tº sº
º, , , , sº
§§
§
t
º
§§
º§
º
... sº
|
s
:
.
- *, *** *
- “... ... *. * … • is sº
. . . º.º. . . . . . * * * * NSN
wºxwºº
§§
* * * * * * * *
sº
N
sº
* ,
sº
R& º
§§
Nº.
\",
§
§
SYY
&
N
N
§
§
a vºº º
SSS J
§§
& º º º
N
º
Rºčº &
§§ N § N. º
º
º
º
§
º
§
NS
N Sº Nº.
NSN N º
X. §NS Nº.
º ºg Nº
*NºSº § NºN
º ~
N.NN sº.º.º.º. SSNNNN
§ §§§ º §§ §
º - {}
*, * -
* * * -
. Nº NRN sº
Nº Nº sº
* *
º
scº,
vºsº,
sº

:
ź
#.
- º
>2,44 Lt
ãº
• , , , , , , . It t r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." - - | . . .
F. W.'..... • -z-rº
|RO
BERT MARK WENLEY
fºow The Lib RARY of . Tº
P HO ſº E S S () R OF PH | \, O S () P 1 [Y
1896 – 1929 }
- C.. I l' T O T H S CHILDREN º
.ro THE UNIVERSITY of AI C HIG AN_j.
; ***"............-...-------, a --→ 11-l *—11——-at-–––. - !
} . --4 – - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - --- -
i
i
\\\{ w \}, kwell à e \ + $ &
s ºs
NT
sº house"
UN versity S.
Bºok EMP2Rºum.
college Gare,
H I LLHEAD, GLASGow.







ASPECTS OF SCEPTICISM.
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE
PRESENT TIME.
BY
JOHN FOR D Y CE, M.A.
SAE COM/D E D / 7TWOAM.
LONDON :
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1889. *
C O N T E N T S .
-º-º-
PAGE
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION - g- s - - vii
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION - - •e - - ix
CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY - - * - - . I
Meaning of word “Scepticism - - - - -
Testimonies to Prevalence of Unbelief - - - - 3
Non-Church-Going Test - - - se - - 8
The Ferment of Opinion - - - * º - II
Class of Persons addressed - - - * - - I2
The Standpoint of Faith - - - - - - I6
CHAPTER II.—HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS - - I8
Scepticism of Earlier Periods - tº- * - - I9
Old Testament Literature - ... - *-> - - 20
The First Centuries of Christianity - * - - 22
The Apologies of the Early Christians - *- - - 25
The Seventeenth Century - - º - - 27
The Age of the Reformation - * º - - 28
Deism, Pantheism and Rationalism - * - - 30
The Character of the Eighteenth Century * * - 32
Strauss, Renan and Mill - - *- - - - 38
The Ethics of Modern Unbelief - *- - - - 40
CHAPTER III.-SOME CAUSES OF UNBELIEF - - - 43
Depravity a ‘Constant Quantity” - * - - 44
Prof. Christlieb and Bishop Ellicott - - - - 45
Difficulties of Belief - - - = " - - 47
The Truth an Occasion of Unbelief - - - - 50
The Character of the Present Age - -> - - 52
iv CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.-continued.
Influence of Certain Teachings -
The Corruptions of Christianity -
Some Ethical Causes of Unbelief -
The Child-like Spirit &- sº
CHAPTER IV.-‘RATIONAL SCEPTICISM
Truth ‘Embodied in a Tale’ *
Mr. J. S. Mill and Miss H. Martineau
The Home Life of Mr. Mill tº-
His Spiritual Environment e
Mill's Attitude towards Revealed Religion
The Religion of Humanity s
Miss H. Martineau's Early Life -
Influence of Mr. Atkinson -
Her Mis-readings of Christianity -
Contrasts, Summary of Results -
CHAPTER V.—SECULARISM - sº
Some Causes and Occasions of Secularism
Secularists and Christianity gº
Assumptions of Secularists sº
Secularism and Revealed Religion
Not a Sufficient Theory of Life -
No Motive-power to Goodness -
Epicurean Morality * -
CHAPTER VI.-MATERIALISM *
Some Materialistic Tendencies -
The Creed of the Materialist sº
Science and Materialism - º
Is Mind a Function of Brain P -
Physiological Researches - º
Materialism cannot Explain Freedom
The Failure of Materialism sº
The Divine Orders of Life is
CHAPTER VII.-RELIGION AND SCIENCE
The ‘Conflict” between Religion and Science
Some False Positions of Christian Teachers
Responsibility of Scientists sº
Separate Provinces of Science and Religion
Fashions in Opinion tºº *
The Need of “Quietness and Confidence ’.
PAGE
54
58
61
63
66
66
67
68
7o
71
79
8O
83
88
93
94.
98
99
IO2
IO3
Io'7
Io8
III
II 2
II4
II5
I17
II9
I2I
I24
I28
I29
I3O
I32
I34
I36
I43
I45
CONTENTS. v.
PAGE
CHAPTER VIII.—THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES - - I47
Some Contrasts—Science of the Bible - * * - 148
Need of Patient Investigation * - sº - - 150
Some Disputed Questions—Antiquity of Man - wº - I5I
Opposition to Miracles - * * * º - I53
Some Definitions of Miracles * sº - - - I58
The Christian Miracles - t- * - wº - I60
The Resurrection of Christ s * * - - 161
The “Best Proof’ of Truth of Theism - as ºf - - I65
CHAPTER IX.—THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION - - I66
The New Book of Genesis - iss rººm * - 167
Is there Real Contradiction ? & º * gº - I68
Darwin's Doctrine not necessarily Atheistic * * - 170
Evolution a Method of Creation - ſºm - - - 177
The Materialistic Evolution - - * sº - 178
Summary of Conclusion - $º * - º - I79
Letter from Charles Darwin - s * * - 185
CHAPTER X. —SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE - gº - 186
The “Sceptical Bias’ against the Bible - * sº - 187
The Anti-Christian Influence of this ‘Bias’ gº º - 190
Some Characteristics of the Sacred Record - * - I93
Its Truthfulness and Sincerity of Writers gººm * - I95
The Unity of the Literature - * gº * - I97
It Exalts God rather than Man - - * * - I99
The Hopefulness of its Tone tº º * º - 20 L
Its Effect on those who Ilove its Teaching - ºs - 206
CHAPTER XI.-SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE–(continued) - - 2 IO
Ideas Peculiar to the Sacred Record * tºº gº - 2 II
Need of Deeper Study of Bible - * - tº - 2I 3
An Honest and Truth-loving Mind * º gº - 219
An Obedient Heart and Will * * º: -- – 22O
The Historical Character of the Bible - * - - 222
Read the whole of the Book tº * tº * - 224
The Need of Divine Illumination - - * gº - 227
CHAPTER XII.-JESUS CHRIST º s - tºº - 229
Jesus Christ, the Sceptics' Stumbling-block -- tº - 230
Testimonies of Unbelievers gº º * - - 232
The Originality of Christ's Character gº *s - 237
What Think ye of Christ? tº - * $ºm - 24I
yi CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER XII.-continued.
The Moral Authority of Jesus Christ gº * * - 243
The Purity of His Life - tº * ſº 's - 245
Some applications of the Argument tº - - - 249
CHAPTER XIII.—THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM - * - 25I
The Intellectual Failure of Scepticism - - sº - 252
Its Moral and Spiritual Impotence sº & º - 256
Illustrations of this Impotency - * gas tº - 257
Miss Hopkins' Testimony tº ſºn tº sº - 259
The Testimony of Lange - - tºº sº tº- - 261
Christianity a Practical Solution of the Problem of Life - - 265
It takes a ‘Soul to Move a Body’ gº º ſº - 268
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
THE following pages are simply a reprint of the First Edition
of ‘Aspects of Scepticism.’ In order to make the book more
acceptable to the people, I have removed most of the foot-notes,
but beyond this no changes have been made. I should have
liked to add a few chapters on Agnosticism, Pessimism, and
other forms of unbelief, but the conditions under which this
edition is being issued have made this impossible, and the
volume is already large enough for ordinary readers.
The kindly and even generous reception given both by the
press and the public to my honest effort to guide the perplexed
have encouraged me to send out this new edition. The first
issue was sold out within twelve months from the date of pub-
lication; this fact, and also many testimonials from friends—in
the soundness of whose judgment one has confidence—lead me
to hope that my work has not been altogether in vain.
Curiously enough, the resolution to publish a Second Edition
of the ‘Aspects’ was made in consequence of an order for the
book from one of the Colonies. As I had already decided to
labour under the Southern Cross, I felt that my little book
might be of service. The present edition is, therefore, my
response to this Colonial appeal, as well as to many that have
from time to time been made to me in the old country.
viii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
My treatment of Scepticism is, I am well aware, very
imperfect; such as it is, I once more commend it to the Divine
favour, and earnestly hope and pray that what has been written
may help inquiring minds and doubting hearts to a firmer
faith. Since my book was first published, many important
works have appeared dealing with different phases of unbelief;
but there may yet, I hope, be room for my simpler and more
popular exposition of certain aspects of present-day Scepticism.
May it lead young men who are perplexed in faith to a deeper
and also a more patient study of the Record of Divine
Revelation. §
I have to offer my warmest thanks to my friend, the Rev. J.
Bruce Wallace, M.A., for his great kindness in correcting the
proofs for me, and in seeing the book through the press. This
has enabled the publisher to go on with the printing while
I have been on my way to the New World, and it has also
given the work the benefit of revision by another eye open.
J. F.
SYDNEY, March, 1889.
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.
•–0<>e-
THAT the following chapters are but fragments, no one can be
more conscious than their author. He offers them to the
public, nevertheless, hoping that they may be found helpful by
those who are ‘perplexed in faith,’ but who do not feel able
to study more elaborate and more exhaustive treatises. The
writer has for years taken a deep interest in the ‘conflict” with
which he is here concerned, and has read whatever works came
in his way. He has also endeavoured in different ways, by
voice and by pen, by private conversations, by letters, and by
public lectures, to guide those who were willing to accept his
aid. The kindly interest taken in these well-meant efforts, both
by seekers after light and by friends in whose judgment he
had confidence, is his only apology for now seeking a larger
audience. May the Master, who dealt so tenderly and so
lovingly with His doubting disciple, and who is the “same
yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,’ graciously accept this
humble attempt to lead doubters to Himself, and may He be
pleased to forgive its unworthiness |
BELFAST, June, 1883.
S C E P T I C I S. M.
CHAPTER. I.
A W T R O O U C 7 O Aº V.
‘It is no secret that among the educated men of France and Italy, with
the exception of a few individuals, the Christian dogma has ceased to hold
any authoritative sway over either intellect or life.’—W. E. GLADSTONE.
‘An awful darkness, spite of optimist assertion to the contrary, is slowly
Settling upon the most interesting part of European Society.’—EDWARD
WHITE.
“Never since the suppression of Pagan Philosophy was Christianity more
attacked than now.”—PROFESSOR BAIN.
IN the following chapters the word Scepticism is used in its
popular, rather than in its strictly technical sense. Properly
speaking, as a recent writer suggests, the word denotes (1)
‘continuous search, (2) suspense, or so much of it as is needful
as an incentive to search, but amongst both friends and foes
of Christianity it is now used in a very different way. “No one,’
says Dr. Draper, “acquainted with the mental condition of the
intelligent classes in Europe and America, can doubt that there
is a great and rapidly-increasing departure from the public
religious faith.’ He also reminds us that behind this open and
formally-avowed unbelief there is a far more extensive, and
far more dangerous, private and unacknowledged dissatisfaction
with religious beliefs. This “departure’—whether open and
avowed, or private and concealed, whether contained in anti-
theistic theories and formal treatises, or in secretly-cherished
I
2 SCEPTICISM.
convictions—is what, in the following pages, is meant by
Scepticism or Unbelief. In the use of such words to cover
ideas often very widely unlike, there may be some danger of
mixing ‘things by speech which are divided by nature;’ this
danger we must seek to avoid by suitable discrimination and
explanation where these are necessary. There is a doubt
which is ‘devil born ; there is also a doubt which is with a
view to faith, and through which we may reach a faith at
once stronger and more intelligent—the outcome not of tra-
dition, however true, but of a conscious experience of the
power of truth to enlighten the understanding and purify the
heart.
That there is in these days, among all classes of the com-
munity, a tendency to depart from the Christian faith, there
can be no room for reasonable doubt; as to the character and
extent of this departure, as to the causes and occasions thereof,
there may be great diversity of opinion and judgment. The
wits of Bishop Butler's day considered religion an exploded
superstition, and the Sceptics to whom the Apologists of the
past century addressed their arguments probably believed that
another hundred years would be sufficient to sweep away the
last remnants of the Christian belief; and yet, no period in the
history of Christianity has been more ‘fruitful in good works’
than the closing years of the eighteenth century. In the same
way, the unbelief of our age may overrate its own importance,
and the Christian thinker may mistake noisy and oft-repeated
assertion for real strength of conviction ; in this way both
opposers and defenders may undervalue the power of the truth
about which they are contending. There is in every really
active mind a tendency to exaggerate the importance of the
questions with which it deals ; specially is this tendency
characteristic of the aggressive Scepticism of any age :
‘For we throw out acclamations of self-thanking, self-admiring,
With, at every mile, run faster, O the wondrous, wondrous age
Little thinking if we work our souls as nobly as our iron,
Or if angels will commend us at the goal of pilgrimage l'
INTRODUCTORY. 3
After making large deductions from the evidence adduced
both by friends and foes of Christianity, after allowing for the
natural disposition to exaggerate the importance of a period in
which so many traditional opinions have been abandoned, and
so many beliefs modified before the advancing tide of more
correct knowledge, we are compelled to believe that there is a
great, and apparently growing, amount of Scepticism amongst
us in relation to the teachings of the Bible and the more
distinctive affirmations of the Christian Creed. Testimony to
this effect comes from quarters so unlike, and from men who
usually have so little in common, that its effect on any candid
mind must be very powerful. True, this evidence has been
challenged, and its force somewhat broken by Counter-testimony.
Dr. Riggº declares, that at the present time the ‘relations of
Christian faith to philosophy and science are better settled,
and, at the same time, more satisfactory, than for some years
past.’ His appeal is to the calm judgment of history, to the
positive proofs and “fruitful energy’ of Christian faith, as proved
by its works, to the ethical standards of our time, and to the
actual state of our moral life. Such an appeal, supported by
such evidence, demands and will receive the respectful atten-
tion of all Christian thinkers; his estimate is in many respects
both true and important, but, as he himself remarks, “false
security would be a mistake.” Mr. Joseph Cook tells us that
in Germany the day of Rationalism is nearly over in the
Universities, and that now students are everywhere flocking to
professors who are loyal to the evangelical Creed. Professor
Calderwood thinks we shall by-and-by hear much less of
‘conflict” between science and religion, and that there has
been on ‘both sides needless planting of batteries and pouring
forth of shot.”
All this may be true; certainly it is not all the truth that
Christian people in these days need to know and to lay to heart.
1 * Discourses and Addresses on Religion and Philosophy,' by Rev.
James H. Rigg, D.D. e
* Professor Calderwood’s ‘Science and Religion.’
4. SCEPTICISM.
After the conflict has ceased in the Universities, it must rage
elsewhere : in the periodical press, even in the workshops, and
among those who are far removed from the centres of intel-
lectual life and thought, there may be much unbelief. More-
over, to those whose minds are but little familiar with the
history of the past, and whose intellects have not been
sharpened by the higher culture of the schools, the cessation
of strife may often appear to be but the triumph of the
sceptical view of life. It is certain that at the present time the
acceptance, even provisionally, by Christian thinkers of the
theories and hypotheses of scientific men, only adds to the
difficulty of belief, and is an additional stumbling-block to the
faith of many. All this may, and much of it certainly does,
arise from misconception; nevertheless, there is conflict, and
some of the ‘reconciliations’ offered only add to the confusion.
Nor is this tendency to unbelief confined to any one country
or to any special class of men. It has spread all over Europe;
it has manifested itself in America; it is not seen only among
professors of the ‘higher culture,” or among thinkers who have
leisure and who are familiar with the thoughts of many ages—
it may also be found in the sick-room from which all sceptical
literature has been excluded, in the workshop, where busy
toilers are familiar with the more practical side of life; and
even in the market-place where eager men transact business,
these doubts and questionings are not seldom heard.
Some years ago a gifted man, no longer amongst us, wrote a
series of articles in one of our leading Æeviews, under the title
of “Rocks Ahead, or the Warnings of Cassandra.’ At that time
England was prosperous, and her leading men were unwilling
to believe that dark days were at hand. Hence Mr. Greg's
warnings hardly received the attention to which they were
entitled ; when trouble came, many confessed that Cassandra
had spoken wisely, and, looking back, they saw that the nation
had not been ‘sailing free,’ as some of her pilots believed.
Mr. Greg's ‘third rock’ was the one with which we are now
dealing—the alleged divorce between the highest intelligence
\
INTRODUCTORY. 5
and religion of the country. According to this keen observer,
there is such a divorce not only in England, but all over Europe.
In Germany, a very large portion of the intelligent classes has
changed its ideas about the very nature of Christianity; in
Italy, men, and even women, scornfully reject the Gospel; in
France, there is a large amount of infidelity and religious in-
difference among all classes; in Belgium, there is a wide-spread
scepticism; and in Holland, where the faith of Calvin once
ruled so supremely, yea, even in Geneva, the very seat of the
all-powerful Reformer, we have Rationalism in thought and
growing laxity in moral life. In our own country, Mr. Greg
holds that the working-classes, or at least the more intelligent
of them, are turning their backs on Christianity, and many of
the leaders of thought have publicly avowed their hostility to
the old faith." No friend of the evangelical faith can afford to
ignore such solemn warnings. Mr. Greg is no timid believer,
shrinking with alarm before the advance of the new order of
things. His ‘Creed of Christendom” must appear to evan-
gelical Christians meagre and Rationalistic, and if he complains
of the loss of faith, how much more must those who demand
firmer foundations for their creed P
Professor Christlieb, of Bonn, whose work on ‘Modern
doubt and Christian belief’ is so well known, fully confirms
the estimate of ‘Cassandra, so far as Germany is concerned.
And, strangely enough, Lange, himself a free-thinker, in his
‘History of Materialism,’ a work much lauded by the free-
thinkers of England, seems to be afraid of the progress of that
very theory of life whose triumphs he chronicles; Lange heralds
the dawn of a new era, but in Order to make its ideals morally
safe, he stipulates for a strong admixture of the older faith !
Professor Bain, of Aberdeen, himself a leader of philosophical
Scepticism, declares that since the suppression of the Pagan
Philosophy, Christianity has never been more attacked than now,
and he pretty broadly hints that these modern attacks are not
calling forth anything like the ancient Christian vindication.
* See Contemporary A'eview for May, June, and August, 1874.
6 SCEPTICISM.
Professor Flint is very familiar with anti-theistic theories,
familiar also with the best thought of Europe, present and past,
is neither an alarmist nor a gloomy pessimist, yet he tells us
that “no man who examines the signs of the times can fail to
see much tending to show that Atheism may possibly come
to have its day of fatal supremacy. What chiefly threatens us
is Atheism in the form of Agnosticism, Positivism, Secularism,
Materialism, etc., and it does so directly and seriously. The
most influential authorities in Science and Philosophy, and a host
of the most popular representatives of literature, are strenuously
propagating it. It has, in our large centres of population,
missionaries, who, I fear, are better qualified for their work than
many of those whom our Churches send forth to advocate to
the same classes the cause of Christianity.”
We might appeal to other leading thinkers—men who have
recently given their estimate of the state of this question.
Bishop Ellicott, in an Episcopal charge, in his ‘Introduction to
the New Testament Commentary,’ and still more recently in
his introduction to the “Old Testament Commentary; Mr.
Row in his very able Bampton Lecture; Professor Wace in his
Boyle and Bampton Lectures; Dr. Conder in his ‘Basis of
Faith,’ a work now within the reach of all, and one full of
helpful suggestion; Canon Farrar in his recent writings; Mr.
Edward White in his ‘Life in Christ,’ and a host of writers, all
take the same view.
Reference may also be made to Mr. Holt Hutton, who, from
his connection with the press,” is well acquainted with the
streams and tendencies of modern thought. Speaking, in the
preface to the last edition of his ‘Theological and Literary
Essays,’ of the growth of Scepticism among the leaders of
thought, he declares that, so far as there have been changes in
the “temper of English thought’ in recent times, they have been
in the ‘direction of shaking men's faith in the deepest assumptions
both of the Theistic and Christian Creed.” Lest anyone should
1 Dr. Flint's ‘Anti-Theistic Theories,’ p. 37. See also the articles by
Mr. Gladstone in Contemporary A'eziew, June, 1876.
* Editor of Spectator.
INTRODUCTORY. 7
reply that since Mr. Hutton's essays were published, vast
changes have taken place in an opposite direction, we may
suggest a perusal of such works as Cheyne's ‘Isaiah,” Professor
Robertson Smith's ‘Lectures on the Old Testament,’ and Dr.
Wright’s ‘Donellan Lecture, etc.; or, take the following from
Prncipal Fairbairn's recent work, the ‘City of God: ‘The
conflict of Faith in our day is most arduous and fell. It lies
Surrounded by real or potential enemies. Science cannot
publish her discoveries without letting us hear the shock of
their collision with the ancient Faith. The political philosopher
seeks to show how the State can live and prosper without re-
ligion; the ethical thinker, how right can exist and law govern
without God. A philosophy that denies the surest and most
necessary religious truths works in harmony with a criticism
that resolves into mythologies the holiest religious histories. A
large section of our literature, including some of the finest
creations of living imagination, interpret Nature and man, ex-
hibit life and destiny, from the standpoint of those who have
consciously renounced belief in God and can find on earth
nothing Divine but humanity. Our working men listen to theories
of life that leave around them only blank material walls, within
them no spiritual reality, before them no higher and larger hope.’
There are other indications pointing in the same direction,
and which, so far as they can be trusted, confirm the accuracy
of these and such-like testimonies. For many years complaints
have been made by religious men of the alarming extent to
which public worship is being neglected. Recent statistics in
various parts of the kingdom show that these complaints have
been only too well founded. Not only are there large numbers
of people that habitually neglect public worship, not only is
there among the working classes, so-called, wide-spread neglect,
(not specially confined to these, be it remembered, for, being the
largest class in the community, they must necessarily furnish the
largest percentage of non-church-goers,) but it would appear
that in many places the proportion of church-goers to the popu-
lation is not so great as in 1851. Hence, when optimists
8 SCEPTICISM.
point us to the thousands of pounds annually spent on church-
buildings, and to the great activity among all Christian workers,
as a proof that Scepticism is not on the increase, we can only
reply that there are more and grander buildings for worship than
at any former period of our history, but that these costly
temples are often not half-filled, and that outside all Churches
we find the largest part of the population. It would be very
unwise to make non-church-going the test of Scepticism in the
community; rough and ready methods like these deceive those
who make them, irritate outsiders, and, moreover, they are
essentially false. Many of those who attend public worship are
greater Sceptics than some who stay away; yea, under the
cloak of even zeal for orthodoxy, we may find not a little genuine
unbelief. At the same time it is but fair to see in the non-
church-goers of all ranks, materials out of which Sceſſics are
readily manufactured. Religious indifference, as well as the
study of Sceptical literature, tends to unbelief; and those
familiar with non-church-goers are well aware, that many of these
are Sceptical. They are not to any great extent Atheistic-—the
genuine Atheists are ever few. They may not hold any de-
cided or dogmatic form of unbelief; they may, and generally
do, believe in an overruling Providence, often also in a future
state, and in human freedom, but they do not accept, even
passively, many of the most distinctive teachings of the Evan-
gelical Creed.
One of the burning political questions of our time has been
whether an Atheist was to be permitted to enter Parliamentor not.
Into this subject we do not here enter. Whether the Christian
faith is really helped by so-called religious tests, whether National
Religion can be helped by certain clauses in oaths of allegiance,
are matters about which we have decided opinions, but they are
not relevant to the question now under discussion : what seems
to us the point of deepest interest is, that there are to be found
constituencies willing to be represented in Parliament by men openly
avowing themselves Atheists. Not that we may believe any con-
siderable numbers of our people are really Atheistic; elections
INTRODUCTORY. 9
are determined by many side-issues, and no man has yet
appealed to electors on the simple ground that he is an Atheist.
But that constituencies should be willing to overlook such con-
siderations, because of their general sympathy with the political
creed of any candidate, should be willing also to have laws
made for them by men who have no faith in God, in immor-
tality, or in human freedom, is an indication that immense
changes have taken place in the thought and feeling of Our
people. This aspect of the ‘Oaths Question has not received
from Christians the attention it deserves. Other aspects of the
controversy have only a temporary and very secondary impor-
tance. It is natural enough that party leaders should be eager
to make political capital out of the difficulties of opponents,
but the deeper questions and issues involved cannot be decided
by majorities in the House of Commons.
We have to face the fact that vast masses of our people are
utterly indifferent to the faith of the men who made this country
what it is, and that these multitudes are directly and immedi-
ately exposed to the influences that make for unbelief, rather
than faith in the Unseen and Eternal. Time was when doubts
about revealed religion were discussed only by scholars, and
when attacks on Christianity appeared in what was practically
an unknown tongue. In our age, everything, whether the music
of the grand old masters or the latest theories of some Dar-
winian speculator, must be popularized.
Strauss addressed his first ‘Life of Jesus’ to the theologians
of Europe; for them it was written, by them only could it be
appreciated. In the closing years of his life, he issued a ‘Life
of Jesus’ for the German people, one intended to be read in
the cottage and discussed in the workshops of the Fatherland.
This is a simple illustration of the change that has taken place
in modern life, and the influence of such changes on the growth of
Scepticism must be manifest to a/Z. Leading thinkers who wish
to leaven the mind of Europe by their Agnostic theories appeal
now to the people. Reviews, magazines, periodicals, and news-
papers, Sow the seeds of unbelief broadcast over the land.
Io SCEPTICISM.
Novelists and poets assist in this work. We have a ‘religion
of humanity,’ which makes use of old phrases, and appeals to
old instincts, and by which many are deceived. After the
death of “George Eliot,’ for instance, letters and articles
appeared in the public press, attempting to demonstrate that
the thought of this gifted thinker was essentially Christian, and
the immortality she proclaimed that of the New Testament.
One leading organ of public opinion took comfort from the
alleged fact that “George Eliot' had never spoken against the
teachings of the Church of England It need hardly be said
that such writers are thankful for small mercies. The immor-
tality brought to light by this writer is the influence exerted
upon the lives of others; the “immortal dead’ are to ‘live
again in minds made better by their presence; is it necessary
to say that this is not the ‘life to come taught by Christ and
His Apostles P. We do not undervalue the spiritual influence
of the deeds that live after us—we may at times feel ambitious
to be remembered by what we have said and done; alas ! those
to whom life is most real are too conscious of frailty, imperfec-
tion, and sin, not to see that expectations from this quarter are
of doubtful value. They desire an immortality of another kind
altogether, and hence they find the ‘Gospel of the Resurrection’
the only good news for them.
We mention this simply as an instance of how gifted writers
have helped, perhaps without meaning it, to swell the tide of
Sceptical thought, and to suggest doubts to humble seekers
after light. Poetry, too, has been enlisted in the service of
Scepticism, and has at times hindered the faith of the people.
Too often, instead of fighting their doubts, and so gathering
strength for the battle of life, instead of wrestling with their
spiritual foes in the solitude of their own heart and life, poets
have set their dark problems to music, and have sung in cap-
tivating strains the praises of doubt and mental unrest. And
these utterances of theirs—themselves the product of a time-
spirit anything but trustful—have fallen on sympathetic ears,
and have been welcomed as a veritable gospel by many un-
INTRODUCTORY. II
believing hearts. Many have considered unbelief more manly,
and more expressive of intellectual freedom, than faith, for-
getful of the fact that man grows intellectually and spiritually,
not by negation, but by a spirit of hope, and trust, and love.
The results of this ferment of opinion have been most
disastrous to many, specially to younger inquirers and thinkers.
They have been diverted from the true path, both of intel-
lectual and moral progress, by these tendencies and influences,
and have often lost their way amid the mazes of conflicting
opinion and daring conjecture. Goethe—himself, we fear, not
always on the side of faith—reminds us that only epochs of
faith are epochs of fruitfulness. This is true of the intellectual
no less than the moral life; it is pre-eminently true of man's
Spiritual progress. Doubt, suspense, and anxious inquiry are
necessary; we may even affirm with one that the man who
never doubted never really believed; we may assert, with
Dr. Fairbairn, that it is not “always the men that love truth best
that find her most easily.” No less is it true that faith is
essential to a healthy moral life, and the tendency of much of
the literature of our time is to doubts and questionings. In
very much of it there is no faith, and therefore we cannot
expect it either to help unbelief or create trust; not that our
best writers have given themselves up to Scepticism, but there
are writings where faith, even in the human, seems to have died
out, and where everything that men ought to revere—God,
conscience, womanhood, manhood—is treated with but slightly
veiled contempt. Pressensé, in his ‘Early Years of Chris-
tianity,’ suggests that “there is one thing more deplorable than
believing in error, and that is to believe in nothing; this is the
essential error, the fundamental aberration of the soul, the
invincible obstacle to truth.” We have not yet reached this
stage in the progress of our Scepticism, but it is to be feared
that many are on the way to it, and that with the loss of any
hold on the great verities of the Christian Creed, they are in
danger of losing hold of the natural pieties of the human
heart. Those familiar with city-life, tell us that the numbers
I2 SCEPTICISM.
both of men and women who have reached this stage are much
larger than many think.
In the following pages, we address another, and a very
different, class of people; not those who have been fully drawn
into the vortex of blank and hopeless unbelief in all that is
Divine and Sacred, but a far wider circle, still hovering round
the central faiths of their earlier days. They have not all
broken with Christianity—they simply doubt many things they
once believed, and they hesitate where before they accepted
with unquestioning faith. The criticism, the discussions and
conflicts, and still more that out of which these have arisen—
the spirit of the age and the tendencies of the time—have
affected much their relation to the Bible and its view of life.
They may not actually accept, may not even pretend to under-
stand, the new theories of life propounded by distinguished
teachers. But they have an uneasy kind of feeling that there
are other views of life than those they were taught to accept ;
they know that these new theories are put forward by able
men, not as a cloak for laxity of moral life, but as an intellectual
solution of the problems with which all are confronted. Far
more than many are willing to allow, such thoughts and
feelings are in the minds of large classes of men. The quiet
Sunday-school teacher, who is known only as a consistent
Christian worker, the regular attendant at the Bible-class, the
young man who seldom is absent from the house of God, as
well as the more self-assertive and so-called free-thinkers, who
attend Secularist gatherings and listen to lectures in ‘Halls of
Science,’ may all alike have but little in common, So far as
belief goes, with those who accept fully and heartily the
Christian Creed.
To men with such doubts and suspicions, the Bible is no
longer the same book, and Bible-study is not what it used to be.
The most distinctive teachings of the Holy Record appear
before the eye as if marked by notes of interrogation. Prayer
is impossible, for what if God does not hear prayer? What if
the very conception of a ‘prayer-hearing God’ be but a survival
INTRODUCTORY. I3
from an age of credulity ? How can we pray to a Being whose
existence is so out of relation to our lives? The only accept-
able prayer must be humble submission to the order of events,
and an earnest desire to become more fully acquainted with the
world in which we live, move, and have our being.
Need we suggest that all who are in anything like this state
of mind are exposed to peculiar dangers, both intellectual and
moral? Our ‘advanced thinkers’ are fond of speaking of the
paralyzing influence upon the Soul of the religious creed of
our forefathers. They look down, with feelings more akin to
contempt than pity, upon ‘the early heaven and happy views’
of many of their brothers and sisters; and we do not say that
this early heaven and these happy views of life have been all
that they might have been. There may be not a little sheer
credulity in what passes for simple faith; there may be beliefs
no longer tenable by intelligent minds, and that have been
abandoned by all who know anything of science. Is there not
equal danger on the other side, a danger hinted at by the poet
when he forbids the confusing of a ‘life that leads melodious
days’? Many who have appeared, in their own eyes, to
have reached the pure air of a higher intellectual and spiritual
life, have yet failed in this world of sin; nor can we doubt that
the origin of their moral failures is to be sought in what they
have considered their freedom of thought in relation to Divine
Revelation. w
Even where this Sceptical attitude does not lead to moral
failure, there may be exerted on the whole mental and moral
life a withering and blighting influence. The heroes of the
past, the men who have subdued kingdoms and wrought
righteousness, have all been men of faith; their faith may not
have been as pure as it might have been had their knowledge
been wider, their religious creeds may have contained proposi-
tions that are no longer accepted (not because of such creeds,
but in spite of them did they accomplish great things), but they
were strong because of their heroic faith in God and in His
moral government. ‘The man,’ says Professor Blackie, ‘who
I4. SCEPTICISM.
will succeed must seek, and he must see, and he must strike,
and above all things he must believe. Nature does nothing for
doubters.’
Ages of Scepticism have never been fruitful in heroic deeds.
The great Puritan leaders who made our country, the men who
in the House of Commons resisted the tyranny of kings, who
in the fires of persecution defied and resisted priesthoods, the
men who could die, but could not be slaves, these were all
men of faith. We may sneer at their strange coats and hats,
we may be amused at their nasal speech, we may easily find
flaws in their arguments, and even convict them of disloyalty to
New Testament ideals; one thing all earnest minds must ever
admire and reverence—their strong faith in God, and their
determination to obey His will under all circumstances and at
all costs.
Now, the very children of the Puritans doubt whether God
has spoken to man, and whether the Record of His revelation
is any longer profitable for discipline in righteousness I Need
we wonder that, under such conditions, churches are half
empty, and Christian work much neglected P that glaring
abuses remain in our social life, and that political life is often so
corrupt and degrading in its influence? To live pure lives and
to do grand and noble deeds, is possible only to men of
faith; where the attitude towards even the Founder of
Christianity and His most distinctive teachings is one of
Sceptical indifference, purity of life is most difficult, and the
highest type of moral character impossible.
Is there a more excellent way P Must the inquirer always
carry the burden of doubt and fear and unrest in his breast P :
Certainly not He may not be able to answer all the
arguments of the Sceptic, nor may he be competent even to
understand some of the theories that are offered to us in place
of the religion of our fathers. He may feel overwhelmed, as
his eye rests on the lists of authors given in foot-notes by
writers who try to persuade him that ‘supernatural religion’ is
a thing of the past ; he may be amazed at the erudition, the
INTRODUCTORY. I5
ingenuity, and the fertility of resource displayed by opponents
of revelation, and yet he may refuse to follow in their path or
to allow his moral fibre to be weakened by feeding on the
husks they offer to him as food for the Soul.
Tennyson tells us of one who—
‘Fought his doubts, and gathered strength, L
He would not make his judgment blind,
He faced the spectres of the mind,
And laid them : thus he came at length
To find a stronger faith his own.”
It is the privilege of everyone to accomplish this sublime task.
We may not have the learning necessary, the mental grasp
essential, to a perfect mastery of the position of modern
Scepticism, but the humblest of us may think out the problems
of Faith, and thus get knowledge and certainty at first hand.
The Spirit of truth is promised to every honest mind, and under
this influence alone can we ever hope to reach a true or abiding
faith in the presence and power of the Unseen World. Some
difficulties may be removed by argument, others only by wider
and deeper knowledge; some doubts are the results of mis-
conception, and others the fruits of imperfect acquaintance
with the facts of life. There is a way of stating and illustrating
the history of the progress of science, which makes it appear
that before its triumphal march the ideas, conceptions, and
beliefs taught by the Bible must ever of necessity retreat ;
there is another, and, we believe, a truer account to be given,
one which while it may not solve all problems, and relieve the
mind of all difficulties, yet makes us hopeful as to the result of
deeper study alike of Science and Christianity.
Whether we may, or may not, be able to dispose satisfactorily
of the arguments, theories, and prepossessions that make faith
so difficult to many, let us hold firmly that faith—a truly rational
faith—is possible to all honest minds ! We read in the Gospels
of one who was born blind, and who received his sight
by the healing touch of Jesus Christ; he was certainly no
match in argument for the learned Doctors and Sceptical
Pharisees who plied him with their relentless logic; he was
I6 SCEPTICISM.
not expert in theological questions as to the relation of sin to
works of healing, but one thing he knew for certain, was as sure
of this as of his own existence: once he had been blind, now he
saw. It is, we believe, the privilege of every seeking soul, no
matter how perplexed in faith by current theories and influential
Scepticisms, to come face to face with truth, as revealed in the
Record of God's Revelation, and to know, at first hand, all that
man most needs to learn. “A true revelation of God,” says a
deep thinker, ‘must be its own witness;' and those who would
attain real certainty must come into living personal contact with
the Great Revealer. This is at once the simplest, the most
direct, and at the same time most spiritual, of all methods of
knowledge. The soul that thus knows for itself, will be able to
say with a distinguished scholar and critic : ‘Of this I am sure
at the outset (i.e., of all inquiries), that the Bible does speak to
the heart of man in words that can only come from God—that
no historical research can deprive me of this conviction or make
less precious the divine utterances that speak straight to the
heart.” If as the result of personal contact with the truth, not
mere study of “evidences,’ we have this direct and well-
grounded certainty, we shall be able to say with the same
writer, though ignorant of all criticism, whether ‘newer’ or
‘older:' ‘So it is with the Bible. The supreme truths which
speak to every believing heart, the way of salvation, which is
the same in all ages, the clear voice of God’s love, so tender
and personal and simple that a child can understand it—these
are the things that must abide with us, and prove themselves
mighty from age to age apart from all (may we not also say, in
spite of all P) scientific study. But those who love the truth will
not shrink from any toil that can help us to a fuller insight
into all its details and all its setting ; and those whose faith is
firmly fixed on the things that cannot be moved, will not doubt
that every new progress in Biblical study (or any other study)
must in the end make God's great scheme of grace appear in
fuller beauty and glory.”
* “The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,” by Professor Robertson
Smith, p. 20.
INTRODUCTORY. 17
From this standpoint of faith the following pages are written.
The writer is deeply conscious of his inability to deal with
many of the critical questions raised in connection with modern
unbelief; many of these must be left to experts, just as are
other questions in science, nor need we fear the results of
thorough examination by competent critics. He is, however,
Conscious of a strong desire to help those who are “perplexed
in faith,’ and who are seeking paths that lead towards the light
of life. It is not necessary, in order to help an honest inquirer,
that we should answer all arguments, or discuss all theories.
The evidences of the truth of Christianity are far too numerous
and far too varied to be dealt with in a few chapters; nor are
there wanting, for those who have leisure and ability to study
them, many works written by able and earnest defenders of
the faith. A far humbler task the present writer has ventured
to set before himself. If he can suggest thoughts, or new lines
of thought, to honest inquirers, if he is able to show that, in
relation to many opinions said to be false, and many truths
now attacked, there is not a little to be said on the other side,
if he is able to point to this mistake and that misconception, to
this error and that misrepresentation, he may break the force
of many a sceptical argument, and help the honest seeker to
find more and clearer light.
Much depends in all such inquiries on the attitude of mind
with which we approach the subject. Much of what we call
Modern Scepticism consists more of a tone and temper of
mind, in relation to Divine truth, than of any definite unbeliev-
ing theory of life. If by any word of ours the inquirer is led to
a more excellent way, to adopt a more reverent, and therefore
more childlike attitude in relation to truth, if we are able to
convince any that the faith of Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs,
the faith of the Saintly and the strong of past ages, is the only
faith that can make strong men and women in this nineteenth
century, we shall not have laboured altogether in vain.
CHAPTER II.
AZSTOR/CA/ O Ú7"/.../WAES AWD COMW 7"R.A.ST.S.
‘I am the Spirit that evermore denies,
And rightly so—for all that doth arise
Deserves to perish—this, distinctly seeing—
No say I, No 1 to everything that tries
To bubble into being.’—Mephistopheles, in A'aust.
“At the present moment, indeed, belief in the revelation of the Unseen
is undergoing, here as elsewhere, a shock, which is without a parallel in
the history of this country, for the activity of its manifestations.”—W. E.
GLADSTONE.
“All epochs wherein Belief prevails, are splendid, heart-elevating, fruitful
for contemporaries and posterity. All epochs, on the contrary, wherein
Unbelief maintains its sorry victory, should they even for a moment glitter
with a sham splendour, vanish from the eyes of posterity; because no one
chooses to burden himself with study of the unfruitful.’—GOETHE.
ACCORDING to some writers and speakers, there is nothing new
in the unbelief of our age. The objections raised by Sceptics
have been all answered long ago. The Materialists of to-day
are but the ancient Epicureans, with a new name, and speaking
in the accents of our own language. The most advanced
critics add nothing to the arguments anticipated by Celsus and
others, and more than answered by Origen and the other
Apologists. That there are grains of truth in such a view of
unbelief, we do not deny. The scientists of our time take great
pains to show that many of their arguments and suggestions
were in part anticipated by Lucretius and his school; they even
give us elaborate expositions of the materialistic theories of
Greek philosophers. But such expositors would hardly like to
confess that they have nothing new to give to the world, and
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS. I9
while they delight to see hints thrown out by early investigators,
they do not admit that this age has nothing distinctively its
own to offer.
Both attack and defence appeal to what is ancient, and with
equal reason, for the beliefs and unbeliefs of the present must,
in harmony with the law of continuity, find many of their roots
in the distant past.
No good end is served by such attempts to shut the mouth
of the Sceptic; truth is not the property of any particular age,
but truth and error alike must appear in the dress most
attractive to those whom they seek to win. We cannot under-
stand the thought of an age unless we know something of what
has gone before, and this principle must be fully applied to the
unbelieving thought of our time. The more we study this sub-
ject, the more shall we be convinced that, whilst there are many
points of agreement between the unbelief of one age and the
unbelief of another, there are fundamental and radical differ-
ences; and these differences must be taken into account by
anyone who would do justice to either Sceptics or Scepticism.
Our concern is, of course, with the unbelief of the nineteenth
century, but we may be helped in our effort to understand this
phenomenon by a brief, and necessarily imperfect, survey of
the Scepticism of other and earlier periods.
For our purpose, little can be gained by going back farther
than the early years of Christianity; not that there was no
Scepticism before this date, but that we are not likely to gain
much by such investigations. The sceptical attitude of mind,
much more than the jesting one, is well represented in Pilate's
question, ‘What is truth?' and we may be sure that unbelief
found much support among men of Pilate's class in the Roman
world before the time of Christ. The very existence and in-
fluence of a sect like that of the Sadducees, within the Jewish
community, is a proof that unbelieving tendencies were at work
among the ‘People of the Book.’
Some critics have even attempted to trace the various stages
in the history of Scepticism, as that appears in connection with
2 — 2
2O SCEPTICISM.
Old Testament thought. We cannot here discuss this question
fully, and a partial treatment of it would be misleading.
Nothing but confusion can arise from an identification of certain
phases of doubt met with in Old Testament literature with
many of the unbelieving “isms’ of our time. Doubtless even
in the days of the Psalmists there were ‘fools’ who denied the
existence of God; but the ‘fools’ were wicked men, and their
denial practical rather than speculative. Of Atheism in the
modern sense, there is no trace. Men who desired to escape
from the practical restraints of religion might wish there were
‘no God’ to call them to account, or to punish them for their
evil deeds; men might then, as many do now, live as if they
had no faith in God, and no reverence for His law, such a life
being quite possible along with a strong assent to a Theistic
Creed and an intense horror of speculative Atheism, but we
find nothing corresponding to the Scepticism of our age in the
sacred books. A brilliant Semitic scholar remarks that if we
scratch Job's skin we shall find under it a modern Pessimist;
perhaps there is truth in such a view, for there is a deep unity
in all human feeling; but how unlike Job's Scepticism is the
Unbelief of our day? Job's theological creed was too narrow
to cover the facts of his sad experience. His friends, under
the influence of his theology, and without the restraints imposed
by his experience of its insufficiency, attempted to comfort him
by denying the truth of his deepest convictions ; hence the
bewilderment and perplexity of the good man. He never for
a moment doubted the existence, and but for a moment did
he doubt the goodness of God. In the same way both
Prophets and Psalmists give free and frank utterance to their
doubts, difficulties and fears. But to doubt like theirs, we may
well apply the often misapplied words of the poet. There
lived far more real faith in the worst doubts of these men, than
in much of the high-sounding faith of our age, not to say its
loud-tongued unbelief." Their souls thirsted for God, and
* Speaking of Job’s experiences, Professor T. Lewis remarks : “Our
highest Rationalism has no such remembrance and no such mourning. It
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 2I
His presence in their life was the grandest and most certain
fact in their experience. Their Theism differed from ours
in many respects. We can hardly conceive that any power
dwells in a Theism which should either deny or be ignorant
of immortality; they knew little about the future life, they
believed in it, indeed, after a fashion, hoped for it, and at times
felt its power, but their one and all-embracing belief was in
God. They realized, at times most vividly, the presence of
God in heart and life, and they were willing to trust their
future and the world's future to the living God, content to be
bound up with Him in the “bundle of life.’
It were alike uncritical and unjust, to confound the
Scepticism of such men with the unbelief of an age like ours.
More plausibly might we compare some of the ‘ Preacher's '
utterances with the negation of our contemporaries; but even
here there are differences too radical to make comparisons
anything but misleading, and therefore we come to the opposi-
tions of later times.
When we study the history of Christianity from this stand-
point, we find in the early years of its growth and progress not
a little of what may be termed Scepticism. The first oppo-
nents of the Christians were Jews, but with this earliest form of
opposition we need not deal. Christianity, after all, is the
flower and fruit of the older Dispensation. Every page of the
New Testament is full of the thought of the Old, and many
fundamental beliefs were common to persecutors and persecuted.
Pagan philosophers and rulers saw in the early Christians only
a new sect of the Jews, and thus the conflict manifested all the
features of a civil war. We must therefore start with Pagan
unbelief and opposition to Christianity, and we shall find in
these the fore-gleams of nineteenth century Scepticism.
may talk of the dimness of Job's views, the inadequate conceptions enter-
tained by the author of the poem in respect to the character of God, or the
absence of any clear mention of a future life; but his darkness is better
than their light, his intense Theistic feeling stronger than their theory; they
have no such Scepticism, perhaps, because they have no such faith.’—
‘Theism of the Book of Job,' Lange's Commentary.
22 SCEPTICISM.
A recent writer, dealing with this theme, tells us that in three
ways the unbelievers of the first centuries differ from the
Sceptics of our day. To-day the conflict is based on reason;
both parties appeal to argument, to what may be termed moral
forces. In the first ages, the “deniers of Christianity were on
the defensive, and were defending a publicly-held and settled
religion, among other means, by force.” Argument was par-
tially used, it is true, but the chief appeal was to force, or
what may be identified therewith. The Jews stoned Christ as
a blasphemer, and used all the force at their disposal to put
down His teaching ; the Pagans followed too eagerly this evil
example, and attempted to suppress by violence the new re-
ligion of peace and charity. Sceptics often say that these are
Christian modes of zºanſare ; history tells a truer tale, and
points a higher moral. Christians, alas! have persecuted, have
used the sword in order to establish a reign of peace and love;
the first believers knew better, and were more loyal to the
Spirit of their Master. Their first works of evidence, their
apologies for the truth, were their heroic faith, their saintly lives,
and the sweet patience under Suffering and injustice which had
been taught them by the Cross of Christ. ‘That handful of
men,” says Pressensé, ‘who believed eighteen centuries ago in
the Gospel miracles, were not brought, it is true, before official
examiners, but they went down with Calm conviction in presence
of a furious populace into the arena, and sealed with their
blood their faith in a risen Lord. Evidence thus attested ceases
to be contemptible and deserves to be examined.’
This, then, is the first contrast between the unbelief of our
time and that of the first age. Scepticism does not now appeal
to force—it seeks by argument, by appeal to fact and history, as
misinterpreted by itself, to gain adherents. Not that unbelief
might refuse to persecute again, if it were strongly tempted.
Science, and the purely scientific impulse, can be very cold and
very cruel, and can entirely ignore the moral and even humane
aspect of things, when it gets its way. Those who are familiar
1 : Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century,’ by Professor Cairns, D.D.
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 23
with the ‘State regulation of vice’ in modern times, will under-
stand what we mean. The pursuit of knowledge, and the pro-
tection of the physical part of our humanity, may be so dwelt
upon, that deeper, holier, and more human interests are easily
sacrificed—all, too, in the interests of science."
Force, then, and not argument, was the first weapon of un-
belief. The philosophers and great men of the first centuries
seemed to have utterly ignored the presence and progress
of Christianity. Hence the attack was left to men of a
different type, and they fought with such weapons as they
knew and understood.
Another contrast is this : the early deniers of Christianity
‘made common cause with Polytheism, and thus admitted the
principle of a Divine revelation, as well as the legitimacy of all
its supernatural evidence.” Men who themselves believed in
‘Gods many and Lords many,’ could hardly find fault with
Christians for believing in one God. When amongst them-
selves there was so much dissatisfaction with Polytheism that
Paul found at Athens an altar to the “Unknown God,” they
could not well ridicule this sublimer aspect of what was the
common faith. Later on in the struggle, this faith in the
supernatural was ridiculed and denied, but this only shows
how the great depths of heathen life were being broken up, and
that men were ceasing to believe in the good—whether human
or Divine.
Once more : ‘The deniers of Christianity in the early ages
granted, with hardly an exception, the genuineness and integrity
of the Christian documents;’ this makes a most emphatic and
most suggestive contrast. The modern Apologist can point to
the fact that the first Sceptics actually appealed to the sacred
books as if genuine. As Dr. Cairns well says, “It is impossible
* The history of the ‘Laws Regulating Vice,’ and the discussions of
vivisection in Parliament and elsewhere furnish ample justification for the
above remark. Our forefathcrs were blind as bats about slavery ; we are,
with far less excuse, blind to the higher light in relation to this painful sub-
ject. Christians even forbid discussion, in the interests of Żurity /
2 Cai
all IlS.
24 SCEPTICISM.
for modern unbelief to shake this foundation, or to resolve those
materials which Celsus has attested as so solid and documentary
into the mist and vapour of shifting tradition.’ The bearing of
a fact like this upon modern controversies as to the age of
certain books, and as to the growth of what are called ‘myths,’
will readily be seen.
These and other contrasts, upon which it is not necessary to
dwell, show that the unbelief of the early ages had a character
of its own, and that the Scepticism amid which we live, move,
and have our being, must not be held to be merely its distant
echo. Of course, the spirit animating both may be largely the
Same, but the point of view is different, and the weapons used
are very different ; these contrasts must be carefully considered
by all who would really understand either the one period or the
other.
Those who wish to study this period more fully may find
materials within easy reach of them that will enable them to
form a sound judgment. That victory, along the whole line of
attack, was with Christianity, can hardly be questioned. The
words of the dying Julian may fairly be applied here : ‘O
Galilean, Thou hast conquered P. Lecky and Renan are very
differently constituted men, and their respective attitudes to-
wards Christianity, though Sceptical, are unlike ; yet both wax
warm as they tell the story of the suffering patience and saintly
fortitude of the martyrs and confessors who conducted this de-
fence. Speaking of the attack by Nero, Renan says: ‘Next to
the day on which Jesus died on Golgotha, the day of the festival
in the gardens of Nero—we may fix it as the 1st of August, 64
—was the most solemn in the history of Christianity. The
solidity of a construction is in proportion to the sum of
virtue, of sacrifice, of self-devotion, which has been built into
its foundations. Only fanatics can found anything; Judaism
still exists because of the intense ardour of its prophets and
zealots; Christianity because of the courage of its first wit.
nesses. . . . The Orgy of Nero . . . was the taking possession
of the Vatican Hill by a triumphant army of a kind the world
had not yet known.’
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 25
Not only by heroic and self-sacrificing deeds, but quite as
much by clear, strong, and convincing arguments, did Chris-
tianity conquer. As Canon Farrar remarks, dying Paganism
was no match intellectually, even with all its high culture and
its haughty pride, for young Christianity. Clemens and Origen
more than refuted the “calumnies of their opponents ; better
than this, for each refuted error they offered a beautiful Con-
vincing truth ; and recognising the Divine spark which glim-
mered even in the white embers of heathen wisdom, they
summoned their adversaries to drink with them of the living
water, and share with them the eternal light.’
Pressensé has made a special study of this subject for many
years, has made himself familiar with attack and defence, has
told us the story of the sufferings and the faith of martyrs,
confessors, and heroes, in eloquent and sympathetic words—has
also given us valuable analyses of both arguments against and
arguments for Christianity; he is therefore entitled to a hearing
when he gives his opinion on the merits of this controversy.
According to him, ‘it is a capital error to suppose that to
renounce the vain pride of reason is to renounce intellectual
superiority; the apology of the fathers gives striking evidence to
the contrary. . . . They did not make their sufferings a shield
against all attacks, nor did they consider that the honourable
wounds of the persecuted Church were an adequate refutation
of her assailants. The representatives of the new religion did
not allow a single accusation, a single objection, to fall to the
ground; they overcame Pagan philosophy with its own weapons.
The intellectual superiority of Christianity is no less marked
than the high tone of its morals. . . . Though Christianity
had for its first witnesses fishermen from the Lake of Galilee, it
was, nevertheless, itself the grandest of all philosophies; and as
soon as the Church had leisure to add to its faith the advantages
of high culture, as soon as it found itself constrained by the tactics
of its assailants to plead its cause before the bar of science, its
defenders took their place at the head of the intellectual move-
ment of their day.” w
26 SCEPTICISM.
It is not necessary to dwell on the period between the
destruction of Paganism and the age of the Reformation in
Europe. Not that there was no Scepticism in those dark ages,
so-called; there may be a great deal of unbelief even where
there is little open and avowed antagonism to the creed of
the Church. Had unbelief assumed dangerous dimensions, or
manifested itself with boldness during this period, it would have
been attacked by very different weapons from those used by
Christians in the earlier days of Christianity. The Church, alas !
forgot her early faith, forgot also the direct teachings of her
Divine Lord, and, misled by false ideals, grasped the sword
instead of the pen. This period is usually touched lightly by
professed apologists, and we need not hesitate to pass it over.
A deeper study would enable inquirers, we believe, to find
much Scepticism both within and without the Church; but
when expression of hostile opinion subjects to pains and penal-
ties, only the bolder spirits utter their beliefs.
After Augustine, whose works may be regarded as a construc-
tive setting forth of the truth as he understood it, the work of
defence was left to self-denying and devoted missionaries—
perhaps the best of all defenders of the Christian faith. These
godly men went forth in the spirit of their Master, armed with the
Word of God and the patience of Christ, and their labours did
much to change the face of Europe. We must also see in the
Crusades, strange as it may seem to some, a kind of effort to
meet unbelief, and to spread the faith of Christ. System-
builders, too, appeared, who did their best to confirm the faith
and enlighten the minds of those who wished to understand
the Gospel of Christ. Those most familiar with the writings of
this period, tell us that they find much unbelief, and much of
unbelieving tendency, even in the defences of learned Doctors
of Divinity, and in the devout musings of exalted Mystics. The
popular interest, however, can never be great in such periods,
and therefore we may here leave these matters untouched.
As we come nearer to the seventeenth century, we find many
new influences at work tending, either directly or indirectly, to
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS. 27
unbelief. Within the Church we have the Mystics and their
Mysticism; and no candid mind can well doubt that with all
its devotion, with all its elevation of spiritual feeling and
its nobility of character, this movement did much, and does
much, wherever it appears, to foster Scepticism. Its subjective
methods, and its canons of criticism, all point in the direction
of Rationalism, however little some Mystics may desire this
result, or however simple and pure may be their faith in
Jesus Christ. Without the Church, we have the revival of
Paganism, that movement which went by the name of Human-
ism, and whose force is hardly yet spent. At first the connec-
tion of Humanism with the Reformation was not denied,
although the two movements had but little in common. All
historians of Unbelief attach importance to the great events
that took place about the era of the Reformation. The de-
struction of Constantinople, and the ‘opening up of Greek
treasures of learning to the more active Western mind,’ the
invention of printing, with the rapid diffusion of knowledge
resulting therefrom, the discovery of the new world, with the
consequent social, political, and intellectual changes taking
place—all these, and many other influences then at work, gave
a fresh impulse to what is called ‘free-thought.” The very
Reformation itself did not a little to stimulate tendencies ever
latent in the human mind, and ready at such epochs to manifest
themselves on the side of unbelief.
The Rationalists of Germany, perhaps we may say, and of
every other land too, stoutly maintain that they are the true
children of Luther, and Catholic theologians everywhere sup-
port this view of things. While we cannot for a moment
accept such a view, it may nevertheless be frankly admitted
that the Reformation did something to foster and encourage
the Sceptical spirit. ‘The Reformation broke the theological
shackles with which men's minds were fettered. It set them
thinking, and so gave birth to science.’ If, as Dante holds,
doubt ever “nestles at the root of faith,’ then we may well
believe that wherever the faiths of men are violently shaken,
28 SCEPTICISM.
unbelief must be one of the first results. The Reformation
was a great shaking-time all over Europe, and many who could
no longer accept the old creeds, might for a time, or even per-
manently, fall into unbelief. We see this process going on
among our fellow-subjects in India. Under the influence of
Western ideas, even under the influence of the geography
taught in Government schools, the older religious conceptions
of things have to give place, and one immediate result is often
the rejection altogether of the supernatural. So at the time of
the great upheaval called the Reformation, the bold and at
times somewhat rationalistic opinions of Luther, and his free
handling of portions of the Holy Scripture, outwardly so
revered, inwardly so little understood, led some of his followers
to take up false and even sceptical positions. The temporary
alliance also between the Humanists and the Reformation-
leaders may have tended in the same direction. There is,
as Dr. Cairns remarks, no real antagonism between spiritual
religion and intellectual culture, but there are ever latent
dangers connected with movements where these are combined
to gain some object common to both." At first, the spiritual
forces inherent in the Reformation were sufficient to control
and to keep back the unbelieving tendency, but gradually, as
these forces became weaker, the results were serious. The
Reformers, too, forgetting their own Sad experience of bondage,
forged new fetters for the intellects of their fellow-Christians,
and placed new barriers between the souls of men and the
Word of the living God. The spiritual work of Luther and
others was in danger of being forgotten amid fierce contro-
versies about points of doctrine, and the energy of the believers
was more directed towards the manufacture of new Creeds than
the conversion of men. Those who had tasted the Sweets of
1 “If man cannot, in his fallen state, pursue culture ideally, if he can
only imprint on it . . . deep marks of his own prejudices and errors, then
it follows that for Christian faith there must always be an element of
possible danger in philosophy, in science, and in literature, where Christian
influence is not strong enough to lift them up to the ideal use of their own
methods, and accomplishment of their own ends.”—CAIRNS.
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS. 29
liberty fiercely resented and resisted the new scholasticism of
theological doctors and rigid creeds. ‘The conflicts of those
who, while they discarded the errors and corruptions of a false
Church, could not altogether agree among themselves in their
desire to formulate their faith, led to a revolt in many minds
from all theological definition, and to a questioning and criti-
cising which gave birth to modern Rationalism. The con-
nection of civil penalties and disabilities with religious dogma,
the great error of the Reformation, imposed bonds on the
conscience almost as ruinous as those of Rome. Earnest,
blameless, high-minded men were imprisoned, banished, even
martyred, in the cause of dogmatic uniformity. The theo-
logical controversies which were waged, often about speculative
distinctions and subtleties, hindered materially the growth of
the new life. Out of the deadness of such a time grew rapidly
the poisonous plant of unbelief.'
It would be very uncritical, as well as very unjust, to hold
the Reformation responsible for all this. In all ages we have
to take account of the frailty of the human instruments by
which great and abiding blessings are secured to the world.
That the Reformation has been a source of blessing to both
the Church and the world, no one can well deny. That it
contained within it elements of imperfection and weakness, we
must also be ready to acknowledge. Luther's too subjective
canons of criticism may easily be applied to the books of the
Bible in ways that would have shocked and grieved the great
Reformer." In addition to this, there were many other things
connected with the thought of the time that might prove rocks
of offence, and on some of these elements unbelief has laid
hold with great eagerness; hence there is a certain outward
plausibility given to the view that the Reformers introduced
the spirit of Rationalism into the Church.”
* “The Reformation Churches soon departed from the true and living
view of Scripture . . . while Luther did not sufficiently guard his asser-
tions . . . his followers too soon forgot the true position of the Scripture.
The Holy Ghost is above Scripture.”—Saphir, ‘Christ and the Scriptures.’
* For instance, Luther's somewhat free criticisms on certain Books may
30 SCEPTICISM,
From the beginning of the seventeenth to the early part of
the present century, the three great forms of unbelief have been
Deism, Pantheism, and Rationalism. A closer survey might
enable us to distinguish the Scepticism of the seventeenth from
that of the eighteenth century; for the purpose we have in
view at present, such nice distinctions are unnecessary. The
difference seems to us to consist chiefly in the greater distance
of the latter period from the spiritual movement of Luther and
his co-workers. A certain awe and tenderness still rested on
the spirit of the seventeenth century Sceptics, as they approached
the deeper problems of faith. Distance weakens this feeling,
and hence, perhaps, the different tone of Deism in the last
Century. Its leading representatives had but little conscious-
ness that in discussing the mysteries of faith they were drawing
near to holy ground.
The ‘Deist's Bible,” so-called, would be almost as offensive
to the thorough-going Sceptic of our day as the very New
Testament itself. Herbert contended that “there is a Supreme
God; that He is to be worshipped ; that the principal part of
His worship is virtue; that men ought to repent of sin; and
that there are rewards and punishments here and hereafter.’
Even Hume, the “last of the Deists in this country,” wished his
Scepticism to be regarded as a kind of speculative life by itself,
and he professed to think after the manner of the crowd about
Theism and practical religion. The Sceptics of that age differed
quite as much among themselves as do the rejecters of Divine
Revelation in these times. Herbert and Hobbes might both be
be followed where his deep and childlike reverence for Scripture is altogether.
ignored. He calls the Epistle of James an ‘Epistle of straw,’ and can find
“nothing evangelical about it.’ The Book of Revelation, too, he did not
like : ‘Let everyone think of it as his mind inclines him; my mind can take
no pleasure in the book.’ See ‘History of the Reformation,’ by Hagen-
bach, chap. vii. &
* Perhaps it is too much to say that Deism is dead. Dr. Dorner, of
Berlin, in his ‘History of Protestant Theology,’ thinks “Great Britain is.
not beyond the danger of a return of Deism.” We often meet with pro-
fessedly religious men, whose beliefs correspond more to Deism than to
the Christianity of the New Testament.
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 3I
called Deists, but how different their Deism . The advance is
manifest, and towards the close of this period the unbelief grows
bolder and more pronounced. When we reach the eighteenth
century, we meet with outspoken denials of the Supernatural;
the men to whom Butler addressed his “Analogy’ were decided
enough in their negations; with them the Supernatural was a
thing of the past, and Christianity an effete superstition."
Spinoza is the great thinker of the seventeenth century. Cairns
speaks of him as the “greatest and, for future days, most in-
fluential of the non-Christian writers.’ This estimate will be
confirmed by those most familiar with the history of thought.
Spinoza, indeed, belongs much more to our age than he did to
his own, and his thought is better understood in the nineteenth
than it was in his own century. But neither then nor at any
time could he be a popular thinker, and therefore we need not
concern ourselves further with his work. Before his thought
appears in popular unbelief, it has to be transformed and inter-
preted.” The great apologist of this age is Pascal, and he, too,
has been more read and better understood in later times. This
great spiritual thinker brought men face to face with the truth,
and sought to make them see its true glory in its own pure and
purifying light. ‘Pascal is the most evangelical of apologists. It
is with him nothing to conquer Atheism or Deism by weapons,
if the spiritual glory of Christ has not subdued the heart to
living faith. He is rich in new arguments on all the standard
topics; his fragments are more than the full thoughts of other
men, his divinations more than the results of all their learning.
But he never loses the central point of view—the dawn of
* “It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted by many persons,
that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry, but that it is now
at length discovered to be fictitious ; and accordingly they treat it as if, in
the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment,
and nothing remained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and
ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having so long interrupted the
pleasures of the world.”—Butler's Advertisement to the ‘Analogy,’ 1736.
* “Several of the conceptions . . . defined by him are no longer familiar
to us, and have to be learned like the vocabulary of a foreign tongue.’—
MARTINEAU.
32 SCEPTICISM.
Christ's heavenly light upon the humble and loving heart.
This, too, as he solemnly urges, may be defeated by pride and
self-will that love the darkness. Hence the idea, which he is
never wearied of repeating, that Christ came not only to be
revealed, but to be concealed.’ *
The character of the eighteenth century has been very
differently estimated by different authorities. According to
some, it was an age of wonderful progress, a period in which the
human mind made more rapid advances than it had done for
centuries before ; according to others, Carlyle among the rest,
it was an age utterly barren of any great spiritual results. Much
may be said on both sides of this question, but from our stand-
point the gloomier view is the more truthful, and, so far as the
earlier part of the century is concerned, the one most in accord-
ance with all the facts. Believers in, and even apologists for,
Revelation were themselves semi-Sceptics, and must be held
responsible for not a little of the Scepticism of their time. “It
was,’ says Lecky, ‘the leading object of the Sceptics of the
time to assert the sufficiency of Natural Religion. It was the
leading object of a large proportion of the divines to prove
that Christianity was little more than rational religion accredited
by historic proofs, and enforced by the indispensable Sanctions
of rewards and punishments. Beyond a belief in the doctrine
of the Trinity, and a general acknowledgment of the veracity
of the Gospel narratives, they taught little that might not have
been taught by disciples of Socrates or Confucius. When the
believers in Christ have no higher proofs to offer of the super-
natural than the disciples of Confucius, we need not wonder at
the triumph of unbelief. Probability may be a guide to life of
the highest value, but preachers who tell their hearers that the
arguments are ten to one in favour of a future life need not
wonder that men say, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we
die.” Not by arguments like these did Jesus Christ manifest
His authority in teaching; not by appeals like these did Paul
make his judge tremble; not by motives like these did Whit-
field move his hearers, making the penitential tears ‘shape
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 33
white gutters down the black faces of the colliers, black as they
came out of the coal-pits,’ to listen to the new evangel. Before
such ‘signs follow’ preaching, there must be a higher faith in,
and a nearer vision of, the supernatural than the early part of
the eighteenth century possessed.
The spirit of the age was on the side of Deism and Infidelity.
It was an age of great laxity of morals, and of much corruption
in private and public life. We are not unfamiliar in these days,
alas, with corruption in Social and political life, and this cor-
ruption must not be overlooked when we speak of present
unbelief; in that age, Ministers of State bribed members of
Parliament, and votes in support of the Government were paid
for as a matter of course out of the public purse. Even bishop-
rics were sold and given for political support, and high places
in Church and State were the rewards of fidelity to Ministers.
When an Irish Viceroy could openly live a life of immorality,
when an English Prime Minister could take his mistress with
him to the theatre, when an Archbishop could “compliment an
English Queen on her placid indifference’ to her husband's in-
fidelity to his marriage vow, we may well say, with Mr. Pattison,
that it was a ‘day of rebuke and blasphemy—an age whose
poetry was without romance, whose philosophy was without in-
sight, and whose public men were without character; an age of
“light without love,” whose very merits were of the earth, earthy.'
Little wonder that there should be so much Scepticism at such a
time, and that even a poor wretched Creed like that of English
Deism should find favour with large numbers of the people.
So far as the apologists of the period are concerned, while
we must confess that they had little of the spirit that animated
the men who were the first martyrs and confessors, while they
lamentably lacked the fine spiritual perception of a Pascal, they
were far more than a match for any Deist opposed to them.
It is the fashion nowadays to sneer at Butler and Paley.
Elegant Pagans like Matthew Arnold may show up the defects
of Bishop Butler, and deeper thinkers may amuse them-
selves over the ‘common-sense’ of Paley; it is one thing to
3
34 SCEPTICISM.
deny the adaptation of these writers to meet our wants, quite
another to say they failed in dealing with the unbelief of their
own age. Butler's ‘Analogy’ was a conclusive answer to the
ordinary arguments of the Deists—it is certainly not a sufficient
answer to the Agnostics of our time; this is simply saying that
the Deistic and Agnostic positions differ, and that the good
Bishop was not dealing with a kind of unbelief that did not
exist in his age. Even Professor Huxley reminds his free-
thinking friends that Butler, “if he were alive, would make
short work of much of the current à priori “infidelity.” Our
age is so radically unlike the type of life represented by Paley,
that neither friend nor foe has much sympathy with him; in
justice to him, however, we must remember that, as Dr. Fair-
bairn suggests, there have been theories of the resurrection
against which Paley's argument is ‘perfectly conclusive.’
Berkeley, too, had a message to deliver which must be allowed
its place in apologetics, but his message is not one ever likely to
be appreciated by the popular mind, however much it may
help the Theistic view of life.
To English-speaking people, the most important defence of
Christianity against Deism, and all other “isms’ of last century,
is the great spiritual movement associated with the names
of Wesley and Whitfield. We have already referred to the
effects following the heroic faith and noble patience of the
first confessors of Christianity. The spiritual revival of the
eighteenth century, in like manner, brought men once more
face to face with the realities of the Unseen and Eternal. The
“signs that followed the preaching of Wesley and Whitfield
were more convincing to Sceptics than the sermons of apolo-
gists, and the mathematical calculus of reasoners. Mr. Leslie
Stephen, in his ‘English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,’
says of much of the preaching in those days that it was “good
commonplace morality, defended by ordinary common-sense.
. . . Don't get drunk, or you will ruin your health ; nor Com-
mit murder, or you will come to the gallows; every man should
Seek to be happy, and the way to be happy is to be thoroughly
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS, 35
respectable P. Need we wonder that there were few converts,
or that the Deists liked such sermons P The new evangel
appealed to different faculties of man's nature, and touched
deeper chords in the human heart. Once more Christianity
proved itself Divine by its power to save men from sin and
death; it made them ‘new creatures in Christ Jesus,’ and the
Sceptics could not resist the argument of a changed life. Truth
commended itself, as of yore, to the consciences and hearts of
men, and was itself the best evidence of the supernatural.
As the outcome of this new life, the close of the century saw
many great works undertaken and partly accomplished. The
|Missionary Societies, whose agents have changed the face of
the heathen world, were then formed; the Bible Society, that
has translated the Bible into some three hundred languages and
dialects, came into being; in addition to these, and as the fruit
of the same awakening, new life came to the churches, and this
life manifested itself in great spiritual, social, and political
changes,
We have now reached the present and, for us at least, the
most important century of all. The unbelief of our age may be
in some respects like the unbelief of other days, for in spirit all
forms of Scepticism are similar, yet in many of its aspects it is
unique—a phenomenon such as no age has before witnessed.
Fully to deal with it, we should have to trace the Deism of the
early and middle portions of last century beyond their purely
English manifestations. Neither the apologists, such as Butler
and Paley, nor the preachers, such as Wesley and Whitfield,
can be said to have destroyed Deism. After unbelief had done
its work here, it crossed the Channel, and assumed forms much
more radically antagonistic to Christianity; it did work, too,
that has been more permanently destructive than anything
before accomplished. The critical philosophy of Kant may be
Said to owe its origin to the scepticism of Hume; the historian
and critic first roused Kant from his “dogmatic slumbers’ and
gave the impulse to that criticism whose connection with
Rationalism has been so intimate. Dr. Fairbairn speaks of
3–2
36 SCEPTICISM.
one of the first of the modern sceptical works that appeared in
Germany as the “last words of the dying Deism.” Before these
last words were spoken, however, unbelief had changed the
whole character of religious thought in the German States.
What we call German Rationalism, and this is the only point
we care to emphasize, is simply the new form assumed by the
unbelief of last century. In France, Scepticism affected not
only religious thought, but also, and that most powerfully,
political life.
‘Important,’ says Cairns, “as the moral elements were in the
English struggle, in the French they were far more decisive;
and to look upon this great passage in history chiefly as a theo-
logical debate between the assailants of Christianity and its
defenders, is to miss its spirit and all its most serious lessons.”
The terrible Revolution, which shook Europe to its centre, must
be studied in connection with the religious life and thought of
the age before it is understood. Here ‘free-thought,” so called,
rebelling against the fetters forged by corrupt and decaying
priesthoods, revealed in ‘blood and fire and vapour of smoke’
some of its own native but, under happier social conditions,
usually concealed tendencies and aspirations.
There are various marks by which the unbelief amid which
we live, move, and have our being may be distinguished from
the Scepticism of former ages. ‘There are, I think,’ says
Cairns, “two tendencies which mark unbelief: first, a tendency
to give the anti-Supernatural a deeper, a more thorough, and a
more radical character. And, secondly, there is a tendency, in
harmony with this negation, to strive more earnestly to account
for Christianity as a phenomenon, and, if possible, with a
favourable rather than an unfavourable estimate of its claims,
provided only these are denied a supernatural origin.” Some-
what similar to this is the view given of the ‘radical difference’
between the Scepticism of the past and present centuries by
Dr. Matheson, one of the most thoughtful and popular writers
of our time. “It is not the difference between better or
worse, between more or less, between higher or lower ; it is the
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS. 37
difference of an opposite standpoint. The Scepticism of the
eighteenth century proceeded from the belief that the contents
of revelation were antagonistic to the dictates of nature ; the
Scepticism of the nineteenth century proceeds from the belief
that the contents of revelation are simply the embodiment of
human ideas.” According to Dr. Cairns, the great names of
our century in Scepticism are Strauss, Renan, and Mill, truly
characteristic names, representing the intellectual ferment of
three great nations. Probably it may be said of all that they
‘have had their day,’ and although they have by no means
‘ ceased to be,” they have ceased to dominate religious thought
as they did at one time. The great German began his life by
seeking to eliminate the Supernatural from the life of Jesus,
and ended it by eliminating the supernatural from the life of
humanity — fitting termination to such a career, revealing
perhaps, more truly than could otherwise have been revealed,
how Jesus is the heart of humanity as well as the “heart of
God.' No man has influenced sceptical thought more than
Strauss for the past fifty years, yet there is not one unbelieving
scholar of any reputation who will accept his authority to-day.
The life of Jesus cannot be truly written by a Strauss." Still
less can we follow the brilliant Frenchman in matters theologi-
cal. The Jesus of Renan is neither divine nor human, neither
the Son of God, nor a truly noble and good man. ‘The
Sweet Galilean mission' of this dreamer will not long enchant
the robuster Sceptics of an age like ours, with its science and
its scientific methods applied to history. The moral fibre is
too feeble in Renan: a man who began by imagining that
Jesus could lend Himself to deceit in order to raise His popu-
larity, might well end by advising the French clergy to stick
to their posts, while rejecting the supernatural ; might well
eulogize a morality of “poetic reserves and angelic silences.’
* According to Dr. Fairbairn, “he had a curious moral hardness, a
deficiency in moral sympathy and insight, which left him in great degree
blind to the sanctity of the sacred, insusceptible of the finer shades of
reverence, able to demolish, in what seemed a callous-hearted fashion, the
idols and ideals of the race.” How could such a man write a ‘Life of
Jesus’?
38 - SCEPTICISM.
Much the same remark may be made about the result of
Mill's labours in this region of life and thought. Whatever
may be said of Mill's philosophy, which satisfies men less and
less, we must reject his Christology. The Jesus of Mr. Mill,
like the Jesus of Renan and Strauss, is neither a ‘myth' nor an
historical personage. Neither Christians nor Atheists, neither
Gnostics nor Agnostics, will accept his theology. Mill is very
hard on Sir W. Hamilton for bringing back under the form of
faith what he refuses to accept as knowledge; he himself is
guilty of the thing he censures in another, for he brings back
as a rational hope, or expectation, what he refuses to accept as
scientific knowledge or logically valid belief. -
Other names than these, however, must be associated with
the characteristic Scepticism of our century. If these have
been great in the earlier, others are greater in its later decades.
The great revolution in thought associated with the names of
Darwin and Spencer, with other cognate movements, must not
be overlooked. If we were to select three names connected
more with the scientific school, we might add to those already
given the name of Professor Huxley, who along with Professor
Tyndal has done much to swell the tide of opposition to
Christianity in our day. What may be the ultimate result of
the work of these pioneers it is, as yet, impossible to say ; one
thing is certain, they have stood in the first rank of the
supporters of those who deny, or ignore, the Supernatural.
Comparing, then, the present with the past, we may affirm
that never before at any time has the opposition to Christianity
been more deep and radical, never before has Scepticism been
more thorough-going and out-spoken. The only phase of
thought in the earlier centuries at all to be compared with the
unbelief of our day, is that associated with the name of Spinoza.
As we have already suggested, this thinker belongs more to our
time than to his own age; his own consciousness of this was
shown by the ambiguous manner in which he gave forth some
of his opinions. We may be reminded that the Materialism of
Lucretius was as radical as the Materialism of our own time.
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRASTS. 39
This is hardly true; the poet in all ages has been allowed
license, but in these days the guesses of Lucretius are given
forth as the sober teachings of severe science, and thus the
atoms appear among us with an authority they never pretended
to possess in the days of the poet. The Deist acknowledged
so much that his position was easily turned by apologists like
Butler; but in our day even Theism is denied. The “Unknown
Power’ of Spencer must not be termed Creator in the Deistic
sense of that much-abused word. The Deist did not object to
a God who originated all things, if only he were allowed to get
rid of a ‘constant creation,’ in the sense of a sustaining
Providence, and to deny the authority of revelation.
Our age refuses to believe in the supernatural, and yet it de-
clares that religion is as natural to man as language or feeling.
The Jew rejected the Messiah, and the Pagan world regarded
His Cross as foolishness. Our age, strange to say, bids us
‘ venerate the myth,’ and declares that “never man spake like
this Man.’ It sees in His work the noblest inspiration of life,
in His death the highest ideal of self-sacrifice, and yet it refuses
to believe that He came from God, or that He was raised from
the dead. It declares that His actual is the purest ideal life,
that His work has done more to regenerate man than all other
workers combined, that His name can never perish and His in-
fluence never die; yet it eliminates, or attempts to do so, all the
miraculous elements from His biography, and refuses to see in
His appearing anything Supernatural.
In short, everything must be reduced to the proportions of
the purely natural, everything accounted for, and regarded as
the evolution of what is in humanity. Grant only that religion
is the poetic side of human life, that the Bible is the record of
purely human experiences, that Christianity may be regarded
as one among the many human religions, no more sacred,
though perhaps higher, than Buddhism—that, in fine, there is
no element in it higher than the natural, that God is only
another Name for the “Power behind all phenomena,’ un-
known and unknowable, that immortality is a dream, a poetic
4O SCEPTICISM.
fancy, man's longing for higher life simply—and our age will
accept Christianity, will reverence Christ as its great Teacher
and highest Example !
It would be unfair to close this brief and most imperfect out-
line, without remarking that there is another and a very different
form of unbelief amongst us in these times. We are often told
that Scepticism is no longer immoral, that unbelievers, as well
as Christians, desire the triumph of a pure morality. This is
true of the kind of Scepticism with which we have been dealing,
It would be unjust to say that many of the foremost opponents
of Christianity desire to break away from its moral moorings.
The contrary is the truth; they are willing to accept its morality
if only they are allowed to reject its supernatural claims.
“George Eliot’ said that her objection to Christianity was
simply the insufficiency of the “evidence.’ Professor Huxley
will not allow that its ideal is a selfish and unworthy one; he
simply is not convinced by the evidence adduced in its favour.
Indeed, some opponents profess to object to Christianity in the
Zery interests of a pure morality.
Whatever may be said of the tendency of many forms of
unbelief, it is but common justice to most of the writers
named to admit that they are not writing, professedly, in the
interests of lax morality. But there are other tendencies at
work in all our towns and cities, and we do well to recognise
and understand them. The Agnostic is too pliant in his
speech, the Comtist too ambiguous in his language, the
literary admirers and eulogists of Christ too invertebrate in
their Scepticism, for the adherents of this school. Hence,
they not only deny the supernatural, but vehemently oppose
all that tends in this direction. To this class of Sceptics, Jesus
Christ is no longer the great Moral Teacher and Example of
Goodness; they hate Christ, and try by every means in their
power to make others do the same. They attempt to discredit
His teaching, question the perfection of His morality, and
sneer at the precepts He uttered. They are never weary of
speaking against Old Testament Prophets and Preachers; the
HISTORICAL OUTLINES AND CONTRA STS. 4I
Apostles of Christ they ridicule; and all Churches and Chris-
tians they despise. They identify Christianity with Priestcraft,
and represent it as the support and mainstay of all social and
political tyranny. The priestly ‘army of occupation' of all
Creeds they regard as the deadly foes of progress, and, in the
interests of human freedom, they profess to oppose the religion
of Jesus. We do not care to quote from the writings of this
School, for to most people its language, we hope, would be
offensive, and to many blasphemous. At the same time we
must not ignore its existence, nor must we underrate its social
and political, as well as religious, significance. There are
many to whom the outspoken denials of this school will be
more welcome than the covert attacks of politer men. They
are not able to enter into, or to appreciate, the critical dis-
cussions of the time; they care little for the poetic representa-
tions of the followers of the religion of Humanity; reverence for
a Power, aſ once unknown and unknowable, will appear to them
as extravagant as any claim made on behalf of Christianity; and
the “poetic reserves,’so much lauded by a Renan, they do not
much admire. They take note of the fact that critics are said
to reject the Supernatural, that Scientists decline to be guided
by the Book of Genesis; looking at things from this stand-
point, they are ready to appreciate a bolder, if perchance a
more brutal, handling of these themes. And when, by cunning
lecturers, Christianity is represented as the foe of progress, its
adherents the upholders of Social and political injustice, and
its triumph as the knell of freedom, need we wonder if they
applaud P
Perhaps it is well that the moral aspects of this controversy
should come before us in these bolder forms; “worship, or
stone Him P this seems a blunt way of putting the alternatives
open to honest men, yet it has the merit of being at once swift
and decisive. No third course is, we believe, ultimately open
to man. The failure of the Critical School to solve, on
Sceptical principles, the problems with which it has been deal-
ing makes this manifest. The moral weakness of other so-
42 SCEPTICISM.
called solutions only serve to deepen the impression. When
we find bolder spirits, in all the great centres of population,
willing and ready to apply these negations to the questions of
social and political life, to reconstruct Society on a purely
Atheistic basis, to banish from life, not only the sublime
truths of Christianity, but also its moral ideals and principles,
we may be better able to see the drift of much of the other un-
belief of our time. “A universe without a presiding Intelligence
is not in any true sense a moral universe.’ If the construction
of such an ideal universe be the great aim of the intellectual
rejecters of Christianity, need we wonder that their bolder
comrades should discard the moral restraints so long associated
with the religion of Jesus Christ? “If the dead rise not, let
us eat and drink; if Christ be no Son of God, but a mere
creation of the poetic imagination of gifted men ; if man was
not made in the image of God, but simply evolved without
any Supernatural control or direction from some “ape-like
ancestor; if when he dies he returns to dust, and is no more
for ever, why should he live under conditions, and act under
inspirations, that are the outcome of faith in the supernatural?
Sceptics who value the moral element of Christianity, who are
anxious that we should make Christ's character our ideal, while
rejecting His Divine origin and authority, may protest against
this theory of life, but to the masses of the people it will ultimately
appear more rational than theirs, and it is for our good that the
moral tendency of unbelief should be thus seen. Not Sceptics,
but men with faith in God, faith in the sacredness of con-
science, and in immortality, created the civilization of which we
are justly proud; and the highest elements of our civilization,
not to say our religion, can be conserved only by men of
faith.
CHAPTER III.
SOME OF /7'S CA USA.S.
‘And peradventure in the after years,
When thoughtful men shall bend their spacious brows
Upon the storm and strife seen everywhere
To ruffle their smooth manhood and break up
With lurid lights of intermittent hope
Their human fear and wrong, they may discern
The heart of a lost angel in the earth.’
Zucifer in ‘A Drama of Exile.’
‘Scepticism, with its innumerable mischiefs, what is it but the sour fruit
of a most blessed increase, that of Knowledge; a fruit, too, that will not
always continue Sozºr.”—CARLYLE.
“Doubt and unbelief assail for the most part, not the pure essence, but
the corrupted forms of Christianity.”—PROFESSOR CHRISTLIEB.
ATHEISM, says Professor Blackie, is a “disease of the specu-
lative faculty, which must be expected to reappear from time
to time. It indicates, in fact, a chaotic state of mind analogous
to that physical chaos which makes its epiphany betwixt the
destruction of an old world and the creation of a new.”
Whatever we say about the learned professor's philosophy of
the origin of Atheism, we must admit that extreme unbelief is
an abnormal state of things. Man is naturally not a Sceptic,
but a believer. ‘Trust in testimony,’ says Dr. Conder,’ ‘is the
pivot of human affairs;’ the whole fabric of our civilization
rests upon faith, and the relations of man with his fellow are
pleasant and helpful, just in proportion as he believes and trusts.
Hence, when we meet with either units or masses who are
* Dr. Conder, “Basis of Faith.”
44 SCEPTICISM.
known as unbelievers, we at once inquire into the origin and
meaning of their distrust or Scepticism.
We have not met, in the course of our studies in this
subject, with any very complete classification of the causes and
occasions of Scepticism. Probably, most thinkers feel that
anything like an exhaustive treatment of the subject is im-
possible. That there are general causes of unbelief operating
very widely amongst us, all may see and acknowledge; all the
causes and occasions of Scepticism can be known only to the
Searcher of Hearts. Minds are so differently constituted, and
the ‘environments’ of our moral and intellectual life are so
different, that what leads one to unquestioning faith may
produce in another a tendency to doubt.
There are some who make short work of all such inquiries,
by referring all kinds of Scepticism at once and directly to the
depravity of the human heart. Unbelief, wherever and under
whatever conditions it is found, is simply one of the manifesta-
tions of the evil heart in man which leads him to depart from
the living God. Doubtless there is truth in such a view of
things, but the truth is too general, too much like a truism,
indeed, to be of much service to man. The physician is not
content with saying that man is liable to diseases; he seeks to
study and to understand each separate form of disease in
order that he may trace it to its root, and, if possible, remove
its causes. That man is liable to disease, that he lives in a
world where germs of disease float about in the very atmosphere,
are most important truths, yet they are too vague to be of
much practical benefit. We must try to know more about the
conditions under which these germs come into contact with
the Organs of the human body and lead to such painful
results. So we must not be content merely with tracing
unbelief to the depravity of the human heart; this is a
‘constant quantity’ in human nature, belonging to apologist
as well as Sceptic, to the infidel who denies, and the dogmatist
who denounces him. We have need of great wisdom in dealing
with such a theme, so that we may do justice, on the one hand,
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 45
to truth and its authority over man; and on the other, to what-
ever of honesty and sincerity there may be in the Sceptic who
doubts and rejects. Only by wise and sympathetic treatment
of the subject can we hope for any real benefit to doubters
and Sceptics,
Speaking of unbelief in Germany, Professor Christlieb
attributes it mainly to four causes. (1) Historical—to the
working of those principles in man and in society that have in
every age been opposed to the faith of Christ. (2) Scientific—
to the rapid progress of modern Science, and the consequent
changes in the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of men. (3)
Causes ecclesiastical and political, such as the corruptions of
Christianity in Churches, and in connection with Church life
and work; the want of unity among Christians; the too close
identification of Churches with political parties on the one
hand, and the neglect of political life by Christian men on the
other. (4) Causes social and ethical—here special emphasis
must be laid on the relation between the moral state of the
heart and the beliefs accepted or rejected.
Dr. Ellicott, the learned Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
in a recent “charge,' gives three chief causes of the ‘prevalence
of suspended belief, and the increase of difficulties in heartily
accepting the facts and teachings of Christianity.’ These are:
(1) The tone and direction of recent historical criticism; (2)
the deductions that have been drawn from the real, or alleged,
discoveries of modern science; and (3) the moral and meta-
physical difficulties supposed to be involved in, or connected
with, the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That these
three causes are in operation no one can well deny ; to them
we may, perhaps, attribute much of the more intellectual forms
of unbelief, as these appear in the thought of Our time.
The more popular aspects of Scepticism demand a fuller
treatment, and we must be prepared to descend into the arena
where humbler motives and less ‘scientific’ causes contend
together, before we understand the doubts, difficulties, and
unbelief of the many. Of course, causes operating on the few,
46 SCEPTICISM.
by degrees reach the masses of the people; they appear,
however, in different forms, and under more popular aspects.
The applications of scientific, or so-called scientific, canons of
criticism to the Sacred Writings are now met with in the
popular periodicals of the day, and lecturers in ‘halls of
science’ are ever ready to popularize the latest utterances of
university professors, if these happen to be sceptical in
tendency. Science, too, lifts up her voice in the gates, and
the deepest secrets of her wisest, as well as of her loudest-
speaking sons, are proclaimed on the housetops, and discussed
in the workshops of the land. Moral arid metaphysical
difficulties are no longer confined to the literature of the
Schools; this is an age of publicity, and men and women who
have been on the rack, or who have found the moral diffi-
culties of faith too much for them, usually take care to publish
widely their experiences for the benefit of their neighbours.
Hence, Bishop Ellicott's causes are often found at work in
quarters where they might be least expected, and where they
are but ill-understood.
These ‘offences’ must come in our time. The Bible has a
literary history, and like every other form of literature must be
subjected to criticism. Nor are they the true friends of the
Bible who shrink from this process as from a plague or
pestilence. ‘The abnegation of reason,’ says Bishop Light-
foot, “is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of
despair. Reason and reverence are natural allies, though
untoward circumstances may sometimes interpose and divorce
them.” No doubt, all Such critical inquiries are unsettling to
the popular mind; the action of some of the chief forces in
history has been unsettling. Luther must have much dis-
turbed the faith of many simple Souls, yet we glorify the
Reformation, and attribute to its influence much of what is best
in modern religious life. Men must bear with these disturbing
elements in life, and learn to ‘prove all things,’ holding fast
only what is good. The Scepticism connected with the ‘tone
and tendency of historical Criticism is due quite as much to
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 47
the unbelieving timidity of those who accept, as to the critical
boldness of those who reject, Revelation. Which tends most
to unsettle faith, the newer criticism of men like Dr. Smith, or
the outcry of honoured Fathers who say he is taking away the very
‘ark of God,' and that a simple quotation by the Saviour of a
sentence or two from the Pentateuch must for ever settle the
whole question of its Mosaic authorship? Which tends most to
encourage Scepticism—the belief that in the ‘Song of Songs’
we have the love of Christ and His Church represented, or the
belief of some critics, ancient and modern, that we have there
simply a glorification of pure human affection ? Which causes
most perplexity—the newer criticism, or some older theories of
the inspiration of the Bible Pl We must admit to the full all
that is said about the ‘unsettling tendencies' of criticism, but
we must give a larger share of the responsibility for' this to
Churches that stifle the expression of opinion, and insist on
men believing, in all respects, as their fathers believed.” Let
us frankly admit that there are yet many unsolved problems con-
nected with Biblical criticism, and we shall disarm not a little
of popular suspicion.
That much mental unrest has been caused by the theories,
and alleged discoveries, of men of science, is but too manifest.
New methods of study, new phraseology—perhaps we ought to
Say new forms of dogmalism—have done much to create and
* “I have been informed by Christian men who have devoted themselves
to the study of physical science, that nothing so heavily presses on their
faith as the persistency with which the truth of Revelation has been identi-
fied with these theories of inspiration. . . . I have, during the last six
years, been present at discussions at which I heard not less than one hundred
addresses, made by unbelievers who belong to this class of society, on
points which they consider to involve the truth of Christianity. Taking
these objections as a whole, at least two-thirds of them owe their entire
plausibility to their identification of that particular form of inspiration
which is usually designated verbal or mechanical with a Divine Revelation.’
—Row's ‘Bampton Lecture, p. 428.
* ‘Criticism has performed, and continues to perform, the most essential
Service to the Christian cause . . . it throws light in a thousand ways upon
the Bible and its teaching. There may be those who do not want to be
troubled with it. . . . They are not wise Christians.”—Dr. Rainy, ‘The
Bible and Criticism.”
48 SCEPTICISM.
foster unbelief. Learned “professors’ of physical science have
not been unwilling to score points against faith by ‘showing
up ’ before popular audiences the unscientific character of
parts of the Bible. Forgetting that Holy Scripture teaches
not biology and astronomy but the way of Salvation, many
have had doubts awakened and fears suggested by the bold
fancies and forecasts of Evolutionists. We believe this is only
a temporary result of Scientific progress; men will soon per-
ceive that the real discoveries of science have furnished far
more facts in favour of faith than solid arguments for unbelief.
After the novelty of the terms used has passed away, people
will discover that the ‘physiologist' of mind, and the teachers
who pretend to explain all mental phenomena without the aid
of anything higher than So-called material forces, have only
re-stated, in terms of matter and motion, the old problems of
life. Even if we could measure, ever so accurately, the rate at
which nerve-force is transmitted—even if we could point out all
the physical concomitants of mental action and moral feeling—
we should be no nearer the goal. Candid ‘freethinkers’ are
beginning frankly to confess this; nevertheless, these processes
cause disquiet of mind, and the first results to many are doubts
and Scepticism. In consequence of the false lights held out
by daring sailors in the ‘sunless gulfs of doubt,’ many have
been induced to leave the quiet moorings and safe anchorage
of an earlier and happier faith.
With regard to the ‘moral and metaphysical difficulties con-
nected with Divine Revelation,’ and even with Theism itself, it
becomes us to speak with humility. Some refuse to admit that
there are such difficulties. They attribute all such doubts to
the rebellion of the unregenerate heart, and to the wish
referred to by the sacred Psalmist that there were no God—
no Moral Ruler to call men to account. We can but remind
such theorists that their views and the facts of life are at
variance. , ‘Some of these moral difficulties,’ says Dr. Rigg,
‘ are so oppressive and so staggering to our incompetent human
reason, that they might well tempt the mere reasoner, the mere
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 49
logician, the mere metaphysician, to give up faith in a personal
God, if so to do were not really to involve one's self in more
than equivalent difficulties of the very same class, and, in truth,
contradictions both intellectual and moral.’
Professor Jevons remarks—‘the hypothesis that there is a
Creator at once powerful and all-benevolent is surrounded, as
it must seem to every candid investigator, with difficulties
verging closely upon logical contradiction. The existence of the
smallest amount of pain and evil would seem to show that He
is either not perfectly benevolent, or not all-powerful. No one
can have lived long without experiencing sorrowful events of
which the significance is inexplicable.' The Professor, while
fully recognising these and other such-like difficulties, evidently
thinks it both rational and commendable to look for further
knowledge in a higher state of intelligence. Professors
Stewart and Tait, very competent witnesses, tell us that not a
‘ few of the most earnest, and the most virtuous of men,’ in
these days, doubt the existence of any future life. They
suggest that many of these are “unwilling unbelievers, com-
pelled by the working of their intellects to abandon the desire
of their hearts only after many struggles and much bitterness
of spirit.’ •
“These difficulties,’ says a recent writer, “are felt by men
of all classes. I have found them existing and working
in minds of widely different calibre and culture. In hours of
earnest and solemn conversation I have heard them expressed
by educated and deeply thoughtful men. I have listened
to them from the God-fearing woodman as he rested on his axe,
and discussed them with the fiercely infidel tramp in the
filthy lodging-house !’ ‘God forbid,’ says Dr. Conder, in his
able and very suggestive lectures on the “Basis of Faith,’
that any whose faith finds sure foothold on Divine truth,
and fixes a firm grasp on Divine love, should have anything
but sympathy and brotherly compassion for a soul wrapt in the
storm-shadow of this awful doubt, unable to seize the life-line or
feel the bottom. For our own, as well as for the doubter's
4.
5O SCEPTICISM.
sake, let us be honest. Our faith is worth little if it fears to
look doubt in the face. Opiates are dangerous remedies,
and I cannot but fear that the effectual way of ministering to
the growth of unbelief has been the practice of smoothing over the
surface of difficulties, ignoring or undervaluing their real force,
and leaving them to rankle unsatisfied, inflamed with a sense of
our lack of candour.’ f *
Looking fairly at Bishop Ellicott's causes, in the light of these
and other testimonies, we must acknowledge that they are
operating both widely and powerfully in the direction of
Scepticism.
But the more we study the popular side of present-day un-
belief, the more we shall be convinced that other causes are at
work, and to some of these we must now turn our attention.
I. Perhaps we ought to start by admitting that the truth
itself is often an occasion of unbelief. In political life, no
sooner does one party triumph over the other and gain the
Supreme control of affairs, than there arises a tendency in
certain quarters to encourage a spirit of Opposition and resis-
tance to its authority: so, in spiritual life, the claims of the
Church of Christ, and the very existence of an authoritative
Revelation, may indirectly awaken a spirit of doubt and
resistance. This influence of truth itself in promoting a spirit
of unbelief has been well noticed by the acute Mozley, in his
‘Essay on Blanco-White.” “In considering,’ he says, “the great
influence which the Inquisition had in making Blanco-White an
infidel, it must not be forgotten that simple Christian dogmatic
truth, standing by itself, has a tendency to produce that effect
upon many minds. It is a melancholy fact that persons have
been often driven by the mere presence of the Church's teach-
ing into a worse infidelity than they would have had without it.
The Church is not, of course, responsible for such an effect;
Öut she is responsible for any tendencies in that direction, arising
from unnecessary and narrow-minded intolerance.’ Words, these,
most true and most important The very existence and
authority of law awakens within man corrupt desires, causes
SOME OF ITS CA US ES. 5I
him to feel strivings of an opposition, of which, under other
conditions, he might have remained largely unconscious ; SO
the claims of Christ, when presented to man, when urged home
to the heart and conscience, may even suggest the doubt by
which man seeks to evade them. This influence neither the
believer nor the sceptic sufficiently remembers, but there can
be no doubt that it works very powerfully in Society, and leads
to much mental opposition to the moral claims of truth. Nor
can we lower the standard on this account ; we must seek to
make the testimony of truth as effective as possible, and, in
spite of the opposition of the human heart and will, we must
assert to the full the claims and authority of the Gospel of
Christ. Wherein we often err is in not giving sufficient promi-
nence to this fact, that just as the conducting-pipe may affect
the purity of the water that flows through it, so the essential
imperfection of language, the hardness and selfishness of the
human heart, often the pride, bigotry, and intolerance of the
human medium, may injuriously affect the truth spoken, and
thus awaken greater opposition.
This aspect of the case has as direct a bearing on the teach-
ing of the apologist as on the unbelief of the sceptic. If
the unregenerate heart may oppose, so the overbearing and
intolerant intellect of the advocate may not seldom distort, the
truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ‘A judicious silence,’
says St. Francis de Sales, ‘is always better than truth spoken
without charity.” If the truth itself may offend, its teacher must
beware lest he make the offence greater. ‘The conviction that
truth is the living word of God communicated to men as a
character alone can be communicated—to different minds by
different teaching, and by differently winding courses, to some
slowly but intensely, in points of vivid light with large intervals
of unintelligent darkness, to others with rapid evolutions of
the general outline and meaning of His providence and dis-
cipline, yet perhaps with a less deep and constant sympathy of
moral life, to all who eagerly seek what is right, with a gradual
clearness and eventual certainty, this is the trust on which
4–2
5. - SCEPTICISM.
alone true catholicity of feeling can be based, and with which
indifference is wholly incompatible.”
II. We must not forget the character of the age in which we
live, and the tendency of many of the forces now at work to
lead away from the Christian faith. At a certain stage of life
some are afflicted with what medical men term “growing pains;
so, many persons suffer mentally and spiritually from a similar
disease. Knowledge grows indeed amongst us, but wisdom
often “lingers’ behind. There is in the general mind a feeling
of impatience with all protracted intellectual effort, which is
one of the signs of its immaturity, and one of the best
feeders of the unbelieving tendency. So many opinions, once
considered essential, have been abandoned, so many views,
once resisted most fiercely, have been quietly accepted as
among the commonplaces of present knowledge, so many
beliefs have been modified by other beliefs, now generally held,
that the public mind may be said, with truth, to be to a great
extent chaotic in matters religious. These movements are not
confined to religious thought alone, nor do they affect simply
the spiritual life of the people. All matters human and
divine are to-day fiercely debated; the old is rejected
because it is ancient, and the new accepted solely because of
its novelty. Well may the faith of centuries, the faith of the
first founders of Christianity, suffer at such a time. Hence the
peculiar meaning and force attributed by many to such phrases
as ‘advanced thought,’ ‘modern culture,” “liberal views of
truth,’ ‘the spirit of the age,’ and other like expressions. Many
actually think it a manly thing, the sure sign of a robust in-
tellect, to doubt, to question, and to despise the faiths of the
past. Just as the Deists of Butler's time considered Christianity
a thing of the past, so the readers of our Reviews—men and
women who skim lightly the surface of articles by modern
Agnostics—speak of Christianity as a ‘phase of thought’ that is
passing away, and that is out of harmony with the beliefs of the
age. Those who know from experience the truths of the Gospel,
* “Theological Essays,’ by R. H. Hutton, vol. i., p. 3 II.
SOME OF ITS CA US ES. 53
whose feet are firmly planted on the Rock of Ages, and in
whose hearts Christ's teachings have found a home, may smile
at such manifestations, may consider them too childish for
serious consideration; such representations tend to Scepticism,
none the less, and they are the outcome of a state of mind, and
of a habit of life, utterly alien to faith.
Ours is a critical age, but these are not critics; they are
mere reckless destroyers and rejecters, men and women with
no deep feeling and with no earnest purpose in life. Yet their
influence is great, if temporary, and such as it is, it is all on the
side of the shallowest forms of popular Scepticism. We are
often struck with the amount of real faith underlying the
avowed unbelief of great thinkers; these, so-called, ‘advanced
thinkers’ are mere fault-finders, and their very beliefs are only
a kind of Scepticism.
III. We see in connection with Christianity itself, or at least
in connection with the thought and teaching of Christians, many
tendencies towards Scepticism. -
We need not dwell on the merely literary form of these doubt-
suggesting, doubt-stimulating influences. We have Christian
poets whose poetry can hardly help the cause of New Testament
Christianity, poets whose influence, though on the whole
morally pure, is weakening to simple faith. ‘Brief lays,’ born
of sorrow, intended to soothe, to comfort, and to inspire, some-
times suggest hopes ‘larger’ than are justified by the Christian
records to which ultimate appeal must be made. Emerson, it
seems, claimed to be regarded as a ‘Theist’ in his closing
years, but many young men have learned from him and others
to seek for a solution of life's enigmas rather in the direction of
Pantheism than of Christianity. Even where Pantheism has
failed to satisfy—and it never can satisfy the popular mind—it
may have been strong enough to weaken the influence of a
purer faith. The late Dr. Norman Macleod, when editor of Good
Words, bravely rejected a novel prepared for that periodical,
on the ground that its representations of Christian character
were hostile to Christianity. Alas! how many novelists, who
54 SCEPTICISM.
would not like to be considered Sceptics, have helped the cause
of unbelief by their delineations of character; as if, forsooth,
only men and women who lack robustness of intellect and
native energy of soul accepted the Christian creed . This is
in keeping with the remark of a well-known writer, after the
death of the late Mr. J. S. Mill, that if Mill had not been a
great thinker he might have been a good Christian | Such
Sneers chiefly come back upon those who make them, for
whatever else, may be said, no one familiar with the history of
the Christian Church can doubt, that from St. Paul to Faraday,
Christianity has received the homage of the excellent of the
earth. To these poets, novelists, and literary men on both
sides of the Atlantic, and to their work, literary and otherwise,
are due a vast amount of the doubts and questionings
especially of young men.
We must not omit to add to these the names of some dis-
tinguished Unitarian teachers both in this country and America;
by these many minds have been led away from belief in the
authority of Scripture, and along with this they have often
rejected what their teachers most firmly held.
There are two forms of teaching, as it seems to us, specially
responsible for popular unbelief in our generation. The
first is what may be termed the Broad-Church type; we
do not use this phrase in its more local sense, as representing
certain well-known leaders of thought in the Church of England,
but rather as including teachers to be found elsewhere,
men who handle Scripture and Scripture doctrine with an
amount of freedom which is hardly consistent with any
kind of loyalty to what is most distinctive in the Bible.
Many of these writers and teachers are themselves, no doubt,
true believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet they have
often helped to suggest doubt to others. Their so-called
broader views do not harmonize easily with the simple faith
and distinct teachings of the Apostles, and minds that yield to
their spell may not always be able to rest satisfied with the
platitudes and apparent evasions of their masters. If anyone
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 55
thinks this language too strong, let him study the correspon-
dence that appeared in the newspapers about the time Mr.
Stopford Brooke resigned his position as a clergyman in the
Church of England. There were then men in holy orders
who did not scruple to state that Mr. Brooke ought to have
remained where he was, even after ceasing ſo hold the theology of
the Church. Such teachers would be ready to praise the “poetic
reserves and angelic silences’ that Renan delights to see in
the French clergy, We do not require to discuss this theology;
its tendency, we do not say its intention, has been to weaken
the faith of many in the essential truths of Christianity, to
undermine the doctrine of the Incarnation, and consequently
to give Christ a lower place in the thought of the age. There
are minds that may be content to remain without any distinct
conception of truth, willing to leave the exact place of Christ
in the scale of being undetermined, to use language in a kind
of poetic fashion, and not to inquire too closely into its truer
and ultimate meaning; there are other minds that cannot rest
without definite opinions and strong convictions. They must
either worship Christ or reject Him ; they must trust their
whole being to the mercy of God as revealed in the cross of
Christ, or they must see in this cross simply a noble act of self-
sacrifice and no more, and to such minds the see-saw theology is
unsatisfactory. Hence, when they begin with ‘broad' teachings,
they generally end with the rejection of all that is supernatural.
Over against this must be set what Mr. Hutton has not
inaptly called the ‘Hard Church’ teaching. The two tenden-
cies are in a sense complementary, and in their mutual action
and reaction are responsible for much that is sceptical in the
public mind. The one creates a feeling of doubt and sus-
picion, the other fosters and encourages this by its criticisms
and denials; the one irritates the mind by its sometimes unjust
representations, while the other helps to justify the doubts that
have begun to arise by its explanation of parts of the Evan-
gelical Creed. True, many belonging to the ‘Hard Church’
have ever considered themselves the very cream of the Evan-
56 - SCEPTICISM.
gelical party in all churches; they have stood forth prominently
and pre-eminently as the upholders and defenders of the faith,
and have regarded themselves as models of orthodoxy and
fidelity to the truth. Yet they have, somehow, created opposi-
tion instead of sympathy by many of their representations.
They are too ready to denounce all doubters as men who set
up ‘human reason’ against Divine authority; they are fond of
calling those who do not accept their opinions ‘rationalists,’
and they show a strong inclination to forbid any exercise of the
intellectual faculty that does not lead to the results long ago
tabulated in Reformation Creeds. We give such men the
utmost credit for sincerity, but they often show sad lack of
Christ-like patience and sympathy with those whose chief
hindrances are their intellectual difficulties. From such
teachers and teaching, many profess to have received their
first lessons in doubt and Scepticism. Mr. Arnold rails at the
over-familiarity of certain thinkers with the Divine decrees;
the criticism may be somewhat sneeringly expressed, but as
against this school it is not unjust. Men who insist on
knowing too much about the Divine methods of government,
about the reason why this and that ‘judgment’ has been sent,
must remember that they weaken faith in the wisdom and
goodness of the Creator by their philosophy.
The relation of current theories about the future of the im-
penitent to the growing Scepticism of the age, is a subject too
large for proper treatment here. That there is a very close
connection, must be admitted by all who have any real acquaint-
ance with either Sceptics or Scepticism. The question is not
one of words or of philology, but about the moral character of
the Divine Being—the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. From very different quarters there come testimonies
that are strangely uniform about the unbelief-producing ten-
dencies of certain teachings about the future life. Sir James
Stephen, in his ‘Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography,’ declares
that most of the doubts of men in our time originate here.
The Rev. Edward White, in his ‘Life in Christ,’ speaks very
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 57.
emphatically in the same sense, and an author already cited
brings forward the case of an ‘unusually intelligent and well-
read working man’ who gives his experience thus: “I look back
upon twenty years of my life with feelings of horror. I knew not
where to gain help and light and comfort, and had I not at
length, by earnest and independent search after truth, obtained
direct from the Scriptures brighter and happier views of God and
His purposes than those which were pronounced orthodox, I
should have sunk into utter infidelity.’ Much the same account
of their religious experience is given by other earnest men and
women; moreover, the minds that feel these doubts most keenly
are often the most tender and sensitive to the power of truth.
There are minds of a different character upon which such re-
presentations as used to be current make but little real im-
pression ; they either accept indolently, or pass them by as a
matter of no moment, nor can they ever be brought to under-
stand, much less to sympathize with, the difficulties felt by
others in connection with this awful theme. We shall not
attempt to give specimens of the kind of ‘hard theology’ to
which we refer ; exaggeration is only too easy in dealing with a
Subject like this, and the controversies of recent years have
made the public mind familiar with many strange doctrines.
But we would earnestly entreat those who preach at street
corners, or from more elevated positions, about this subject, to
remember that many minds begin here to break with Christianity.
It becomes us in dealing with the future life, whether of
righteous or wicked, not to speak more than we know, not to
forget that the silences of Christ and His Apostles are here as
suggestive as their speech." The New Testament, as Stewart
* There is yet a reserve to the doctrine of the immediate after-life, still
a veil cast over it, we may reverently say, even in the New Testament.
The most modern notions of a sudden transition to the highest heavens, and
to the perfect life, are, perhaps, as far to the one extreme, as the descrip-
tions which Koheleth gives us in his gloomy mood are to the other. This
idea of the dead passing straightway into a busy active state of existence,
in these respects resembling the present life, with its proud talk of progress,
was unknown to the Early Church, as its liturgies and funeral hymns
evidently show. The doctrine of the immediate after-life, as we have said,
58 SCEPTICISM.
and Tait remark, teaches a doctrine about the future life truly
“awful,” so much so, that language fails to bring it fully before the
mind; it does not teach, and it ought not to be made to teach,
a doctrine fairly described by the same writers as ‘grotesque.”
It will be well for us also not to improve upon ‘the solemn but
markedly reserved’ language of Scripture on such points.
IV. The ‘corruptions of Christianity’ are responsible for
perhaps the larger portion of popular unbelief. “Doubt and
unbelief,’ says Christlieb, ‘assail for the most part not the pure
essence but the corrupted forms of Christianity.’ Those familiar
with the Scepticism of our large cities and towns, know well not
only the truth but the importance of such an observation.
There are Sceptics, and there is a kind of Scepticism, but very
little affected by such corruptions, whether they are seen in
connection with ecclesiastical societies or the characters of in-
dividual Christians. Some unbelievers even are strong enough
to rise above the incidental in Christianity; to them, not the
follies and the frailties of Christian men and women, but the
claims of the Gospel and the distinctive character of Christianity
are the real offence. These are, however, the few, and it is
not the unbelief of the select few, but of the many, that we are
now considering,
Take the Scepticism that appears in popular debates, the
unbelief that asserts itself by sneers, sarcasms, and often bitter
reproaches against Christianity, the unbelief that keeps thou-
sands from our churches on the Lord's day—it lives and thrives
chiefly on the corruptions of Christianity. It loves to deal with
the immoralities of patriarchs and Bible heroes, with ‘cursing
Psalms,' with the strifes, divisions, and separations among pro-
fessing Christians; its daintiest fare is not the moral and
metaphysical problems of the Bible, but the inconsistent lives
of those who call themselves by the name of Jesus. -
Professor Christlieb speaks of German unbelief arising from
lack of sympathy on the part of church-leaders with the social
has still a shadow cast upon it.”—Professor Taylor Lewis on the Book of
Ecclesiastes, in Lange’s ‘Commentary.’
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 59
aims and aspirations of the people. ‘These occasions of stumb-
ling’ are by no means confined to Germany : we have but to
listen to the bitter tone in which Sceptical lecturers speak of the
indifference of the churches and their members to the social
condition and political aspirations of the masses, to be con-
vinced that this cause operates among ourselves. Secularists
in English towns will point to the sad condition of the English
labourer, to his low wages and wretched home, to the little
interest that used to be taken in his welfare by ‘Squire and
Parson,’ as a proof that the Christianity of our time is a mere
sham and pretence. We may protest against this conclusion,
may say that it is alike unreasoning and unreasonable; reason
does not so rule and control our own opinions, that we can
afford to treat this argument with neglect. We have to con-
sider the moral effect of such opinions on the many, not their
logical effect upon the mind of the trained thinker. Nor is it
difficult for a clever speaker or writer to create a strong feeling
in favour of this view of life. Jesus Christ lived among the
poor, and ever sought to raise them to higher things. His
disciples were all poor men, and they cared little for what we
call social influence or position. How easy to paint a picture
that shall be a painful contrast to this—to represent the
neglected labourers on the one hand, and the luxurious
aristocracy and rich middle class on the other, and the
servants of Jesus ever taking the side of the rich against the
poor | Not the absolute truth of such pictures, but the amount
of truth in them, and the ease with which they may be drawn,
make them powerful in leading many to feel hostile to
Christianity and its representatives.
To the miserable controversies of our ecclesiastical life, the
Sacerdotal assumptions, the haughty and arrogant claims of one
class of men, and their contempt for others more truly Christ-
like than themselves, the strifes about outward postures and
Ceremonies, the too common imputation of motives in such
debates, and the evident want of true charity, must be attri-
buted much of the antagonism to Christianity seen among the
60 SCEPTICISM,
people. So long as there are in the State gigantic monopolies,
So long as one class claims authority over another, equally loyal
and equally worthy, so long there must be controversy and strife
and alienation of heart. But while Christians are debating
these questions, and while each party stoutly holds its own,
there are thousands outside neglected by all; and these are
often ridiculing all churches, and pointing out how little
Christianity has done for its most devoted adherents. All this
tends towards that practical neglect which is the best recruiting
ground for popular Scepticism.
Another feeder of the Sceptical tendency is the worship of
wealth and mere worldly success by all the Churches. Accord-
ing to Sceptics, all Churches and all Christians agree here.
They say we give the highest places in the Church, not to the
most Christ-like men, but to the richest members. They point
to our methods of getting money, our habit of judging preachers
and preaching by this test; to our severity towards the sins of
the poor, whilst we are winking at the vices and the vicious
luxury of the rich ; to our conventional, not Scriptural, standards
of morality, and to the exceptions ever made in favour of rich
sinners. We may say there is exaggeration in the pictures drawn,
but we cannot deny many of the charges brought against us.
When alongside of our practices we place Christ's teaching
about riches, we can hardly wonder that Scepticism is fostered.
We declare that intemperance is the greatest curse of our land,
yet we accept the ‘munificent” gifts of rich distillers to build
temples for the worship of God; we may occasionally expel
from our churches floor members for vicious acts, but we are
wonderfully tolerant towards the sins of those who purchase for
themselves, by bribery, seats in Parliament; we may in words
protest against all tampering with principle, yet we often act as
if the end sanctified the means: all these and many other
‘corruptions of Christianity’ are both common and regarded
as commonplace; on them popular infidelity lays hold, and by
means of them it is able to prejudice the mind of many against
the religion of Jesus Christ.
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 6I
V. But while it is true that all these and a hundred other
influences are at work in society, making unbelief easy and faith
increasingly difficult, there is another fruitful cause of Scepticism
to which we must now direct attention. In one sense, this is
the most important of all to the Sceptic himself, for it brings
directly home to him his personal responsibility for his unbelief
‘Wherever,’ says Christlieb, “there is real alienation from the
Gospel, ethical causes have much to do with it. Each man's
position towards Christianity is ultimately determined by the
inward condition of his heart and will. . . . In Divine and
spiritual things no one errs entirely without his own fault.’ These
sentences are true and profoundly important. When discussing
the causes of intemperance, we are compelled to bring home to
the consciences of all who drink, all who sell, all who manu-
facture, and all who by legislation sanction, these drinks, their
responsibility for the evils of which we complain. We must
give full value to all the agencies at work against sobriety,
whether directly or indirectly ; but while doing this, we must
never forget to remind the individual drinker of his moral
freedom and his responsibility for its abuse. We blame society,
inasmuch as it excites his passions, and stimulates his appetite
for alcohol, yet we hold him a sinner. Society tempts him,
indeed, but he yields to the temptation, thus inwardly re-
sponding to the outward Solicitation.
In the same way, we have to discriminate in dealing with
unbelief. We know there are many influences at work all
around making faith difficult, yet we must hold the Sceptic
responsible for so readily yielding to these untoward influences.
It is well for us to realize that in connection with outward
Christianity there are many ‘occasions of stumbling’ to faith;
this will help us to be more diligent in “making straight paths
for our feet.’ Well also to remind men that, in a world like
ours, offences must come, that men have been created for faith,
not for unbelief, and that moral character is seen in the power
to triumph over hindrances like these.
There is now, and there has ever been, an ‘offence of the
62 SCEPTICISM.
cross,’ which arises not from the errors, failings, and incon-
sistencies of Christians, but from the pride of the human heart,
and its unwillingness to submit life to the yoke of Christ.
“Truth,’ as Dr. Mozley finely says, “is a yoke,” and although
to those who know and love it this “yoke is easy,' there is that
in every man which leads him to rebel against its authority.
Many Sceptics have themselves created the very difficulties
of which they so loudly complain. Many receive their first
lessons in Scepticism, not from false teaching, not from the bad
examples of professing believers, but from their efforts to justify
to others the positions their own pride, worldliness, or neglect,
have led them to take up in relation to the Gospel. Not
seldom, it is to be feared, men who will not submit their hearts
to religion find it convenient to offer objections to Bible teach-
ings. When they are demonstrating the absurdity of some Old
Testament story, the inconsistency of some Christian life, or
the unpractical nature of some command of Christ, they are
really fortifying themselves against the power of some moral
truth that has been pressing too closely on their conscience.
“We console ourselves,’ says Lacordaire, ‘for our vices by
declaring them necessities, and clothe in the mantle of science
the testimony of a corrupted heart.’
There is a subtle pride of heart, an unwillingness to submit
life to the authority of truth, a desire to live selfishly, that
accounts for not a little of our popular Scepticism. It were
unjust to the Sceptic to overlook this. Many in their hearts
hate a certain type of teaching, they find this in Christianity,
and they will not receive it. Such a view of life is contrary,
perchance, to all their habits of mind, and opposed to their
plans, pursuits, or purposes in life. It is this secret mora!
antipathy that inspires the outward and apparently intellectual
opposition. -
One of the idols of our age is sincerity: Given only a sincere
desire to find the truth, a sincere belief in this or that, then,
whether we accept or whether we reject Christianity, it matters
little; not truth, but sincerity, is the great thing in life. A
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 63.
hazy, dim sort of consciousness that this is the true philosophy
of life pervades much of the popular Scepticism of our time.
Truth as something objective, an authority above us and out-
side of us to which we must submit intellect and heart, is little
thought of; our age thinks of truth mainly as a subjective
feeling, or consciousness of sincerity—unconsciously, perhaps,
yet none the less really, it says with one of old, ‘Man is the
measure of all things.’ In the realm of outward nature, men
have long ago abandoned such an ideal. They have learned
that man is the ‘minister and interpreter of nature,” that he
must simply obey, not dictate, the conditions under which
truth shall manifest itself to his mind. Nature, as a great
thinker reminds us, does not proclaim her Secrets on the house-
tops—she whispers them in the ear of the earnest listener ;
and, as Lord Bacon long ago taught his age, only the man
who has the childlike mind can enter the kingdom of nature.
Men fail to see that the kingdom of heaven is opened to us
on the same conditions, and hence their unbelief. Not because
churches are sometimes corrupt and Christians inconsistent,
not because there are moral difficulties in Revelation that hinder
faith, but because they will not come to Christ as /iffle children,
submitting zwills and minds to Him, and asking Him to guide
#hem into the Knowledge and loze of truth, are they among the
Sceſſics.
To ignore this cause of unbelief were blindness itself; to
give it little prominence were to betray the interests of truth,
which claims not only sincerity within, but an honest sub-
mission of the intellect, the heart, and the life to itself. While,
therefore, we try to explain the Scepticism of the age, while we
seek to show that existing Conditions in Society are unfavourable
to simple faith, we at the same time assert the sacred authority
of Truth. Only the ‘All-Seeing ' can read the secret thoughts,
and tell how many err because of this pride of heart, this un-
willingness to come to the light ; but that there is much of this
pride in popular Scepticism, anyone may see if only he will
mark its utterances. No one in Our time has better pointed out
64 SCEPTICISM.
this danger than the clear-sighted Canon Mozley, and with
some of his sharp and incisive words we must conclude this
chapter. ‘Here is the point. The fact is that the love of truth
in fallen man is a corrupted affection, just as natural love is.
It betrays the selfish element. His mind annexes truth to itself,
and not itself to truth. It considers truth as a kind of property;
it wants the pride of making it its own ; it treats it as an article
of mental success; it does not reverence truth as an object, but
appropriates it as a thing ; it loves it as its own creation, and as
the reflection of itself and its labours. . . . Not as the function
of his own activities, the triumph of his own penetration, the off-
spring of his mind, not in the subterranean regions where nature's
fallen machinery and emulous exertion is at work and the be-
grimed intellect labours in its own smoke and exults in its diffi-
culties, does the disciple of Christ search for truth. He searches
and he penetrates, but not in this way. Truth penetrates into
him, rather than he into Truth ; Truth finds him out, not he It.
He looks out for Its approach, waits for It, prepares himself for
Its reception. He knows the signs of Its approach, and can
tell Its features through the distance ; he is alive to the slightest
stir of the air, to a whisper, to a breath. But he looks on It
all the while as something without himself, as something to
advance and act upon him. Upon all his activities sits an
awful passiveness, and the mind adores with pure devotion an
Object above itself.”
What hope would there not be for the thinkers, seekers, and
teachers of our time, what a thawing of the chilling frosts that
lead to doubts of the intellect and coldness of the heart, if we
could get all to unite in Mozley’s prayer, that follows the sen-
tences quoted, and with which we close our remarks on this
subject —
“Oh Image Omnipotent, Eternal Pattern, fain would I love
while I secretly dread Thee. Thou art that Mould that makest
Thy slow, irresistible course through the world that Thou hast
formed. Thou didst work at the beginning, and Thou workest
hitherto. To Thee all souls, all reasons bow ; the world is clay
SOME OF ITS CA USES. 65
before Thy path; man awaits his fashioning from Thee, his
change, his renovation ; Thou informest and fashionest all
minds that love Thee. . . . Come down upon me, and be my
living Mould. Yet not without some tender condescension,
some mercy and unutterable love, impress Thy awful stamp
upon my poor and trembling being. I am weak, and Thou art
mighty; I am small, and Thou art infinite. Crush me not by
Thy force, Thy magnitude divine, but come in gentleness, in
pity. . . . “In all ages Thou enterest into holy Souls and makest
them friends of God.” Thou hast appeared on earth, and man
has seen Thee in visible form ; and we know that Thou art the
Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Door and the Shepherd;
Thy sheep hear Thy voice, and Thou gently leadest them, and
carriest them in Thine arms. Thou didst suffer for them ; and
now, being made higher than the heavens, intercedest for them :
an High Priest that art touched with the feeling of our in-
firmities, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
If only those who feel the chill of suspicion creeping over
them, could join in the words of this prayer—words so touching,
so tender, and so true—there would be little fear of their ever
reaching the ‘Sunless gulf of doubt.”
CHAPTER IV.
‘KA 7/OWAZ’ SCEPTICISM; MR. J. S. MILL–
M/S S A. MAAC 7/AVAEA U.
“Human reason is like a drunken man on horseback ; set it up on one
side and it tumbles over on the other.’—LUTHER.
‘ Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”—ST. PAUL.
‘Scepticism means not intellectual doubt alone, but moral doubt.”—
CARLYLE. -
• ‘The powers of pain and wrong,
Immeasurably strong, -
Assail our souls and chill with common doubt
Clear brain and heart devout.’
MORRIS.
A LIVING poet, in language at Once beautiful and suggestive,
reminds us that when truth is ‘embodied in a tale, it may
gain admission into hearts closed against wisdom in more
abstract dress. There is much truth as well as beauty in this
thought. Not only “lowly doors, but nearly all doors are open
to truth embodied in the lessons of a life. Taking advantage,
then, of this almost universal taste, we shall try to present
‘Rational Scepticism' as this theory of life has been illustrated
in the lives of two gifted workers who have recently passed
away. These lives have no connection with each other beyond
this, that they both belong to much the same period, and that
in their relation to religion they were remarkably similar. We
refer to the lives of Mr. J. S. Mill and Miss H. Martineau.
Both began and ended life about the same time; both occupied
much the same intellectual relation at last to Christianity; both
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 67.
lived lives of great intellectual activity, and both held much
the same moral theory of life; both have left behind them.
autobiographies, in which, with great frankness, they have
given us their opinions about religion, and their experience
of Scepticism ; both lived lives in many respects worthy of
honour,” and both considered life better without the hopes
and faith of the Christian. From a study of these lives, and
of their thoughts, especially about Christianity, we may derive
Some benefit. Are they beacon-lights warning of the dangers
of Scepticism, or are they proofs that life is a nobler and
richer thing to the Rational Sceptic than it is to the Christian?
Our answer to these and such-like questions will appear in
what follows.
The man or woman who can deliberately sit down to write
his or her own life-history must, as it appears to us, have a con-
siderable amount of something akin to self-complacency in his
or her character. The writer of such a history must not only
have a high estimate of the importance of the period so dealt
with, but also, and we think chiefly, a deep sense of his or her
own personal importance. Nor can we persuade ourselves that
it would be possible for any man or woman of the noblest type
of human character to attempt such a work. There are, indeed,
critics so desperately anxious to prove that Moses wrote every
sentence of the Pentateuch, that they are willing to admit that
he called himself the meekest man on earth ! Why, they
argue, should either man or woman be unwilling to tell the
honest truth, about any person or thing? True indeed; yet
only men and women who hold a high opinion of their own
essential worth, and of the prominence due to them in the
world, will ever deliberately write the story of their own lives.
That both Mr. Mill and Miss Martineau, have succeeded in
giving a fairly truthful, and for the matter of that impartial,
estimate of themselves, we do not doubt; that they should ever,
have resolved to write their own lives, and that through long
years they should have held to, and carried out, such a resolu-
tion, must ever appear proof positive to the present writer that
[—2
68 SCEPTICISM.
they were gifted with a large share of self-esteem, not to say self-
assertion | Her admiring biographer, Mrs. Chapman, speaks
of Miss Martineau as the “greatest Englishwoman.’ We
Cannot admit the accuracy of such a classification. That
both of these writers were great, we confess; their lives were
crowded with useful deeds, but the epithet “greatest,’ for many
days to come, will not be given either to writers that reject
Christianity as a superstition, or that write their own auto-
biography.
We shall first give a brief outline of the spiritual history
of these two Sceptics, and then endeavour, as best we can, to
point out the lessons to be gathered from their opinions and
life.
No man, however gifted, or however great, can detach him-
self from his surroundings; it may, even with truth, be said,
the greater the man, the more does he belong to his age, and
the more will he represent its character and tendency. Only
One Great Being has appeared in the world, the ‘Son of
Humanity,' belonging to no age of the world's history. At all
events, no one can ever hope to do justice to the religious
opinions of Mr. Mill, who does not study the conditions
under which he was trained. It is a disputed point whether
great men owe most to their fathers or mothers; Mr. Mill's
mother seems to have ceased to have any connection with
him, if she ever had any beyond that of mother or nurse,
when he was from three to five years of age. Attempts have
been made to trace back certain elements in his character to
his godmother, but with these we do not concern ourselves.
John Stuart Mill is, in a most remarkable and pronounced
manner, the child of James Mill, the historian of India; to
this man he owes most of his thoughts and feelings about
1 The relation of sex to heredity is a subject not yet fully understood.
‘Mr. Galton's first inquiries concerning hereditary genius led him to the
conclusion that, contrary to common opinion, the female influence was
inferior to the male in transmitting ability; but when he came to revise his
data more closely, he saw reason to conclude that the influence of females
is but little inferior to that of males in such transmission.”—Dr. Maudsley.
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 69
religion—we may add, his very prejudices and his strong likes
and dislikes. Of his mother Mr. Mill has not a word to say ;
Strange to say, the eloquent vindicator of woman, the man
who could write so strongly about her position and subjection,
has not a sympathetic word to say about this woman. Hers
must have been a life full of anxiety and care; about that
anxiety her son says nothing, and of that motherly care we
learn only as by accident. This man, who, in later years,
almost idolized his own wife, seems to have no sympathy at all
with the woman to whom he owed his earthly existence.
|Much the same remark must be made about his relation to his
brothers and sisters. Incidentally, we learn a little about them,
but of home life, in any proper sense of these words, there is
no trace in the record of his early years. Our attention is
exclusively directed to the father and the son ; these were
all-in-all to each other. For John Stuart Mill the father lived,
and to his training and development he bent all the energies
of his gifted, if somewhat hard and narrow, mind. And for
many years the son was intellectually and morally the echo of
his father, and to the very last he was in matters spiritual the
child of James Mill.
The elder Mill was trained for the ministry of the Church
of Scotland, and when he came to London he was a licentiate
of that communion. He belonged, Professor Bain tells us,
rather to the ‘moderate’ than to the ‘Evangelical party.’ This
may be assumed from the tone of his thought and the manner
of his life. The tradition is, according to Bain, that Bentham
was the first to lead the elder Mill away from Christianity.
Very likely the moralist had something to do with the de-
velopment of Mill's opinions, but there were other and deeper
influences at work.’ So far as we can gather from the son, his
father never really understood Christianity. He must have
been, even in his Orthodox days, only a kind of Deist in re-
ligion. Nor did he long find a halting-place in Deism ;
ultimately he reached the conclusion that about these high
matters nothing whatever can be known—in fact, he became
70 $ SCEPTICISM.
a kind of Agnostic. A ‘Dogmatic Atheist’ he never was, and
this position he believed to be absurd and untenable. The
Christianity rejected by the elder Mill was a kind of high
Calvinism of the fatalistic type; and he rejected this, the
younger Mill is careful to remind us, on moral grounds." He
considered the Christian (?) idea of God the me plus ultra of
wickedness. According to this idea, God first made a hell,
then created the human race with the infallible foreknowledge,
and therefore inſention, that the great majority of them should
be tormented in this hell for ever and ever. He taught his
son that the popular religion was just the mythology, so to
speak, of Christianity, to be treated with much the same con-
sideration that is given to the mythology of the Greeks and
Romans; that nothing whatever could be known regarding the
origin of the universe, and that man's duty was to give himself
no concern about such questions; that as for Christians, they
held opinions and accepted beliefs utterly immoral in character
and tendency. He seems to have looked with more kindly
eye on the doctrines of the Manichaean, and often wondered
that these found no modern defenders and interpreters. As
to human life, it was a poor thing at best, and after the first
bloom and freshness of youth are over, there is little in it to
be desired. The character of the elder Mill, says his son,
was a mixture of the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the Cynic; he
was strictly moral and sternly upright, but had no tenderness
of heart.
Such was the spiritual ‘environment’ of the younger Mill.
He grew up, as he himself tells us, without any religion. He
could not reject Christianity, for he never accepted its teach-
ings; we may add, he never really understood them. The
1 It may save needless reference if we say, once for all, that for the facts
about Mr. Mill we are indebted chiefly to his ‘Autobiography.’ A few
incidents of the elder Mill’s life are taken from Professor Bain’s articles in
‘Mind' (1879, 1880). Mr. Mill's opinions about religion we take from
the “Autobiography’ and the ‘Essays on Religion,’ published after his
death. The opinions and history of Miss Martineau are taken from her
• Autobiography, and the companion volume by the admiring editor, Mrs.
Chapman.
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 71
friends and associates of his early life were not likely to help
him much here. We read of intercourse, indeed, of a kind,
with men such as Maurice, Sterling, Thirlwall, afterwards Bishop
of St. David's, and others, but under conditions unfavourable
to any religious conversation or real interchange of thought. Of
the character and ability of Maurice he held a high estimate,
but such a man could never have really influenced him. He
looked upon Maurice's attempt to make the Thirty-nine
Articles a kind of epitome of all truth, as a species of Jesuitical
Casuistry. Carlyle, too, he knew, and in later days much
valued. At the time to which we refer, his father looked with
contempt on what he called the sentimental ravings of the sage
of Chelsea, and he himself would hardly be able to understand
such writing. So far as intercourse with Christians is con-
Cerned, so far as Christian training went, he was brought up as
much a Pagan as if he had lived before the Christian era. Of
course, there were the influences of Christian thought in the
literature of his time, but his father's teaching would most
effectually Counteract these ; and around him, as his associates,
as the ‘set’ to which he belonged, and with whom he discussed
questions on equal terms, were a band of thinkers as sceptical
as himself, some of them as bitterly opposed to Christianity
as was his father. Moreover, the elder Mill taught him to
keep his thoughts about religion to himself, on the ground
that by speaking too freely he might hinder his promotion in
this world.
Such were the early life and spiritual position of Mr. Mill.
There is no evidence that he ever thoroughly studied for him-
self, and under conditions favourable to success, the religion
of Jesus Christ. He read, but can hardly be said to have
deeply studied, the Old and New Testaments. He was sur-
prised to find love in the Mosaic code, under conditions that
appeared to him low and even barbarous. There is evidence
in his various writings of some vague acquaintance with the
Gospels and Epistles, evidence also of no really profound
study of the New Testament. We find opinions expressed
72 SCEPTICISM.
about both Gospels and Epistles that are very crude and
uncritical. If any unfortunate critic had dealt with his philo-
sophy as he has everywhere dealt with the Record of God's re-
deeming purpose, we can imagine what scathing exposure there
would have been, by Mill, of his rashness and incompetency.
This remark has a wider application; our ‘Rational Sceptics’
are familiar with the faintest shades of meaning in Plato,
Aristotle, or Hume ; they bend their spacious brows with in-
tense interest over the records of lowest life among savages;
they even devote years of patient and laborious study to the
lives of the ants and the bees; but when they come to the
most wonderful Life ever seen in this world of ours, they are
content with the most superficial knowledge.
So far as we have been able to gather, Mr. Mill never really
shook himself free from the influence of his father in his study
of Christianity. In later years, and after his father's death, he
expressed himself with the utmost freedom on philosophy and
political economy, often contradicting the opinions of his father,
and insisting on taking an independent course. In religion, he
remained to the close of life simply a disciple of the elder Mill;
he accepted his father's views of Christianity, and regarded
the popular beliefs with feelings of pity mixed with contempt.
Scattered through his works there are allusions to Revealed
Religion, which are often mere accommodations to prevailing
beliefs, and of which no account need be taken." But in his
work on “Liberty,’ in his ‘Utilitarianism,’ and, above all, in the
.* Essays on Religion,’ published after his death, we find his real
opinions and feelings; these are decidedly opposed to the
Christianity of the New Testament — sometimes almost
grotesque perversions of the same. According to him, the one
essential Christian virtue is passive “obedience,’ and the one
essential vice ‘self-will.” Did it never occur to him to read
* The same remark may be made respecting the early writings of Mr.
Herbert Spencer. Let anyone compare, for example, his ‘Social Statics,’
with his ‘Data of Ethics,” or other recent productions, and the change will
be instructive ; another indication, this, of the change that has come over
the public mind within the last twenty years.
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 73
this in the light of the Christian idea of God? Mill brings
with him his own ideas about “Nature’ and about God, reads
these into the Christian Records, and then finds there the will
of a Being of limited power, and but imperfect goodness,
perhaps even a vindictive Being ! Natural enough, under such
circumstances, to object to “obedience’ and to glorify ‘Self-
will; equally natural for the Christian to say that Mill's picture
does not correspond to the reality. Our God is the God and
Father of Jesus Christ. When we study carefully his latest and
most matured utterances, we are convinced that he never went
beyond the lessons taught him by his father. The God of the
younger, as of the elder, Mill, is the God of a sort of ultra-
Calvinism, the Calvinism of the ignorant rather than of the
theologians. There is the same vehement dislike wherever
Nature is spoken about ; Nature is herself bad, and cannot
therefore be the work of a good Creator. She maliciously
destroys life, and that in the most wanton manner; ‘gravitation
need not cease when you go by, indeed, but Nature ought not
to pelt you with stones | At bottom, Mill's view of life leaves
no place for real freedom in man, and the Nature which he
would acknowledge as from a good and powerful Creator, would
be a Nature in which there were no uniformities and no laws.
Like his father, he accepts Dualism as, on the whole, a more
consistent creed, and wonders why it has no abler advocates in
our time. He does not seem to see that if there are ninety-and-
nine objections to the Christian, there would be all these and one
or two more to the Dualist, creed. Equally unsatisfactory, as
we shall show later on, is his view of Christ. Mill, like other
great men, cannot help almost worshipping the ‘ Prophet of
Nazareth.’ He refuses to believe that the Apostles created
such an Ideal—they were incapable of such work; hence, the
records must be accepted as in the main trustworthy, only
there must be no miracles allowed | No more satisfactory is
his dealing with the question of immortality. It is not difficult
for him to weaken the force of arguments common to Socrates
and Christianity. There is evidence that after the death of his
74 SCEPTICISM.
much-beloved wife, he looked with more favour on the hope of
immortality. At all times life appeared to him, as to his
father, a ‘poor thing at best ; after this bereavement, it was a
Cruel and mocking thing as well. There is no evidence of his
having studied immortality in the light of Christ's resurrection.
The distinctive immortality of the New Testament—life in Christ
—his bias against miracle would not allow him to entertain.
Looking then at the whole spiritual history of Mr. Mill, we
can find nothing calculated to recommend to us what is called
‘Rational Scepticism.’ His was, in many respects, a noble and
worthy life. One of his admirers seems to think that, but for his
great mind and deep thought, he might have been a good
Christian. The sneer is patent enough, but not the wisdom
of such a Sentiment. No one will say that Mill's view of
Christianity was possible to a truly great soul applying itself
bravely and patiently to a study of the Christian Records. Had
he been a true Christian, he would have been, as it seems to us,
a clearer thinker and a greater man. We yield to none in our
admiration of many features in his character. A great statesman,
himself a Christian, is said to have called him the ‘conscience
of the House of Commons.’ Mill had a true instinct of justice,
and no struggling cause, unless indeed it were Christianity,
could appeal to him in vain. In his public life, he acted on
principles higher far than many Christians seem to acknow-
ledge. He refused to adopt expedients too common at
election contests when he sought to enter Parliament. He
stood up for what he considered right, however unpopular his
* “It was, and is, my fixed conviction, that a candidate ought not to incur
one farthing of expense for undertaking a public duty. . . . What has to be
done by the supportors of each candidate in order to bring his claims before
the constituency, should be done by unpaid agency, or by voluntary sub-
scription. . . . That the expense, or any part of it, should fall on the
candidate, is fundamentally wrong, because it amounts in reality to buying
his seat. Even on the most favourable supposition as to the mode in which
the money is expended, there is a legitimate suspicion that anyone who
gives money for leave to undertake a public trust has other than public
ends to promote by it,” etc. If such views were generally held, what
gross evils might at once be swept away from electoral contests (See
‘Autobiography," p. 28O.)
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 75
conduct might appear. In private life he was, we believe,
honourable, pure, and unselfish. Christians may do justice to
these elements in his character, however much they may feel
the unsatisfactory nature of his philosophy of life; they may
also believe that one but little in the Kingdom of Heaven, if
true to the spirit of Jesus, may be far greater than Mill.
Running through his character there is, in our opinion, a
spirit of intense self-complacency, from which the humility
taught in the school of Christ might have saved him. He
cannot help feeling that he and his “set do not belong to
the common herd ; they must enter Society as ‘apostles,” or
not at all. They felt themselves superior to the ordinary
motives, aims, and superstitions of Christianity. Mill, in his
heart, despises those who accept Christianity, and this, too,
because of his ignorance of its genuine character. Professor
Bain blames Mill for not seeing that his father's antipathy to
Christianity was ultimately inte//ectual, rather than moral, as he
considered ; so may we urge that if John Stuart Mill had come
to the ‘Prophet of Nazareth ' with a keener intellectual vision,
he might have seen that a Being so exalted was his Master,
and that the supreme devotion of heart, and soul, and life to
Jesus Christ was more truly manly than was his own position.
That Mill was never really satisfied with his own theory of
the universe, is evident to the diligent student of his later
writings. There is much that is truly sad about the history of
his spiritual experiences. He tells of a crisis that came to him
after he reached manhood, and of an “infinite sadness’ (to use
words not his), that at intervals in his life ever returned to him.
Professor Bain attributes this to physical and intellectual
exhaustion, Consequent on the unnatural amount of work his
father made him go through in his youth. Doubtless he was
overworked in every sense, for the amount of reading he accom-
plished is almost fabulous." But Mill himself seems to us to
suggest the truer explanation, when he likens this experience of
1 He began to study Greek when he was three years of age, and before
he arrived at the ripe age of eight years, had mastered (?) much of Plato
76 SCEPTICISM.
his to a Methodist’s feeling under conviction of sin. Of course,
Mill means to insinuate by this that such experiences are not
to be accounted for on Methodist principles; here, however,
John Wesley is a truer guide than John Stuart Mill. There
is something intensely pathetic in Mill's account of himself
at this period. We cannot but wish that some wise and good
man had done for Mill, at such a time, what Eli did for
Samuel of old. If only someone could have persuaded him
to come to Christ with his trouble, as did Rabbi Nicodemus,
what a change there might have been in his whole life
As it was, he was dissatisfied with life, and felt that it had no
deep and true moral meaning. The narrow, and narrowing,
philosophy of his father had utterly broken down. Ultimately
he found some relief in the poetry of Wordsworth (which his
father had despised), and in trying to live for others—to seek,
not individual happiness, but the greatest good of others.
Speaking generally, he adopted the ‘religion of humanity’ as
his moral guide in life. At intervals in his after-life this disquiet
returned, and all through life he had to battle with the feeling
that nothing was “worth while.”
No Christian, at least, can admire the ‘religion’ of his later
life. He found in the memory of his departed wife all that
he had of a religion. To this influence he yielded himself
with something like Superstitious ardour, and his last writings
show traces, as it seems to us, of its enervating influence.
Many will see in all this the natural outcome of that ‘rational
Scepticism which Mill accepted. The soul of man ‘thirsts
for the living God,” and this thirst can never be really quenched
by any idolatry of departed excellence. Deeper students of
religion than Mill, or any of his school, declare that religion
is one of the most important factors in the complex life of
humanity. Man may by force of will, and by the circumstances
of his life, detach himself from worship—may even regard the
spiritual cravings of his nature as the offspring of Superstition
and priestcraft; he cannot get rid of the fact that he is a
religious being. As Fairbairn has well and beautifully said, and
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 77
not without reference to this very experience of Mill's : “Man
gets into religion as into other natural things—the use of his
senses, his mother-tongue—without conscious effort; but to get
out of it he has to use art, to reason himself into an attitude of
watchful antagonism at once to the tendencies and action of
his own nature, and to ancient and general beliefs. No man
is an Atheist by birth, only by artifice and education ; and art
when it vanquishes nature is not always a victor. The world
has before now seen a mind which had cast out religion as
worship of God, introduce a religion which worshipped man, or
rather idolized the memory of a woman.’ To a Theist, Mill's
experience gives one more proof of how impossible it is for
the human heart to rest satisfied with any religion, which does
not acknowledge God as Creator and Father of Men.
We have confessed that there was much that was noble in
the character of Mill, but we cannot say that he shows any
nobility of mind in his relation to the religion of Jesus Christ.
He was brought up to believe that the doctrines of Christianity
were simply a kind of mythology, and in this belief he lived
and died. He had presented to him, in youth and early man-
hood, a picture of Christianity and the Christian philosophy
of life which no more corresponded to the reality than the
first works of some child-artist correspond to the finished
works of a master; there is no evidence that he ever sought to
see Christianity as it is, as we find it in its authoritative
zecords. Mill lived at a time when the early records of Chris-
tianity and the dogmatic teachings of creeds were being sub-
jected to the keenest scrutiny, when fresh works on these
subjects were being issued from the press every year; there is
no evidence that he took any special interest in such critical
studies. He taught that if we are to deal justly with any
doctrine or any theory, we must deal with it in its best form,
and as presented by its wisest advocates; the doctrines of
Christianity criticized by him, are those put forth by its crudest
advocates and teachers, and his criticisms give no evidence of
deep study and knowledge at first-hand.
78 SCEPTICISM.
Taking all these things into account, and with the utmost
desire to do justice to all that was best in Mill's character, we
cannot but conclude that ‘ Rational Scepticism,’ as illustrated
by and embodied in the tale of his life, is anything but a true
and safe guide for man. Mill would have been far more truly
‘rational’ had he accepted the ‘Prophet of Nazareth’ not only
as a ‘unique’ moral Teacher, but as the Son of God. A truly
rational faith and hope in Christ would have made life richer
and better for him—would also have made his moral influence
more beneficial, and his work more enduring.
Miss Martineau, unlike Mr. Mill, was trained and developed
under Christian influences. The creed of her fathers was cer-
tainly not one of the most orthodox, nor can we refuse to agree
with her when she affirms that it lacked some of the most
essential elements of the full-orbed Christian faith. The faith
of her father, mother, and friends, was the faith of Unitarianism
as that existed at the close of the eighteenth century. Miss
Martineau herself describes this form of belief, and no one will
say that her description lacks energy and point. Referring to
her ancestors and their beliefs, and contrasting the Calvinism
of the early Martineaus with the Unitarianism in which she was
nurtured, she says:–“ The first Martineaus that we know of
were expatriated Huguenots, who came over from Normandy
on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. They were, of
course, Calvinists—-so fully admitting the Christian religion to
be a scheme of redemption as to deserve, without limitation or
perversion, the title of Christians. But their descendants
passed by degrees, with the congregations to which they be-
longed, out of Calvinism into the pseudo-Christianity of
Arianism first, and then of Unitarianism, under the guidance
of pastors whose natural sense revolted from the essential
points of the Christian doctrine, while they had not learning
enough—Biblical, ecclesiastical, historical, or philosophical—
to discover that what they gave up was truly essential, and that
the name of Christianity was a mere sham when applied to
what they retained.’ Whether this be a correct estimate of the
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 79
matter in dispute, or whether Miss Martineau's distinguished
brother would be disposed to accept it, we need not stop to
inquire; suffice it to say that these were the spiritual ‘environ-
ments’ of her early life. Mill's early life was spent under
either non-Christian or anti-Christian influences; Miss Mar-
tineau's among men and women who accepted or professed the
Unitarian creed.
About her childhood we need say little. That she must
have been a strange child she herself honestly confesses, and
every page of her history gives ample proof of this fact. She
was a source of much trouble and anxiety to her parents by
her fears and forebodings of evil. Her strange temperament,
her religious beliefs, her fears and fancies, would exert con-
siderable influence over her early spiritual history, but on
these we shall not dwell. We gather that she was a devoted
student, in early life, of the Unitarian version of the Scriptures,
and that Belsham’s ‘Expositions of the Epistles' were her chief
mental food. Under these instructors she made marked pro-
gress. She diligently studied the Old and New Testaments;
she tried to construct ‘harmonies’ of the Gospel records; she
exercised a most careful scrutiny over the workings of her
mind, and tormented herself much with doubts and fears about
her spiritual health. Thanks to her Unitarian parents and
teachers, she says, she never had any dread of future punish-
ment, nor did she believe in the existence of any devil. Up
to the age of twenty, her religious beliefs amounted to the fol-
lowing: She believed in a God, ‘milder and more passionless
than the God of the orthodox’—in fact, hers was a kind of
Deism of the more colourless Sort ; in a Christ as the ‘purest
of all beings under God,” and in His sufferings as a kind of
sublime martyrdom; the Holy Ghost was to her a ‘mere fiction ;
she ‘took all the miracles for facts, and contrived to worship
the letter of the Scriptures long after she had, as desired by her
masters, given up portions as “spurious interpolations,” and so
forth ; she believed in the future life as a ‘continuation of the
present,’ and when she could not accept both the immortality
8O SCEPTICISM.
of the Soul and St. Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection, she
strictly held to the former.” By means of these and other
similar beliefs, and by the help of the public services and
devotional literature within her reach, she contrived to find in
religion her best resource, and seems to have enjoyed this part
of her life more, perhaps, than any other.
As she grew older she resolved her doubts about the Divine
Government by accepting the doctrine of “Necessity; after this
she ceased to pray as she had done before. For a time she
asked God for spiritual blessings, but even this she abendoned.
The petition for daily bread in the Lord's Prayer caused her
much perturbation; but gradually she came to see that this
prayer was made up of ‘older than Christian materials,’ and
therefore not the model prayer for advanced Christian thinkers.
Finally, she gave up prayer altogether, as either childish or
meaningless, or both. Long after abandoning prayer, she held
to some sort of belief in a future life, her sick-room essays, as
she remarks, being written from this standpoint. At that time,
she was unable to believe in the utter extinction of life after
death. During a long period of sickness she worked at this
problem. Many events combined to force it upon her notice,
such as the death of many intimate friends, her own feebleness,
and, as it then appeared, her approaching end, visits from and
conversations with many distinguished persons who did not
accept the Christian religion, but who yet seemed to be more
truly Christian in spirit than any, these and Such-like circum-
stances led her to a decided ‘advance' in her spiritual life.
From this time forward, she neither desired nor expected any
future life for herself or anybody else. Unlike Mill, she seems
to have enjoyed life for its own sake, and thought it a good
thing apart from any future; yet, like him, she considered its
sudden and entire extinction no evil to be dreaded.
The final setting of her religious beliefs dates from her
acquaintance with Mr. Atkinson. According to her own
account, this gentleman opened up to her a new intellectual,
moral, and spiritual world, and gave her a radically different
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 8I.
view of life. Mr. Atkinson, if we may judge from all we know,
was simply an Agnostic of the extremest type.* Long before
Agnosticism, thanks to certain distinguished masters in physical
science, became a household word amongst us, Miss Martineau
and her teacher accepted and professed this dreary creed. If
any proof be needed that this is the correct reading of the
facts, let it be found in Mr. Atkinson's jubilation over the
more recent teachings of Professor Tyndall and others; he sees
in the doctrines of Maudsley, and in the conclusions of Tyndall
and Spencer, the full and perfect embodiment of the ideas ex-
pressed by the “Atkinson Letters.’ Miss Martineau says they
never were Atheists in the sense of denying philosophically a
‘First Cause ; yet she saw and frankly admitted that, in the
popular sense, their doctrines would be considered Atheistic.
She and her guide were simply thoroughgoing Materialists:
they believed in no immortality, save that of the race, in no life
beyond death, save whatever of good lives after them in the
‘words they have spoken and the deeds they have done.’ As
to her own hopes, feelings, thoughts, and fancies, she is frank
almost to a fault. Mill, profiting by, or unconsciously influenced
by, the teaching of his father, concealed to the last his personal
beliefs and expectations. No such reserve influenced this
‘advanced thinker.’ Christians wondered how she could either
enjoy life, or look forward with any satisfaction to death; they
wanted to know what were her thoughts, feelings, and desires,
and she told them all her heart. That all is nothing. Be-
lieving in no future life—believing that when the brain ceases
to throb, and the heart to beat, we cease to be—believing that
it is simply another form of selfishness and self-love either to
* Very different estimates are given of the intellectual character of this
gentleman. Miss Martineau rated him among the noblest of men ; her
brother James gives him a very humble place, but probably his intense dis-
like influenced his judgment. Professor Blackie, in his ‘Natural History
of Atheism,” gives some account of Mr. Atkinson’s opinion. He says,
“His words represent fairly enough that oblique vision and distorted portrai-
ture of Christian doctrine and morals, which, seasoned up with the favourite
scientific phraseology of the hour, is cooked up into so many shallow shapes
of more or less distinctly enunciated Atheism, p. 24.I. * *
6
82 SCEPTICISM.
desire or to expect any further or future life—believing that all
things are as they are because of laws that are beneficent in
tendency—believing, also, that the truest life is to fall in with
the order everywhere seen in this world of ours, she was calm
and resigned, without either hope or fear. And Miss Martineau,
when she made this confession of her no faith, expected soon
to die. She did not die at that time, lived for nearly a quarter
of a century, saw many days, and much enjoyed life; she never
changed her beliefs after this, nor did she retract anything she
had uttered. She found it essential to her well-being to live
for others, and she so lived, and toiled and loved, that after
her death Florence Nightingale believed she had gone to the
“Father's House,’ to “our Lord and her Lord ' So, evidently,
thought the clergyman who read the service and gave the
address at her grave, for he spoke of her as a ‘servant of God
and of righteousness.’
And yet we cannot call a life like hers the noblest type of
life, nor did she give to others the noblest and best pattern of
true womanhood. We have no wish to detract in the very
least degree from her confessedly great merits, nor would we
willingly say a word against a woman who lived so far above
the lives of many of her sisters—even those who think they
know more than she knew of the secret of true living. But
truth is truth, and when that truth is fully told, it must be con-
fessed that, like Mr. Mill, Miss Martineau never knew, and,
instead of describing, often grossly caricatured, the religion of
Jesus Christ. No true and just criticism of her religious
opinions can afford to overlook the influences under which she
grew up, and the early bias she received against Christianity as
taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, Mill was taught to look
upon religion as a kind of superstition; Miss Martineau was
taught to overlook, ignore, and deny, some of the most vital
teachings of Christianity. She herself sees this at times, and
denies the right of the Unitarians to appropriate ‘all the
Christian promises, without troubling themselves with the
clearly specified condition of faith in Christ as a Redeemer.”
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 83
She never sees, and therefore does not acknowledge, what is
very manifest to any Christian student of her autobiography—
viz., that she never really understood Christianity. Mr. Mill
always surveys religion from an outside standpoint; Miss Mar-
tineau claims to look at it from within, and to speak of it from
the standpoint of one who has had a living experience of its
meaning. This is, even on her own showing, a delusion of the
imagination; for she never accepted, even by the intellect, the
distinctive truths of the Gospel. How can anyone, to whom
the Holy Spirit is a ‘mere fiction,’ pretend to expound Chris-
tianity ? How can one who regards Christ as one of the
purest of created beings, and His death merely a sublime martyr-
dom, presume to tell what true Christianity is P. We must not
allow Miss Martineau to ridicule Unitarianism, deny its right to
the title of Christian, and then, from the standpoint of the
most barren type of eighteenth-century Unitarianism, profess to
explain to others the mysteries of the Christian faith. Before
anyone can pretend to teach another the truths of Christianity,
he or she must be ‘born of the Spirit.” As well ask from
Nicodemus before his visit to Jesus by night, or from Saul of
Tarsus while yet a fierce and bigoted persecutor, an exposition
of Christianity, as expect that Harriet Martineau ever could
from within, as she was wont to say, tell the true meaning of
the religion of Jesus.
We are compelled also to assert that Miss Martineau mis-
understood, and even grossly misrepresented, the Christian
faith. Like Mr. Mill, she believed the ‘essential doctrines’
of Christianity to be that God was the ‘predestinator of man
to sin and perdition, and Christ, their rescuer from that doom.’
She never accepted any such belief; Unitarianism saved
her from this, but nothing could ‘save her from the perplexity
of finding so much of indisputable statement of those doctrines
in the New Testament. Again, we are told by her about that
‘atmosphere of selfishness which is the very life of Christian
doctrine, and of every theological scheme.’ These and similar
sentiments scattered through her writings reveal her conception
6–2
84 SCEPTICISM.
of the doctrines of Christianity. At bottom, her view is that
so much abhorred by the elder Mill, and which the younger Mill
never ceased to consider the correct one. We do not say that
either Mr. Mill or Miss Martineau was altogether responsible
for this perverted doctrine; there must have been, in the un-
guarded utterances of its preachers, and in the conversations of
its representatives, much that gave colouring of truth to such
conceptions. It is a common remark that the Christian is the
world's Bible; to a much greater extent than many of us are
willing to allow, this is true. Even among the more intelligent
opponents of the Gospel, how many are there whose opposition
is based on an impartial and thorough study of the evidence?
They listen to popular discourses and representations of com-
paratively ignorant thinkers; they have a keen eye for exagger-
ated doctrinal statements, they treasure up utterances of
religious experience of the extreme order;-then, combining
these and other ideas together, they hold them up before their
eyes, and through them read the plain teachings of the New
Testament. Popular theology must ever be tainted with ex-
aggeration and over-statement. But what are we to say of either
the intellectual capacity, or the moral candour, of those who
say of such miserable travesties of Christianity that they are its
essential doctrines P Is it an essential doctrine of the New
Testament that Father and Son are at variance P Miss Mar-
tineau reads the New Testament through the spectacles supplied
by her early Unitarian guides, forgetting that she herself has
denounced their intellectual and spiritual incompetency. It
may be replied that she would often hear Christians talk as if
Jesus had come to save men from a hell to which God had pre-
destined them, as if God were all justice and Jesus all mercy,
or that the Pauline teaching would often be interpreted in the
way she suggests; what we complain of is that Miss Martineau,
with the New Testament in her hand, should have considered
it either candid or critical to give forth such crude opinions.
The essential purpose of God cannot either be opposed or re-
versed by Him Who is its outward manifestation and expres-
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 85
sion. The love of God is revealed to us in and through Jesus
Christ, and one of the most familiar texts in the whole Bible
reminds us that salvation comes to man from God's love to
the world." Moreover, we may so dwell upon the remedia!
character of the Gospel dispensation as to forget that the
‘Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ could hardly
be a remedy for mere/y unforeseen deſects in the work of the
Creator; and such transparent absurdities should not be given
forth by these apostles of culture as if they were a new revela-
tion. The Mills and the Martineaus must neither be permitted
to interpret Christianity to us from the standpoint of Deisin,
nor from that of moral antipathy.
The sneers met with from time to time in Miss Martineau's
autobiography, the evident bias against Christianity, and the
strong expressions of haughty superiority to the popular faith,
all alike proclaim her unfitness for the task of expounding
Christianity to the world. One who holds the essence of the
Christian hope and expectation to be ‘Selfishness, must be
either strangely constituted, or much mistaken as to its real
character. We prefer to accept the opinions of men like Pro-
fessor Huxley, and women like George Eliot; these object
not so much to the moral character, but to what they consider
the lack of intellectual evidence for this faith.” What shall we
say of the intellectual and moral capacity of one who thinks the
religion of Jesus selfishness P Its rewards, rightly understood,
can be desired and appreciated only by an unselfish nature. What
possible attraction could there be for a selfish man or woman
In the Christian idea of heaven, i.e., to ‘be with Christ,’ to
be ‘like Christ P’ The Christian standard of duty, and the
intrinsically Christian motives, only truly spiritual natures can
ever appreciate; hence, the doctrine, meeting us at the very
threshold of Christianity, of the necessity for a new heart and
1 John iii. 16.
* “Deism,' she once said, ‘seems to me the most incoherent of all
systems, but to Christianity I feel no objection but its want of evidence.’—
‘The Moral Influence of George Eliot,” Contemporary Review, February,
I88I. -
.86 SCEPTICISM.
a right spirit. Miss Martineau will have against her here the
voices of the ages, Better say, with the eloquent Lecky, ‘By
the confession of all parties the Christian religion was designed
to be a religion of philanthropy, and love was represented as
the distinctive test or characteristic of its true members. As
a matter of fact, it has probably done more to quicken the
affections of mankind, to promote piety, to create a pure and
merciful ideal, than any other influence that has ever acted on
the world.’ This will be held by all who have any real acquaint-
ance with the religion of Jesus to be the truer view ; in the
presence and under the influence of true Christian doctrine and
life, selfishness must disappear like ice before the rising Sun.
Elsewhere, Miss Martineau shows her unfitness for giving a
sober estimate by her expressions of vehement antagonism.
She talks of Christianity as a ‘monstrous superstition,’ of her
deliverance from its galling bondage, and of finding herself a
“free rover on the broad and breezy common of the universe ;
of Christians “fiercely clinging to their man-God,' of their
arrogance and selfishness, and the like. Sentiments like these,
and they often appear in her writings on this subject, reveal the
state of mind in which she approached Christianity. Perhaps
such antagonism is not so much to be wondered at ; earnest
and energetic natures like hers cannot be neutral—they must
either accept Christ with passionate devotion, or reject Him
with vehement opposition.
Nevertheless, such methods of dealing with Christianity illus-
trate her unfitness to guide and instruct others; they also reveal
a pride of heart which characterized Miss Martineau, with all
her gentleness and nobility. We have complained of Mr.
Mill's want of child-like humility, of his intense satisfaction with
himself, and his assumed superiority ; in Miss Martineau the
same qualities appear. This seems to us one of the defects of
all character formed in the sceptical mould. Apart from the
softening and spiritually energizing influences of Christianity,
the highest type of character cannot be developed. Stoic calm-
ness and robustness have their worth and their place in life ;
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 87.
so must we offer our tribute of honour to men and women who
have the courage to think for themselves and to act irrespective
of the opposition of their fellows; none the less must we assert,
that the highest character is not possible without faith in a
living God, and without life under the quickening influence of
the Powers of the world to come. Lofty self-sufficiency, haughty
assumptions of superiority to the motives, aims, and life of
Christians, may find favour in Agnostic circles, but no one
who has learned to reverence the ‘meekness and gentleness of
Christ,” or to find the highest ideal of life in the New Testa-
ment, can ever admire such a type of character.
We do not here discuss Miss Martineau's Agnostic theory
of life; speaking generally, it may be regarded as simply one
phase of extreme Materialism. What we are concerned to show
is, that both Mr. Mill and Miss Martineau are beacons to warn,
rather than lights to guide, the wanderers in life. They leave
footprints behind them, indeed, and they call loudly that their
paths are better than the pathway of the Cross; they have tried
to live without God and without hope in the world, and they are
often held up as examples of how nobly life may be lived
without any aid from either the hopes or fears associated with
the supernatural. That there was much in their lives and in
their work worthy of admiration, we freely confess. They both
tried to live for others, and to show how much may be done to
make life better worth living. Yet there is much in their life-
history that cannot be admired; and especially their method of
dealing with the religion of Jesus Christ is altogether to be con-
demned. They themselves were misguided, and certainly they
have misled others, Grant that they were in the first case the
victims of circumstance, of defective teaching and evil example;
they manifested none of that peculiar force of character seen
in those who rise above such influences, and who assert for
themselves the privilege and the power to think according to
the facts, and not according to the perversions of their guides.
Both Mr. Mill and Miss Martineau speak from first to last as
if the caricatures of doctrine taught to and accepted by them
88 SCEPTICISM.
were genuine Christianity, and many of their definitions and
expositions do not rise above the level of the Christianity
taught by the most illiterate of Sceptics. What shall we say
of one who thinks it fair to speak of the God-man, as a mere
“man-God?’ This is Miss Martineau's highest wisdom on
such themes |
Both these ‘Rational Sceptics’ seem to have accepted, as
we have already remarked, a kind of popular mis-reading of
ultra-Calvinism as the simple meaning of the New Testament; a
reading of that theology which sets Christ in open antagonism
with the Father, and which makes God not a being to be loved,
as the Father of Jesus, but a kind of demon to be hated and
feared. What shall we say of the competency of such guides P
Grant that both were trained under circumstances adverse to
true knowledge and simple faith : Mr. Mill was strong enough
to break through the narrow limits of his father's opinions in
philosophy and political economy, and Miss Martineau shows
ability to criticize and to reject what she dislikes of her early
creed; why did they not honestly study the New Testament
for themselves, instead of meekly accepting outrageous distor-
tions of its meaning P Here we have the out-standing fact in
their life-history, that they never cared to rise above the merest
commonplace in dealing with the deepest themes. Problems
that had exercised the minds of the wisest and deepest thinkers
of the world, themes that have engaged the thought of some of
the noblest of the race, they dismiss with a haughty wave of
the hand or a supercilious sneer. If this be the outcome of
‘Rational Scepticism,’ save us from such a philosophy of life
The Greek particles, the peculiarity of style in the great writers
of antiquity, the minutest detail of logic, and the smallest inci-
dent in the history of our Indian Empire, the Land Question at
home, and the Slave Question abroad—all the social and politi-
cal controversies of the busy and exciting period through which
they lived—these are considered worthy of the most patient
study and the most painstaking accuracy; but the transcendent
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 89
problems of God, Christ, Life, and Immortality—these are un-
worthy of serious thought !
Both of them lived at a time when the foundations of the
great deep of religious thought were being broken up, when
methods of criticism of the most scientific order were being
applied to the Sacred Books, and when from the busy press of
Europe new readings of Christ's life-history, and new investiga-
tions of the early life of the Church, were constantly appearing.
They do not appear to have given any special or profound atten-
tion to matters like these. All their references to the Sacred
Books, and to the most exalted theses that can occupy the mind
of men, are of the most superficial character ; they belong
more to the Deistic age than to the nineteenth century, in all
such questions. Some one speaks of the essentially defective
character of the great German poet, Goethe ; how he could live
all through a period of intense political importance, and never
manifest in his song a single pang of sympathy with the Father-
land: so did these two “Rational Sceptics’ live through the
spiritually exciting period of their later life, and show very little
real sympathy with the conflicts of their age. Mr. Hutton says
of Goethe that he was ‘the wisest man of modern days who
ever lacked the wisdom of a child; the deepest who never
knew what it was to kneel in the dust with bowed head and
broken heart; and that ‘adequate to himself’ was written on
that ‘broad, calm forehead.” We have no desire to make com-
parisons that would be considered irrelevant, and yet the words
may not inaptly be applied to Mr. Mill and Miss Martineau.
If the truest greatness is possible to people so self-satisfied, we
may call them truly great ; and yet we instinctively feel that
they lacked that true humility of spirit which alone entitles any
mortal to the name “great.”
Behind all these questions, too, there are others which de-
mand attention. What about the influence of a creed like
theirs on the people P. It is quite true that unless we can
demonstrate the truth of a religion, we do not, in the first in-
stance, think much of its mere utility, but both Mr. Mill and
90 SCEPTICISM.
Miss Martineau would have ‘utility’ applied as one of the
principal tests of truth. Miss Martineau and her instructor,
Mr. Atkinson, evidently looked forward to a kind of Golden
Age as one of the results of a general adoption of their creed.
Mr. Mill, less hopeful, and perhaps more sagacious, had but
Very humble expectations; hence his willingness to admit as a
Aossible hope what Miss Martineau regarded as a degrading
Superstition. Strange as it may appear, the man had here a
truer instinct than the woman, and in many respects Mill's in-
tellect was the more feminine of the two. -
For our part, we believe that the general adoption of such
beliefs as we have been describing would be nothing short of
an awful Calamity. It is at all times difficult to estimate the
amount of influence exerted, even upon Atheists, by the faiths
and hopes they have abandoned. When Strauss asks whether
We are still Christians, Fairbairn not unfairly says he might as
well ask whether we are still AEuropeans / Mr. Hutton reminds
us that there is a thoroughly ‘Atheistic way of shuddering over
Atheism, which is apt to express itself as if the spread of human
disbelief would not only overcloud but empty heaven. . . .
There is no tendency more mischievous in its effects than that
which makes human belief in God the first regenerating power
in human society, and God Himself the second ; which makes
God’s blessing a consequence of man's confession, and which
therefore limits that blessing to the narrow bounds of the con-
fession. . . . We must grant the Atheist his unexplained im-
pulses to good, the implicit God of his conscience, and show
how he mutilates and dwarfs human nature by denying it all
explained impulses to good, the explicit God of faith.' Far
beyond the implicit faiths of even the most determined unbe-
lievers, we must see and recognise the influence of Christian
enzironments. If Mr. Mill and Miss Martineau were unable to
shake themselves free from the actual teachings and influences
of their early life, if they could never rise above the dogmatic
conceptions taught to them in childhood, how much less would
they be able to shake themselves free from the Christian in-
RATIONAL SCEPTICISM. 9I
fluences which, unconsciously to themselves, were moulding and
shaping all their aspirations and ideals | View them even as
‘ detached fragments of the race,’ apart altogether from the in-
fluences of Christianity, yet we must confess that the initial
impulse which determined much of their after-movements
came from Christian morality. Mill confessed this in part ;
Miss Martineau never seemed generous enough to recognise it.
The character of Jesus Christ exerted no little influence upon
Mill, and he regarded the Utilitarian theory of morals as in
perfect harmony with Christ's teaching, if not its highest ex-
pression. :
We must therefore fall back upon the formative influences at
work even in the lives of such ‘Rational Sceptics' as these.
The very Christianity they reject is at work upon their character
and life, and hence they are not the outcome of Scepticism
alone. Even in them we see traces of the loss sustained
through their giving up, or through their not accepting, the
faith of the Gospel; how much more loss would there be, if
their views were generally adopted by the community | Faith
in the living God unquestionably gives new dignity to human
life, and a deeper meaning to all human action. This Mill
would admit. If Miss Martineau's theory of life were adopted,
we do not see, looking at life from our standpoint, and for-
getting for the moment those higher aspects of truth suggested
by Mr. Hutton, how there could be any radical distinction
between right and wrong, between moral good and moral evil.
Atheistic systems must empty all such terms of their true
meaning, and, as a result, rob those who accept them of the
benefit of all the higher motives to righteousness. A deeper
study of Pagan life, its moral barrenness and spiritual death,
will be the best antidote to such teachings as those of Miss
Martineau. If Mr. Mill, Mr. Atkinson, and Miss Martineau
were accepted as the spiritual guides of the age, there would
Soon be a total eclipse of that Sun that now gives moral light
and heat to humanity. Even in the gifted writers whose
spiritual history we have been discussing there is proof of
92 - SCEPTICISM.
partial loss; and they are exceptional, and must not be taken
as fair samples of the effects of their teaching on the multitude.
Whatever we may say of such high-caste Brahmins of society,
‘Rational Scepticism 'would most certainly destroy the spiritual
life of the many. Of such a calamity there may be partial,
but not universal experience. Religion is too essential to
humanity, the heart of man thirsts too deeply for God, for any
such catastrophe to overtake mankind. The unsophisticated
human heart will never accept as its guides those who offer a
morality in which there is responsibility without true freedom,
and a religion in which there is no God and no life beyond the
present.
CHAPTER V.
S E C U /. A R / S. M.
‘If you would emancipate yourselves from the arbitrary rule and tyranny
of man, you must begin by rightly adoring God.”—MAZZINI,
‘I hold you will not compass your poor ends
Of barley-feeding and material ease,
Without a poet's individualism
To work your universal. It takes a soul
To move a body ; it takes a high-souled man
To move the masses, even to a cleaner stye.”
E. B. BROWNING.
The Secularist ‘is like a chemist who, in a testing analysis, after putting
into per-centages all he can measure, if he finds something behind so minute
? 3 y
as to refuse any quantitative estimate, calls it by the name of “trace.”’—
W. E. GLADSTONE.
SECULARISM, says Professor Flint, is the ‘most prevalent form
of unbelief among the manual workers of this country; it is
almost confined to them ; and the chief causes of its spread,
and of the character which it bears, must be sought for in their
history.’ This estimate will not, we presume, be seriously
questioned by anyone familiar with the facts of the case. The
classes to which he refers are those most largely represented in
Secular meetings, for their use Secular works are prepared, and
to them chiefly Secular lecturers address their arguments. Nor
need we differ from Dr. Flint in the reasons assigned for the
growth of this form of belief. He traces Secularism to
causes connected with our industrial history, and in so doing
gives a telling illustration of the universality of moral law;
wnjust social arrangements ever lead to injurious spiritual results.
Professor Cairns very solemnly warns us against neglecting the
moral lessons taught by ‘commercial crises, conflicts of capital
“94 SCEPTICISM.
and labour, Sheffield outrages, excess of population, pauperism,’
and the like. He plainly regards these, even from the point
of view of a political economist, as nature's penalties for our
neglect of her wise laws. So would Dr. Flint have us to see
in the origin and progress of Secularism indications of an
unhealthy social state.
There are other reasons why this should be a more popular
form of unbelief than some of the bolder types of Scepticism.
Atheism, pure and simple, no doubt exists among this class of
the people, finds here and there its friends among all classes,
but Atheism demands, on the part of all who accept it, an
amount of courage and self-confidence happily not common
even in this self-asserting age, Before anyone can boldly affirm
there is no God, he must have great faith in himself, and great
confidence in the conclusions to which his inquiries have led
him ; he must also have but little veneration for the opinion of
others, in this case others being the vast majority of the human
race." In the same way Materialism, as a philosophy of the
universe, is confined to, and understood by, the few. It is too
abstruse, though apparently so simple, for the majority of
people; moreover, its opposition to the deep-seated, we may
almost say instinctive, belief in design, is too radical for it ever
to find favour with the masses of the people. Learned
biologists and philosophers may ridicule Paley's watch-theory,
and women like Miss Martineau may sneer at the Christian's
belief in a “man-God ; for many days to come, such beliefs will
seem more rational to the masses of men than the cold
affirmations of the Materialistic creed. Many may often act
as if there were no God, may at times appear willing to leave
this an open question; but when called to make their election,
There are, I hope, no Atheists among you ; were there any they would
deserve pity rather than malediction. The first Atheist was surely one who
had concealed some crime from his fellow-men, and who sought by deny-
ing God to free himself from the sole witness from Whom concealment was
impossible Or, perhaps, the first Atheist was a tyrant, who, having
destroyed one half of the soul of his brethren by depriving them of liberty,
endeavoured to substitute the worship of brute force for faith in duty and
eternal right.”—4Zazzitzi. *
SECULARISM. 95
it will be a long time before they accept the alternative of
either the Atheist or the thoroughgoing Materialist.
Pantheism, again, is too mystical to become the ordinary
Creed of a Western people. Literary men may hold it, and
minds of the poetic order may be fascinated by its unity and
simplicity; metaphysicians may speak of the under-soul or the
over-soul of the world, but the men and women who have to
toil for their daily bread from early morn till late at night will
demand a more substantial kind of spiritual fare. Much the
same remark may be made of the ‘Religion of Humanity,’ as it
is called. To worship a ‘Grand Being' who, or which, has no
existence, save a purely ideal one in the mind of the conscious
worshipper, must ever appear absurd to the common people. To
regard the love of this or that individual as selfish and degrading,
to consider it an unworthy feeling either to desire or to expect
existence of any kind for the individual, yet to elevate the
idea of the whole of humanity—past, present, and to come—into
a Grand Being to be reverenced and worshipped, must appear
an impossible thing to most of those whose lives are spent
battling with very real foes. They will be disposed to say:
“Jesus we know ; His Father in heaven we can worship and
love; His idea of life is above us, and may lift us up, if only we
could truly reverence it; His heaven were grand enough if only
we were worthy of it; but this worship and this immortality
seem to us unworthy and unreal.” They will agree with Pro-
fessor Huxley in thinking this form of religion ‘Catholicism
minus Christianity; it contains all the objectionable features of
the one, with none of the redeeming qualities of the other.
There remains, then, for a practical people like ourselves,
this religion of Secularism, if we wish to break with the religion
of our fathers, and do not feel bold enough to accept any of
the other forms of Scepticism already mentioned. Indeed,
Secularism may claim to be a thoroughly English form of
unbelief; it originated on English soil, and is an apt illustration
of that spirit of compromise everywhere characteristic of
English institutions—that which to some may appear their
96 SCEPTICISM.
chief glory. It is said, and not in our opinion without reason,
that before any opinion, philosophy, or scheme of life commends
itself to the English mind, it must partake of this element of
compromise. Is some reform advocated in Parliament by a
responsible Minister of State P Before it has the remotest
chance of being adopted, it must be shown to be a sort of
middle position between two opposite extremes; it must con-
tain all that is good in the old policy, and avoid all that
appears evil in some more revolutionary proposal. . Unless
these elements are seen to be in it, or said to be in it, for seeing
is here of less account, there is no chance of such a reform being
allowed to pass into law. To do a thing simply because it is
right, to grant any demand because it is just, to believe any
doctrine on the ground that it is true, would appear foreign to
our modes of thought and habits of life. This spirit of com-
promise is seen in our most cherished institutions, and is
probably the chief cause of many of our difficulties, on the one
hand, and of much of our prosperity, on the other. The very
Prayer-Book illustrates this spirit; the articles look one way,
and the other parts of the Book, some of them very decidedly,
the other. Statesmen are accustomed to sneer at what they
call mere logical consistency, and rejoice that they take more
practical views of life, as if what is really false in thought could
be true and practical in deed or in action
Secularism is the very child of compromise, and this may
have helped to commend it to a people whose genius is so
practical. Its basis is professedly neither Theistic nor Atheistic;
it professes to give to men all the practical benefits of a religion,
without putting them to the trouble of deciding whether there
be a God or not. Among its adherents are men of all beliefs
and no beliefs, and in lectures addressed to Secularists, appeals.
are made now to the Theistic, and anon to the Atheistic ten-
dencies of mankind. Is it a bold, even daringly presumptuous,
thing for any man to say there is no God? Secularism
demands no such affirmation. Is it, on the other hand, a
dangerous thing, in these days of light, in these days of scientific
SECULARISM. 97
progress and precision of thought, to accept a revelation already
so much attacked and discredited in high quarters? Secularism
enables a man to occupy a standpoint between these two—to
reject the one without affirming the other. In point of fact, as
Secularists tell us, one of the advantages of this view of life is
that it enables men of all Creeds, or of no creed, to unite together
in doing what all admit to be necessary and worthy, without
asking them to give any deliverance on themes so lofty as God,
Freedom, and Immortality. The Secularist does not deny the
existence of a God, he does not affirm that there is no life
beyond the grave; he simply refuses to deal with such matters
as these. As the doctor, when called to the bedside of the sick
man, prescribes what he deems best, and gives no opinion on
the exciting questions of the hour; as the astronomer teaches
all he knows about the stars—say—without offering any opinion
as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; as the chemist,
in making his analysis of some materials submitted to him,
gives no deliverance on the probable antiquity of man ; so the
Secularist confines his attention to this life, and as a Secularist,
says nothing, believes nothing, affirms nothing, about any other.
‘Here we find ourselves possessed of certain powers and
possibilities, with certain well defined privileges and responsi-
bilities; let us make the most of these powers, let us discharge
these obligations, without speculating about either past or
future.’ This is, briefly expressed, the position of the Secularist;
it seems a simple position to take up, and it appears to avoid the
vexed questions of Scepticism, but practically, as we must try to
show, it is untenable. In order to do his work aright in the
present age, man must consider its relation to the ages that are
past; SO in order to live as he ought here, man must decide
whether there are other worlds, and if so, what his relation is to
them. As one has well said, the Sailor guides his course over
seas that belong to this terrestrial System by observations and
measurements of things celestial. The Secularist must not be
allowed to ignore questions relating to another life, for these
enter most deeply into the meaning of the life that is here and
7
98 SCEPTICISM.
now, and only by thinking aright about that which is above
us can we do our duty to that which is beneath and around us.
“If there be a future world,” as Dr. Flint well says, “it is our
present duty to take full account of the fact.'
In order to prove that the Secularist's position is an untenable
one, we do not require to discuss the origin and history of this
movement. It will be sufficient to show that whatever is good
in Secularism in no real sense belongs to it, and that Christianity
supplies, and this under much better conditions, all that in
it is worthy of admiration. As a theory of life, as a philosophy
of things, or even as a zworking flan, it breaks down utterly and
hopelessly. It is impossible for any serious thinker to ignore
all the deeper questions in the manner recommended by the
Secularist. The chemist may ignore the philosophy of Kant,
and the biologist need not concern himself with questions as to
the deluge, but no one, in this country at least, can afford to
ignore Christianity; least of all do we find Secularists themselves
adopting such views of life. Men like Mr. Holyoake, Mr. Foote,
Mr. Watts, Mr. Bradlaugh, and Dr. Aveling, certainly cannot be
Said to ignore Christianity; if Secularism, as a theory, refuses to
pronounce upon such questions, Secularists give no uncertain
Sound. ‘The unvarying stability of the laws of nature,’ says
Mr. Watts, “on which Secularism is founded, might be the
result of the immutable decrees of an immutable God, and is,
therefore, in itself quite reconcilable with the Theistic
hypothesis.’ Hence, he concludes that there is a Theism and
there is a Pantheism not inconsistent with the principles of
Secularism as expounded by himself. As to the relation of
Secularism to revealed religion, he speaks decidedly: “No
Such religion can be compatible with Secularism ; in theory
Secularism and revealed religion are in direct and fundamental
antagonism to each other. . . . This antagonism is such as
no Sophistry can ever conciliate; as theories of life their war is
internecine, and can only end with the destruction of the one or
the other or both. . . . Secularism in practice, the Secularist
as a man of action, can no more ignore Christianity than a
SECULARISM. 99
Frenchman could recently ignore the German army of occupa-
tion.” “It is the duty of every Secularist,’ says Mr. Bradlaugh,
‘to make active war on theological teachings. It is of no use
saying, Ignore the Clergy. You cannot talk of ignoring St.
Paul's Cathedral—it is too high. You cannot talk of ignoring
the Religious Tract Society—it is too wealthy. . . . The
upas-tree of religion overspreads the whole earth; it hides with
its thick foliage of Churchcraft the rays of truth from human-
kind, and we must cut at its root and strip away its branches.’
That Mr. Watts and Mr. Bradlaugh are right, must appear
evident to anyone who considers seriously the importance of
the issues involved in this controversy.
Mr. Watts, an authorized and popular lecturer on Secularism,
thus states the theory which he and others propose to give us
in place of the Christianity they are so anxious to remove —The
“theory of Secularism is simply that this life and this world in
which we live demand and will reward our utmost cultivation ;
that the instruments of this cultivation are reason and Social
effort; that the harvest to be reaped from it is happiness general
and universal.' He accepts Mr. Mill's Utilitarianism as the
Secular theory of morals, as the standard of happiness, and he
regards ‘Secularism as the true religion of humanity.” Before
the beneficent march of this doctrine, he expects the evils that
have hitherto afflicted mankind to disappear. All error,
ignorance, superstition, and the priestcrafts which live by these,
will depart, if only the conjuror's wand of Secularism is waved
before the eyes of men, Secularism will make men better in
life and braver in death ; will emancipate their minds from
bondage to the unseen and eternal, and enable them to bend the
whole energy of their being to the pursuit of what is useful to
man. Science will then become man’s ‘Providence,’ and
scientifically directed aims his form of prayer. Under these
new influences, he will become happy and noble and free
The first thought that arises in the mind is that those who
expect such splendid results from the spread of Secularism
must be extremely credulous. Secularists talk as if man could
7–2
IOO SCEPTICISM.
be saved from his vices and his sins by the knowledge that they
are hurtful to his nature, and inimical to his highest happiness.
They forget that men by no means ignorant have before now
seen and approved the good, yet ardently followed the evil.
Without dwelling longer on these general considerations, we
Submit the following brief criticisms on this theory of life:–
I. When Secularism is offered as a substitute for Christianity,
the assumption is always made that the latter system is opposed
to ‘science,’ to the ‘cultivation of this life,’ and to ‘happiness
general and individual.” No assumption could well be more
thoroughly groundless. If we were to admit, what Secularist
teachers seem to assume, that the one business of the Christian
in this world is to get ready for leaving it—that his attitude
towards the knowledge of nature and its laws, of human nature
and its conditions, is one of uncompromising hostility—there
might be some pretext for such a plea ; but we need hardly
say that no intelligent believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
would take up such a position. The Christian, it is true, does
not regard this life as #he whole of life—does not believe that
even this life can be well and truly lived unless its higher and
larger issues are properly understood and constantly realized.
This is very different from the caricature of his view presented
by Mr. Watts. It is not true that the Christian ignores or
thinks lightly of the present life, nor is it true that he thinks
simply of how to be ready to leave this world. It is not
true that Christianity is opposed to science; on the contrary,
wherever men have come under its enlightening influences they
have sought the progress of all kinds of knowledge. Even
‘Free-thinkers,’ as Secularists delight to call themselves, have
attributed to Christianity many of the best influences now at
work in civilization. Speaking of present conditions of society,
—the “immoderate growth of riches,’ the ‘decay of morals
and religion, and other evils that threaten to bring about a
‘mighty revolution’—Lange, the historian of Materialism, affirms
that “one of the most important remedies lies beyond doubt in
Zhose very ideas of Christianity z0/lose moral effects are ſus; as
SECULARISM. IOI
often undervalued as they are exaggerated.’ He tells us that the
‘morality of the New Testament has exercised a profound effect
1ſon the peoples of the Christian Zworld,' and warns us against
the assumption that this effect is confined to those who repeat
‘the words of its doctrines.’ He thinks it probable that most
of the ‘energetic, even revolutionary, efforts of this century to
transform the forms of society in favour of the dozwn-trodden
masses are very infimately connected with the AVew Testament
ideas.' He traces the connection between efforts of ‘poor
relief’ and Christian principles, between ‘Comte's moral prin-
ciples (lauded often as if they were a new revelation) and those
of Christianity’—yea, he affirms that it is ‘scarcely doubtful
that we may in great part attribute to the quiet but continual
offeration of Christian ideas not merely our moral, but even our
intellectual progress.’ Thus, even Sceptics like Lange will join
with us in repelling the insinuation that Christianity, as such, is
hostile to intellectual, moral, and social progress. We may go
much further, and affirm, without fear of contradiction, that no
book has done so much to promote intellectual and moral pro-
gress as the Bible—that book so much ridiculed and so little
Studied by Secularists. M. de Laveleye, after a survey of various
countries, and a full discussion of their social and intellectual
Condition, declares that it is ‘religion and not race, which is the
cause of the extraordinary prosperity of certain nations.’ He
shows that ‘as soon as the Reformation had in Germany placed
the Gospel in the hands of the peasantry, they claimed aboli-
tion of serfdom, and the recognition of their ancient rights, in
the name of Christian liberty. . . . The Renaissance was a
return to antiquity, the Reformation a return to the Gospel.
The Gospel, being superior to the tradition of antiquity, was
sure to yield better fruits.” The more the spirit of the Bible
becomes the spirit of a people, the less chance for bondage
or despotism of any kind, whether of the lusts and passions
within, or the priestcraft and kingcrafts without. From be-
ginning to end, the Bible influence is on the side of science
and freedom, and it has helped to make our modern nations
I O2 SCEPTICISM.
what they are. Its teachings about industry and political
economy, about the relation between righteousness and national
greatness, about the duties of kings and subjects—yea, even its
lessons on Sanitary matters, if carefully studied and honestly
carried out, would make the deserts of our modern life blossom
as the rose, and turn many a barren wilderness into a fruitful
field.
2. The relations of Secularism, as such, to religion are
utterly unworkable. As we have already seen, its more ener-
getic advocates are in no sense neutral—are most decidedly
hostile, often bitterly so—to Christianity. Neutrality in such
questions is possible only where there is sublime indifference
to all that is deepest and most real in human life. Christianity
and Secularism, as Mr. Watts says, must be deadly foes. Secu-
larism professes to confine itself to the cultivation of this life,
and it works by means of ‘reason and social effort; but human
reason is such that it cannot but deal with questions relating to
a future life. It refuses to ignore all that is most vital to itself,
and before it can deal aright with the problems of this life, it
must determine whether this life be the whole of life. Questions
about the whence and the whither of man may be termed specu-
lative; in point of fact, they are most intensely practical, and
they demand the serious attention of every sane mind. We
cannot ignore them, they refuse to be ignored, and Reason is
able to ignore them only by abnegating its chief functions. If
Christianity be false, it must not only be rejected, but rejected
with all the energy of man's nature, and by every means within
his reach ; if Christianity be true, it is such a truth that it must
move human life from its centre to its circumference. A theory
of life that professes to ignore the whole subject, as being out-
side man's range, is an impossible, not to say ridiculous, theory.
Christianity comes nearer to us than anything else in these
islands, and is more vital than any other question. No earnest
man, whatever he may choose to call himself, can long ignore a
subject so deeply associated with daily life and thought. Mr.
Mill pretended to take up a position of philosophical indiffer-
SECULARISM. IO3
ence, and to survey the scene with sublime impartiality; Miss
Martineau attempted the same feat, but in both cases; as we
have seen, the position was found impossible. Both gave
utterance to sentiments showing how the heart had taken sides,
and that there was most pronounced hostility to the more dis-
tinctive claims of Christianity. Secularism must face the
problem, must also take its side for or against the religion of
Jesus: men may passionately hate, or they may intensely love,
Christ; no truly earnest and no really honest mind can ignore
Him and His Gospel. Hence, as we might expect, the advo-
cates of Secularism usually attack Christianity, and this often
with great bitterness of feeling. ‘Secularism,’ says Mr. Watts,
‘is at war with it, and must be at war with it continually, until
its cathedrals, churches, and chapels are ennobled into Schools
of Science, museums of art, and Secular halls P Such language
shows anything but neutrality, yet, we take leave to say, it is
much more natural and straightforward than language which
professes to ignore all the deeper problems of the Christian faith.
3. Taken by itself, Secularism is not, and never can become,
a sufficient theory of life. Its standard of morals is Utility,
and its ideal of happiness therefore open to all the objections
that have been urged against this moral theory. Mr. Watts
attempts to define true happiness, but he finds it impossible.
He speaks of happiness “worthy of an intelligent and cultivated
human being.” Many Christians conform to this description;
they are intelligent and cultivated human beings, yet their ideal
of happiness he considers unworthy. He distinguishes between
the happiness of a “pig,' and happiness according to the ‘true
measure of a man,’ but then he gives no scientific definition of
what is this true measure, and he ridicules what to many must
appear one of the very highest ideals. Secularism has no
ideal of its own to set before us, and Utilitarianism is
capable of different interpretations. According to many, ac-
cording even to Mill, Utility is the New Testament ideal of
happiness. Others, and not without good reason, object to
this reading of Christianity.
IO4. SCEPTICISM.
For ordinary people, however, these disputes have little
interest, and they follow them with much impatience. For our
present purpose, it is sufficient to present one single contrast
between Secularism and the religion of Jesus Christ. Call
both ideals happiness if you will—we have grave objections to
this view of the case, and think it may lead to much misunder-
standing—but on this we shall not dwell; who is to decide as
to what are the elements constituting happiness P De Quincey
gives a picture of the happy man not likely to be universally
acceptable. Shall we go to Goethe, one of the greatest of
Germans, or shall we appeal to Faraday, one of the humblest
and most childlike of Englishmen P. The greater, or even the
greatest number here may set up ideals that Mr. Watts will
reject as unworthy, yet they claim the right to decide by what,
to them, is the highest known human law Christians who
accept the Utilitarian theory of morals, admit into the case,
and in addition to this view of it, elements borrowed from
Christianity; the Secularist is bound to reject these as intruders
and as foreign to the scheme. Hence the impossibility of
Secular morality, not to say of religion. Contrast with this the
Christian's ideal of life; it is to be Chrisſ-like in character and
aim. His standard of perfection, of the ‘true measure of a man,’
is the actual manhood realized in the Prophet of Nazareth.
He need not trouble himself with any discussions as to the
philosophy of morality, or with the true “data of Ethics’; in
the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, he finds all that he
needs of authoritative guidance, and in the actual character of
Jesus, the loftiest type of manhood. This standard is so simple
that it is within the reach of the little child, yet the wisest sage
can imagine nothing higher. It is capable of being appreciated
by all, and it contains within it, when rightly understood, the
truest inspiration for men and women struggling after a nobler
life. The ideal grows with the growth of our mental and
spiritual nature, and the more deeply we surrender ourselves to
its influences, the higher the possibilities open to us of moral
progress. Is it likely, then, that with this simple yet sublime
SECULARISM. IO5
ideal before them as the highest life possible to man, as the life
which to some extent, and to a growing extent, is possible to all
men, the Christian will go after the Secularist's ideal, so un-
certain, so indefinite, and SO changing 2
‘And so the Word had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds,
In loveliness of perfect deeds,
More strong than all poetic thought ;
Which he may read that binds the sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave,
And those wild eyes that watch the wave
In roarings round the coral reef.”
4. The theory of Secularism does not harmonize with the
facts of human experience. It fails to meet wants that are Con-
fessed to be universal, and it supplies man with no motive-
power sufficient to enable him to do what he knows to be right.
This subject must receive fuller treatment further on ; mean-
while, we must affirm that man is a religious being, and that he
has acknowledged spiritual wants for which Secularism makes
absolutely no provision. Secularists have a rough and ready
method of dealing with religion which may appear at times very
effective, but which breaks down the moment we begin to
inquire more deeply into man's nature and history. Whatever
may be said about Atheism, about tribes of so-called Atheists,
and about the non-universality of worship, modern researches
into the history of mankind have made it clear, that just as
man everywhere is a social animal, so, when in his norma!
condition, he is a worshipping being. Secularists may attribute
all this to priestcrafts with their lying and self-seeking schemes,
but it is too late in the day to attempt such explanations of
worship. When we find in any country persistent agitation
about popular rights, when we find schemes even of the most
revolutionary character propounded by men apparently sincere,
it is not now considered a proof of statesman-like intellect to
attribute these to mere agitation or demagoguism. The states-
man goes deeper down than the mere surface agitation, on
which there may be scum enough settling, and seeks to find in
IO6 SCEPTICISM.
the abuses connected with Governments, or in the injustice of
existing Social arrangements, perhaps in the oppressions and
wrong-doings of centuries ago, the real causes of the dissatisfac-
tion. So the unbiased student of human nature, and of human
religions, must find beneath all priestCraft, and behind all fears
on which priests may thrive, real and permanent spiritual wants
and forces in man's nature and life. With these deeper (may
we not say deepest of all?) wants Secularism cannot deal, for
man's deepest “unrest’ in all ages has arisen from his spiritual
nature and wants. If his ‘animal desires were the beginning
and end of his nature, there would be in him no element of
unrest: Or at least, rest and peace, the rest of Satisfied desire,
the peace of browsing cattle, would be within his reach. But
that which makes him a spiritual being makes him also a restless
being.’ So speaks Dr. Caird, in his Philosophy of Religion, and
such words will meet with a ready response from all who know
best what man is.
We appeal from Secular lecturers to the men who are really
familiar with man's spiritual history, to men like Max Müller,"
Fairbairn, and others, who have deeply studied the religions of
the world. Is man not as truly a religious as he is a thinking
being P Can any system of religion in which there is no
Personal God, Creator, or Father of men, no life beyond the
grave, and no Redemption beyond what man can work out for
himself, ever satisfy man P But one answer will come to us
from the wisest of men. Man has not only everywhere invented
weapons offensive and defensive, not only kindled his fires
and Cooked his food—he has also built his Temples and
offered his homage to the Great Spirit above him. At times,
perhaps, his worship has been grotesque enough, at other
times sublime and beautiful; but whether grotesquely or
sublimely, man has in every age felt, and tried to get satisfac-
* “Thus, whether we descend to the lowest roots of our own intellectual
growth, or ascend to the heights of modern speculation, everywhere we
find religion as a power that conquers, and conquers even those who think
that they have conquered it.”—“Hibbert Lectures,’ p. 5.
SECULARISM. Ioy
tion for, wants which Secularism does not understand. Man's
soul thirsts for the ‘living God,' and he can never rest Satisfied
with the mere facts, forces, and laws of a world from which this
God has been banished, or in which His existence and authority
are not recognised. A theory of life which ignores the most
vital, and most productive, part of man's history can never
satisfy man's nature; even as a working-plan, it can only be
adopted by those who are content to leave unsolved the highest
problems about duty and destiny with which the mind of man
can deal.
Moreover, Secularism contains no lever capable of lifting
man up out of his moral degradation. Mr. Watts speaks of
man’s ‘secular degeneration;' truly man needs to be born
again, to be lifted up into a life higher and purer than that in
which he now lives, but Secularism has no power to effect a
change like this. Science—if by that is meant simply accurate,
orderly, knowledge of the world in which we live, and of which
we form so important a part—contains within itself no such
power. Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks how “amazingly
little the teachings given to medical students affect their
lives, and how even the most experienced medical men have
their prudence scarcely at all increased by their information.’
Is this not largely true of all mere science P A heathen
moralist reminds us that it is not so much knowledge as power
that is wanting to us. The most scientific knowledge of the
nature and effects of alcohol will not restrain from intemperance.
The desire to leave the world wiser and better than we found
it, is a noble, and even an ennobling desire ; but it has never
shown itself capable of regenerating mankind. As Mrs. Brown-
ing tells us, it takes a “soul to move a body,’ and even to move
the “masses to a cleaner stye' it will take a larger soul than
Secularism possesses. Even if the “greatest happiness of
the greatest number be accepted as the moral end in life,
We shall still lack the power needed to change man's nature
and make him pursue the good. As the author of ‘Ecce
Homo remarks, we “destroy pleasure by making it our chief
IO8 SCEPTICISM.
object; its essential nature is corrupted when it is made into a
business; the highest perfection of it is not among the pains of
exertion, the rewards of industry or ingenuity, but a bounty of
nature, a grace of God. By contrivance and skill only an
inferior Sort can be attained, to which the keenness, the glee,
the very bitter of the sweet, is wanting. What, then, would the
poor and simple-minded gain from such a principle? Epicu-
reanism popularized inevitably turns to vice; no skill in the
preachers of it will avail for a moment to prevent the obscene
transformation. It would probably be safe to go farther, and
Say that Epicureanism means vice in all cases except where a
rare refinement and tenderness of nature creates a natural
propensity to virtue so strong as to disarm the most corrupting
influence.’ These are not the words of a timid Christian,
terrified at the thought of Secular morality ever becoming the
ideal of the age; they are the words of a thinker who is gravely
discussing the lack of moral power in this type of ethics, and
they are worthy of most careful consideration. For Secularism
has little beyond the ideal of Epicurus to offer to man, and
therefore it can never ‘regenerate’ mankind. If man is what
Secularists teach, if he knows nothing about his origin or
destiny, if he has no relations to a higher life than he now
lives, if he can know nothing more about himself than physical
science and Utilitarian philosophy, teach him; in short, if the
grave ends all, and if we believe all this about the unit called
man, why should we spend life for the good of the mass called
humanity ? The passions and appetites of mankind, at least
of the majority, are too strong and too lawless to be either
restrained or eradicated by specifics like these. We are far
from desiring to charge Secularists with any wish to encourage
the passions of mankind, but we must assert that they have no
power to tame the unruly members or to change the evil
hearts of men.
Whatever of good there is in secular principles, as we have
already said, exists elsewhere, and that in much purer form and
free from many dangerous ingredients. Who loves not know-
SECULARISM. IO9
ledge? What Christian, who knows anything of Christianity,
would wish to hinder the progress, or frustrate the efforts, of
true science? As a matter of fact, Science owes much to the
love of knowledge and the desire for truth kindled in man's
breast by the spirit of Christianity. As to the relation of
religion to the present life, no one truly acquainted with the
facts can possibly say that it is hostile. The men most deeply
penetrated with the spirit of true religion are those who most
truly seek to serve the present age. Those who rightly under-
stand the Word of God, know that godliness or piety has the
promise of this life as well as that which is to come; and yet
they also know that only those who seek first the kingdom of
God and its righteousness, can give to the present its proper
place in the affections. Hence, the true Christian ideal is as far
from ignoring as from idolizing this present life. Zł regards life
here and there as one life, and it seeks to regulate aright the part
by regulating aright the whole. If there be a future life, man
ought to know it, and if such knowledge is possible to him, it
must be the most practical of all kinds of science. To pretend
to ignore such questions, is really either to blunt all the moral
perceptions and harden the heart, or else to play fast and loose
with truth. No earnest mind can rest without definite opinions
in such matters. If there be a God, let us worship and adore;
if not, let us shake ourselves free from the delusion, and do all
we can to deliver others from the superstition.
No ; whatever men accept or whatever they reject, they can-
not long rest Satisfied with the timid compromises of Secularism
Hence, as we have seen, the more energetic Secularists are
practically, and some of them avowedly, Atheistic in their
beliefs. Neutrality in religion, like neutrality in war or politics,
yea, far more than in connection with these, is an impossibility
to robust and manly natures.
For the masses, as the author of ‘Ecce Homo’ reminds us,
the creed of Secularism means the practice of sensuality. If
men believe that they have no ‘image of God’ in the very
make and build of their nature, why should they try to live for
IIO SCEPTICISM.
the God-like P Naturally they will say, ‘Let us eat and drink,
for to-morrow we die.’ Secularism, as such, will build no hos-
pitals, feed no hungry, rescue no degraded creatures from
worse than death. It will believe in the survival of the fittest,
indeed, but its fittest will be the physically strongest, the men
and women who have power to rise above the rest and claim for
themselves the highest places. We have but to study more
deeply man's nature and history, to read his truest poetry, and
to listen to his sweetest music, to be convinced that this theory
will give no salvation. As one has well said, man needs not
only reconciliation with nature, needs not only science, and art,"
and poetry, he needs, oh, how much a ‘God, a Redemption,
and a Heaven.’
CHAPTER VI.
AZ A 7'A' A' A' A Z / S. M.
‘Life is not a consequence of the organization of matter, but the cause.’—
LIONEL S. BEALE.
“I trust I have not wasted breath :
I think we are not wholly brain,
Magnetic mockeries; not in vain,
Like Paul with beasts, I fought with Death.’
TENNYSON.
‘Atheism and Materialism are no necesssary results of Scientific Method.”
—W. STANLEY JEvoNs.
AT the close of Lecky's ‘History of Rationalism in Europe,” the
following observations will be found: ‘It is as an index of the
moral condition of the age that the prevalence of either
Spiritualism or Materialism is especially important. At present,
the fendency towards the ſaffer is too manifest to escape the notice
of any attentive observer. That great reaction against the
Materialism of the last century, which was represented by the
ascendency of German and Scotch philosophies in England, and
by the revival of Cartesianism in France, which produced in
art a renewed admiration for Gothic architecture, in literature
the substitution of a school of poetry appealing powerfully to
the passions and the imagination, for the frigid intellectualism
of Pope or of Voltaire, and in religion the deep sense of sin
displayed in different forms by the early Evangelicals and by the
early Tractarians, is everywhere disappearing. . . . This is the
shadow resting on the otherwise brilliant picture the history of
Rationalism presents. . . . When we look back to the cheer-
ful alacrity with which, in some former ages, men sacrificed all
II 2 - SCEPTICISM.
-
;
.
their material and intellectual interests to what they believed to
be right, and when we realize the unclouded assurance that was
their reward, it is impossible to deny that we have lost some-
thing in our progress.’ According to Lecky, the current is
setting very decidedly and very strongly in the direction of
Materialism, and this theory is opposed to all that is most hope-
ful in the moral and spiritual life of mankind. Under these
conditions, the ‘progress’ of which he speaks may fairly be con-
sidered a doubtful benefit.
In the closing part of Lange's ‘History of Materialism,’ a
work much lauded by the leaders of this school in England,
we find similar sentiments. Even where, to some extent,
Materialism is welcomed and sympathized with, its moral effects
are dreaded. Lange, at all events, seems to look for little that
is morally good from its supremacy. “A current of Materialism
runs through Our modern civilization which carries away with it
everyone who has not somewhere found “firmer anchorage.”
. . . The ideal has no quotations on our exchanges. . . . If it
comes to the dissolution of our present civilization, it will hardly
be that any existing Church, and still less Materialism, will
succeed to the inheritance, but from some unsuspected corner
will emerge some utter absurdity, like the Book of Mormon or
Spiritualism, with which the justified ideas of the epoch will
fuse themselves, to found a new centre of universal thought,
to last, perhaps, for thousands of years.” Such are the bright
vaticinations and sober outlook of the heralds of the new age.
It can hardly be said that they are more attractive than the
‘Millennium ' hitherto expected by the friends of the old
religion. Lange stipulates for the ‘taking over of our best
Church hymns into the new worship,” and society will certainly
need all the moral aid it can get from spiritual hymns, if it is
to be directed and controlled by the forces inherent in
1 : Ueberweg asked me what hymn I would propose to take from the
Protestant hymn-book; and in full consciousness of our difference, I
answered immediately, “O bleeding Head, so wounded !” Ueberweg
turned away, and gave up any hope of agreeing with me as to the religious
poetry of the church of the future.’—Zange, vol. iii., p. 321.
MATERIALISM. II3
Materialism. As Christlieb has well said, ‘In good sooth, the
Materialists are the most dangerous enemies of progress that
the world has ever seen.’ Whatever we may think of the
moral meaning of the fact—fact it undoubtedly is — that
Materialism is on the increase in this country, and there are
many tendencies, as Lecky has pointed out, stimulating and
fostering this view of life's meaning. An age of great and rapid
material progress, an age when, under various hostile influences,
old ideals have lost much of their power, when wealth has
increased with amazing rapidity, and when along with it luxury
of every kind has been developed, is sure to encourage the
spread of Materialism.
We have attempted to show how Secularism has been built
as a kind of half-way house between faith in the unseen and
its entire and absolute negation. The Secular-theory has been
recommended on this very ground, that it demands no dogmatic
deliverance on themes too deep for human reason's short
sounding-line. ‘Let us,’ say its teachers, ‘unite in doing the
best we can for ourselves and for our fellows in this world,
leaving to more speculative minds questions about a future
state and the existence of a Supreme Mind.” The bolder and
more earnest men among Secularists find such a position
intellectually intolerable. The human mind is so constituted
that it must speculate and interrogate and see if there be any
possibility of knowledge in such regions. Hence, as a matter
of fact, Secular advocates preach Materialism as their philosophy
of life, and they erect on this intellectual basis their theory of
Secularism.
So the Atheist is, of necessity, a Materialist. If he affirms
that there is no God, or if he denies the possibility of any
knowledge, and says that the human mind is incapable of giving
any deliverance, he must still have some theory of life's mean-
ing. He therefore falls back upon this one, and declares that
it is the creed of science. Ultimately, too, the ‘Religion of
Humanity,’ with which Secularism is so closely allied, is
Materialistic, however contradictory this may appear. At all
8
II4 SCEPTICISM.
events, the Positivist fairly eliminates the spiritual from his world,
and leaves us nothing but what may he termed Materialism.
His God is only an abstract idea, and his worship a worship of
Self under another form. At bottom, he must lean towards
the explanation of things offered in the name of science by
the Materialist.
Wherever we turn, to whichever brilliant preacher we listen,
the thing taught seems ultimately the same ; disguise it how
we may, the world in which many of the foremost thinkers
would have us live, move, and have our being, is the narrow
and dreary world of Materialism.
A thorough discussion of this theory in all its bearings is neither
possible nor desirable here. It may be possible to indicate
some of the more popular aspects of the Materialistic conception
of the world, as these are at work in the thought of our time.
As presented by its popular advocates, Materialism claims to
be a truly Scientific interpretation of man's nature, and of the
world in which he lives. It would explain, so far as explanation
is possible, man's origin and history, without assuming the
existence of any powers, forces, or beings, other than those
called ‘material.’ Matter and force, perhaps we ought to say
energy, are the only things known to man, and by the action
and inter-action of these, all that we see and feel, all that we
are and shall be, must be determined. Darwin's theory as to
man's origin and history this School accepts not as an hypothesis,
but as a fact of science. Man differs, it is true, from the lower
animals, but simply in the greater complexity of his material
organization; hence, he can think and reason better, can love
and hate, and fear and hope, more than they can. As to the
existence in man of any soul, or spirit, or higher nature, dis-
tinguishing him from the brute, this is a mere delusion of the
imagination. There is no such entity. When man dies, when
the breath leaves his body, there is an end of him ; he mixes
with the clods of the valley, his physical being is transformed
into other forms; and as for his mind, this was simply a func-
tion of the brain, and when the one ceased to act, the other
MATERIALISM. II 5
ceased to be. All that lives after him is his influence in the
world; the only immortality he may expect is this continued
life in the thoughts, feelings, and life of others. All the
spiritual facts in connection with man's nature and life are
acknowledged, but they receive a kind of physical explanation.
They are simply the products of organization : as one says,
“Instinct, passion, thought, are effects of organized substances;
mind is the product of brain ; it is the manifestation or expres-
sion of the brain in action.’ Hence they consistently teach
that death ends all.
If we appeal to the existence of what is called ‘design in
nature,” the Materialists will not listen to us. Design is simply
a ‘property of organic matter’; the moral and spiritual in man
are the phenomena connected with higher forms of brain
organization ; what man calls his ‘freedom ' is a mere illusion
of the understanding. All is determined for, not by, man; he
is physically, intellectually, and spiritually, the outcome of his
organization.
In order fully to discuss a theory like this, we should have to
insist on a more careful definition of terms and use of words.
Even great masters of knowledge seem to us to use language
chiefly to hide the want of clear ideas. But for our purpose it
will not be necessary to go so thoroughly into this matter.
While brilliant professors are discussing with each other the
meaning of the obscure facts with which they are dealing, and
while great thinkers are seeking to get at the real nature and
conditions of all human knowledge, a much humbler work may
be possible to us. We may be permitted to offer to those who
are fascinated by the apparent simplicity of this philosophy of
life, a few considerations worthy of their acceptance.
/ 1. It is not a fact, as is often alleged in popular debate, that
Science has established Materialism as the only correct interpreta-
tion of the facts of life and thought. Popular lecturers of the
Materialistic School make it appear that just as the new astro-
nomy has displaced the older view, just as the undulatory
theory of light has taken the place of the emanation one, so
8–2
II6 SCEPTICISM.
Materialism is the sober, scientific, reading of the facts, and has
the same claim to be received as the other views above men-
tioned. This is as far as possible from being the truth, as we
shall easily demonstrate. It is admitted, by all who know any-
thing of the subject, that the brain has much to do with thought
and with thinking ; that there are physical concomitants, so to
speak, in connection with every operation called mental; that
injuries done to the brain may do much to affect the thinking
power of man ; and that brain diseases may derange his whole
mental and moral life. It is not admitted, and Science does
not authoritatively teach, that mind is the product of brain or
of organization, no matter how complex; or that what we know
of the brain and nervous system enables us to account for all
the phenomena called mental. Of course, if, at the bidding of
Professor Tyndall, we change our definitions of matter, we may
see in it anything we please—not only the ‘promise and
potency,” but the actuality of all life. Does Materialism gain
anything by such changes P. We know most of the properties
or attributes of matter; we know many of the properties of
what we call mind; but no knowledge yet possessed by man
can enable us to combine in one substance these different
properties and attributes. The material and immaterial have
always been, and must always be, distinguished by man ; nor
is there any manner of use in saying that they are a two-fold or
two-faced unity."
Dr. Maudsley and others of the same school are often quoted
in support of the Materialistic view of life. Maudsley rejects
the name for himself, although he appears pretty much to affirm
the theory in his writings. So far as we can see, Maudsley has
no light to give us on this dark problem. He may, and does
at times, define mind in terms of matter, as the ‘sum total of
those functions of the brain which we know as thought, feeling,
and will.’ By such definitions he brings his friends no nearer
* As Professor Tyndall himself says, “It is no explanation to say that the
objective and subjective effects are two sides of one and the same pheno-
menon. Why should the phenomenon have two sides? This is the very
core of the difficulty.’
MATERIALISM. II 7
their goal. The older thinkers tell us that mind has certain
properties, that matter has certain qualities, and that in human
life they find these two manifested together. They warn us
against Saying that the one is a function of the other, and they
point out, that such a conclusion goes beyond the bounds of
Sober knowledge. At bottom, Maudsley and his school, even
after they have changed the definition of matter, come to the
same conclusion. “We know not,’ says Maudsley, ‘and perhaps
never shall know, what mind is.’ Professors Huxley and
Tyndall tell us that they “never hope to know anything of the
steps by which the passage from the molecular movement to
states of consciousness is effected.’ If, then, they know so
little, why do they speak as if they knew everything P Why do
their admirers in the Materialistic camp speak as if they had
demonstrated thought to be one of the functions of the brain P
Others, bolder than these, tell us how they get from matter
to consciousness, but not vice versä. They point to the insen-
sible gradations by which great organic changes have been
brought about. “Look, they say, “at some of the lowest
forms of life, at a lump of organized matter with powers of
locomotion . Think by what slow steps we must ascend from
this to the brain of Newton | So must we pass by slow stages
and insensible gradations from a sort of suff-consciousness to
the higher and highest forms of mental activity P
But not even the genius of the late Professor Clifford can
commend this theory to the judgment of unbiased minds.
Unless we are prepared to regard the exfended and non-extended
as identical, unless we accept something and nothing as being
the same, unless we are willing to accept words, learned, techni-
cal, and cunningly contrived, in place of clear ideas, we shall
never accept such a Materialism as this Dr. Beale, an expert
in such studies, and familiar with such regions of life, assures
us that there is, as seen under the microscope, much more even
Žn material organizańon than can be accounted for by matter
and its known laws. “No physical explanation will enable us
to account for the phenomena of growth, nutrition, multiplica-
II8 SCEPTICISM.
tion, formation, conversion, or other vital phenomena. There
is not a shadow of fact to justify the dogma that mind is a form
of force. A theory of vitality (non-material, psychical) will alone
enable us to account for the facts demonstrated in connec-
tion with the life of all living things. Although an immaterial
agency cannot be demonstrated to the senses, the evidences of
the working of such a power are so distinct and clear to the
reason that the mind which remains unfettered by the trammels
of dogmatic physics, and is free to exercise judgment, will not
deny its existence. . . . After having studied the phenomena
of living matter for a length of time, and with all the advantages
I could obtain, the conviction has been forced on my mind that
vital phenomena must be referred to an agency distinct from
the physical forces of nature. . . . Life is not a consequence of
the organization of matter, but the cause.... The recent attempts
to interpret vital phenomena by physics are terribly retrograde.
Such an interpretation cannot be accepted unless well-estab-
lished truths which cannot be overthrown are purposely ignored,
and old ideas, long since proved to be false, are received as true.”
Such expressions of opinion from one eminent in scientific re-
search are entitled to our respect. Dr. Beale's attempted explana-
tion may as little satisfy the mind as others that have been
offered by great thinkers. We may gain nothing by assuming
the existence and operation of a ‘vital force; we may even, as
Dr. Smyth suggests, ‘transcend the limits of positive science’
by such attempts. We are entitled to say that the Materialistic
doctrine, that mind is a function of brain, is a mere figment of
the imagination, and in no sense the outcome of scientific
knowledge. As to the proposed extensions of the meaning of
the term matter, we may reply with Professor Blackie, ‘Why
this juggle P Far more reasonable were it to deny the existence
of matter altogether, than to attribute to it qualities plainly in-
consistent with its fundamental conceptions.” -
2. The Materialistic hypothesis fails to account for some of the
most important phenomena connected with man's experience.
According to Professor Beale, Materialism does not account
MATERIALISM. II9
for the very changes taking place in the material organism itself;
how much less the phenomena of man's intellectual, moral, and
spiritual life Nothing is easier than to give physiological defi-
nitions of mind and mental processes; such definitions are
words only, and they suggest no rational and consistent
thoughts. Maudsley bids us adopt, at least as a theory, the
notion that “all the operations which are considered mental, and
to belong to psychology, may be performed as pure functions
of the nervous system ; such a theory must break down the
moment we seriously apply it to the facts to be explained. The
chief value of any hypothesis is the ease and completeness with
which it enables us to explain particular phenomena. His
theory ignores the mental altogether, save in words; it begs
the whole question, and assumes that mind is matter and
nothing else. When we are told that design is a property of
organic matter; that consciousness is a mere incident, not the
very essence of mental function ; when attention, reflection,
ideas, emotions, volitions, and other manifestations of mind,
are said to be due to the action, reaction, and inter-action of
molecules, we are fully justified in saying that such explana-
tions are mere verbiage and nothing more ; ſhey begin by
ignoring the rea/ ?/henomena to be accounted for. That brain
and nervous system are essential to thought and feeling,
under present conditions, we all admit; that every mental act is
accompanied by certain changes of the nervous system we may
also concede; that under present conditions it may be essential
to have a physiology or pathology of mind we also grant;-this
is very different from saying that mind is a function of matter,
and that thought, feeling, and volition, the phenomena of mind,
are fully accounted for by such changes. The chemistry of
thought is still as obscure as ever from a physical point of view,
and the processes called mental have no real place in the map
of the Materialist.
Professor Calderwood has recently given us an estimate of
the scientific value of these physiological researches into the
structure of brain and nervous system, in relation to the mental
I2O SCEPTICISM.
and moral life of man. He deals with all the known facts,
and tries to show their bearing on man's complex life. His
conclusion is that there is no scientific warrant for saying that
mental “phenomena are the product of brain activity.’ Anatomy
and physiology have done much for man's physical well-being,
and for his mental life as conditioned by the physical, but these
sciences “afford no explanation of our most ordinary intellectual
exercises.’ ‘It is beyond dispute,’ says Dr. Calderwood, ‘that
the action and reaction of the nerve-tissue mainly concerned
with the primary demands of sensation and motion, can afford
no explanation of the speculative thought which occupies such
a conspicuous place in literature.’ Dealing with difficult aspects
of intellectual activity, such as the interpretation of sense-
impressions, the government of present life under a rational
law, and, highest of all, that range of mental activity where
thought seeks to explain and to interpret the universe as a
whole, he remarks:–‘This vast range of intellectual activity
must either be brought within the compass of the recognised
functions of brain, or it must be acknowledged as beyond
dispute that there belongs to man a nature of higher and
nobler type which we designate Mind. The most advanced
results of physiological science afford us no philosophy of these
facts; whereas the results of psychological inquiry imply the
possession of a nature higher than the physical. I do not press
the question as to the nature of mind beyond ascertaining its
functions. That nature is clearly enough indicated when its
functions are shown to be essentially different from those of brain,
and altogether higher in kind. Mind cannot be explained under
the conditions applicable to matter. The immateriality of the
rational nature is clearly implied in the forms of activity which
are peculiar to it.’ This is, we venture to say, the Sober con-
clusion of science, if by science we mean accurate Knowledge.
Maudsley and his school protest against Materialism, denying
stoutly that they are Materialists. We need not quarrel about
words and names; if their conclusions have any meaning at all,
if they are not mere words, they are Materialistic. Perhaps the
MATERIALISM. I21
best way to deal with such hypotheses is to consider them mean-
ingless. Mind refuses to be interpreted by the forms, forces,
and laws that belong to the physical realm. The manifesta-
tions in the unit man called mental refuse to fit into the moulds
prepared by eminent physicists; much more is this true of the
manifestations of mind in the race. The intellectual creations
of humanity, the ‘thoughts that breathe and the words that
burn,’ are not to be explained by molecular forces and their
known or knowable laws. “Physical influences,’ says Fairbairn,
* may explain differences in the psychical creations of different
peoples and times, but cannot explain the creations themselves ;
may determine their form, but cannot furnish their matter.
Here nature may be a necessary occasion, but mind is an
essential cause—the occasion can never be the cause. Mind,
not nature, must explain the purpose and progress of humanity.’
When we pass from man's purely intellectual activities to those
Called moral and spiritual, we see still more, if possible, the
impotency of the Materialistic theory. If the brain and nervous
system, however closely examined, ſail to give any complete or
rational account of man's self-conscious life, how can we expect,
by their aid alone, to understand and interpret man's moral
nature ? The great German thinker, whose thoughts have
changed the whole intellectual life in Europe, tells us how his
mind was ever filled with wonder as he thought of the starry
heaven over-head and the moral law within. To the Materialist,
the moral law can have no objective existence. He is able to
attribute to it no sacredness and no supreme authority over
life. To him the words of Kant must appear either fanatical
or meaningless, ‘Duty thou great, thou exalted name !
Wondrous thought, that workest neither by fond insinuation,
flattery, nor by any threat, but merely by holding up thy naked
law to the soul, and so extorting for thyself always reverence,
if not always obedience—before whom all appetites are dumb,
however secretly they rebel. Whence thy original P and where
find we the root of thy august descent, thus loftily disclaiming
all kindred with appetite and want? to be in like manner
I22 SCEPTICISM.
descended from which root, is the unchanging condition of that
worth which mankind can alone impart to themselves.’
In his essay on “Conscience and Organization,” Dr.
Maudsley gives us a very different, and, to say the least, not
so exalted an explanation of the origin of man's moral nature.
“If man,’ says he, “were deprived of the instinct of propagation,
and of all that mentally springs from it, most of the poetry,
and perhaps all the moral feeling, would be cut out of life I’
It is a solemn truth that the age of puberty is one peculiarly
trying to the moral life of man ; it is also true that the im-
perious demands of appetite have done much to shake man's
moral stability. But when, with all gravity, a would-be philo-
sopher bids us find the ‘root of the moral sense in the instinct
of propagation ; when he reminds us that this form of self-indul-
gence, though apparently one of the ‘most selfish, is really highly
altruistic, we begin to see that the ‘blind lead the blind’ when
physiologists appear as teachers of morals. Instead of Kant's
view, that in the presence of duty appetite is dumb, we are
reminded that only when appetite asserts its sway does moral
life become possible to man This theory of morals is certainly
in some respects consistent with itself. Darwin proposes to
find in the lower animals the rudiments of the moral sense, but
the candid naturalist confesses that all the elements now enter-
ing into our moral life could not have originally come from this
source, Maudsley, more consistent, seeks the explanation of
what is highest in humanity in a function common to man and
brute / May we not rightly say that Materialism fails to account
for the facts of man's experience? A truer science can only
expect to find what is common to man and animal, not what is
peculiar to one of them, in this region of our nature.
The moral life of man must be held to be that which differen-
tiates him from the lower animals. There is an animal nature
in man, unquestionably, and it must influence his whole moral
life. The ‘sensual part of our nature,’ says Lecky, ‘is always
the lower part ; but the higher part of man's complex being
cannot be scientifically explained by the lower. The two may
MATERIA LISM. I23
be related, but if elements foreign to the one enter into, yea,
form the very essence of, the other, then we must not ask the
lower to account for the higher. This were a development
theory, indeed . Without dwelling at any greater length on
this particular subject, we may fairly assert that Maudsley and
his school cannot on Materialistic principles account for moral
life. They may sneer at ‘freedom of the will” as an “effete
superstition, the offshoot of ignorance, mischievously drawing
men's minds away from the beneficial recognition of the
universal reign of law, and of the solemn responsibilities under
the stern necessities of universal causation,’ but their very
sneers reveal the poverty of their scientific resources in this
region. How, may we not ask, can their be responsibility if
there is no freedom P Man is certainly conscious of responsi-
bility; this is one of the most universal as well as one of the
simplest facts of his experience; but if reason be entitled to
give any testimony at all, it will assert that responsibility has
no meaning to a being who is not free. Responsible to whom
and for what, we ask? If our thoughts, feelings, and volitions,
our beliefs and acts, whether moral or un-moral, are under the
control of a stern necessity, and if that necessity is universal,
and that control binding on all—if freedom of will, or, to put
it better, rational freedom of action, be an “effete superstition’
—whence this idea of responsibility, whether solemn or other-
wise? To affirm responsibility in a world such as is pictured
for us in the philosophy of Maudsley, must ever appear
irrational. If we make the whole of man's moral life so many
links in the chain of universal causation, if we deny to the will of
man any real control over action, if we affirm necessity, Stern
and universal, we leave no room for any sense of duty, or any
feeling of guilt. As Fairbairn remarks: “If man be the mere
product of mechanical and necessary forces, they must rule
him; but where they rule there may be a breakdown, but can
be no evil, an effective or resultful motion, but can be no good.
. . . Does the will count for anything in the sphere of action?
If man is to any extent or in any real sense free, he cannot be
I24 SCEPTICISM.
the mere product of molecular action ; if he is the pure creature
of primordial molecules, his actions must be as much necessi-
tated as the movements of the planets or the ebb and flow of
the tides.’
All such hypotheses break down the instant they are applied
to the facts of man's mental and moral life P. How on such
principles are we to account for the testimony of man's con-
Sciousness, and for the simplest phenomena of the moral life P
What are we to make of man's sense of sin, his consciousness of
guilt and unworthiness, sometimes so acute and so keenly felt P
What do we say about his praise or his blame on such a theory
of life? In short, such a view will not work; there is no
power in it to enable a man to get through the mental life of a
single hour without being involved in intellectual confusion and
absurdity.
Here we may fairly appeal from “Philip drunk to Philip sober,’
in order to show that the theory breaks down under the strain of
real experience. When Dr. Maudsley discusses volition, and
when especially he attempts to determine the amount and
character of human “responsibility,’ he talks like men who be-
lieve in freedom of choice. He speaks of a ‘person of extra-
ordinary genius’ making “circumstances conform’ to his will.
Does he not see that on his theory one such exceptional case would
amount to a miracle 2 Universal causation can make no excep-
tions in favour of men, whether ordinary or extraordinary. If
genius is to be explained on scientific principles, we must leave
room for it in the common life of man. On Materialistic prin-
ciples, on the theory that freedom of will is an “effete superstition,’
what are we to make of the following? “A great purpose earnestly
pursued through life, a purpose to the achievement of which the
energies of the individual have been definitely bent, and which
has, therefore, involved much renunciation and discipline of
self, has perhaps been a saving labour to one (man), while the
absence of such a life-aim, whether great in itself, or great to
the individual in the self-discipline which its pursuit entailed,
may have left the other without a sufficiently powerful motive to
MATERIALISM. I25
self-government, and so have opened the door to the perturbed
streams of thought and feeling which make for madness.’ All
this seems to us both sound philosophy and excellent suggestion,
but how can its relevancy be shown on Maudsley's principles?
Given only a great purpose formed and earnestly pursued
through life, the whole energies of man's being bent to the
accomplishment of this aim ; given the power to form such a
purpose, to govern self in its interests and under the con-
straint of its high motive power; given the power to resist or
to overcome taints and tendencies within, and obstacles with-
out; given, we say, all this, and what is wanting to moral free-
dom P A being who can do all this has, within the limits of a
zworld like ours, the only kind of freedom for which wise men have
ever contended, the capacity of rational self-government under moral
law. Just as no one can either regulate his own life, or guide
the action of others, without assuming and acting on principles
that are non-Materialistic, so no one can give any rational
explanation of the commonest experiences of man's moral life
without affirming the existence and practical reality of freedom.
On these, as well as other grounds, we are warranted in saying
that, on the one hand, Science cannot be said to have estab-
lished the claims of this theory, and on the other, its teachings
about nature and man do not give any reasonable philosophy
of facts acknowledged by all parties.
We might justly have taken up positions much more decidedly
antagonistic to this view of life, for to say that it gives no ex-
planation of the facts, is certainly to put the case in its mildest
form. We complained that Secularism ignored altogether
important facts in connection with man's moral experience;
Materialism takes up a much bolder attitude, inasmuch as it pro-
fesses to give a complete solution of the problem that Secularism
refuses to touch. The Materialist does not say, ‘Ignore these
deep questions;’ he declares that he has satisfactorily accounted
for all the phenomena, has reduced the many to that unity after
which mind ever strives; and yet the more we study his ‘unity,”
the more we shall be persuaded that it is either purely veróa/,
or that it is not Materialistic. He first empties the old terms
I26 SCEPTICISM.
of all their true and real meaning, and then declares that he
has explained them to us. Before we refer all that we see and
feel and know to the action and interaction of the Materialist’s
forces, we have first to change our ideas about the contents
and character of these forces. As Caird remarks, this is rather
to ‘spiritualize matter than materialize mind’; and this is
the direction in which the current of Materialistic and semi-
Materialistic thought is now flowing. But as Martineau well
says –“When he (the Materialist) asks for no more than matter
for his purpose, he must surely be understood to require nothing
but the essentials of maſter, the characters which enter into its
definition; and to pledge himself to deduce out of these all the
accessory characters which appear here and not there, and which
discriminate the several provinces of nature.” Such a demand
never satisfies the disciples of this school ; they deal with matter
and energy much as the conjuror deals with his instruments,
they put into them, and bring out of them, what pleases them
for the moment. Even then from the standpoint of accurate
thinking, Materialism must be considered a failure; its theory
of life is neither consistent nor sufficient. And some of the
ablest thinkers of our time—men like the lamented Mr. Green
and others—are making this plain enough. It has been the
fashion of late to ridicule metaphysics, and to extol what is
called Positive thought, but men are beginning to see that they
must think and philosophize. “In spite,’ says Martineau, ‘of
the cheap wit expended in derision of metaphysics, and the
brave preference avowed for terra firma, you can escape them
only by knowing where you are. In their embrace you live and
move and have your being ; and however fast your foot may
cling to the earth, none the less do you swim with it through
the infinite space which, even in its emptiness, is yet the con-
dition of all solidity.’ It is becoming every day clearer that
the apostles of science, who have done so much to extol
Materialism and to depreciate metaphysics, have been them-
selves philosophizing all the time. Their pretended science
has been bad metaphysics, and their Positive methods only
a new form of dogmatism. And now we have men like Green,
w
MATERIALISM. I27
and a host of others, going back to the beginning, and seeking
to lay once more on a spiritual basis, which is the only rational
one, the foundations of human knowledge.
In the Materialist's hands, moral and spiritual terms and ideas
are simply transfigured. He cannot be said to explain them,
nor does he give any rational account of what is behind them.
If the simplest experiences of man's moral life, the feeling of
unworthiness, the consciousness of guilt, the Sense of sin, are
left unexplained, what can he make of man's higher spiritual
emotions and experiences? They are to him either the outcome
of fanaticism or folly,–pictures flung upon the screen of life by
a fancy that is disordered, not faint traces of that image of God
in which man was created. Moreover, as we shall have occasion
afterwards to show, the Materialistic hypothesis gives no ex-
planation of the actual historical facts of life in connection with
Religion. It cannot any longer be allowed to evolve out of the
belief of ghosts, out of the phenomena of sleep and dreaming, the
grandest Religions of the world; the testimony of history, not
to speak of the testimony of consciousness, is decisive here.
Nor can the Materialist account for the origin, progress, and
power of Christianity; what can he make of the appearance of
Jesus Christ and His influence over the noblest and best of men P
What can he make of His power to Save, to regenerate the vilest,
and to transform them into the purest and humblest of men and
women? The ‘life and immortality’ brought to the world by
Jesus Christ have to be accounted for ; not only the belief in
immortality, but the power, the dynamic energy, of immortality
itself. Speaking of Religion, Dr. Martineau says, “if its power
is noble, its essence is true.” On the theory of the Materialist,
the essence of the noblest power on earth must be unrea/; not
only is all the childlike faith of the wisest and best of men
discredited by this view of things, but the faith of /esus Christ is
also seen to be but the baseless fabric of a vision. Truly the
Materialist is a destroyer of the peace, and a frustrator of the
highest purposes of man. No wonder, in view of the moral
effects of his work upon man and upon life, that men like Lecky
and Lange should anticipate his Supremacy with something akin
I28 SCEPTICISM.
to dread; no wonder that in the ‘Church of the future,'a Church
without any fixed beliefs in a God above or a spiritual life within
man—Lange should desire Christian hymns, and the spiritual
influence of the ideal of the Church of the past. The world
has seen many sad sights, and heard many discordant sounds,
but the saddest sight of all would be the elevation of Materialism
into the position still held by Christianity. For our part, we
fear no such catastrophe; SO long as man is what he is, so long
as life is what it ever has been, so long will man refuse to be
Satisfied with a theory which not only empties heaven of its
meaning, but takes from earth itself all that has made it dear
to man. Fairbairn boldly affirms, and in these days of doubt
and fear this is needful, that “Christianity does not depend for
either its existence or its authority on Theories of Infallibility
or Inspiration. God reveals Himself in humanity, and His
voice can cease to speak only when His organ ceases to be.” So
the most convincing proof that Materialism is not the Philosophy
of the universe, man carries within his own breast. Even if he
were to forget to listen to that voice within, the echo of the
Supreme Mind without him, still Materialism must fail, for man
lives, moves, and has his being in a life other and higher than
his own. The most Atheistic of Materialists believe in the
‘Survival of the Fittest,’ in the manifestations everywhere of
orderly life; and thus, both Theist and Atheist, both Spiritualist
and Materialist, confess the facts. In this order man lives, and
as he knows it, he may trust and not be afraid. Why do the
“fittest” survive? Why does this power in the long run ever
make for Righteousness? Because behind the order there is
an Orderer, and because all these, and myriad other illustra-
tions, are the proofs to man's spirit of the existence and working
of the Father of Spirits. Men ask us for proofs of the exist-
ence of Power, of a Supreme Mind: given only the open
eye, the hearing ear, and the trustful heart, and these are
everywhere visible in this very order which all confess. In
this living, working order, in the existence, power, and purpose
of which it is the outward expression, we have the best
guarantees against the triumph of Materialism.
CHAPTER VII.
A&AEZ/G/O/V A/V/D SC/AEAVCAE.
‘The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession
of despair ; reason and reverence are natural allies, though untoward cir-
cumstances may sometimes interpose and divorce them.”—BISHOP LIGHT-
FOOT.
‘Thought, without reverence, is barren, perhaps poisonous.”—CARLYLE.
‘Clear the mind of God, and truth is reduced almost to mere knowledge,
—true “information.”’—R. H. HUTTON.
“Before a vigorous logical scrutiny, the reign of law will prove to be an
unverified hypothesis, the uniformity of Nature an ambiguous expression,
the certainty of our scientific inferences to a great extent a delusion.’—
W. STANLEY JEVONs.
Is there any real conflict between Religion and Science? In
other words—are the facts on which, ultimately, Religion must
rest, at all affected by the genuine discoveries and authoritative
teachings of Science? These questions we shall discuss only
in the most general way, reserving for other chapters the con-
sideration in greater detail of alleged oppositions between the
teachings of Science and the truths of Divine Revelation.
At the very threshold of this discussion we meet with conflict-
ing opinions and estimates. According to some authorities, there
is not only opposition, but absolute and hopeless antagonism, be-
tween the beliefs of religious men and the fixed beliefs of men of
science. They would have us believe, that from the first dawn of
scientific inquiry to its most recent triumphs, the opposition of
Religion has been constant and uniform, and that the clearer light
and fuller knowledge of our age only helps us to see the impossi-
bility of any real friendship between the two opposing move-
ments. According to others there is no real conflict; the
9
I30 SCEPTICISM.
combatants are only looking at different sides of the shield, as
of yore. With the proverbial eagerness and one-sidedness of
controversialists, they have refused to allow due weight to each
other's arguments; from this point of view, the conflict appears
simply a verbal one, and where there has been real antagonism,
or open and avowed contradiction, this has arisen chiefly from
the ignorance of both parties.
Others again admit the reality and the danger of the conflict,
but they think they are able to reconcile the opposing claims.
One of the philosophers of our age—according to many, its
chief light—has proposed a scheme of reconciliation, with
the view of for ever ending this unholy war. Unfortunately,
this reconciliation demands from Religion the surrender of all
for which it has ever contended. Were religious men to accept
Mr. Spencer's view, they would be much in the position of a
general who had given up the citadel to the enemy, but who
had graciously been permitted to occupy a few outposts, on
condition that he give these up one by one as they are
demanded ! Such a scheme of reconciliation obviously must
be rejected by all who believe in the reality and the necessity
of Religion. t
That there is, at all events, the appearance of conflict at
present between Science and Religion, no one can well deny ;
there may not be absolute contradiction, there may not be
deadly antagonism, but the claims of the two are not seen to
be in harmony. “There is one fact,’ says Dr. Fairbairn, who
is by no means an alarmist, ‘we cannot well over-rate—the
State of conflict or mental schism, in which every devout man
who is also a man of culture feels himself compelled more or
less consciously to live. . . . His mind is an arena in which
two conceptions struggle for the mastery, and the struggle seems
so deadly as to demand the death of the one for the life of the
other—faith sacrificed to knowledge, or knowledge to faith.”
Newman Smyth, in his recent work on “Old Faiths in New
Light,’ tells us that many who do not proclaim their doubts on
the housetops are yet ‘hiding them in their hearts,’ and eagerly
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I31
seeking for more and clearer light. If this be the state of mind
in which men of culture who are also men of faith habitually
live, what must be the condition of many inquirers who have
none of the strength and stability that come from either wide
culture or deep faith? We must fully admit the existence of
conflict, and do our best to explain that it arises rather from
ignorance than from truly scientific knowledge. Nor may this
ignorance be confined to one side only ; it may be common to
both, and can only be removed, on the one hand, by a fuller
trust, and, on the other, by deeper and more patient inquiry.
Popular lecturers on the Sceptical side often do great injury
to faith by the way in which they deal with the history of this
‘conflict.’ According to them, the antagonism has arisen from
first to last from an essential incompatibility between the rival
claims, and throughout victory has been with Science; the
upholders and expounders of Religion, like the pioneers or
‘squatters’ of civilization, have ever had to give place to the
‘new settlers’ of a higher order of life. ‘Faith,’ it is said, and
faith is the soul of all religious life, ‘is in its nature unchange-
able—stationary; Science is in its nature progressive ; and
eventually a divergence between them, impossible to conceal,
takes place.’ The results of such a divergence may easily be
predicted. The human mind must grow, and its growth is the
index-measure of the progress of Science. Hence, say these
chroniclers of progress, Religion has had, from age to age, to
give place before its determined rival. They could not well
divide the land between them, for Science demanded more
than Faith could grant. There was, therefore, advance on the
one side and resistance on the other ; but victory has ever
been the fortune of the one, and defeat the fate of the other.
Geographer, astronomer, anatomist, chemist, geologist, and
biologist, have by turns assailed, and have been resisted, but in
the end all the positions first taken up have been abandoned.
To-day we see the same struggle, and we can without misgiving
predict the result. No longer has Religion in its service the
rack, the thumbscrew, and the stake—no longer can it invoke
9–2
I32 SCEPTICISM.
the aid of powerful princes and strong armies in its deadly
struggle; its spirit is, however, the same, and the arguments it
uses much the same as were the arguments of its first champions.
Just as religious geography had to give place to truer and more
accurate ideas of the earth's size and shape—just as the
astronomy of the Church had to give place to the astronomy of
Science, so the cosmogonies, theologies, and ethics of our day
must give place before Darwin's new “Book of Genesis,' and
Spencer's new ‘Data of Ethics | Such representations of this
conflict are very plausible; they win the ear of the crowds, and
they find support in popular books written by learned professors
of physical science. But ‘still it moves P Still Religion lives,
yea, and sways with more power than ever the best minds of
the age Its voice is heard by the most thoughtful, its
essential truth recognised by Some who rejoice in the name of
‘Freethinkers’; the grasp of moral law on the conscience is
to-day firmer than ever, and the most determined Iconoclasts
of the time are eagerly seeking for some “ideal substitutes for
God’; in order to keep its hold on its most enthusiastic
votaries, Science must provide for them a religion
Two remarks may be made on this aspect of the conflict.
First, we must frankly and fully acknowledge whatever of truth
there is at the basis of these popular representations, perhaps
we might say misrepresentations. We admit that religious men
have often taken up false positions that afterwards have had to
be abandoned. Hence they have appeared ſo lose what never
really belonged to them. In political life, we have many illus-
trations of the extreme folly of defending abuses. The zealous
reformer attacks some cherished institution which he sees to be
out of harmony with the spirit of the age, and perhaps inimical
to the best interests of the people. The timid, fearful lest in
his overzeal the reformer may touch other interests and institu-
tions specially dear to them, defend the evil as well as the good,
and so they not seldom lose all. Had they united with the
reformer to destroy what was ready to perish, they might have
received his help in conserving what was worthy to live. They
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I33
stood up for all, bad and good, and they lost all.” So in
connection with religious life and thought. Looking back upon
these bitter conflicts of the past, we can easily see the unwise
policy of many brave and good men, who considered them-
selves the only friends of Religion. They failed to distinguish
between the essence and some of the accidents of Religion,
between the faiths and hopes lying at the basis of all piety, and
the mere opinions, theologies, and beliefs of devout men. We
can now join in the laugh against the preacher who applied to the
astronomers of his age the text, “Why stand ye gazing up into
heaven P' It may be doubted whether, in our conflicts with
unbelief, we are one whit more exegetical than he was in the
study of our Bibles: we may be much less perturbed by the
teachings of geology than were some of our fathers, we can
perhaps afford to give a more liberal interpretation to the
‘days’ of Genesis than they did, but we are not more eager
than they were to receive into our minds and apply to our
beliefs scientific conceptions of the world that are unfamiliar
to us. The grand lesson from many of these past conflicts,
that we must not treat our Bibles as if they were authorized
text-books of Science issued by the Fellows of the Royal Society,
we are as slow to learn as were the religious men of past
ages. The sooner we learn that the science of the Bible is
Salvation, that the diligent seeker is there to find not the
Biological, Astronomical, or Political Creed of the hour, but
the ‘Record of God's Redeeming Purpose,’ and the story of
how the sinner may find new life and fellowship with God, the
better both for Religion and Science. Religious men must be
held largely responsible for the misrepresentions of which we
have given examples. By dogmatic theories of inspiration, by
strong and unguarded utterances about the moral meaning of
this or that doctrine of Science, by too ready use of denunciatory
language, and the indiscriminate employment of the words
* Recent legislation will illustrate this. How much evil might have been
averted had an Irish Land Act been passed a generation sooner, as many
clear-sighted reformers demanded !
I34 SCEPTICISM.
‘Infidel,’ ‘Atheist,’ and the like, they have irritated men who
loved knowledge, and they have alienated many who desired
liberty to follow truth wherever it seemed to lead them. Under
the influence of these feelings of irritation and alienation,
Seekers after wisdom have perhaps passed into positions of
sharper antagonism, and spoken words that were not likely to
heal the breach between them and men of faith.
A second remark is equally necessary : While fully admitting
the responsibility and confessing the sins of religious men, we
by no means wish it to be understood that they alone are guilty
in this matter. The votaries of Science must take their share,
and that is more than an equal share, of responsibility. This
remark applies chiefly to the Scientists of our own day. The
noble men of the past, who were often persecuted by the
Church, cannot be charged with hostility to Religion. Many of
them were most devout, and in their contentions on behalf of
truth, were thinking quite as much of the cause of Religion as
of the interests of Science. It has been left to the Scientists of
our age, men on whose behalf the very ‘stars in their courses '
have been fighting, to seek advantage by mere appeals to vulgar
prejudice and ignorance. Moreover, they forget in these
tirades of theirs against religious men, that many of the con-
ceptions of the universe, against which they so loudly protest,
were themselves the creations of Science rather than of Religion.
‘They seldom remember,’ says Fairbairn, ‘that Science has
known, still knows, how to persecute, that cultured and pagan
Athens could be as merciless to free inquiry and thought as
Christian and Catholic Rome. If they become historians, they
become eloquent over the intellectual immobility of the Middle
Ages, but silent as to its daring and subtle and even Sceptical
thought. They praise Copernicus and Gassendi, but fail to indi-
Cate what relation Religion and the Church had to their studies.
They narrate the conquests of Science as if they had been victories
over Zheology and not over ignorance. The antiquated and false
views of nature which old divines maintained, and, because
old, could not but maintain, are gravely represented as essential
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I35
to Religion, almost identical with it, and are no less gravely .
classified and exhibited as exploded religious doctrines, rather
than as what they are, exploded conceptions of nature, neces-
sarily, indeed, interwoven with the religious as well as other
thought of the time, but as form, not as matter.” It has been
clearly demonstrated that the conceptions of the world called
religious, and so much ridiculed by modern Scientists, are no
part of the essence even of Bible teachings, not to say of Religion.
They arose in Greece rather than Judaea, were the product of
that thought which did so much to create Science, rather than
of the great men who have laid the foundation of universal
Religion—the prophets of Israel. Modern men of science sneer
at theological ignorance, and bid the preacher keep his own
sphere ; wise advice, truly, but coming with bad grace from
biologists and physiologists, who pronounce most authoritatively
on the meaning of a ‘Record,' which they show no signs of
having carefully studied Why should we suppose that the
Bible is less worthy of serious and careful study than other
books P Our men of science study Shakespeare with great
care. They give us minute analyses of his characters and
painstaking comparisons of his different plays; is the Bible so
very worthless that it should be read so differently, and with so
little anxiety to find out its real meaning P We have already
complained of the careless way in which Mr. Mill and Miss
Martineau think proper to deal with this book, and this is
characteristic of the whole school. Mr. Spencer speaks of the
God of Religion as a ‘Man-like Artificer,’ of His working like a
‘workman shaping a piece of furniture,’ and other Agnostics
follow in the same path. Worse still, they identify these and
such-like crudities with the very essence of the religious concep-
tion of the universe, and assume that Christians are fully
committed to them ; it is hardly necessary to remind a careful
reader of the Psalms and the Prophetic works that these ideas
are foreign to the Bible conception of Jehovah.
Such critics forget the slow development of the human mind,
and the great influence of the past over present ideas. They are
I 36 SCEPTICISM.
constantly reminding us of man's dependence on circumstances,
of his relation to his ‘environment,’ and yet they seem to expect
that modern scientific conceptions should have sprung full grown
from the mind of the Middle Ages. Both men of science and
men of religion are children of their time, and they must not be
held responsible for ideas that are common to all who live
under certain conditions. If a great Naturalist like Darwin
found it so hard to shake his mind free from certain conceptions
of creation, why should we expect the religious men of either
present or past ages, men whose work is so very different, to
possess greater receptivity to new and strange influences? If,
in this matter, we felt disposed to make use of the tu quoque
argument, there is no lack of opportunity. Let anyone care-
fully study the relations of the scientific men of our day to the
temperance question, and ample proof will be found that intel-
lectual immobility is no exclusive property of theological natures.
Surely men of science should have been the first to recognise,
and to proclaim to their fellows, the nature and uses of alcohol,
and yet so far was this from being the case that they were the
last to learn and to acknowledge truths now the property of
School-Board children. The sons of toil have in this movement
been considerably ahead of both scientists and theologians, and
later researches of men of science have but confirmed the
wisdom of their policy."
Passing from these and other aspects of the question, let us
try to see whether after all there be any real conflict between
the teachings of Science and the truths of Religion. Before we
can say whether Religion and Science are really opposed, we
must get at something like clear ideas of their separate provinces
and respective aims. The term Religion is widerin its meaning
than the term Christianity, inasmuch as there may be true
* Not that science had no representative here. For many years, Dr. F.
R. Lees, a man familiar, as few are, with the methods of truly Scientific
research, and faithful, as few have been, to the great law of causation, was
formulating and teaching the truth about alcohol. We refer to the acknow-
ledged leaders in science,—they followed here, and certainly cannot be said
to have led the way.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I37
religious feeling where there is no knowledge of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. We must affirm the universality of the religious
instinct or faculty, or whatever it may be termed, in man;
wherever we find human beings we find in germ, at least, or
potentially, all the elements essential to religious experience.
This may be, has been, hotly disputed; it may be said that
there are tribes of men in whose language there is no word to
express the idea of God. Nothing is more apt to be misleading
than arguments about names applied to, or withheld from, the
Supreme Being. The religious instinct may exist where
language is too poor to express all that it implies. If such
tribes there be, we shall, with Dr. Conder, call them “detached
fragments of the human race . . . . no more to be cited as
Samples of man's moral and intellectual nature, than the tenants
of the lazar-house are to be taken as models of his bodily
nature.’ Whatever names man may give to the object of his
homage, whatever poverty of ideas or attributes he may exhibit,
it is none the less true that he must worship; wherever we find
man, no matter how degraded or how exalted, he has the
instinct of dependence, and the consciousness, whether faint
or vivid, of higher than merely human relations.
We shall not attempt to define what constitutes Religion, or
the religious instinct. Almost any of the definitions usually
offered will serve our purpose equally well: we may say with
Flint that ‘Religion is man's communion with what he believes
to be his God or gods; or with Conder, that it is the ‘sum
total of man's belief, emotion, and conduct with respect to
God;’ or with Fairbairn, that “an object of worship, a Being
worthy of love and reverence, in other words, a God, is neces-
sary to Religion.’ The essential idea contained in, and expressed
by, these and other definitions, is that man has relations with
the divine; that just as by his sense-experience he is related
to a world about him, to which he belongs and of which he
forms a part, just as by his mental life he belongs to an in-
tellectual community, so by his spiritual nature, and on the side
of this highest part of his complex being, he is related to an
138 SCEPTICISM.
unseen but real world, to the Power manifested through all
nature, and, above all, through the moral and spiritual in
humanity. These relations, together with the experiences,
beliefs, acts of homage, and habits of life to which they give
rise, and of which they are the explanation, form what we term
man's religious life. Obviously, the outward forms of his homage,
and the inward feelings and emotions expressed by language,
must differ according as man fully knows, or only blindly gropes
after, the object of his worship, the Power awaking in his nature
these aspirations and experiences. Hence the manifestations
of religious experience will appear under forms exceedingly un-
like, according to man's mental and moral condition.
What is Science P Simply man's accurate orderly knowledge
of the world in which he lives, moves, and has his being. Its
regulative principle is the ‘law of continuity.’ Men of Science
seek amid diversity an underlying identity. They believe, to use
the words of the authors of the “Unseen Universe,' that the
Author of the universe will not put them to ‘permanent intel-
lectual confusion.’ They believe that nature is orderly, how-
ever apparently chaotic, and hence they ever seek for the laws,
the uniformities, in harmony with which events are taking
place. “Nature,’says Jevons, ‘is a spectacle continually exhibited
to our senses, in which phenomena are mingled in combinations
of endless variety and novelty. Wonder fixes the mind's atten-
tion; memory stores up a record of each distinct impression ;
the powers of association bring forth the record when the like
is felt again. By the higher faculties of judgment and reason-
ing the mind compares the new with the old, recognises essen-
tial identity, even when disguised by diverse circumstances, and
expects to find again what was before experienced.’ The man
of science, then, whatever his department of inquiry, seeks unity
amid diversity. Believing that the universe is a cosmos, and
not a chaos, believing that it is an orderly whole, he is ever in
quest of law, and harmony, and identity. When we take this
general view of the provinces alike of Religion and Science,
there does not seem any real principle of conflict or even of
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I39
rivalry between them. If the man of faith believes, as believe
he must, that behind all variety there is a true, though per-
chance hidden, unity, if he believes that the universe is no mere
fortuitous concourse of atoms, but the ‘life-dwelling of an
eternal mind, if he believes that behind all phenomena there
is an all-wise and all-good Power, working out a purpose of
love, why should he fear any evil from the closest scrutiny of
the man of science P On the other hand, why should the
Scientist be jealous of the beliefs, emotions, and acts of homage
of the man of faith ? From one standpoint, indeed, he may
say, with one of his own order, that Science is neither Christian
nor un-Christian, but that it is extra-Christian.
A modern writer has said, somewhat irreverently, that of old
the heavens declared the glory of God, but that now they
declare the glory of Newton The remark shows the bias and
narrowness of the speaker's view, and illustrates one of the
dangers of our time. We can all sympathize with the bewilder-
ment of the boy who declared, after hearing Faraday's descrip-
tion of the chemical composition of a tear, that he would no
longer care for his mother's weeping ! The boy overlooked the
important fact that his teacher had only given the chemical side
of the question, and had in no way described the moral constitu-
ents of the tear shed; so when the devout Psalmist looked up,
saw the starry heavens, and felt his spirits awed by the impres-
Sions suggested by this magnificent spectacle, it is quite true
that he was ignorant of the Newtonian philosophy, but it is not
true that Newton has robbed our spirit of this same spiritual
message. If this were so, there would indeed be conflict
between Religion and Science. The best reply to such sneers,
is to say that, in all such cases, the eye brings with it what it sees.
Kepler declared, when he discovered the law of the planetary
bodies, that ‘God had thought, and that he had thought His
thoughts after Him.” Newton himself was a devout worshipper,
and saw in the heavens not his own glory, but the glory of his
Creator. The ‘majestic spectacle’ of the starry heavens was
not given to us by Newton, and if he helped us to understand
I4O SCEPTICISM.
it better, he did but add to the wonder with which devout
minds must ever gaze upon it. The vision of the Psalmist
is one for the ‘pure in heart,” whether peasant or sage, a vision
only for those who bring with them a sense of dependence
upon, and a reverence for, the Power behind all stars and suns
and systems."
The man of science is too ready to forget that Religion is
very largely independent of what alone he terms knowledge.
Along with crass ignorance of the teachings of Science, along
with the most childish conceptions of the nature of the
physical universe, along with grotesque ideas about the ‘reign
of law,' there may coexist much reverence for the Supreme
Power. “Nowadays,’ says Horne, in his ‘Reason and Revela-
tion,’ ‘Religion is mingled necessarily with what we may
consider as not strictly religious. A man of undoubted
piety may give expression to the veriest crudity in specula-
tion, but his religion is distinct from that. . . . Great
Spiritual progress is not incompatible with a backward state of
scientific thought.” We must beware of making true Religion a
species of Gnosticism, or, of confounding it with theological
knowledge. Scientists ridicule the simple believer who prays for
this or that ; they say if he knew more of the laws of nature he
could not, even assuming his own position to be the correct one,
ask God to do for him what is clearly contrary to His method
of acting. They say it is like asking God to “make water run
up-hill,’ and they scornfully repeat Pope's question about
gravitation ceasing, etc. But if this is all they know of such
matters, it were perhaps well for them to remember the poet's
words:—
‘Leave thou thy sister when she prays,
Her early heaven, her happy views ;
* The beautiful words of James Martineau, in reply to the Materialist's
demand for a brain and nervous system to the Supreme Mind, are applicable
here: ‘You need an embodied mind P Lift up your eyes, and look upon
the arch of night as the brow of the Eternal, its constellations as the
molecules of the universal consciousness, its space as their possibility of
change, and the ethereal waves as the afferents and efferents of Omniscient
Thought.”—“Modern Materialism.’
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I4 I
Nor thou with shadow’d hint confuse
A life that leads melodious days.”
Take the essence of the religious idea about God—that He
is Father as well as Creator and Ruler, and that like as a Father
pitieth his children, so God will deal with those who love and
trust Him; if this be the truly religious idea of God, surely it
must be evident that a simple believer may ask al/ that is in his
heart without either irreverence or absurdity, seeing that in every
asking he acknowledges his ignorance, and submits his will to
the higher and wiser Will; his prayer must be judged in its
inner spirit and not by its outward form alone. True, as the
petitioner knows more of God, and of the laws that regulate life,
he may modify the form of his petitions, may even cease to ask
for certain things he asked before ; this is only saying that when
we become men we put away ‘childish things,’ in religion as in
other matters. How infinitely beyond this conception of things,
and how truly philosophical, is the simple view of prayer given
by St. Paul, when he tells his converts in everything by prayer
and Supplication with thanksgiving to let their requests be made
known unto God, and when he assures them that in so doing,
the peace of God shall guard their hearts and minds ! The
prayer of the devout Scientist, the man who ‘knows a thousand
things,' may appear to an angel, if only angels know such things,
more childish than the simple man's prayers at present appear
to some of the wise men of our time.
IMoreover, men of Science who ignore the deepest aspirations
of man's spiritual nature, and who forbid, in the name of
‘uniformity of nature,' the simplest utterances of devout hearts,
must not be allowed to forget what has been so well said by Pro-
fessor Jevons about this very subject, ‘Before a rigorous logical
scrutiny,’ he says, “the Reign of Law will prove to be an unveri-
fied hypothesis, the uniformity of nature an ambiguous expres-
sion, and the certainty of our scientific inferences to a great
extent a delusion.’ Professors of physical science adopt the
devout vein in some of their discussions; they tell us to “lower
our heads’ and acknowledge our ignorance. They are also
I42 SCEPTICISM.
not unwilling to term the ‘will of God” our “asylum of ignor-
ance,’ and to suggest that this is only a device for making us
forget where and what we are. True Religion ever inculcates
reverence for the unseen, but how can we truly reverence unless
we fully know, or unless we have real, even if inadequate, Ánow-
ledge 2 We cannot lower our heads before Newton ; such
homage would degrade both worshipper and worshipped ;
we cannot worship the Unknowable, and the Unknown
might be Devil instead of God. To a religious nature the
‘will of God’ is anything but an asylum of ignorance, for its
God is perfect goodness, and His will the energy of infinite
love.
There is, so far as we are able to see, no incompatibility be-
tween devotion to Science and true Religious faith and life.
Taking the very lowest ground, before there can be any religion
at all there must be faith in the existence and goodness of God.
Religion demands an object of homage, and hence Theism in
some sort is necessary to the full expression of the religious feel-
ing. Science has not abolished this rational faith. The authors
of ‘The Unseen Universe,’ both distinguished in science,
start their argument with the assumption that God exists—God
the “Creator and Upholder of all things,’ and this they call an
‘absolutely self-evident’ truth ! What one Scientist considers
absolutely self-evident, another must not be permitted to consider
an absurdity. It may be said, and it is often said, that the
Scientists of our time are going further and further from this
position, and that it will soon be difficult to find a Scientist who
accepts the Christian religion. This is an entirely false idea.
Why do our men of science, even when claiming the right to
adopt the Materialistic standpoint, and to argue as if the
known forces of life were sufficient to account for all we see
and know, persistently refuse to be called Atheists P Why do
they refuse to be called by a name which, whatever other asso-
ciations it may have, would most effectually separate them from
any chance of Theistic contamination P Simply because, at
bottom, they have not rejected the Theistic view of things.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE. I43
They may be at war with many aspects of Theism ; they may
reject certain forms of the Theistic hypothesis; but they do not
yet avow themselves Atheists, and they shrink from this avowal,
because they know that it would be irrational—really a giving
up of all hope of intellectual unity.
Many of the fears expressed on the one hand by religious
men, and many of the boasts uttered by men of science on the
other, arise from ignoring an important distinction between
the opinions of Scientists and the authoritative teachings of
Science. Some of the so-called cases of conflict we shall
examine more carefully afterwards; meanwhile, let us emphasize
the distinction between opinion and fact. There are fashions
in opinion as well as in dress. Witness the change of opinion
as to the properties, medicinal and other, of alcohol! Time
was when, both as a beverage and as a medicine, this was
considered a sine gua mon, now all experts have given up the
beverage argument, and not a few eminent authorities declare
that they see no great benefit to be derived from alcohol as
medicine. The next generation may witness other revolutions
of opinion equally great. It is the fashion now to sneer at
theology, and to say that all the leading men of science are
opposed to Christianity. Professor Tait has most effectually
pricked this bubble. “When we ask,’ says Tait, ‘of any com-
£eſent authority who were the “advanced,” the “best,” and
the “ablest” scientific thinkers of the immediate past (in
Britain), we cannot but receive for answers such names as
Brewster, Faraday, Forbes, Graham, Rowan Hamilton,
Herschel, and Talbot. This must be the case, unless we use
the word Science in a perverted sense. Which of these great
men gave up the idea that nature evidences a designing Mind?
But perhaps Mr. Froude refers to the advanced thinkers still
happily alive amongst us. The names of the foremost among
them are not far to seek. But, unfortunately for his assertion,
it is quite certain that Andrews, Joule, Clerk Maxwell, Balfour-
Stewart, Stokes, William Thomson, and such-like, have, each
and all of them, when the opportunity offered itself, spoken in
I44 SCEPTICISM.
a sense altogether different from that implied in Mr. Froude's
article. Surely there are no truly scientific thinkers in Britain
further advanced than these !' To such a list (one of the names,
alas ! no longer among the living). Professor Tait's own name
must be added; nor is there, so far as we can judge, any valid
reason for excluding from such a list the name of Charles
Darwin. He was never an Atheist, never denied the evidences
of a ‘designing Mind;’ and, indeed, as we shall see, wrote
his great works from the stand-point of Theism.
To such arguments, and to such evidence, our opponents
reply that many hold a kind of double creed, and that they
have never attempted to harmonize their scientific beliefs with
their religious creeds. The argument is plausible—has a
limited application perhaps—but it is far from conclusive ;
moreover, its applications are wider than those who employ it
seem to be aware. It may be true that Faraday, for example,
never troubled to co-relate his scientific and religious beliefs;
it may also be true that if Herbert Spencer were to explicitly
unfold all that is implicitly contained in his beliefs about the
Unknown Power, he would cease to call Theism unthinkable.
Certain it is that, to many Christian thinkers, the Trinity seems
to be the articulate, if but imperfect, expression of that Existence
which Spencer says is as far above mere personality as this is
above certain forms of fetichism. It is also certain that, in
even Agnostic theories, many see profound truths. Looking
at life from the scientific stand-point alone, and refusing to listen
to the testimony that comes from other quarters, say they,
what can we find but Agnosticism P Science, dealing as it
ever must with phenomena, their laws and sequences, can
never lead men to that which is beyond and above them all.
Inferences from the finite may, but also may not, lead men to
the infinite ; and just as many devout souls never think of
following some of their spiritual conceptions to any ultimate
result, just as they are willing to rest satisfied with practical
issues, so many Scientists are unwilling to own their ignorance,
to lower their heads, to open their eyes, and to welcome a
RELIGION AND SCIENCE, I45
higher light than that which shines on the realms with which
they concern themselves. * º
There remain for us, then, those general truths about both
Religion and Science, in which the heart may securely rest.
Perhaps even here we do not sufficiently recognise Our ignor-
ance. The modern dogmatist argues from ignorance to know-
ledge in the most daring and, as it appears to us, unscientific,
fashion. ‘You do not really know anything fully, he says ;
‘all our knowledge ends in mystery. Take the commonest bit
of chalk, the tiniest leaf, the most insignificant insect, and these
will raise more questions than Science can ever hope to answer.’
True, indeed but what follows P. Not, Surely, that we are to
accept the creed of Materialism, and refuse to attribute any real
existence and power to mind, because we cannot fully explain
its ultimate relation to matter. Because we cannot explain
this, that is no reason why we should either deny or affirm
that. This were indeed to take refuge in an asylum of
ignorance. Not the ‘Will of God,' for, according to the
religious view, this contains in it the promise and potency of
all things, but the ignorance of man, is the ground of Our
difficulty.
Rather let us be patient, and let us have faith in truth. If
the universe be really the abode of an Infinite Mind, if mind be
Superior to, and distinct from, matter, as the harper from his
harp, if thought, and not molecular movement, must after all
interpret life, if the spiritual history and experiences of the race
are as real and as essential as the sense-experiences with which
Science ever deals, then let us have faith in the ultimate
harmony of all knowledge and the unity of all truth. Our
ignorance must not only be acknowledged in words, but in
deeds; it must make us humble in heart, and also make us
keep to work within our range. Because some of the grand
schemes of reconciliation have failed, because some dogmatic
scientists assert, and some timid religionists believe, that the
antagonism is essential and cannot be resolved, we must not be
afraid. “The man who can so unite the physical and meta-
IO
I46 SCEPTICISM.
physical ideas now apparently so conflicting, unite them so as
to evolve a conception of the universe that shall satisfy both
Science and Religion, will be,” says Dr. Fairbairn, ‘the greatest
Prophet of the Eternal modern times have known.” Until this
true Prophet appears, let us distrust all mere patchwork systems
of reconciliation, and all mere absorption theories, and let us
wait for further and clearer light. Knowledge is yet but partial,
and the partial is here ever the most dangerous. The method
of Science seems to us profoundly religious and worthy of all
acceptation by men of faith. ‘There is only one state of mind,”
says Newman Smyth, ‘which is truly and profoundly reverent
and religious, and that is the desire to find facts as they are.’ In
his essay on the ‘Warfare of Science,' Dr. White seems to us to
have made good his thesis, that ‘in all modern history, inter-
ference with Science in the supposed interest of Religion, no
matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has
resulted in the direst evils both to Religion and to Science—and
invariably. And, on the other hand, all untrammelled scientific
investigation, no matter how dangerous to Religion some of its
stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably
resulted in the highest good of Religion and of Science.’ This
being so, may we not conclude, with Dr. Conder, that ‘the only
possible reconciliation is for religious men to understand and
accept the truths of Science; and for Scientific men to under-
stand and accept the truths of Religion’? Only by having due
regard to all the facts can we hope to form any true and abiding
philosophy of life.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE BIB/CAE AAWD SC/AAVCAE—M/ACA C/LA.S.
‘The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown
that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the
details of its history is superfluous in a religious point of view.”—B. F.
WESTCOTT.
‘That one face, far from vanish, rather grows,
Or decomposes but to recompose,
Become my universe that feels and knows.’
R. BROWNING.
‘The uniformity of Nature, as under natural law expressing the will of the
Creator, is as certain a dogma of the Scriptures as of Science.”—PRINCIPAL
DAWSON.
HITHERTO we have been considering some of the more general
aspects of this alleged conflict between Religion and Science.
We have assumed that Religion is as universal as reason itself,
and that wherever we find human beings we find at least the
rudiments of religious life, and the germ, so to speak, of the
spiritual faculty. We have further seen that, according to the
men who have the greatest claim to a hearing, men who can
Speak on behalf of Science as well as faith, there is no necessary
antagonism between what is really known, and Science is true
Ánowledge, and the elementary beliefs of Æeligion. This being so,
we plead for peace and co-operation instead of suspicion, strife,
and debate. Ilet religious men do justice to the claims, to the
method, and to the results of Science ; let scientists do justice
to the teachings of Religion, and let them honour the spiritual
aspirations and ideals of man; then, in the good time coming,
when not only knowledge but reverence and religion shall have
grown greater and purer and truer, it will be found that the
IO-2
I48 SCEPTICISM.
alleged foes were friends in disguise, and that the conflict arose
from lack of knowledge or from lack of generosity of spirit.
At this stage we can imagine an objector saying, ‘Such a view
may be possible, even desirable, so long as we keep to the vaguer
aspects of this question. The old view, that religion was a mere
invention of scheming priesthoods, we frankly give up. Now-
adays, men of Science are anxious to support religion; they
affirm the universality of the religious instinct, and they wish to
see the progressive development of man's spiritual nature. This,
however, applies only to the most general view of the case ;
they admit the necessity and the utility of reverence for the
unknown Power behind all phenomena, and they are anxious
to find a scientific basis for the Religion of the Future. The
moment you go beyond this, whenever you substitute for the
vague term religion, the definite terms Bible-religion or Chris-
tianity, the old feelings arise, and conflict there must be. To
take only a few of the outstanding illustrations of this—the
points at which conflict reaches its maximum intensity in the
present day: Science affirms the uniformity of Nature, and the
existence everywhere of law; the Bible, on the other hand, is a
record of miracles, of constant interruptions of the natural
order, and of interference by an arbitrary will in the Supposed
interests of man, or of select men. Science tells us that both
things and persons are what they are, and where they are, be-
cause of a long process of orderly evolution; the Bible says they
all owe their origin to the will and act of a Creator at a definite
point of time. Science tells us that man descended from some
ape-like ancestor at a period infinitely remote from the present,
that he started life a naked, perhaps a hairy, savage, innocent
alike of any instinct of reverence and of any sense of shame ;
the Bible teaches that he was made out of clay by a “man-like
Artificer,’ and that, at the moment of his creation he was a
sinless, an intelligent, and indeed, a perfect being, made in the
image of God, his Creator and Father. Science assures us that
there are traces of his presence on the earth probably hundreds
of thousands of years ago; the Bible allows for his life on earth,
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. I49
at the very longest, only a few thousand years. Not to dwell on
the essential doctrines of Bible-religion, or of Christianity, not
to discuss such themes as the Fall of man, the Incarnation,
Atonement, and Resurrection of Christ, not to mention certain
theories of inspiration and claims put forward on behalf of the
Bible, how can we either pretend to find, or to make, anything
approaching to harmony in claims so antagonistic?
We have no desire to make away with, or even unduly to
minimize, these and other similar difficulties; nor shall we
venture to say that honest doubts are impossible in connection
with such points. We have stated the objections very much as
they are often stated by the more moderate opponents of Chris-
tianity, by men, who, while they may be biased to some extent
against the claims of the Bible, have no particular desire to
over-state matters or to create needless difficulties.
The best way of dealing with such objections is to allow
frankly, in the first case, that there is seeming antagonism ;
there is sometimes a dexterity manifested by apologists, in
denying all difficulty, worthy of a better cause, but which
seldom helps the cause of faith. Let it be candidly admitted,
that many parts of the problem seem at present incapable of
full solution with the means at our disposal; let us give those
who say they are compelled to reject traditional solutions credit
for the sincerity they profess; let us avoid all needless dogma-
tism, whether on the one side or the other, and be content to
wait for further and better knowledge before taking up positions
that may be found untenable. The Christian has two strong-
holds at such a time—two, we say, but these are ultimately one
and the same. He has faith in truth, can await with quietness
and confidence any amount of keenest scrutiny and thorough
investigation, knowing that these will only manifest truth all
the more ; he has also confidence in the essential facts of
spiritual experience, knowing the certainty of these, and know-
ing that they confirm and illustrate the teachings of Holy
Scripture. However much men may object to certain ſhed-
logical explanations of Biblical doctrines, it cannot be denied
I50 SCEPTICISM.
that the experience of the New Testament believers illustrates,
and we may say necessitates, many of the Old Testament pre-
suppositions said to be so violently antagonistic to Science. The
universal sinfulness of man used to be denied by the ‘Free-
thinkers’ of the time, and the ‘Fall of man,’ ‘Original Sin,’ and
the like, were said to be mere figments of the theological imagi-
nation; now even Agnostics are obliged to admit the facts
lying at the basis of such dogmas, and of which they are,
probably, the very faulty and imperfect expression. The pages
of Spencer, and Mill, and Maudsley, the doctrines of heredity,
taught now in the name of Science, may be considered better
reading than the pages of Calvin and others; they not seldom
assert, with even greater emphasis and assurance, a doctrine of
original sin.
The time has not yet come for perfect reconciliation ;
older harmonies have had to be given up, although they did
good service in their day, and the wise thinker will exercise
patience rather that commit himself to positions that may have
to be abandoned. On both sides there is needed patient
investigation, rather than hasty generalization and dogmatic
11tterance.
One of the most recent works on the ‘Bible and Science'
has come from the side of the evolutionist school. It will satisfy
neither side, and it adds little to our stock of knowledge. The
author seems to have made up his mind to be general in his
treatment, and so he takes a wide survey, dealing with every-
thing in heaven and earth, from the geography of Palestine and
the method of Divine Revelation, down to the best ways of
training children and checking the progress of intemperance."
Had the work come from any theologian of eminence, the pro-
fessors of biology and physics would have written smart articles
in leading reviews, exposing the unwisdom and incompetence
of its author. Seeing that a ‘brother' has written it, they hold
* See the ‘Bible and Science,’ by T. Lauder Brunton, M.D., D.Sc.,
F.R.S., etc. It ought to be said that, in addition to the already mentioned
topics, Dr. Brunton discusses cookery classes, the rainfall, weather and the
death-rate, etc.
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. 15I
their peace. In truth, the best apologists are least anxious to
enter this field of debate; they are themselves patient students
of the methods and results of Science, anxious to know all that
can be known, so that they may guide the thoughts of their
fellows. What is most needed in our time is a thorough dis-
cussion of first principles. Details, whether on the one side or
the other, must give place to this ; harmonies of the Bible and
Science will follow in due course when men are agreed as to
the nature of all knowledge, the methods of Science, the true
principle of Bible interpretation, the true meaning and proper
sphere of revelation. Let our great thinkers confine their
attention to these deep problems, and they will best serve the
cause alike of Science and Religion.
The question of man's antiquity may safely be left in abey-
ance at present. On either side is there anything like unani-
mity of opinion on this subject. Bible students are not satisfied
that they have an authoritative Scripture chronology, and even if
they were, other and deeper questions arise. In what sense
are we to take these Scripture numbers ? Is a definite chro-
nology any essential part of the content of revelation P Is this
demand for a revealed chronology only another aspect of the old
doctrine, that the Bible is a text-book of Science as well as a
record of God's redeeming purpose? Those who are troubled
with doubts, and who seek true peace of mind, must not con-
cern themselves with mere details and surface meanings; they
must go to the foundation in all such matters. They must not
allow the opponents of the Bible to be its authorized inter-
preters, nor must they assume that the first meaning that occurs
to them, as they hurriedly read the record, is the correct one ;
if students of nature have to listen so attentively for her whis-
pered secrets, have to work so long and so patiently on the
problems that arise, the students of the Record must not be
satisfied with clever guesses and off-hand readings.
On the other side, too, there is a growing tendency to attach
less importance to some of the alleged evidences for a high
antiquity of man, and Scientists are not now speaking quite so
I52 SCEPTICISM.
dogmatically about the date of man's first appearance on the
earth. They differ widely as to the number of years that are
necessary, one authority giving 120,000 as the minimum,
another suggesting that Io, ooo or 20,000 may be sufficient,
while a third, more truly scientific, reminds us that fixing
dates is no part of the zwork of Science. According to
Professor W. Boyd Dawkins, there is ‘no satisfactory evidence
in the new or old worlds of the existence of man in the incal-
culably remote Pliocene age.' Dr. Dawson, whose authority
no one will question, says: —‘The earliest certain indications of
the presence of man in Europe, Asia, or America, so far as yet
known, belong to the modern period alone. That man may
have existed previously no one need deny, but no one can
positively affirm on any ground of fact.’ Commenting on the
geological aspect of this whole question, Principal Dawson
thinks that ‘the tide is decidedly turning as to the antiquity of
man, as well as with reference to the origin of species.’ It may
be said that the geologist's evidence is by no means the strongest
to-day, and that from other and entirely independent quarters
there come indications of a high antiquity; we can only reply
that some of these proofs are so uncertain, and so much at
variance with what is known about the origin and primitive
condition of mankind, that we must not build too much upon
them. Ethnologists who assume the Savage condition of the
first man or men, are not likely to be biased in favour of small
numbers, but it yet remains to be proved that man started his
journey with the intellectual and spiritual outfit they give him.
Hence we must accept with much caution evidence largely
based on d £riori grounds.
Our position is simply this: until there are more and
stronger proofs than have yet been adduced, believers in Bible
religion need not trouble themselves much. After Science has
collected, arranged, systematized, and co-related all the facts
bearing on this question, it will be time enough to attempt
a reconsideration of the whole subject. What we do well to
affirm constantly is this, that if reverently and honestly con-
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE–MIRACLES. I53
ducted, there is no necessary peril to faith in such investigations.
Let us know the whole truth, so that we may guide our thought
and life thereby; this is the only safe, and the only truly
religious position to take up.
A far more pressing, and to many minds far more perturb-
ing, inquiry is that which relates to miracles. There was a
time when miracles were considered the chief support of Bible-
religion, and there are those still who think the only argument
for Christianity necessary, is to point to its miracles and to Old
Testament predictions; these times have passed away, and
many find miracles the greatest of all stumbling-blocks in their
path.
In the early centuries of Christianity, miracles were not even
regarded as wonderful or unusual. Had any Saint told his
brethren that he had heard heavenly voices, seen unearthly
sights, and received communications from the spirit-world, they
would have listened with attention, and would probably never
have thought of doubting his words. In the Middle Ages,
miracles were considered as simple, as common, and as
natural, as are answers to prayer in these times by believers in
Jesus Christ. Among Roman Catholics in various parts of the
world, such a feeling, and such an attitude of mind, may still
exist; but among Protestants, at least, and among many Catholics
too, a very different mental attitude has become natural. Men
do not expect miracles, and when they hear of alleged miracles
taking place, they regard such reports with suspicion. This is,
we believe, the normal attitude of all intelligent men in this
century. We may either regard this state of things with favour
or with disapprobation; we may complain of the unreasonable-
ness of the ‘scientific bias’ against miracle; we may attempt to
counteract its influence by what we think truer ideas about
Nature and man;–the fact remains the same, that this is the
1 ‘I hear your message, but I have not faith,
And miracle is fond faith's favourite child.’
GOETHE—Aazzst.
I54 SCEPTICISM.
prevailing mental habit among all who have come under the
influence of the spirit of the age. Browning's Moor exclaims:—
‘My own East !
How nearer God we were ! He glows above,
With scarce an intervention, presses close
And palpitatingly, His Soul o'er ours ;
We feel Him, not by painful reason know.
3: + 3: * -K-
All changes at His instantaneous will,
Not by the operation of a law
Whose maker is elsewhere at other work.
His hand is still engaged upon His world—
Man’s praise can forward it, man's prayer Suspend,
For is not God All-mighty P’
So may those who refuse to banish the living God from His
own world cry out against the mental attitude to which we
refer ; but still, they must face the stern fact that so the modern
mind thinks. Under the influence of the teachings of Science,
there has grown up amongst us a new conception of the world
in which we live. We look upon it as a Kosmos, and as being
under law; we have learned to trust to the order and uniformity
of Nature, and to base our calculations and expectations on the
‘law of continuity; hence the difficulty we have in accepting
miracle as it is often presented to our minds. By a kind of
common consent our great teachers have called miracles an
‘interruption of this order,’ or a ‘suspension of this law,'
which comes to the same thing. The author of ‘Supernatural
Religion,’ for example, bases his whole argument against
miracles on this ground. Hume, too, defines miracle as a
‘violation of the laws of Nature,' and as Dr. Conder well says,
the neck of his objection may be at once broken if we deny
the accuracy of his definition. Bring these two ideas together
—the uniformity of Nature, the unvarying order on the one
hand, and the violations, interruptions, and Suspensions alleged
on the other — and as everyone must see, there is conflict,
even deadly strife. The most persistent, the strongest force
will win the day; only the ‘fittest’ here survives, and the fittest
conception would appear to be the one that affirms the order
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE–MIRACLES. I55
and uniformity of Nature. Hence miracle as thus defined is
discredited in all minds where Science asserts its supremacy.
In addition to this, many have still further helped to prejudice
miracles by holding and teaching that their chief use has been
to attest the truth of the message given, or to confirm the Divine
authority of the messenger. Canon Mozley even complains
that Mahomet so ill-understood the philosophy of things, as to
think that he could succeed in establishing a religion without
having recourse to miracles. One part of the Prophet's work,
judged by this standard, would seem to come up to the canon's
ideal. Mahomet did not scruple to bring forward alleged Divine
revelations, when he wished to violate his own law and to take
to himself more wives than were allowed to the faithfull Need
we wonder that Mr. Matthew Arnold should bring his batteries
of polished wit and refined satire to bear on this position P
According to him, the argument amounts to this—‘I am
a messenger sent from God, and to prove it I will convert
this pen into a pen-wiper.' If miracles were nothing more than
this view expresses, and if this were even the primary function
of miracles, they would hardly survive the shock of such ridicule.
But the Bible miracles are not mere conjuring tricks, nor is
their chief function that of a simple or elaborate, as the case
may be, device to attract attention to message and messenger.
Our Lord's word to the sign-seeking people of His day ought
to have prevented such a perversion of miracle. When Christ
told the people that miracles would not succeed in convincing
them where the moral lessons of the Old Testament failed, He
Surely discredited this theory of miracle. We need not deny
that this is a function of miracle. Nicodemus shows by his
remark when he came to Jesus by night that a miracle may
suggest Divine power ; but we ought not to elevate what is
secondary, and partly accidental, into the chief element or
attribute of miracle.
While the modern bias against miracles may be due, partly,
at least, to the partial and even faulty representation of some
advocates of miracle, it has other and deeper grounds. Many
I56 SCEPTICISM.
are making an idol of the conception of Nature to which we
have referred, and so worshipping it as to hide from their minds
the real facts of the case. There is a mental attitude towards
miracle, which is really a begging of the whole question in
dispute. Men who are continually crying out against person-
ality and personifications, are themselves guilty of the same
offence. They speak of laws as if they were persons, about
Mature as if it were anything else but an abstract idea, a name
used to cover ignorance. These ideas of law, order, continuity,
and the like, are but man's more or less successful attempts
to observe and to express the antecedents and sequents in
Nature and in society. The moment he brings in the idea of
necessity, or of a “Reign of Law,’ which is absolute, he is in-
troducing a new factor into the problem, and one which will
demand other explanations than his. Unless we are to accept
as Science the grossest forms of Atheism and Materialism,
we must go behind the phenomena observed and see the
Power by which alone they can be rationally accounted for,
and of which they are the manifestations. In short, this
discussion of miracle leads us back again to the deeper
problems of Theism and Atheism, and it cannot be settled
by mere assertions about uniformities and laws and the like.
To believe in God, and yet to deny the possibility of miracle,
is to take away with one hand what we have given with the
other ; hence, even the extremest forms of Scepticism admit
the possibility of miracle, and only take their stand on the
alleged unfitness and insufficiency of the evidence offered.
We come to the other ground on which miracles are re-
jected—the ground of their inherent improbability—and here
again we meet with similar difficulty. “Probability and im-
probability are simply subjective factors of belief. They have
no measurable objective value.’ What seems to one man in
the highest degree probable, to another may appear impossible.
What one man accepts at once as being under the circum-
stances the likeliest thing in the world, another rejects with
ridicule as unworthy of serious consideration. ‘The argument,’
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. I57
says Conder, ‘against the possible and probable occurrences
of miracles thus appears on examination void of Scientific value.
It rests on two assumptions: either that there is no God, in the
sense of an intelligent free agent, at least as free to control
Nature as we are; or else that there has never been such
necessity in human history, or great moral ends in God's
purpose, as would have made it wise, right, and worthy of
God to work miracles. Neither of these stupendous assump-
tions can pretend to show an atom of evidence.’
The more we consider in all its manifold bearings the
modern bias against miracle, the more convinced are we that
it arises either from false conceptions of the nature of miracles,
or from a view of the universe which is essentially Atheistic.
Grant a conception of Nature, such as some of the opponents
of miracles assume, and then, indeed, miracle were impossible;
this we can never grant, unless we reject Theism and accept
the Materialistic view of things. Even then we should be
reading the facts of history and the testimony of experience
in accordance with a pre-conceived theory, instead of honestly
and patiently seeking to find a solution of the problems of life.
It is not an easy thing so to define miracle as to avoid
giving offence on the one hand or on the other. Verbal con-
troversies are most of all to be deprecated on this important
question. Dr. Bushnell, for example, would so define Nature
as to make man himself, on one side of his being, a Super-
natural agent. Others object to this, and say that it is absurd to
leave human nature out of our ideas about Nature. Some see
in man's moral freedom a real Cause in Nature, which is yet
no part of what is usually termed Nature, and in no sense
controlled by its laws; others would make the will of man a
mere link in the universal chain of events, and, while they
admit freedom, they refuse to regard the will, or the man, as a
cause. To those who speak and think so differently, defini-
tions can hardly be the same ; we read meanings into defini-
tions at times, and see in the terms employed what their authors
did not intend. *
I58 SCEPTICISM.
Again, it has been argued that even if men of science were to
witness a genuine miracle, say the coming of a dead man to
life, they would yet see nothing miraculous. They would
behold sensible events, which might appear capable of explana-
tion by what we term secondary causes; the miracle, accord-
ing to this view, not being revealed to the senses, being re-
vealed only to the soul that is in fellowship with the Divine
in Nature. From this standpoint, miracle is a ‘Divine fact,
perceptible by the spiritual consciousness. The physicist may
walk through nature and retrace the steps of history, and in so
doing reject the Divine elements that have been found to be
given through both to the spiritual consciousness of man. He
can only do so, however, by first of all rejecting the fact of the
consciousness of the Divine.’
Simple people are rather hindered than helped by such views
of miracle. They are not familiar enough with distinctions
that are so subtle, and with meanings so recondite. To them a
miracle ever has been, and must remain, a manifestation of
Supernatural power, and an event not explained by the order of
Nature with which they are familiar. They do not suppose that
laws of nature have been either suspended or violated. They
simply see in Such events manifestations of superhuman power,
for which they cannot account ; more than this, there enters
into their idea of miracle another element : they believe that
no amount of knowledge of Nature and its ordinary laws could
enable them to explain such events. They do not suppose
that any amount of knowledge of the properties of water, on
the one hand, or the human body on the other, would enable
them to account for Peter's walking on the sea. They look
upon these as extraordinary events, to be accounted for on
other principles, utterly unintelligible to those holding the
Materialistic view of the universe. Nor does there seem to us,
in such a view, to be anything either contrary to reason, or
contrary to the teachings of Science. Why should miracles be
considered incredible by any thinking mind P Simple believers
in Jesus Christ have no real difficulty, no difficulty that is of
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE–MIRACLES. I59
such a character as to make faith appear impossible, or even
unnatural. The consistent Theist must believe in the possibility
of miracle, and the consistent Christian must believe in its
actuality. We do not believe in Jesus Christ simply because
certain mighty works were done by those who told the story
of His mission; better say, because we believe in Jesus, we believe
in these signs and wonders done by Him or in His Mame. Being
what He was, and where He was, Christians cannot but think
it natural that He should perform miracles, that He should open
blind eyes, and deaf ears, and give life and health to feeble
suffering creatures. How these events could take place in
Nature, they do not know, but they do not suppose that their
taking place constituted any violation of law, or any interrup-
tion of order. They suppose that if all were known that Christ
knew, the explanation might be easy even to a little child. This
is not taking refuge in an asylum of ignorance called the ‘Will
of God ; it is acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, and
trusting implicitly to One who knows all things, and of whose
full and intimate knowledge we have ample proof. It seems to
us that the Christian position here is one worthy of respect,
and not at all to be ridiculed as unscientific. We live in a
world where but a little knowledge is possible to us on any
subject, and where the only solutions of many perplexing
problems are practical solutions. As we have seen, the wisest
man of science cannot tell how mind and brain are associated
—cannot unite in thought things so unlike, yet all believe there
is such a connection. No man can explain how an act of
volition can bring about changes in the material world, and
yet we are compelled to admit that such a thing is possible ;
we cannot unite in any speculatively consistent system the free-
dom of man and the absolute power of God, or, to use language
less open to objection, the moral freedom of the individual
with the known taints, tendencies, and effects of heredity; yet
wise men accept both. They accept the facts of consciousness,
and even Huxley with all his determinism admits that the will
counts for something as a ‘condition of the course of events.’
I60 SCEPTICISM.
Much the same is the relation of the simple believer in Jesus
Christ to this vexed question of miracle. The signs and miracles
and mighty works of Christ are no mere magical events, such
as the conversion of ‘pens into pen-wipers; they are in har-
mony with His nature and with His mission, consistent with the
character of Jesus, and fresh manifestations of the superhuman
energy residing in His person. Such a view of the miraculous
may seem to Some unscientific and unworthy of acceptance,
and yet in it they may find rest to their souls. Why should we
begin our discussion of the credibility of the miraculous with the
falling of the walls of Jericho, the speaking of Balaam’s ass, or
the great fish that swallowed the disobedient prophet P Why
should we allow the question to be prejudiced by theories about
the size of the ark, or the action of the ‘Sun standing still’ upon
all the planetary system P Far more rational is it for us to start
with the story of the “Wonderful Life,' itself the grandest miracle
in history, and the only light that can truly illumine all other
events that are either unusual or miraculous; starting here, and
especially with the Resurrection of Christ, admitted to be an
historical fact by many who might scruple to accept every
isolated Old Testament miracle, we shall find a firmer footing,
and there will be less fear of having to abandon our positions.
We must, however, refuse to accept, by whomsoever advanced,
a theory of Christ's miracles that would mislead ourselves and
others; we must not interpret His mighty works, the signs of His
power, as if, like the town-Crier's bell, they were a mere device
to call attention to the proclamation He is about to make. These
signs were an essential part of His message, acted words, if you
will, but a real element in the Revelation He was making to the
world. Men of Science go far towards admitting the validity
of the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. “I re-
gard,” says Dr. Carpenter, ‘the historical evidence of the Resur-
rection as standing on a far wider basis than the historical
evidence of any single miracle of the New Testament.’ De
Wette was no mere dabbler in questions like these, but a man
familiar with all the facts and keenly alive to all the critical
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. 16I
objections, yet he thus speaks:–“The fact of the Resurrection,
although a darkness which cannot be dissipated rests on the way
and manner of it, cannot itself be called into doubt.” But if
we accept a fact, we must do so irrespective of our inability
to explain the ‘way and manner of it,' and we must ever
distinguish between the acceptance and the explanation of facts
of history. According to Mr. Hutton, the evidence for the
Resurrection is such that no historian would think of rejecting
it were the fact itself non-miraculous, he also adds other con-
siderations that help to corroborate and to strengthen the testi-
mony. These other considerations form part of the moral
evidence, and they must, in a question like this, be allowed to
have their due weight. Surely, even for a fact of this sort we
have no right to ask for more historical evidence than would
be deemed sufficient in other cases, but we may welcome the
corroborative testimony from other quarters. Canon Westcott,
who has long studied this subject, and whose work on the ‘Gospel
of the Resurrection should be carefully read by all who are
perplexed in faith, declares that “taking all the evidence to-
gether, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic
incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrec-
tion of Christ.” After a masterly discussion of the whole sub-
ject, Dr. Fairbairn avows ‘that only the absolute certainty as to
the reality of the Resurrection can explain the persistence of
the belief. . . . The power of the belief is made manifest by
the place it occupied, the system that crystallized around it.
On this point institutions, customs, doctrines, hopes, and fears
are alike unanimous and emphatic. Remove the Resurrection
from primitive Christian theology and its speech, and they
would cease to be coherent and intelligible. Approach the
question from any side, and it only the more appears that
without the risen. Christ the Church is without a source or a
cause. If historical evidence is sufficient anywhere, it is here;
for the written testimony of the Evangelists is our weakest
testimony, almost perishes before the mightier testimony of
those splendid facts that marked the birth of a new religion,
I I
I62 SCEPTICISM.
the building of the city of God.' If this be so (and the men
whose testimony we have brought forward are all men familiar
with modern Science and in sympathy with all that is best in
progress), if the actual rising again of Jesus Christ be one of
the facts, the greatest fact in history, then no one need stumble
at other miracles wrought by Him or in connection with His
great mission. It is therefore of great advantage, to start, not
with what is first in order of time, but with what is primary in
order of importance. Old Testament miracles differ, no doubt,
in many respects from some of Christ's miracles; so does the
dispensation to which they belong, and of which they form a
constituent part. The law came by Moses, but the grace and
the truth through Jesus Christ. This remark, or rather this in-
terpretation of the old dispensation, must apply to the miracles
as well as to the other elements of the old economy. Whether
dealing with the old or the new, we must seek to get rid of
that conception of miracle which makes it merely magical,
or an expedient to gain attention ; the mighty works of the
old, like the signs of the new, dispensation have a didactic
value, and in both cases we shall find that the lessons are
adapted to the learners.
Let it be once granted that Jesus Christis what He professed
to be (and to those who accept the Resurrection as fact this is
the only explanation possible), then both His mighty works and
the miracles of the Old Testament appear in a new light. They
are parts of a grand whole, not isolated prodigies, things to be
wondered at and spoken about, but ‘constituent elements of a
i)ivine revelation.” If we believe that Jesus was the Son of
God, that He appeared on earth in the form of man in order to
lay the foundation of the kingdom of God, if we believe that
He was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, yet that He
belonged to a higher world, and was part of a higher order of
existence, that He had all authority in heaven and on earth
under His control—and this is the Christian faith—Surely the
rest is natural enough. What could His natural be but our
supernatural P What could His ordinary be but our extra-
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. I63
ordinary 2 His works were indeed ‘signs’ of the presence
among men of new life and energy. He neither violated the
laws of Nature nor suspended their operation; He simply
manifested His power over Nature, and proclaimed by His
works, as well as by His Word, that He was Lord of Nature as
well as King of men. -
Why should this be incredible to men of science P They
admit the sublime, we may say superhuman, energy residing in
His spoken words; some of the stoutest opponents of miracles
would be willing to unite with us in saying, ‘Never man spake
like this man P. They confess that Christ's words have given
new light to humanity, and that He is immeasurably Superior to
all human teachers. Are words the only possible manifestation
of the power residing in Jesus Christ P Is He alone, of all
others, forbidden to embody thought in deed as well as speech P
The miracles of Jesus are no more external to Him than are the
words He uttered. ‘Both are rooted,’ says Fairbairn, ‘in His
personality, express His thought, reveal His Spirit, manifest
the inner and essential qualities of His heart and mind. The
sign to the sense is a symbol of the spirit, and miracles are but
means by which the hidden and internal qualities of Christ
become manifest and real to man.’
The question of miracles, then, must be resolved into another
and higher question, regarding the relation of this universe to
an unseen universe of which even Science must admit the exist-
ence, and regarding the relation of man to higher beings than
himself. To those who believe that the seen and temporal, or,
to use modern terms, matter and energy, are the whole that
comes within man's cognizance, miracles must appear impos-
sible; to those, on the other hand, who believe in a higher
world, in the existence of a moral Ruler, who is also the Creator
and Father of men ; to those who accept as history the record
of Christ's wonderful life, teachings, death, and resurrection;
to those who, believe that His words and acts are but manifes-
tations of one and the same Personality, miracles are no longer
impossible ; they are simply the acts of a great Being who
II— 2
164 SCEPTICISM.
manifested Himself for man's redemption. “Apparent breaks
of continuity’ they may indeed be, but no real violations of that
order which is but secondary, and which must ever be subordi-
nate to that higher order to which Christ belonged, in which
He lived, moved, and had His being, ‘Without these miracles,’
says Professor Bruce, “Jesus had been a living contradiction ;
full of grace as a copious gushing spring, yet a well without
water. He must do miracles, not in order to prove formally
that He is what He claims to be, but to be consistent with
Himself, true to Himself, like Himself.”
Without entering further into this subject, and especially
without attempting to discuss each separate miracle, we plead
for a fuller recognition of the essential connection between
the thing done and the doer. The Bible miracles must be
studied more in their relation to the system of which they are
an essential part. Grant that Israel held no peculiar position
among the nations of the earth ; grant that Jesus Christ is
simply a man amongst men, nobler than others indeed, but in
every other sense the same as others ; that the Christian religion
is one among many of the manifestations of what is in man, to
pass away like Islam and other religions after doing a certain
amount of work in the world; that, in fine, the Atheistic view
of the world is the correct one—then miracle must be rejected,
and any record that contains miracle must be pronounced un-
worthy of credence. Grant, on the other hand, the truth of
Theism, the trustworthiness of the records of Christ's life; grant
that Jesus Christ is what He claimed to be, that His kingdom
is an “everlasting kingdom’ containing within it elements that
show its adaptation to man everywhere — then miracle will
appear in a new light. Science has not made it necessary
for us to reject Christ and Christianity; more than this,
the deeper study of all other religions only shows more
clearly the unique character of Christ and the kingdom He
established. Let apologists direct their attention to the true
nature and proper function of miracles in connection with this
universal Religion, and the conflict will become a thing of the
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—MIRACLES. I65
past. To one who believes in a universe self-existing and self-
caused, miracle may well be impossible; to one who accepts
the Deistic conception of a God outside the world, taking no
part in its affairs, prayer may be childish, and miracle a kind of
anarchy. Such is not the Bible conception of Nature; such is
not Christ's teaching about the unseen and eternal world.
The Great Being who created this Kosmos is in no sense out-
side its operations. If there is one law, one life, and one
harmonious working of all things, it is because He is behind
all, within all, shaping, moulding, and directing all forces and
energies according to His will, and in harmony with a purpose
of which Christ is the Interpreter and the Interpretation. Here,
amid the Babel of strife about miracle and law, about natural
and supernatural, simple souls ever find rest and peace. As
someone says, the best proof to us of the truth of Theism is
that Jesus /ived and died in this faith, so the best proof to us
that miracles are real is that Jesus taught us to believe in
them and Himself did many mighty works. Following Him
in this, as in all other things, we no longer walk in darkness,
but have the light of life. -
CHAPTER IX.
THE BIBA.F. AAWD SCIEAVCAE–F VOLUTION.
‘Let him, the wiser man who springs
Hereafter, up from childhood shape
His action like the greater ape,
But I was born to other things.’
º TENNYSON.
“Without God, evolution, continuity of nature, natural selection, conser-
vation of energy, or whatever other phrases happen to have currency for the
hour, are mere sound and smoke, and imagination of Science falsely so
called.’—J. S. BLACKIE.
‘I have never been an Atheist, in the sense of denying the existence of a
God.”—CHARLES DARWIN.
Even if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ be accepted as a fact
of history, and if the whole problem of miracle thus receive new
illumination, we are by no means rid of all our difficulties. The
Bible is not only a record of miracle, but also, it is alleged, a
witness against what has now become the creed of Science, the
doctrine of evolution. In the old Book of Origins, man
appears on the scene full-grown, the product of his Creator's
skill and wisdom; in the new book of Genesis, prepared by
men of light and leading in science, he is said to have
descended from some ape-like ancestor, and is but the last, if
also the chiefest, of the mammals. And the same kind of
explanation is given of the origin of all the creatures; hence,
for modern inquirers, men under the influence of the Złme-
Spirit, there is a stone of stumbling at the very threshold of
Bible-story. The Book of Genesis asserts, or appears to assert,
that God created by a simple exercise of Divine, and therefore
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—E VOLUTION. 167
Almighty, power all things and all creatures, including man;
Scientists assert most emphatically that all plants and animals,
man as well as the rest, have come from one ‘simple common
form of life, and present these resemblances to each other
because they are members of one great family, all descended
from the same parent, and all more or less closely related to
each other.' Our Bible starts with the assertion that in the
beginning God created heaven and earth; according to the
bible of Science, there was a ‘period at which the solid masses
of the earth, sun, planets, and stars did not exist, and when the
matter composing them was widely diffused in a nebulous con-
dition through space. . . . Then atom coalesced with atom,
singly or in groups, and then the most primitive of our
elements, such as hydrogen, were formed. . . . The smaller
planets cooled down, and as the cooling process went on, the
higher metals were formed. Organic matter appeared, and,
by-and-by, in the course of long ages, some developed into
living protoplasm. After this began the process of the evolution
of the animals which we now see.’ This theory has to account
for the genesis of man, as well as frogs and fishes, and so we
are told that instead of the ‘belief which we all learned in our
childhood, that a single man was created out of lifeless mud,
became a living soul, and was the progenitor of the whole
human race, we must believe that men are descended, not
from any of the species or genera of monkeys now living, but
from creatures which were the common ancestors of man and
monkeys, and much lower in the scale of existence than either.”
Such, in brief words, is the theory of man's origin, the theory
of the origin of all life, proposed by men of science in our time.
At first sight, there does appear to be hopeless contradiction,
but first impressions generally stand in need of correction.
There is a way of stating the contrast between old and new
that suggests difficulty; there may be another and a better way
of dealing with this whole subject. We have given the words
of an evolutionist who professes to accept both Bible and
Science, and who sees no essential antagonism between Science
I68 SCEPTICISM.
and Faith. There are evolutionists who speak in very different
tones; they ridicule the very idea of creation by a ‘man-like
Artificer,’ and point to the sublimity of the view above given.
The ‘Miltonic hypothesis,' to use the words of Professor
Huxley, can, according to them, by no human ingenuity be
reconciled with the plain facts of the case.
A great poet reminds us that one of the attributes of the
creature man is that he ‘looks before and after; it may be
well to calm Our minds for the proper discussion of this question
by glancing at the history of the past. On the surface, indeed,
the two accounts seem at hopeless variance, but things are
not always as and what they seem. The African chief who
declared it inconceivable that horses and men could walk on
water, and who ridiculed the statement of the American mis-
sionary that such things were done in his country during
winter, no doubt appeared to himself and his comrades very
accurate in his ideas. The Jewish rabbi who declared the new
birth, taught by Jesus Christ to be impossible, might seem not
only to himself, but to a modern thinker, scientific, and yet he
was speaking in ignorance of great spiritual facts. So the theo-
logians who reasoned that there could be no such place as
the Antipodes, inasmuch as the Apostles were told to go and
preach the Gospel to every creature, yet never went there,
might seem strictly logical. When the new astronomical
theories and conceptions were first discussed, it was confidently
affirmed that they contradicted the letter of Scripture, and
would ultimately destroy Christianity. Did not Joshua com-
mand sun and moon to stand still P How, then, could anyone
receive the Bible as God's Word and believe that the earth
went round the sun ? No answer seemed possible to such
questions, and yet Christianity did not die. The same diffi-
culty arose in connection with the teaching of geology, and the
theories of the bolder geologists. Many now living can re-
member the shock to faith caused by the discussions about the
“ days’ of the Book of Genesis. These disputes are nearly
forgotten; the ‘harmonies’ of that age are not now read, and
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—E VOLUTION. I69
religious men accept both geology and Genesis without serious
injury to their faith. Even the introduction of chloroform in
Connection with Surgery, a change that has done so much to
make life's burdens more tolerable, was supposed to militate
against faith in the authority of the Bible.” We smile at these
perplexities of our fathers, we give them little credit for wisdom
in their opposition to Science, and yet we act towards scientific
men much as they did. We may be told that none of the
doctrines taught in former days by men of Science were so
antagonistic to faith as are the theories of modern times; so
they thought, and so they spake, when asked to have more
faith in truth, and to take warning from the history of the men
that lived before them. Nothing so shakes faith in the
authority of the Bible as these unreasoning panics to which,
periodically, religious men seem subject. The extremes to
which even Christians go on one side and the other seem
to us to indicate lack of deep religious faith. We live too
much on the traditions of others, and too little on real
living personal faith; hence, every word of doctrine seems to
affect us.
As illustrative of what is meant we may take the extremes
of opinion about the character and work of the late Charles
Darwin. Perhaps no man has done more to change the thought
of his time about the method of creation. No name has been
more before the Christian public, and no man has been more
unjustly attacked perhaps by the religious press. His opinions
have been caricatured, and often presented in the most ridicu-
lous light, by those who professed to be defenders of the faith.
Darwin's teachings as to the origin of species and the descent
of man have been parodied rather than expounded, and all
kinds of names and epithets have been applied to him. He
has often been held up as an Atheist, a Materialist, and a
blasphemer. This is bad enough and sad enough, but the next
* Sir J. Y. Simpson met divines on their own ground and vanquished
them. He demonstrated that the Creator, by causing a deep sleep to fall
apon Adam, had sanctioned the use of anaesthetics.
170 SCEPTICISM.
swing of the pendulum is worse. Darwin died, and, wonder-
ful irony of fate, the destroyer of the faith is buried in West-
minster Abbey amid universal lamentation . The opinions
expressed about his lifework have been almost as extreme as
ever, only on the other side. Christian preachers have extolled
him as a kind of Saint in disguise, and Christian versifiers have
moralized about the change that must have come over his views
of life as he entered the unseen world, and found out that he
had been serving God all the while, though ignorantly and only
in the outer court of His vast temple. Is it too much to say
that these strange alternations of blessing and cursing, and
of cursing and blessing, are in reality more perplexing to the
faith of the weak than the patient study and candidly expressed
opinions of the eminent naturalist P First, we unite to ban the
man and his work, then to ridicule and misinterpret its true
meaning; finally, when he dies, we carry his body in triumph
to the great Christian temple, the home of the mighty dead,
and we bury him in hope of the resurrection, as one who, though
ignorantly, has been worshipping God all the time. Such
fluctuations of opinion and feeling can arise only from feeble
Conviction, and from a religious emotion that has no basis in
deep spiritual relations to truth.
Is this doctrine of evolution, now almost universally ac-
cepted under one or other of its many forms by men of science,
after all opposed to faith in the living God? Is it even op-
posed to the meaning of the Bible record when properly
understood P Various and conflicting answers have been
given to such questions. First of all, we must learn to dis-
tinguish between the doctrine of evolution as taught, say, by
Darwin, and the doctrine of evolution as advocated by thorough-
going Materialists.
ZJarwin himself wrote from the standpoint of Theism. What-
ever we may say or think about the effect of the naturalist's
life-work on Theism and the Theistic view of things, we are
bound to do justice to the Theistic position assumed by the
author of the “Origin of Species.’ According to Mr. Sully,
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION. I7 I
Darwin’s “theory as a whole is a heavy blow to the theological
method.” The late Mr. Mill admitted that the design-argu-
ment had suffered considerably from the work of the evolu-
tionists, but also confessed that ‘the theory, if admitted, would
be in no way inconsistent with creation.’ This was the opinion.
of the late Charles Kingsley, and with it the distinguished
author of the “Origin of Species' himself agrees. “I see no
good reason,’ he writes, ‘why the views given in this volume
should shock the religious feelings of anyone. It is satisfactory,
as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember
that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law
of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz as
subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.’
Again he writes: ‘Authors of the highest eminence seem to
be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been inde-
pendently created. To my mind it accords better with what
we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.
. . . There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or info one , and that whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a be-
ginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been and are being evolved.”
Whatever we may think of these opinions, whether we agree
with Darwin or not, we must give him credit alike for his
candour of mind, and for his Theistic view of the universe.
He leaves untouched, so far as direct efforts are concerned,
the great problems connected with the relation of evolution to
* Theism. (He starts with a Creator, and with matter; he sup-
poses certain laws impressed upon matter by the Creator, even
supposes life breaſhed into one or more forms (here using the
very language and figure of the Book of Genesis, and thus
acknowledging its fitness); given all these, he attempts, with
what success the future must tell, to show how all things and
all persons come to be where and what they are. Such a view
of evolution cannot fairly be said to contradict the teachings of
|
Nºs
172 SCEPTICISM.
the Book of Genesis any more than the established truths of
astronomy contradict the teachings of Bible writers. The
forms of expression in the Book of Genesis may lend themselves
more readily to one view of things than the other, but forms
of expression are adapted to the intellectual state of those to
whom they are addressed, or are the outcome of the intellectual
ideas of the time ; meanings may grow with the development
of intelligence, and may be found larger than their outward
expression might at first indicate. As we have before remarked,
we must not allow those who occupy the Deistic standpoint to
interpret Bible-writers to us. The God of the Bible is no
mechanical God, and His methods of working are in no sense
manlike. Even Darwin himself can find no better way of
expressing a possible relation of the Creator to the first form,
or forms, of matter than that adopted by the author of the Book
of Genesis. He talks of the Creator breathing life into the
protoplasmic-materials, out of which have sprung all that we see
and know. As Kingsley puts it : “They find that now they have
got rid of an interfering God—a master-magician, as I call it—
they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident,
and a living, immanent, ever-working God.' This living, im-
manent, ever-working God is more the Hebrew idea than that
suggested by many Bible critics. ‘The Hebrew,’ says Fairbairn,
‘ was the purest monotheist of antiquity, the most strenuous
believer in creation by God; but how did he conceive Him as
acting? Not by a “process of manufacture,” or like a “work-
man shaping a piece of furniture,” but as immanent, yet
intelligent energy, Creator, Maker, if you like, but not
mechanic. He created by speech, the symbol of thought; by .
a command, the symbol of will. The world was the expression
of the Divine thought, the creation of the Divine will; and so
came to be, not by an artificial constructive, but by a natural
productive, process. A surface-reading of the Bible may lead
us to say that creation and evolution are contradictory ideas;
a deeper study may suggest to us that nowhere is the method
or process made known, and that the very forms of speech,
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—E VOLUTION. I73
which seem so necessarily connected with creation, may also
be found to fit evolution moulds. This is admitted by eminent
Biblical scholars as well as by eager apologists. Professor
Huxley sneers at the elasticity of the Hebrew language, out of
which meanings apparently so opposite may be drawn; sneering
has been much used in the Darwinian controversy, as the
professor well knows, and its effects have not been so powerful
as the sneerers intended. The exposition, for example, given
by Professor Tayler Lewis of the creative days of Genesis is
in harmony with one view of evolution.
‘The full formation of man in the sixth day,’ says Lewis,
‘does not oppose the idea that the powers and evolutions of
matter that were finally Sublimated into the perishable germ of
the human body, and the types from lower forms that finally
went into the human physical constitution, were being prepared
during all the days. This was his being formed out of the earth,
that is, out of nature in its evolving series.” Lewis refers to the
striking words of Psalm CXxxix. I5, language which would de-
light the heart of an evolutionist if only it were found outside
the Bible. ‘The reasons are strong,’ says the same writer, ‘for
interpreting “man from the earth,” as we interpret the fish and
the reptile from the waters. If the formative word is used in
the one case, so is the word, which Some regard as the more
directly creative, employed in the other. And “God created
the great whales and the moving things which the waters
Swarmed,” that is, all the marine animals, from the greatest to
the least. The one language is no more inconsistent with the idea
of a process than the other. There is nothing, then, to shock us
as anti-Scriptural in the thought that man, too, as to his physical
and material, is a product of Nature. But he is also a meta-
physical, a supernatural, a spiritual being. To describe him in
this respect there issued the higher word “the image,” the image
of God, in distinction from his male and female conformations,
which belong wholly to the physical. The image of God the
distinguishing type of man Hold fast to this in all its spiri-
tuality as the mirror of the eternal ideas, and we need not fear
I74 SCEPTICISM.
naturalism. Many in the Church are shivering with alarm at
the theories which are constantly coming from the scientific
world about the origin of species, and the production of man,
or rather the physical that may have become man, through the
lower types. The quieting remedy is a higher psychology, such
as the fair interpretation of the Bible warrants, when it tells us
that the first man became such through the inspiration (the in-
breathing) and the image of God lifting him out of nature, and
making him and all his descendants a peculiar species, by the
possession of the image of the supernatural.’ Professor Lewis
may be said to belong to a past age, and to represent a state of
things no longer possible. He represents a school of thought,
at all events, in which the Bible is reverenced as of Divine authority,
and in which the advances of Science are welcomed. His words
are in harmony with what Darwin, Kingsley, and others have
said about the doctrine of evolution. He sees nothing contrary
even to the literal reading of Genesis in the belief that man's
physical nature has been evolved out of lower forms, and he
also contends that this lower evolution by itself cannot account
for all that is in man. Man is in nature, and through nature;
he is also above nature, and on the spiritual side linked with the
unseen and eternal. This is simple matter-of-fact, and is
admitted, though in different ways, by evolutionists themselves.
Taking, then, one view of evolution, one doctrine taught by
great thinkers about the origin of life, we may even say the view
of Darwin himself, it cannot be said that it either contradicts the
Book of Genesis, or that it is opposed to the ideas and feelings
of believers in Divine Revelation. True, it is contrary to tra-
ditional readings of the Bible; so are the doctrines of astronomy
and geology now accepted; so the simple expressions used by
Bible writers about the seat of feelings and passions are
opposed to scientific terminology. We must, however, bear
in mind that the Bible writers were not professors of physical
science, that they spoke in popular language suggested by the
phenomena they described, and in words understood by the
people. So long as professors of astronomy unite with peasants
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE–E VOLUTION. I75
to speak of the rising and setting of the Sun, so long as physio-
logists and psychologists speak of lunacy like other people, so
long, indeed, as they use the traditional language rather than
words intelligible only to the few, so long they must allow the
Bible writers similar liberty without finding fault.
In thus admitting, even maintaining, that a doctrine of
evolution may be in harmony with Bible teaching, we by no
means wish to be understood as affirming the truth of either
Darwin's view, or any other. We plead for liberty alike of
inquiry and utterance. Evolution is a working hypothesis or
plan, and as such must be allowed to live and justify its
existence; we do not admit, even for argument's sake,
the evolution propounded by some physicists. Darwin starts
with a Creator, and thus gets rid of the Atheistic difficulty; to
him, as to many others, it seems impossible to conceive that
the universe, with all its order, beauty, harmony of parts, and
adaptation of means to ends, can have originated by accident.
‘The birth of the species and the individual,” says Darwin, “are
equally parts of that grand Sequence of events, which our minds
refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understand-
ing revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to
believe that every slight variation of structure, etc., have all been
ordained for some special purpose.’ So long as we attribute the
origin of all things to the Creator, and revolt at the idea of the
universe being an ‘accidental cavity, in which an accidental
dust has been accidentally swept into heaps for the accidental
evolution of the majestic spectacle of organic and inorganic life;’
so long as we regard this “majestic spectacle as one as plainly for
the eye as any diagram of the mathematician,’ there is not much
danger either to faith or morals in the provisional acceptance of
the evolution theory. That the leading Christian thinkers of all
schools so regard this matter may be made plain by a few brief
citations and references. Mr. Row, in his Bampton Lecture,
thus speaks :-‘It is no necessary consequence of a theory of
evolution, that it should exclude the conception of an intelli-
gent Creator. . . . Our duty is to hold ourselves in a state of ex-
176 SCEPTICISM.
pectancy, free from all & priori theorizing, and ready to accept
the truth from whatever quarter it may come.’ Dr. Conder,
while denying that evolution had been made good, admits that
one form of the theory is quite consistent with Theism, and he
regards it as simply the process of creation. Janet, in his work
on “Final Causes,’ thus speaks:–‘The hypothesis of evolution
may lead in effect to a conception of finality, which differs from
that commonly formed by being grander.’ St. George Mivart,
not only an able naturalist, but also a loyal member of the
Catholic Church, affirms that “Christian thinkers are perfectly
free to accept the general evolution theory.” Dr. Rigg, whom
no one will accuse of desiring either to abandon or betray
the Evangelical faith, reminds us that behind natural selec-
tion we have still what old-fashioned believers call Providence,
and so long as this is recognised he sees nothing Atheistic
in one form of the theory. Dr. Flint, in his work on
‘Theism,’ says:—‘I have challenged the theology of Mr. Darwin,
and those who follow his guidance in theology. I have
no wish to dispute his science; I pass no judgment on
his theories, in so far as they are scientific theories. In
so far as they are true, they must be merely expressions of
the way in which Divine intelligence has operated in the
universe. Instead of excluding, they must imply belief in an
all-originating, all-foreseeing, all-foreordaining, all-regulative In-
telligence, to determine the rise and the course and the goal of
life, as of all finite things.’
Looking, then, at certain aspects of the evolution theory, we
see no reason why believers in the Divine authority of the Bible
should feel alarmed at its progress. It is simply an attempt to
describe the process or the becoming of all things, but behind
the process there must be Intelligence controlling all and guiding
all to one great end. Some, indeed, look upon it as giving a
grander view of creation, instead of being in contradiction to
the Bible record. They regard that record as independent of
all explanations as to the how of all things, and in no way fetter-
ing those who accept its teachings; SO regarding it, they plead
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION. 177
for liberty either to accept or reject evolution, according as
evidence leads in this way or that. .
We must not attempt to conceal from ourselves that only one
view of evolution can be so regarded; there is another theory
of evolution which ignores a Creator, which substitutes process
for Cause, and which, if it does not in so many words deny a
presiding Intelligence, leaves no room for its exercise in con-
nection with the origin and progress of life. This is the
Materialistic side of evolution, the acceptance of which is not
only inconsistent with faith in Bible teachings, but with Theism
under any form. Some have from the first contended that
Darwin's view logically leads to Atheism ; and certainly, if we
accept as fact all the theories of the great naturalist, it may be
difficult to resist this conclusion. Fortunately, it is possible
to say, that evolution, in this Materialistic sense, is not the
teaching of Science. It may be accepted by distinguished
Scientists; it is not, and we venture to say never can
be, the sober teaching of true Science. In spite of the high-
Sounding phrases and boastful words of many, Science has to ,
admit that if Ánozes nothing at all of the origin of /iſe, whether sº--.
human or otherwise. When we say that evolution has become
the Creed of Science, and that apologists and divines no longer
dispute its claims, we do not mean evolution in the Atheistic
sense. True, there are men of science who see in Nature only
matter and force and their results, but, as we have already seen,
Science does not justify a position like this ; it is occupied in
defiance alike of scientific method and accurate knowledge.
Other evolutionists again admit what older thinkers called
Divine interference, only they place it as far back as possible
so as not to hinder the working of their plan of life. Grant
interference at any point, and Materialism is no longer affirmed.
‘It may, perhaps,’ say Professors Stewart and Tait, “eventually
be possible, by means of an hypothesis of evolution, to account
for the great variety of living forms on the supposition of a
single primordial germ to begin with, but the difficulty still
remains how to account for the germ ; this difficulty, as we
I 2
178 SCEPTICISM.
have pointed out, Darwin simply passes over by the Theistic
assumptions with which he starts. Mr. A. R. Wallace, who
shares with Darwin the honour of having set the world right
about the origin of species, ‘sees in the production of man the
intervention of an eternal Will; and Dr. Maudsley, whose
doctrine of the origin of the moral sense is certainly Materi-
alistic enough, tells us that the more we reflect on the origin
of all things, the more we are ‘forced in the end to the recog-
nition of a Power from which all life and all energy proceed,
which has been from the beginning, is now, and so far as we
can see ever shall be, and which cannot be comprehended and
controlled by human thought and will. . . . We come back
indeed to something which, however we forbear to name it, is
very like theological Trinity—God the Unrevealed and Un-
revealable, God the Revealed, and God the Revealer P To
the same effect, if followed to their logical issue, are many of
Mr. Spencer's sayings about the unknown Power behind the
phenomena we see and know. -
Thus, even the most thorough-going evolutionists find
Atheism impossible, and are compelled to fall back upon
ideas so like those found in the Bible, that they themselves
are surprised at the analogy. Of course, we must not
venture either to give Christian expression to these half.
expressed thoughts of theirs, nor must we suggest that the
Bible has helped them so to embody their conceptions of this
mystery; the very thought of such an origin of their ideas
exercises a disturbing influence upon their minds. But the
unsophisticated reason of men will not long tolerate this view
of life; if evolutionists have either to clothe themselves in
mystery and utter oracular ambiguities, or else to speak of a
Power whose attributes are personal, if they have to preserve
their theories at the expense of consistency, we shall be able
to judge as to the ultimate value of their philosophy of life
and their contributions to the sum of human knowledge. The
evolutionists may vehemently deny that the Power they postu-
late is in any sense will, or that their Creator has any affinity
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION. I79
with the Power acknowledged by Bible writers; the facts are
not altered by such denials. The highest attributes of which
we have any knowledge are mental and moral, and if zwe are to
deny to a power attributes seen in its products and operations
there must be an end to all correct thinking. The Bible so
despised by many, may here come to our aid and help us to
remember that the Power creating, or evolving, the eye and ear
must itself see and hear. Nor is this inconsistent with Spencer's
view that the Power manifested is as much above any mere
personality known by us as personality is above the fetish ; the
Christian Trinity is not by any means a simple, it is rather a
highly complex, idea of personality, but until we fully under-
stand the highest, we must be allowed to speak in terms and
use analogies that are understood by us. And this brings us
back to where we started. An evolution which ignores or
denies an Evolver—a Mind presiding over the process—is
contrary to the teaching of Science, as well as to the teachings
of the Bible and the instincts of faith. Grant, if you will, that
evolution and not creation is the proper way of reading the
past history of the earth and the origin of man; ‘special
creations,’ says Dr. Fairbairn, “are not necessarily the ways of
God, though it may suit Mr. Spencer to represent these as the
only possible modes of His working. . . . Spirit is essentially
energy, and the God who is a spirit can never be inactive,
must be everywhere and at every moment a living Force, a pro-
ducing and efficient Will. Continuous and universal action is
given in the very idea of God; it is impossible to conceive Him
without conceiving it. Then, as to His relation to Nature, it is
and must be natural. . . . In evolution, then, the creative action
does not exclude God; its process is one that only the more de-
mands the exercise of His energy and the direction of His will.’
To sum up what we have to say: There is a doctrine of
evolution which may be held by believers in the Bible record,
and which is accepted, provisionally, by many loyal and eminent
Christian thinkers; there is another doctrine which is opposed
both to Scripture and Science, which denies all creative power,
I 2—2
18O - * * * SCEPTICISM.
which resolves the whole into an eternal process with neither
real cause nor rational end. If therefore we are told that it is
impossible for an evolutionist to be loyal to Bible teaching, we
must ask those who so speak to distinguish between things that
differ. We must not refuse, in accepting Bible forms of speech,
to find room for ideas whose meanings go beyond these forms,
and whose fuller sense may indeed be better expressed by
thoughts that appear at first sight rather foreign to the Bible.
The poet, seeking to glorify the Bible, reminds us that ‘it gives
a light to every age,’ and that while it gives to all, it ‘borrows’
from none. This is not all the truth. Not only is light needed,
but also reflectors for the light, and while no age can give light
to the Bible, the thoughts of one age may better reflect its light
than those of another. *
The Bible affirms the existence of a Creator, and, according
to some, it even declares that evolution is His method of work-
ing; it is quite conceivable that ages before the mode was
understood or even surmised, the fact itself should have been
quite evident. The Bible affirms a “beginning,’ and even
Science declares that this is the testimony of creation itself. A
distinguished philosopher of our time, so far from considering
matter eternal, speaks of the atoms as ‘manufactured articles.’
These, and others might be given, are positive indications that
there may be more real harmony between the Bible and Science
than at first sight appears. It is perfectly true that many
evolutionists are opposed to the Bible, and that they reject
Christian Theism; it is also true that Darwin and his co-workers
have supplied more proofs of “design’ than before were known,
and while they have often ignored, often rejected, the doctrine
of ends, they have furnished many new and striking illustrations
of purposive acts and of adaptations in nature. This being so,
we may well afford to await the results of fuller knowledge.
When botanists like Carruthers and Asa Gray assure us that
the design argument will gain rather than lose from the in-
vestigations of the last quarter of a century, we may find in
‘quietness and confidence’ our truest strength.
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION. 181
... But the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, what are we
to make of them P If either evolution or creation, where are
we to stop P Shall we not admire, with Huxley, the elasticity
of language capable of such different interpretations?
We are not prepared to give any dogmatic utterance on this
vexed question, but a few remarks may not be deemed Out of
place. First of all, it is admitted by men of science who have
examined with any degree of care the Book of Genesis, Or, speak-
ing more generally, the Bible, that where we have statements
about matters of fact, or about the order of events in creation, there
is an accuracy that is most remarkable. (The order of creation,
or of evolution, given in the Book of Genesis, is the very order
seen in the records of the most recent science. Call this an
accident if you will, it is a sufficiently noticeable thing and
it deserves attention. As Dr. Dawson says, this ‘accuracy is
remarkable, unexampled, I believe, in any other literature;
so much is this the case, that if you will take a page of any
of our modern poets, and one from the Bible, you will find
errors in the one and not in the other.’ To say the least,
this introduces an element into the problem that must be
accounted for, and that is not accounted for on the ‘Freethink-
ing’ theory. Just as Moses, or whoever may be supposed to
have first written the story preserved to us in Genesis, is familiar
with the facts in their order, so is Peter, the fisherman, wonder-
fully well acquainted with aspects of truth supposed to be known
only to our generation. We glory in the ideas associated with
the conservation, transformation, and dissipation of energy, and
consider them new and peculiar to our time, yet St. Peter's
account of the future of this planet is, so to say, based on these
principles and laws. Of course, this may all be accidental; but
such accidents, especially when surrounded by other and similar
ones, create a presumption in favour of the accuracy of the
record.
Whatever may be said about the Bible as a whole, its
accounts of the origin of things cannot be said to be wanting
in interest or suggestiveness. A comparison of the Book of
I82 SCEPTICISM.
Genesis with other accounts of the origin of all life, might lead
men of Science to think and speak more generously about a
story so simple and so straightforward. That there are portions
of this story that cannot be taken literally, that it has suffered
much from the over-literal readings of some of its friends, are
positions familiar enough. Nobody ever saw, nobody ever
expects to see, knowledge growing on trees, whether in or out
of Paradise. Hence it may be doubted whether those read
wisely who read those early chapters as they would a work on
natural history, or the annals of some ancient family. Those
who call it poetry or mythology may be wrong on the other
side; but no one can study Dr. Dawson's work on the ‘Origin
of the World,” for example, or the masterly ‘Introduction' of
Professor Lewis to the Book of Genesis, without feeling con-
vinced that there are in these chapters grand thoughts very
grandly expressed, and that they are full of suggestive thought
and spiritual truth. Or take, from a slightly different stand-
point, Professor Blackie’s “Lay Sermon' on the “Creation of
the World,’ and it may be discovered after all that the Book of
Genesis reveals truth never taught by the more prosaic methods
of history. According to the learned Professor, himself a poet
and an original thinker, the first chapter of Genesis seems a
‘perfect model of sublime and simple wisdom;’ and it has too
often been ‘ confounded with Playfair and Hutton, and the
minute shell-fish of Murchison's Silurian rocks, not as it ought
to have been with Homer, and Hesiod, and Thales, and Hera-
clitus, or the portentous cosmogonies of the Indian Puranas.’
This sublime chapter gives, he thinks, the true philosophy of
creation, tells us not about “making out of nothing, but of order
and how it is produced, of design and its true nature, of pro-
gression and the ‘principle of development by progression,' up
to its highest summit—man. Whether we are able to follow
Blackie in everything or not, no Theist can refuse to admit that
he has made out a good case for the ‘sublimity’ of the Book,
nor need the interpreter refuse to see, in the comparisons and
analogies he suggests, hints towards a more correct theory of
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—E VOLUTION. 183
the Old Testament story of creation. And starting here, with
the grand truths affirmed at the very outset of the record, we
shall at least be kept from falling into the Freethinker's fallacy
of assuming that order, reason, and adaptation, of which the
universe is so full, have no significance for man's spiritual
nature. He who accepts the Book of Genesis will neither be
Pantheist, Atheist, nor Deist; he will behold in Nature and
through Nature an ordering Mind, and in all parts of the
Kosmos traces of the presence of reason, And these are the
very thoughts suggested by the facts to which evolutionists make
/heir appeal. They are for ever reminding us of ‘natural
selection,’ of the ‘survival of the fittest,’ of the ‘struggle for
existence,’ a struggle in which there are seen wonderful adapta-
tion of means to ends. These are mere phrases, high-Sounding
indeed, but absolutely meaningless, unless we see behind the
process a cause, behind the strife and struggle, with its resulting
fitnesses, a presiding genius, a power marshalling its forces,
guiding their action, and securing by its wisdom and power
the fittest ends.
Other and perhaps deeper questions arise in connection with
the relation of Science to the Bible; questions about the real
meaning and proper use of the record ; questions also about
the manner in which these sublime ideas were communicated
to man, and the relation they hold to later and higher parts of
the Divine Revelation. Into these we do not enter ; it is
enough to show that evolution is no solvent for getting rid of
revelation; enough to show that some of the most ardent
evolutionists are men who cordially accept the Bible. It may
be, indeed, that this very idea of evolution, which is itself a
Biblical conception, may help us to understand and interpret
the Bible better. Dr. Smyth, in his ‘Old Faiths in New Light,’
gives various illustrations of this suggestion. He shows that
the Bible itself is an historical growth, and that it is adapted to
the spiritual education of mankind; he shows that the ideas
contained in and expressed by the Book of Genesis have
themselves been the grandest factors in the spiritual culture of
184 SCEPTICISM.
the race, and that evolution is the method alike of the old
and new creation. Thus, it may be found that this ‘’development
theory’ throws as much light upon Religion as it has shed on
the realms of Nature, and that the men of faith, who have often
shunned and feared it, may yet find it one of their most helpful
allies. We may not be able at present to demonstrate the
harmony—the two ideas may even appear to wage deadly war;
but in the days that are coming, Smyth's words may be seen
to be true, and with them we conclude: ‘We may feel, some of
us personally, toward the first chapter of Genesis in particular,
very much as one might feel toward an old friend, whom for a
time he had come to suspect and to wish out of sight, and from
whom he grew all the more estranged by the indiscreet claims
of others on his behalf; but whom at length he has learned to
know better, and to take at his real worth, and has found after
repeated trial to be a friend indeed. Cleared of false interpre-
tations, relieved of the suspicions cast upon its truthfulness by
imprudent defenders, known in its genuine worth, and prized
for its really exceptional virtues and grand character, the Mosaic
Genesis is found to have been all the while the firm, steadfast
friend, both of Science and Religion.’
NOTE.-We have assumed in what has been said about the Darwinian-
evolution, that the author of the “Origin of Species’ wrote from a Theistic
standpoint. This is hotly disputed by some ; according to them, there is
no evidence in the works of the naturalist that he believed in a Creator.
It has always appeared to us impossible for anyone intelligently reading
the “Origin of Species’ and the ‘Descent of Man’ to arrive at such a con-
clusion. Whatever views Darwin might have held, whatever private
opinions he entertained, he must be regarded as upholding Theism, if
judged simply by his writings. The following note, written in May, 1879,
may be of interest. It is marked privale, and has, therefore, never been
used ; now that its illustrious writer is no longer with us, we may allow it
"to appear. Its history is as follows:—A lecturer on ‘Christian Evidences,’
in a public lecture delivered in Great Grimsby, called Mr. Darwin an
Atheist. The present writer felt that both justice and religion demanded
truth-speaking, and wrote to the Grimsby Mews, demonstrating from his
published works that Darwin was a Theist, that he started with God and
matter, and did not attempt to solve the problem of the origin of all things.
This letter was sent to Mr. Darwin, and the hope expressed that no
injustice had been done to his position. The following reply was re-
ceived :- -
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE—EVOLUTION, 185
‘Down, Beckenham, Kent.
‘DEAR SIR,
‘It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent
theist and an evolutionist. You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the
eminent botanist, is another case in point. What my own views may be
is a question of no consequence to anyone except myself. But, as you ask,
I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover, whether a man
deserves to be called a Theist depends on the definition of the term, which
is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations
I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a
God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but
not always, that an Agnostic would be the most correct description of my
State of mind. - * * - -
‘Dear sir, yours faithfully,
‘CH. DARWIN.”
CHAPTER X.
SCAEA’7”/C/S// AAV/O 7'HAE BAB/A.
‘The Bible begins nobly with Paradise, the symbol of youth ; and con.
cludes with the Eternal Kingdom, the Holy City.’—NOVALIS.
‘The hard places in the Old Testament are revealed by the increasing
light of the Bible itself.”
‘The light of revelation seems adapted to the eye of the human under-
standing in a manner so remarkable as to indicate a higher wisdom as the
author of both.”—NEWMAN SMYTH.
‘This, therefore, is the place and value of revelation : it makes the light
imparted by inspiration to Prophets and Apostles ours, as truly as it would
be if the inspiration had been granted to ourselves.”—DR. J. McLEoD
CAMPBELL.
BEHIND all Sceptical arguments about miracles, evolution-
theories, answers to prayer and the like, there is an attitude of
mind (perhaps we ought to say heart), which is far more diffi-
cult to deal with, as well as far more hostile to faith in Divine
Revelation. When Scepticism expresses its opinions and
carefully formulates its objections to revealed religion, we may
hope by patient reasoning to remove some of the hindrances
out of its way; we may also show that there is no good reason
for dividing the universe into two realms, the one natural, the
other supernatural, and that a more truly scientific conception
will be at the same time more spiritual, and more in harmony
with the Bible view of life. ‘The first requisite to a better
understanding of the religion of the Bible,’ says Dr. W. Robert-
son Smith, ‘is that we should learn to enter with simplicity
into its point of view, and to this end we must remember above
all that the Bible knows nothing of that narrow definition of
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 187
miracle which we have inherited from mediaeval metaphysics.’
In the same way, objections arising out of sympathy with the
evolution hypothesis are by no means deadly. Honest and
impartial minds may come to see that the precise mode of the
becoming of all things must be discovered, if discovered at all,
by a patient study of the universe itself, and that it is no part of
the function of Revelation to make this known to man. In
short, more patient inquiry, bolder faith, greater discrimination,
and a truer conception of the nature and end of all Bible-
teaching, may enable us to rise above these current objections.
The “Sceptical bias’ against the Bible, and against the Bible
view of things, is a much more serious obstacle in the way of
faith. It cannot be reasoned away, for its basis is non-rational;
it consists not so much in any objection to this or that doctrine,
as in a mental and moral attitude towards the Øery idea of a
Divine Revelation. The position of an ordinary Bible reader
is so different from that of a Sceptic, that the one can hardly
understand the view of the other. Among those who have
been accustomed from their childhood to reverence the Bible as
God's Word to man, there may indeed be much practical neglect,
much moral opposition to the law of life there revealed, but
along with this there is usually a theoretic assent to the teachings
of the Book. To this Book, or collection of books, a peculiar
place alike in intellect and heart is ever accorded. Amid much
unfaithfulness to its spirit, there is a kind of reverence for the
letter of the Word, a secret consciousness too that the Book is
right, and the violator of its laws wrong. Its precepts are held
sacred as a kind of conscience, yea, are considered to be
superior to the dictates of the conscience itself. True, along
with this reverence there may at times be found other feel-
ings; some of the Old Testament records may cause mental
uneasiness, yet it is believed that if all were known that could
be known, even these would be seen to be in harmony with the
purpose of the Book and the mind of its Author. Added to
this intellectual relation, there is also an emotional relation to
the Book which is of great value, and which exerts no small
I88 - SCEPTICISM.
amount of influence on the life. This Record is associated with
all that is tenderest and purest in the affections. Its voice has
been heard in earliest years as the family began and ended the
day, as the very voice of God. In hours of suffering and Sorrow,
its consolations were sought by devout parents and friends; its
words of hope have cheered and comforted the heart in its
darkest periods. The Bible reader, even when most unfaithful
to its lesson, can remember how some godly father uttered its
honoured words, how some sainted mother's tears often wet its
pages as she turned to the inspired volume for guidance in her
deepest needs. All these and a thousand other associations,
Some of them intellectual, some moral, and some emotional,
cluster round this volume, and help to make it a real power in
the life of many; hence, there are thousands of men and women
who, while they may disobey its commands, and in spite of its
warnings follow their selfish ways, yet regard it as God's voice
to the Soul, and God's light shining on the path of life.
The Sceptical attitude is the very reverse of this : there is a
bias against the Bible which neutralizes all these good tendencies,
and which makes it impossible for its most solemn teachings to
get into living contact with the heart and life. The very fact
that any sentiment is from the Bible seems sufficient to stir
in Some breasts a feeling of opposition. No matter how true,
no matter how much in harmony with the experience of the
race, let any lesson come from this Book, and at once it is
rejected with disdain, or treated with contempt. Speak of the
Sages of China and India, of the wisest men of Greece and
Rome, and there is at once a response; a word from Confucius,
from Buddha, or Plato, or Marcus Aurelius, will be treasured
up as of highest value, as almost binding on the conscience of
man. A word from the sweet singer of Israel, no matter how
true, and no matter how tender, is scoffed at ; all David's sins
are exposed, all his shortcomings, and they are many, dragged
into the light as a reason for rejecting his teachings. Where
this bias is strong, nothing like justice can be expected; no
allowance may be made for time, place, and circumstance. If
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 189
we complain of the defective morality in some of Plato's ideals,
we are at once reminded of the conditions under which he
lived and wrote, the intellectual and spiritual ‘environment’
of his time, of the impossibility of applying to him canons of
criticism applicable to the philosophers of our age. No such
allowance can be made for the prophets of Israel, or for the
heroes of the old dispensation. If we are to have a revelation
at all, it must have in it nothing defective, nothing of historical
development; all must come Minerva-like full-grown from the
mind of the earliest prophets and teachers. Hence the effect
of this Sceptical bias and attitude on those over whom it
obtains dominion; hence also the difficulty of meeting it by
either argument or appeal.
That there should be such an attitude towards any book in
these days of science and criticism, may be doubted by some.
We are accustomed to extol the fair-play given to all kinds of
doctrines and opinions in this age, and to say that no matter
who speaks, or what is spoken, the world will give a fair and
impartial hearing. No greater delusion could seize the popular
imagination. Z'ruth as such is still the pursuit of the few, and
fashion and authority—the authority of their own set and circle
—still the god of the many. Take by way of illustration
our political life, how little real desire is there to find the truth
and to follow the right! Rival parties set up rival leaders, and
worship them in the most unreasoning way; each of these
parties has its press and its following, and the main function of
both is to applaud. Grave and learned speakers, on popular
platforms, are not ashamed to make the most reckless charges,
and to suggest the vilest motives for acts of which they may
disapprove ; words are torn from their context, all honest
meaning taken from them, and then they are used to represent
opinions never held, certainly never uttered, by some leading
statesman. Only those who carefully study the public speeches
of our public men can be aware of the extent to which this art of
ferversion for party purposes has been carried. All this too by
men whose word in private life might be honourably accepted.
I90 SCEPTICISM.
In much the same way this Sceptical bias seems to operate
in connection with Bible teaching. Those under its influence
are ready to accept the worst possible, that is the morally
lowest, explanation of facts and acts recorded in Bible story,
and to reject, we might almost Say resent, every other explana-
tion. Nor is this ‘bias’ confined to the lowest class of Scep-
tical agitators and objectors. In the works of Mr. J. S. Mill
may be found many instances of perversion of Scripture,
suggested meanings and interpretations, that would have been
rejected with scorn in the case of any other book. Where
philosophy, political economy, or ordinary history, are in
question, there is the greatest effort to be fair and to get at the
real facts of the case ; the most honourable motives are im-
puted, and the best construction put upon language that
appears ambiguous. Where Bible writers are discussed, and
where Bible teachings are concerned, there seems an utter lack
of patience and of real desire to enter into the meaning; most
noticeable of all, an evident lack of moral sympathy, which is
ever needful to the interpreter of any writing. As the outcome
of this bias, we have offered to us the most childish interpreta-
tions and the most commonplace explanations. Mr. Spencer
is perfectly satisfied with the phrase “man-like Artificer’ applied
by him to the Creator of the world. This philosopher, usually
so patient in collecting and arranging his facts, and in correlat-
ing his ideas, no sooner comes into contact with the Bible than
he becomes slovenly and historically inaccurate. Lord Beacons-
field jokingly said of a lady, for whom he had the sincerest
respect, that she never could be persuaded to take any account
of chronology, or to remember whether Greeks or Romans
came first ; so Mr. Spencer gives no place to his favourite
idea of evolution when he approaches Bible teaching, but,
as Dr. Fairbairn has pointed out, mixes up elements that
are historically far apart with sublime indifference. Let
any candid reader study Dr. Draper's story of the Conflict
between Religion and Science, and he must see how this
bias of which we speak mars his best work. Dr. Maudsley.
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, I9I
again, another of the revered masters of our time, one of
the ‘advanced thinkers’ of the nineteenth century, gives us
illustrations of this mental attitude that would be sad enough
were they not so ludicrous. Old Testament history is dealt with
by this man of scienceon principles, or the absence of principles,
that would considerably startle an Ewald or a Kuenen, and
these are not the men most lacking in boldness or enterprise.
On one page he tells us that heaven and hell if inventions are
extremely good ones; on another, that the entire basis of the
‘doctrine of eternal punishment is fiendish vengeance P. At
one time, he reasons as if the moral code of the Jews was of
the most narrow, and merely tribal, character; at another, he
tells us how important it is to keep before us the ‘ten words,’
and daily to pray for grace to keep God's law. Forgetting the
‘fiendish vengeance’ theory, forgetting also that the Founder
of Christianity preaches a doctrine of future punishment most
frequently and most solemnly, the learned Doctor reminds us
that even Science establishes something very like the doctrine
of the Trinity, that Christianity has regenerated mankind, and
that it has broken down the barriers between man and man and
proclaimed universal brotherhood. Along with this, however,
and as if to counteract its tendency, he declares that Religion
drives men mad, and he does his best to explain away all
that is distinctive in Bible teaching when opportunity offers
itself. These, and other similar feats of exegetical ingenuity,
clearly manifest the Sceptical bias of some of the very leaders
of scientific thought in our time; and if the masters speak in
this way, what are we to expect from others ? Hence, as Dr.
Smyth remarks, ‘popular infidelity has its arrant demagogues,
who carry on a notorious business of Atheism on a small capital
of scientific thought, and usually borrowed capital besides. Thus
a man of fluent wit will go up and down through the Bible and
ecclesiastical history, very much as a political Stump-speaker
will look through the Parliamentary records or national history
for the points of his partisan speech. He will begin with
Genesis, and find “mistakes of Moses” in abundance. He will
I92 SCEPTICISM,
expatiate on the absurdity of the story of the ark. He will
pause in dramatic horror before the cruel laws of the Jews.
He will single out an imprecatory Psalm or two ; and when he
comes to the New Testament, he will find in it discrepancies
and misstatements enough to prove all the Apostles were little
better than literary thieves and robbers.” If this were at all
necessary, we could easily furnish proof that these charges are
rather under than over the mark. Let those who listen to
lecturers, or who read popular writings against religion, say if
this is not so I Men in the ordinary business of life con-
sidered fair-minded and honourable, seem to lose all sense of
right and wrong when they attack the Bible. They cite passage
after passage without the slightest reference to subject or con-
text; they give only portions of texts, and these they give
skilfully, in order to conceal their real meaning; they hold up
to ridicule the frailties and sins of good men, and so create a
prejudice against their words and works.
We may lay it down with the utmost confidence as a first
principle, a self-evident truth, that no mind biased against
Scripture can ever understand its true meaning. Apart alto-
gether from questions about the inspiration and authenticity of
this Record—apart even from the solemn themes about which
it speaks, viewing it simply as a book, and judging it as any
other book must be judged, we can never expect to under-
stand its contents unless we come to it with minds free from
bias, and with hearts free from bitter feelings against the
writers and their writings. In Our Country, a criminal at the
bar receives the aid of a skilled advocate, and before he is con-
demned all that can be said for him is patiently heard. It is
not too much to ask from Sceptics that they come to the Bible,
if not with feelings of reverence, at least without bitterness and
hatred and suspicion. Let them come with sincere desire to
see the ‘facts as they are ; we ask no more, and common
justice ought to lead them to offer no less. If Sceptics will
come to the Record in the Spirit of honest inquiry, willing to
learn what it has to teach—willing to change their thought
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, I93
about its contents if compelled by the evidence, we believe
they will soon have good reason to be ashamed of the ‘bias’
against the Bible of which we have spoken.
Aſłrst of all, they will find, even looking at this subject from
a purely exterior standpoint, that some of the noblest thinkers
that have ever lived have loved this Book, and have given it a
place in their affections and in their life given to no other
writings. Speaking on the subject of religion, and referring to
the question as to whether there ‘exists a Creator and Ruler
of the Universe,' Darwin remarks that this question has been
“answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects
that have ever existed.’ The great naturalist, who was one of
the most unassuming of men, evidently attached importance to
the opinions of the wisest men. He would not, of course, say
that this proved the truth of their view, but he would feel—all
truly humble intellects must feel—that it created a strong pre-
Sumption in favour of the doctrine so universally accepted.
What Homer and Plato, Moses and Paul, Dante and Milton,
Shakespeare and Goethe, Kant and Hegel all agree about may
not be true, but he will indeed be a bold man who can place
his own mere opinion against authority of this sort. Apply this
to the subject before us:–A book, or, to speak more correctly,
a literature that has been accepted and loved by the noblest
thinkers and most Christ-like men and women for more than
two thousand years, ought not to be set aside with Sneers, as it is
often set aside, by the Sceptics of our century. Men may sneer
at the Mosaic legislation ; even from a sanitary point of view,
as a learned Chemist has suggested, this code will bear very
favourable comparison with nineteenth century regulations !
It is easy to ridicule some things in the early chapters of the
Book of Genesis, and yet the truths there taught have been
grand moral forces in society, elevating and purifying human
thought and life. Sceptics are never weary of pointing to the
imperfections of David, and the laxity of some moral ideas found
in the Hebrew Psalter. It is a simple matter of fact that no
“single book of Scripture, not even of the New Testament, has,
I3
I94 SCEPTICISM.
perhaps, ever taken such hold on the heart of Christendom.’
Some of the men who have done the most to mould the world’s
thought, and shape its spiritual life, for the last twelve centuries,
have considered this one of the most precious of books. Spirits
the bravest and most saintly, even with the higher, softer, and
steadier light of the New Testament shining upon them, have
made this Psalter their bosom friend ; it has comforted them
in sorrow, it has cheered them in hours of depression and weak-
mess; it has been found by their dying beds, its well-thumbed
pages wet with their last penitential tears.
We do not say that hostile criticism is disarmed by such
facts, but we do affirm that in their presence the mental atti-
tude of the Sceptic is most unworthy. The healthy tastes of
healthy men and women, and not the sickly palates of a few
distinguished dyspeptics, are the best guide for the wise and
strong, and for those who desire to be wise and strong. In
our day, some of the ablest thinkers and profoundest critics
are studying the writings of Apostles and Prophets; they are
subjecting everything to the keenest and most scientific tests
that can be applied to any literature, and yet the more they
search, the more they are convinced that this is no ordinary
Book. They are working under conditions more favourable
than were possible to some of their forefathers, with all the
facts about other religions, and about the spiritual history
of other ages, before them. The more they compare this
with that, the more they study the forces at work and the
resulting products, the more thoroughly they are persuaded
that Sceptical theories and explanations of the Bible are impossible,
and that the ordinary forces at work in the religions of men
never produced these wonderful results. Thus the Bible itself,
fairly read and deeply studied, gives evidence not to be gain-
said that other than earthly elements enter into this problem.
As one well says, “it was no blind chance, and no mere human
wisdom, that shaped the growth of Israel’s religion, and finally
stamped it in these forms, now so strange to us, which preserved
the living seed of the Divine Word until the fulness of the
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. I95
time when He was manifested who transformed the religion of
Israel into a religion for all mankind.' If this be the effect
produced upon honest minds by the study even of the Old
Testament (and much more might be said of the AVew), may
we not in all fairness ask the Sceptic to shake himself free from
the trammels of this unreasoning bias against the Book, and to
give it an honest and thorough examination ? Not only has it
been passionately loved by the saintliest of the race, not only
has it helped them alike in life and in death, but it has com-
pelled the critic to listen, and to confess that its voice is not
like the voice of any other literature.
Another characteristic of this literature, which, apart from
any claim to inspiration or Divine authority, ought to commend
it to truth-loving minds, is the evident truthfulness and sincerity
of its writers. Even an outsider may feel the force of this
element in Bible story. In this Book we find much biography,
often very attractively written, but there is a marked absence
of anything like hero-worship. The writers tell their story with
the most artless and childlike simplicity, leaving it to produce
its own natural effect on the mind of the hearer. There is also
much autobiography in this record, but the writers seem able
to speak of themselves and their doings as if they had no desire
to appear other than they really were. Faults and failings,
strength and weakness, successes and failures are all given,
without any attempt at either concealment or self-glorification.
They state the ‘facts as they are,’ and are indifferent to either
praise or blame—do not appear indeed to take any account of
these in their writing. Sceptics often speak of the sins and
weaknesses of Old Testament worthies; they do not explain
how it came about that the very men themselves should have
so readily furnished the materials for hostile criticism I Had
these writings been intended simply to glorify certain great
leaders—to set forth the great deeds and noble characters of
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and others—is it conceivable
that they would have told the frailties as well as the great
virtues of these heroes? We read of Abraham's heroic faith—
I3–2
196 SCEPTICISM.
that faith which made him the ‘father of the faithful, and the
friend of God’; we read also of his cowardly weakness, and of
how he was far surpassed in honour and honesty by a
heathen prince. We read that Lot's spirit was grieved by the
wickedness of Sodom and the cities of the plain; we also read
of his ambition for well-watered plains, for pre-eminence in
Sodom, and of his having learned the ways of the people
among whom he lived. The treachery of Jacob, as well as
his great prosperity, his visions and revelations, is faithfully
narrated. The impatience, as well as the meekness, of the
great lawgiver is duly chronicled. David is not surrounded
with much of the ‘divinity that doth hedge’ kings in the bio-
graphies of their admirers; and the moral folly and wickedness
of Solomon is set forth as truthfully as the greatness of his in-
tellectual wisdom and the splendour of his court.
The same thing is seen in the sober pages of the New
Testament. No attempt is made to glorify the Apostles of
Jesus Christ, or to set them forth as men in whom no fault
could be found. Peter's denial, with the accompanying oaths
and curses, John's fiery zeal, the strife of Paul and Barnabas,
are all told with simple candour. This is not the method of
either ancient or modern writers. Let these records be
compared with the annals of ancient times, with the lives of
the saints or the books of the martyrs, with the histories of
Assyrian monarchies, records that give successes but none of
the failures of kings and great men, and the difference must be
apparent to all. Scholars are amazed at the remarkable
contrast between the Chaldean account of the Creation,
‘patiently deciphered from the broken tablets of the Royal
Library at Nineveh,’ and the simple story of the Book of
Genesis. The same contrast is everywhere met, whether the
story relate to some Saint of God, or to some great earthly
monarch. The Jews as a people have certainly never been
wanting in that patriotism which considers its own nation the
only nation, and which glorifies itself at the expense of all
other peoples. None of this narrow and narrowing patriotism
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, I97
is found in the Prophets of Israel; they keep before the
nation a noble Ideal—an Ideal which made Abraham leave
home and kindred and wander over the face of the earth—that
in Zºrae! all nations should be //essed. All through the sacred
books we find records of the narrower stream of merely Jewish
prejudice, while the Book itself and its great makers ever teach
a wider and more exalted view—/srael great not for itself, but
in order that all the earth might receive blessing. -
In view of facts like these, patent on the very face of this
great literature, so unusual in connection with all other
literatures, not to be found, even now in the history and
biography of the most advanced nations, it behoves the
Sceptic to consider more carefully his relation to this wonder-
ful Book. These facts are not invented by us for apologetic
purposes; there they are, lying on the very face of this record,
inviting the examination of everyone who has eyes to see and
ears to hear.
Still keeping mainly to exterior marks, we would suggest that
the unity of this literature is one of its most striking features.
Fully to discuss this would lead us far beyond the merely
external side of Bible history and teaching; but even from an
Outside point of view this phenomenon is sufficiently significant,
and, as Professor Leathes remarks, it is ‘unique in the history
and literature of the world.’ The very name Bible suggests
unity, but it may often conceal from the careless reader the extent
and character of this element in the problem. For the Bible is,
after all, not so much a book in the ordinary sense, as a collec-
tion of books, or, as one puts it, ‘a library.’ The writings of
the Old Testament alone ‘extend over, a period of at least a
thousand years.’ The writers are often unknown ; they belong
to all ranks and conditions of men; they are separated by im-
mense tracts of country, and still more by intellectual and social
character and habits. Their views of life must necessarily have
been very diverse, as the conditions under which they lived
were most unlike. And yet even a cursory reading shows that
we have here one Book ; a deeper study will make manifest that
198 SCEPTICISM.
through this literature, as through the ages of human history,
‘one increasing purpose runs,’ and that the thoughts of the
men who made it were ever being widened and deepened as
they drew nearer the fulness of the time when the Christ, who is
the key to the Book, should appear. This unity does not consist
in any mechanical uniformity of plan, nor in any dramatic re-
hearsal at different stages of the essential history of the future,
but in the orderly evolution of a grand moral purpose, and in
the progressive development of an idea which is ever the same.
This aspect of Bible literature is being very fully illustrated by
the very criticism of our time which some timid Christians so
much fear. Owing perhaps in part to narrow conceptions of
the nature of inspiration, owing to a very laudable desire to
exalt the Bible history and to keep it from too close contact
with purely human ideas and affairs, the apologists of the past
have hardly done justice to the human side of this process.
The attempts of able but rationalistic thinkers to give an
account of the origin and development of this literature which
shall be sufficient, and which shall exclude at the same time
all that is supernatural, have only more fully and more promi-
nently illustrated the peculiar character of the Book, and the
impossibility of accounting for its unity on rationalistic prin-
ciples. The doctrine of the ‘survival of the fittest' when
applied to it, breaks down : ‘Here is an evolution,’ as Newman
Smyth remarks, “not in accordance with the natural tendency
to variation, and contrary to the immediate historical environ-
ment. The development of the Bible and the religion of the
Bible makes head, seemingly against the natural gravitation of
the Israelitish history. . . . It is difficult to explain the progress,
order, and unity of purpose in the Bible, unless we take into
the account something more than individual genius, national
temperament, and peculiar historical conditions. There seems
to be some power behind all these, co-ordinating them, arranging
and guiding, for the production of this organic whole of the
Scriptures.’ This witness is true: we cannot read with any
degree of attention this wonderful Record without feeling that
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, I99
it is, so to speak, an organism, and that from first to last it has
grown, and is growing, before our eyes. Taking into account
the diversity, mental, social, and otherwise, of its writers, the
anonymous and apparently fugitive character of many of its
publications, their manifest local uses and references; taking
into account also the wide interval that elapsed between Old
and New Testaments, and yet that the one is the fulfilment of
the other, and that in a most wonderful manner, we must con-
clude that this is no mere collection of sacred writings in which
part has been added to part, cell to cell, after the manner of
‘Semitic’ builders alone. The Book is one, and behind its
earthly makers there must have been a divine Power, mould-
ing, shaping, and guiding. Let the Sceptic fairly face this
problem, and he will see that there is unity in the Book; let
him compare and contrast it with the sacred writings of other
religions, let him place it alongside the creations of ‘Semitic
genius’ that are known to man, and he must own that this is
no work of frail humanity. “After all the work of the critics,
the Bible will still remain (not only one, but) the great,
sublime, enduring work of the Eternal, who loves righteousness
and hates iniquity.’ -
We have already drawn attention to the manifest absence of
anything like hero-worship in the pages of the Bible; we may
go further along the same lines, and assert that the evident in-
tention of a/Z Bible teaching is to exa/# God rather than to honour
man. If we read the national records of any people, whether
ancient or modern, we find everywhere traces of strong self-
Consciousness. The speech of the Town Clerk of Ephesus,
When he sought to quiet the people and appease the angry
feelings of his fellow-citizens, is almost a model in this respect.
He appeals to the national vanity with consummate tact and
skill:—‘Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there who knoweth
not how the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the
great Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter.’
Every citizen ought to assume as a self-evident proposition the
essential greatness of Ephesus ! So speaks national vanity
2OO s SCEPTICISM.
everywhere, whether in Europe or Asia. With this class among
ourselves, ‘English interests’ take precedence not only of the
interests of all other peoples, but of the moral law itself; and
who has not read, even in apologetic works, of the providential
mission of the great German race? So it ever is; whether
Slav or Saxon, whether Jew or Gentile, no State, however small
or however great, is deficient in this self-assertion. Now the
Bible writers were all Jews, and Israel held a peculiar position
in the history of the world. No Greek or Roman could
feel exactly about Barbarians as the proud Jew felt about
the Gentile. Against this narrowness some of the ancient
Prophets struggled nobly, if in vain. They believed in
Israel's mission, and in the destiny of the chosen people, but
they gave no quarter to a feeling which is simply vanity and
conceit." More than this, they even taught that Israel’s proud
position was God's gift, and not the outcome of its own energy or
ability. The very superiority which it did possess it received
from God, and that in spite of its selfish efforts to frustrate His
plan and destroy His counsel. The story of Israel in the wilder-
ness, the distinctive teaching of the greatest Prophets, the exile
and temporary eclipse of Israel all proclaim how differently this
Book regards these things. Its aim is ever to exalt God, and
to glorify man only as he helps to fulfil the Divine purposes.
This thought is capable of a much wider application, and
may be said to be one of the distinctive notes of Bible teach-
ing. From first to last man is humbled and God exalted in
this Book; it teaches man to refuse ‘great things for himself,’
and to seek his own highest honour in the honour of the
Eternal. The superficial reader misses all this; he sees, espe-
cially if he comes to the Book with the Sceptical bias, the
apparent exaltation of a petty tribe over all the great nations;
* The great historian, Niebuhr, remarks: ‘The Old Testament stands
perfectly alone as an exception from the untruth of patriotism ; it never
conceals and disguises the calamities of the nation whose history it records.
Its truthfulness is the highest in all historical writings—even for him who
does not believe in its divine inspiration. At the same time I must also
ascribe to it the most minute accuracy.’
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2OI
he sees Jacob the supplanter put higher than Esau the free-
hearted and generous ; and from first to last, if we are to believe
him, there is to be found nothing but arbitrary selection of the
least worthy among men and nations. A deeper acquaintance
with the Book corrects this estimate, and shows that from
Genesis to Revelation God alone is exalted. Yet no book gives
man a truly higher place; it makes him to lack but a little of
Godhead, and it crowns him with glory and honour. It makes
angelic beings minister to him, and the very Son of God die to
save him ; it so represents life that the highest and worthiest
objects attainable are man's salvation and exaltation; the very
happiness of heaven being enhanced by the salvation of One
human soul | The Bible gives to man a place higher than he
receives in any other literature, but it gives this under such
conditions that God, not man, receives the homage. And the
very homage given to man by the Bible is a homage offered to
God; it is ever the Divine condescension that makes man greaf.
From a purely exterior standpoint, it is impossible to develop
fully this idea, or to show its bearing upon the spiritual future
of humanity; and yet it ought with candid minds to be a note
in favour of any book, this element of extreme unselfishness,
this true and uniform subordination of man to the Power which
made him, and which is shaping his destiny. Writers who seek
no honour for themselves, who ever exalt the Supreme Good-
ness, and who teach man that he owes all he has and is to the
gift of God, ought to be considered worthy of a respectful
hearing. The anthropology as well as the theology of this
Book ought to commend it to the truth-seeking mind.
Moreover, we cannot overlook in this Book the hopefulness
of its tone, and the wholesomeness of its influence over all who
submit life to its sway.
No part of the record has been more eagerly dwelt upon by
Sceptics than some of its earlier moral histories. A secular
lecturer says with a most uncalled-for sneer, ‘the Bible, with
its beautiful stories of Noah, Lot, Dinah, Tamar, and the rest,
to inform the intellect and purify the heart of the young I'
2O2 SCEPTICISM.
Sneering is an easy, but not often a convincing, form of argu-
ment. Darwin retorts on those who sneer at his lowly views
of man's origin, that by this very act they illustrate the truth of
his theory, inasmuch as they show their ‘canine teeth'ſ With-
out going this length, we may fairly say that those who sneer
at these ancient stories often show more of their own blindness
and incapacity than the moral feebleness of the history they so
attack. Whatever else may be said or left unsaid, it must be
confessed by all that the moral tone of the Book is high. True,
the writers call a spade a spade with great plainness of speech ;
they also record Sad and even disgusting instances of man's
depravity; but no pure mind will ever suppose that the writers
sympathize with these immoralities. Critics of the morality of
the Bible will do well to lay to heart some remarks of Dr. Pusey,
in his introduction to the ‘Confessions of St. Augustine.’ ‘The
purity of our times,’ says the learned doctor, ‘is not the purity
of the Gospel; it is the purity of those who know and have de-
lighted in evil as well as good. It is often the hypocritical
purity which would willingly dwell upon “things which ought
not to be named,” so that it does but not name them,” etc. If the
Bible-writers glorified such sins, or called them virtues because
committed by the founders of the Hebrew Commonwealth,
protest might be made. These atrocities are recorded, at times
with almost brutal bluntness, to show that no position, however
exalted, and no Divine favour, however unusual, can raise man
above the necessity of constant watchfulness and humility. No
one with a sympathetic mind and open heart can be at any loss
how to think about these evils, so plainly described in the
Sacred Writings. As to the narrative itself, we must remember,
as Canon Mozley has well said, that the ‘end is the test of a
progressive Revelation. Modern “freethought’ professes to
be much shocked and scandalized at some of these ancient
records, yet itself has propounded doctrines, as the “Fruits of
its Philosophy,’ about marriage and family life that would have
much perturbed the minds of Old Testament teachers. An age
like ours often so licentious in dress and manners, in spite of
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2O3
the thin veil of its outward propriety, so greedy of Divorce
Court literature, and so prolific in ‘society’ journals, may
attempt to sit in judgment on the morality of the Old Testa-
ment, but it can hardly expect those who have drunk deeply at
these ancient wells of moral inspiration to listen with deference
to its words. s
No one in full sympathy with the Bible teaching as a whole
can have anything but healthy views of life; and its simple
directness of language, its purity of feeling, its moral elevation
of thought, have been acknowledged by all the masters of know-
ledge. Its teachers pronounce a severe woe on those who
pervert men's minds by either language or symbol, and them-
selves ever show an example of true moral courage in calling
things by their right names. As to the stories of Noah, Lot,
and others, we must remember that the Bible is a book of
history, and that the men connected with the evolution of
God’s redeeming purpose never claimed for themselves, nor
had claimed for them by their biographers, any title to moral
perfection. The history itself carefully studied is the best
rebuke of their sinful deeds; if there is no immediate expres-
sion of condemnation, the subsequent events generally manifest
Divine displeasure ; they receive the “fruit of their doings’ in
character and life. Nor can anyone fail to understand what
Prophets and teachers think of such transgressions of Divine
law.
The tone and teaching of the whole Book, or of the Book
as a whole, are remarkably hopeful and healthy. We are often
told by the champions of Scepticism that the Bible is a
gloomy book, and that its views of life are such as to chill
the feelings and discourage all efforts after enjoyment; the
gloom of the Sabbath, and the ultra-Puritanical rigour of Old
Testament precepts are often commented upon. These are
products of the scientific ‘imagination’ rather than true find-
ings of sober search after fact. Where is there proof from the
Bible that even the “Jewish Sabbath' was the gloomy thing it
is sometimes said to have been P If such proof be forthcoming,
2O4 SCEPTICISM.
it must be found, not in the original law, not in the example of
Patriarchs and Prophets, but in the customs of the rigid
Pharisees of later days; and we decline to allow Pharisees,
whether ancient or modern, to be our interpreters of a Divine
Revelation. -
No honest student of the religion of Israel can find gloomy
ideas in the teachings of the Prophets. The noble men who kept
alive in the hearts of Jewish exiles the sacred flame of devotion
and love, have anything but melancholy views about life. They
look forward to the time when the streets of the restored city
shall be full of boys and girls at play, and when the songs of
young men and maidens shall be heard, yea, when the young
men shall lead the virgins in the dances of a brighter and
happier age. Theirs was not the religion of asceticism. That
belongs to a later age, and has its origin in other than Jewish in-
fluences, Let the Bible be compared with other writings, whether
ancient or modern, and it must be pronounced to be one of
the most joyous of books. In one thing only do we find any
exception to this; in the older dispensation there was a gloom
resting on death and the future life, which tinged with sadness
one aspect of Jewish feeling. Yet even here the heroic faith
of these clear-sighted, heaven-taught men manifested itself, and
long before the full light of Revelation shone upon the graves of
the dead, there were in their hearts, in their songs, and in their
prayers, fore-gleams of immortality. In this region the Gentile
world lived in a still deeper gloom and under shadows denser
by much. Homer makes one of his heroes speak of the life
of Hades as follows:–
‘Name me not death with praiseful words, noble Ulysses; I
Would sooner be a bonded serf, the labourer's tool to ply,
To a small cottar on the heath with wealth exceeding small,
Than be the Lord of all the Shades in Pluto's gloomy hall.’
If we compare the tone of the whole Book with the best
literature of our own time, the difference must be apparent to
every honest mind. In this age of Science and civilization,
an age so extolled by poets, and so lauded by Freethinkers,
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2O5
able and learned men soberly ask in our leading reviews
whether ‘life be worth living’ or not; and cultivated men and
women discuss whether suicide, after all, be not the best way
of finding true happiness Our poetry is oftener a wail, a kind
of funeral dirge, than a joyful celebration of the golden age.
Hebrew bards could always sing, even of ‘judgment’ as well as
mercy; our poets wonder whether they can any longer speak
of the Power behind all phenomena as a Person Bible
psalmists call upon men and nations to rejoice even in darkest
days: behind the clouds and the darkness was Jehovah ; He
reigned, and justice and judgment were the basis of His ad-
ministration. Some of the sweetest songs sung in these times
have none of these notes of joy; they are wails of anguish, and
the ‘pathetic minor’ appears too frequently in all our music.
The very Church music is being changed by this prevailing
tendency, and while our leaders are constantly telling us that
the Puritans were narrow and gloomy, they can hardly offer us
soul-stirring strains like those Sung, even on battlefields, by our
sterner forefathers. Paul and Silas could sing praises when
their feet were in the stocks—even under the keenest sufferings
they could speak and write joyfully of life and its issues; a
pure-minded man like the late Mr. Mill could only think life
at best a ‘poor thing,’ and welcome the thought of annihilation
with a sense of relief. Bible writers have none of these feelings
of sadness; they are full of joy, and they ever seek to inspire
others with confidence. In the Apostolic age, this tone of hope
and joy is one of the most marked features. Men who lived
in constant expectation of being used as torch-lights for the
imperial gardens yet lived joyfully, and called upon others to
rejoice, Fully to illustrate this feature of the New Testament
would lead us too far out of our way; the fact, however, is
patent to the most cursory reader, and has been overlooked by
no historian. And whether we think of New or Old Testa-
ments, the tone is hopeful ; man is neither elevated into the
position of a demi-god, nor is he degraded into a sort of fiend
by the writers. He has been made in the image of God, is
2O6 SCEPTICISM.
God’s child, even if a prodigal child, and therefore we must be
hopeful about him. Truth has power to convert the soul, and
the mind of man has been created for truth. The great Divine
Man, the Lord of Man and King of the coming age, is not only
all-powerful, but all-patient; He never fails, is never even dis-
couraged until He accomplishes His great work of salvation.
Moreover, He shall yet see of the travail of His soul and be
satisfied, and what satisfies His infinite heart, with its tender
yearnings and loving purposes, may well satisfy frail, erring,
and short-sighted man. We submit that considerations like
these ought to have weight with those who too rashly and
without sufficient knowledge reject this Record. The very
healthiness of the tone of this literature is a sure note in its
favour. Its ‘words are half-battles,’ its spirit high above that
of all other literatures; morally and spiritually as much above
the highest outside of itself, as the purest lyrics of Longfellow
and Mrs. Browning are above the lowest sensational poetry and
prose of our age.
And the effect of this Book upon all who love and live in
its spirit is most elevating. We can only hint at this aspect
of our subject; the English Bible has not only been a standard
of pure language and racy speech, it has also been to those
who have loved it, a daily inspiration towards goodness and
truth. Some of the saintliest men and women have attributed
all that they were to its enlightening and sanctifying power; its
words have been to them words of eternal life. The teachers
and leaders who have done most to instruct and to guide man-
kind, who have been the truest friends of liberty and the
deadliest foes of every kind of tyranny, have drunk deeply at
this fountain. ‘The influence of the whole Bible has been
throughout modern history a felt power on the side of the weak
and the oppressed, and in defence of liberty of conscience and
the Divine sacredness of every human soul. Men must hide
the Bible from the people if they would steal now the liberties of
men.” The truth of this will be illustrated and confirmed by
the widest survey of the influence of the Bible, and of Bible
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 207
ideas, upon both individuals and nations: wherever men cor-
dially embrace the truth of Scripture, wherever they reverence
its authority and follow its guidance, they become better men
in the family, in the city, and in the State. The distinguished
economist, M. de Laveleye, in his instructive study of ‘Pro-
testantism and Catholicism in their bearing upon the liberty
and prosperity of nations,’ attributes to the Reformation the
best results of modern civilization. We know that one of the
chief results of this great movement was to put the Bible into
the hands of the people, to remove artificial barriers between
the human mind and its soul-saving truth. In these remarks
we are dealing with the external rather than internal evidences
of the unique character of this Book, but surely even Scep-
ticism itself must see that some of the noblest assertions of
liberty as against tyranny, whether over the conscience or in
the State, came from men whose chief inspiration was this
Book | Much has been said, and not altogether without
reason, about the gloomier side of Puritanism ; along with this
we ought to remember what splendid work the great Puritan
leaders did for civil and religious liberty. Perhaps they lived
too much in the sterner life of the Old Dispensation; perhaps
they did give too little place to some of the most distinctive
virtues of Christianity. Still we must give them credit for
some of the best and most abiding elements in modern civiliza-
tion. The ‘Disciples of Calvin, remarks Laveleye, ‘were the
civilizers of Scotland; and wherever Bible truth is accepted,
wherever the Holy Records are loved, we find industry and
sturdy independence, along with respect for authority. Bible-
taught men do not much reverence either kingcraft or priestcraft;
they do reverence and respect all lawful authority, whether in
Church or State. And, strange as this must appear to Scepticism,
a Book that teaches the depravity of the race, yet inspires us
with strongest faith in the possibility of man's salvation; the
Book that gives the most awful views about the character of
sin, gives also the grandest hopes for the future of mankind,-
gives man power also to live a truly noble life, and inspires him
208 SCEPTICISM.
to work for others. Until Scepticism, on its own principles,
can explain and account for these strange contrasts, it ought
certainly to speak with greater reverence and more tenderness
about the Bible.’”
There are many other features in connection with this litera-
ture well worthy of study—characteristics, so to say, that, even
from an outside point of view, are sufficiently remarkable, and
which have never been fairly and boldly dealt with by Sceptics.
Into these we cannot at present enter at greater length; enough
has been said to show that this Book deserves more study
from Sceptics than it has yet received. A book loved and
honoured by some of the noblest thinkers the world has
ever seen, full of biography in which there are no traces of
hero-worship, the transparent truthfulness of whose writers
every candid mind must own; a book that uniformly exalts
God, and teaches man to be humble and seek his greatness
in the service of the Supreme Good—whose tone, both in-
tellectually and morally, is so pure and healthy, whose precepts
elevate all who truly receive them, making them better men
and women in every relationship of life in proportion as they
give to these precepts a high place in their thought;-a book
or rather a literature of Such a character demands from an age
like ours, which boasts of its enlightenment and its charity, a
treatment very different from that hitherto given to it by
Sceptics and Sceptical writers.
And until Sceptical thinkers cast aside their bias and mental,
prejudice, until they honestly and reverently search the Scrip-
tures, they cannot expect those who know and feel that the
words of this book are indeed spirit and life, to give them
credit for absolute sincerity of purpose and disinterested desire
1 The learned Dr. Döllinger thus writes: “I believe we may credit one
great superiority of England over other countries to the circumstance that
there the Holy Scripture is found in every house, as is the case nowhere
else in the world, and is, SO to Speak, the good genius of the place, the
protecting spirit of the domestic hearth and family.”—“The Reunion of the
Churches, p. 128. Laveleye attributes the prosperity of Ulster, as con-
trasted with other parts of Ireland, to the same influence.—See his
• Protestantism and Catholicism.’
SCEPTICISM A ND THE BIBLE. 209
to find and follow the truth. Carlyle here teaches the Sceptic
a lesson. The sage has his own way of expressing reverence,
no doubt, yet who can doubt that he deeply reverenced this
Book? “In the poorest cottage,’ he says, “are books—is one
Book, wherein for several thousands of years the spirit of man
has found light, and nourishment, and an interpreting response
to what is deepest in him ; wherein still, to this day, for the eye
that will look well, the mystery of existence reflects itself, if not
resolved, yet revealed, and prophetically emblemed ; if not to
the satisfying of the outward sense, yet to the opening of the
ſinzward sense, which is the far grander result.” Sceptics are now
eagerly studying, or, at all events loudly extolling, the Sacred
writings of other religions, and the wisdom of heathen Sages.
By all means let them study the Koran, and the other sacred
books of the East, let them study the writings of Roman
emperors, and the devout meditations of Stoic philosophers;
but let them not despise, and let them not neglect, the one
and only Book which can spiritually enlighten man's inner
nature, and be a lamp to the whole of his path, whether here
or hereafter.
I4.
CHAPTER XI.
SCAEA 7/C/SM AAWD THE BIBLAE (Continued).
Men must hide the Bible from the people, if they would steal now the
liberties of men.”—NEWMAN SMYTH.
“The Bible is not a book of science, dictated in technical and scholastic
language, but a book of life, written for common and wayfaring persons, in
the language of daily life, of national history, of popular apologue, and of
glowing prophetic poetry.”—F. R. LEES.
‘Here also I will observe that the manner in which men read this same
Bible is, like all else, proportionate to their stage of culture, to the circum-
stances of their environment.”—CARLYLE.
“No outward Revelation can enlighten us spiritually while we resist the
Divine Spirit within us.”—DR. J. McLEOD CAMPBELL.
So far we have concerned ourselves with what may be termed
the external characteristics of the Bible; these are indeed very
remarkable, and ought to be more considered by Sceptics than
they have hitherto been. Nothing is easier than to find causes
of offence in some portions of the Record. Even those who
love the Bible, and who desire to use it as their guide in life,
often find it hard to explain, as they would like, some of its
earlier chapters. At the same time, the character of the book
is such that they gladly accept what they can understand,
leaving to some brighter day the difficult passages. Scepticism
having none of this love for and faith in the Record, stumbles
on its very threshold, and not seldom refuses to give to the book
anything like honest treatment. Moreover, he who would under-
stand the Scriptures must go far more deeply into their inner
meaning and spirit. Those who have studied them the most,
who have used them as their daily companion and guide through
the busy years of a long life, tell us that these exterior aspects,
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, 2 II
however wonderful, give no true conception of what the Book
is, or of its real value to the human soul. Writers familiar both
with this and with other kinds of literature, assert that here there
are ideas peculiar ſo this Ā’ecord, and that the more familiar we
are with its contents, the more we shall be able to appreciate
this view of the case. It would not indeed be difficult to bring
from other sources ideas and expressions that resemble the
thoughts of Moses, or the words even of Christ. In our day,
much has been made of some of these similarities, but the
profoundest students of the Book assure us that they are very
superficial. ‘Not only are the fundamental ideas in Christian
Revelation independent of Pagan influences . . . the whole
attitude of thought in the one is unlike that in the other. . . .
As a record, however, of a true and genuine revelation, it is a
light shining in a dark place.’ This estimate is from one who
would be far from unwilling to find outside of this Book some
of its essential truths, and therefore all the more worthy of
acceptation. Fully to deal with this question would lead us
away from our immediate object, but a simple illustration may
be given. Dr. Conder finds in the Bible six lines of thought
opened up, quite distinct from anything seen elsewhere. The
idea of Divine law given in this Record stands “absolutely
alone ; so, too, the Biblical conception of sin. No one
familiar with the thoughts of men outside Divine Revelation
can doubt that the teachings about this awful subject are dis-
tinctive. The views of sin are both simpler and profounder
than those met with in the moral writers of the heathen world.
Holiness, too, a co-related idea, appears in a new light in this
Record ; “what in other systems is taken for the substance
and essence of holiness appears here as the mere wrappage
of a moral conception.” Love and faith, though very simple
elements, appear in new light. “When St. John wrote that
“he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love . . .
and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him,”
he employed a word which to Plato's ear would have been bar-
barous. Whether Plato would have welcomed this declaration
I4–2
2 I 2 SCEPTICISM.
as a revelation or derided it as an absurdity may be questioned,
but it is certain he would not have recognised it as a familiar
thought.” Lastly, the idea expressed by the word “heaven' is
both Sublime and distinctive. There are, perhaps, other
Biblical ideas equally suggestive; even when this Book deals
with truth apparently familiar to us, it sets it forth in such
a way as to make it essentially new. Let anyone compare the
Christian ideal of brotherhood with that of Stoicism, from which
Some declare it was borrowed, and he will see that there is a
wide difference. Lange, a man not prejudiced in favour of
Christianity, speaks of ‘its wonderfully fascinating doctrine of
the kingdom which is not of this world;’ again, he declares
that “Christianity, by preaching the Gospel to the poor, un-
hinged the ancient world.' If any honest Sceptic doubts
whether these things are so, let him go to Lecky's ‘History of
Morals,” or to ‘Ecce Homo,” and he will find ample confirma-
tion. Rightly to understand and fully to appreciate Bible
teaching, however, the Sceptic must see and judge for himself.
Let him search the Scriptures, and see whether they do not
contain words of eternal life. No one can feel the power of
this Book who studies it simply from an exterior point of view.
External characteristics may awaken interest, may even produce,
have often produced, an impression favourable to the Record;
and because this is so, we have directed attention to Some of
them. But, after all, the Bible is never truly known until it is
seen in its own inner light—until the reader, abandoning
all prejudice and all prepossession, comes to the Record
determined to seek and to find its secret.
The only hope for Scepticism is in connection with this
deeper study of the Bible. No book can so little bear a mere
surface reading. To the superficial reader, and to the un-
sympathetic nature, there must be many stones of stumbling
and rocks of offence. Some one has said it is a book in which
‘each one seeks and finds his own opinions,’ and there is too
much truth in the representation. The very nature of the
Record, its historical character, its relations at so many points
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2 I 3
with ideas and institutions not its own, makes it difficult to the
cursory and fault-seeking reader. And yet how many troubled
seekers have here found the pearl of great price Many of the
leading Reformers, both at home and on the Continent, owed
their conversion and enlightenment to the simple reading of
the Bible. The entrance of its words gave them light, and
made them wise unto salvation, wise also to win others to the
path of life. There is, in connection with English history, an
interesting story of a nobleman who began the study of the
Acts of the Apostles, with the determination that he would
explain away one of the grandest events there recorded—the
conversion of Saul of Tarsus. As he studied the record of the
change wrought on Saul, he became convinced that St. Paul
himself gives the only satisfactory explanation. Thus the seeker
found here, what he did not expect, a new light upon his own
path of life, and a proof of the truth of Christianity too con-
vincing to be rejected. Instances are constantly occurring of
the same kind; the Record has still power to make the simple
wise, and if only all honest Sceptics could be induced earnestly
and honestly to search for themselves, willing to find and to
follow the truth, we believe many would experience the same
change wrought upon Lord Lyttleton; hence our anxiety that
they should throw aside their bias, and really examine this
wonderful Book.
It is to be feared that popular views of the nature of the
Bible, and popular methods of reading its pages, tend but little
to help doubters in their search after the truth. When com-
plaints are made against mere Bible-worship, many devout
Christians take offence, and yet these complaints are not alto-
gether unreasonable. As Dr. Saphir well says, “The Bible may
be the Protestant crucifix.' We may believe in the Bible instead
of in the Christ whom it sets forth ; we may reverence the form,
while almost despising the living substance. So may we make
an idol of the Book, reverencing the symbol instead of seeking
to understand its meaning, and through it to reach the truth
taught. The Sceptic sees the Christian deal with his Bible in
2I4. SCEPTICISM.
a semi-magical way, picking out his favourite texts, putting them
together in a sort of haphazard fashion, ignoring the context and
the surroundings, and then calling the conception so gathered
God's revealed will. Following too slavishly and too closely
the same method, the Sceptic selects /iis texts and marshals his
arguments, gathering from the Bible what makes against the
Bible teaching, and thus the grandest of all books is made to
utter words anything but Sublime and Soul-inspiring. Unques-
tionably, we are responsible for much of modern Scepticism
about the Bible. Our habitual, and perhaps at times judicious,
skipping over of large tracts of its territory, our allegorical and
figurative interpretations of many parts of the Record, our per-
verse habit of merely applying instead of interpreting its teach-
ings, and our devout uses of parts which it is our boast that we
do not understand, must often perplex honest minds. We are
at times reminded that by such modes of interpretation any
book may be made to mean anything or nothing, but that no
definite and universally applicable Sense can be found. Looking
at this ‘Bible-reading’ of ours from one standpoint, we may
well wonder that so little mischief has been done ; still, the
truth must be told, and this truth is that not the ‘newer critics,’
but our uncritical reading of Scripture, must be held responsible
for much of popular Scepticism.
Of course there is a devotional reading of the Bible which is
in no wise open to such criticism. “The real fruit of such
Bible-reading lies less in any addition to one's store of sys-
tematic knowledge, than in the privilege of withdrawing for a
moment from the thoughts and cares of the world, to enter into
a pure and holy atmosphere, where the God of love and re-
demption reveals Himself to the heart, and where the simplest
believer can place himself by the side of the Psalmist, the
Prophet, and the Apostle in that inner sanctuary where no
sound is heard but the gracious accents of Divine promise and
the secret response of assured and humble faith.” Such a read-
ing of the Bible is above all criticism, and in its presence our
best attitude is the Psalmist's prayer, ‘Open Thou mine eyes,
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2 I 5
that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law.” What we
refer to is not the private reading, but the open use of Scripture
in such a way as to hinder the true understanding thereof. So
far as some good people are concerned, there might be no his-
torical element at all in the Bible. They read and speak of the
whole or of any part, whether Genesis, Ezekiel, the Song of
Solomon, or St. John's Epistles, whether the burning elo-
quence and winged words of inspired Prophets, or the visions
of the Seer of Patmos, as if it were directly and immediately
related to their life, and to this alone. To them Old and New
is the same ; the beggarly elements and the completed results
of Divine knowledge all appear on the same level. The hope
of the Resurrection is to them as bright and clear in the Book
of Job as in St. Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth; the
light of life shines to them as clearly on Jacob's strange path as
it did upon St. Paul, when he heard words he dared not utter,
and saw sights he could not describe. To them Jew and Gen-
tile are the same, and whenever they find the word ‘Zion,’ they
substitute for it the particular Church to which they belong;
whenever they listen to any promise made to Israel, no matter
in what connection, they accept it as addressed to themselves;
they do this, too, with quiet assurance and sublime unconscious-
ness of any defect in their system of interpreting the oracles of
God. Such a method of reading and explaining the Word must
be a stumbling-block to the Sceptic, and hence our contention
that in part at least Christians are to blame for the Sceptic's
neglect and misuse of the Bible.
Suppose the Sceptic could be induced to consider care-
fully and study honestly this wonderful Book, so often
neglected by its foes, so often misread by its friends—are
there methods of study fitted to help an honest and earnest
reader P Without pretending to lay down rules for the
guidance of others in a matter like this, where each must
see for himself and herself, we may be permitted to suggest a
few considerations to those who are less familar than ourselves
with this subject. There are conditions, both subjective and
216 SCEPTICISM,
offective, that have much to do with our relation to Holy
Scripture. True it is, and this cannot be too much emphasized,
that no one need ever hope to understand the Scriptures who
has not Christ as the key. “Whatever the Word is,’ says
Saphir, “it is because of its relation to Christ.” As St. Paul,
a master in this science, tells his son Timothy, the Holy
Scriptures make wise unto Salvation, but only through the faith
that is in Christ Jesus. This key no Sceptic ever can, while
a Sceptic, possess, and therefore some of the most distinctive
teachings of the Book will be hid from his eyes. But even for
the Sceptic there is possible a reading or searching that may
lead to Christ, and hence the importance of conforming to its
Conditions; given only certain convictions about the Book
itself, given also certain states of mind, and the honest
doubter may be expected to find truth of which he may now
be all unconscious. Someone suggests that Nature does not
proclaim aloud her secrets, she only whispers them in the ear
of the earnest listener, and this thought has its application to
the mysteries of the sacred Record. If this volume be what
Christians say it is, if it be a veritable record of Divine
Revelation to man, may we not expect its secrets to reveal
themselves only to those who are prepared to understand, and
willing to follow, its voice? As one remarks:—‘The Bible
contents are pre-eminently something of a quickening force,
and only apprehensible by a life corresponding to the teaching
given; hence, as the interpreter of nature needs an open ear
and an unbiased mind, so the reader of Scripture needs an
obedient mind and a child-like heart. Professor Jevons gives,
in his ‘Principles of Science,’ a very interesting chapter on
the ‘Character of the Experimentalist.’ It is at all times a
difficult task to tell wherein the great strength of a discoverer
lies, and in seeking for this we may often mistake and put the
incidental for what is essential. There may indeed be no
Supreme faculty, so to speak; the greatness may consist in a
certain balance of all the faculties, or in a kind of intuitive
power which cannot be explained by any inductive process.
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 217
Comparing such giants of discovery and research as Kepler,
Newton, and Faraday, Jevons finds in them elements of
character that are very unlike. He thinks that ‘in all proba-
bility the errors of the great mind far exceed in number those
of the less vigorous one.’ He also reminds us that, although
Newton is often cited as one who did not form hypotheses, the
very opposite of this is the actual fact, and that the great man is
ever making, and also ever abandoning, hypotheses. ‘Fertility
of imagination and abundance of guesses at truth are among
the first requisites of discovery.’ It would almost appear as if
in the mind of a great discoverer opposite qualities must be
combined. ‘The philosopher,’ says Faraday, no mean authority
in such a case, “should be a man willing to listen to every
suggestion, but determined to judge for himself. He should
not be biased by appearances; have no favourite hypothesis,
be of no school, and in doctrine have no master. He should
not be a respecter of persons, but of things. Truth should be
his primary object. If to these qualities be added industry,
he may indeed hope to walk within the veil of the temple of
Nature.”
We shall not greatly err if we apply all this to the student of
Scripture, and if we demand the same qualities, alike of head
and heart, indicated by Jevons and Faraday. Looking at the
subjective side of this question, we may with confidence affirm
that no one will ever understand the Bible who does not come
to it with unbiased mind; the nature that would receive its
communications must be free from bias and from prejudice.
If we come seeking our own opinions, determined to find these,
and unwilling to find or to follow any other, then in all proba-
bility the Bible will confirm us in old errors, and supply
material for new ones. Nor is the Sceptical bias, of which we
have already spoken, the only hindrance in this region. The
man who honestly loves the Bible, and believes that he is
willing to follow where it leads, may come to its pages so
biased by certain dogmas, or ecclesiastical prepossessions, that
he is utterly incapable of seeing what is written. There are
218 SCEPTICISM.
good people who profess to find some of the deepest teachings
of Christianity in the wars of Joshua, the Song of Solomon, or
the Book of Ruth, and who seem to think that distinctively Gospel
ideas may easily be found in the earliest pages of the Record.
So, too, there are no doubt thinkers who firmly believe that the
Holy Spirit ceased to lead the mind of the believer into truth
after the age of the Reformation, and who insist on fitting all
truth into moulds prepared by Luther, Calvin, and the noble
leaders of the spiritual Revolution. They cite Pastor Robinson's
remark about God having more truth to reveal to man in con-
nection with the study of His Word, but they refuse to give
room for its practical application to modern thought. Others
may advance a step further, but close their dispensation of
illumination with the age of Wesley and the leaders of the
Evangelical Revival. All these, and all such prepossessions,
are fatal to the true understanding of the Bible. As Faraday
says, the philosopher (and we may say the Bible-student) must
have in doctrine “no master,’ must be no “respecter of persons,
but of things; and the ‘things’ here are Scripture teachings.
Specially, however, does all this apply to the beliefs, preju-
dices, and prepossessions of Scepticism. It may be said of the
beliefs to which we have referred, that they belonged to men
who were all mighty in the Scriptures ; not that any men, how-
ever great, or any class of men, however honoured, should be
allowed to come between the mind and God's Revelation. To
be seen aright, this must ever be seen in its own light, and by
the open eye of each individual seeker; but a modest man may
be allowed to think that these, and such-like, leaders of faith are
quite as likely as himself to be right in their findings.
On the other hand, the Sceptic comes to the study of the
Record with prejudices that must effectually shut out its light
from his soul. How can the man who thinks this Book a
priestly invention, the outcome of superstition, and the instru-
ment of tyranny, really listen to its teachings? How can a
reader who believes that Moses and the Prophets were im-
postors, patiently and honestly weigh their words P. How can
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 2I9
one who thinks St. Paul a mere enthusiast give to his teaching
that calm and reverent consideration necessary to a proper
understanding of the same P Hence the absolute necessity of an
/homes; and fruſh-lowing mind on the part of the seeker after this
knowledge. We have already referred to the blinding influence
of prejudice in connection with political judgments and public
life; this operates in such a way on private judgment, that no
one can pay any serious attention to estimates of character
whose origin is at all suspected of partisanship. How can the
man who has a fixed idea in his mind that Mr. Gladstone is a
Jesuit in disguise, or that he is a mere self-seeking, place-
holding politician, read with open mind any of the most im-
portant utterances of this great statesman P. How can anyone
who believes Lord Beaconsfield to have been a mere Charlatan,
and to have made use of men and opportunities simply to ad-
vance himself, do justice to any of his speeches or acts? There
must be in our minds, if not full sympathy, at any rate the
absence of antipathy and actual distrust, before we can judge
aright and on their merits, the utterances or the policy of any
public man. In like manner, the Sceptic who would under-
stand this Book must gather his estimate of its character from
its own pages, and not from what its worst foes have told him.
As the man of science listens for the faintest whisper of
Nature's voice, as he willingly abandons his pet theories and
favourite hypotheses when he finds them at variance with facts,
so must the Bible student come to this Book seeking simply
to know, and that from itself alone, what are its distinctive
teachings.
Another condition must be fulfilled :—he zwho zwould really
wnderstand this Arecord must be willing to obey f/he fruſh
nevealed to him. There may be a love of truth, which is
purely intellectual, and which is quite consistent with much that
is morally unworthy in feeling and life. The love of truth here
demanded is that practical affection which leads us to obey
what we know, and all we know, and which leads us to seek the
Ánowledge in order to render the obedience. Even in connection
220 SCEPTICISM.
with the study of Nature, truth known and not followed would
soon lead to perversions fatal to further discovery. If the ex-
plorer did not resolve to abandon every hypothesis at the bid-
ding of fact, and to follow obediently wherever truth might lead
him, his ear would not long remain attentive, and Nature would
Soon cease to communicate to him her secrets. In Bible-study
this condition is essential, and the lack of this willingness to
obey the truth is the very rock on which so many readers make
shipwreck. If we come to the Record only to find confirmation
of opinions already held, or to find proofs of the presence of
what we have resolved to find there, we shall be sure to miss
the way. The narrow-minded ecclesiastic comes seeking proofs
of some favourite theory, and in the most impossible places he
finds them plain and convincing; the Sceptic expects to find
stumbling-blocks, and there they lie on the very threshold of the
Book. Herschell declares that the temple of astronomy is open
only to those who come with a sound and sufficient knowledge
of mathematics; those who are not willing, or who are by nature
unable, to pay this price are excluded from the privileges of its
votaries. They may think the conditions hard or easy, as the
case may be ; there they are, and all who would obtain the
privileges must conform to them. So for the Bible reader there
are subjective conditions that are essential, but they are not such
as to exclude any who deserve to enter this sanctuary. They
are not so much intellectual as moral and spiritual, possible to
all who desire to know in order that they may do the right.
Idle curiosity may have its place, and mere intellectual appre-
ciation of truth its power; the Bible, like the great Being whose
Name it reveals to us, opens up its hidden treasures, and un-
folds its mysteries, only to the humble and contrite in heart.
There are also what may be termed objective conditions to be
complied with by those who would understand this ‘unique
literature,” for no matter how candid the mind of the reader, no
matter how willing-so-ever he may be to follow truth revealed
to him, there may be other hindrances in his path to be re-
moved before he is in a position to study this Book. In
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 22 I
studying a great work of art—say a painting—we must not only
have an open eye for beauty, a heart willing to sympathize with
the subject; we must also occupy a proper position in relation
to the picture we are studying. So must the Bible be seen in
its own light, and the standpoint of the observer must be wisely
chosen. Here again the Sceptic holds opinions and prepos-
sessions that are fatal to his reading.
There must be due acknowledgment of the historica/ cha-
zacter of the A’ecord. In these days of evolution theories, when
the historical method is applied to every kind of study, and
when even great thinkers believe they have satisfied all reason-
able demands when they have explained the origin and history
of anything, it is not creditable to us that we should so com-
pletely ignore the historical element in the Bible. Here the
average Sceptic is almost more at fault than anywhere else.
Listen to the arguments of Sceptical lecturers, to debates on the
Bible, and perhaps it is not too much to say that eight out of
ten of the most powerful popular objections are based on this
form of misconception. For anything that these disputants state
to the contrary, we might even reverse the order of the books,
placing the Book of Isaiah at the beginning, and the Acts of
the Apostles in the middle, of the Old Testament, instead of after
the records of what Christ began to accomplish when on earth.
We are bound to admit that Sceptics are not alone to blame
for this neglect of history. Ordinary Christians ‘prove’ from
Scripture certain doctrines in a way not at all calculated to help
inquiring minds. We have already hinted at this. Not only the
darkest side of human nature and life, but the brightest truths
of the Christian Revelation, are supposed to have been fully
known to patriarchs, soldiers, and princes in early days. The
Messianic hope is Supposed to be as clear in the Book of
Genesis as in the closing chapters of Isaiah, and the founders
of the Jewish state are held to have been as well instructed as
were the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Only evil can result from
such a view of the Sacred Records, and in connection with
certain aspects of Scepticism we see glimpses of the mischief
222 SCEPTICISM.
done. The Sceptical attitude towards the Patriarchs, and
towards what is termed the morality of the Old Testament,
might be considerably modified were the historical character of
the Book more fully recognised. They ask us, ‘Is this the will
of God P’ when they meet with acts that are base, and with
ideas that are less advanced than those found in the teachings
of Christ We must remind the honest reader of the Bible
that this Book is not so much God’s Revelation as its record ;
that the germs of truth found in its earlier parts, especially, have
and must have their historical settings; that the vision, at first
dim, shadowy, and indistinct, grew brighter and brighter as men
advanced near the perfect day of the New Dispensation ; and
hence that we must view the record as a progressive one, its
earlier portions as rudimentary and incomplete, adapted often
to a state of mind and life in which God had, and could have,
no delight. As one says —“If we are not to do despite to the
Spirit's chosen historical method of Revelation, we must read
every Scripture in its own light, and interpret it in view of its
surroundings, and in its place in the gradual development of the
Bible. The historical process of Revelation must be brought
to the forefront, if we would see justice done to the Bible.” In
this direction must the honest Sceptic seek relief from some of
his doubts and difficulties about the morality of the Old Testa-
ment. Unless we are to play fast and loose with the moral
sense, and to believe that there are different moral standards
arbitrarily appointed by the mere will of the Revealer, and right
because so appointed, we must apply the historical method.
We must take what Christ says in relation to parts of the Mosaic
code, about the ‘hardness’ of the people's hearts, and see in
the Old Testament history illustrations of Divine adaptation,
not of the perfected will of God; see also the gradual develop-
ment through an educational process, divinely carried out, of a
higher moral sense and a purer ethical standard. So viewing
the Record, we shall not so readily stumble at acts here and
there anything but morally perfect. Not that by this method
we are likely to get rid of all the difficulties, in the problem of
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE, 223
Revelation, for many may remain unresolved, confronting the
reader at times as with an aspect and air of defiance, but others
will disappear, and the candid reader will be able to regard God's
Revelation less in the light of words here and there uttered,
finished words, to which nothing may be added and from which
nothing is to be taken, and more as an “inspired course of
history,’ guided, controlled, and directed towards the fulness of
the times, when One was to appear who should fully embody
and express its Divine meaning. If the inquirer studies the
Bible from this point of view, the isolated words and acts of
this or that individual will cease to have their old importance;
in a very good sense, the ‘individual withers,’ and the “race’
becomes more and more important. And the ‘individuals’
who thus lose prominence will be the very men whose vices
have occasioned so much trouble to Sceptics, and the ‘race’ that
gains in value will be the ‘people of God,” who occupy so
peculiar a place in the Record, and whose long history is God's
Revelation to the world. Not only Sceptics, but too often
Christians also, ignore this chosen people. They read the Bible
with minds steeped in the thought that the chief function of
Revelation is to convey to man's mind truths otherwise unknown
and unknowable ; hence they are apt to overlook Jehovah's
servant Israel, and to read the Record as if there were in the
history of redemption ‘no difference’ between Jew and Gentile.
But when we thus ignore the ‘People of the Book” and their
strange history, we cannot hope to understand the Record itself.
‘If the religion of the Bible,’ says Dr. W. R. Smith, ‘ can be
shown to have run a different course’ (different, that is, from
the religions outside Christianity), “if it can be shown that in
it truth once attained is never lost, and never thrust aside so
as to lose its influence, but that in spite of all impediments the
knowledge of God given to Israel moved steadily forward, till
at last it emancipated itself from national restrictions, and
without changing its consistency or denying its former history,
merged in the perfect religion of Christ, which still satisfies the
deepest needs of mankind, then I apprehend the distinctive
224 SCEPTICISM.
claims of the Bible, and the religion of the Bible, are set on a
broad and Safe basis, and the Revelation of the Old and New
Testament may fairly claim to be the Revelation of God to men
in a special and absolute sense.” Much more than this may
be honestly claimed, because much more than this is true;
but this view of the case (even as thus understated), so often
Overlooked by Sceptical readers, overlooked even by believers
themselves, is both true and important. As one has it, “We
must be robbed of faith in the divineness of the whole history
of Israel before our Bibles can cease to be sacred to us;' but
if once we believe in Israel as preparing the way for Christ, we
shall soon come to believe in the true “Servant of Jehovah.'
Not only, then, must there be account taken of the historical
character of the Book, but we must do justice to the peculiar
connection of Israel with this history, if we would rightly read
this strange literature, and fully know the truth it teaches.
When we do this honestly, and with desire simply to know in
order to follow truth, we shall find, ‘within the natural, signs of
a Supernatural evolution. A Divine life is in the world, work-
ing through history, and in a special and altogether unique
manner in Israel, for far-off ends.’
Further, the Sceptic must read the whole Book if he is ever
to reach its real meaning. Here, much of our popular ‘search-
ing of Scripture’ fails; the Bible is dealt with too much as a
book of texts, and not enough as an organic whole. If the
whole Record were constructed on the principle of some of the
Psalms, or the Book of Proverbs, such a method of study might
be profitable, but if the Book be what we have assumed, one
Complete and harmonious whole, such a fragmentary searching
can never lead to high results. Take the Bible-reading of
popular lecturers in secular halls, where some clever Sceptic
‘shows up, so to speak, the worthlessness of the Book. The
citations are made on no consistent principle; the chronology
is utterly ignored, and the whole treated as if its pages were
not even numbered. A writer is made to contradict himself
* Dr. W. R. Smith, “The Prophets of Israel,” p. 14.
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 225
by judicious leaving out of some portions of his words. Thus,
in order to show that the New Testament teaching is contra-
dictory, St. Paul is made to say that ‘God wills all men to be
saved,’ and that He yet gives some men over to strong delusions
to believe lies, ‘in order that they may be damned / Suppose
any other book dealt with after this fashion, what would be the
result? Simply that an author may be made to say anything
we please. We know that Sceptics plead high authority in
justification of this method of interpretation ; they point to
the use of the Bible by ordinary readers, and even by
preachers and teachers. We have already admitted that
Christians are responsible for many opinions of Scepticism,
and need say no more about this ; the Sceptic professes to be
scientific, to be anxious to find the truth, and to be honestly
seeking light on all questions. Let it not be said that the Bible
is the only book to which fair-play is to be denied. How
carefully students of classical authors read their favourite
books; they are most anxious to read in the light of what-
ever biographical information can be obtained ; they laboriously
and patiently compare part with part, and especially they seek
to get at the whole of an author's utterance on any particular
question. No book more demands, no book will more repay,
such treatment than the Bible. We have to do justice not
only to the unity pervading the whole Book, but also to the
distinctive character of each separate part. Each of its writers
preserves his distinct individuality and views truth from one
particular standpoint. No writers can be more distinguished
from one another than Nehemiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and
Jeremiah, David and Amos, Paul and James, Peter and John.
Their separate works fit into the building, and help to give it
completeness, but each separate writer is his own best inter-
preter. How much more real and full of meaning the writings
of the Prophets, when studied in connection with the history
of the Kings of Israel ! How much clearer does St. Paul's
teaching become when we study each separate epistle in its
own light, and seek in the local occasions that give it rise
I5
226 SCEPTICISM.
some help to an appreciation of the meaning which is far more
than local We have already dwelt upon the historical element
in the Book ; surely this implies that it should be read in a
certain order by those who would gain a true insight into its
teachings. Selecting texts at hap-hazard from any part of the
volume may be an easy way of reading, but it can never lead
to any satisfactory result. Every page of the New Testament
is full of ideas that belong to the Old Testament. Many of
our Lord's most beautiful utterances are from the pages of the
one, and to Him the only, Book. He said He came not to
destroy, but to fulfil, and some of the most sparkling gems of
His thought are new rather in their setting than in themselves.
The Bible student whose mind is most saturated, so to say,
with Old Testament teaching, will best understand the later
portions of the Record.
In addition to this reading of the Book as a whole, we must
not deny to this grandest literature what is given to all other
great works—frequent re-ſerusals. Even the schoolboy under-
stands the philosophy of re-reading; problems in algebra or in
geometry that at first appear insoluble grow easy after a third or
fourth reading. A great statesman recently told students of
Shakespeare to read the text at least twenty times before con-
sulting commentaries. By this time the ideas of the dramatist
would be so familiar that comments would either be needless,
or much more likely to be appreciated. No method of Bible-
reading can be more heartily recommended to both Sceptics
and believers than this. How many mistakes would be avoided
if the mind were familiar with the whole Book, familiar also
with the relation of part to part | Such familiarity can only
come from oft-repeated perusals. Great classical scholars are
familiar with every line and every expression of their favourite
authors. They look upon the blunders of ignorant critics as
not only grotesque, but presumptuous. How much more must
this Book of books be read and re-read, if it is to be well and
truly known | We have referred to Mr. Müller, of Bristol;
this good man reads the Book in order, beginning at Genesis,
SCEPTICISM AND THE BIBLE. 227
and ending at Revelation, then turns back again and begins
afresh. After having read it through more than a hundred
times he declares that it is new as ever, and that every fresh
perusal gives fresh and increasing light. An epistle becomes
ever So much clearer when read at a sitting ; and if some part
present special difficulty, a third or fourth reading may make
it plain to the understanding. It is said that an inquirer after
Salvation seeking light and help was told that he would find
‘eternal life’ in the Bible, if he sought it diligently. Resolved
to find the hid treasure, he commenced to read, beginning
with Genesis. He found it not in Genesis, nor did a patient
reading of Exodus teach him the truth. Faint yet pursuing,
he continued his quest until, in the closing chapters of the
prophecies of Isaiah, he found all he sought and more.
Perhaps he might have missed the prize had he commenced
his studies with the writings of Isaiah. His mind and heart
were being prepared and disciplined for the reception of Saving
truth ; the Law, the historical books, and the Psalms, were thus
his schoolmasters to lead him to Christ, and to prepare him for
the Divine Message of the ‘Evangelical Prophet.’ So, we
doubt not, many Freethinkers would find, if only they would
seek with their whole heart, this Divine Wisdom which alone
can make men truly wise.
There are other conditions to which the diligent reader must
conform if he is to understand this wonderful Book, but these
we must pass over. There is, however, one closing remark which
must be made on this aspect of the subject. Whilst we can
hardly expect a Sceptic, perhaps, to start his reading of Holy
Scripture with the Christian conception of the Bible in his mind,
we must nevertheless affirm that the true and deepest meaning
of this Book can never be found by anyone who does not seek
Divine illumination alike for understanding and heart. ‘The
Bible,’ says Dr. J. McLeod Campbell, ‘is the unveiling of the
Divine procedure in the highest region to which man's thoughts
can rise ; recording Divine acts, intimating Divine motives, dis-
closing Divine designs, shedding Divine light on the past, the
I 5–2
228 SCEPTICISM.
present, and the future of man in his relation to God.” Such a re-
cord must not be roughly touched by rude and irreverent hands.
Rightly to read its pages, we need the open eye, the hushed
thought, and the consciousness that we are on holy ground. To
the Sceptical mind, this will appear a begging of the whole ques-
tion; it is the simple and sober truth, and we gain nothing by
concealing it from view. Plato demanded from his pupils a
knowledge of geometry, and thus secured if a smaller a selecter
circle. Poetry, to the Soul that has no poetic inspiration, is mere
verse, or perchance sickly Sentiment. What is all this but the
simple assertion that for different kinds of truth there is de-
manded a certain sympathy of Soul, and a certain discipline
of intellect? The Bible is open to all, may be read by all, but
will never be understood by any, until there is the open candid
mind, the humble and childlike heart. Let Sceptics search the
Scriptures, but let them know that they are on holy ground, and
that they must draw near with holy reverence, seeking the purify.
ing, enlightening, and quickening grace of the Holy Spirit of
God. Without this the Book will be a sealed book to all ; with
this—and God will give the Spirit to all who reverently ask
Him—the Record will reveal to every seeker the way of life.
Jesus Christ told the Sceptics of His age that their unbelief
arose from their ignorance of Scripture. It is not too much to
say, that an honest and earnest attempt on the part of un-
believers to study the Scripture in the spirit we have indicated,
would probably have for its result the sweeping away of three-
fourths of our popular Scepticism.
CHA PTER XII.
JESUS CHRIST.
‘The final answer to all objections against belief in God is that the
Lord Jesus Christ lived in it and died in it.”—PROFESSOR WACE.
‘Trust in testimony is the pivot of human affairs.”—DR. ConDER.
‘And so the Word had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds,
In loveliness of perfect deeds,
More strong than all poetic thought;
‘Which he may read that binds the sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave,
And those wild eyes that watch the wave
In roarings round the coral reef.”
TENNYSON.
THE Christ of history—this is on the one hand, the abiding
rock of offence for Scepticism, and on the other, the chief corner-
stone of faith in the Supernatural. No Sceptic ought to rest
satisfied with his negative Creed, unless he can give a rational
account of the appearing among men of this wonderful Life.
“All the logic, the criticism, and the philosophy of Naturalism
and of Pantheism, cannot suppress the spontaneous homage
(given) to the unrivalled spiritual excellence of Him, who is
supernaturalism itself in the midst of human history.” In the
presence of this sublime Life, Scepticism would seem morally
impossible. Even where the Sceptic does not, like Thomas of
old, say, ‘My Lord and my God,” he must speak in more falter-
ing accents, and with less of confidence in his negative results,
when in Christ's presence; and if he is really honest and truth-
loving, he will also confess that the account given by Scepticism
*
230 SCEPTICISM.
of the origin and meaning of this new Life in humanity, is
neither philosophically sound nor Spiritually satisfying.
For the last fifty years, this theme has engrossed the minds of
the ablest and most learned thinkers of Europe, America, and
Asia. Ever since the publication of Strauss's ‘Life of Jesus,’
books on this subject have been pouring forth from the press,
some of them full of freshness and power. Yet from the Sceptical
side, by universal consent it is admitted that we have had no true
‘Life of Christ.’ Germany, the land of Luther as well as
Strauss, has supplied us with much of this kind of literature,
Some of the highest, some of but little, value. The greatest
thinkers of this land of thought have bent their spacious and
learned brows over this august problem; they have asserted,
denied, refuted, constructed and reconstructed, yet they have
neither exhausted the subject nor satisfied themselves that the
last word has been spoken. Mr. R. Browning, in his suggestive
poem, ‘Christmas Eve and Easter Day,' tells us how a German
professor, in his class-room lectures, dealt with this ‘myth of
Christ: how he endeavoured to account for all the facts, or
alleged facts; how, after having satisfied himself that he had
reduced this Pearl of Price to ‘dust and ashes,’ and when the
hearers naturally looked for the ‘inference and monition,’—
‘That our faith, reduced to such condition,
Be swept forthwith to its natural dust-hole :’
The learned critic changed his tone completely, and thus
moralised :—
“He bids us, when we least expect it,
Take back our faith, if it be not just whole,
Yet a pearl indeed, as his tests affect it,
Which fact pays damage done rewardingly,
So prize we our dust and ashes accordingly
“Go home and venerate the myth
I thus have experimented with ;
This man, continue to adore him,
Rather than all who went before him,
And all who ever followed after ſ”’
This lame, halting, and impotent conclusion, seems pretty much
to represent the state of the case after the criticism of the past.
Our critics will neither worship Christ nor stone Him ; they
#ESUS CHRIST. 23 I
will neither allow the believer to keep to his view of the facts,
nor can they offer any solution of the problem that shall be
worthier of acceptance. The poet adds to the above lines the
following:
‘Surely, for this, I may praise you, my brother
Will you take the praise in tears or laughter?'
Truly, either in tears or laughter | The learned man bids his
students go home and ‘ venerate the myth,’ and this is the advice
of the ablest thinkers and best writers in the Sceptical school itself.
The author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ tries to comfort us with
the reflection that what we have lost (as the result of his work)
of ‘mere fancied benefit from the death of Christ, we shall
more than gain from the higher estimate he has enabled us to
form of the worth of Christ's moral teaching and character.’
Strauss himself, in his best moods, admits Jesus to be the
“Being without whose presence in the mind perfect piety is
impossible;’ and one of the English high-priests of the ‘Religion
of Humanity,” so much belauded by Mill and others in our
day, declares that the “more truly we serve Christ, the more
thoroughly we mould ourselves into His image, the more keen
will be our sympathy and admiration.’ What is all this but
simply Browning's poetic representation in more prosaic dress P
If we listen to the greatest lights in recent or contemporary
Scepticism, they simply tell us to venerate Christ more than all
the sons of men.
This too after they have done their best to explain away
the historical Christ. The older Scepticism used to spend its
strength in attacking the brief memoirs in which are gathered
together the chief facts about Christ's earthly history. It re.
jected these Gospels as spurious, and was not ashamed at times
to attribute their composition to designing priesthoods. Modern
critics feel that this explanation is no longer tenable, and hence
they have frankly abandoned this ground ; they admit the
* Dr. Congreve. The favourite book of Congreve's master, Comte, was
the ‘Imitation of Christ.’ See Farrar’s “Witness of History to Christ,’
p. 206.
232 SCEPTICISM.
essential trustworthiness of the narrative, while claiming the
right to reject those parts with which they do not agree. Still
there are said to be ‘interpolations’ and “numerous defects’ in
the Gospel history, but in the main it is accepted; even St. John's
Gospel, long a fierce battle-ground, is being received with more
favour, and soon we may expect even larger concessions to faith
in this direction from the freest of critics. How do we explain
all this? The explanation is simply that facts have prevailed,
and that the more deeply men have studied these memoirs, the
more they have been convinced that they are substantially true.
Men who make no pretence to great critical ability, see plainly
that the character of Jesus Christ is much more difficult to deal
with than the stories told by His disciples and friends. Grant,
if you will have it so, that there are interpolations—that miracles
may be invented to gratify eager curiosity and unhealthy ambi-
tion—how could men such as these writers were invent this
character? How could simple peasants, unlettered fishermen,
invent discourses like these? ‘Never man spake like this Man,’
is not only the testimony of the honest officers sent by the de-
signing rulers to apprehend Christ, but of the ablest thinkers
who have ever studied, even but imperfectly, His words. Both
Mr. J. S. Mill and Mr. M. Arnold, neither of them men pre-
judiced in favour of the traditional view, ridicule the idea of
invention here. Christ spoke “over the heads’ of his best
reporters; the ‘poor stuff’ they could have invented would ill
bear comparison with His words of ‘grace and truth.” Thus
the Sceptics of our time who are least willing to accept the
popular creed, are obliged to bear testimony to the facts on
which if is based.
They also bear testimony, full and unequivocal, to the essen-
tial greatness of Jesus Christ. It is, alas ! true that they deny
to Him the unique place which He occupies in the New Testa-
ment records, in the Creeds of the Church, and in the hearts
of all His true followers, but after their own fashion they do
confess His Name to be above every other name. We do not
now stop to consider whether theirs be a consistent position or
#ESUS CHRIST. 233
not, nor do we ask whether what they say is all they ought to
Say. Take the simple fact as it stands—and that it is fact, no
one can deny—that after half a century of the keenest and
most hostile criticism Jesus Christ stands out to-day before the
world, according even to Scepticism, as higher than all the Sons
of men, and as worthy of the admiration and reverence of all
who can appreciate true greatness.
We have already referred to the author of ‘Supernatural
Religion; the following words are to be found near the close
of his second volume, and may be assumed to give the deliber-
ate opinion of this chief Sceptic. “The teachings of Jesus,
however, carried morality to the sublimest point attained, or
even attainable, by humanity. The influence of His spiritual
religion has been rendered doubly great by the unparalleled
purity and elevation of His own character. Surpassing in His
Sublime simplicity and earnestness the moral grandeur of Sãkya
Muni, and putting to the blush the sometimes Sullied, though
generally admirable teachings of Socrates and Plato, and the
whole round of Greek philosophers, He presented the rare
spectacle of a life, so far as we can estimate it, uniformly
noble and consistent with His own lofty principle, so that the
“Imitation of Christ’ has become almost the final word in the
preaching of His religion, and must continue to be one of the
most powerful elements in its permanence.’ The reservations
here and there appearing in the above show that the author of
this estimate would gladly have found other elements in the
character and life so described, yet even he is compelled, by
the force of truth, to bear his testimony, and it is, that this
Man is no ordinary being, and that His life is not to be con-
sidered as on a level with other lives. Nay more, the critic
feels that nothing higher is either possible or conceivable, and
hence he speaks of the permanence of the ideal. Almost every
page of ‘Ecce Homo would furnish higher and, so to say,
more spontaneous admiration, and this from one whose position,
if we may judge from his most recent work, is far removed from
that of a humble believer in Jesus Christ.
234 SCEPTICISM.
The late Mr. J. S. Mill much scandalized the Freethinking
world by his utterances about Jesus Christ in his essay on
‘Theism.” Naturally, Mill's views have attracted a good deal
of public attention, and have provoked very different com-
ments. Believers in Christianity have appealed to them as
proof that every honest mind must, as it knows more of Christ,
come nearer and nearer to the Christian's estimate of His
character ; Sceptics, on the other hand, have seen nothing in
Mill's words but inconsistency, and the Žerturbing influence of
a great sorrow on the logician's mind. We are not careful
to uphold the consistency of Mr. Mill; doubtless there are
expressions in his ‘Liberty,’ and perhaps in his work on
‘Utilitarianism,’ not easily reconciled with the later view. But
then dates should be remembered, and the fact that in the
latest utterance we have the most matured estimate of the
thinker. According to Miss Taylor, who ought to know, the
essay on Theism has both ‘greater value and less than other of
the author's works. The last considerable work which he
completed, it shows the latest state of the author's mind, the
carefully balanced result of the deliberations of a lifetime.’
What then is this carefully balanced result? Already we
have referred to it, but here a fuller discussion is possible.
According to Mill, there is “about the life and sayings of
Jesus a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity
of insight which . . . must place the Prophet of Nazareth,
even in the estimation of those who have no belief in His
inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius
of whom our species can boast. . . . Nor, even now, would
it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of
the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to
endeavour so to live that Christ would approve our life.' Again,
‘Whatever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism,
Christ is still left—a unique figure, not more unlike all His
precursors than all His followers. . . . When to this we add
that, ſo the conception of the rational Sceptic, it remains a fos-
sibility that Christ actually was what he supposed Himself to
#ESUS CHRIST. 235
be,” etc.! We are well aware that Mill's views are open to
criticism, and that from different sides. It is far from rational
treatment of the records, to dismiss with a mere wave of the
hand the claims to Divinity there put forward on behalf of
Christ. What Christ ‘supposed Himself to be,” must be
discovered, not in the d priori conclusions of nineteenth-
century Sceptics, but in the records of His life and the reports
of His teaching, honestly interpreted. It is saying but little
to admit that the rational Sceptic may accept Christ's estimate
of Himself, and then to unsay this by rejecting the only infor-
mation we have, or can ever hope to have, on this subject.
According to Mill, not only is ‘Theism’ possible, but the life,
character, and teaching of Jesus Christ are essential portions
of the evidence for this view of things; but if this be granted,
much more will be established than either Mill or any other
rational Sceptic has admitted.
Putting aside all criticism of this sort, leaving out of
sight the unsatisfactory and even, as it appears to us,
illogical character of Mill's views about Christ, and looking
simply at the effect produced in this thinker by the records
of the “wonderful life,' we see much that is suggestive. Accord-
ing to one who claimed, above all things, to be rational and to
sift all testimony, this Name is above every name; this character
was never invented by any disciples, and even now it remains
true that to act so as to be approved by Jesus Christ is the surest
way to do right. Here then Dr. Congreve, the author of
‘Supernatural Religion,” Mr. Mill, and other Sceptics agree.
They seem to say to us: “If you would reach the highest
possible elevation in life, follow Christ; if you would have
keen insight into the meaning of things, if you would always
act so as to be in harmony with the moral law, then imitate
Christ.’ May we not recall in such a connection the Master's
own words, spoken when few recognised his claims and sub-
mitted to His authority ? “As long as I am in the world I
am the light of the world ;’ and again, “He that followeth
* See ‘Essay on Theism,” closing portions.
236 SCEPTICISM.
Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life.’
To these and other similar testimonies may be added the well-
known estimate of Lecky, the eloquent historian of European
morals, of Rationalism, and, we may add, the careful and pains-
taking expounder of eighteenth century life and thought.
Lecky must, we fear, be classed among the number of those
who do not fully accept the supernatural, yet no one can read
his account of the early life of the Church without feeling that
his heart at least is in sympathy with the spirit of Christianity.
Referring to the influence of the new faith upon the lives of men,
he says, “It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world
an ideal character, which, through all the changes of eighteen
centuries, filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love;
has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, tempera-
ments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern
of virtue but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has
exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that
the simple record of three short years of active life has done
more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisi-
tions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists. This
has indeed been the well-spring of whatever is best and purest in
the Christian life.” These are the words, not of some rhetorical
preacher, anxious to move his audience ; they are the words of
a sober historian accustomed to weigh evidence, and to estimate
the quality of the forces operating within human life. That
they are words of truth and soberness will, we believe, be con-
ceded by those who know the most of the world's history.
Other testimonies might easily be added, but for the purpose
we have in view enough has been said. Napoleon I. is
often quoted in this connection, and his words are both remark-
able and suggestive. He was himself too selfish a man to be
accepted as an authority about unselfishness incarnate ; at the
same time, he knew men, and he was well able to judge of all
matters relating to ordinary human character. His words are
these : ‘I know men, and Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial
}ESUS CHRIST. 237
minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founder
of empires, and the gods of other religions; that resemblance
does not exist. There is between Christ and all other religions
whatsoever the distance of infinity ; from the first day to the
last He is the same, majestic and simple, infinitely firm and
infinitely gentle.’
According then to the testimony of the ablest and wisest of
Sceptical thinkers, Jesus Christ cannot be compared with any
of the great teachers and leaders of men that have arisen in this
world. His is a personality unique and peerless, and his cha-
racter cannot be touched by the strongest critical solvents of
modern Scepticism. Not only is Christ above all men, but His
personality differs from that of all other men. A suggestive
chapter in what may be called the anatomy of modern critical
Scepticism has been written by Dr. Matheson; his subject is
the originality of the character of Jesus Christ. The questions
raised as to the truth or falsehood of the records of His life
do not enter into this problem ; grant only that such a cha-
racter appears in history at a certain period of time, how is it
to be accounted for P Call it real, the simple and truthful re-
presentation of what was actually seen on earth; callit ideal, a
picture of the fancy, a ‘Sweet Galilean vision,’ product of some
gifted artist; still the picture is before us, and some rational
account ought to be given of its origin. Dr. Matheson, look-
ing at the character from this standpoint, compares and con-
trasts it with what he considers the four great ideals of the
world; these exhaust apparently the power and ingenuity of
men, as man is known before the Christian era. The first is
the ideal of physical strength, a barbaric type, Asiatic in origin,
and at one time holding considerable Sway over the imagina-
tions of men. The Christ of history has nothing in common
with this, for He took pleasure in inviting to Himself the weak
and suffering and heavy laden. The second is the ideal of in-
tellectual power, the Platonic or Greek type of character ; no less
unfit is this to represent the character of Jesus. In Him there is
nothing that would, from this standpoint, be called great of soul;
238 SCEPTICISM.
all His teachings lead in an opposite direction, and the life of
Christ is the very death of Platonism. Pass we to the third
ideal, that created by the poetry of Greece, by the dreamy in-
dolence of its people, or the splendid genius of its artists, what
we call the asthetic type. Here the antagonism is most marked,
for the men who knew most of Christ, and who had received
the richest baptism of His Spirit, were the most determined
foes of this whole type of life. New ideals of beauty filled their
hearts, and new types of human excellence were created by their
activities. Zastly, if we come to the Roman ideal of manhood,
that regal majesty admired and developed by the masters of the
world, we find the same impassable gulf. Christ is indeed a
King, but not after the pattern of Caesar. He came to found
a kingdom, to rule over the hearts and lives of men, but even
the most ambitious of the Emperors would have failed to see
anything in the ambitions, aims, and ends of Jesus hostile to
Roman authority; the foundation of His rule is self-sacrifice,
and the symbol of His authority is a cross. In other words,
Christ's ideal and the ideal of the Roman are wide as the poles
asunder. How then are we to account for the appearance of
this new type of human life, this new ideal of manhood 3 It is
a mezzy creation, must have come from the fertile mind of some
consummate artist, or it must have come down from above into
human life. The limitations of human power are such that we
cannot, on Scientific principles, account for its creation by man.
It is not given to man either to create or to destroy ; he can
only transform, combine, and use materials already in existence.
His ideals of character are well known and perfectly well un-
derstood; we can explain how they came into being, and under
what circumstances they were changed or modified. This
ideal is not man's, nor is it a combination of his types of man-
hood; it stands forth before our eyes in its solitary greatness,
not created by, but given to man, the best “evidence of a new
life in humanity, the outpouring of a fresh vitality, and the
manifestation of a higher power.’
Dr. Bushnell, in his suggestive work on “Nature and the
ºf ESUS CHRIST. 239
Supernatural,” rests with confidence the whole superstructure
of Christianity on this sure foundation; ‘for if there be in Jesus
a character which is not human, then has something broken
into the world which is not of it, and the spell of unbelief is
broken.” We earnestly recommend to every truth-seeking mind
Bushnell's discussion of this subject. It is full of fresh and
suggestive thought, and is well fitted to undermine the doubts
and bias of Scepticism. The ‘character of Jesus forbids His
possible classification with men; His beginning is not like that
of others; His type of piety, like His character, is unique ;
everything, in short, in and about Jesus is original, yet all is
supremely natural, and, so to speak, human-like. Instinctively
we say with the poet, as we gaze on this perfect life, so unlike
ours, and yet so like what our conscience tells us we ought
to be—
‘Thou seemest human and Divine,
The highest, holiest manhood, Thou.’
Mr. Row, in his Bampton Lectures, regards this subject as
the very citadel of Christianity, and sees in the life and work
of Jesus Christ the all-sufficient answer to the Scepticism of our
age, and of every age. Here we find in history a new power, a
moral energy which the human forces that energize in human
life, which have been at work for thousands of years, which are
perfectly well known and understood, cannot account for.
Here we have the grandest moral miracle in history, and one
which Scepticism can never resolve into the natural. The
‘supernatural action' of Jesus in history is, according to Mr.
Row, a fact ‘ capable of verification’ by the tests of the most
exact science. He starts with the evidence of Lecky, already
given, regards this as the simple fact, verifiable by all who have
eyes to see and ears to hear. Jesus Christ is the one solitary
character in history capable of acting upon all kinds of men,
capable of regenerating life, Himself so far above men that He
cannot be classified with them ; His teaching cannot be com-
pared with that of other great masters, whether ancient or
modern; like His Personality, this too is unique ; the ‘unity of
24O SCEPTICISM.
His character is a proof of its historical reality,” a unity which
cannot be explained away, and which can only rest on a basis
of reality; in short, we have in the Person and work of Jesus
Christ the one and all-convincing evidence of the Divine origin
and authority of Christianity.
What is the answer of Scepticism to all this argument, and
to all this evidence? ‘The problem infidelity has to solve is
this:—how can the recorded facts, attesting His character and
work be explained, or explained away, and still leave room for
reverence P Not in the miracles alone, but in the whole life
of Jesus, Supernaturalism has its stronghold. Here, and here
alone, all is to be won, or all lost. If Christ's whole life can
be interpreted on the basis of naturalism, and He still remain
the moral hero of humanity ; if such faith in Him can be re-
tained while prophecy and miracle are annulled, then the battle
of infidelity is substantially gained.” Scepticism has given us
no such answer, has given nothing even approaching to a com-
plete answer, to the argument from the character and work of
Christ. True, there have been attempts, many and varied, to
resolve the whole into ‘myth,’ but the reality is far too sub-
stantial for such processes. Attacks are made on the records of
Christ's life, their inconsistent character, the miracles they nar-
rate, the absurd rumours their authors believe ; by the admission
of even Sceptics themselves these attacks have failed, and after
the boldest efforts of the critics, the character of Christ stands
out before the world in more majestic outline than before they
commenced. Criticism has but removed some of the dust from
this wonderful portrait. Strauss failed, and where giants are
too weak, ordinary mortals need not expect to prevail. Renan's
Christ is the most unreal, the most impossible of all beings.
That a Being who has received the homage of the grandest
minds all through the ages, who has done more to regenerate
mankind than all philosophers and all moralists, a Being without
whose image in the mind piety is impossible, and who is the
highest ideal we can imagine of goodness and truth, should
have lent Himself to such vulgar tricks and devices as Renan
3. ESUS CHRIST. 24I
suggests, is utterly incredible. Were this possible, then indeed
out of the same fountain might come sweet and bitter; men
themselves untrue and impure might be selected as the preachers,
teachers, inspirers, and patterns of purity and truth ! “The
Jesus depicted by Renan is a figment of naturalism ; a con-
ception that can neither be imaged forth nor realized ; it has the
outward form and framework of human life, but within there
is not even an immortal personal consciousness. We have in
the last analysis only the shadow of death.’
Nor can we admit the validity of the more indirect process
by which Scepticism evades the question of all questions—
‘what think ye of Christ P. We cannot permit the Sceptic to
reject all the miraculous elements in the narratives, to refuse
homage to the historical Christ, and then, out of the scattered
fragments remaining, to make another Jesus who is not the
Christ of history. The Sceptic himself must see the illogical
and unsatisfactory character of Mill's method. What is the use
of Saying that a Sceptic may accept Christ's estimate of Him-
self, and then refusing to go to the historical records for that
estimate P Scepticism must not be allowed to deal with history
after this manner; let it honestly accept, or let it honestly re.
ject, Jesus of Nazareth. Critics must not mutilate the form of
this glorious Person, and then admiringly cry, ‘Ecce Homo P
An honest examination of what are termed the ‘spurious
Gospels’ will be enough to show that the four Evangelists have
given us a real and not a fancy picture. The kind of ‘poor
stuff,’ to use Mill's expression, given in these false Gospels is
sufficient to manifest the thoughts of their compilers, and also
confirm the honesty, simplicity, and straightforwardness of our
Evangelists. -
Scepticism ought then seriously and boldly to face this
problem : How does it account for the appearing at such a
time, among such a people, and under such conditions, of
Jesus Christ? He is neither Jew nor Gentile, so to speak,
belongs neither to this nor that age, speaks in no particular
accent, wears no particular garb, belongs to no period of
I6
242 SCEPTICISM.
history;-He is the Son of Man, the Child of Humanity, as
well as its Teacher and Lord. Scepticism must explain the
evolution of such a Being, must trace back to its hidden roots
and favouring conditions all that blossomed forth in Judaea. As
has been pointed out by Dr. Newman Smyth, Unbelief has
never yet done this—has not even seriously attempted to do it.
‘Science can admit the appearance of nothing original in the
World; all things that appear to us seem to come to pass
in the regular operation of natural laws. Every thread of life
is inextricably looped with a thousand other threads; Nature
never breaks her web, and no science can find the beginning
nor the ending of so much as a single thread of her spinning.
The force of this scientific conviction we would neither void
nor abate. We accept the law of continuity as a law of things
which it is infidelity to truth to deny. . . . Two conclusions,
both positive and substantial, are brought over against each
other. On the one hand is the Person of Christ—the ultimate
moral fact of history—whose origin cannot be derived from the
past by any of the known laws of heredity"—a sublime historical
phenomenon, unexampled and unexplained—a mystery of being
and of influence, whose spell has been upon all the passing
generations—a name, above all others, which grows not less
but more admirable as the ages come and go. We refuse to
abandon the scientific principle of continuity in reading the
life of Christ; we also decline to give up the witness of history
and the testimony of the human soul to the supernatural Person
of Christ at the command of the principle of continuity.’ But
Scepticism holds to the one and despises the other ; it clings
to the law of continuity in the physical realm, while it refuses
to apply it to the spiritual, to the moral facts of history, and
the forces that ‘energize’ in Jesus of Nazareth. Hence its
Christ is neither human nor divine—neither a possible man nor
* Where is the person that thinks it possible for our historical con-
ditions to create a Christ? But if the creation of Christ transcends our
historical conditions, was it possible to His own 2 Or does He not stand
out so much their superior as to be, while a child of time, the Son of the
Eternal, the only Begotten, who has descended to earth from the bosom of
the Father, that He might declare Him P'—Fairbairn.
}ESUS CHRIST. 243
the historic Christ, who for our sakes became man and lived
among us a truly human life.
Leaving this aspect of Christ's relation to the Scepticism of
our time, we come to another which seems to us still more
attractive, and more fitted to help an honest seeker after the
truth ; we refer to what may be termed the moral authority of
Jesus Christ. This is a matter about which all Sceptics are
exceedingly sensitive ; they are most unwilling to accept any
authority, and for ever are asserting the privileges of ‘Free-
thought.’ And yet, when we look into this question more
narrowly, we find that no class of men are readier to bow
before mere authority. Perhaps not one in a hundred of our
Freethinkers know for themselves either the principles, methods,
or facts of Science; yet they constantly remind us that Science
says this or that. In like manner, they are fond of citing
Pagan authors as if they were authorities | Why should we be
so often told about the opinions of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca,
and others, if authority is not to be respected P. The truth is,
the Sceptic is as willing as the rest of mankind to offer homage
at the altar of authority, provided only and always that this
authority be non-Christian.
Now we make our appeal with confidence to this rational
instinct, and we should like to use this lever of respect for
authority to lift the Sceptic up to a higher life of trust in One
who is worthy of homage. This is not the highest ground, we
admit, but we may rise by ‘stepping-stones’ here as elsewhere.
Those who wish to study the question of authority in relation
to Jesus Christ, will find a full and very instructive chapter on
this subject in Dr. Conder's ‘Basis of Faith.” There the nature
of authority and its true place in religious life are carefully de-
fined ; there, too, the authority of Jesus Christ is vindicated
with skill and ability of high order. Jesus Christ is the only
Being who fully knows, and therefore the only One who can
truly testify to us about God and the highest truths of religion.
Let us, however, take lower ground, and start with what
Sceptics themselves admit. We have seen how the author of
I6–2
244 SCEPTICISM.
‘Supernatural Religion,’ while refusing to allow any place to
miracle, and while rejecting the supernatural, professes to
attach high importance to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.
We have also seen how Positivists urge us to imitate Christ, and
how men like Lecky and Stuart Mill speak of the character and
influence of Christ. Thus, it is affirmed by the ablest thinkers
amongSceptics themselves that Jesus is the highest moral teacher
the world has ever seen; then He must see more clearly, and Ánow
ſmore fully, and be better fifted to guide us than any other being
Ánown to man / Leaving out of sight for the moment His
exact place in the scale of being, we are allowed by Sceptics
themselves to say that Jesus is the wisest, the best, and the truest
guide we know in life. It may be objected that all Sceptics do
not accept this estimate; that men like F. W. Newman, for
example, deny the moral perfection of Christ, and find serious
fault with some parts of His teachings. We do not forget these
exceptions; but we at the same time remember that such views
are exceptional, and are not held by the men who have the best
claim to speak on behalf of the ‘Freethought of our age.
However much fault may be found, from a theological point of
view, with estimates such as those given by Mill, Lecky, and
the author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ we have to admit that
they generally do credit to the moral feeling and insight of the
critics.
Taking this view of the case, there are two simple conclusions
that seem to us both natural and necessary. In the first place,
a Being who has been the source of so much blessing to the race,
who has been the Inspirer, Teacher, and Pattern of all that has
been best, must be Himself pure and good. Forces are measured
by their products, both as to quantity and quality. Beings who
leave such results behind them must themselves possess a
certain character. This is one of the simplest yet most
universal of all laws, accepted by philosopher and peasant
alike and equally. Christ taught the people to judge the tree
by its fruits, and Christ Himself must be judged by this test.
Simple as are these remarks, they open up a whole region
#ESUS CHRIST. 245
yet unexplored by modern Scepticism. There was a time when
Sceptics could make short work of all this by calling Chris-
tianity a priestly invention, the work of designing and conscious
impostors. This view is no longer possible in the face of
modern criticism of the New Testament, and it has been aban-
doned by all the leading opponents of Supernatural religion.
‘The Apostles,' we are now told, ‘were not bad men—were
indeed good men—only they were mistaken men. Their
motives were pure, their lives self-sacrificing and noble, only
they were led, under the influence of blind enthusiasm for an
idea, to accept as real the Resurrection of Christ; this we know
to have been a purely imaginary event.’ Thus, modern Scep-
ticism preserves the honesty of Apostles and apostolic men, but
only at the cost of their sanity. Paul and his comrades answered
by anticipation all arguments of this sort. They said in plain
words and with intelligent appreciation of the issues involved,
“Either Christ was raised from the dead, or we are liars; not
therefore mistaken men, but designing men, if you please; not
fools incapable of forming sound conclusions, but perjurers,
unless Christianity be as represented by them. The Sceptic
must really face this question more fairly. Paul needs no com-
passion from the apostles of modern unbelief. He is their
match in mental ability, and needs from them no certificate of
intellectual competency. This is how the matter presented
itself to his mind, and this is how he stated the case long before
the ‘mythical’ theory was invented.
The same argument must be applied to his Master and ours,
and we earnestly urge the Sceptic to give it full and serious
consideration. Is it conceivable that a being so pure and noble
as Christ is confessed to have been, could have been either a
deceiver of others, or Himself self-deceived? Can we suppose
that those streams of pure moral life, that have so refreshed
and fertilized the ages, and along whose banks have grown up
the flowers and fruits of the holiest life and the purest love,
came from a fountain itself impure ? The supposition is
Supremely absurd. The fountain whose waters fertilize whole
246 SCEPTICISM.
tracts of country must itself be fresh and life-giving. The Being
whose life is the noblest incentive to goodness must Himself
be good. The Teacher who more than all others is able to
enlighten even the wisest must Himself be enlightened and
wise. The record of Christ's life tells us how he went about
doing good and only good. His own testimony is that He
came to bear witness to the truth, and that all who were of the
truth would hear His voice. These testimonies have been con-
firmed and illustrated by whole centuries of experience under
all possible human conditions, and we hold it simply incredible
that Jesus could have been and done all this had He not Him-
self been holy, and true, and good. We measure forces by the
‘work done,’ and we estimate their character by the character
of the work done; let the honest Sceptic honestly apply
this scientific method to the Christ of history, and he must
ultimately be led to embrace the faith of the Christian. The
earnest, honest seeker never in the end misses this straight and
narrow path. As the Master Himself whispered in the ear of
the Jewish rabbi who came to Him by night, ‘He that doeth
truth cometh to the light.”
Secondly, if Jesus Christ be all that even Sceptics themselves
have confessed Him to be, He must be regarded as an authority,
the very highest authority, for men like ourselves. No honest
man, if he be at the same time a humble man, can well
escape from this conclusion; be he ever so Sceptical, he must
feel that Christ is a better man than himself, to say the least.
‘Here I find myself,’ he must often reason, “a being full of
infirmities, having within me and around me limitations of all
kinds; yea, a sinful being, conscious when in my best moods of
anarchy within my own nature. I live in a world of sin, among
people who do the things, habitually, they ought not to do, who
know and confess this, but who still continue to do evil; I
myself often feel in like manner guilty. I am also an ignorant
being, knowing almost nothing about the past, absolutely
nothing about the future; all my teachers seem likewise
ignorant. They can give me no satisfactory account of either
3. ESUS CHRIST. 247
my origin, my nature, or my destiny; they confess that they are
like “infants crying in the night,” like “infants crying for the
light.” And yet I do know that goodness and truth are
realities, and in spite of all appearances to the contrary, I feel
certain that under any circumstances, and in any world, it must
be right to do right, and that it must also be well with the good.
In my best moods, I long for clearer light, and sigh for
moral strength to do what my conscience affirms to be my
duty, but what, alas ! is not always in harmony with my inclina-
tion. I have also within me an instinct of reverence for what
is above me, and know that I ought to accept and follow the
guidance of those who know more, and who are morally better
than myself. Past experience indeed teaches me that I can
rise morally only as I feel my own defects, and seek to imitate
the excellences of others. Neglect to do this has often thrown
me back in my upward journey, and any tendency to rebel
against this true moral instinct I find to be fatal to both mental
peace and moral progress. Here, in the light of history, mani-
festly frue and frustworthy, there stands out before me, like the
Contour of some mountain peak on a clear day, the image of a
majestic Being, whose presence has filled the ages with wonder
and admiration, and who has been the source and the inspira-
tion of all that was best in the noblest of men. Surely it must
be at once my duty and my privilege to listen to the voice of
this greatest of all Teachers, and to submit my life to the
guidance of this holiest of Beings.’ Some such position as this
must be felt by an honest Sceptic to be both rational and
dutiful. If, as Mill asserts, the actual life of Jesus be the
highest ideal we can form of what man ought to be and do, it
must be right for man to follow Christ; and if he knows more
about goodness and truth, about conduct and character, than
the wisest of men, it must be our duty to call Him Master.
Here, then, on this lowest step of the ladder, which after all
reaches to God, the honest seeker may plant his foot, ought to
plant his foot, if he really aims at the highest life. How much
were possible for man if only he could be persuaded to take
248 SCEPTICISM.
this lowest place, and to hear even the faintest whisper of that
Voice which says, “Come unto Me I'
This is our hope for the Scepticism of our age, and the hope
is not altogether vain; it has applied its most powerful critical
Solvents to the character of Jesus Christ, but in vain, for after
experimenting much with what it calls this ‘myth,’ it can but
end in bidding the world offer its homage. Nor need we
despise this offering in the outer court of the temple of truth;
and there is hope for the heart that beats faster as it thinks of
the Prophet of Nazareth.
Napoleon I. said that if ‘ once the Divine character of Christ
is admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision and clear-
ness of algebra, so that we are struck with admiration at its
scientific connection and unity.’ There is certainly very little
of either precision or clearness about the position of modern
Scepticism. It will neither “worship Christ’ nor ‘stone’ Him;
will neither admit the Christian claim nor deny to Him the
highest among its places of honour. Ultimately, we feel certain,
the unscientific character of its estimate must become apparent,
and hence our desire that men should rise, even by means of
this lower estimate, to one more truly rational, as well as more
in harmony with the records.
A great German historian once wrote to a friend that he had
been reading the ancient historians in their chronological order,
and that somehow he took it into his head to study the New
Testament: “How shall I describe to you,” he says, “what I found
therein P I had not read it for many years, and was prejudiced
against it before I took it in hand. The light which struck
Paul with blindness on his way to Damascus was not more
strange—more surprising to him, than it was to me when I Sud-
denly discovered the fulfilment of all hopes, the highest per-
fection of Philosophy, the explanation of all revelations, the
key to all the seeming contradictions of the physical and moral
world. . . . I saw the religion appear at the moment most
favourable for its appearance, and in the manner most adapted
to its acceptance. . . . The zwhole zworld seemed to be ordered for
#ESUS CHRIST. 249
the sole purpose of furthering the religion of the Redeemer; and if
this religion is not Divine I understand nothing at all. I have
read no book on the subject, but in all my studies of the ancient
times, I have always felt the want of something, and it was not
till I knew our Lord that all was clear to me; with Him there
is nothing which I am not able to solve.’ *
Whether the Sceptic agrees with Napoleon that the character
of Christ makes the whole system of Christianity as simple as
an algebraic equation or not, we believe he will agree with
Müller that it sheds new light upon the whole of the world's his-
tory, and makes the Bible a new book. If those who are per-
plexed with doubts, and who feel the chilling influence of
modern unbelief, could be persuaded to begin their study of
the supernatural at this point, they might find it possible to
make true progress. -
Professor Wace says the ‘final answer to all objections
against belief in God is that the Lord Jesus Christ lived and
died in it; this idea is capable of a much wider extension, and
it may be made to cover the whole ground of the Supernatural,
We make our appeal with the utmost confidence to this Supreme
Authority, and allow it to settle for us both perplexing and
doubtful questions. Does the Sceptic find difficulties in con-
nection with the Old Testament P Let him accept here the
guidance of Jesus Christ, who knew it well, and who often made
His appeal to its pages. Is he bewildered by modern contro-
versies about man's Origin, nature, and destiny P Let him
accept Christ's authority, for He best knows all that can be
known about man—whence he came, and whither he goes.
The wisest of modern teachers frankly tell us that about such
mysteries they know nothing ; they know, and can determine
with more or less of accuracy, the velocity of light, the con-
stituent elements of the Solar atmosphere, the form and density
of distant stars, but about man’s ‘whence” and ‘whither’ they
have no knowledge. This wisest of all teachers says He knows,
and being what He is, we are entitled to place implicit confi-
dence in His testimony. He says He is the ‘Way, the Truth,
250 SCEPTICISM.
and the Life,’ and that if we submit to His authority, and follow
where He leads, we shall no longer ‘walk in darkness, but have
the light of life.’ So to trust and so to follow must be right;
it is the part of wisdom for us to accept Newton's authority in
connection with astronomy and physics, for Newton knew best.
We accept as authorities in matters with which they are pro-
fessedly familiar, men like Huxley, Tyndall, Darwin, and
Spencer; and perhaps those who know nothing at all of
even the rudiments of the sciences with which they deal, are
loudest in their professions of devotion. This is both natural
and right. Even a little child may be, for the stranger travel-
ling in some unknown region, a sufficient authority, and he
would be more than childish not to accept help from such an
one, however young. In the region of the spiritual, by uni-
versal consent, Jesus Christ is the Authority, for He knows
best. Assuming no principles higher than those by which the
ordinary man guides himself in the conduct of life, making, at
this stage, no claims greater than the world's wise men are
accustomed to make, we affirm that the honest Sceptic is
bound to accept and to follow the guidance of Jesus Christ.
If it be right to reverence what is above me, to trust to those
who know better, and to follow every light that is brighter and
steadier than my own, then it must be right for me to “take up
Christ's yoke and learn of Him.”
Call this a lower place, if you will ; if the Sceptic will but
accept it, he will soon learn to trust where he is now doubtful,
and to affirm where he now denies, for Jesus Christ is, the truth
and soul of Christianity.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE AWAZZ UAE AE OF SCAEAT/C/S/M.
‘We believe that human beings can only live and prosper together on
the condition of the recognition of duty, and duty has no meaning and no
sanction except as implying responsibility to a Power above and beyond
humanity. —J. A. FROUDE.
‘The moral law, as it has received its latest and highest exposition in
Christian doctrine.”—DR, MAUDSLEY.
“If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
Be not deceived : evil company doth corrupt good manners.”—ST. PAUL.
SCEPTICs often assert that Christianity has failed—that the best
minds have ceased to be influenced by its teachings, and they
are also bold in their predictions of its speedy disappearance.
If by failure it is meant that all men have not yet embraced
the Gospel of Christ, or that even among the so-called Christian
nations, the majority of the people have not yet submitted their
lives to the control of Christian principles, then it must be
confessed that there is too much truth in this view. If on
the other hand, it is meant that Christianity is not adapted
to man's nature and wants, that the Gospel has no power to
regenerate the heart and to renew the life of man, then we
must declare that such charges cannot be supported by evi-
dence. Christianity has vindicated its right over man by its
power to make him all he ought to be ; Christian ideas are
now the most powerful forces in all civilized nations; and,
as even Sceptics must confess, the future belongs to this
system of thought and life as it belongs to no other. It
may, however, be truly said that Scepticism has failed. It
252 SCEPTICISM.
has power to create suspicion and distrust, to undermine
faith, and to shake the stability of the moral life of many :
it has power to destroy, but not to build up. When Professor
Huxley was a member of the London School Board, he much
astonished his Free-thinking admirers by the earnestness with
which he advocated the reading of the Bible in schools.
Freethinkers regard this book as the very symbol of all that
is retrograde, and hence they could not understand why an
apostle of the New Order of Things should be so infatuated
as to introduce into the education of youth what had wrought
Such havoc in former days. The learned professor frankly
Confessed that the Bible view of the universe was not his, but
he at the same time maintained that the book supplied just
the kind of ideas that were most needed to elevate the youth
of London, and to counteract the degrading influences at work
in their homes and life. Perhaps he agreed somewhat with the
view of things expressed by Mrs. Browning in her noble “Song
for Ragged Schools’:—
“All these mouths we cannot feed,
And we cannot clothe these bodies;
Well, if man's so hard indeed,
Let them learn, at least, what God is
“If no better can be done,
Let us do but this, endeavour
That the Sun behind the sun
Shine upon them while they shiver !
‘On the dismal London flags,
Through the cruel social juggle,
Put a thought beneath their rags,
To ennoble the heart’s struggle ſ”
Here then we have from one of the ablest of modern Sceptics
a practical confession of the failure of Scepticism; it may do
for the scribes and Pharisees of modern culture, but if the
street arabs are to be reclaimed, educated, and fitted for the
work of life, other and very different kinds of agencies must be
employed.
That the Sceptical theory of life fails when considered from
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 253
the intellectual standpoint we have already endeavoured to
make manifest. It can give no satisfactory explanation of
man's life, and it can offer us no consistent or thinkable philo-
sophy of the universe. Ultimately, all Sceptical theories must
tº rest on a Materialistic basis, and Materialism is not as a philo-
sophy either sufficient or self-consistent. It cannot account
for even the intellectual operations of man's nature, not to
speak of the moral and spiritual. Its apparent simplicity is
only apparent, and not real; even the most distinguished of
its advocates are compelled to admit that they can find no
passage between the physical and spiritual parts of man's
nature. They may indeed express in terms that are material
processes that are purely mental, but this only conceals differ-
ence, and in no case proves identity. We may, if so minded,
Sneer at the idea of the soul as a substantive entity, and we
may speak of its operations as simply certain functions of
organization. These, and all such-like devices, are only
clumsy attempts to conceal ignorance, and not in any degree
triumphs of Materialism.
How unsatisfactory from an inte/Zectual point of view the
Sceptical view of the Bible and Christianity is, we have already
seen. It is easy to say that a miracle is impossible, and that
therefore all records of the miraculous must be rejected at the
very outset; this is a mere assumption, and displays more
audacity than either wisdom or scientific accuracy of thought.
Here we have a Book that occupies a unique position in the
literature of the world ; here we have the history of a people
unlike all other histories, culminating too in the appearance
of a wonderful Life, a Life which has through all the ages been
the light of the world, whose beams even Sceptics have accepted
and welcomed. Scepticism can give no rational account either
of the Book or the people; least of all can it explain to us the
meaning of the Prophet of Nazareth. If theories founded on
partial inductions of the facts be trustworthy, if that be science
which is based on imagination and guess-work, rather than on
the facts of the case patiently collected and wisely interpreted,
254 SCEPTICISM.
then may the Sceptical theory of life be considered intellectually
valid.
In our own time there are events occurring of which Scep-
ticism can give no rational account. In the early part of last
century the Deists ridiculed Christianity, and considered it an
effete superstition and an utterly spent force; they were hardly
prepared for the great revival under the Wesleys and Whitfield,
and neither they nor their successors have given any explanation
of the forces that did such splendid spiritual work towards the
close of the century. If we measure forces both as to quantity
and quality by their products, and this is the method of Science,
it is but fair to ask for a Sceptical explanation of the forces at
work in Methodism, and in the great outburst of missionary
and philanthropic zeal witnessed about the close of last, and
the early days of the present, century. The words fanaticism,
frenzy, enthusiasm, and the like, are freely used in such con-
nections ; truly these are never altogether absent from any great
moral movement among men, but the foam on the crest of a
wave does not explain the force below the surface of the water.
Again, the Sceptical view of life ignores some of the
spiritual forces at work among ourselves. Take the case of
Mr. Müller, of Bristol, and this is only one out of many
similar ones in different parts of the world; here we have a
devoted servant of God, living a most simply and truly apos-
tolic life, trusting to God for his daily bread, refusing on the
one hand, to make any bargain with his fellow-men, on the
other, refusing to appeal for aid in support of the charitable
institution he has founded and carried on for nearly half a cen-
tury. At the present moment he takes charge of over two
thousand orphans, requires a large sum each day to meet the
necessary expenditure, refuses to either beg money or contract
debt, yet the money is forthcoming, and has been forthcoming
all these years. How will a Sceptic account for such a phe-
nomenon P Müller believes that the money both for himself and
his orphans comes in answer to prayer. What is the Sceptical
explanation ? Some have attempted to explain this on principles
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 255
accepted by Spiritualists; others, among the rest Mr. Row, in his
Bampton Lecture, by ‘Ordinary human causes’ without having
recourse to any special Divine intervention. Sceptics generally
ignore the whole matter, or pass it by with a sneer. For our part
we do not feel satisfied with Mr. Row's theory, which indeed is the
one a Sceptic would naturally adopt. Taking the whole case,
not only the orphanage, but the whole history of Müller's work,
adding to it the life and work of Mr. Henry Craik, who was
for long Mr. Müller's co-pastor and fellow-worker, we think there
is more than can be covered by Mr. Row's remarks. Darwin and
other Evolutionists say, ‘Give us certain germs of life, certain
powers, potencies, and conditions, give us also unlimited time,
and we will explain, without Divine intervention, the whole of
creation.’ Truly, but then these germs of life, these potencies,
laws, and favouring conditions, have to be explained as well as
their products / So in Müller's case, the difficulty seems to be
with the start. Before ‘reports’ were sent out, there must be
facts to report, and before money was received, there must be
influences at work moving the hearts, wills, and pockets of men.
There is no need to call these things miraculous. Given only
the absolute certainty of New Testament teaching, and all fall
within the spiritual order of the universe, as Christ has revealed
this unto His disciples. Mr. Müller has received and used in
his works of love three quarters of a million of money, and for
his own personal wants, on the average, over £800 a year, more
than two-thirds of which sum has found its way into the trea-
sury out of which payments are made for orphans. Looking
at all the circumstances, taking into account the results in other
and similar institutions, the teachings of such men as Müller,
Stockmayer, Blumhardt, and others, it does seem to us that
Scepticism will here find its most perplexing problem, and faith
one of its simplest yet mightiest vindications. Why should
Müller's own account be considered incredible P. If Christ's
word holds good that ‘ these signs ' shall follow faith, that His
‘works,’ and even ‘greater works,” shall be done by His dis-
ciples in His name, may we not regard these and other similar
256 SCEPTICISM.
‘works' as testimonies to the Gospel, needed in this age of
doubt and unbelief, and therefore afforded by Him who sees
all and knows what is best ? We have referred to Müller's
case because it stands out before the world, and, as it were,
challenges the attention of Scepticism. It is by no means
the only instance of the same kind of faith, Let anyone
enter into conversation, say, with Miss Macpherson, of
the London and Canadian Homes, or with other devoted
and unostentatious Christian workers in various parts of the
kingdom, and he will hear things equally as wonderful as those
told by Mr. Müller, of Bristol; things too that cannot be ex-
plained either by Scepticism or by the semi-Sceptical theory of
things, too frequently held and taught by believers in the Divine
origin and authority of Christianity.
This failure of Scepticism becomes even more manifest when
we consider its moral and spiritual impotence. The Sceptical
theory of life never satisfies any really great thinker, never gives
/true rest to the mind of any who desire the highest possible
Y life for the individual and the race. The contrast between the
sadness of much that is best in modern literature of the Sceptical
order, and the joyousness of the Bible we have already dwelt
upon. We may go further and point to the manifest dissatis-
faction of many leading Sceptics with their own theory of life.
Clearly, ‘rational’ Scepticism gave no true happiness to Mr. J.
S. Mill. Miss Harriet Martineau appeared quite satisfied with
herself and with her philosophy of the universe, at the
same time, noble as she was in some respects, we can hardly
regard her nature as one of the most sensitive to spiritual
influences. One who could be so merciless in her judgments
of character, must have had but little sense of her own un-
worthiness.
Pressensé speaks of the “aching desire and infinite sadness
of the human soul at a distance from God.” Scepticism does
much to create, but nothing at all to meet and satisfy, this
desire. When souls cry out for the ‘living God,' it can offer
hem only dead matter and forces that have nothing in them
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 257
akin to emotion or pity; it may speak of orderly sequences
and dull uniformities, but it has no eye for the disorder and de-
formity of the spiritual nature, from which man desires to be
delivered. Modern literature gives us many illustrations of
this aching desire, and of the powerlessness of unbelief to
minister to minds so diseased. No one can read without feel-
ings of sorrow the autobiography of Mr. J. S. Mill. He keenly
felt the unsatisfactory nature of his early creed, tried hard to
meet the wants of his spiritual nature by poetry, music, fellow-
ship with other souls, and by larger ideals of moral life, yet he
confesses that to the last the “void remained unfilled. Little
wonder that to him, under these conditions, life was at best a
“poor thing ; even human affection, carried to the verge of
idolatry, was powerless to satisfy the demands of the heart, and
it is evident that towards the close of his life he came nearer
in sympathy, if not in belief, to the hopes of the Gospel of
Christ.
The same thing is seen in Lange's ‘History of Materialism.’
The historian shrinks from the thought of a society constructed
on Materialistic principles, and longs to retain and use some of
the simplest of the evangelical hymns. He refuses to be con-
tent with the God of some “advanced 'theologians—a being
who “works no miracles, has no human sympathies, does not
trouble Himself in detail with the weal or woe of His creatures.’
In his view, the ‘tragedy of the suffering Son of God . . . has
been a more essential constituent of the truly religious life than
all other traditions and dogmas;’ and he thinks that if such
matters be no longer needed in connection with religion, then
religion itself may be done without. And Lange is right. We
have here perhaps echoes of voices heard in his earlier life,
when under the roof of a truly Christian father he learned the
meaning of Christianity; perhaps also the unsophisticated
testimony of a human heart to the barrenness of all substitutes
for the One and only Gospel which reveals the heart of God, and
meets the deepest wants of mankind.
Even Strauss, arch-priest of Scepticism and in his later days
I 7
258 & SCEPTICISM.
ardent apostle of the extremest type of the Darwinian creed
though he was, makes much the same confession. He attended
the worship of the ‘Free Communities’ in Germany, congrega-
tions organized on a thoroughly Sceptical basis, and found their
services “terribly dry and unedifying. I quite thirsted for an
allusion to the Biblical legend in the Christian calendar, in
Order to get at least something for the heart and imagination,
but the cordial was not forthcoming. No ; this is not the way
either. After the edifice of the Church has been demolished,
to go and give a homily on the bare, pitifully levelled site, is
dismal to a degree that makes one shudder ' If Mill, and
Strauss, and Lange, feel like this, if they confess the impotency
of the new philosophy of life, is there not a strong presumption
in favour of our contention that Scepticism is a failure ? Nor
do these gifted men stand alone in this matter. We have
hardly to read between the lines in some passages of the
writings of the late Professor Clifford to see that he rejected
Christianity with no “light heart.” Our Sceptical poetry is
more like a wail of anguish than a note of triumph, and the
outlook of Scepticism is anything but cheering. Men may sneer
at the longing of the human heart for immortality—may point to
the myriads of the children of the East whose heaven appears
to be much the same as our idea of annihilation. We know all
this, but the popular view about the heaven of Buddha is hotly
disputed, and may be far from the correct one. Apart altogether
from this, even if we take the Western world and our own best
ideas of life—who will say that to die like the beast of the
field is the life sought by the human spirit P Give it the glory
of living and of life, not extinction The heart of man cries
out for another terminus to existence, and the instincts of the
purest and noblest do count for something in life, especially
zyhem these are confirmed by the teachings of the One who knew
best. It may be that some who have loved and lost, who have
suffered much and missed their way, men and women to whom
life has been cruel and hard, welcome the idea of eternal sleep;
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 259
a truer, yea, a more universal and more childlike thought will
be,
‘Thou wilt not leave us in the dust :
Thou madest man, he knows not why :
Pſe thinzks he was not made to die,
And Thou hast made him : 7% out art just.’
But beyond all this, to the Sceptical theory of life there is
ever the practical objection—‘ it will not work.’ It has no
power to reform the intemperate, to raise the degraded from
the mire of their sinful life, to purify the unchaste, and to
supply to men the motive-power to a truly noble life. This
moral and spiritual impotence of what men proudly call Free-
thought is the practical difficulty in the way. In a very sugges-
tive chapter in one of the most instructive books recently
published,' Miss Ellice Hopkins discusses the question of the
‘intellectual gospels' offered as substitutes for the Gospel of
Christ. The case she brings forward is a crucial one. Given
four or five hundred men belonging to the lower division of the
working class, ignorant, debased, and dissolute, living in open
and avowed violation of all Divine and many human laws, how
are they to be saved P. We need not give any specially narrow
or distinctively evangelical sense to the word salvation. How
are they to be ‘saved somehow—saved in that grossly intelligible
sense of the word salvation which even Mr. Voysey would
accept—saved from sin and degradation ? No Freethinker can
object to the fairness of Miss Hopkins' statement of the pro-
blem ; let him deeply ponder her straightforward answer—an
answer not based on any theorizings of the study, but upon direct
contact with the problem itself. Put anyone, as Miss Hopkins
found herself, in the midst of such a mass of moral material—
how to lift it up into anything like purity? Is she to tell them,
with Matthew Arnold, of a “stream of tendency, not ourselves,
which makes for righteousness”? They were, alas ! too familiar
with streams of tendency, but ‘they make for the public-house
and wife-beating’ſ “Would it be any good to preach to them
the “method of Jesus,” the duty of Self-abnegation—to these
* “Work among Working Men,” Strahan and Co.
I 7–2
26o SCEPTICISM.
men, who were driven by every wild passion of their natures to
Self-indulgence—passions that would make short work of any
abstract notions, and could only be cast out by some other
passion of love and adoration, such as only a living person can
inspire?' Was she to speak to these men, in Spencerian lan-
guage, about the ‘Great Inscrutable Power, to which neither
personality nor emotion can be assigned, and expect that the
knowledge of It would regulate their moral emotions with
which It was out of all relation’? Or the God of Deism, that
easy, good-natured kind of being worshipped by many who
shrink from the more consistent and thorough-going schemes
of unbelief? Such a being was too far ‘removed from them
in the altitude of his perfections and blessedness, when the
misery and disorder of their lives was a proof either that he did
not know, or, if he did, didn’t much care.’ ‘Alas!’ says this
noble worker, “I felt forlornly enough that my intellectual
gospels had but one fault when brought into contact with the
mass of humanity—they would not work. The intellectual few
might be saved ; but as for this people that knoweth not, on
this showing we must say, with the Pharisee of old, “They are
Cursed.””
This witness is true, and the truth she teaches is not mere
metaphysical truth, but truth gained through real experience of
the powerlessness of the intellectual gospels to save the people
from their sins. Scepticism has no gospel able to save the
degraded ; no power able to lift the masses into purity and
righteousness. Miss Hopkins raises the question as to whether
these ‘intellectual gospels’ have power to save any ; this
problem we have already touched in former chapters. It de-
mands, and will well repay, a fuller discussion. Is Scepticism.
able to save even the ‘intellectual few 'P We believe there is
but one possible answer to this question when we give to the
word salvation its true and proper meaning. If the Sceptical
philosophy cannot remove the aching desire and infinite sad-
ness from the hearts of its noblest apostles, if under its in-
fluence they feel life to be but a poor thing at best, and at
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 261
times welcome the idea of annihilation, can it be said to have
saved them P. We may be reminded that Scepticism enables
the chosen few to live truly honourable and worthy lives, that
it makes them consecrate their energies to the good of the
race, raises them above the passions and prejudices of Ordinary
men, and furnishes them with motive-power sufficient for all
the ends of life. We acknowledge the existence in unbelievers
of much that is morally pure and worthy, but we maintain that
Scepticism did not create these virtues. Lange fully, much too
fully for the interests of Scepticism, acknowledges this truth in
his ‘History of Materialism.’ He tells us that the ‘moral
effects’ of Christianideas are as often undervalued asexaggerated;
and while severely, but not too severely, censuring those ‘ser-
vants of the Church who sit at the tables of the rich and preach
subjection to the poor,’ he yet declares that it is Christianity
that has done most for the poor. Even the Communistic
theories both of the French Comte and the English Owen
have, according to Lange, a Christian origin.” Not only moral
but even inſe//ec/ua/ progress he in a great part attributes to
the ‘quiet but continual operation of Christian ideas.’ This
being so, we may well pause before admitting that intellectual
gospels have power to save even the Scribes and Pharisees of
modern culture. So many spiritual forces play upon, and work
within, the lives of the very rejecters of Christianity, that it is
difficult to say how far they are unconsciously influenced in
their ideals and aims by Christian thought. The New Testa-
ment includes in its ideal of salvation deliverance from the
‘desires of the mind,’ as well as from the grosser ‘lusts of the
flesh ’ which heathen moralists were able to condemn though
not to remove. An ancient Pharisee could stand and thank
God that he was not as other men, especially unlike his pub-
lican fellow-worshipper : so modern Pharisees, of the Sceptical
school, often boast of their superiority to vice and gross sins,
yet they may be and often are unmerciful in judgment, and
unloving in disposition. Had Miss Martineau been trained
* See for proof of this position Flint’s ‘Philosophy of History,’ vol. i.
262 SCEPTICISM.
in the ‘school of Christ,” she would have spoken more lovingly
of many of her contemporaries; had Mr. Mill learned at the
Cross the secret of life, he would have had far more real sym-
pathy with those who did not belong to his set, and who could
not accept the dogmas of his philosophical school. In reply
to this, of course, we shall be reminded of the unloving spirit,
and lack of generous sympathy in many who accept the
Christian Creed, and belong to, perhaps have foremost places
in, the Church. We can only reply that such a character is not the
Outcome of Christianity, and that the New Testament says,
“If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His.’
Moreover, as a thoughtful writer remarks, “God’s elect, did
we know them, would be found even now worthy of their name,
and very different from those who only perplex by their in-
consistencies or plague by their folly. Loving, truthful, and
unselfish, broad in their sympathies, candid in their judgments,
honourable in their lives, and humble in the estimate they
form of themselves; these, the true sons and daughters of the
Highest, will one day issue from the obscurity in which it
pleases God as yet to hide them, and “they sha/Z zwalk in
white, for they are worthy.” From deepest poverty and from
peasants' huts—with here and there, it may be, one from the
palaces of princes; from lonely prisons, and from martyrdoms
Severer than those of the axe or the stake; cultured or rude of
speech; great Souls of whom the world knows nothing, will
then come forth—“a multitude which no man can number;”
and stand confessed God's own nobility, the aristocracy of the
skies.” If Sceptics insist on comparing their elect with
Christ's, then let such as these be our representatives. And if
Such a comparison be made, we need not fear; Christ's sign-
manual no other can use, and the mark or stamp which He
leaves in the nature that yields to His sway, no other moulder
can counterfeit.
Another question here emerges into view. In dealing with
the relations of the late lamented Prince Consort to some of
*
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 263
the deepest truths of the Evangelical Creed, Mr. Gladstone
suggests that some natures are exceptional, and that they must
not be held to represent with anything like fairness the large
mass of men. “In some cases the disposition to undervalue,
or retrench, or even abandon the old Christian belief, may be
due to a composition happier than the average in the amount
or energy of its tendencies to evil, and a consequent insensi-
bility to the real need both of restraining and of renovating
powers for the true work of life.” We must admit to some
extent the influence of this ‘happier composition, yet if the
essential truth of Christianity be also the practical experience
of all spiritual natures—that before man can live a truly
spiritual life, before he can love God with his whole heart
and his neighbour as himself, he must be twice born, then
we must limit considerably the range of such ideas. And
when we come to study mankind in the light of the new
ideal supplied by the actual life of Jesus Christ, we feel
certain that Scepticism is powerless to supply even the in
tellectual few with the motive-power necessary. Besides, the
fountains of spiritual influence are everywhere in the world of
to-day, and many a Sceptic, even when he protests the mos
against Christianity, is receiving from Jesus Christ all he has
of moral inspiration. Mill is not the only ‘rational’ Sceptic,
who guides life to some extent by the new light, while professing
to find no safe foundation for historical Christianity. Mr.
Gladstone may again help us. “In the matter of belief,' he
says, “select individuals may insist on a poor, thin, sodden,
and attenuated diet, which would simply starve the multitude.”
So it is, we believe; many of the ‘select few,' held up as illus-
trations of what Scepticism can do to develop character and
ennoble life are what they are in virtue of the ‘poor, thin,
Sodden, and attenuated diet,’ which they are still, it may be
unconsciously, receiving at tables where Christianity is Supposed
to be forbidden. As Dr. Fairbairn, in his “Chapters on David
Friedrich Strauss, remarks:—‘The question, “Are we still
264 SCEPTICISM.
Christians ?” had been often before him, and his answer to it had
been growingly negative. It might almost be thought that there
is about as much sense in the question, “Are we still Christians?”
as in the question, “Are we still Europeans?” Our civilization,
with all it comprehends, has grown up in the soil of Christianity,
and the best, the essentially modern and human elements of
our culture, without as within the Church, are Christian.’ This
being so, we must be careful before admitting the power of
Scepticism, or of Sceptical morals, to save even the intellectual
few. Whether the man to be saved be the Master of Israel, or
the master of modern science, whether he be the Brahmin of
culture, or the most degraded outcast in the slums of some
modern city, it will require other than the intellectual gospels
taught by the masters of freethought to make him a truly noble,
pure-Souled, Christ-like man.
But passing from this, and coming back to the problem as
presented to us by Miss Hopkins. How are the degraded
masses to be saved P. Her answer is simple and explicit:—
‘Only in the Christianity of the Bible could I find what I
wanted, could I work out some simple form of it (salvation)
for them and me.’ And the results were truly wonderful, and
to a Sceptic honest enough to look plainly at them, they must
be perplexing. ‘Beneath the power of the cross of Christ,’
(she says) “I have seen four hundred rough, world-hardened,
reckless men weeping and sobbing like children over their sins.
I have Seen, Sunday after Sunday, bad men turned into good
by it—men who were drunkards, profligates, blasphemers,
fighters, gamblers, turned into good, devout, tender-hearted
men. For months I never spoke but this change took place,
two or three thus receiving the Word of Life, and becoming
Completely changed men. Aſow can Christianity be anything
but a greaf life-giving fact to me?’
Here we have Christianity put to the test in the most
practical way. It must be admitted that the weapons at the
command of a Sceptic could never have done the work. Appeals
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 265
to utility, to enlightened self-interest, to the essential dignity of
human nature, and the sin of degrading a thing so noble, would
have been vain. These rough and hardened men would have
been keen-sighted enough to see that a man, as Scepticism must
represent him, is in no sense a very exalted creature. Take away
from him all spiritual attributes and relationships, regard him
as only a more highly organized machine, or an animal with
subtler and more delicately balanced brain and nervous system ;
tell him that death ends all for him, but that the race will live
after him, and that he ought to make life better for posterity.
But if he does not love the wife and children who are near him,
if he is not faithful to the men and women about him, why
should he be moral for the sake of posterity ? Call his
pleasures those of a pig instead of those to be sought and
enjoyed by a man. He may reply, ‘This is a matter of taste ;
and moreover man as defined by pure Materialism differs but
little from the pig. The old definitions of man, the nobler
attributes to which appeal is made in all such argument, have
been swept away, and the physiological mechanism—the bundle
of material attributes left behind—cannot be expected to
respond to this touch. In short, the Sceptic has nothing to
draw with, and this well of humanity is too deep for him. The
Gospel reaches the lowest depths of the human soul; the love
of God revealed in the cross of Christ has power to stir the
heart of the most degraded, and hence the splendid results to
which Miss Hopkins makes her appeal. Why should Sceptics
refuse to accept these simple yet most convincing evidences?
Here we have a force capable of doing the work; the love of
Christ reaches the heart, and the power of Christ working
through this love is able to lift up the lowest and most degraded,
to lift them into fellowship alike with God and man. Under
the influence of this divine love, the barren soil becomes fruit-
ful, and the desert blossoms like the rose. Scepticism has no
such power, and must utterly and hopelessly fail when it seeks
to deal with such moral and spiritual wastes.
266 SCEPTICISM.
In Belgium, even the politicians are beginning to find out the
practical weakness of freethought. The Sceptical leaders have
no power to cope with the forces inherent in Ultramontanism.
They believed that if only the people had free institutions, they
would value them so highly that no longer would they surrender
their lives and interests to priestly hands. Vain dreams | The
Ultramontane had faith in something; what he believed might
not appear to us the most rational theory of life, but then he
really believed it, and sought to subject his life to its control.
Banished from the Forum, Ultramontanism took refuge in the
elementary schools, and when the Free-thinking Liberals were
glorifying free institutions, and expecting the millennium, those
sleepless workers, the Jesuits, were engaged in training the
children. After a generation had passed politicians were
astonished to find in the polling-booths a new race of men,
ready to vote for what they had considered a dead superstition.
And now, we understand, these very politicians, though them-
selves often Sceptical, are anxious to encourage the preaching
and teaching of earnest evangelical believers. They have
learned that Scepticism is no match for Ultramontanism, and
that this foe of human liberty can only be dealt with by men
who have a stronger and more spiritual faith. This problem,
it is not at all unlikely, is the very one with which Sceptics
in England must deal. How can they hope to cast out the
demons of Sensuality, of ignorance, and vice, by means of
‘Rational Scepticism’?
When Cromwell was fighting the battles of the Parliament and
the country, he met with a similar difficulty. How to meet and
successfully contend against the flower of England's aristocracy
with the raw recruits under his command . The Protector with
true insight saw that spirit must deal with spirit. He sought
out God-fearing men, men who loved their country and who
were willing to die for it, who considered its liberties more
sacred than their own lives, and who were full of enthusiasm
for the cause. These men, after a period of military training
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 267
and discipline, he found more than able to meet the high-
Spirited youth on the King's side. He met energy, dash, enter-
prise, and loyalty, with a higher energy still, with a more
Spiritual devotion, and a bravery against which no dash was of
any avail. And truly, said the general in later years, as he
looked back with soldier-like pride on his trusted comrades,
‘these men were never beaten at all.”
Ours are very different conflicts, but we still need the spirit
of Cromwell's Ironsides. Freethinkers, no matter how great
their energy, cannot deal with this problem successfully. The
gospel of enlightened selfishness will never make men willing
to be pure. Science may enable man to see and know, but
can never give him power to do, the right. It may tell us
about the origin of species and the descent of man, about the
struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest; the struggle
we know well, and the fittest are too often the strongest and
most selfish, those who can without scruple rise upon the ruins
of the life of their fellows. Industrialism cannot save men; its
political economy need not be what Carlyle called a ‘dismal
Science,’ but it must necessarily be imperfect. An economy
which ignores some of the higher moral elements in humanity,
whose laws are the outcome of a partial analysis of man's
nature, can never save society. Even Lange seems to look
forward with something akin to alarm to the triumph of those
very principles, for which he and others vehemently contend.
When there is booty to be divided, the stronger takes for him-
self the largest share; the weaker must perhaps suffer the
grossest injustice, and this just because he is weakest. “Whether
I wring my fellow-man's neck because I am the stronger, or
whether by my superior knowledge of business and law I lay
a trap for him and cause him to groan in misery, while I “law-
fully” appropriate the profit of his labour, makes little difference.’
Lange sees in the present state of Society all those evils that
destroyed the ancient world : ‘We have the immoderate growth
of riches; we have the proletariat; we have the decay of morals
268 SCEPTICISM.
and religion; the present forms of government all have their
existence threatened, and the belief in a coming general and
mighty revolution is widely spread and deeply rooted.' True,
he sees elements in modern civilization that were not in the
ancient world; but these are just those ‘Christian ideas' and
forms of life that Scepticism is struggling now to destroy, and
to which men like Lange refuse their true and fitting sphere.
No wonder the outlook is gloomy for those whose eyes are
Open to the existing evils, but who have no faith in the power
of the Gospel of Christ.
‘For might instead of right is hell on earth,
Battle of darkness still against God’s side.’
This spirit of hopelessness is not among those who loyally
accept the Christian revelation. They see the failure of Scepti-
cism, but they also see the triumph of Christ Miss Hopkins
asks why the Gospel should be anything but a grand fact in her
experience : Why, indeed 2 If we see with our own eyes the
drunkard made sober, the licentious made chaste, the selfish
made Self-sacrificing, and the proud made humble; if we see
men living and working for the glory of God, and the highest
good of their fellows—consecrating talent, wealth, social in-
fluence, political power to the service of man, under the in-
fluence of the constraining love of Christ, why should we
doubt the efficacy of Christ's Gospel, or despair of its ultimate
triumph P
Facts like these, which, thank God, in our time, are neither
few nor strange, cannot be set aside by cavils about the earlier
histories of the Bible, or by difficulties in connection with the
interpretation of the prophetical works.
These practical evidences, neglected by believers and un-
believers alike, demand the attention of all truth-seekers. We
do not for a moment assert that Christianity has solved every
problem that may be raised, or that has been raised, in connec-
tion with man's intellectual and spiritual life. Science is
teaching us more and more to distrust systems that pretend to
THE FAILURE OF SCEPTICISM. 269.
solve all human enigmas, and it leads us to look for practical
guidance rather than speculative satisfaction. And Christianity
has practically solved man's deepest problems in life. It has
revealed God, and its revelation meets the cravings of the
heart, as well as the demands of the intellect; it has opened
up for the feeblest, and for the most simple, a path by which
purity, peace, and moral virtue can be attained; it gives motive-
power sufficient to overcome the natural inertia in human life,
and to lead man to do as well as know and desire the highest
things; it fills his mind with trust, hope, and love, and it leads
him to expect in a future life light that is either now denied, or
that is useless to him under present conditions; above all, in
the person of Jesus Christ it holds up before him an ideal of
supreme excellence, and in the quickening energy of the Holy
Spirit, it affords him all needed power to live a noble and
Christ-like life. Scepticism may appeal to strong natures, and
imagine that it supplies them with motive-power. Christianity
lays hold of the weak and the sinful, and lifts them up to
purity, piety, and strength of purpose.
Mrs. Browning well says that it takes a “soul to move a
body; the great failure of Scepticism lies in this, that it has no
‘great hopes for great Souls,” or, to put it more correctly, no
great hopes, inspirations, and ideals, by which humble souls
may be made truly great.
‘We must be here to work;
And men who work can only work for men,
And, not to work in vain, must comprehend
Humanity, and so work humanly,
And raise men's bodies still by raising souls,
As God did first.
“But stand upon the earth,”
I said, “to raise them ’’ (this is human, too,
There's nothing high which has not first been low.
My humbleness, said One, has made me great
“As God did last.”
“And work all silently
And simply,” he returned, “as God does all ;
Distort Our nature never for our work,
Nor count our right hands stronger for being hoofs.
The man most man, with tenderest human hands,
Works best for men—as God in Nazareth.”
27o
SCEPTICISM.
He paused upon the word, and then resumed :
“Fewer programmes, we who have no prescience,
Fewer systems, we who are held and do not hold,
Less mapping out of masses to be saved,
By nations or by sexes. Fourier's void,
And Comte absurd, and Cabet, puerile.
Subsist no rules of life outside of life,
No perfect manners, without Christian souls:
The Christ Himself had been no Lawgiver
Unless He had given the life, too, with the Law.”
THE END.
E//zot Stock, Paternoster Row, London.
... - --~~~~i==== ~~~~ *…*.*===.
* * - - -
£§...
1861 98800 GI06
|
S
• • • • • <!---
||||||||||||
N\/50IH OIW 30 A LIS8BAINT
||||||||||||||
Î
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD

§
N §
N N ---
§
§
§ N N
N
§ º § N
NSS §§ N
§§
º *NSº Ş. º
SNSN Ş SNS
N N N
º
… N
N
§ §§§ § § d §§
§§§
SNRRSN º
§ NS NS - N
§§ N § N
§
N
§
sº
§N
N
§§
ſº§
NS §
& § N
N Sºğ
§§ §§
N § § §§ w - w § § Nº.
NSN º §
§§ sº
§§ §§
§ §§§ R
§ §
º
º
N
§
º§
§
&
º
..º. wº
§§N
§§
N §§
§§§§
§§
NSN
RN
Ş