THE PERMANENCE OF DOGMATIC RELIGION.
In the course of our inquiry, one fact has been made strikingly
manifest, namely, the persistence of religious ideas. We found that
Christianity at its beginning was only the result of a tendency long
latent in Judaism, that its doctrines were wholly Jewish while its
adherents were chiefly Jews, and that afterwards, when Pagans in large
numbers entered the Church, they carried with them and made Christian
the principles of their Pagan religions. Similarly we saw that no new
religion was created by the Reformation, that it was merely an instance
of reversion, of the falling back of part of Christianity to an older
type. In fact, from our study of this subject, we might conclude that
religious ideas are practically indestructible, or, at least, that they
can only be modified by gradual processes working during long periods
of time.
This conclusion would be unquestionably correct, and it especially
needs to be insisted on at the present moment. A conviction is general
among enlightened men that we are on the threshold of a great religious
revolution, which is to be effected by the speedy destruction of
Christianity and the consequent abolition of supernatural religion.
There seems to be some reason for this belief. Within the last
half-century Christianity has declined considerably. Thought and
culture have broken loose from it. Fifty years ago the vast majority
of the men of letters and science of Europe professed some form of it;
now only a small minority do so, and even this minority is steadily
growing smaller. We might predict with almost absolute certainty that
fifty years hence hardly a single believer in dogmatic Christianity
will be found among the leading men of European literature and science.
Christianity is dying at the top.
There is a certain resemblance between this state of things and the
condition of the Roman world at the time Christianity was beginning to
conquer it. Pagan religions then were dying at the top. Philosophers
despised them and wits laughed at them; the thought of the age was
as completely agnostic as the thought of our own day is tending to
become. A thinker, studying the phenomena of the period, might then
have reasonably concluded that supernatural religion was destined
speedily to perish, that, as men of learning had abandoned it, after
a short time their views would spread downwards, and be adopted by
all classes of the people. How exquisitely this conclusion would
have been exposed by the irony of history! Ten centuries later the
religious ideas then current among the populace were common to every
class, and the descendants and representatives of the philosophers who
rejected super-naturalism were employing their philosophical powers
in determining exactly the nature of angels. Perhaps the future is
preparing a similar exposure for the philosophers of our own day, who
are confident that supernatural religion will soon be a curiosity of
the past. A few centuries hence, if esoteric Buddhism shall take the
place of Christianity, perhaps philosophy will be engaged in explaining
the meaning of “karma,” and science will be occupied in ascertaining
the exact nature of an astral body.
Supernaturalism has just as much vitality now as it had a century
after Christ. Even if within the next few hundred years Christianity
were to become wholly extinct, the ideas underlying it would simply
be transferred to some other form of dogmatic religion. The decline
of Christianity now, like the decline of the Paganism of the Roman
empire, so far as it is real, is the prelude to the formation of new
religions. If the support to which the religious ideas of a generation
have attached themselves is overthrown, they soon find another system
to sustain them. The fall of an old religion is the signal for the rise
of a new.
Signs of this transfer of religious allegiance are distinctly visible
at present. There is the same mixture of credulity and scepticism
now that there was in the first century of the Christian era. We,
too, have a philosophical class intensely sceptical, but we also
have a class of people who are eager votaries of new religions and
excessively credulous. The credulity of the many is the consequence of
the scepticism of the few, and is the mark of religious change. It now
characterizes those whose faith in Christianity is shaken, but in whom
religious ideas are as strong as ever.
The religious ideas now embodied in Christianity and stamped
on the general mass of mankind come under the head of dogmatic
supernaturalism; they are most of them concerned with God, personal
immortality, heaven, and hell. This dogmatic supernaturalism began
with the earliest illusions which created religion thousands of years
ago. Since then, with every step of his upward progress, man has been
more and more the slave of religious dogma. The higher religions of
historical times have multiplied assertions about unknown phenomena;
Christianity, the highest of religions, has done so most of all. Having
inherited, then, this vast inheritance of belief in supernatural
dogma, which began to accumulate in the remotest ages, and has since
been enlarged and made sure by the great religion which for fifteen
hundred years has been identified with the main civilization of the
world, how can men of our own day lightly shake off supernaturalism!
A few here and there, as variations from the general type necessarily
limited in number, may manage to put it aside after a severe contest
with the irrational instincts which they have inherited. But so far as
the mass of mankind are concerned, ages must elapse before the work of
ages can be undone.
Just as in the first century the disbelief of philosophers had
discredited the Pagan religions, so now the disbelief of men of
thought is discrediting Christianity. And as a certain class of Pagans
then turned from the discredited religions to find another basis for
their religious ideas, so now a certain class of people are seeking
a basis for their religious ideas apparently surer than discredited
Christianity. There is a difference of degree between the two periods;
Christianity is not yet as much discredited as the Pagan religions
were when it attacked them. We have not yet reached the condition of
the time when the mysteries were the last props of Paganism, and the
importation of foreign religions was one of the recognized industries
of Rome. But the seeds of the development of such phenomena are
plainly visible. Spiritualism and the Psychical Research Society are
the rudiments of Christian mysteries, and certainly attempts on a small
scale are being made to import religions into London from Syria and
India.
Here in England between the large class of those who still believe in
Christianity and the small class of those who put the supernatural
wholly aside lies the class, continually increasing in numbers, of
those who have lost faith in Christianity, but have not lost faith in
the ideas which form the essence of it. Books like “Esoteric Buddhism”
and Mr. Laurance Oliphant’s “Sympneumata” are written for and by
members of this class. The absurd weakness of such attempts to give the
supernatural a natural basis does not in the least detract from their
popular power.
Life is full of inevitable illusions, and only a few are in a position
to detect their illusive character. In regard to these illusions,
the belief of the great majority of mankind must be determined by
authority; they can only choose between alternative authorities. And
their choice cannot rest on strong grounds of personal conviction. The
class of people just mentioned, for instance, who have lost faith in
Christianity, for the most part could give but poor reasons for their
refusal to accept its dogmas. They simply feel that it is discredited,
and they do not like to be on the losing side. Any system which
embodies their religious ideas, and does not appear to be discredited,
they will believe in readily, even though it has not a particle of
evidence to support it.
Moreover, when men in general have to choose between authorities whose
real weight they are not in a position to determine, their wishes
naturally affect their choice. If one alternative is pleasanter than
the other, they are sure to decide in its favour. Take, for instance,
the belief in personal immortality. This rests on an illusion which
can be seen through only by the exercise of a certain amount of
philosophical imagination, namely, the impossibility of conceiving its
own extinction inherent in the mind’s consciousness of life. As every
one wishes to be immortal, that is, shrinks from the return to his
pre-natal non-existence; and as nearly every one, besides, has lost
some loved relative or friend whose death he cannot bear to think of as
a final effacement, most people are quite ready to accept this illusion
as valid evidence of the truth of the belief. Thus a religious system
which asserts the immortality of the soul so far has mankind on its
side. And the long influence of Christianity, which from the beginning
has been built on the doctrine of personal immortality, has of course
co-operated with its primary attractiveness in stamping it deeply on
the nature of men of our times. Life seems unbearable to many people
unless it is assumed to be true. It is a prominent feature of all our
new religious growths. The Psychical Research Society seeks to confirm
it by the evidence of ghost-stories. Many generations will have to pass
away before mankind in general can renounce it, and till then, if only
to supply it with an apparent basis, dogmatic religion must survive.
If the decline of Christianity continues with the rapidity of the
last half-century, a perilous crisis lies before the population of
the civilized world. Old religious ideas seeking a new basis will
produce new upheavals of religious imagination, and a period of intense
superstition will ensue. Whatever might result from such a period, in
itself it could be nothing but evil, a time of darkness and disquiet,
of relaxed morality and charlatan prophets. Fortunately the fall of
Christianity is not likely to be so rapid in the future; the great mass
of mankind may cling to it long after it has parted from the world’s
intellectual life.
The religion of the future certainly will not be the curious system of
Comte. Positivism is only a philosophy masquerading in the garb of a
religion. Its fundamental principle is hopelessly at variance with the
craving for supernatural dogma which has possession of ordinary men.
Equally, of course, a refined Christianity, with the juice of dogma
squeezed out, cannot become the religion of mankind. Religious ideas
need a dogmatic system, and in some form or other their need is sure to
be supplied.
Indeed, it is probable that dogmatic religion will always be a
phenomenon of human life. Man framed it in the beginning, and man is
likely to preserve it to the end. The conditions of existence secure
it an assured tenure. The actual business of living must occupy all
the thoughts of the vast majority of men. In regard to the matters
which lie beyond this they can only walk by faith, and the illusions of
life furnish ample material for faith to work on. A few may have the
leisure to examine phenomena themselves, and thus may attain freedom
from the influence of illusion, and may see things as they really are.
But they can never be more than an infinitesimal minority. And so, from
generation to generation, with the shadows of their hopes and fears,
their loves and hates, men will people the impenetrable darkness which
closes around the mystery of life.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Against Apion, ii. 40.
[2] See Kuenen’s “Religion of Israel,” i. 226 (Eng. trans.).
[3] See Gen. xxxi. 53; Josh. xxiv. 15; Judges xi. 24; cf. Exod. xv. 11.
[4] Ezekiel (xx. 8) says they were corrupted by the Egyptian religion,
but this is very improbable.
[5] “Religion of Israel,” i. 281 (Eng. trans.).
[6] See Curtius, “Hist. of Greece,” bk. ii. ch. 4.
[7] Acts vii. 22.
[8] See an article by Professor Huxley, _Nineteenth Century_, April,
1886, p. 498.
[9] See, in particular, Lev. vi. 1–7.
[10] Jer. vii. 22; Amos v. 25.
[11] Isa. i. 11; lxvi. 1–4; Hos. vi. 6; Micah vi. 6–8.
[12] Isa. xlv. 12.
[13] Exod. xix. 5, 6; Lev. xxvi. For correlative covenant, see Gen.
xxviii. 20, 21.
[14] “Religion of Israel,” ii. 267 (Eng. trans.).
[15] Lev. v. 11, 12.
[16] Ibid. xvi. 21, 22.
[17] Heb. ix. 22.
[18] 1 Sam. viii. 7.
[19] Josh. xxiv. 15.
[20] Judg. x. 6.
[21] Jer. ii. 28.
[22] See Kuenen, “Religion of Israel,” i. 360 (Eng. trans.).
[23] Isa. i. 11.
[24] Isa. xli. 8.
[25] See Exod. xix. 5, 6.
[26] Isa. lix. 1, 2.
[27] See Isa. xlviii. 18, 19.
[28] For an endeavour to secure future obedience to the covenant,
see 2 Kings xi. 17. From this idea that all Israel’s calamities were
due to the violation of a divine covenant, probably arose the Jewish
explanation of the “origin of evil.” Calamities in general falling on
mankind they would naturally ascribe to the same cause, namely, the
disregard of the commands of God. Hence the story of the fall of man as
we have it in the opening chapters of Genesis.
[29] Jer. xliv. 15–19.
[30] Isa. xxx., xxxi.
[31] 2 Kings xxiii. 29.
[32] For the influence of the captivity on Judaism, see Ewald, “Hist.
of Israel,” v. 24, _seq._ (Eng. trans.), and Kuenen, “Religion of
Israel,” ii. 139 (Eng. trans.).
[33] “History of Israel,” ii. 35 (Eng. trans.).
[34] Jer. xiv. 19–22.
[35] See Ezekiel xxxvii. 24, 25; and cf. Micah v. 2–9. Bethlehem, as
David’s birthplace, was to be the birthplace of David the Messiah.
[36] _Ibid._
[37] Jer. xxxi. 31–34.
[38] Amos iii. 2.
[39] Isa. ii. 2–4; xi. 9, 10.
[40] Ibid. lx. 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18.
[41] Ibid. lxi. 5, 6.
[42] Jer. xvi. 19.
[43] Micah vi. 6–8.
[44] Isa. lxvi. 1–4.
[45] See Kuenen, “Religion of Israel,” iii. 276 (Eng. trans.).
[46] Isa. lxvi. 18–23.
[47] Isa. lii. 14.
[48] See Tobit iii. 8. How different from Isa. xlv. 6, 7.
[49] 2 Macc. xii. 43–45.
[50] See 1 Macc. xiv. 41.
[51] See Ewald, “Hist. of Israel,” v. 360, _seq._ (Eng. trans.), and
Kuenen, “Religion of Israel,” iii. 277 (Eng. trans.).
[52] See Milman, “Hist. of Christianity,” i. 82.
[53] “Religion of Israel,” iii. 273 (Eng. trans.).
[54] Dan. vii. 13, 14.
[55] See Strauss, “New Life of Jesus,” sects. 38, 39.
[56] See Strauss, “New Life of Jesus,” sect. 36.
[57] See Matt. xxvi. 26–28, and Mark xiv. 22–24; Luke xxii. 19, 20, and
1 Cor. xi. 23–25; cf. 1 Cor. x. 16.
[58] See Exod. xii. 3–30.
[59] Isa. liii. 10, 12.
[60] 1 Cor. x. 16.
[61] Rom. iii. 24, 25; v. 6–11; viii. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; cf. 1
Pet. ii. 24.
[62] 2 Cor. v. 19.
[63] Isa. lxv. 17; cf. Rev. xxi. 1.
[64] See Milman, “History of Christianity,” i. 378.
[65] 1 Thess. v. 1–10.
[66] Rom. xi. 25–27.
[67] 1 Cor. xv.
[68] Rev. xx., xxi.; cf. 2 Esdras vii. 28–33.
[69] Rom. v., vi.
[70] Acts xvii. 18.
[71] 1 Cor. xv. 1–20.
[72] See Strauss, “New Life of Jesus,” section 49.
[73] See Strauss, “New Life of Jesus,” section 98; 1 Cor. xv. 5–8.
[74] Rom. i. 3, 4.
[75] 1 Cor. xv. 45–49; Rom. viii. 16, 17.
[76] Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4, 5.
[77] See Baur, “Church History,” part iv., and “Life of Paul,” part
iii., chaps. vi. and viii.
[78] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[79] Of course no importance can be attached to the “God blessed for
ever” of Rom. ix. 5, which either, as is generally thought, does
not refer to Christ at all, or, if it does, is obviously a late
interpolation suggested to the copyist by Rom. 1. 25.
[80] See Renan, “Les Apôtres,” chap. xvi.
[81] “History of Rationalism,” ii. 203.
[82] See Kuenen, “Religion of Israel,” iii. 271 ($1–$2.).
[83] Against Apion, ii. 17.
[84] “History of Christianity,” i. 94, note.
[85] Matt. 1. 23.
[86] See Strauss, “New Life of Jesus,” section 98.
[87] 1 Cor. xv. 4.
[88] Hos. vi. 2. It may also have been founded on the accepted date of
the earliest vision.
[89] Prov. viii. 22–30.
[90] Ps. xxxiii. 6.
[91] There can be little doubt that δ λὁγοςδ in Philo means the word
rather than the reason of God. He evidently used the term as a Jew,
with the language of Genesis in his mind. This language itself is
an interesting product of eastern anthropomorphism, which naturally
conceived God as working like a despot by simply issuing his commands.
[92] Quis ... Heres, 42.
[93] “Religion of Israel,” iii. 202 (Eng. trans.).
[94] The gospel being written in order to satisfy a need of the Church,
it is obvious that this need would ensure its immediate acceptance.
The Church was not likely to question the genuineness of a document
which contained exactly what it required. So we may safely assign the
composition of the gospel a date immediately preceding that of the
first trustworthy evidence of its existence.
[95] John i. 1, 3.
[96] Ibid. i. 14.
[97] 1 Pet. ii. 22–24.
[98] Rom. viii. 26, 27.
[99] Exod. xxiii. 20–23.
[100] Isa. lxiii. 9, 10; Haggai ii. 5; cf. Neh. ix. 20. It was probably
with reference to the storm as the most destructive phenomenon
of nature that the name “breath of God” was given to the angel
commissioned by him to destroy the enemies of his people.
[101] Milman, “History of Christianity,” i. 352.
[102] “Essence of Christianity,” chap. xv.
[103] See Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History,” bk. vi. chap. 37.
[104] 1 Cor. xi. 29.
[105] The origin of this doctrine must not be confused with the
scholastic defence of it.
[106] “Essence of Christianity,” chap. vi.
[107] Before the beginning of this period, Christianity was inspired
chiefly by the hope of gaining heaven; since the beginning of it,
Christianity has been inspired chiefly by the hope of escaping hell.
[108] “The Origin and Development of Religious Belief,” ii. 307 _seq._
[109] “The Origin and Development of Religious Belief,” vol. ii. ch. 7.
[110] See Liddon’s “Bampton Lectures,” p. 259 _seq._, 7th edit.
THE END.
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.