bea 4 aly ai Poe fh aR OY \, f ut Tals LACM SSD at IEA ay alin vat ATH | Pak) Ny a iD TATE i¢ << Rams ne z roe = on ae > = ~ eet = S = at usp AP TEN ILI UN Wh! 7 H Thiaheh 1 1a May WD 1 = == iy I 4 ee = SS =, : =P hy is Tl AF TNL Hatt ayiaee WM Ot aly 1 Litetetaly RYAN Hisityts hie t WISTS Th Ds Ts SOPH) + inte att aint nD hd 4, nh PH Ny AD My Hut fi ane ee Te Wl p ' h AN ' Wh tty i init 4) He sual ND ep by) ah 5 ne iat a DD aa TTR ae WP H i W414 Ls aD) SSeS 4 Sa ini i) i bs sith satin 4 SS i “f i i bea lelie ety WNTATOLY Hnacah 44's atthe PHN i os i ip Hi SPRINTS DI WD He TY Habehegedatatatasy tay { retinal) BCH Nn wa Oe nh i ie , 2) RRS 7 MSA PETS i EAN Pee AY, POH IE DA stil ein Wales — = SS = 2 2 SS = = us i eh, iM Wh \, Why 4, pi itil! if h Se i r v BT » Pa ey ttaty HSA ; HOTA DADA He Wy sala ot ata tet WIEN t Y hu wh i) i} it ae i intel ih > aK i ‘i : Ate ASL ey f oy tM MWh M BIW IRN taDh ap ale ca ie eA 4 PS NOn Te) Ih , AP MRI TL vay 2°) § i) APIA TA 4 iy Un SIRS HNN a RS SIGH TSMC SH ——— —— 44 i i! ) SH ih ieee i CASA sitet a) a) WN EN I eH NATE HE HOM ILION PH ATATS TL JE nA bard i nN 4 Vil i Ee, ’ Uk NB ONIN IISSMAVSAT HAC PRP GHANA RAGA AAR Hah EDA ETAT u We aah TATE TRIE) Puy DD De ns hee) ids Hi AS HNA Haas iG aide b Pha) Te Me = v rhe 474 ate Sa AS, e = Sas = aS sits ih, J Lisi 14%) With p thy! Wi i 5, AA ATEN) 1 yt nh DAN i) Ah tee, 4 ui fits Wh Ps wh Wat AN sh i HIS! sh oeueieits in 5 pA SE ahi ii gti! vita re) i ably hits Ahhh Hehehe a 4 1 ORO yigitiche spe) py i) Li anki i hi i SS AARHANIN itetabatenca bate MM atea tian Sitti i f oa) as iN sii i With ALY, ASO ash ‘e TALS, yy} i 5, Ke he p RAB wi te Fi 4, Ni chek 4 ANH Naat Nhat id sit 4 Abaatateeal Neigigpcinh ‘ st, i) a ean Hehe alt i ii Pala Mh RH PENH Ni sth qiyitichat att AHN 7) 4 4S, f dint ariss ut i tais? i siNtathty i i ‘iy ith i} = = ———— es Sees — a a 2 — se eee =e epee = ae ——~ es “= i ¥ \\ Sea i Innit ate Nh AM pbc httah iS i isin iN eh ,) ANN of she Chenlogirg, 8 ay "tia, \ PRINCETON, N. J. 27, Orom tne Shilorary o}) Wr Dames MaCosn. BY 1101 j;H54 Lesh Hime, Maurice C. Unbelief UNBELIEF. ‘* Blind unbelief is sure to err And scan His works in vain ; God is His own interpreter, And He will make it plain.” — Cowper. ‘ And often, to our comfort, shall we find The sharded beetle in a safer hold Than is the full-wing’d eagle.” —Cymbeline, iii. 3. \Y ur WCE Sa En Essay ADDRESSED TO YOUNG MEN, OF EVERY CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION, WITH THE VIEW OF CONFIRMING THEM IN THEIR BELIEF IN CHRISTIANITY, AND PREPARING THEM TO MEET THE ARGUMENTS OF UNBELIEVERS. re MAURICE C. HIME, M.A., LL.D., (BARRISTER-AT-LAW) $ HEAD-MASTER OF FOYLE COLLEGE, LONDONDERRY; Author of “ Morality,” “An Introduction to the Latin Language,” “ Ready Money,” “ Self-Education,” “‘ Masonic Hints,” “Intermediate Schools in Ireland,” & c. Second Cpttion. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO., STATIONERS’ HALL Court. DUBLIN: SULLIVAN, BROTHERS, 27 MARLBOROUGH STREET. 1885. PRICE ONE SHILLING AND SIXPENCE. - ‘ ; Ley Ci AGS Bon AMS, ey a> ft wh in cg 5 BF i | | , | De ‘ , x ve i, oe ae , oo WOM nt {Ox HOt CMON y PET TT ® * WAT AVIA POR, SHES : , ime AMAT Oo ADAG A Ne ora AYES HAG) Vi ee, OE pe fies ‘ hd te a¥. S404 SOBLsoo waver eo needed iA Sime ni as ed: ADA aS noriiataha’ an! A Soediprck iS: “ XD Vl ? SNE Ri ote pel vt ek sao eerie et won 1a) Py fe > re svi kes tenes Been sngc $, Piss LY by * of af Sab aw | oe Pa, Lh p> 14 ee AX a4 id * ¢ | ~ S okt ; ; ' hee a ‘ie hai SYR, IVE FPN I AW Oe Is PBedicated, WITH PERMISSION, LOVTHE MEMBERS OF THE DERRY YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION. 1S 7 fi v2; - oT Lael Tihs ¥ . ’ 4 At NaN | 2 ¢ © OeNriE NUS) {—+— PAGE PREFACE . 4 ; : : ; : ; ; : ix SECT. I. ON THE DUTY OF A CHRISTIAN TO STUDY THE CHRIS- TIAN EVIDENCES. SOME SUITABLE BOOKS RECOM- MENDED FOR THE PURPOSE. «. «. . . 19 Il. ON THE FRAME OF MIND IN WHICH THE STUDY OF THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES SHOULD BE PUR- Ener, 25 III. ON THE IGNORANCE, SO FAR AS SCRIPTURAL KNOW- SUED : . . . LEDGE IS CONCERNED, OF MOST CAVILLERS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY . . : : : a 34 IV. TWO LOGICAL FALLACIES COMMONLY COMMITTED BY CAVILLERS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY. THE QUESTION ENTIRELY ONE OF PROBABILITY ; NOT ADMITTING OF DEMONSTRATIVE PROOF . : : d 4 Vv. ON SOME GOOD WAYS OF REPLYING TO CAVILLERS . 56 VI. ON THE BECOMING STANDPOINT FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE ORDINARY OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY . 60 VII. ON THE CARRYING OF THE WAR INTO THE ENEMY’S QUARTERS ; : : c . : ° ¢ 64 Vill SECT. VIII. ree ax: XI. I. 10 CONTENTS. ON THE SIN AND FOLLY OF READING IRRELIGIOUS AND IMMORAL BOOKS , ‘ . : . ON OUR UNREASONABLENESS IN COMPLAINING OF OUR PRESENT INABILITY TO FATHOM ALL THE GREAT CHRISTIAN MYSTERIES ° e . ANECDOTE OF LORD LYNDHURST . THE EVIDENCE FROM PERSONAL RELIGION APPENDICES. REFERENCE CATALOGUES OF BOOKS AND TRACTS ON THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES , ° . COPIES OF SOME LETTERS CONTAINING EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION CONCERNING THIS ESSAY , . . PAGE 68 84 87 88 97 106 RoR Eh AvG Ee, THERE have been lately many blasphemous, atheistical essays and tracts most industriously circulated by some person or persons among the young men of our city. (1) To point out to these that it is their positive duty to study with care the Christian evidences, and to recommend some books suitable for the purpose; (2) to suggest to them the proper frame of mind in which the ‘study of the Christian evidences should be pursued; (3) to direct their attention to the extreme ignorance, so far as scriptural knowledge is concerned, of most cavillers against Christianity ; (4) to inform them of two logical fallacies commonly committed by such cavillers, and show them how the question is entirely one of a balance of evidence ; (5) to suggest to them some good ways of replying to these cavillers; (6) to impress upon them the proper standpoint from which to view the ordinary stock objections to Christianity ; (7) to give them some hints as to how the war may be fairly carried into the enemy’s quarters; (8) to urge upon them the sin and folly of their reading irreligious and immoral x UNBELIEF. . books; (9) to point out to them the unreasonableness of our complaining of our inability to fathom all the great Christian mysteries; (10) to show them who are the best judges of the question, “Is Christianity true?” (11) to indicate the influence, more than human, of Christianity upon the character of man; in short, to confirm them in their belief /in Christianity and prepare them to meet the arguments of unbelievers —this is the object of my essay. Connected as I am with some four hundred of the young men of Derry, in my official position as one of the Vice-presidents of our Derry Young Men’s Chris- tian Association, I feel that an attempt to help them in this way, however feeble, will not be taken amiss or regarded by them as presumptuous on my part. “Atheism and infidelity,” as Lord Richard Grosvenor recently said with truth in the Town Hall at Rhyl, “are very rife at the present day, and it is the duty of all men who love religion to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight in defence of their religion, and to try and put a check on the advance of atheism and infidelity.” What I or any of us may be able todo in this way may not be much, but we may each at least not unreasonably be expected to do what we can. Through no fault of their own, but through the fault rather of the ill-advised training of their early days, very few young men have studied with any degree of attentive care the evidences in favour of their religion: still fewer, if we except University students, have been instructed in even the rudiments of logic. And the consequence is, that most young men are easily captivated and soon misled, when, joyful at their recent emancipation from the school- PREFACE. xi room and its many prohibitions and restraints, they are brought for the first time in their lives (and it is a time that will come sooner or later to them all) into close contact with free-thinking, loose-living men of the world—fools who say in their hearts, There is no God. Then it is that comes the first great trial of their faith. Then it is that so many fall away from the religion in which they were so blindly, so ignorantly brought up. Having never had clearly explained to them the grounds on which, all objections notwithstanding, Christianity is believed by so many theologians to be of divine origin, they are usually quite unprepared for the argument upon argument they hear flippantly urged against it by their new acquain- tances ; wholly unable to cope with the plausible ob- jJections to it which they then for the first time hear —objections which a very little judicious theological training would have taught them to expect and refute. Is it to be wondered at that, under the circumstances, the religious opinions of so many young men, having no root, should wither away ? , I assume throughout my essay that I am address- ing myself only to young men who are Christians— those young men in particular to whom copies of the infidel productions alluded to have been sent. It is not my intention, therefore, to endeavour to prove either the existence of God or a future state. Were my essay addressed to atheists, I should manifestly, until I had satisfied myself that I had proved the existence of God, feel myself hampered at every step throughout my essay. Until I had done this, I clearly should not be at liberty to use such words, for example, as «inspiration, prayer, xii . UNBELIEF. revelation, God, without rendering myself liable to the charge of committing one of those very two logical fallacies, so often, as 1 maintain, committed iv gua cavillers at our religion, and to the exposure of which I have devoted the fourth section of my essay, namely, that of begging the question. For an Inspirer is obviously necessary, otherwise how could there be any “inspiration” ? an Almighty One, or else to whom would “prayer” be addressed? a Revealer, or else whence could come a “revelation”? Whilst the sacred name itself we should also have to avoid using for the same reason. For, “Oh, but I don’t believe in God!” would, of course, be the ready answer of an unbeliever to any one who spoke to him of God. Besides this, it is very questionable whether there are any real atheists in Derry, any atheists from honest conviction. To such, however, if there are, my essay is not addressed. Bacon, as may be re- membered, doubted the existence of any real atheists anywhere ; and there is certainly something, it must be admitted, in what he says on the subject. “Even that school,” he writes in his Essay “Of Atheism,” “which is most accused of atheism doth most demon- strate religion, that is, the School of Leucippus and Democritus, and Epicurus, for it is a thousand times more credible that four mutable elements and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions, or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God:’ it is not said, ‘The fool hath thought in his heart;’ so as he rather saith it by PREFACE. xili rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it or be persuaded of it; for none deny there is a God but those for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this, that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the opinion of others: nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects; and, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not recant: whereas, if they did truly think that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves ?” I assume also throughout my essay, and for the same reasons as I assume the existence of God, that the Bible is a book which should always be treated with the utmost respect, and to which, as to a grand authority, reference may be made by me, without rendering myself liable to the charge of begging the question. So long as there is, as now, even a possi- bility that any truths in the Bible may be of heavenly origin, it is obviously entitled to the most reverential respect on every one’s part, no matter in what sus- pense his mind may be with regard to it. It is not unusual with writers to apologise to their readers for quoting in corroboration of their arguments apposite passages from the words of other authors. Now, it has always struck me, that thanks, and not mere forgiveness, are due to the writer who cites pas- sages from other books, provided that these passages are not only appropriate, but worth reading in themselves; X1V UNBELIEF, and especial thanks, if the books from which they are excerpts are not likely to be familiar to his readers. Of such a kind, I believe, are most of the passages which I have quoted in this essay. I trust, therefore, that any readers to whom these passages are new will be pleased that I have given them an opportunity of reading them; and that even those of them to whom they may be not unfamiliar will be gratified at seeing them again. Locke’s “Essay on the Human Under- standing,” being in the Trinity College undergraduate ordinary course, is a far better known book among young men than his “Conduct of the Understanding,” ‘from which I have quoted several passages in the following essay, and it is no doubt a much abler, more original, and ambitious work. The “Conduct of the Understanding” is, however, a most thought- ful and thought-suggesting book—so much go, indeed, that I shall not think that my essay has been written wholly in vain should its only result be, that some of my readers may be induced to buy and study for themselves, and allow themselves to be guided by the advice of, this wise little treatise. It is published for sixpence, by Crosby, Lockwood, & Co.; and bound along with it in the same volume is an interesting chapter, also by Locke, titled “Some Thoughts con- cerning Education.” While I have especially directed this essay against mere cavillers at our religion, I am, of course, not unaware that there are many honest, wistful, truth- seeking doubters to be met with everywhere, men who would rather, if anything, believe in Christianity than disbelieve in it; but who cannot conscientiously believe in it, so many and grave do the objections to it seem PREFACE. : XV to them. Of sceptics of this kind I take no special account in the following pages, for two reasons :—F irst, because I have never myself met with any such. All the sceptics with whom I have ever conversed on religious subjects, whether in Derry or any where else, were men who, as far as I was able to form any opinion of their attainments, knew literally nothing of all that might be said on the affirmative side of the question, Is Christianity true ? and even but little of what might be said on its negative side. And, secondly, the authors of the blasphemous books recently circulated in Derry assuredly cannot be fairly regarded as “honest, wistful, truth-seeking doubters.” In these publications, taking them as a whole, there is nothing but cavilling, cavilling, cavilling ; blasphemy ; derision ; abuse, from beginning to end. Some weeks ago I wrote to a learned and able clerical friend of mine, asking him if he could recom- mend to me four or five good modern books on the Christian evidences. This is the reply that I received from him :—“JT do not know any books on the evi- dences of Christianity that I could recommend. The whole subject is in such a transition state that at present it cannot be treated finally. Any book recom- mended could only be recommended for certain points.” I am inclined to agree with my friend as to the difficulty of especially recommending four or five books such as I asked him to recommend to me. And this is one reason why the study of the great standard authors, Butler and Paley—old-fashioned though these authors may appear to some—may be, in my opinion, always most judiciously recommended, in the first instance to the attention of young men. XV1 UNBELIEF. The objections to Christianity which Paley in his “ Evidences” endeavours to remove may not, I admit, be the special favourite objections most in vogue now- a-days. They are, nevertheless, objections which have exercised men’s minds for many a century past, and which exercise the minds of many men, in however modified a manner, even now. Furthermore, no young man, I am convinced, could rise from the study of this work (of the “Horae Paulinae” I do not speak, for to ws present-day value I have never heard any excep- tion taken) without being confirmed in his belief in the divine origin of Christianity, and being far better prepared to meet the arguments of unbelievers than he was before he read it. And this is surely saying a good deal in its favour. In regard to Butler’s “ Analogy,” a lifetime’s thought- ful study will scarcely be found too much for it. It is certainly not to be studied, so as to be thoroughly understood and appreciated, by any-young business or professional man—who can only devote to such study a portion of his daily spare hours—in a week, or a month, or a year. “Some things,” writes Principal Fairbairn in the Feb. number (1885) of the Contemporary Review, “ Butler did once for all: his method; his doctrine of nature and man; the way he used the facts of life to illustrate and verify certain truths of faith, are now inalienable possessions of apologetic thought.” Where, indeed, is one to look for such another marvellous struc- ture of solid, cumulative, convincing argumentation ? Whately’s little book is exceedingly clever, and provocative of further thought upon its subject. It is besides brief, and can be bought for the small sum of fourpence. It is not without due consideration that I PREFACE. xVil have recommended it along with the three other books —how unworthy soever of such august company it may appear to some to be. In the first Appendix to this essay I have, however, given three lists of books and two lists of tracts—any of which may be read with confidence by any one. The high character of the Societies which edit the first and last lists of the books, and both lists of the tracts, speaks for itself. For the books recommended in List II., I am indebted to the courtesy of the Rev. T. T. Waterman, secretary of the “Christian Evidence Society ” (Offices: 13 Buckingham Street, Strand, London, W.C.) When forwarding this list to me, Mr. Waterman (it is but right to add) expressly mentioned :—“This list is not ours; and can only be inserted on its merits. These, however,” he continued, “JT think to be considerable.” What between the names of the books (the name of each volume being generally a fair index to its con- tents), and the headings under which the several sets of books are classified in List II., the reader will now have a good opportunity given to him of selecting for himself any book which may seem to him likely to deal effectively with any particular objection to the truth of Christianity, which may happen to be thought by him to be of special weight. No one, at least no one who has read the title-page and dedication of this essay, and the first two para- graphs of its Preface, will expect to find in it an elaborate system of Christian evidences. Should my essay serve—and this, I think, I may not unreasonably expect it will do—(1) to warn effectually its readers, even a few of them, against B XVIil UNBELIEF. trusting their own judgment in relation to matters which they do not understand; (2) to dissuade them from over-hastily abandoning their religious convictions before they have proved them, on sufficient evidence, to be untenable; and (3) to induce them to read at least some of the standard works on the Christian evidences, recommended on p. 21, and in Appendix I., then I shall feel satisfied that my object in publishing it—namely, to confirm my readers in their belief in Christianity, and prepare them to meet the arguments of unbe- levers—is likely, in some measure at least, to be accom- plished; and I shall thank God with a grateful heart. Having addressed my essay to young men of every Christian denomination, I have studiously endeavoured, all through it, to steer as far as possible clear of all argu- ments—nay, of even all expressions, likely to offend in any way any Christian of any denomination. Before publishing my essay I sent printed copies of it to the Bishop of Derry and a few other friends of light and leading, asking them their opinion as to the likelihood of its effecting the object I had in view in writing it. A few of the letters which I received in response to my application will be found in Appen- dix II. I have preserved them thus, because it struck me that they would probably interest not a little the young men to whom my essay is dedicated. The writers, moreover, in almost every case, make each. some distinct observation, calculated to promote the object at which I aim. M. C. H. CLUAIN Fors, BUNcRANA, Co. Donegal, June 1, 1885. lu) IN) dyed aa al bid a So SECTION I—On the duty of a Christian to study the Christian Evidences. Some suitable books recom- mended for the purpose. You, my friends, for whose sakes I have written this essay, have been born in a Christian country and of ‘Christian parents, and you all profess Christianity as your religion. Were any of you to be suddenly asked by an unbeliever, whether of this country or any other, what are your reasons for believing that the religion you profess was in an extraordinary way revealed to men by God Himself, would you be able, do you think, to give the inquirer a satisfactory reply ? ; If there is any one of you who cannot do so, he is clearly in a very false position. To fight for a cause of the justice of which you know little or nothing, care little or nothing, is, so far as the fighter is concerned, but a very dubious kind of virtue. And you are plainly directed in the Bible itself to be “ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” * The Jews of Berea are commended by St. Luke as being ¥;\y Peter iii. 15. 20 UNBELIEF. “more noble” (ze. more candid as enquirers) “than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” * “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. v. 21), is a divine rule given to us for the regulation of our conduct in these matters by the Father of truth and light, the very God whose children we profess to be. Locke, in “The Conduct of the Understanding,” comments upon this rule thus- wise :—“ And it is hard to know,” he observes, “ what other way men can come at truth, to lay hold of it, if they do not dig and search for it as for gold and hid treasure; but he that does so must have much earth and rubbish before he gets the pure metal: sand, and pebbles, and dross usually lie blended with it, but the gold is nevertheless gold, and will enrich the man that employs his pains to seek and separate it. Neither is there any danger he should be deceived by the mixture. Every man carries about him a touch- stone, if he will make use of it, to distinguish sub- stantial gold from superficial glittering, truth from ‘appearances. And indeed the use and benefit of this touchstone, which is natural reason, is spoiled and lost only by assumed prejudices, overweening pre- sumption, and narrowing our minds. The want of exercising it in the full extent of things intelligible, is that which weakens and extinguishes this noble faculty in us” [Sect. III.] Those of you who have not already studied the Christian evidences, I should strongly recommend to buy and keep for yourselves as treasured possessions, * Acts xvii. II. STUDY OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 21 and study diligently, the following four books :— (1) Archbishop Whately’s “Christian Evidences; ” (2) Paley’s “Evidences of Christianity ;” (3) his “Hore Pauline;” and (4) Butlers “Analogy of Religion.” Whately’s “ Christian Evidences” is pub- lished by the S.P.C.K. for fourpence, and the ‘ Hore Pauline” for three shillings. Paley’s “Evidences of Christianity,” and Butler’s “ Analogy of Religion,” are also both published by the S.P.C.K. for one shilling each, with a slight sketch of the author in each case. “ Paley’s writings ” (ae. all his writings, and not merely the two books now especially referred to), writes the Right Honourable W. Wyndham, “have done more for the moral improvement of mankind than perhaps the writings of any other man that ever existed.” Butler's “ Analogy” was pronounced by Lord Brougham to be “the most argumentative and philosophical defence of Christianity ever submitted to the world;” and by Sir James Mackintosh to be “the most original and profound work extant in any language on the philo- sophy of religion.”—[For other books, see Appendix I.] You will not find any of the books I have recom- mended to you to be uninteresting or dry. On the contrary: between the actual information which they will give you and the thoughts they will suggest, they cannot be read except with interest by any — persons concerned in the great questions discussed. And who is not concerned in them? To no Christian young man at all events can the question, “ Why am I a Christian?” be a matter of indifference. There is no study which will at once quicken your spiritual discernment, elevate and solemnise your minds, and improve your conduct so much as that of 22 UNBELIEF. the great standard works which have been written by the wise and learned about the dealings of God with man, and about man’s duty towards God and towards his neighbour. In “The Conduct of the Understand- ing” Locke thus writes of the study of such works :— “There is indeed one science (as they are now dis- tinguished) incomparably above all the rest, where it is not by corruption narrowed into a trade or faction, for mean or ill ends and secular interests—I mean theology—which, containing the knowledge of God and His creatures, our duty to Him and our fellow-crea- tures, and a view of our present and future state, is the comprehension of all other knowledge directed to its true end: ze. the honour and veneration of the Creator, and the happiness of mankind. This is that noble study which is every man’s duty, and every one that can be called a rational creature is capable of. The works of nature, and the words of revelation, display it to mankind in characters so large and visible, that those who are not quite blind may in them read and see the first principles and most neces- sary parts of it; and from thence, as they have time and industry, may be enabled to go on to the more abstruse parts of ‘it, and penetrate into those infinite depths filled with the treasures of wisdom and know- ledge. This is that science which would truly enlarge men’s minds were it studied, or permitted to be studied, everywhere with that freedom, love of truth, and charity which it teaches; and were not made contrary to its nature, the occasion of strife, faction, or malignity, and narrow impositions” [Sect. XXIIT.] The following just and true observation, from Whately’s “Lessons on Morals” (p. 201), testifies to STUDY OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 23 the importance of carefully studying the great Book wherein are revealed to us the articles of our belief :— “Though Christian knowledge be the least part of the Christian’s business, it must be the first part. For you cannot act on Christian principles without knowing something of what your religion is. And, moreover,’ if you are very ignorant of it, and are content to remain so, this is a sign that your heart is not engaged in God’s service. For if any one received a letter from his father, or some other friend whom he professed to love and revere, containing directions for his conduct, and yet never read that letter with any attention, you would at once conclude that his professed love and respect were not real.” A sound knowledge of the Pmnere bie Christian evidences was never more desirable than now; for there is at the present time an enormous Wiser of unbelief, or half-unbelef, prevailing in most large towns and cities. There is also—perhaps, a still more diffi- cult thing to combat—an enormous amount of total indifference on the subject among even professing Chris- tians. It is a common thing now-a-days to hear men, even men with a fair character for respectability and learning, referring to the Bible, with a shrug of their shoulders, as though it were a mere collection of old women’s stories, an old-fashioned, absurd book of human fiction, whose guidance none but ranting en- thusiasts, canting hypocrites, or mindless fools, would ever dream of following. “Tt is impossible to deny,” said the Rev. Canon Gregory about a year and a half ago in the Lower House of Convocation, “and unwise to ignore the real facts as to the spread of infidelity. At the doors of 24 UNBELIEF. St. Paul’s Cathedral, and other places in London, atheistical lecturers are to be found lecturing and distributing all sorts of literature of the worst kind. The same goes on in all the large towns and even in rural parishes.” The following excerpt is from the St. James’s Gazette of the 14th of last January: it needs no comment :-— “An ‘anti-Deist’ society has been founded in Paris, and it has just begun its operations by holding a sort of anti-prayer meeting in one of the public halls of the city. The object of the society is ‘to combat religious dogmas of every description ;’ and its motto, which was set forth conspicuously on a placard in the hall, is ‘ Dieu, voild Vennemi.’ The second article of its statutes declares that its special aim is ‘to suppress the word Diew and its equivalents in all the languages of the globe; for, the being so designated being a mere fiction, the word has neither sense nor raison @ etre, The anti-Deists are under a pledge not to use the word themselves in their correspondence or conversa- tions. Even the familiar formula ‘ adieu’ is banished from their phraseology, and ‘& ton souvenir’ substi- tuted for it. The anti-abbé Gaston preached a species of sermon: an anti-sermon it ought to be called, perhaps ; turning on the creation, providence, and a future state—all of which the preacher denied. The journalist who has reported the proceedings asked his neighbour as they were leaving the hall if he really held those atheistical tenets. ‘Certainly I do; I am a thoroughgoing anti-Deist, thank God!’ was the not over-consistent answer.” “If we are all bound to study the evidences of our own religion, should we not then, on the same prin- ~ FRAME OF MIND PROPER FOR SUCH STUDY. 25 ciple, be all equally bound to study the evidences in favour of other religions ?” it may be asked. “ Should not, for example, the evidence in favour of Buddhism and Mohammedanism be studied by us with care and attention, just as much as those in favour of Chris- tianity?” Study, I should say, by all means, if you have time and inclination so to do, the evidence ‘in favour of these other religions—once you have first of all studied thoroughly the evidences in favour of your own, and have arrived at the age of sober man- hood. One thing such study will certainly teach you, namely, that difficult as it may be to explain away some of the hindrances that lie in the way of your believing in Christianity, it is infinitely more difficult to explain away some of the hindrances that he in the way of your believing in any other religion. Chris- tianity, you will find, the more you study the evidences in favour of other religions, is not the only one against which objections may be urged. Once, however, you have come to the conclusion, after candid, earnest study of the Christian evidences, that Christianity is from heaven and not of men, then there is no reason why you should devote time and attention to the study. of the evidences of any other religion, other than the desire of interesting research. SEecTION II.—On the frame of mind in which the study of the Christian Evidences should be pursued. Whenever any one takes up the study of the Christian evidences, meaning to pursue it in a critical and enquiring spirit, he ought to breathe to God an earnest prayer for grace to be enabled to carry out his 26 UNBELIEF. intention dispassionately and without bias, yet with deep reverence—the reverence due to the solemn question, “Is Christianity true?” To read a book with a strong wish to find its arguments all leading you to a foregone conclusion, is not to read it dispas- sionately and without bias. “To be indifferent,” writes Locke in “ The Conduct of the Understanding,” “ which © of two opinions is true, is the right temper of the mind, that preserves it from being imposed upon, and dis- poses it to examine with that indifferency, until it has done its best to find the truth; and this is the only direct and safe way to it” [Sect. XII] And again in the same book, “ He (that would acquit himself as a lover of truth, not giving way to any pre-occupation or bias that may mislead him) must not be in love with any opinion, or wish it to be true, until he knows it to be so, and then he will not need to wish it; for nothing that is false can deserve our good wishes, nor a desire that it should have the place and force of truth” [Sect. XI.] The studying of the question in a cavilling spirit is especially deprecated by Butler in the “ Analogy ” (Pt. IL. ch, vi). “If there are any persons,” he says, “who never set themselves heartily and in earnest to be informed in religion; if there are any who secretly wish it may not prove true; and are less attentive to evidence than to difficulties, and more to objections than to what is said in answer to them; these persons will scarce be thought in a likely way of seeing the evidence of religion, though it were most certainly true, and capable of being ever so fully proved.” And throughout all the investigation of this question, Is Christianity a revealed religion or not? you must let the Moral Faculty have its way as well as the FRAME OF MIND PROPER FOR SUCH STUDY. 27 Intellectual faculties: how otherwise are you to judge of the morality of what you are reading? Neither of these portions of our nature can be neglected by us with impunity, if we really wish to arrive at a just conclusion in the, matter. If either be neglected, our conclusion is sure to be an erroneous one. Supposing, for example, that we should allow ourselves to be influenced in our judgment by our conscience alone— listlessly leaving our conscience misinformed or unin- formed the while as to the true merits of the entire case to be decided—we should certainly be wrong. Our heads, too, we should let have a voice in the matter, so as to avoid the laying before our conscience of an erroneous or imperfect case. Supposing, on the other hand, that a man give heed only to the reason- ings of his head, allowing these reasonings alone to influ- ence his judgment, how can he suppose he is judging rightly, if he happen to feel in his heart all the time that he is judging wrongly ? The wise man will always treat his conscience with respect. If the conscience sometimes has its reasons which the reason cannot com- prehend, it has also its reasons (to paraphrase Pascal’s words) which the reason thoroughly understands. And the head and heart of him who approaches the Bible for the purpose of reading it critically and en- quiringly will exercise a thoroughly beneficial influ- ence, the one upon the other. “The head truly enlightened,” writes Sprat, “will presently have a wonderful influence in purifying the heart, and the heart, really affected with goodness, will much con- duce to the directing of the head.” * * Dr. Thomas Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, 1636-1713, was author of a “Life of Cowley,” “Sermons,” ‘ History of the 28 UNBELIEF. And then, of course, in all examination of the Bible we must be prepared to freely admit that there have been many things revealed to us in its sacred pages which are far beyond and above the reach of the human understanding. And perhaps “ reason cannot show itself more reasonable,” as Sir Philip Sidney observes, “than to leave reasoning on things above reason.” There are some things, such, for example, as geometry, logic, the physical sciences, &c., to the right understanding of which man’s reason is alone, by itself, enabled to guide him. With religion it is diffe- rent: the moral, spiritual, and intellectual faculties are all necessary to guide to a right understanding of it. “ Know, Without star or angel for their guide, Who worship God shall find him. Humble love, And not proud reason, keeps the door of heaven . Love finds admission where proud science fails.” * Of this much we may feel convinced, that man’s reason, unless assisted by God, will never be able to get to the bottom of and clearly understand some of those great divine mysterious facts and laws, which He in the Bible simply relates or suggests to us, vouchsafing no explanation of them one way or another. We must not, however, conclude that because a Royal Society,” &c. How few men, young or old, think of reading now Sprat’s writings! And yet Dr. Johnson eulogises him as “an author whose pregnancy of imagination and eloquence of language have deservedly set him high in the ranks of litera- ture ;” and Lord Macaulay, as “a very great master of our language, and possessed at once of the eloquence of the orator, the controversialist, and the historian.” * Young, _ FRAME OF MIND PROPER FOR SUCH STUDY. 29 thing is unintelligible to us it is unintelligible to every one. “ Unintelligible” is a relative term: what is unintelligible to one man may be very intelligible to another. Nay more, what is unintelligible to a man at one time of his life, or in one stage of his mental or moral development, may be quite intelligible to him at another time of his life, or at another stage of his mental or moral development. Some of you will probably remember the story told by Locke in his “Essay on the Human Understanding,” Bk. IV., chap. xv. He tells us how that once on a time “a Dutch ambassador, entertaining the king of Siam with the particularities of Holland, which he was inquisitive after, amongst other things told him that the water in his country would sometimes be so hard in cold weather that men walked upon it, and that it would bear an elephant, if he were there. To which the king replied, ‘ Hitherto I believed the strange things which you told me, because I looked upon you as a sober, fair man; but now I am sure you lie!’ ” If this king of Siam had been told that in some generations after his death men would be able to carry on a conversation with each other though scores of miles intervened between them; that a man could actually sit in his arm-chair in his study, and yet hear the sermon preached by a clergyman in his church, or the song sung in a theatre, to an enraptured audi- ence, though miles and miles away from either church or theatre; that one could send two or three messages from the town in which I am writing this essay to New York, though over 3000 miles distant, and receive replies thereto in the course of a day—had he been told these things, he would certainly have 30 UNBELIEF, believed that the narrators of such wondrous per- formances were trying to deceive him.* For such things, he would have felt satisfied, could never by any possibility happen, any more than that water in Holland could freeze so hard as to bear an elephant. The conception of such extraordinary things, as being entirely outside the world of his experience, would probably have been beyond the grasp of his mind, beyond almost the stretch of his very imagination. Such things would have been to him what some of the stories in the Arabian Nights, or those in Grimm’s Fairy Tales, are to us—all legendary and fabulous. Now, let us always be on our guard lest we act in these matters like the king of Siam. We must not regard as necessarily untruthful those who tell us things that lie beyond the world of our own experience. Although we may not under- stand such things, they may be facts for all that. Others may understand them, and _ believe them, though we may not. Even we ourselves may be enabled to understand them, and believe them, here- after, though at present they may appear to us unintelligible, inconceivable, incredible.t “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” + Reason must not be unreasonable. Reason accord- ingly must not expect to find in the Bible informa- tion that it is not the design of the Bible to give. * A gentleman not long ago sent a message from Ireland to America, and received a reply thereto in the course of seven minutes, This I was told by the postmaster of the office from which the message was sent. TCE Gorse 2: + Hamlet, L., 5. FRAME OF MIND PROPER FOR SUCH STUDY. 3 31 This seems very obvious; yet some excellent and learned men, especially of late years, have taken exception to the Bible on account of what they deem its inaccuracies in regard to science. Now, the Bible does not profess to be a manual of science, or of arts, or of metaphysics, or of any other branch of human knowledge. The Bible is simply a book, or rather the book, in which man is informed by his heavenly Father what should be his religious creed, and what his duties. To instruct man in his religious creed and his duties, this is the Bible’s grand design. If the Bible fulfils this design, we must not be dis- satisfied with it because it does not do something over and above what it is its design to do, and, instruct men in science, literature, and so forth, as well as in theology. Objections, therefore, on the ground of science, to the account in Genesis of the creation, of the flood, and such-like events, seem to me to be entirely out of place, seeing that the object of this narrative was obviously not to teach science but to teach religion. That the Bible has fulfilled its mission in so instructive, and intelligible, and popular a way that the young and the old, the peasant and the philosopher, can alike delight in it, this surely is something to rejoice over. With the instruction of men in science the Bible has no concern. Why, then, blame it for not doing what it does not profess, what it is not its object to do? The various sciences men are left to their own resources to discover and develop for themselves as best they can. To discover these sciences, and develop them, a revelation from God was clearly not necessary. But it is different in regard to our religion. This, as numberless good and wise and 32 . UNBELIEF. learned men maintain, we never could have discovered for ourselves without the aid of God. To object, then, to the Bible on the ground of the scientific inaccu- racies and defects which some men assert they have discovered in it, is to lose sight of its design: this no fair critic of it ought to do. “Some” men, I say, because there are many men, distinguished for their theological, scientific, and other learning, who maintain that the Bible’s alleged inaccuracies in regard to science exist only in the brains of those who think that they have discovered them; that they are apparent only, not real; and that the same learning which helped a man to discover them, would, if only a little increased, have helped him also to explain them satisfactorily away. Whately’s observations upon the point at present under discussion, in his little book, “The History of Religious Worship,” are so memorable that I shall quote them in full :—“ Suppose you bid any one,” he writes, “proceed in a straight line from one place to another, and to take care to arrive before the sun goes down. He will rightly and fully understand you, in reference to the practical object which alone you had in view. Now, you perhaps know very well that there cannot really be a straight line on the surface of the earth, which is a sphere (globe); and that the sun does not really go down, only our portion of the earth is turned away from it. But whether the other person knows all this or not matters nothing at all with reference to our present object, which was not to teach him mathematics or astronomy, but to make him conform to your directions, which are equally intelligible to the learned and the unlearned. FRAME OF MIND PROPER FOR SUCH STUDY. 33 “Now, the object of the Scripture revelation is to teach men, not astronomy or geology, or any other physical science, but religion. Its design was to inform men, not in what manner the world was made, but who made it; and to lead. them to worship Him, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, instead of worshipping His creatures, the heavens and earth themselves, as gods; which is what the ancient heathen actually did. Although, therefore, Scripture gives very scanty and imperfect information respecting the earth and the heavenly bodies, and speaks of them in the language, and according to the notions, of the people of a rude age, still it fully effects the object for which it was given, when it teaches that the heavens and the earth are not gods to be worshipped, but that ‘God created the heavens and the earth,’ and that it is He who made the various tribes of animals, and also man” (pp. 22, 23). How auspicious the moral conveyed by the story of Galileo! Our belief in the Bible was to have been utterly overthrown by his heretical astronomical opinions. Yet the Bible is believed in to this day: so also are his opinions. Let us not be afraid. He who approaches the Bible in a critical, enquiring spirit should be, above all things, on his guard against letting the faintest shadow of ridicule or irreverence gain admission to his mind. Otherwise, he cannot be said to approach it unbiassed. For he who reads anything scoffingly is already evidently prejudiced against it, since he, presumably, would not scoff at anything which he did not already think despicable. “The things of the Spirit of God are spiritually dis- cerned.” It is only “tothe natural man” such things C 34 UNBELIEF. appear “ foolishness” (1 Cor.i. 14). The eye of man can see pretty much what it wants to see. As “to the pure all things are pure,” so the ribald jester and the ungodly mocker can find food for their ribaldry and ungodliness in almost everything they see or hear or touch. For such as these even the very Bible itself can, of course, suggest ample food for their wanton mirth and filthy, stupid jestings. For the pure-hearted,truth-loving Christian, however, who reads its chapters over again and again, the Bible is all instructive and comforting and sublimely grand; the source of all his true joy, all his real comfort, all his hope—in short, of all that makes “life worth living.” In his essay “Of Atheism” Bacon mentions four “causes of Atheism.” The third of the causes which he gives is “a custom of profane scoffing in holy matters, which doth by little and little deface the reverence of religion.” SEcTION III—On the ignorance, so far as scriptural knowledge is concerned, of most cavillers against Christianity. The sceptics and unbelievers with whom circum- stances have from time to time brought me into con- tact (and I have met with many of both) were not men for whose opinions, so far as Christianity is con- cerned, I could ever manage to feel the least respect. I cannot recall a single exception to the general truth of this statement. For the most part, they were mere smatterers in regard to scriptural knowledge—clever, flippant, half-educated men in this respect, who had caught at and appropriated some stray, loose, thoughtless UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. 35 assertions or suggestions that they had heard in con- versation concerning the objections to Christianity, or had picked up their notions upon the subject, generally very hazy and indistinct ones, from some review or magazine written on the infidel side of the question. None of them were men who had ever seriously grappled with the many arguments for and against, inalienable from the proper discussion of the question ; nor indeed, so far as one could judge from their con- versation, did they ever mean to do so. Some of them were men who, apparently, found it difficult to refrain from sneering outright at the credu- lity, as they were pleased to regard it, of the devout and earnest Christian. They in general looked on themselves as very superior indeed to ordinary mortals in acuteness of judgment and intellectual discernment. Ordinary mortals, they would let you feel, were, unfortunately for themselves, morally and intellectually enthralled by the shackles of an old-fashioned, super- stitious creed; while they themselves, burning and shining lights that they were, from all moral and in- tellectual slavery of the kind were, oh, how gloriously free! The truth, so beautifully enunciated by the poet Wordsworth,” that “¢ Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop Than when we soar,” was one in which none of these cavillers to whom I allude believed—a truth in which some of them, indeed, seemed incapable of believing. Many of them were, no doubt, men of fair, average capacity, but the burning and shining lights which * «The Excursion,” Book II. 36 UNBELIEF. they wished to pass for they certainly were not. And then their thoughts were not religious thoughts; religious. books they never read; nearly all the books which they possessed, all the current literature which they read, were, if not actually stamped with the unmistakable die of scepticism, at least of a purely secular character. Some of them were good classical scholars, others of them clever mathematicians, others of them able scientists, but none of them knew any- thing beyond the very simplest rudiments of theology. They appeared generally to be positively prejudiced against the Christian religion and its concerns. "What cared they, any more than Gallio, about a question of words and names, and of Jewish law (Acts xviii. 15, 17)?—or than Festus, about one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive (Acts xxv. 19) ? Such was the contemptuous spirit in which the majority of these men seemed to me to regard Christianity. Concerning the great question, therefore, of Chris- tianity versus Infidelity, the opinion of such men was always regarded by me as quite worthless. How indeed could any one regard it as anything else ? Who would respect a judge’s decision in a case in which he had listened to, at most, the arguments on only one side? Who would follow the advice of a physician who gave it without examining either the special part affected, or the general constitution of the patient consulting him—nay, who had unalterably made up his mind beforehand as to the advice he should give in the case? Such advice could only be by chance worth taking. It would probably be worthless. My experience in this respect may, no doubt, have been somewhat peculiar. But, be this as it may, UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. 37 I have certainly never yet met with any persons (and this I wish to state most emphatically) who joked about the Bible, uniformly absented themselves from church, smiled at the idea of one day in the week being kept holy, affected to scornfully reject the doctrines of eternal punishment, justification, and so forth, who were not upon the merits of all these ques- tions densely ignorant ; and the denser their ignorance, the more dogged and self-satisfied they usually were, and the more ready, on the slightest provocation, to let people know what their opinions were on these and all such-like questions. My readers will be able to judge for themselves whether the freethinkers whom they themselves have met with deserve any higher character in regard to religious knowledge, modesty, justice, and discretion, or not. It would, of course, be absurd for me to pretend to be ignorant of the fact that there are some of the most distinguished scientists in England at the present day who do not believe in Christianity. But it was noticed by the late Dr. Whewell (who was surely an excellent judge of such matters), that of the learned and distinguished unbelievers of his day there were very few whose education was broad and general as well as deep. So in our own time we must not allow the great and deserved reputation, which some eminent living men have earned in various branches of physical science, to blind us to the fact that these various domains of learning are not only in themselves neces- sarily limited, but that by exercise therein the mind even of the greatest calibre may contract a habit of vision fatal to any wide, far-reaching generalisation on a subject so immense in its range and complex in its 38 UNBELIEF. details as theology. Nor must we forget that even though there are some able scientists who are un- believers, there are others, quite as able, who are earnest Christians. [See letter III., p. 107]. And yet it must not be thought that even if a man were learned in all the learning of the Universities, he would be necessarily a good man, or a trustworthy judge in religious and spiritual matters. There is nothing whatever incompatible between superiority in learning and inferiority in such mental and moral qualities as reverence, self-knowledge, a clean heart, im- partiality, common-sense, discrimination, truthfulness. Knowledge is, indeed, very far from being the only thing necessary to constitute a man a good judge in religious and spiritual concerns. A man may be very learned, and yet be but a learned fool: he may be very learned, and yet be but a poor, dissolute creature—carnal-minded, unspiritual, godless. “ Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, Have ofttimes no connection. Knowledge dwells In heads replete with thoughts of other men ; Wisdom in minds attentive to their own. Knowledge, a rude unprofitable mass, The mere materials with which wisdom builds, Till smooth’d and squar’d and fitted to its place, Does but encumber whom it seems t’ enrich. Knowledge is proud that he has learn’d so much ; Wisdom is humble that he knows no more.” * Similarly Fuller: “Thou mayest as well expect to grow stronger by always eating, as wiser by always reading. Too much overcharges nature, and turns more into disease than nourishment. ’Tis thought and * Cowper: “The Winter Walk at Noon.” UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. 39 digestion which makes books serviceable, and gives health and vigour to the mind.” And even as to knowledge itself, it is a great mistake to suppose that knowledge will always come from the reading of books. A man may read thou- sands of books, and yet be ‘supplied with but an exceedingly meagre stock of knowledge after all. For, not to speak of the weak memory an extensive reader may suffer from, a man may read a book, and yet, from want of intellectual power to grasp an author's ideas as a whole, or from inattention, bias, and so forth, he may know but little about what the author either said or meant to say in the end. In short, a man may read a book stupidly, with bias, unintelli- gently. Eyes he may have and see not, ears and hear not, understanding and yet not understand. To such an one, of course, knowledge comes not with reading. This passage from Locke’s “Conduct of the Understand- ing” (Sect. XXIV.) explains how it is that books are often read in vain:—‘“There is not seldom to be found even amongst those who aim at knowledge, who with an unwearied industry employ their whole time in books, who scarce allow themselves time to eat or sleep, but read, and read, and read on, but yet make no great advances in real knowledge, though there be no defect in their intellectual faculties, to which their little progress can be imputed. The mistake here is, that it is usually supposed that, by reading, the author’s knowledge is transferred into the reader's understanding; and so it is, but not by bare reading, but by reading and understanding what he writ. Whereby I mean not barely comprehending what is affirmed or denied in each proposition (though that 40 UNBELIEF. great readers do not think themselves concerned pre- cisely to do), but to see and follow the train of his reasonings, observe the strength and clearness of their connection, and examine upon what they bottom. Without this a man may read the discourses of a very rational author, writ in a language and in propositions that he very well understands, and yet acquire not one jot of his knowledge; which consisting only in the perceived, certain, or probable connection of the ideas made use of in his reasonings, the reader’s knowledge is no farther increased, than he perceives that, so much as he sees of this connection, so much he knows of the truth or probability of that author’s opinions.” And then, while there is the certainty that a man may read many books without acquiring much know- ledge, there is, of course, also the certainty that a man of little knowledge may altogether overrate his own _ learning, and, owing to the littleness of his knowledge, arrive at conclusions for which there are very insuffi- cient data, if any at all. “It is true,” writes Lord Bacon in his essay Of Atheism, “that a little philosophy inclineth men’s minds to atheism, but depth in philo- sophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no farther; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” And even supposing that a man should have read all sorts of books with the utmost impartiality and intelligence, and that consequently his erudition must be exceedingly extensive, his erudition may be of such a kind as not merely not to make him a good judge of UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. Al the profoundly difficult question we are discussing, but as actually to disqualify him for being one. A man, for instance, may be what is called a well- educated man, and yet be an unwisely educated one. There are two more or less distinct classes of faculties in every man, namely, (1) the religious or spiritual faculties; and (2) the intellectual ones. Now, no man can be justly said to have been wisely educated if the former faculties have been ignored, or at best treated with but scant attention, while his intellectual faculties have been wrought at and developed to the highest degree of perfection they are capable of attaining. Should this be so, should the intellectual part of a man’s nature be thoroughly well-educated, and the religious or spiritual part of it educated badly or not at all, the result of course must be, that the man will become more and more a purely intel- lectual one, less and less a religiously disposed one. The difference in development between the two sets of faculties will be becoming greater and greater every day, unless they are developed equally, the one as much as the other. And it is not only that the man whose religious faculties are unduly neglected, while his intellectual ones are being highly developed, is becom- ing less spiritual-minded while he grows more and more purely intellectual; this is not the only result from the disproportionate education of the two classes of his faculties. He will gradually become not merely relatively less religious, but, as experience teaches, downright irreligious. The development of the intellectual and of the religious parts of a man’s nature ought, therefore, to go on pari passu, for there can be no doubt that if the former part of it be culti- 42 OUNBELIEF. vated, while the latter is let lie neglected, the latter is becoming not merely a lageard in comparison with the former, but absolutely a laggard in and by itself. The following passage from “ Hinds on Inspiration” is quoted with much approval by the late Archbishop Whately in the eighth of his Lectures on Political Eco- nomy: it will help to impress upon you the ill-effects of restricting all one’s attention to secular studies: ——“Jt is a truth which cannot be too strongly insisted on, that if the powers of the intellect be strencthened by the acquisition of science, professional learning, or general literature—in short, secular knowledge, of whatever kind, without being proportionately exercised on spiritual subjects, its susceptibility of the objections which may be urged against revelation will be in- creased, without a corresponding increase in the ability to remove them. Conscious of having mastered certain difficulties that attach to subjects which he has studied, one so educated finds it impossible to satisfy himself about difficulties in revelation, revelation not having received from him the same degree of attention; and, forgetful of the unequal distribution of his studies, charges the fault on the subject. Doubt, discontent, and contemptuous infidelity (more frequently secret than avowed) are no unusual results. It seems indeed to have been required of us by the Author of revelation, that His Word should have a due share of our intellect as well as our heart; and that the disproportionate direction of our talents, no less than of our affections, to the things of this world should disqualify us for faith. What is sufficient sacred knowledge for an uneducated person, becomes inade- quate for him when educated; even as he would be UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. 43 crippled and deformed, if the limb which was strong and well-proportioned when he was a child should have undergone no progressive change as his bodily stature increased and he grew into manhood. We must not think to satisfy the divine law by setting apart the same absolute amount as the tthe of our enlarged understanding, which was due from a nar- rower and more barren field of intellectual culture. “Nor let it be imagined that this is true only of minds highly gifted, and accomplished in science, elegant literature, or professional pursuits. It is not the absolute amount of worldly acquirements, but the proportion that they bear to our religious attainments, be these what they may, that is to be dreaded. If the balance of intellectual exercise be not preserved, the almost certain result will be, either an utter indif- ference to religion, or else that slow-corroding scepti- cism which is fostered by the consciousness that difficulties corresponding to those that continue to perplex our view of revelation have, in our other pursuits, been long surmounted and removed.” And it is not, I may add, merely in regard to the religious and intellectual parts of a man’s nature that due proportion in the matter of education should be carefully observed. The same principle holds good also in regard to the development of a man’s physical as oat with that of his intellectual nature. If the development of the former be cultivated too much, that of the latter too little, the result must be that, should this disproportionate sort of development be continued, the man so educated will grow less and less of an intellectual, more and more of a mere physical man. Thus in the matter of a man’s educa- 44 UNBELIEF. tion the rule, Educate all parts of his nature daly and proportionately, should always be acted on. There are many men, whose opinion concerning Christianity cannot be regarded as worth much con- sideration, simply because they were born and cradled, as it were, as infidels, and educated as such from the very beginning and all along. JI have met with men of this kind who were so prejudiced against Christianity as apparently to regard the case in favour of infidelity as quite self-evident, as much so as any of Euclid’s axioms, and as capable of demonstrative proof as any of his propositions. With such men, of course, all discus- sion of the question is vain and useless. Men, as Cesar reminds us(G. B. iii. 18), seldom find any difficulty in be- lieving what they choose to believe: fere libenter homines wd quod volunt credunt. The opinion of men of this kind, no matter how learned they may be, is plainly then not worth much consideration so far as the question of Christianity versus Infidelity is concerned. No one, Christian or infidel, is a good judge of a question in regard to which he is all prejudice. Neither is it only a well-balanced and duly-propor- tionate education and freedom from bias, that you should look for as qualifications in any one before you can wisely regard him as a competent authority in divine matters. There is another qualification he also should have before he can be wisely regarded by you as such, namely, a religious disposition. Unless a man is religiously disposed, his opinion concerning the Bible is worthless. What can an immoral, ungodly man know about high spiritual concerns ?—about the efficacy of prayer, for example? or the grace that comes from above to those who in God’s law “meditate UNBELIEVERS SELDOM THEOLOGIANS. 45 day and night”? And therefore it is that I would not look on such an one as a trustworthy authority in respect to these things. The mere creature of logic, the “intellectual all-in- all,” * is manifestly then not the man to resort to for advice in matters which his very education unfits him for understanding. No irreligious man can be a trust- worthy guide in religious matters. The spiritual faculty that is in a man he must obviously try by all the customary means to develop, if he really mean to cultivate spiritual discernment and to understand spiritual things. If this he will not do, he must be satisfied just to continue on in his unspiritual blindness —blindness for which, exw hypothesi, he seeks no cure. Hence it happens that a man may be very clever, and exceedingly erudite even in theology, and yet, in consequence of his leading an irreligious and immoral life, be a most incompetent judge of the question, Is Christianity of divine origin? It is a mistake to suppose that theological knowledge always brings a godly disposition along with it, though as a matter of fact, it generally tends to do so; just as it is a mis- take to suppose that much reading always brings along with it knowledge; or much knowledge, wisdom. Spiritual truth cannot be received by persons of cor- rupt and unclean lives and unclean conversation, no matter how deep and wide their theological knowledge may be. “ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” are Christ’s own words to us upon this point, “lest they turn again and rend you” (Matt. vii. 6; and cf. p. 83). Many of the sceptics and unbelievers, however, with * Wordsworth : “ A Poet’s Epitaph,” 46 UNBELIEF. whom I have met, I had better add in conclusion, were unbelievers or sceptics in appearance and name only, not in reality—only sham, self-deceived, super- ficial unbelievers; men who had never realised to them- selves the unbelief which they professed ; who, in fact, had formed no definite opinion whatever one way or another about the matter, and appeared moreover satis- fied to let their judgment remain in complete suspense. What sin and sorrow men of this kind cause, shallow and sophistical though so many of them are! Truly, indeed, to be grieved for, as the poet Crabbe pathe- tically suggests, is the ““ Wounded heart, Chill’d by file doubts which bolder minds impart,” * And they do much harm also in this way: they fre- quently appear to others, perhaps weaker-minded men even than themselves, to be really the infidels which they profess to be; and they in this way unfairly add to the numerical strength of the army of unbelievers. Men perhaps would be more slow to unsettle the religious opinions of others if they would only think of the terrible wound, which the “dart at random sent ” may inflict, and of the solemn manner in which this wilful, deliberate scattering of doubts is denounced by One whose holiness and meekness and love for mankind even the most inveterate unbeliever would not dare to call in question. “Whoso,” He says, “shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mat. xviii. 6). * “Sects and Professions in Religion,” COMMON FALLACIES OF UNBELIEVERS. 47 Srction 1V.—Two logical fallacies commonly commatted by cavillers against Christianity. Lhe question entirely one of probability ; not admitting of demon- strative proof. Most cavillers against the truth of Christianity are in their disputations not infrequently guilty of either one or both of the following fallacies ; either (a) that of arguing from the particular to the universal, or (@) that of begging the question. (2) “This argument in defence of Christianity,” says he who fallaciously argues from the particular to the universal, “is unsound. Therefore all argu- ments in defence of Christianity are probably equally unsound.” Now, this is a very illogical conclusion. For there may be twenty arguments, not to say one, in defence of Christianity, all of them weak and in- valid, and yet Christianity may be a revealed religion for all that; seeing that there may be an equal number, or even a greater number,-of other arguments in defence of it, all of them sound and valid. The question, Is Christianity of divine origin? you will perceive, is not one which, like one of the pro- positions in Euclid, can be proved to demonstration. On the contrary: it is a question of probability, and depends wholly for its solution on the weight and soundness of the several arguments that can be adduced on both sides, to be weighed the one set against the other. (8) The other common fallacy, of which the ordinary objectors to Christianity are for the most part guilty, is that of begging the question. This they do ina 48 UNBELIEF. variety of ways. They will mis-describe, for instance, the doctrines of the atonement; of the punishment of the wicked, and the reward of the good, after death; of justification, and other essential doctrines of Chris- tianity ; and then they will turn on you and ask you, Who in his senses could believe in these absurdities ? who in a religion all compact of them? It will gene- rally suffice for you to meet opponents of this kind with a denial of their premisses. You may inform them that the views which they have described as the Bible views concerning the atonement, punishment after death, rewards, justification, are not the Bible views concerning any of these things; and that, accord- ingly, the arguments founded by them on their own imaginary foundations, on their own misrepresentations, on their own caricatures of the truth, must all fall to the ground, being completely worthless. Perhaps they may assure you in reply, that some eminent Christians hold the views which you are pleased to accuse them of misrepresenting or caricaturing. This you may admit or deny according to the circumstances of the case; but you may add, that some eminent Christians hold religious views from which Butler and Paley would strongly dissent, and that in no case is the Bible responsible for either the misstatements or exaggerations of individuals, no matter how eminent. Than the fallacy of begging the question there are few more common ones. I was present the other day at an altercation between two gentlemen. The one had accused the other of acting inequitably by him, though not (he admitted) ft a a ee ore ant ’ , sfSye ee BC eer iss" he ooe i? | re Per tye Je “ ae Ty of ids - ; vd , Tae ; a ' Ries Rar Be iano a . neh} te OWA tart hah S PS cteeh eae if MB. ‘oS wee 4 me as ‘ e P + tia Pah t uanar't- eae rere) ' aati it lane y f aes ead ity ty Y > KR Pr Giavi. “ 4 i} Nie ¥ ‘ hia i wif ipey HAP a peat Mitghh pe J ; Fe - ra. me cate eee ipre: a cyimag - ai Rise thes. a av lige" it~ ‘Vad Baadg Ser | rca 7 oe ; rev ka a7 i)" S257: ef ee TUE ai ay prey ait PoHe dwderts W 2:5) Ogee , i 7 ri ys ru ig nF 2 LR Yasue? Anes Feiay tala aro. Lie - 88 ‘ ul x P| Shas CA stad OG Ar Gin waioires. ws 7h et blac eg ee hits Wee on bity ides ys the trate Sty it Joon oe an = oe isco OM pe ti: fat j iy a MOOS Jade Ol ASG WHE Loreen y # ; ; negates Tod) slings: ati! Very ae aka ie. abhi Was Liat ehh P a . : te sly ~o f Hon Gods "aPt 24¥ ggolros aontr tslict./ ee < 4 a Peta; wee. SH, Soe. Gore a hess or ad b ovie Ti a0 Sill a Pea pees at. : “ab ehh rh ww s Bins Aout aiat if resis io 245 tai | ae phi ; nlex i a Sen ; Se * he : i i sa kee br : ‘ ie, dae Jew erage, £ ‘Modi. ui shore as stood a ‘saith peony “3 bere. = Asoo gd PA’ G el tdi P16 BR ee idmocca ct autidetiog coimiqo i bolleda oe ee uid Bog flow adT thee Re tedoass ys To ytaerdit aa A é : . ation: re ‘poids 09 err ~"" scene aie ae yas ve id zi ‘-- r 3 i Ve ee 3 h & ? oe Le ‘ at moe ap eee Ser Pl : t: ane ‘ ty ; hedge, VY ; a ; 4 ; ana $4 .¥ + é yp: a te : ‘ usa 2D pe ies ar - (iyane Taney Pa ed ; J ; ; E rs it nite aE ae ie Fri Mh: orapiannt au mouaté! ‘PORT pO) ata PASTA DM, fOUBL Bile as; Fae aa foe BOA, cL A Ur Pre vi | AQUEDE SPAMS, Wp aie vi ee: i ve ; ee : ‘e Ke’ ~\ a 7 Se Pane » er + =e . a } Rene Pe) eee, RE GG a ee hen ay Saf fs i cf : re se eh Bort ee HiRes f, eae erga Lt A re Ae, Sage gant ROOM, oie te ag rm Ox: >