W. T. Stead, e.g.) who are at present chiefly\ninterested in the movement.\n\nDuring the Boer War one was continually hearing declamations from\nthe pulpit to the effect that war is a necessary evil. For instance,\nthe late Bishop of Calcutta, Dr. Welldon, actually advocated war\non the ground that it was a means of keeping a nation virile. Has\nthe Boer War made us more virile? Whatever Imperial necessity there\nmay have been for it, owing to blunders in the past and the existing\ncondition of affairs, the certain effects of it, so far as we can see,\nhave been the untimely destruction of some of the flower of our race,\nsorrow spread throughout the length and breadth of the land by many\nbereavements, the burden of a great debt, and the unemployed question\nrendered more acute than ever.\n\n\"The brotherhood of man is a long way off--it may never be reached;\nbut as an ideal it is better worth having than that of half-a-dozen\nsullen empires, trading only within their own boundaries, and shut\nup behind high tariff walls over which they peer suspiciously,\nscanning one another's exports and imports with jealous eyes, and\nmaking from time to time fawning alliances with one rival, while\nharbouring enmity with another, maintaining millions of men under\narms and spending millions of pounds in armaments, and all the time\nwaiting, waiting, waiting for an affrighted sun to rise upon the day\nof Armageddon.... But nobler things lie before us and a brighter\ndawn.\" (See Mr. Birrell's article, \"Patriotism and Christianity,\"\nin the Contemporary Review for February, 1905.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSELECTIONS FROM A FEW (OF MANY) PRESS OPINIONS ON EARLIER EDITIONS.\n\n\n\"Written in a temperate spirit.\"--Times.\n\n\"A well-presented and interesting survey.\"--Daily Telegraph.\n\n\"A freshly thought-out discussion of the whole subject. A temperate\nand well-reasoned study.\"--Scotsman.\n\n\"A comprehensive survey of many perplexing problems ... full of cogent\ncriticism and stimulating suggestion.\"--Tribune.\n\n\"An absolutely sincere and sympathetic contribution to the controversy\nof our time.\"--Morning Post.\n\n\"There is much in this work that deserves close study.\"--Daily Mail.\n\n\"It is a very full, lucid, and candid work.\"--Morning Leader.\n\n\"Evidence on both sides is lucidly set forth.\"--Daily Graphic.\n\n\"By an able critic ... is written with moderation and in a spirit of\nreverent inquiry ... is manifestly honest, and the tone is dignified\nand courteous.\"--Yorkshire Post.\n\n\"There is considerable novelty in his presentation of his case. He\nwrites without bitterness or acrimony, exhibiting, indeed, in his\ntreatment a scholarly mind.\"--Academy.\n\n\"I am glad to see a second and revised edition.\"--T. P.'s Weekly.\n\n\"Mr. Vivian's excellent book.\"--Observer.\n\n\"Deserves attentive consideration.\"--John Bull.\n\n\"A careful and thorough perusal of this book has led us to admire\nthe industry, carefulness, and lucidity of the writer.\"--London Argus.\n\n\"All we can do is to commend this book to the serious attention\nof all who have the welfare of Christianity--not mere dogma--at\nheart.\"--Public Opinion.\n\n\"A clever and lucid statement of Rationalism.\"--Review of Reviews.\n\n\"Every competent critic seems to have recognised the book as one\nof the few which immediately command recognition, and which are\nunhesitatingly added to our classics.\"--Westminster Review.\n\n\"Illusions must be grappled with and exhibited as such before people\ncan be got to discard them. And as a guide to the performance of\nthat office Mr. Vivian's book is the best that can be named.\"--Albany\nReview.\n\n\"Candid and conscientious.\"--London Quarterly Review.\n\n\"The arguments of Agnosticism very clearly put.\"--Guardian.\n\n\"Mr. Vivian does not aim at bespattering his opponents with\nmud.\"--Christian Commonwealth.\n\n\"Ought to be carefully studied by preachers.\"--Christian World.\n\n\"Is well worth reading by all who have to do with unbelief.\"--Methodist\nTimes.\n\n\"It is a frank and full inquiry into the grounds of modern unbelief,\nand a masterly plea for candour in Christian thought.\"--Christian\nAdvocate.\n\n\"Calmly-reasoned criticism.... Writes in excellent style.\"--Clarion.\n\n\"Mr. Vivian's book is an admirable reply to When it Was Dark.\"--New\nAge.\n\n\"An interesting and instructive book.\"--Positivist Review.\n\n\"This book does much to show where rationalism can rightly influence\nboth our creed and our conduct.\"--Light (devoted to the interests of\npsychical research).\n\n\"I am recommending it to everybody who is interested in the religious\nproblems of the hour.\"--The Reader.\n\n\"Comprehensive in scope, judiciously written, and embodying an\nadmirable selection of facts.\"--Literary Guide.\n\n\"The book is written with marked ability.\"--Teacher.\n\n\"Philip Vivian is a clear thinker, who has made a special study\nboth of Christian evidences and of comparative religions.\"--Journal\nof Education.\n\n\"Comprehensive, systematic, and strenuous ... based on much knowledge\n... very capable.\"--Educational Times.\n\n\"Exhaustive ... up-to-date ... claims the respect of thinking people,\nand demands the prayerful attention of all Christian teachers.\"--Bombay\nGazette.\n\n\"Any earnest, thoughtful man may read the volume with considerable\nprofit.\"--Daily Mail, Brisbane.\n\n\"Thoughtful and evidently earnest work.\"--Herald, Melbourne.\n\n\"Clear, forceful, fair, and temperate.\"--Register, Adelaide.\n\n\"Well arranged and well written, and adding to-day's conclusions to\nthe polemics of the past.\"--Bulletin, Sydney.\n\n\"A reliable and useful guide.\"--Otago Times, New Zealand.\n\n\"A healthy tonic for parsons and Churches.\"--Cape Times.\n\n\"A very stirring book.\"--Star, Johannesburg.\n\n\"Many of its chapters are of great interest.\"--African Monthly.\n\n\"Mr. Vivian has brought to his task wide reading and a clear,\njudicial mind; nor has he feared to follow his investigation to a\nlogical end.\"--World, Toronto.\n\n\"A clever and frank writer.\"--World, Vancouver.\n\n\"From first to last most interesting and instructive.\"--Japan\nChronicle.\n\n\"It contains in little space a summary of modern knowledge.\"--Chicago\nDaily News.\n\n\"A work of unusual clearness, dealing with the entire question of the\nso-called conflict between religion and science.\"--American Review\nof Reviews.\n\n\"Will appeal to the widest possible range of readers.\"--New York\nHerald.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] In the June (1906) number of Review of Theology and Philosophy,\nedited by Professor Allan Menzies, D.D.\n\n[2] As the Rev. John A. Hutton attempts to show in the Hibbert Journal,\nJuly, 1905.\n\n[3] In his address at the London Diocesan Conference in April, 1904.\n\n[4] When addressing a conference of clergy and church-workers at\nBlandford on September 7th, 1905.\n\n[5] In the course of one of those remarkable orations of his which\nalways command the thoughtful attention of the House. The speech was\nreported in the newspapers of March 15th, 1904.\n\n[6] See Dr. Horton's letter to the Daily News, August 23rd, 1905.\n\n[7] The Rev. Charles Voysey, in a sermon preached at the Theistic\nChurch, Swallow Street, on February 5th, 1905.\n\n[8] See pp. 63-4.\n\n[9] Quoted from What it is to be a Christian, a pamphlet written by\nthe Ven. J. M. Wilson, D.D.\n\n[10] Eighteen per cent. was the figure given by Bishop Ingram,\nspeaking of \"Londoners,\" in his speech at the annual meeting of the\nBishop of London's Fund in 1904; but, according to the strict results\nof the census, the figure for London is twenty-two or twenty-three\nper cent. of the total population.\n\n[11] As Mr. Fielding remarks in his book, The Hearts of Men\n(pp. 217-8): \"To one coming to Europe after years in the East\nand visiting churches, nothing is more striking than the enormous\npreponderance of women there. It is immaterial whether the church\nbe in England or France, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic or\nDissenter. The result is always the same--women outnumber the men as\ntwo to one, as three to one, sometimes as ten to one.\"\n\n[12] As a matter of fact, no distinguished leader among modern\nbiologists has come to any such conclusion. People are apt to forget\nthat, while Lord Kelvin is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished\nliving physicists, he is not himself a biologist.\n\n[13] See Nature, April 23rd, 1903; also Appendix to this work.\n\n[14] This assertion is severely criticised by Mr. Joseph McCabe in\nthe Hibbert for July, 1905. Mr. McCabe holds that \"Sir Oliver Lodge's\nown conception of life may, with a far greater show of reason, be\ndescribed as a modified survival of an older doctrine\" (p. 746).\n\n[15] Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, the distinguished naturalist and\nevolutionist, is another scientist with spiritist convictions, and\nhis concern for supernatural religion led him to step outside his own\ndomain and make that remarkable attack upon current scientific opinions\nin astronomical matters which met with such unanimous condemnation\n(see the Fortnightly Review for March and September, 1903).\n\n[16] In the Times, October, 1904.\n\n[17] At Exeter Hall, in March, 1905, Lady Blount developed her\n\"flat-earth\" theory, and accused Newton of want of logic.\n\n[18] A book, edited by the Rev. J. E. Hand (George Allen), which\ngives, perhaps, the best that can be said by able and fair-minded men,\nwriting in the light of the latest knowledge and criticism, in favour\nof a reconciliation between religion and science. The book contains\nessays by various authors--Sir O. Lodge, Professors Thomson, Geddes,\nand Muirhead, the Rev. P. N. Waggett, the Rev. John Kelman, and others.\n\n[19] Dr. W. Barry, in his Ernest Renan, is content to attribute\nthe change mainly to Renan's study of Kant. But such a theory is\ninconsistent with Renan's own statement in his Reminiscences, where\nhe expressly declares that questions of history, not metaphysics,\nshook his faith.\n\n[20] Author of a vituperative libel on agnostics, called Atheism\nand Faith.\n\n[21] The psychical aspect of the belief of such persons is discussed\nin Chap. VI., \u00a7 5.\n\n[22] Canon Scott Holland, in a sermon preached in St. Paul's Cathedral\non the first Sunday after Epiphany, 1905. See also Appendix.\n\n[23] The Secretary of the Rationalist Press Association has received\nseveral private letters from clergymen expressing their desire to\nleave the Church if they could find some employment. They usually\nhave large families dependent upon them for support.\n\n[24] I omit all mention of the trading or domestic classes who often\ndepend directly for their support on strict religionists. The way in\nwhich \"their bread is buttered\" is bound to enter considerably into\ntheir calculations, and also they have often even less leisure for\nthe study of modern thought than a steady (temperate) working man.\n\n[25] A cheap edition has since been published by the R. P. A.\n\n[26] Anti-Nunquam, by Dr. Warschauer, with prefatory note by J. Estlin\nCarpenter, is considered by many Churchmen to be an admirable\nrefutation of God and My Neighbour. I have seldom read anything less\nlikely to convince. Sentence after sentence is open to the gravest\nexception.\n\n[27] See Appendix.\n\n[28] E.g., in the Nineteenth Century and After, see the article on\n\"The Present Position of Religious Apologetics,\" appearing in the\nissue for October, 1903; or on \"Freethought in the Church of England\"\nin the issues for September and December, 1904. The answers in the\nsame journal are most unsatisfactory, and only serve to show how very\nlittle, apparently, can be said in reply.\n\n[29] Although the Church has ever been charitable, she has made no\neffort to cure poverty. She is, she must be, the ally of those to\nwhom she chiefly owes her power and prestige. Jeremy Taylor is not\nthe only eminent divine who has systematically courted the favour of\nthe influential and rich.\n\n[30] Essay on \"Possibilities and Impossibilities,\" appearing in the\nAgnostic Annual for 1892.\n\n[31] Paley's Evidences--Preparatory Considerations.\n\n[32] In his book, The Service of Man.\n\n[33] In his notable oration upon the apparitions of Llanthony.\n\n[34] See p. 132 of An Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures,\nby the Right Rev. W. Boyd Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon.\n\n[35] See p. 222 of Some Elements of Religion, Liddon.\n\n[36] See p. 51 of An Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures.\n\n[37] Extract from a sermon preached in St. Paul's, Finsbury, on\nNovember 23rd, 1904.\n\n[38] This explanation has been given by the Rev. Samuel Cox, and\nit is quoted with approval by the Bishop of London on p. 63 of his\nlittle work, Old Testament Difficulties (S.P.C.K.).\n\n[39] See p. 41 of Old Testament Difficulties.\n\n[40] Article \"Genesis.\"\n\n[41] Miraculum means merely a wonderful thing. It is certainly a\nproper translation of simeia (signs) and terata (wonders), as used\nby New Testament writers.\n\n[42] By the author of Supernatural Religion. (Longmans, Green, and\nCo.; 1889.)\n\n[43] See Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica, article \"Gospels,\" paragraph 138 (e).\n\n[44] See article \"Paul\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica. Four of the\nPauline Epistles are, however, pretty generally accepted. Five are\nhotly disputed; Professor Loofs, for example, rejects them.\n\n[45] See article \"Epistolary Literature\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica.\n\n[46] Swedenborgians (the New Jerusalem Church) are to be found\nscattered throughout almost every part of Christendom. In England,\nprincipally in Lancashire and Yorkshire, there are seventy-five\nsocieties with 6,063 registered members.\n\n[47] Eight persons in all testify to the apparition of the Virgin\nMary in the Abbot's meadow at Llanthony on September 15th, 1880.\n\n[48] Hodder & Stoughton, 1906.\n\n[49] See p. 31 of What is Christianity? (Williams & Norgate, 1904).\n\n[50] See, for instance, art. \"Moses,\" Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica.\n\n[51] Quoted from a sermon by the Bishop of London in Fulham parish,\nChristmas Day, 1904. Compare this with Dr. Kirkpatrick's remark,\np. 2 of his book, The Divine Library of the Old Testament: \"It is\ntrue that the critical investigation of the Bible raises not a few\nquestions of grave difficulty.\"\n\n[52] \"The adjective 'higher' (the sense of which is often\nmisunderstood) has reference simply to the higher and more difficult\nclass of problems, with which, as opposed to textual criticism, the\n'higher' criticism has to deal\" (see Preface to The Higher Criticism,\nbeing three papers by S. R. Driver, D.D., and A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D.).\n\n[53] See Appendix.\n\n[54] Exodus xxxi. 18 and xxxii. 16. Or, to be precise, these having\nbeen broken and their fragments considered of no value at the time,\nthe duplicates carefully prepared and inscribed to the dictation of\nGod Himself (Exodus xxxix.).\n\n[55] Believed to date from about 853 B.C. The inscription records\nthe victories of King Mesha over the Israelites.\n\n[56] Erected in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes, 106 B.C. Famous as\nhaving furnished the first key for the interpretation of Egyptian\nhieroglyphics.\n\n[57] Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica, art. \"Messiah,\" p. 3058, par. 2.\n\n[58] Ibid, p. 3063, par 10.\n\n[59] In Studies in the Character of Christ, by Rev. C. H. Robinson,\nHon. Canon of Ripon and Editorial Secretary to the S.P.G.\n\n[60] Enc. Bib., art. \"Nativity,\" par. 10, 11, 12.\n\n[61] The late Rev. A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and\nNew Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.\n\n[62] See Enc. Bib., art. \"Gospels,\" par. 139.\n\n[63] See Enc. Bib., art. \"Gospels,\" par. 138, where the reasons for\nthis conclusion are explained. See also par. 108.\n\n[64] Author of various theological works, Hulsean Lecturer, Cambridge,\n1876; Select Preacher, Oxford, 1877.\n\n[65] The interpolation in the last chapter of St. Mark goes back far\ninto the second century. It is important to bear in mind that none\nof the dates given by Dr. Harnack and other authorities applies to\nthe Gospels exactly as we now have them. Accounts of miracles have\nbeen added subsequently!\n\n[66] Enc. Bib., art. \"Lazarus.\"\n\n[67] Ibid, art. \"Gospels,\" par. 147.\n\n[68] W. C. van Manen, D.D., Professor of Old-Christian Literature\nand New Testament Exegesis, Leyden.\n\n[69] Spoken in an address to the St. Paul's Lecture Society, at the\nopening of a new session in 1904.\n\n[70] The italics in these quotations from Dr. Harnack are mine.\n\n[71] Fully reported in the Methodist Times.\n\n[72] The Greek version, known as the Septuagint (LXX.), made in Egypt\nin the third and second centuries B.C. for the use of the numerous\nbody of Greek-speaking Jews and proselytes in that country.\n\n[73] A Greek document which is supposed to have existed and then to\nhave been entirely lost (imagine God's Word lost!), and to contain\nsome of the matter related by St. Matthew and St. Luke, while omitted\nby St. Mark. N.B.--While the evangelist St. Mark is relegated to\nthe position of a translator only, St. Matthew and St. Luke are\ntaken by orthodox theologians to be mere copyists of St. Mark and a\n\"lost\" document!\n\n[74] See art. \"Gospels,\" in the Enc. Bib., and Westcott and Hort,\nThe New Testament in the Original Greek.\n\n[75] In his address at the Church Congress held at Weymouth in 1905.\n\n[76] In his work, Verbal Inspiration. Quoted by Bishop Colenso in\nThe Pentateuch Examined.\n\n[77] The Dean of Canterbury, speaking on the Bishop of Winchester's\npaper at the Church Congress, 1903.\n\n[78] The Dean of Canterbury, speaking in St. Mary Bredin's Church,\nCanterbury, December 4th, 1904.\n\n[79] See Appendix.\n\n[80] See Bk. VIII., chap. ii., par. 2, on p. 324, vol. i. Eusebius\n(Oxford: Parker & Co.). His candour here is deserving of all\npraise; but his methods can hardly be termed scientific; while an\nimpartial perusal of his Vita Constantini, a panegyric on the Emperor\nConstantine, should be enough to shake the confidence of all but the\nblindest of his admirers.\n\n[81] See p. 179, chap. xv., of Gibbon's Rome (Oddy, 1809).\n\n[82] See Appendix.\n\n[83] In note A, pp. 42-3, of his book, The Study of the Gospels.\n\n[84] At the discussion on Christian Science during the London Diocesan\nConference, May, 1906.\n\n[85] See his book, The Days of His Flesh; Hodder & Stoughton, 1906.\n\n[86] See chap. xxviii. of The Historical Geography of the Holy Land,\nby the Rev. George Adam Smith, M.A., D.D., LL.D.; Professor of\nO. T. Lang., Liter., and Theology, etc.\n\n[87] The quotation is from Canon C. H. Robinson's book, Studies in\nthe Character of Christ.\n\n[88] J. G. Frazer (Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge;\nHon. D.C.L. Oxford; Hon. LL.D. Glasgow; Hon. Litt. D. Durham, etc.),\nin his Preface to the second edition of The Golden Bough.\n\n[89] Professor Max M\u00fcller, in The Science of Religion, p. 40.\n\n[90] The italics are mine throughout this quotation; also words within\nbrackets [\u00a0].\n\n[91] See Appendix.\n\n[92] \"We are accustomed to find the legendary and the miraculous\ngathering, like a halo, around the early history of religious leaders,\nuntil the sober truth runs the risk of being altogether neglected\nfor the glittering and edifying falsehood\" (Enc. Brit., vol. iv.,\nart. \"Buddhism,\" p. 424). This process is recognised as a universal\nrule. What grounds have we for assuming that Christianity is exempt\nfrom it?\n\n[93] See Appendix.\n\n[94] See Appendix.\n\n[95] Zarathustra, or Zoroaster, was possibly a historical person. We\nare quite in the dark as to the precise date of Zoroaster. Duncker\nplaces him about the year 1000 B.C.\n\n[96] Apol. I. 54 and I. 21. Quoted in the Enc. Bib., art. \"Mary.\"\n\n[97] Pp. 78-9 of his important work, Divine Immanence.\n\n[98] Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi., pp. 197-200.\n\n[99] Egyptian Belief, p. 370.\n\n[100] Middleton's Works, vol. i., pp. 63, 64.\n\n[101] Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. ii., p. 260, note 3.\n\n[102] See his work, Mythology of the Aryan Nations, vol. ii., p. 113.\n\n[103] Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi., p. 95.\n\n[104] Myths of the New World, p. 166.\n\n[105] P. 393 of Monumental Christianity, or the Art and Symbolism\nof the Primitive Church as Witness and Teachers of the One Catholic\nFaith and Practice.\n\n[106] In his book, Bushido, pp. 15-19 and 24.\n\n[107] P. 152 of his book, King David of Israel (Watts, 1905).\n\n[108] The Gods of the Egyptians, vol. ii., p. 220.\n\n[109] Ibid., vol. i., Preface, p. xv.\n\n[110] They appear in Part II., pp. 171, 183, 188, 300, and 302.\n\n[111] A translation of the Chinese version of the \"Abbinishkramana\nS\u00fbtra.\" For the probable date, see Appendix.\n\n[112] See Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology, Vol. I., Part I.,\nchapter on \"The Primitive Man--Emotional.\"\n\n[113] Professor Robertson Smith, in The Religion of the Semites,\np. 347. Dr. W. R. Smith was a distinguished Scottish Biblical scholar\nand Orientalist. From 1881 he was associated as joint editor of the\nninth edition of the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica with Professor Spencer\nBaynes, after whose death in 1887 he was sole editor.\n\n[114] J. M. Robertson, in his book, Pagan Christs, pp. 373-4.\n\n[115] For this and the following graphic accounts I am indebted to\nMr. J. M. Robertson's book, Pagan Christs, Part IV.--\"The Religion\nof Ancient America.\"\n\n[116] Quoted from his celebrated book, The Golden Bough.\n\n[117] See p. 145, note.\n\n[118] See Appendix.\n\n[119] See \"Gods of Cultivation\" in Grant Allen's Evolution of the\nIdea of God.\n\n[120] See Appendix.\n\n[121] The Evolution of the Idea of God (chapter on \"The Gods of\nCultivation\").\n\n[122] Ibid (chapter on \"The Origin of Gods\").\n\n[123] Principles of Sociology, vol. i. (chapter on \"Primitive Ideas,\"\np. 102).\n\n[124] Principles of Sociology (chapter on \"Inspiration, Divination,\nExorcism, and Sorcery,\" p. 241).\n\n[125] P. 366, vol. ii. of The Golden Bough.\n\n[126] Anacalypsis, vol. 1., p. 638.\n\n[127] St. Matthew xii. 40.\n\n[128] See Appendix.\n\n[129] Studies in the Character of Christ, vi. 102.\n\n[130] Encyc. Brit., art. \"Mythology.\"\n\n[131] See Appendix.\n\n[132] See p. 117 of Monumental Christianity.\n\n[133] See Appendix.\n\n[134] Quoted from Darwin's Descent of Man.\n\n[135] \"The preservation of favourable variations and the rejection\nof injurious variations I call natural selection\" (Darwin, Origin of\nSpecies, ed. 1860, iv.).\n\n[136] Darwin, Varieties of Animals and Plants, xx., 178.\n\n[137] Concluding remarks in Darwin's Descent of Man.\n\n[138] Ibid.\n\n[139] See his book containing the aforesaid lectures, and called God's\nImage in Man and its Defacement in the Light of Modern Denials. (Hodder\nand Stoughton; 1905.)\n\n[140] Lent by Mr. Reginald Blunt to the Chelsea Public Library.\n\n[141] See Professor Huxley's essays, \"The Interpreters of Genesis\nand the Interpreters of Nature\" and \"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis,\"\nappearing in the Nineteenth Century for December, 1885, and February,\n1886, respectively, and also in the collection of Huxley's essays\nentitled Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions.\n\n[142] Dr. Torrey informed a huge audience in the Albert Hall\nrecently that he had given up the theory of Evolution for scientific\nreasons. \"People speak of the missing link; why, they are all\nmissing!\" cried Dr. Torrey. Now, this is nothing more nor less than\nan untruth, and Dr. Torrey must know that it is, if he has studied\nEvolution, as he assures us that he has. Here is an example of the\nway Christians are misinformed by their spiritual teachers on the\nsubject of Evolution. But what can you expect of an evangelist who\nthinks that he is serving God's cause by slandering the dead, as he\ndid in the case of Colonel Ingersoll and Thomas Paine?\n\n[143] See Mr. W. H. Mallock's Religion as a Credible Doctrine, p. 177.\n\n[144] Origin of Species, p. 65.\n\n[145] From The Story of Creation, by Edward Clodd. Chapter on \"The\nOrigin of Species,\" p. 95 of the cheap edition.\n\n[146] The Nineteenth Century, February, 1888, pp. 162, 163.\n\n[147] Pp. 519-20.\n\n[148] Theism, by the Rev. Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E.,\nProfessor of Moral Philosophy, Divinity, etc., being the Baird Lectures\nfor 1877.\n\n[149] On p. 39 of his own work, Anti-Nunquam.\n\n[150] The Light of Asia, Book the First.\n\n[151] Quoted from Huxley's Lectures on Evolution.\n\n[152] Quoted from Huxley's Lectures on Evolution.\n\n[153] Controverted Questions, pp. 100, 102, 103, 104.\n\n[154] In Lectures on Evolution.\n\n[155] Quoted from \"The Interpreters of Genesis,\" in the essays on\nControverted Questions, p. 91.\n\n[156] \"Mr. Gladstone and Genesis,\" pp. 112-3 of Controverted Questions.\n\n[157] The Descent of Man, p. 10.\n\n[158] The Nature of Man, by Metchnikoff, p. 41.\n\n[159] The Descent of Man, p. 10.\n\n[160] The Nature of Man, p. 42.\n\n[161] Man's Place in Nature, p. 126.\n\n[162] Ibid, p. 127.\n\n[163] The Nature of Man, p. 42.\n\n[164] Man's Place in Nature, p. 111.\n\n[165] Ibid, p. 139.\n\n[166] Ibid, p. 102, note.\n\n[167] Pp. 49-54. At the late International Congress on Tuberculosis,\nProfessor Behring paid the highest tribute to Metchnikoff's labours\non phagocytosis. Strange indeed are the instruments chosen by God for\nconferring His benefits on mankind; for the author of The Nature of\nMan denies His existence!\n\n[168] Described in the Lancet, January 18th, 1902.\n\n[169] The Nature of Man, pp. 45-48.\n\n[170] The Descent of Man, vol. i., p. 14. According to the latest\nauthorities, however, the human ovum (when mature) differs in many\nrespects from other (especially non-mammal) ova.\n\n[171] See the \"Family Tree\" of Life in the Appendix.\n\n[172] \"It is,\" says Professor Huxley (in Man's Place in Nature, 1863,\np. 67, and quoted by Darwin in his Descent of Man, p. 14), \"quite in\nthe later steps of development that the young human being presents\nmarked differences from the young ape, while the latter departs as\nmuch from the dog in its developments as the man does. Startling as\nthis last assertion may appear to be, it is demonstrably true.\"\n\n[173] The Descent of Man, vol. i., pp. 17-18.\n\n[174] See The Nature of Man, p. 60.\n\n[175] The Descent of Man, vol. i., p. 29.\n\n[176] The Evolution of Man, vol. ii., p. 708.\n\n[177] Ibid, 774.\n\n[178] The Descent of Man, vol. ii., p. 32.\n\n[179] The Nature of Man, p. 67.\n\n[180] The Descent of Man, vol. i., pp. 32-33.\n\n[181] God and My Neighbour, p. 134.\n\n[182] The document and the hostile criticisms concerning it in\nreligious papers are highly instructive. Except for the correspondence\non the subject in the Standard during May, 1905, under the title of\n\"Faith and Religion,\" the general public are not likely to know of\nthe matter.\n\n[183] Tylor and Hartmann, however, believe in the animal descent of\nman, and therefore in a rise from primitive civilisation.\n\n[184] Our ancestors were never \"molluscs\"; \"worm\" would be an\nappropriate word here.\n\n[185] Review in the Church Times of May 31st, 1905, of the Dean of\nWestminster's book, Some Thoughts on Inspiration.\n\n[186] This and the following quotations are from \"Advent Lectures on\nSin,\" delivered by Dr. Gore, then Bishop of Worcester, in St. Philip's\nChurch, Birmingham. They were reported in the Church Times of December\n4th, 11th, and 18th, 1903.\n\n[187] See pp. 234-5.\n\n[188] In an address to the Students' Christian Union of Owens College,\nManchester, on January 8th, 1904.\n\n[189] In his interesting book, Problems of Religion and Science, p. 70.\n\n[190] Teleology is the name given to the doctrine of final causes;\nthe theory of tendency to an end, or the arrangement of things as\nthey are for a purpose.\n\n[191] See Appendix.\n\n[192] Contemporary Review for May, art. \"The Scientists and Common\nSense.\"\n\n[193] Under this title there is a pamphlet (Charles H. Kelly,\nPaternoster Row) by the Ven. J. M. Wilson, Archdeacon of Manchester,\nin which the latitudinarian views to which I refer are openly\nexpressed. See Appendix.\n\n[194] Flint's Theism, pp. 133-4.\n\n[195] Theism, p. 102. This book is a standard apologetic work on\nTheism. Dr. Flint is also the writer of the article on \"Theism\"\nin the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica.\n\n[196] See p. 73 of Haeckel's Critics Answered, by Joseph McCabe.\n\n[197] Ibid, p. 73.\n\n[198] Haeckel's Critics Answered, p. 74.\n\n[199] Religion and Science, pp. 89-90.\n\n[200] Theism, Lecture IV.\n\n[201] See p. 76 of Haeckel's Critics Answered.\n\n[202] Theism, p. 79.\n\n[203] Chapter on \"Theism and Natural Selection.\"\n\n[204] Religion and Science, p. 83.\n\n[205] Religion and Science, pp. 89, 90.\n\n[206] In The Ethics, Part i., appendix.\n\n[207] In his work, Divine Immanence.\n\n[208] Divine Immanence, pp. 71-2.\n\n[209] Ibid, pp. 71-2.\n\n[210] Ibid, pp. 71-2.\n\n[211] Ibid, pp. 71-2.\n\n[212] Ibid, p. 73.\n\n[213] Ibid, p. 161.\n\n[214] Divine Immanence, p. 161.\n\n[215] In the preface to his poem.\n\n[216] Art. \"Theism\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica.\n\n[217] E.g., see p. 15 of The Three Superstitions, by Dr. Keeling,\nan ex-professor of gynecology.\n\n[218] Theism, p. 245.\n\n[219] Theism, p. 246.\n\n[220] In an address at the inaugural meeting of the session of the\nEdinburgh Philosophical Institution, held on October 31st, 1905.\n\n[221] A Text-Book of Apologetics, by Charles Harris, B.D.,\nLecturer in Theology and Parochialia, St. David's College,\nLampeter; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Llandaff. (London:\nJohn Murray, 1905.) A noticeable point about this latest contribution\nto apologetic literature is that, though it purposes to deal with\nall the chief arguments which have been urged against religion, it\nleaves the weightiest argument of all--the argument from Comparative\nMythology--practically untouched. Why is this?\n\n[222] Theism, p. 228.\n\n[223] Theism, \"The Argument from Order.\"\n\n[224] Theism, p. 226.\n\n[225] Ibid., p. 67.\n\n[226] This description is borne out by the Rev. A. R. Robertson, D.D.,\nin The Roman Catholic Church in Italy (Morgan & Scott), a book which\nwas accorded a flattering reception in January, 1903, by the King\nof Italy. In Southern Italy the Church's methods remind one of what\nPaschal tells us concerning the Jesuits--how they kept men wicked,\nlest, if they became virtuous, the priests should lose their hold\nupon them.\n\n[227] Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, art. \"Newman, John Henry.\"\n\n[228] See art. \"Francis William Newman,\" by Francis Gribble, The\nFortnightly, July, 1905.\n\n[229] Being an address given at the Pusey House, Oxford.\n\n[230] Their guiltlessness is made abundantly clear in Robert\nBlatchford's Not Guilty, a book containing a lucid presentment of\nthe case for Determinism which may be understood of all. There are\ncopious illustrations of heredity and environment--terms the wide\napplication of which must be thoroughly realised.\n\n[231] Regarding his philosophic position, however, see Appendix.\n\n[232] In his book, Rough Ways Made Smooth, chapter on \"Bodily Illness\nas a Mental Stimulant.\"\n\n[233] In Occult Japan, by Percival Lowell (Riverside Press), there\nis an interesting account of these practices.\n\n[234] The delusions of the \"Christian Scientists\" in mixing up religion\nwith psychic healing can only be attributed to their ignorance of\nmodern psychology. Those who know better, and are making money out\nof it, are as shamefully imposing upon the credulity of religious\nfolk as is the Roman Catholic Church with her shrines of healing.\n\n[235] In the December (1904) Journal of the Society for Psychical\nResearch a lady gives a vivid description of how she cured herself\ncompletely of certain nervous complaints by auto-suggestion. It is\ninteresting to note that she says: \"I did not believe in the efficacy\nof this treatment one bit; I just made myself do it; but I felt,\nmost of the time, that it was extremely ridiculous.\" See also Appendix.\n\n[236] The following is from the Mikado's Rescript issued on the\nconclusion of peace:--\"The result is due in a large measure to the\nbenign spirits of our ancestors, as well as to the devotion and duty\nof our civil and military officials and the self-denying patriotism of\nall our people.... We are happy to invoke the blessing of the benign\nspirits of our ancestors.\" N.B.--The word \"God\" is conspicuous by\nits absence; \"ancestors' spirits\" take its place.\n\n[237] International Journal of Ethics, April, 1904, p. 338,\nart. \"Professor William James's Interpretation of Religious\nExperience,\" by James H. Leuba.\n\n[238] An instructive treatise on this subject will be found in\nVol. II., ch. x., of Weismann on Heredity. (Clarendon Press Series.)\n\n[239] Do you know a hymn tune by Lord Crofton, set to the words,\n\"Bless'd are the pure in heart\"? When I first heard that tune played\nI shook with emotion. I did not know at that time the words that\nthe tune had been set to; so it could only have been the music that\naffected me. At one time I confess that I myself used to mistake this\nhysterical element in my nature for religious fervour.\n\n[240] The Ven. Archdeacon J. M. Wilson, D.D., late headmaster of\nClifton College--in the Journal of Education, 1881.\n\n[241] In Three Essays on Religion, p. 80 of the Cheap Reprint issued\nfor the Rationalist Press Association.\n\n[242] As remarked by the Bishop of London in a sermon at Westminster\nAbbey. See cover of Mr. Guy Thorne's book, When it was Dark.\n\n[243] Quoted from an address delivered by the Bishop of London at\nSt. Paul's, as reported in the Church Times of October 7th, 1904.\n\n[244] See footnote p. 37 of The Religion of Woman, by Joseph McCabe.\n\n[245] Professor Jinzo Naruse. For the quotation see chap. xxi. on\n\"The Position of Women\" in Mr. Alfred Stead's recent publication,\nJapan by the Japanese.\n\n[246] See p. 31 of the Rev. Herbert Moore's The Christian Faith\nin Japan.\n\n[247] Ibid., p. 129.\n\n[248] We learn this from reliable sources--for example, from\nW. M. Flinders Petrie and Gaston Camille Charles Masp\u00e9ro, the\ncelebrated English and French Egyptologists.\n\n[249] The Religion of Woman.\n\n[250] These remarks are quoted on p. 15 of The Religion of Woman from\nvol. iii., p. 290, of Mrs. Cady Stanton's History of Women's Suffrage.\n\n[251] The Religion of Woman, pp. 105, 107, 111.\n\n[252] Pinchwife, it will be remembered, is the anxious husband\n(in Wycherley's comedy, The Country Wife) who held that a woman is\ninnocent in proportion to her lack of knowledge. There are, of course,\nother reasons why a wife's ignorance is deemed desirable. Cf. \"And\nso far will I trust thee, gentle Kate.\"\n\n[253] In his sermon at St. Crantock's on August 27th, 1905.\n\n[254] The Religion of Woman, p. 78. This work embodies a complete\nrefutation of the assertion which we have cursorily examined. The\ntruth-seeker desirous of studying other aspects of the Christian\ncontention is strongly recommended to peruse also Mr. McCabe's\nbrilliant essay, The Bible in Europe (Watts, 1907).\n\n[255] See his Notes on Popular Rationalism.\n\n[256] Anti-Theistic Theories, Lecture 5, on Comte's Positivist\nPhilosophy.\n\n[257] Approximately 300,000 copies by the end of January, 1907.\n\n[258] In the Nineteenth Century and After, November, 1904.\n\n[259] See Gibbon's Rome, vol. iii., p. 27 (ed. 1809).\n\n[260] Ibid., vol. iii., p. 27.\n\n[261] Ibid., vol. iv., p. 21.\n\n[262] Among his victims were: his father-in-law (A.D. 310); sister's\nhusband (314); nephew (319); wife (320); former friend (321); sister's\nhusband (325); own son (326).\n\n[263] Gibbon's Rome, vol. ii., p. 337 (ed. 1809).\n\n[264] The death-bed baptism of Constantine is described by Eusebius,\nthe Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, in his Life of Constantine, bk. iv., chaps. 61,\n62, 63, and 64. The Bishop assumes the salvation of Constantine with\nthe utmost confidence, and says: \"He was removed about mid-day to the\npresence of his God, leaving his mortal remains to his fellow-mortals,\nand carrying into fellowship with God that part of his being which\nwas capable of understanding and loving Him.\"\n\n[265] It has been urged upon me by my Christian friends that the\nenormous funds at the disposal of the various Christian propagandist\nsocieties testify to the growth, not the decay, of the Christian\nfaith. If these funds were chiefly derived from the small donations\nof the many, there would be something in this argument. Such, however,\nis not the case.\n\n[266] Ammian. Marcell. 1. xxvii. c. 3.\n\n[267] Cod. Theodos., Lib. xvi. tit. ii. 1. 20.\n\n[268] Lib. xvi. tit. x. 1. 20, and tit. v. legg. 43, 52, 57, 65.\n\n[269] See pp. 58-9 of the Beneficial Influence of the Ancient\nClergy (the title under which the Hulsean Prize Essay for 1850 was\nsubsequently published in book form), by the late Henry Mackenzie,\nB.A., scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. Other quotations are\ngiven in the Appendix.\n\n[270] The Gods of the Egyptians, Preface, p. xv.\n\n[271] Ibid.\n\n[272] Huxley's Essays on Controverted Questions, p. 9, Prologue.\n\n[273] Gibbon's Rome, vol. ii., p. 257 (ed. 1809). In 1638, forty\nthousand Japanese Christians were put to death in the great Castle of\nHara, the Dutch traders at Nagasaki supplying cannon and gunpowder to\nbe used against their fellow-Christians. (Mentioned in The Christian\nFaith in Japan, p. 19, a book published by the S.P.G.) This wholesale\nbutchery, however, marked the destruction, not the introduction,\nof Christianity.\n\n[274] Quoted from page 543 of The Martyrdom of Man, seventeenth edition\n(1903).\n\n[275] Are we not liable to forget that the most brilliant geniuses\nmay make mistakes sometimes, either from want of knowledge of facts,\nor from a psychological unwillingness to accept them? May not the very\nsubtlety of their intellects aid the work of their own self-deception?\n\n[276] Liddon's Some Elements of Religion, p. 48.\n\n[277] Flint's Anti-Theistic Theories.\n\n[278] See address to the Royal Naval Volunteers by their hon. chaplain,\nthe Bishop of London, reported in the Church Times for June 23rd, 1905.\n\n[279] Anti-Nunquam, p. 80.\n\n[280] See his inaugural address at the Church Congress, October, 1906.\n\n[281] See Anti-Theistic Theories, Lecture vii., \"Are there Tribes\nof Atheists?\"\n\n[282] The Descent of Man, pp. 394-5.\n\n[283] Quoted by Dr. Flint in the lecture above referred to.\n\n[284] See The Living Races of Mankind, pp. 721-3.\n\n[285] The Living Races of Mankind, pp. 721-3.\n\n[286] Ibid.\n\n[287] In a letter to Dr. Frazer. See the Fortnightly Review, July,\n1905, p. 171.\n\n[288] The Golden Bough, p. 73, note 1. See also (as there noted)\nMission Scientifique du Cap Horn, vii., \"Anthropologie, Ethnographie,\"\npar P. Hyades et J. Deniker (Paris, 1891), pp. 253-257.\n\n[289] The Golden Bough, p. 61.\n\n[290] Ibid.\n\n[291] In the Preface to the second edition of The Golden Bough.\n\n[292] The Golden Bough, p. 61.\n\n[293] Ibid.\n\n[294] In his little book called Magic and Fetishism (Constable, 1906).\n\n[295] The Golden Bough, p. 74.\n\n[296] See Preface to the second edition of The Golden Bough.\n\n[297] In his interesting and standard work, Chinese Characteristics,\nch. xxvi.\n\n[298] Chinese Characteristics, p. 289.\n\n[299] Ibid., p. 306.\n\n[300] Chinese Characteristics, p. 291.\n\n[301] Ibid., pp. 292-3.\n\n[302] Ibid., p. 313.\n\n[303] Chinese Characteristics, pp. 294 and 295.\n\n[304] Also if she heard of General Chaffee's remarks to an American\nMethodist audience in New York not long ago. While praising the work\nof the missionaries, he told his audience that he met many of the\nmost prominent Chinamen while at Pekin, and he was obliged to say\nthat he did not meet a single intelligent Chinaman who expressed a\ndesire to embrace the Christian religion. (Reported in the Hong Kong\nDaily Press of May 9th, 1903.)\n\n[305] The classical quotation commonly seen over the door of a temple\nis: \"Worship the gods as if they were present.\"\n\n[306] Chinese Characteristics, pp. 299-300.\n\n[307] Ibid., p. 305.\n\n[308] Chinese Characteristics, p. 288.\n\n[309] See p. 78 of Anti-Nunquam.\n\n[310] See p. 164 of Science and Education Essays, by T. H. Huxley\n(Macmillan & Co.; 1895).\n\n[311] The Christian Faith in Japan, pp. 42, 43.\n\n[312] The Christian Faith in Japan, pp. 128-9.\n\n[313] See chapter ii. of Conventional Lies of our Civilisation,\nby Max Nordau.\n\n[314] Ibid.\n\n[315] P. 439 of the Proceedings of the S. P. R.\n\n[316] P. 441 of the Proceedings of the S. P. R.\n\n[317] See p. 477 of The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism, by\nA. J. Mason, D.D. (Longmans.)\n\n[318] At a men's service held in St. Mary Bredin's Church, Canterbury,\non December 4th, 1904.\n\n[319] One phase of this failure was well shown by \"Oxoniensis,\" in his\nletters which started and ended the \"Do We Believe?\" correspondence in\nthe Daily Telegraph. On the other hand, we find pronounced unbelievers\ntaking a leading part in wise reforms, and devoting their lives to\nresearches that will benefit humanity.\n\n[320] This statement is made on the authority of Darwin and of all\nour modern naturalists. The theory is established, and its important\nmessage to the human race elaborated, in such works as Darwin's Descent\nof Man (see vol. i., chap. v., \"The Development of the Intellect and\nMoral Faculties\"), Huxley's Ethical Lectures (\"Science and Morals,\"\n1886; \"Evolution and Ethics,\" the Romanes' lecture for 1893, etc.),\nClodd's Story of Creation (chap. xi., on \"Social Evolution\"), Winwood\nReade's Martyrdom of Man, and Prince Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.\n\n[321] P. 264 of Japan by the Japanese, edited by Alfred Stead.\n\n[322] Pp. 147-8 of Lafcadio Hearn's book, Kokoro.\n\n[323] In the Japan Times. Quoted by Mr. Moore in his book, The\nChristian Faith in Japan, p. 131.\n\n[324] The Christian Faith in Japan, pp. 53-4. Explanations regarding\nthe shortcomings of the Japanese in the matter of commercial morality\nwill be found in Professor Nitobe's Bushido, pp. 64-70, and also,\nas there mentioned, in Knapp, Feudal and Moral Japan, and in Ransome,\nJapan in Transition, ch. viii.\n\n[325] The Nineteenth Century and After, February, 1905, art. \"Moral\nTeaching in Japan.\" Regarding their native virtues, see Appendix.\n\n[326] The Independent Review, December, 1905, art. \"The Religions\nof Japan.\"\n\n[327] See p. 221 of Dr. Lydston's book, The Diseases of Society.\n\n[328] In his book, A Modern Utopia, p. 144. See also Appendix to\nthis work.\n\n[329] It may not be out of place to mention here that various Ethical\nSocieties in England (and her Colonies), Europe, and America are\ndoing all they can to meet the ethical needs of Agnostics, and their\nefforts deserve far greater support than they have yet received\nfrom the wealthy. For this want of sympathy there are many obvious\nreasons--reasons, fortunately, that will disappear in the near\nfuture. It will be urged that the truly pious and honest believer\nfinds prayer of the greatest help towards right conduct, while the\nunbelieving ethicist is destitute of this aid. I do not propose now\nto discuss the ethical value of prayer, or consider the causes of\nits success and failure; but I would ask the reader to refer to my\nremarks in Chapter VI. on the psychology of prayer. Personally, I\nam of opinion that the practice of auto-suggestion may prove useful\nto those in need of such assistance, and that one day (let us hope\nat no distant date) psychical research will lead to the discovery\nof a complete and scientific method for the toughening of our moral\nfibres. See also further note in the Appendix.\n\n[330] Mr. H. G. Wells furnishes us with some novel ideas on this point\nin his book, A Modern Utopia, chap. vii., \u00a7\u00a7 2-5. If we cannot prevent\ndegenerates from marrying, at least we can abolish an environment\nthat assists heredity in their production. See also Appendix.\n\n[331] See pp. 25-6 of Stanley de Brath's The Foundations of Success.\n\n[332] See Prince Kropotkin's articles in The Nineteenth Century and\nAfter (August, 1904, and March, 1905), entitled \"The Ethical Need\nof the Present Day\" and \"The Morality of Nature.\" Anyone wishing to\nknow why we must lead the moral life should not fail to read these\ninstructive articles, and also Dr. Saleeby's Evolution: The Master-Key.\n\n[333] Prince Kropotkin in The Nineteenth Century and After.\n\n[334] \"Rationalism may be defined as the mental attitude which\nunreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing\na system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience and\nindependent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority\" (from\nthe Memorandum of the Aims and Objects of the Rationalist Press\nAssociation).\n\n[335] Closing words of Professor Huxley's essay, Science and Morals.\n\n[336] Essay entitled \"An Episcopal Trilogy,\" p. 312 of Essays on\nControverted Questions (Macmillan & Co.).\n\n[337] Art. \"Why Live a Moral Life?\" in the Agnostic Annual, 1895.\n\n[338] Art. \"Why Live a Moral Life?\" in the Agnostic Annual, 1905.\n\n[339] Art. \"Why Live a Moral Life?\" in the Agnostic Annual, 1895.\n\n[340] Ibid.\n\n[341] Quoted from his Autobiography, entitled My Life: A Record of\nEvents and Opinions (Chapman & Hall).\n\n[342] Art. \"Why Live a Moral Life?\" in the Agnostic Annual, 1895.\n\n[343] Ibid.\n\n[344] P. 121 of The Story of Creation (R. P. A. Cheap Reprint).\n\n[345] The Nineteenth Century and After, August, 1904, art. \"The\nEthical Need of the Present Day.\"\n\n[346] Quoted from a little volume recently published, entitled The\nJapanese Spirit. (Constable.)\n\n[347] Cited by Mr. L. Gulick, an American missionary organiser,\nin his work on The Evolution of the Japanese.\n\n[348] Quoted from a leaflet of the Moral Instruction League. (See\nAppendix.)\n\n[349] Quoted from p. 507, Vol. II., of The History of English\nRationalism in the Nineteenth Century, by A. W. Benn (Longmans, Green,\nand Co., 1906).\n\n[350] In his masterly work, On Compromise.\n\n[351] See p. 55 of The Bible and the Child.\n\n[352] Bishop Diggle, the President of the Church Congress of 1906,\nin his opening address.\n\n[353] Ibid.\n\n[354] Recorded in The Life of Frances Power Cobbe, as Told by\nHerself. (Sonnenschein.)\n\n[355] See \u00a7 3 of the last Chapter and \u00a7 2 of the present.\n\n[356] P. 392 of The Independent Review, December, 1904.\n\n[357] Browning's Funeral, a poem by Mrs. Huxley. The last three\nlines were inscribed, at Prof. Huxley's request, upon his grave-stone\n(in St. Marylebone Cemetery, East Finchley).\n\n[358] See Chapter I., p. 30.\n\n[359] See Appendix.\n\n[360] An Agnostic's Apology, pp. 131, 133, 138, of the\nR. P. A. Reprint.\n\n[361] Spencer's Principles of Sociology, p. 98, \"The Data of\nSociology.\"\n\n[362] In his book, The Hearts of Men.\n\n[363] See art. \"Is Man by Nature Religious?\" by H. Dundas, in The\nAgnostic Annual for 1906.\n\n[364] We are speaking now, remember, of a religion such as the\nChristian faith, one involving a belief in the supernatural, and not\nof religion as Professor Huxley defined it--\"a reverence and love for\nthe ethical ideal, and the desire to realise that ideal in life.\" We\nare not speaking of a mere ethical \"binding\" between man and man,\nof a religion free from all theology, such as Comte's \"Positivism.\"\n\n[365] Quoted from pp. 169-171 of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays.\n\n[366] An Agnostic's Apology, p. 137.\n\n[367] In Chap. VII., pp. 311, 315-16, and in Chap. VIII., \u00a7 2 and \u00a7\n3 (3) and (4).\n\n[368] Quoted from p. 27 of The Agnostic Annual for 1906.\n\n[369] Canon Scott Holland, in a sermon preached in St. Paul's\nCathedral, May, 1906.\n\n[370] These are the concluding words of a lecture delivered in the\nCentral Hall, Manchester. The lecture is incorporated with others\nin a book entitled Is Christianity True? (Charles H. Kelly, 26,\nPaternoster Row, E.C.; 6d.).\n\n[371] See Appendix.\n\n[372] This view is confirmed by such standard works as Lecky's\nRise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe, Buckle's History of\nCivilisation in England, Robertson's Short History of Freethought,\nand Benn's History of Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century.\n\n[373] Quoted from a sermon preached by the Rev. Charles Voysey at\nthe Theistic Church, October 22nd, 1905. See also Appendix.\n\n[374] See Gibbon's Rome, p. 257, vol. ii. (ed. 1809).\n\n[375] This warning was pronounced by Canon Henson on November 16th,\n1905, when commenting, in St. Paul's Cathedral, upon the Russian\natrocities.\n\n[376] P. 352, Vol. I., of his History of Civilisation in England\n(Longmans, Green, & Co.; 1891).\n\n[377] See also Chap. VII., p. 281, note.\n\n[378] On Sunday, April 13th, 1890.\n\n[379] At a gala banquet at Dresden, October 25th, 1905.\n\n[380] Taken from the emperor's speech at the opening of the Reichstag,\nNovember 28th, 1905. N.B.--Christian nations distrust one another's\nrighteousness even when the State and the Church are united and the\nrulers are defenders of the Faith. It may be noted also that at the\nswearing-in of the recruits of the Potsdam garrison on November 14th,\n1905, they were told to make the Crucifix their Generalissimo!\n\n[381] In his book, The Peace of the Anglo-Saxons, with an Introduction\nby Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, K.G. (Watts & Co.) Observations\nsuggested by this warning will be found in the Appendix.\n\n[382] Apart from the extra burden on the workers, does the Church,\nI wonder, ever thoroughly realise the inevitable effect on public\nmorality of keeping a large body of men from living a normal domestic\nlife? Does she realise that diseases hurtful to the race are more\nprevalent than ever, and that nowadays prostitution has spread from\nthe garrison towns to the villages? Does she realise that her \"purity\"\ncampaigns fail to strike at the root of the evil?\n\n[383] Held in Lucerne on September 19th-23rd, 1905.\n\n[384] See Appendix.\n\n[385] See Mr. (now the Right Hon.) Augustine Birrell's suggestive\narticle, \"Patriotism and Christianity,\" in the Contemporary Review,\nFebruary, 1905.\n\n[386] The Tsar is probably sincere in his professions, and is the\nhelpless tool of his advisers. Can we make the same excuse for another\npotentate--for him of the \"mailed fist\"?\n\n[387] See Appendix.\n\n[388] Butler, Analogy, pt. ii., 3.\n\n[389] In Literature and Dogma. See p. 21 of the R. P. A. Reprint.\n\n[390] See p. 183 of The Hibbert Journal, October, 1905.\n\n[391] Compounds of cyanogen have a close resemblance to living\nmatter. As cyanogen is only produced at an intense heat, it is\nsurmised that the living substance may have been produced once and\nfor all when the earth was incandescent.\n\n[392] P. 387 of The Independent Review, December, 1904.\n\n[393] To those willing to be instructed I suggest a perusal of Doane's\nBible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions (New York: The\nCommonwealth Company), where they will find some intensely interesting\ninformation which has been laboriously gathered from innumerable\nvolumes, ancient and modern. The few inaccuracies occurring in it\nare of a trivial nature; besides, as the author invariably quotes his\nauthorities, his statements can be verified and the trustworthiness\nof his authority for them ascertained. I may add that I found this\nwork of considerable assistance at the commencement of my study of\nComparative Mythology.","title":"The Churches and Modern Thought: An inquiry into the grounds of unbelief and an appeal for candour","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":126932}