THE CHURCHES AND MODERN THOUGHT
AN INQUIRY INTO THE GROUNDS OF
UNBELIEF AND AN APPEAL FOR CANDOUR
BY
PHILIP VIVIAN
"Men are never so likely to settle a question
rightly as when they discuss it freely."
--Macaulay.
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET. E.C.
1911
TO
MY WIFE AND CHILDREN
CONTENTS
Preface to First Edition
Preface to Second Edition
Preface to Third Edition
Chapter I.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESENT SITUATION
§ 1. The Truth of the Matter
§ 2. The Attitude of the Laity
§ 3. Christianity and Science not Reconciled
§ 4. The Genesis and Character of the New Outburst
§ 5. Apologetics "Found Wanting"
§ 6. More Things Which Confuse the Issue
Chapter II.
THE EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF APOLOGETICS WITH REGARD TO MIRACLES
§ 1. Preliminary Remarks
The View of Science
Why Have Miracles Ceased?
Belief in Miracles Essential
§ 2. Miracle Apologetics
§ 3. The Fundamental Miracles
The Resurrection
The Ascension
The Incarnation
Concluding Remarks
Chapter III.
THE DESTRUCTIVE CHARACTER OF MODERN BIBLE CRITICISM
§ 1. Clashing Views on Bible Criticism
§ 2. A Summary of the Results of Bible Criticism
§ 3. By Whom the "Higher Criticism" is Accepted
§ 4. Admissions by Orthodox Apologists
§ 5. Some Remaining Difficulties
We Must Accept the Whole or Reject the Whole
Silence of Historians
Thoughts on "Tradition" As God's Method for The Transmission
of Truth To Posterity
The Alleged Sinlessness of Jesus Christ
The Ignorance of Jesus Christ
Chapter IV.
THE GRAVE SUSPICIONS AROUSED BY THE STUDY OF ANCIENT BELIEFS
§ 1. The New Theological Theory of a Progressive Revelation
§ 2. Parallels in Ancient Religions, and Some Remarks
Upon Them
Krishna and Buddha
Parallels Other Than Krishna and Buddha
Are the Krishna and Buddha Legends Borrowed from Christianity?
§ 3. Parallels in the Beliefs of Primitive Man, And Some Remarks
Upon Them
The Religions of Ancient America
Vegetation Gods
Why Men Eat Their God
§ 4. The Solar Myth
Jonah and the Whale
Anticipations of Christianity in Solar Myths
The Christian Theory Ignored by Science
The Sun As a Symbol
§ 5. Concluding Remarks on Christian and Anti-Christian Theories
Argument from Essenism
Argument from Mithraism
Chapter V.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH EVOLUTION
§ 1. Preliminary Remarks
The Doctrine of Evolution
Darwinism
The Average Person's Ideas on the Evolution of Man
The Attitude of the Church
§ 2. "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw"
§ 3. The Bible Account of Creation Irreconcilable with Science
in Each and Every Respect
§ 4. Proofs of our Animal Origin
The Extraordinary Affinity of Bodily Structure
The Revelations of Embryology
The Tale Told by the Useless Rudimentary Organs
§ 5. The Overthrow of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin
The Importance of the Question
An Instructive Criticism
The Bishop of Worcester's Theory
The Archdeacon of Manchester's Theory
The Rationalist's Theory
Conclusions
Chapter VI.
THE FAILURE OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
§ 1. Preliminary Remarks
Theism, and Who Are Theists
§ 2. The Existence of a First Cause--An Uncaused Cause
§ 3. The First Cause an Intelligence
Design and Directivity
Directivity
Design
Differences of Opinion Among Theistic Apologists
§ 4. The First Cause a Beneficent Intelligence
A Personal God
Divine Immanence in Nature
A Fact in History
The Past and Present Position of the Ethical Argument
Evil for which Man is not Held Responsible
Evil for which Man is Held Responsible
Conscience
Free-will
§ 5. Religious Experience
Mysticism and Conversion
The Psychology of Prayer
The Religious (?) Experiences of Intoxication
Music and the Emotions
Sexual Love
Revivalism
§ 6. The Inevitable Conclusion
Note on Religion and Philosophy
Chapter VII.
FALLACIES IN POPULAR ARGUMENTS
§ 1. Preliminary Remarks--The Power of Christianity for Good
§ 2. Christianity Woman's Best Friend
§ 3. The Overthrow of Christianity Would Endanger Society and
the Nation
§ 4. The Spread of Christianity a Proof of its Truth
§ 5. The Noble Army of Martyrs
§ 6. The Universality of the Religious Instinct
The Hypothesis Stated
The Rationalist's Contention
The Apologist's Views concerning Superstition and the Religious
Instinct
Beliefs of Savage Man
Magic and Religion
Religion in Modern China
Apostates in Christendom
Religion in Modern Japan
Classical History
Note on Human Sentiment as to a Future Life
Chapter VIII.
CONCLUSION
§ 1. A Summary
§ 2. Why Lead a Moral Life?
Preliminary Remarks
The Necessity for Morality
Uselessness of Vague Threats
The Need for an Early Education in Ethical Principles
The Object-Lesson Furnished by the Japanese
Criminality
Our Aids
The Importance of a Knowledge of the Origin of Morality
Opinions of Ethicists
Note on Systematic Moral Instruction
§ 3. Should the Truth be Told?
(a) "Magna est veritas et prævalebit"
(b) Obscurantism has had its Day
(c) The Effect on Morality
(d) The Real Danger
(e) The Consolations of Belief, and the Distress we may Cause
by our Candour
(f) Can we Alter People's Beliefs?
(g) Can Beliefs be Useful though False?
(h) Is a New Religion Required?
(i) Why be so Impatient of Error?
§ 4. The Outlook
§ 5. Concluding Remarks
Appendix
Index
An edition of this book is issued in cloth
at 1s. 6d. net, and another on superior
paper, gilt lettered, at 3s. 6d. net.
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
What does a man seek when he examines his religious creed? To this
question Canon Liddon replies as follows:--"He seeks intellectual
satisfaction and moral support. His intellect asks for reliable
information upon certain subjects of the most momentous importance. How
does he come here? Whither is he going? What is the purpose and drift
of the various forms of existence around him? Above all, what is
the nature, what are the attributes and dispositions, of that Being
to whom the highest yearnings of his inmost self constantly point
as the true object of his existence? In asking that the answers to
these questions shall be definite, that what is certain shall be
affirmed as certain, what is doubtful as doubtful, what is false as
false, he is only asking that his religious information shall be
presented in as clear and practical a shape as his information on
other subjects. In no department of human knowledge is haziness deemed
a merit; by nothing is an educated mind more distinguished than by a
resolute effort to mark the exact frontiers of its knowledge and its
ignorance; to hesitate only when hesitation is necessary; to despair
of knowledge only when knowledge is ascertainably out of reach. Surely
on the highest and most momentous of all subjects this same precision
may be asked for with reverence and in reason; surely the human mind
is not bound to forget its noblest instincts when it approaches the
throne and presence of its Maker?" (Some Elements of Religion, p. 24).
Again, in his New Year's message for 1905, the Archbishop of Canterbury
condemns indifference to truth as a vice, and "drifting along the
current of popular opinion" as a sin. He invites and persuades us to
use "the sadly-neglected powers and privileges of rational thought
and common sense."
The duty of thinking, therefore, is now recognised by the Church--it
was not formerly. But what will be the result of this thinking? In
his book, The Hearts of Men, Mr. Fielding tells us that "no man has
ever sat down calmly unbiassed to reason out his religion, and not
ended by rejecting it." Mr. Fielding adds: "The great men, who have
been always religious, do not invalidate what I say.... There is no
assumption more fallacious than that, because a man is a keen reasoner
on one subject, he is also on another. Men who are strictly religious,
who believe in their faith, whatever their faith may be, consider it
above proof, beyond argument.... It is emotion, not reason; feeling,
not induction." (The Hearts of Men, pp. 142-3.)
Does not this deep and sympathetic writer furnish us with a true
picture of men's hearts? What if, after exercising their privileges
of rational thought and common sense, the majority of men find that
Christianity no longer gives them either intellectual satisfaction
or moral support? What if they finally arrive at the conclusion that
Christianity and all supernatural beliefs are but the survival of
primitive superstitions which can no longer bear the light of modern
knowledge? These are the grave questions which now confront us.
A man may enter, and generally does enter, upon his inquiry biassed in
favour of religious belief of some kind. He approaches the subject in a
reverent frame of mind. In his private prayers to his God he does not
neglect to ask for heavenly guidance. He evinces precisely the spirit
which a divine would consider becoming. But as his inquiry proceeds
there comes a time when his religious bias disappears--when he can
no longer feel what he could honestly call reverence. He discovers
that what he thought was known, and had actually been revealed, is
unknown. How can he believe in and worship the Unknown? More than ever
he feels his own insignificance and ignorance; but the feeling thus
excited, while akin to awe, is divested of reverence. Pursuing his
search far enough, he succeeds in extricating himself from a quagmire
of demonstrably false superstitions. Finally he reaches solid ground,
and builds his life upon it.
Unfortunately, many never pursue their inquiry up to this stage;
they become fearful, or they give it up as a hopeless entanglement,
or they find they have not the requisite leisure. Perhaps, therefore,
the information gained by one of the more fortunate may be of some
little service to others. It will be my endeavour to set forth in this
book not only the destructive, but also the constructive, results of
a search for truth.
P. V.
January, 1906.
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
"This book," writes one of its clerical critics, [1] "is evidently the
honest, outspoken opinion of one who, having been brought up in an
unquestioning acceptance of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity,
has gradually drifted into the extreme of Rationalism." Up to a
certain point my friend is right. I was indeed brought up in an
unquestioning acceptance of the orthodox teachings of Christianity;
but, while my conversion to Rationalism has certainly been gradual,
I may fairly claim that the process has been something very different
from merely drifting. Long and careful study, the reluctant abandonment
of a cherished belief, the adoption of an attitude which is unpopular
and which distresses many who are near and dear to me, the practical
application of the principles of Rationalism to daily life, involving
as it does the serious step of bringing up my children in strict
accordance with my firm convictions--these are surely not the ways
of one who has permitted himself to drift. A man might--he often
does--drift into indifferentism, or, now that theology is so liberal
and heterodoxy so rife, into latitudinarianism, but hardly into
"the extreme of Rationalism."
I take this opportunity of cordially thanking all who have
assisted me, and specially I have to thank Mr. Joseph McCabe and
Dr. H. D. R. Kingston for reading the MS. and the proofs in all
their stages, and for pointing out verbal inaccuracies and suggesting
improvements both in the matter and in the manner of presenting it. I
am also much indebted to a lady, who does not wish her name to appear,
for lightening the task of proof correction.
P. V.
January, 1907.
PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION
The present edition consists of 10,000 copies, bringing the total
issue to 31,000. Apart from a few alterations in the chapter dealing
with ancient beliefs, the work is unchanged.
P. V.
April, 1911.
THE SITUATION
Chapter I.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESENT SITUATION
§ 1. The Truth of the Matter.
Before entering upon an inquiry into religious unbelief, we need to
form a correct estimate of its prevalence. If, as many would have
us think, there is nothing unusual in the present situation--if the
age of faith is returning, [2] it is hardly worth while to enter upon
this inquiry at all. If, on the other hand, the forces hostile to the
Christian faith differ essentially from those that stirred up waves
of scepticism in the past--if there is overwhelming evidence that
belief among educated men is fast decaying, it is surely high time
to investigate the grounds of unbelief, and to welcome the fullest
discussion concerning the best means of dealing with an entirely
new and extremely grave situation. It is only the shortest-sighted
policy that would shelve a disagreeable question until mischief had
occurred. It is better to face the facts. From every point of view,
concealment regarding a question of such vital importance as the truth
of Christianity is to be deplored; while an attitude of indifference
on a subject that should be of surpassing interest to us all can only
be characterised as amazing--unless, indeed, the real explanation be
that men have ceased to believe.
We must, then, determine, in the first place, whether we are witnessing
simply a wave of scepticism that will shortly subside again, or
whether the present situation in the religious world is altogether
unprecedented. The truth of the matter will best be learnt from
the lips of those to whom pessimistic admissions must be peculiarly
distressing, and who would therefore be the last either to raise a
false alarm or to be guilty of an exaggeration. The Bishop of London
has warned us [3] that "the truth of the matter really is that all
over Europe a great conflict is being fought between the old faith in
a supernatural revelation and a growing disbelief in it." The Bishop of
Salisbury lately [4] said: "There has been revealed to us the terrible
and painful fact that a great many are giving up public worship,
and that a large proportion of the people of England pay little
attention to religion at all." Not long ago Lord Hugh Cecil expressed
[5] the same opinion in the following words: "On all sides there are
signs of the decay of the Faith. People do not go to church, or, if
they go, it is for the sake of the music, or for some non-religious
motive. The evidence is overwhelming that the doctrines of Christianity
have passed into the region of doubt." From Dr. Horton we learn that
"vast numbers of people in England to-day have forsaken the best and
highest ideal of life known to them before they have found a better
and higher.... While Professor Haeckel and Professor Ray Lankester do
in their way offer an alternative, and present to us the solution of
the great enigma according to their light, the bulk of people in our
day surrender the old and tried ideal, fling it aside, assume that
it is discredited, live without it, and make no serious attempt to
find a better ideal." [6]
Are there not indications, moreover, everywhere in the literature of
the day? The works of some of our greatest scholars are either covertly
or openly agnostic. The more thoughtful of our magazines, such as the
Nineteenth Century, Fortnightly Review, Hibbert Journal, Independent
Review, etc., are continually publishing articles which teem with
heterodoxy. The "Do We Believe?" correspondence in the Daily Telegraph
(not to mention the more recent controversies in the Standard, Daily
Mail, and Daily News) was without precedent, and highly significant
of the present state of religious unrest. In a lecture reported in the
Tablet, Father Gerard voiced the growing feeling of apprehension when
he referred to the "Do We Believe?" controversy and the "amazing
success" of the Rationalist Press Association as indicating a
situation of "the utmost gravity, as gravely disquieting as any with
which in her long career the Church has ever been confronted." Also
it may be noticed that organised efforts have commenced all over
England to answer inquiries concerning the truth of Christianity by
means of apologetic literature and lectures. What do these inquiries
portend? The reply is given in the warning of the Rev. Mark Pattison
in his essay on "Tendencies of Religious Thought in England." "When
an age," he says, "is found occupied in proving its creed, this is
but a token that the age has ceased to have a proper belief in it."
Whichever way we turn the same spectacle confronts us. In France
especially, and also in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium,
Italy, Spain, the United States, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, and
Argentina (where the men are practically all agnostics), freethought
is making rapid progress. Only in Russia, where ninety per cent. of
the population are uneducated, is the growth small and confined to the
"intellectuals." Never in the world's history has there been so much
disbelief in the "supernatural"; and, with the advance of science
and education, this disbelief appears likely to be one day almost
universal. Militant Rationalism is jubilant; while the pastor of
the Theistic Church [7] proclaims: "I see a battle coming. I do not,
like Froude, predict that it will be fought once more, as of old, in
blood and tears; but I am as certain as I am of to-morrow's dawn that
a mighty conflict is at hand which will revolutionise the religious
thought and feeling of Christendom."
It is sheer folly for the Church to comfort herself with the reflection
that this is not the first time in the history of Christianity
that disbelief has manifested itself. In the early days of the
Church the heretic was not in possession of the knowledge that we
have since acquired. He could not support his views, as he can now,
with the facts of science. At every step he could be met by arguments
which he had no adequate means of refuting, and if he dared to deny
the "supernatural" there was an enormous preponderance of public
opinion against him. Indeed, he himself generally believed in the
"supernatural," though he was sceptical of the particular evidence of
it on which Christianity had been founded. Retarded by Christianity
itself--or, shall we say, by its interpreters?--knowledge was unable
to advance; it receded, and the clock was put back in scientific
research. Darkness reigned supreme for over a thousand years. At last
the dawn began to break. What was the result? The children of light
suffered for their temerity; but their ideas were eventually absorbed,
and beliefs were suitably reformed. Thus the Copernican system was
gradually accepted, and so were the discoveries which followed, up
to fifty years ago. Then, however, the established beliefs received
shock after shock in rapid succession--shocks from which they do
not yet show any promise of recovering. The myriads of worlds in
the processes of birth and death; the vast antiquity of the earth;
the long history of man and his animal origin; the reign of natural
law, and the consequent discredit of the supernatural; the suspicions
aroused by the study of comparative mythology; the difficulties of
"literal inspiration"; the doubt thrown by the Higher Criticism
on many cherished beliefs--these and the like have shaken the very
foundations of our faith, and are the cause of agnosticism among the
vast majority of our leaders of thought and science.
Ecclesiastics, however, with certain notable exceptions, appear
to be labouring under the delusion that a reconciliation has taken
place of late between Religion and Science, and that the voice of
the Higher Criticism has been hushed--at least, they are continually
assuring us to this effect. They remain under this delusion for two
reasons. First, because they are more or less ignorant of science
and of the preponderating opinion of the scientific world concerning
the truth of Christianity. Secondly, because they are lulled into a
feeling of security through misconceptions regarding the attitude
of the laity. There appears to be the same, or nearly the same,
average of religious conformity as heretofore, and the consensus
of opinion seems to be all on the side of church and chapel. Any
falling off in religious fervour is attributed to sheer carelessness
rather than to unbelief. From the days of Huxley until quite lately
there have been no attacks upon Christianity worth mentioning. The
Churches fail to realise that this religious conformity and goodwill
towards the Christian faith has generally no connection whatever with a
conviction of the truth of Christianity, and that, where there is this
conviction, it is usually among those who are ignorant of the chief
causes for suspicion. I propose, therefore, in the first instance,
to examine some of the more usual types among the laity. Obviously, in
doing so I shall be omitting a great many shades of thought. I shall
say very little about the opinions of the genuine believer or of the
hopelessly thoughtless, and nothing of the opinions of evil-livers. My
object is to set forth the types which are most likely to have been
misunderstood by the clergy.
§ 2. The Attitude of the Laity.
Let us commence, then, with the sceptical. They are not inclined, for
the present at least, to propagate their views. Rightly or wrongly,
they still hold the popular opinion that, while they themselves
can dispense with belief, the masses cannot. All that is asked of a
"cultured" man is that he keep his opinion to himself. He may be an
agnostic or--whether he realises it or not--practically an atheist;
but he must not think of calling himself by such ugly names. "The
uneducated freethinker," our modern philosopher will say, "manifests
a Philistine Voltaireanism--a spirit now disapproved by scholars
and philosophers, who regard with serious consideration all the
manifestations and products of human thought, from the earliest
fetichism to the most recent developments of that religious tendency
which appears to be a constitutional element in man." Such high
thoughts, according to this philosopher, are not for the common herd,
who must continue to wallow in their ignorance, feeding on husks,
which, however unsuitable for his own refined digestion, will serve
well enough to nourish the religious instincts of the masses.
If of a mystical turn of mind, he will tell you that Christianity,
like all other religions, may be but a symbol of a great Reality;
and this person, though sceptical regarding the Christian dogmas,
will possibly consider himself a Christian. Or, again, he may be
without any leaning towards mysticism, and merely hold that religion,
if sincere, is better for the mind than scepticism. "Better a belated
and imperfect religion," he will say, "than none at all. The heart
has its claims on our consideration as well as the intellect. Study
Comte's General View of Positivism."
Many agnostics are just as firmly convinced as believers that their
country's prosperity is bound up with the Christian belief. This is
largely due to their still clinging to the Church's teaching concerning
belief and morals. It is well to remember, however, that the feeling
on this point of the average cultured Frenchman or Italian is quite
the opposite. The measures now being taken by the French Government
against the clergy are based upon the contention that the Church's
influence is injurious to the State's welfare; and this feeling has
reached such a pitch that Republican employees hardly dare admit their
attendance at divine worship. During September, 1904, the Italian
Government extended a cordial welcome to a Freethought Congress, and
the proceedings were opened by the Minister of Public Instruction. But
the average Englishman, be he ever so sure of the falsity of the
Christian dogmas, can foresee nothing but immorality and anarchy as the
result of the overthrow of Christianity. "Cui bono?" "Quo vadis?" he
cries. "Leave well alone!" "It is easy enough to show that Christianity
is false, but what have you to put in its place? What we want now is
construction, not criticism and the flogging of a dying creed." He
forgets, it seems to me, that people cannot be hoodwinked for ever,
and that, as Mr. Froude tells us, the Reformation was brought about
by people refusing any longer to believe a lie. In addition to this
concern for the public weal, the sceptic is influenced by motives of
expediency. He is well aware of the odium he would incur should he
proclaim his heterodox views concerning the popular religion. Such
publicity might spoil his professional career, be the death-blow of
his ambitions, cause him considerable pecuniary loss, alienate the
friends he most values, and, worst of all, destroy the happiness of
his home life. For these and similar reasons we find, in the case of
the half-believer, that he does not care to verify his doubts, but
prefers to leave his opinions vague enough to be able to call himself a
broad-minded Christian. Whether half-believing or distinctly agnostic,
he usually holds that very common opinion regarding women, children,
and religion--that, however little store a man may set by belief, it
is wise to encourage it in the women folk, and also to hand over the
children to them for their religious instruction. Besides, militant
agnosticism is not the fashion. It is looked upon as "bad form,"
or as smacking of socialism. Indifference is much the easier attitude.
Or, again, the average man is disposed to trust to the progress
of science and the ultimate triumph of truth, and sees no reason
why he should make any effort towards shortening the period of
transition. In his contempt for the efforts of the "lowly born" and
indigent secularists, he forgets that the greatest changes in the
world's history have been brought about from the smallest beginnings
by these very "lower orders" he affects to despise. In our own times,
was it not working men who first set in motion a revolution that
will eventually reform Russia? Perhaps the commonest attitude of
"the man in the street," whatever his manner of belief may be,
is one of good-natured indifference--an acquiescence in things as
they are. Absence of the critical spirit or of anxious-mindedness,
or of both, renders it easy for him to take things as he finds them,
much after the manner of his primeval ancestors. His mind will not
occupy itself with aught but the present. Naturally, too, he feels
very strongly that what appears to make others happy should not be
disturbed. In all this he makes various questionable assumptions,
which I am considering in subsequent chapters of this book.
It is unnecessary to refer to the opinions of the militant agnostic,
as this type could never be accused of deceiving the Church. However,
it maybe noted that Mr. Blatchford says, in the Clarion of February
3rd, 1905: "So far as I am concerned, I attacked religion because I
believe it to be untrue, and because it seems to me to bar the way
to liberty and happiness. The attack upon religion is a part of a
task I have set myself." There are statesmen and other persons of
influence who are as incredulous as Mr. Blatchford regarding the truth
of Christianity; but they do not, apparently, hold that Christianity
bars the way to liberty and happiness (I give them credit for being
ruled by the highest motives), and so the Church has their support. It
is a weird arrangement between Unbelief and Belief, which cannot
possibly last much longer; meanwhile, it tends to confuse and delay
the answer to that gravest of questions: "Is Christianity true?"
Leaving the sceptic, let us examine another extremely common type--the
man who is under the impression that he is a Christian, without either
being particularly devout or having inquired at all deeply into
the grounds of his faith. He is ignorant of the causes for doubt,
because he has not had, or has not cared to afford, any time for
such matters. I do not refer so much to the masses, who obviously
have very little leisure, but to the more leisured and influential
classes. Such a man's scientific education, if he ever had any, was
broken off early in life. A large proportion of those all-important
years of his boyhood were devoted probably to an unwilling study
of the "humanities." His faith is decidedly vague, and according to
his own peculiar interpretation, an adjustment between his heavenly
aspirations and his earthly inclinations. It has never been thought
out, and is not the result of a thorough study of its tenets. He
was born and bred a Christian, and all the nicest people he knows
are Christians, or he thinks they are. He is, all unconsciously, a
social chameleon taking his colour from the conditions in the midst
of which he happens to live. He, too, like his heterodox brother,
sneers at organised Freethought in this country, because it owes
its inception and conduct chiefly to poor and lowly men, forgetting
that it was from such a source that the mighty creed of Christendom
itself arose. He forgets that the first Christian apostles were
mostly working men. If he has heard or read anything of a sceptical
nature, he has never stopped to inquire any further into it. He has
no idea that the central features of the Bible have been attacked
by men of the greatest learning and integrity, with the result that
even the defenders of the faith ask for a reverent agnosticism as
to the historical circumstances out of which, in the first instance,
belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ arose. [8] Not knowing that
the essentials are called in question, he sees no reason to trouble
himself about mere details. It is enough for him that he feels sure
that there must be some object in our existence, and that there must
be a First Cause. It never occurs to him to consider whether his and
the Christian conception of God can be reconciled. For him the truth of
the Christian dogma is proved sufficiently by the unsatisfying nature
of materialism. Has he not been taught that he must have faith, and
that faith is a feeling of trust divinely implanted, and not needing
to be fed on evidences? Is not Christianity the civilising agent of
the world, and the origin of all morality and all good works? Does
not scepticism lead to atheism? If thought only leads to disbelief
in God, he for one is not going to think.
In addition to the now fast dwindling band of sincere and thoughtful
Christians there are, of course, many professing religionists who do
think a little, a very little, on religious subjects; but the bulk
of the male element are absolutely indifferent to the question of
religion at all. The average subaltern is as good a sample of the
latter type as any other. Speak to him about religion, and he is
unutterably bored. A certain amount of church-going forms part of
his ordinary round of duties. This is the sum-total of his "religious
experiences." For the rest, religion, or any question as to its truth
in this or that particular, is, so far as he is concerned, a matter
of supreme indifference.
People are usually (though less so now perhaps than formerly) so
careful to keep their thoughts about religion to themselves that it is
no wonder the Church is ignorant of the extent to which heterodoxy is
rife. The colossal hypocrisy which speaks of "the reserve of Englishmen
about their religion" needs exposure. Why should there be this dislike
to talk upon religion--a religion which, if true, should make all
worldly affairs sink into infinitesimal insignificance? Is it from a
spirit of reverence, or is it not rather because the interpretations
of God's alleged revelation differ so widely that people neither
wish to "give themselves away" by stating their own interpretations,
nor to hear the distasteful interpretations of others? If they were
perfectly straightforward, they would run the danger both of hurting
the feelings and falling in the estimation of their friends.
Sometimes there is a dread of appearing ridiculous, sometimes a dislike
of appearing to cant. Yet surely, if we believe what we profess,
there is nothing to be ashamed of, and we ought openly to testify to
our faith. I can speak from personal experience when I say that the
believing heathen of India, whether Hindoos, Mussulmans, or Parsees,
have no qualms on this score. They see no necessity for "reserve"
in the profession of their faith. They testify to it openly at all
times and in all places. It forms, as it ought, an integral part of
their every-day life.
This so-called "reserve" is also occasioned by the inability to live
up to the ethical ideals demanded by our creed. Men wish neither to
be hypocrites nor to be thought hypocrites. It is an inherent fault
in Christian ethics that certain portions are not practicable. They
are too much dominated by a belief in the near approach of the end of
the world. "If we mechanically applied, as rules of conduct, Christ's
ideals of temper, we are certain, from common sense, that universal
pauperism, lawlessness, and national extinction would follow." [9]
Then, again, there is too much of the presumption that all men have
an equal chance in the battle against temptations, and too little
acknowledgment of the part played by heredity and environment; and
thus the root of the evil is overlooked. Also, if we have a strong
"conviction of sin," which, according to our spiritual advisers,
is essential, and if we cannot hope to shake off the burden of
sin by our own unaided endeavours, our moral fibre is liable to be
weakened, and we may cease to cultivate the all-important qualities
of self-reliance and self-respect. Emerson's advice is far healthier:
"The less we have to do with our sins the better."
Whatever the many causes of this "proud reserve" may be, one of
the consequences is that we remain in ignorance of our neighbour's
beliefs. If people discussed religious matters among themselves, they
would make some surprising discoveries. The agnostic would find that
"believers" are not the hypocrites he sometimes puts them down to be,
for he would learn, to his surprise, that they are supremely ignorant
of much that he assumed they would be sure to know. The believer would
find that there are many more agnostics than he had ever dreamt there
were, and he would also learn that their reason for abandoning belief
was of a very different nature from what he had supposed.
When agnostics read the lessons in church, as they frequently do,
and when, with their aid and the aid of others in various stages of
heterodoxy, congregations in church and chapel on Sunday only amount to
twenty-two per cent. [10] of the population, and these chiefly women,
[11] what must not be the sum-total of agnosticism, heterodoxy,
and indifference among men in this most Christian of nations? The
extent of unavowed or unconscious scepticism far exceeds that which
is openly avowed or consciously felt. Laxity in keeping the Sabbath
is now notoriously on the increase. Nothing can be more sensible
than that people who have slaved for six days in the atmosphere of
the office, etc., should go off for their "week end's" golf, etc.;
but for the clergy to attribute the consequent falling-off in church
attendance solely to the extra facilities of travel tempting people to
carelessness about religion is to adopt the method of the proverbial
ostrich in the desert at the approach of a dreaded enemy. Unbelief
and the advance of rationalism are really at the bottom of this new
development; for all the carelessness, all the temptations in the
world, would not persuade sane people to throw away their claims
to eternal happiness by neglecting to worship their God--a God
that demands this worship. How little do the clergy really know,
or attempt to know, of the beliefs of the cultured portion of their
congregations! As I write these words I receive, curiously enough,
a letter which shows how unusual it is for the pastor to question
his flock. The writer of the letter, a lady, says: "Isn't Mr. X (the
rector of a certain country parish) a gauche man? Mr. Z (an influential
parishioner) didn't go to Holy Communion, and so Mr. X asked him if he
had been confirmed. Since then Mr. Z goes elsewhere to church." Now,
personally, I admire X's courage. What he did would not be done by the
ordinary run of parsons. If they did that sort of thing, they would
soon become exceedingly unpopular in the neighbourhood, and lose most
of their fashionable and opulent congregation. But they would begin
to learn the true state of affairs. They would learn, for instance,
that some of the most regular and respectable of the male portion
of their congregations were agnostic or heterodox, and that their
attendance at divine worship was merely to set a good example to the
"lower orders," or to please their women-folk, or for some cause or
other utterly unconnected with any desire to worship or any belief in
the efficacy of so doing. There is doubtless a great deal to be said in
favour of a spirit of toleration which inculcates non-interference with
a man's belief; but it all helps to hide the true state of affairs,
and is surely overdone when it encourages men to attend a service where
they are acting a part and making solemn declarations untruthfully.
There is one more type of person I should include among the many
strange buttresses of the Church--namely, the person who refuses
point blank to be enlightened. The Churches have been lulled into
a sense of security by many causes, but chief among them, perhaps,
there stands out the fact that people not only will not take the
trouble to inquire into the grounds of their faith, but consider
that it would be positively wicked to do any such thing. To such I
can only repeat the words of the Rev. J. W. Diggle, now Bishop of
Carlisle. "There are," he says, "perhaps, few things, and certainly
nothing of similar moment, about which men give themselves so
little trouble, and take such little pains, as the ascertainment,
by strict examination, of the foundations and the evidences of their
religion. Hence so many religious persons are like children who have
not learned things accurately. They are fearful of being questioned,
and are out of temper in an examination." However, as an excuse for
this timidity--for it is often nothing else--it must be conceded
that a deep study of the evidences does, more often than not, end in
agnosticism. This gives rise to the serious question: "If it is God
who assists us to remain staunch to our creed, why does He so often
forsake us, just when we are trying to lead more thoughtful lives and,
consequently, study more deeply the faith we profess?" On the one hand,
we find that modern agnosticism is not the result of carelessness,
but of thoughtfulness. On the other hand, we observe that the Church
numbers among some of its firmest adherents not only those who are
ignorant through circumstances over which they have no control, or
through thoughtlessness, but also those who remain ignorant through
fear to inquire.
§ 3. Christianity and Science not Reconciled.
Has the Church, then, been deceived in her impression that a
reconciliation has taken place between Christianity and Science? Most
certainly. I grant that to some extent there exists a patched-up
peace. The modern apologist no longer adopts the unwise course of
maintaining every strange phenomenon to be miraculous as long as it is
unexplained, whereby each advance of physical science used necessarily
to be hostile to theology. He even goes further, and says that the
Resurrection and all the miracles may be only the manifestation of some
law which is as yet beyond the analysis of our short experience. But,
as I shall show later on, the new interpretations tone down hostility
in one respect only to raise fresh and greater difficulties in another.
The manner in which misunderstandings occur on the subject of a
reconciliation is well seen when we look into one of the Church's
most popular arguments in its favour--the appeal to the pronouncement
by Lord Kelvin in support of a Creative Power. Lord Kelvin assured
the world that modern biologists were "coming to the belief in the
existence of a vital principle." [12] That this pronouncement raised
a perfect storm of protest in the world of science is wholly ignored
by the world of religion. Suppose, however, that the consensus
of opinion had been otherwise, what conclusion could we draw? We
simply obtain an argument for some form of Theism. The probability
of the existence of a Creative Power would not in itself prove the
truth of the Christian dogmas, although it would be a very necessary
link in the chain of evidence. It is extremely doubtful whether any
scientist or philosopher really holds the doctrine of a personal
God, certainly not of the anthropomorphic God of Christianity. Let
us take Sir Oliver Lodge, for example. He is continually being held
up to us by the Church as an instance of a man of science who finds
himself able to believe in the supernatural; but does the Church
claim him as one of her fold? In the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904,
he makes out a strong case for the entire re-interpretation of the
Christian doctrine, in which, among other dogmas, the Atonement and
Virgin-birth are completely surrendered. He has never yet professed
belief in a personal God, and seems to question His omnipotence. [13]
Again, in a paper which he contributed lately to a book of essays
entitled Ideals of Science, he owns that science is a long way from
actively supporting religion. In spite of this, no name is, or used
to be, more frequently quoted than his, in support of the Church's
contention that a reconciliation has taken place.
The admissions of Sir Oliver Lodge are, in a certain sense, all
the more important because he undoubtedly is one of the few men of
science who still retain a strong belief in a spiritual world. In
the Hibbert Journal for January, 1905, he informs us that he is
opposed to a materialistic monism, such as Haeckel's, and that
"the progress of thought has left him [Haeckel], as well as his
great English exemplar, Herbert Spencer, somewhat high and dry,
belated and stranded by the tide of opinion which has now begun to
flow in another direction." [14] This is the sort of statement which
is eagerly seized upon by the Church; but it neither witnesses to the
truth of Christianity, nor does it voice the opinion of the scientific
world. It is the opinion of a scientist who believes that he has had
"communication with spirits." [15] Professor Ray Lankester, one of
our leading biologists in England, indignantly refutes Sir Oliver's
strictures on Professor Haeckel. [16]
Now, it is, of course, quite true that there are schools of thought
opposed to Haeckel's. There is, for instance, the school which
considers that science has no business to concern herself with
theology; and there are the metaphysicians. But the point I wish
to make clear is that all these schools are heterodox. They do not
accept the Christian dogmas. It is so easy for false impressions
on such matters to get about, and, I regret to add, this does not
occur altogether by chance. When Haeckel, one of our greatest living
biologists, was caught tripping in his knowledge of theology by a
professor of that subject, the Church explained to the laity that
the great Dr. Loofs had shown that Haeckel had forfeited his claim
to consideration as a reliable man of science; and, on this basis,
his Riddle of the Universe was held up to obloquy and derision. The
Church, however, did not mention at the same time that Haeckel had
expressly said that he was not skilled in theology, and that it was
only in his own branch of knowledge that he spoke with authority. Nor
did the Church mention that their champion, the learned theologian,
Dr. Loofs, himself discredits the notion of the Virgin-birth, and
that the chief bone of contention between the two professors was
simply the question of the parentage of Jesus.
It is just because science and religion are in conflict that the
religious naturally wish to discredit science. They will, if they are
sufficiently ignorant, go so far as Lady Blount, [17] and hold that
the earth is flat and without motion. But such persons should note
that in the Church itself there are a few--the few best qualified
to form an opinion--who accept all the main facts of science, and
do not think, or pretend that they think, that there has been any
reconciliation. The Rev. P. N. Waggett is one of these. He is an
apologist of unusual scientific competence, and his new handbook
for the clergy, Religion and Science, simply bristles with problems
which he confesses have yet to be solved. However, he does not allow
himself to be disturbed. Conclusions adverse to theology are to
be resisted. In other words, we must possess our souls in patience
until we can see a way out of our difficulties. He remarks: "There
are conclusions which are to be dissolved, and conclusions which
are to be avoided; but there are also conclusions which have to be
resisted, held at bay--'held up,' I think some adventurous Western
people call it--until we can see our way to destroy them. Such a
resistance is not irrational." He personally prefers "the positive
or scientific treatment and pursuit of religion," and he goes on to
say that "this positive pursuit of the facts of the spirit must be
maintained in spite of difficulties. It must be maintained in spite
of outstanding discrepancies with science." To my mind, the position
here taken up by Mr. Waggett is the only possible one for a convinced
Christian who has a real knowledge of science. He avoids the snares
into which so many of his fellow clerics have fallen. For he does not
jump at the conclusion that every "gap" in our knowledge of life's
mysteries is a proof of the supernatural. Nor does he attempt to show,
as many other apologists are wont to do, that there is no direct
connection between science and religion. He does not try to escape
the criticism of metaphysical conclusions which a scientific habit
of thought engenders. But, while his position may appear at first
sight a tenable one, whether it be so or not depends entirely upon
the correctness of the assumption on which his argument is really
based--the true witness of the heart, as against the false witness of
the reason. It is interesting to compare Mr. Waggett's position with
that of another of the progressives. The Rev. John Kelman writes in
Ideals of Science and Faith [18]: "So far as we have gone, the history
of the past, viewed by the light in which the newer conceptions of
the Bible have placed it, shows that, at the present moment in the
progress of thought, science and religion are not in the least degree
at strife. They need no reconciliation." Suppose the Rev. J. Kelman
to be right and the Rev. P. N. Waggett to be wrong, what then? It
is the newer conceptions of the Bible which make it possible for
Mr. Kelman to speak of a reconciliation--the very conceptions which
the orthodox cannot and will not accept. The orthodox believer is
told that religion and science are reconciled; but he is not told by
what means. Thus the orthodox, who would never think of accepting
the "terribly heterodox" ideas of the advanced school, are all the
time accepting a result which could only be arrived at by the help
of those self-same ideas. In fact, it was the very necessity for a
reconciliation which originated their invention.
So much is said about "scientific doubt" in these days that it
is well to remember that doubts as to the truth of the Christian
belief are not caused alone by purely scientific difficulties of
faith. Carlyle refused to accept Darwin's theories. His temperament was
strongly inclined to a stern Puritanical piety, and his whole nature
was antipathetic to science. Yet he did not think it possible that
"educated honest men could profess much longer to believe in historical
Christianity." Renan, a profound scholar in Oriental languages, shows,
in his famous work, The Life of Jesus, that, while keenly appreciative
of all that was beautiful in the life and teaching of Jesus, he
was forced, by his study of the Scriptures [19] in the original,
to the conclusion that the miraculous part of the narrative had no
historical foundation. Leo Tolstoi, the helper of the helpless, whose
voice is ever raised in the cause of universal love and peace, vainly
sought an answer to religious doubts, and finally renounced Christian
dogmas, building up a religion of his own. Numerous instances could be
given showing that well-known and pious-minded thinkers have rejected
Christianity on grounds other than scientific. And this diversity in
the reasons for negation further tends to strengthen those suspicions
regarding our faith which it is now the apologist's task to dispel.
A significant circumstance is the far more tolerant attitude of the
better-informed clergy towards the unbeliever. There still remain
persons of the Dr. Torrey and the Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon [20] type,
ready to vilify the agnostic; but their number is rapidly on the
decrease. The clergy, as a whole, are more tolerant now than many of
the pious laity. Why is this? Is it not because they are beginning
to appreciate the perplexities of faith, and to learn that agnostics
as a body can be, and are, good men? Under certain conditions they
themselves have severe wrestlings with the dictates of reason, and
it is only by prayer [21] and occupying their minds in their work
that they are able to dispel dark doubts. They will tell you that
a faith such as theirs, and such as they hope you will attain after
emergence from doubt, is a real faith, with which the faith of the
ordinary person, accepting everything on trust, is not to be compared.
It is all very well to talk glibly, as so many do nowadays, of an age
of tolerance. How can man be tolerant in matters concerning which God
is alleged to have distinctly told us that He is not tolerant? It has
often occurred to me that, were there such a person as the Devil, he
must be much puzzled over the case of the high-minded agnostic, and
more especially so if the latter conceived it his duty to propagate
his views. In other words, if he were a militant agnostic--a Huxley
or a Holyoake. For, on the one hand, if the Devil could persuade the
agnostic to adopt religious conformity at the expense of self-respect,
he would ruin the agnostic's character, and so drag one more soul
into perdition; but he would at the same time be rendering the whole
Christian community a service by saving them from the dangerous advice
of the agnostic. On the other hand, if Satan aided the agnostic in
the line of conduct which he was at present conscientiously pursuing,
the soul of the latter would slip from Satan's grasp (for I presume
there can be no punishment for honesty); but, as Anti-Christ, Satan
would reap a grand harvest from the seeds of unbelief sown by the
agnostic. And the purer and more unselfish the life of the agnostic,
the more the latter would influence people to share his opinions. How
does God view this perplexing situation? We are told from the pulpit
nowadays, by the broader-minded parson, not only that agnostics may
be good men, but that they "exhibit the very temper which Christ
blesses." [22] This curious truce between Believer and Unbeliever,
each still holding fast to his belief or unbelief, only serves
to demonstrate with added force that there is not, and cannot be,
a reconciliation between Faith and Knowledge.
§ 4. The Genesis and Character of the New Outburst.
It is imperative that the Churches should appreciate the real character
of the new outburst of scepticism. The controversy with rationalism
has entered upon another phase--a phase far more dangerous to the
security of Christendom. As was inevitable, the suspicions regarding
the faith have filtered down to classes that are not content to be
duped because, forsooth, it is said to be for their good. They have
none of the reasons of the upper-class agnostic for "lying low." The
enlightenment of the working man has been accelerated during the
past year or so by the issue of cheap reprints from the books of our
great scientists and thinkers, and by a direct attack upon religion
by the well-known editor of the Clarion, Robert Blatchford. That the
Churches are already partly alive to the new danger is evinced by their
present anxious attitude towards the spread of knowledge likely to be
damaging to the Faith. It was one of the subjects discussed at the
Canterbury Diocesan Conference in June, 1904, and will, doubtless,
be earnestly discussed at the next Church Congress, together with
the whole question of the rapid increase in unbelief. While, however,
the Church inveighs against the "reprints," she gives out, also, that
"Christianity is always strengthened by being attacked." This is hardly
consistent. For why not, then, allow the process of strengthening
to continue by these means? Certainly, if Christianity be true,
the Church ought to be strengthened. How could it be otherwise? It
might compel her to discard some of her dogmas; but that would only
be if they were false, and, in such case, she is better without
them. Nothing but good should arise from a thorough examination of
her tenets. She would be enabled to find out where her weakness lies,
and thus to emerge from the ordeal stronger than ever.
Those who wish, as I do, to learn the whole truth concerning
Christianity, hope that she will no longer postpone a complete
and unbiassed investigation of the whole of the anti-Christian
arguments. Doubtless we shall get our wish in time; but meanwhile we
deplore the delay, for reasons I have more particularly set forth in
the concluding chapter of this book. If the honest truth be that she
is not confident of the security of her position, are we to understand
that the cause of Untruth is thought to be more likely to prosper
than the cause of Truth?
Of the two conflicting views regarding the effect of anti-Christian
attacks--the pessimistic and the optimistic--it is the former which
appears to me the more likely to be correct. For consider what
would occur should attacks of far greater severity be delivered--a
contingency by no means impossible in the near future. Suppose the
"rational" propagandists, instead of being hampered by the want of
funds and influential support, were to become endowed with a fraction
of the wealth of the Church, and were thus in a position to popularise
their views by spending money in extensive advertisement of every
description, by subsidising platform orators who would propound
rationalism and non-theological ethics in every town and village,
by relieving distress, and so on, would the Christian Faith be
strengthened? Has it not already suffered since the sixpenny reprints
began to bring knowledge within the reach of the people--the people
who have, many of them, little or nothing to fear from an expression of
their agnosticism? If militant rationalists were sufficiently possessed
of this world's goods to start an adequate fund for the lucrative
employment of clergymen who find they can no longer subscribe to the
articles of the Christian Faith, and who would leave the Church if
they could do so without having to face absolute ruin, would not the
secessions increase in direct proportion to the increase of the fund
and the consequent means of support? [23] If those men of note who
are even now agnostics at heart were to proclaim the fact and assist
in propagandism, would not the flock follow the bell-wethers?
Whether hastened or not by the action of the propagandist, the masses,
in these days of universal education, are bound to hear sooner or
later of these grave doubts. The questioners of the Faith are no longer
only the philosophers, scientists, and those who join hands with the
Churches in prescribing a dietary of fairy tales for the preservation
of the moral health of the masses. Many of the working class [24] are
far more thoughtful and intelligent regarding questions of science
as it affects religion than is generally supposed. Hitherto they
have been under two very considerable disadvantages--the costliness
of the books and the want of leisure to read them. The leisure
disability still holds good, though less so now that temperance is
on the increase; but the books are to-day offered at popular prices,
and are also finding their way into public libraries. The Church can,
perhaps, depend for some time to come upon the non-interference and
even active support of the upper classes, however sceptical they
may be; but it is the proletariat which she will in future have to
deal with more and more. She is in a dilemma; her hand is forced. She
realises that discussion will cause the unsettlement of minds hitherto
unclouded by doubt, and yet matters have reached a stage when silence
is impossible. It is doubtful whether she has yet fully realised the
gravity of the task before her. I have explained how she seems to
have been deceived as to the real meaning of the apparent suspension
of hostilities during the past few years. She has also to learn how
impossible it will be for the ordinary mind to accept the unconvincing
and contradictory expositions of the Faith which are now offered to
us under the title of Christian apologetics.
§ 5. Apologetics "Found Wanting."
The time, then, has arrived when the pastor can no longer ignore or
gloze over the thoughts that are stirring the minds of the intelligent
portion of his flock. The cheap literature problem cannot be solved
by applying disparaging adjectives, such as "shallow," to writings
emanating from the pens of Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall, S. Laing, Matthew
Arnold, Sir Leslie Stephen, Renan, Haeckel, etc., easy though it be
to excite prejudice by the use of a condemnatory adjective. Books
that are still costly will some day be available at popular prices,
and increase the perplexities of the people. I refer to books of the
type of Lecky's Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe, Buckle's
History of Civilisation in England, Frazer's Golden Bough, Forlong's
Short Studies of the Science of Comparative Religions, Doane's Bible
Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, J. M. Robertson's
Christianity and Mythology and Pagan Christs, Spencer's Principles
of Sociology (Vol. I., Part I., giving the Data of Sociology),
Metchnikoff's The Nature of Man, Haeckel's The Evolution of Man, [25]
etc. Will not the Encyclopædia Biblica, with a title so innocent,
and with an editor and many of its contributors in Holy Orders, soon
find its way into our public libraries and be a thorn in the side of
the orthodox? Think how a book such as Nunquam's (Robert Blatchford)
God and My Neighbour must already have been read by and have affected
the convictions of thousands of the working class. And the grave doubts
of a hard-headed artisan are not in the least likely to be dispelled
by Anti-Nunquam, [26] or any of the literature so far published as a
panacea "in relief of doubt." [27] Indeed, some apologetic works are
enough in themselves to create mistrust, though the reader had not
read a single anti-Christian work! The extraordinary divergence in
the views of the authors, to say nothing of the transparency of some
of their arguments, prevents all chance of apologetics convincing any
but those already determined to be convinced. The writer in one stage
of thought absolutely contradicts a writer in another stage. Compare
Goulburn and Pusey in their awful assertions of everlasting punishment
with Allin's Universalism Asserted and Larger Hope leaflets, or the
views of a Wace regarding Evolution with the views of a Waggett. If
we confine ourselves to making comparisons only between the advanced
thinkers themselves, compare the opinions of Dr. Gore, Bishop of
Birmingham (late of Worcester), with those of Canons Henson and
Cheyne. The deplorable state of religious apologetics is becoming
notorious, and articles bearing on the subject are now appearing from
time to time in our leading magazines. [28]
In defending the Faith the advanced school of the Church now frankly
admit the difficulties of the old belief, and ask us to accept their
new interpretations of Christianity. The older school of theologians,
the school who can bring themselves neither to assert the truth of
evolution nor to give a decided opinion on the verbal inspiration of
the Bible, are unwillingly, very unwillingly, beginning to follow in
their wake. The views of the two schools being in conflict on many
vital points, it is impossible that they can ever be brought into
agreement. Yet, unless concerted measures are soon taken, confusion
will be worse confounded. To add to the perplexity of the situation,
there are also the various views of the Nonconformists to be taken into
account. Then there are the Scottish Churches, having on the one side
the law-supported minority, standing for an infallible Bible and all
the doctrines of John Calvin; and, on the other, the majority standing
for a form of Christianity which is really Calvinism with a somewhat
unequally-applied veneer of Higher Criticism. Finally there is the
Irish Roman Catholic Church still sunk in the gross superstitions of
the Dark Ages.
The advanced school represent the section which is in close touch
with modern thought, so that their new interpretations of the
Faith constitute the one and only hope of arresting the advance
of agnosticism. On the other hand, the justice of the objections
to these new interpretations is borne out by the circumstance that
many of the older school would no more think of accepting them than
they would of giving up their belief; rather than accept them they
prefer to deny the facts of science. Both sides do violence to their
reason--the enlightened in using the subtleties of their intellect
for interpretations which appear transparently false alike to the
orthodox and to the unbeliever; the obscurantist in denying established
facts. Consider for a moment what all this means. It means that the
modern sceptic has the support of the strictly orthodox when he refutes
the only explanations as yet offered to dispel his doubts. It means
that the validity of the agnostic's objections to these new-fangled
interpretations is fully borne out by the common sense of Christians
themselves, and that a denial of the facts of science and of the
results of Biblical research is the only way we can escape from
unbelief. If a puzzled truth-seeker tried to take a middle course,
he would have to believe that black and white were the same colour,
and his belief would degenerate into an exceedingly unedifying
grey. There is a large proportion of this "grey" belief just now.
I cannot too strongly reiterate that this complete divergence in the
interpretation of a revelation alleged to have been vouchsafed by God
cannot but give rise to the most intense suspicion. The very word
"apologetics" is self-condemnatory. How is it that the claims of
Christianity require all this vindication? Heresies and schisms and
the need for apologetics form the constant note of Christian history
from first to last. True there was a lull in the questionings of the
Faith; but that was during the Dark Ages, when the priests adopted
the policy of keeping the world in ignorance, and of destroying
all the evidences against Christianity that they could lay their
hands upon. If the events said to have happened really happened,
and if God wished the world to know of them, why all this mystery,
why the need for all these apologetics concerning them? Which of the
conflicting explanations are we to take as correct?
The late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Westcott, in a passage in his book,
Lessons from Work, says: "It would be easier if we might divest
ourselves of the divine prerogative of reason. It would be easier,
but would that be the life which Christ came down from heaven to show
us and place within our reach?" It is not for me to quarrel with so
emphatic a pronouncement in favour of using our reason; but such
advice cannot be reconciled with the teaching of Christ or of our
own Church--that we should receive God's word as "babes." Remember
those strange words attributed to Him: "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord
of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise
and prudent and revealed them unto babes." From this one would gather
that it was God's pleasure to hide Himself from the wise, and therefore
that the increase of agnosticism alongside the spread of knowledge
was all part of the Divine plan. The Roman Catholic Church is more
consistent. She obeys the alleged teaching of Christ in this respect
to the letter. The truth is that when Jesus spoke these words, if He
ever did speak them, the vast majority of mankind were "babes." His
disciples were "babes"; His enemies the more enlightened. He did not
foresee the advance of knowledge and the spread of education. Nor
did the Church anticipate this increase in "wisdom," or rather, I
should say, she employed every possible means to hinder it. If God's
revelation may be understood by babes, it must be very simple. How,
then, do we find it requiring all this explanation--explanation which
no ordinary adult can understand? Who could call modern theology
simple? Can we say that of our philosopher-Premier's books, A Defence
of Philosophic Doubt and The Foundations of Belief? Is it not because
the Church recognises that the masses will never understand all these
subtle explanations and pleas for a re-statement of Christianity that
she is in no hurry to impart the new ideas from the pulpit? Even the
more intellectual truthseeker is constantly recommended to trust less
to his reason, and "to come to Christ as a little child."
The objections of the more conservative to the new interpretations
of Christianity are well expressed in the solemn words of a former
Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, himself inveighed against, in his day,
as somewhat of a freethinker. "Many," writes Dean Mansell, "who would
shrink with horror from the idea of rejecting Christ altogether,
will yet speak and act as if they were at liberty to set up for
themselves an eclectic Christianity, separating the essential from the
superfluous portions of Christ's teaching, deciding for themselves how
much is permanent and necessary for all men, and how much is temporary
and designed only for a particular age and people. Yet if Christ is
indeed God manifest in the Flesh, it is surely not less impious to
attempt to improve His teaching than to reject it altogether. Nay,
in one respect it is more so, for it is to acknowledge a doctrine as
the revelation of God, and, at the same time, to proclaim that it is
inferior to the wisdom of man."
The Athanasian Creed controversy furnishes some striking examples of
both conservative and latitudinarian opinions. Dr. Pusey is related
to have said: "If the Athanasian Creed is touched, I see nothing
to do but to give up my canonry." Yet we find the present Primate,
Dr. Randall Davidson, replying to a deputation of clergymen who desired
to be relieved from the obligation of reciting this Creed: "I am in
complete sympathy with the object you have at heart." Presumably he is
in agreement with Dr. Barnes, Hulsean professor of divinity, who, when
lecturing lately at Cambridge on the Athanasian Creed, declared that
there was "no authority in Scripture for its minatory clauses." The
well-meant attempt of the Dean of Westminster to smooth down the
asperities of the Creed by singing instead of saying it, is typical of
those pitiful attempts to tide over difficulties which are now so much
in evidence. "We make," says one of the old school, "unsuitable persons
partakers of the Divine service of the Church, and then it is proposed
to alter the Divine service to suit them. Let honest Unbelievers or
Half-Believers absent themselves from the Assembly of the Faithful,
and let the Faithful worship faithfully." Yet, if this line of conduct
were put into practice, if the modern Origens were anathematised and
only those laymen admitted to Divine service who held all the articles
of the Christian faith without mental reservations of any kind, every
single advanced theologian would be degraded from his office, and the
present twenty-two per cent. who are church and chapel-goers would
be reduced to--what shall we say? Well, the churches having cultured
congregations would be almost empty. The modern spirit of toleration,
admirable as it is in many ways, assists in preventing the discovery of
the real truth of the matter. The Church is grossly deceiving herself
if she really thinks that the apparent adherence of the majority
of the well-to-do classes indicates that burning suspicions of the
Christian dogmas have been quenched by Christian apologetics.
§ 6. More Things which Confuse the Issue.
In the early part of this chapter I have alluded to the real causes
for the apparent acquiescence of the majority in the claims of the
Christian religion. Among these causes there is a somewhat complex one
requiring, special notice, for it tends to confuse the main issue, more
perhaps than any other. The Church is now appearing in an altogether
novel role. Until quite recently her concern was only for the spiritual
welfare of man, and she expected to gain her purpose by supernatural
rather than by natural means. This plan, after many centuries of
trial, has proved a terrible failure. It has not contributed either
to man's spiritual or material improvement. Now, in England, she
is emulating the thorough-paced humanitarian in her devotion to the
betterment of humanity by natural means. Never before has there been
that interest in the material condition of the people which is now
evinced by such institutions as the Church Temperance Society and
Homes for Inebriates, the Church Army, the Church Lads Brigade, the
Church Rescue Societies, Homes for Waifs and Strays, etc. The Church,
too, is now concerning herself with the better housing of the poor,
the improvement of our jail system, and other rational methods for
raising the social condition of the people and creating an environment
likely to improve the moral atmosphere. All such measures, in fact,
as have long ago been advocated by rationalists and social reformers
are now taken up vigorously by the Churches. "Better late than never,"
you will say. Quite so; but that is not the point. Far be it from
me to decry these excellent results of "modern thought"; still, the
fact remains that the issue is thereby confused, and will continue
to be thus confused for some time to come. People will only look at
what the Churches, in Protestant countries at least, are now doing,
and see in it another proof of Christianity's power for good. They
will not trouble their heads to consider why it should have taken
nearly 2,000 years before the Christian Church recognised such an
essential portion of her duties towards her poorer neighbours. [29]
Nor is it only this increase of zeal for "raising humanity out of the
gutter" which has confused the issue. Numerous are the ways in which
Christianity obtains a prestige sometimes partly deserved, sometimes
wholly undeserved. Good works belong to the former class. The
Churches of all denominations have always occupied the position
of grand almoners, and, in that they have carried out that trust
conscientiously, they have fully earned the confidence of the rich and
the gratitude of the poor. But people are liable to forget that the
huge donations given during their lifetime, and left in their wills by
charitably disposed persons, are given usually from true humanitarian
principles, and that kind hearts are to be found all over the world,
quite apart from belief or unbelief. These gifts to the needy are not,
let it be said to the credit of mankind, a mere soul-insurance, like
the donations given, and often extorted, in the Roman Catholic and
Greek Churches, for "Masses," "Indulgences," etc. All this charitable
work, for which the Church is the agent employed, is usually put down
entirely to the credit of the Church and Christianity. It does not seem
to be realised that the "Golden Rule" is far older than Christianity,
and is practised in other than Christian countries; and that the
Church, in being entrusted very largely with the dispensation of
charity, obtains credit for a service for which she is after all well
paid, and which any properly selected body of laymen would perform
quite as well, and possibly with more discrimination.
If all the good and none of the bad works performed in Christendom
are to be attributed to the working of the Christian faith, the same
argument must hold good of the Hindu or Buddhist faith, when the
people are Hindoos or Buddhists. The code of ethics attached to a
religion does, of course, make a difference; but it neither proves
that the belief is correct, nor that it is impossible to have the
ethics without the belief. Confucianism is an agnostic ethical system
which the educated classes of Japan have adopted for centuries, and
its splendid results are just now much in evidence. Only a few days
ago I received a letter from an agnostic supporter of Christianity who
said: "Look at the good that Christianity does, look at its endless
charitable organisations"; and he asked, "Could the Clarion people
do anything of this kind?" It never occurred to him, and it never
occurs to many of his way of thinking, that the "Clarion people"
have very slender funds at present; and the charitable work that
they do, though proportionately large, is not likely to come to his
notice unless he takes the trouble to inquire. The vast majority of
English people are professing Christians, and if any charitable work
is to be done agnostics give their support to it, although the agents
for it are Christians. However, I have not received a brief from the
"Clarionettes." My object is to show how the issue becomes confused,
and, if my agnostic friend is correct in considering Christianity false
and yet indispensable, the future is indeed full of alarms. What will
happen, for instance, when the knowledge of this falsehood becomes
common property? I am fully aware that my friend voices the opinion
of many fairly thoughtful Englishmen; but this is because they are in
the habit of hearing every useful advance in civilisation accredited to
Christianity:--hospitals, though they existed long before Christianity,
and only fell out of use after its introduction--the raised status
of women, though it was on the introduction of Christianity that
the status was lowered--abolition of slavery, though among the most
strenuous advocates for the abolition were such well-known freethinkers
as Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill, and Moncure Conway, while the
whole of Tory England shouted its approval when General Lee drew his
sword on behalf of the rights of "Old Virginia," and while Gladstone,
in his first Newark address, 1832, owned that slavery was justified
by the Bible--efforts for superseding the horrors and clumsiness of
war, though freethinkers to a man are supporters of the movement,
while Bishops from the pulpit offer up prayers for peace and in
the same breath expatiate on the ennobling effects of war upon the
race, and while the head of a mighty theocratic-autocratic Christian
Government calls the nations to a peace conference, and then takes
the first opportunity to prosecute the most unnecessary and bloody
war the world has ever known.
It is erroneous assertions such as these which tend, perhaps, more
than anything else, to confuse the simple question before us--the
truth of Christianity. They are therefore discussed at greater length
in a separate chapter devoted to popular fallacies. Meanwhile, in
the present chapter I hope I have succeeded in giving some insight
into the true nature of the present situation.
MIRACLES