A Letter to the "_Suffolk Chronicle_," January 8, 1893.
Sir,--A friend has favored me with a copy of your last issue, containing
a long report of the Rev. W. E. Blomfield's sermon at Turret Green
Chapel, apparently in reply to my lecture on "Secularism superior to
Christianity." Mr. Blomfield declines to meet me in set debate, on the
ground that I am not "a _reverent_ Freethinker," which is indeed true;
but I observe that he does not really mind arguing with me, only he
prefers to do it where I cannot answer him.
Mr. Blomfield finds the pulpit a safe place for what can hardly be
called the courtesies of discussion. He refers to certain remarks
of mine (I presume) as "petty jokes and witticisms fit only for the
tap-room of a fourth-rate tavern." I will not dispute the description.
I defer to Mr. Blomfield's superior knowledge of taverns and tap-rooms.
I notice Mr. Blomfield's great parade of "reverence." I notice also
that he speaks of Freethought arguments or objections as "short-sighted
folly" and "sheer nonsense." I judge, therefore, that "reverence" is not
intended by Mr. Blomfield to be reciprocal. He claims a monopoly of it
for his own opinions.
If he would only take the trouble to think about the matter, it might
occur to him that "reverence" is not, properly speaking, a preliminary
but a result. Let us have inquiry and discussion first and "reverence"
afterwards. If I find anything to revere I shall not need Mr.
Blomfield's admonitions. I revere truth, goodness, and heroism, though I
cannot revere what I regard as false or absurd. "Reverence" is often the
demand that imposture makes on honesty and superstition on intelligence.
Long faces are highly valued by the professors of mystery.
Mr. Blomfield did not hear my lecture. Had he done so he would have
found an answer to many of his questions. It is all very well to bid the
Ipswich people to "Beware of false prophets," but it is better to hear
before condemning.
How much attention, Mr. Blomfield asks, am I to give to this world and
how much to another? Just as much as they deserve. We know a great deal
about this world, and may learn more. There are plenty of guesses about
another world, but no knowledge. It is easy to ask "Is there a future
life?" but we must die to find out. Meanwhile this life confronts us,
with its hard duties and legitimate pleasures. It is our wisdom to make
the best of it, on the rational belief that, if there should be a future
life--which no one is in a position to affirm or deny--this must be the
best preparation for it, whether our future be decided by evolution or
divine justice.
Mr. Blomfield's arguments against Utility as the test of conduct
were answered in my lecture. He says the principle is of difficult
application. So are all principles in intricate cases; why else have
Christian divines written so many tons of casuistry? In any case the
Utilitarian principle is the only one which is honored in practice.
Other principles do very well on Sunday, but they are cast aside on
Monday. The only question asked by statesmen, county councillors, School
Board members, or other public representatives, is "Will the proposal
tend to benefit the people?" This can be debated and settled. "Is it
according to the will of God?" is a question to set people by the ears
and raise an endless quarrel.
Mr. Blomfield says the fear of God saved poor Joseph, yet I dare say
Potiphar's wife was a religious woman. The will of God sanctions many
crimes. It tells the Thug to kill travellers; it told the Inquisition to
torture and burn heretics; it told the Catholics and Protestants to rack
and slaughter witches; it told Christians and Mohammedans to fight each
other on hundreds of bloody battle-fields; it tells Christians now to
keep up laws against liberty of thought. There never was a time when
these things would not have been denounced by Secularism as crimes
against humanity.
Motives to morality do not come from religion. They come from our
social sympathies. Preach to a tiger and he will eat you. Differ from a
Torquemada and he will burn you. When one man wants another to help him,
he does not judge by the name of his sect, but by the glance of his eye
and the lines of his mouth. Some men are born philanthropists, others
are born criminals; between these are multitudes in whom good and bad
tendencies are variously mixed, and who may be made better or worse by
education and environment. The late Professor Clifford was an Atheist,
and one of the gentlest, kindest, and tenderest men that ever lived. Jay
Gould was a member of a Christian church and sometimes went round with
the plate. He left twenty millions of money, and not a penny to any
charity or good cause. Lick, the Freethinker, built and endowed the
great observatory which is one of the glories of America.
I do not propose to follow Mr. Blomfield in his excursion into ancient
history. I will only remark that if he thinks there was any lack
of "religion" in the worst days of the Pagan world he is very much
mistaken. Coming to more modern times, I decline to accept his present
of priests and popes who were "atheistic." Whatever they were is a
domestic question for the Christian Church. Nor need I discuss
Luther's "fresh vision of God." He was a great man, but a savage
controversialist, who called his opponents asses, swine, foxes, geese,
and fools; which, I suppose, is worthy of the tap-room of a _first-rate_
tavern. As to the "awful collapse" of "unbelieving France" I do not
know when it occurred. It was certainly not France that collapsed in the
Revolution. The monarchy, the aristocracy, and the Church collapsed; but
France inaugurated a new epoch of modern history.
With respect to prayer, on which Mr. Blomfield is very hazy, I would
like to discriminate between its "objective value" and its "subjective
benefits." Prayer as a means of inducing patience when you do not get
what you ask for, is outside my province. I leave it to the clergy.
Prayer as a means of obtaining what you require is my concern, and I
defy Mr. Blomfield to prove a single case. Yet if prayer is not answered
objectively, the Secular principle holds the field that science is man's
only providence. I am aware that Christians employ doctors, insure their
houses, and put lightning-conductors over their church steeples. They
leave as little to God as possible. Mr. Blomfield says this is quite
right, and I agree with him; but I will give him, if he cannot find
them, twenty texts in support of the honest old doctrine of prayer from
the New Testament.
Mr. Blomfield tells me I do not understand the Bible. Well, as I am
not exactly a fool, the fault may be in the book. Why was it not made
plainer? Why did God write it so that thousands of gentlemen get a fine
living by explaining it--in all sorts of different ways? I am reminded
that the Bible is not a handbook of physical science. But did the Church
think so when it imprisoned Galileo and made him swear that the earth
did _not_ go round the sun? Mr. Blomfield says that "Genesis gives an
account of the origin of matter, and of life, and, finally, of man,
which science has not disproved, on the admission of her most eminent
sons." The Bible is a handbook of science after all then! But what has
science to do with the origin of matter? The origin of life is still
an open question. The origin of man is _not_ an open question. Genesis
gives us a piece of mythology; Darwin gave us the truth. Among the
eminent sons of science who is greater than he? Yet he has utterly
exploded the Adam and Eve story. Darwin has left it on record that he
rejected all revelation, and that for nearly forty years of his life
he was a disbeliever in Christianity. He did subscribe to a Missionary
Society that was attempting to reform South American savages, but he
never subscribed a penny for the propagation of Christianity in England.
I myself might think Christianity good for savages.
If I understand Mr. Blomfield rightly, God was unable to teach the Jews
any faster than he did, although he is both omnipotent and omniscient.
Were I to imitate Mr. Blomfield I should call this "sheer nonsense."
In my lecture I stated that the Old Testament sanctioned slavery, and
that there was not a word against it in the New Testament. Mr. Blomfield
replies that "the principles of the New Testament sapped the foundations
of that system." But let us deal with one question at a time. Let the
reverend gentleman indicate the text which I say does not exist. As for
the "generous spirit" of the Old Testament laws about slavery, am I to
find it in the texts allowing the Jews to buy and sell the heathen,
to enslave their own countrymen, to appropriate their children born in
slavery, and to beat them to death providing they did not expire within
forty-eight hours?
My point is not that the Jews held slaves. That was common in ancient
times. I merely take objection to the doctrine that God laid down the
slavery laws of the Old Testament.
With regard to Jesus Christ, I am not aware that I have spoken of him
as a "trickster." Kenan, however, whom Mr. Blomfield appears to admire,
suggests that the raising of Lazarus was a performance arranged between
him and Jesus. This is a line of criticism I have never attempted. I do
not regard the New Testament miracles as actual occurrences, but as the
products of Christian imagination.
Mr. Blomfield is angry with me for saying that the books of the Bible
are mostly anonymous, yet he declares that "their anonymity is little
against them." I leave Mr. Blomfield to settle the point of fact with
Christian writers like Canon Driver and Professor Bruce. With respect to
the New Testament, I am told that my statement is "palpably incorrect."
But what are the facts? With the exception of four of Paul's epistles,
and perhaps the first of Peter, the whole of the New Testament books are
anonymous, in the sense that they were not written--as we have them--by
the men whose names they bear, and that no one knows who _did_ write
them. This is practically admitted by Christian scholars, and I am ready
to maintain it in discussion with Mr. Blomfield.
Mr. Blomfield talks very freely, in conclusion, about the "fruits"
of Christianity and Secularism. He even condescends to personal
comparisons, which I warn him are dangerous. He compares Spurgeon with
Bradlaugh. Well, the one swam with the stream, and the other against it;
the one lived in the world's smile, the other in the world's frown;
the one enjoyed every comfort and many luxuries, the other was poor,
worried, and harassed into his grave. Spurgeon was no doubt a good man,
but Bradlaugh was the more heroic figure.
Jesus Christ said some good things. Among them was the injunction not to
let one hand know the other's charity. Mr. Blomfield disregards this. He
challenges Secularists to a comparison. He asks where are our Secularist
hospitals. We do not believe in such things. Sectarianism in charity is
a Christian vice. On the other hand, our party is comparatively
small and poor, and Christian laws prevent our holding any trusts for
Secularism. Still, we do attend to our own poor as well as we can.
Our Benevolent Fund is sufficient for the relief of those who apply in
distress. We cannot build "almshouses," but "Atheist widows" are not
neglected. On the whole, however, we are not so loud as the Christians
in praise of "charity," Much of it is very degrading. If we had justice
in society there would be less for "charity" to do.
It is obvious that Mr. Blomfield picks his fruits of Christianity
with great discrimination. Is it logical to select all you admire in
Christian countries and attribute it to Christianity? The same process
would prove the excellence of Buddhism, Brahminism, and Mohammedanism.
There are almshouses and hospitals in Chrisendom, but there are
also workhouses, gin-palaces, brothels, and prisons. Drunkenness,
prostitution, and gambling, are the special vices of Christian nations.
It is Christian countries that build ironclads and make cannon, gatling
guns, deadly rifles, and terrible explosives. It is Christians who do
most of the fighting on this planet.
Mr. Blomfield may or may not consider these things. I scarcely expect
him to reply. He prefers the "humble, obedient heart" to the "curious
intellect." At any rate he preaches the preference to the young men of
Ipswich. For my part, I hope they will reject the counsel. I trust they
will read, inquire, and think for themselves. Their "intellect" should
have enough "curiosity" to be satisfied as to the truth of what they are
asked to believe.