w^ 
 
 
 •:t 
 
 *<*# 
 
 :? 
 
 i 
 
 
 oA • .«j^ t^-a

 
 I
 
 VICTORIA INSTITUTE, 
 
 OR 
 
 PHILOSOPHICAL SOCy. OF Gt. BRITAIN. 
 7. ADELPHI TERRACE. 'LONDON, 
 
 ^ W.C- 
 
 ^ 
 
 1883. 
 
 
 /t^^ 
 

 
 ^/ 
 
 DESCEIPTION OF CHEISTIANITY 
 CRITICISED, 
 
 BEING A PAPER BY THE LATE EL HON. THE LORD O'NEILL, 
 READ AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE 
 
 25 JUNE 1883, 
 BY THE LORD BISHOP OF DERRY. 
 
 THIS EDITION INCLUDES THE SPEECHES ON THE PRESENT ASPECT 
 OF MODERN THOUGHT. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 E. STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS, S.W. 
 
 EDINBURGH : R. GRANT & SON. DUBLIN : G. HERBERT. 
 
 PARIS: GALIGNANI & CO. 
 
 NEW YORK : ANSON, D. F. RANDOLPH & CO. 
 
 AUSTRALIA: G. ROBERTSON.
 
 Jfrccis of pages 1 to 8. 
 
 SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE. 
 
 SIR H. BARKLY, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., F.R.S., in the Chaie. 
 
 Extracts from the Report. 
 
 " In presenting the Seventeenth Annual Report, the Council desires to 
 state that, in spite of those adverse influences afFectmg all Societies, the 
 Institute's progress at home and abroad continues to be very satisfactory. 
 [The Institute now consists of 1,020 Home and Foreign Members and 
 Associates ; only 14 Members and 9 Associates have retired during the year.] 
 
 " The number of new American members joining does not diminish, although 
 the Institute's American ofi'shoot (which is an independent Society), is rapidly 
 advancing. In Australia and South Africa a system of corresponding local 
 secretaries has worked well, and will be extended. 
 
 "As regards the Institute's Philosophical and Scientific Investigations, an 
 increasing number of home and foreign Members and friends now contribute 
 to enhance their value, and aid the Institute in filling that position which 
 its aims demand. It exchanges Transactions with many leading London 
 Societies, whose Members — whether in its ranks or not — willingly render aid 
 when consulted. 
 
 " The adhesion of such men as Pasteur and Wurtz, and many others at 
 home and abroad, has tended to render the Institute more useful 'at a time 
 when principles which a few years ago would have been taken for granted 
 by ninety-nine out of every hundred persons are now all of a sudden brought 
 up for discussion, and doubt thrown upon them,' and when it is so important 
 that accurate scientific research should be encouraged and insisted upon. 
 
 " Her Majesty the Queen, in consequence of a communication from the 
 President, has been graciously pleased to accept the volumes of the Transactions 
 of the Victoria Institute. It is hoped that ere long Her Majesty may become 
 its patron. (See Vol. I., p. 31.) 
 
 " Members and others in many parts of the world have written, expressing 
 warm approval of the Institute, and their sense of the value of the Journal. 
 (See Part 65, pages 9 et seq.) The papers and discussions are referred to by 
 many as especially useful by reason of their containing careful examinations of 
 those questions of Philosophy and Science said (by its enemies) to militate 
 against the truth of Revelation. 
 
 " A demand for the Jouriml has arisen on the part of the large Colonial and 
 American Libraries ; several have purchased complete sets. 
 
 " Spain is now added to the list of countries in which the Transactions are 
 translated. 
 
 " The Journal is much used by Members and others lecturing at home, in 
 India, and the Colonies." 
 
 The Resolutions proposed were : — 
 
 1. The Adoption of the Report and Vote of thanks to the Council. 
 
 2. Vote of thanks to those who had aided in the Institute's investiga- 
 
 tions during the year, and to the Bishop of Derry, for reading 
 
 the late Lord CNeilFs paper. 
 8. Vote of condolence with the Dowager Lady O'Neill. 
 4. Vote of thanks to the Chairman. 
 
 Refreshments ivere afterwards served in the Museum. 
 
 The Transactions now extend to sixteen volumes, containing the papers 
 and discussions thought worthy of publication. Some are purely scientific, such 
 as the paper on the Isomorphism of Crystalline Bodies, and some take up those 
 questions of Science or Philosophy which bear upon the truths revealed in 
 Scripture, — these latter are taken up solely with a view to elucidating the 
 Truth, and getting rid of such theories as might prove baseless. Purely theo- 
 logical questions are left for other societies, and ministers of religion. 
 
 u,uc
 
 9 
 
 The Eight Hon. A. S. Ayrton, P.O.— I have to move : " That the Eeport 
 be received, and the thanks of the Member.s and Associates presented to the 
 Council, Honorary Officers, and Auditors for their efficient conduct of tlie 
 business of the Victoria Institute during the j'ear." I am invited to move 
 this resohition because, like most of you, I take very deep interest in the 
 proceedings of this Society ; and I enjoy, as I have no doubt many of you 
 do also, the great pleasure of reading its proceedings from time to time. I 
 think that those proceedings in an eminent degree grapple with the doubts and 
 difficulties that are met with in the study of nature, and tend to satisfy the 
 mind of any reasonable person that, instead of what are called modern dis- 
 coveries and researches tending to overthrow the generally-entertained con- 
 viction that the Author of all things is God, they lead, when justly and 
 rightly considered and reasonably examined, to the very opposite conclusion. 
 (Applause.) In my opinion every discovery that has been well established 
 and generally admitted has only afforded another proof of the wondrous 
 wisdom shown in all the works of creation. The Society's publications, I 
 am glad to see, are being sought for and diffused in all parts of the intel- 
 lectual world. It is satisfactory to know that the efforts which are made 
 here aftbrd in almost every part of the Queen's dominions a new basis for 
 thought or action, and a new means for carrying on any controversy that 
 may have been raised by publications of a character which we have no right 
 to condemn — because everybody has a right to say or to print what he thinks 
 — but which we have an undoubted right to refute and to show that they are 
 not based on the facts which have been presented to us. Such is the view I 
 take of the efforts of the Society, and of the principal results of those efforts. 
 For some time past, however, I have entertained a rather decided opinion, 
 which I will take this opportunity of expressing — not with any authority, 
 but rather as a suggestion for the consideration of the Council which manages 
 our affairs — in regard to the desirableness of extending our sphere of opera- 
 tions. There are amongst our members men who perfectly understand the 
 elaborate arguments which are necessarily used when we enter into controversy 
 with other men of great mental capacity, who have used that capacity in 
 writing works for the purpose of leading the public to conclusions which we 
 do not recognise or admit. There is being diffused all over the country 
 literature which has only one merit, namely, that it is extremely cheap — 
 although, if a thing is bad, that which would be a merit if it were good 
 becomes a very great element of evil. (Hear, hear.) The cheapness is not 
 an evil, but the rapid dissemination of the contents of a cheap bad book is 
 much to be deplored. If we are to combat this growing evil, we must do so 
 by operating in the same manner as those whose teachings we disapprove. 
 We must endeavour to diffuse everywhere cheap works of a kind that all 
 people can read who can read at all, and that all who read can understand — 
 works which can be followed without anj difficulty or embarrassment, and 
 containing arguments which can be appreciated because they are set forth in 
 a form and style which comes home to their minds and feelings, and in a 
 language with which they themselves are perfectly familiar. These are the 
 
 C
 
 10 
 
 sort of works which are used m the dissemination of error ; and, if we wish 
 to overtake and circumvent error, we must use the same methods. Our 
 works must be as engaging and inviting— I hope, indeed, a ^great deal more 
 engaging and inviting —than those which we condemn. I think this Society 
 will do well, now that it has arrived at a certain stage of maturity, to devote 
 its attention to the production of works of this kind. They ought to be 
 cheaper than any of those works of evil which we desire to combat, and in 
 this respect we ought to be able to win the battle. We start with very great 
 advantages on our side ; and, if the works of our opponents are sold for two- 
 pence, we ought to be able to sell ours for a penny. (Hear, hear.) We 
 ought to make use of the fir^t attraction of all, namely, that every one can 
 afford to buy what we can aflford to sell. We are bound to ask ourselves 
 what constitutes attraction in the minds of the many. I object to the use of 
 any class distinctions in putting forward literary productions, such as calling 
 them "works for artisans," &c. There are works which are intended 
 for scientific minds, for the use of persons engaged in the pursuit of 
 particular branches of learning ; but outside these, and distinguished 
 from them, there are the books addressed to the general reader, who 
 wishes to approach a subject without preliminary learning and to un- 
 derstand what he reads. This is the only distinction which should be 
 observed. The publications I speak of ought to be prepared for the use of 
 the general reader. If this plan were adopted, you would invite the 
 attention of the working-man as a member of the general community, and 
 not as one outside the community, and one to be treated in a special 
 manner, and you would thus bring him within the brotherhood of know- 
 ledge. These works should, then, be written in the most simple and common 
 language. I do not wish to say anything depreciatory of what is called 
 scientific language ; but every scientific man must admit that such language, 
 as addressed to the general reader, is little more than a jargon of two dead 
 languages mixed up in the most unsatisfactory manner, and conveying no 
 meaning whatever. You must, then, take a review of that which you wish 
 to do, and you may be quite certain that if you adopt |this course the work 
 will be accomplished in a manner which will fulfil the desire that is enter- 
 tained. If you start at random upon this great and very grave task, the 
 result will be the same as it would be if you went into a shop, gave a very 
 ambiguous order, and expected to get what you wished for — it would, in 
 fact, generally be disappointment. I think, then, that the Council should 
 first attempt to get a clear comprehension of the character of the work, and 
 that they should then obtain the services of those who, from their clearness 
 and force of expression, their knowledge and learning, would be capable of 
 producing a review of modern science, leading, step by step, up to the 
 conclusion we desire— that is to say, leading from nature to nature's God. 
 (Applause.) If time permitted, I could give, not a perfect, but a slight 
 sketch of the sort of work I have in my mind ; but I am warned that 
 the time at the disposal of any individual speaker is short, and if I 
 entered further into the subject I am afraid I should go beyond the period ^*'«^ 
 
 U!UC
 
 n 
 
 that is assigned to me. But in making these general observations I have a 
 very clear conception of the whole scope and character of such a work ; how 
 it should begin, how it should traverse the whole ground of science, showing, 
 step by step, the absolute impossibility of matter making the intelligence by 
 which the action of matter in the world is regulated ; how impossible it is 
 that vegetables can invent, if I may so say, the elaborate processes by which 
 they grow and propagate their species, by which, when they die, they leave 
 their successors, and by which those successors do the same ; how absolutely 
 impossible it is, if you go into the animal kingdom, the same thing can 
 occur, that animals, beginning with those which are so minute that we 
 cannot discover them with our unaided powers, could have irkvented the 
 conditions under which they live, and the transformations into other forms 
 of life ; how absolutely impossible it is that all the transformations should 
 have gone on without any guide— because the idea is that they have 
 invented something above their own existence ; how absolutely contrary to 
 all reason and sense this is in all branches of life, and still more how impos- 
 sible it is in inanimate nature. (Applause.) If it is possible that any 
 living thing could perform such an operation, it is absolutely impossible to 
 suppose that an unliving could do so. We are brought to this one general 
 conclusion, having reference to all things with and without life — namely, 
 that the power of human observation is limited. If people go to Maskelyne 
 & Cook's, they think that some of the things which are done there are 
 almost miraculous, because the observation is not commensurate with 
 what passes before the eyes. In the same way, in studying nature we 
 are brought to the limits of our power of observation. All materialists 
 admit that there is a point of minuteness which the human faculties 
 of observation cannot go beyond. If, therefore, the result of all modern 
 science and material effort is to leave you at a point beyond which material 
 effort cannot reach, beyond which you have to deal with inferential de- 
 ductions from that which you can see to that which you cannot see — if 
 that is the result of all modern science, as it is its great glory and triumph, 
 observe how you are brought in direct relation with that which man cannot 
 appreciate with his own senses, but only with his intellect, and therefore into 
 the realm which we say is the realm of the power and wisdom of God. Thus, 
 every step is a new proof of the impossibility of any theory of what maybe 
 called material growth and development, and is, on the other hand, an absolute 
 proof of the necessity of adopting the belief that there is a Power above 
 which alone has prescribed the whole law for that which is living and 
 unliving on the face of the earth — that law which mankind alone are capable 
 of appreciating by the use of faculties which they could not have invented 
 for themselv^es, but which they have received and are bound to cherish as the 
 greatest gift of God. Such, in general terms, would be the scope of the 
 work to be presented to the general readers of this country — a work which 
 should present to him not merely subject for contemplation, but, at the 
 same time, arguments that will convince him of the truth of what is 
 challenged, and also bring him to the point of union with the ideas which
 
 12 
 
 he receives from the source qf revelation. It is thus the two are brought 
 into unison and harmony, and each supports the other, and brings the mind 
 of man to that highest point of revelation— namely, that he is the creature 
 and servant of God, that he is capable of appreciating the will of God, and 
 therefore of being accountable for all his actions here. This is the scope of 
 the work which I would suggest for the consideration of our Council. I 
 have not gone into it in any detail, on account of time, and I would say that 
 it cannot be done in a day — nay, I do not think it could be done in a year 
 with proper care and attention — but it may be done at no distant day, and I 
 hope that when that time arrives the funds may have been found for its 
 adequate dissemination. The question is one which ought not to be 
 approached in a narrow and little spirit. If such a work is worthy of being 
 published, it ought to be published in so many thousands, that the cost of 
 producing it would be little beyond the cost of the paper on which it is 
 printed. If you make a great effort, and print hundreds of thousands, the 
 work will not only reach all parts of this country, but will be spread abroad 
 in all places, and will sustain itself, although, in the first instance, the society 
 ought to be able to get together the funds necessary for sending forth pro- 
 ductions which shall be worthy of the labours which will have to be 
 bestowed upon them. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. S. Smith, M.P. — I am very glad to be here to-night, to second this 
 motion and to testify the strong feeling of interest which I have in this 
 society. This is the first occasion upon which it has been possible for me 
 to attend any of our meetings, but I have received our very valuable 
 Journal for several years, and, so far as I have been able, I have read the 
 papers therein. I think this society has been doing a very good work 
 in this country and in this age. No one who carefully observes the pro- 
 gress of opinion can doubt that there has been a great growth of wild, 
 infidel, and atheistic opinions in this country of late years. I often feel 
 somewhat depressed and alarmed in noticing the strong tide which is running 
 in favour of agnosticism, and the denial of all that we have hitherto con- 
 sidered most sacred. Perhaps these opinions have not yet entered very 
 deeply into society, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are held by 
 many able, intellectual men, and by some men whom we have been in the 
 habit of looking up to as leaders in science, in letters, and in philosophy, and 
 that they are sinking down into what are called the lower classes, with very 
 pernicious effects. It came to my knowledge not very long since that 
 doctrines which are destructive of the very foundations of morality and 
 civilisation are being advocated by certain bodies. They have probably 
 gained as yet the adhesion of comparatively but a few ; but, at the same 
 time, I am afraid that they will spread. Whenever the ground has been pre- 
 pared for them by the destruction of man's sense of reverence and responsi- 
 bility to God, the progress is very rapid towards anti-social doctrines. See 
 what is going on in another country at this time. In the neighbouring 
 country of France, and especially in the City of Paris, the foundations of 
 morality are already to a large extent overthrown in the minds of the masses.
 
 13 
 
 A friend of mine who has just returned from Paris tells me that he attended 
 a meeting of Socialists while he was there, and the feeling which pervaded 
 that meeting was one of bitter hatred against all classes possessing property, 
 and that the idea of civil war was hailed with cheers. I am told also that the 
 employes in Paris will not now recognise their employers, or hold any inter- 
 course with them. They have received instructions from their societies that 
 the employers are to be kept at arras' length, and that no intercourse is to 
 be held with them. The doctrine widely preached is that the only way to 
 treat the employer of labour and the capitalist is to put him out of the way 
 as soon as possible. This is a matter which is worthy the attention of all 
 thoughtful men, and I think that those who are dallying with these 
 doctrines are little aware of the state of things they are helping forward, 
 and of what would be the consequences if such doctrines were commonly 
 held by the people. This Society is one of the various means of combating 
 such views. Of course, I do not lose sight of the work accomplished by the 
 Christian Church, which is the great means of preserving in this world all 
 the elements of peace, prosperity, and true social welfare ; but it has various 
 auxiliaries, and I think this Society and other associations, are very valuable 
 aids to the more direct religious work of the Christian Church. I think also 
 we require to recognise more clearly the terrible condition in which a large por- 
 tion of the population exists. I am convinced that the extreme degradation in 
 which certain portions of our large populations live is a seed-bed in which 
 these dreadful infidel anarchical doctrines will take root and bear the most 
 bitter fruit, and it becomes those who value the future of the country to con- 
 sider what they can do to improve the condition of these degraded masses. 
 Are we sufficiently alive to the fearful elements of danger that lie near our 
 doors ? These people have kept very quiet, all things considered. They have 
 not yet been much influenced by infidel lecturers and agitators ; but they 
 will be drawn more and more in this direction. Education is spreading. 
 The children of these degraded masses are being taught to read. The first 
 literature that will come into their hands is this infidel literature of which 
 Mr. Ayrton has been speaking, filled, as it is, with the most dangerous 
 doctrines ; and when a few years have elapsed, we may expect a crop of 
 Atheism and Communism, with all its attendant evils, in this country, such 
 as is now being produced in Paris. We see it in America, and I am sorry 
 to say that the same thing is spreading amongst the educated classes in 
 India. I have lately received a letter from a friend in India, informing 
 me that the educated natives are to a great extent adherents of the 
 doctrines of Mr. Bradlaugh. All these things fill one with considerable 
 dread of the future. I apprehend that the great battle of the future will 
 be with unbelief in all its most daring forms, and it behoves all who love 
 their country to do all they can to counteract these dangerous agencies. 
 This society is one of the means well adapted for that purpose. I wish it 
 all prosperity, and hope its publications will prove a great success. 
 (Applause.) 
 The motion was carried unanimously.
 
 14 
 
 Mr. James Bateman, F.R.S.— In acknowledging this kind vote of 
 thanks, my words will be very few : and they will not be few, I am sorry to say, 
 from any embarrassment such as a person might feel from having himself 
 wrought any part of the meritorious work which has called forth such a 
 handsome acknowledgment in such an important meeting. Full justice, and, 
 I think, no more than justice, has been done to the Council ; honour to 
 whom honour is due ; and we must not forget the thirteen years' labours of 
 my gallant friend the Hon. Secretary, who is entitled to a very large share 
 of this well-merited meed of praise. He must himself be astonished at the 
 success of his labours. To those labours, to his indomitable perseverance, 
 and to his unflinching faith in his mission, this Society owes what it has 
 attained. I remember the time when our adherents were reckoned by units, 
 while now they are to be counted by hundreds, for at this moment the 
 Society has a roll which extends to four figures. (Applause.) It would 
 have been still larger than it is but for a very heavy death-rate, which 
 includes some of our most important members, and men who were uni- 
 versally known, such as the Earl of Harrowby and Lord O'Neill. How 
 much the Society has lost by the death of Lord O'Neill you will be better 
 able to appreciate when you have heard the paper which the Bishop of 
 Derry is about to read. I hope I shall not be accused of any breach of 
 confidence if I read a passage from a letter which I received yesterday from 
 Lord O'Neill's widow. She tells me that not only she, but her daughter 
 and all the family have their thoughts fixed on this meeting to-night. Her 
 words are these : '' I do hope that you and all who value the dear and holy 
 words will be able to be present, and in doing so you will bring solace to a 
 heart as completely broken as there ever was on earth." This adds a new 
 interest to our meeting to-night, and I am sure it will be a great privilege to 
 me to be able, when the meeting is over, to communicate to Lady O'Neill, 
 not only how largely it was attended, but also how fully the value of Lord 
 O'Neill's paper was appreciated by those who were privileged to be present, 
 
 [The following Address (entitled "An Unbeliever's Description of 
 Christianity") written shortly before his decease, by the late Rt. Hon. 
 Lord O'Neill, was then read by the Right Reverend the Lord 
 Bishop of Derry.] 
 
 I AM not aware that I have met with any more succinct 
 enumeration of the objections raised against Christianity^ 
 or one more plausibly expressed_, than that which occurs in 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer's ''First Principles/' p. 120. Speaking of 
 the spirit of toleration which " the cathoHc thinker '' should 
 display _, he there says : — 
 
 '^ Doubtless, whoever feels the greatness of the error to 
 which his fellows cling, and the greatness of the truth which 
 they reject^ will find it hard to show a due patience. It is
 
 hard for him to listen calmly to the futile arguments used in 
 support of ii-rational doctriuesj and to the misrepresentation of 
 antagonist doctrines. It is hard for him to bear the manifesta- 
 tion of that pride of ignorance which so far exceeds the pride 
 of science. Naturally enough^ such a one will be indignant 
 when charged with irreligion^ because he declines to accept 
 the carpenter-theory of creation as the most worthy one. He 
 may think it needless, as it is difficulty to conceal his repugnance 
 to a creed which tacitly ascribes to the Unknowable a love of 
 adulation such as would be despised in a human being. 
 Convinced as he is that all punishment, as we see it wrought 
 out in the order of nature, is but a disguised beneficence, there 
 will perhaps escape from him an angry condemnation of the 
 belief that punishment is a divine vengeance, and that divine 
 vengeance is eternal. He may be tempted to show his 
 contempt when he is told that actions instigated by an 
 unselfish sympathy, or by a pure love of rectitude, are 
 intrinsically sinful ; and that conduct is truly good only when 
 it is due to a faith whose openly-professed motive is other- 
 worldliness. But he must restrain such feelings,'' &c. 
 
 And the Christian must also restrain his feelings of 
 ^' indignation,'-' " repugnance," '' angry condemnation," and 
 ^' contempt," when he meets with such a burlesque of Chris- 
 tianity as that set forth in the paragraph just quoted. Not 
 being able to read the hearts of his fellow men, he must 
 endeavour to give them credit for good intentions, even when 
 they are misrepresenting and vilifying the religion which he 
 believes in his heart to be true, and on which he leans for 
 deliverance from the wrath to come. He must not allow 
 himself to be surpassed by the unbeliever in patience and 
 forbearance, when he sees the creed which he is accustomed to 
 hold in veneration painted in false colours, and finds doctrines 
 which, so far as they are believed and acted on, are calculated 
 to regenerate the world, represented as irrational, degrading, 
 and injurious to morality. This charitable spirit I shall 
 endeavour, with God's help, to maintain in dealing with Mr. 
 Spencer and others who assail the doctrines of Christianity. 
 I desire to believe that their study of the orderly and regular 
 processes of what we call nature, has caused them uncon- 
 sciously to see subjects of a different kind through a dis- 
 torting medium, and that they are not instigated by any wrong 
 motives or intentions. 
 
 In all caricatures, a certain likeness to the original is 
 preserved. It is this, indeed, that gives them their piquancy. 
 And it is not difficult to see, in the above passage of Mr. 
 Spencer's, a likeness to the creed which is burlesqued in it, 
 sufficient to leave us without any doubt that Christianity
 
 16 
 
 is the religion held up to scorn through it. It divides itself 
 into five heads : — 
 
 1. The carpenter-theory of creation. 
 
 2. Love of adulation on the part of the Deity. 
 
 3. Eternal vengeance. 
 
 4. Good actions intrinsically sinful. 
 
 5. Other-worldliness the motive of faith. 
 
 Firstj then, as to the carpenter-theory of creation. 
 
 If by this expression be meant simply a belief that God 
 created the universe and all that it contains, what can be the 
 object of calling it the carpenter-theory? The only con- 
 ceivable object, in that case, is to make it sound absurd, by 
 giving it an anthropomorphic twang which does not in reality 
 belong to it. It is like the Puritans creating a prejudice 
 against church organs, by calling them ''whistle-pipes,'^ or 
 '' skirl-pipes. ■'^ I am not aware of having ever seen the belief 
 in creation called a carpenter-theory by any Theist, whether 
 the form of his religion be Christianity or any other. It is, 
 in fact, a nickname, most unjustly conferred upon that belief 
 by those who reject it. It is true, we occasionally find the 
 Creator of the universe spoken of as ^' the great Artificer.^' 
 But it is evident to all who choose to see, that this word is only 
 meant to be a synonym to the word '' Creator,^' expressing (as 
 synonyms generally do) but a part of the whole idea, and 
 used with a view to avoid wearying the ear with the same 
 word often repeated, as well as to impart a pleasing variety to 
 the language. '^ Artificer '^ means, in its strictest sense, 
 '^ maker,'' a word which is also often applied to the Creator, 
 as witness its use in our creeds. And both these words 
 (artificer and maker), when used in speaking of men, can only 
 include in their signification the idea of forming things out of 
 materials already existing. Transferred metaphorically to the 
 Deity, they connote to believers the additional idea of creating 
 those materials. Believers, therefore, in using such words, 
 are very far from implying that God only works as a carpenter 
 does, from materials ready to his hand. But it suits the 
 object of unbelievers to ridicule them as holding this view, 
 and as associating the Deity in their imagination with a wooden 
 bench,inthe midst of planes, saws,chisels, sawdust, shavings, &c. 
 
 If they should reply that by the carpenter-theory of creation 
 they mean the belief in creation out of nothing, then the 
 word is a complete misnomer. Believers in creation no more 
 believe in the carpenter-theory of creation than does Mr. 
 Spencer himself. They believe that God called the world into 
 existence out of nothing, the very thing which a carpenter 
 cannot do. Mr. Spencer may, therefore, spare his indignation 
 at ''being charged with irreligion because he declines to
 
 17 
 
 accept tlie carpenter-tlioory of creation as tlio most worthy 
 one/^ Those against wliom he feels so indignant might, 
 perhaps, charge him with irreligion if he accepted that theory. 
 But certainly it is not for rejecting it that they do so. It is 
 for rejecting creation itself. It is for rejecting the doctrine 
 that there is a conscious, intelligent Creator of the uni^^erse, 
 or any God, nnless that name may be given to the Persistence 
 of Force which he seems to identify with the Unknowable 
 {" First Principles/^ chap, vi.) 
 
 But why should Mr. Spencer feel so indignant at being 
 charged with irreligion ? Does he wish to be considered 
 religious ? As a worshipper of the persistence of force, perhaps 
 he does. But he cannot expect that Christians will accept 
 that for religion. Or perhaps he only objects to the ground 
 on which the charge is brought. If so, however, I think it has 
 been sufficiently made to appear that he has entirely mistaken 
 that ground. The ground is that he rejects God as a Creator, 
 not as a carpenter. 
 
 Dr. Tyndall, in his well-known Belfast address, supplies us 
 with a similar, yet somewhat different, view of this ^' carpenter- 
 theory.^^ Speaking (in p. 36) of the different forms of life, 
 rising gradually from the simplest to the most complex, he 
 says : "In the presence of such facts it was not possible to 
 avoid the question — Have these forms, showing, though in 
 broken stages and with many irregularities, this unmistakable 
 general advance, been subjected to no continuous law of growth 
 or variation ? Had our education been purely scientific, or 
 had it been sufficiently detached from influences which, 
 however ennobling in another domain, have always proved 
 hindrances and .delusions when introduced as factors into 
 the domain of physics, the scientific mind never could have 
 swerved from the search for a law of growth, or allowed itself 
 to accept the anthropomorphism which regarded each suc- 
 cessive stratum as a kind of mechanic's bench for the manufac- 
 ture of new species out of all relation to the old.''' 
 
 By those influences which have always proved hindrances 
 and delusions when introduced into the domain of physics. Dr. 
 Tyndall evidently means the Mosaic account of the Creation, 
 which, according at least to the ordinary interpretation, 
 assigns a distinct act of creation to each of the successive 
 forms of life. And this he calls anfhro2JomorpJiism, which is as 
 unfair and false a term to apply to it as is the term '' carpenter- 
 theory.-" For what is anthropomorphism ? It is taking our 
 idea of the Deity from what we see in man. It is, to use 
 nnother expression of Dr. TyndalPs, looking upon God as 
 "a manlike artificer." But what is there that is manlike in
 
 18 
 
 creating the universe out of nothing ? It is just, of all others, 
 the thing which no man ever did or could do. We may 
 justly enough ascribe anthropomorphism to the ancient 
 heathens, who described their gods and goddesses as swayed 
 by human passions, prejudices, and interests, and having 
 material bodies — a little more ethereal, perhaps, and more 
 easily transformed than those of men, but sustained by food 
 and drink (which, to distinguish them from those used for 
 human wants, were called '^ ambrosia " and ^' nectar ^^), and 
 capable of being hurt, though not completely destroyed, seeing 
 that they were immortal. Thus, Homer represents Yenus as 
 wounded in battle by Diomede, which caused a refined kind of 
 blood, called ichor, to flow from her hand C^^ Iliad,' ^ v. 340). 
 Yirgil* represents his gods and goddesses as changing their 
 form when occasion required, which is, no doubt, attributing 
 to them a power more than human; but even so, we may 
 accept Hume's description of them, as quoted by Dr. Tyndall 
 in the first page of his Belfast address — namely, that they 
 ^^were nothing but a species of human creatures, perhaps 
 raised from among mankind, and retaining all human passions 
 and appetites.'' That the invention of gods and goddesses 
 such as these may be ascribed to anthropomorphism, we can 
 readily admit. But the God in whom Christians believe is as 
 different from these as light is from darkness. These have 
 bodies and passions like ourselves, whereas our God is a pure 
 Spirit, ^''without body, parts, or passions" (Art. I.). lam 
 not aware that any of the heathen gods were supposed to 
 have created the universe out of nothing. Jupiter is indeed 
 called "pater omnipotens " by Virgil in many places, but I 
 find no trace of the idea that his power extended beyond a 
 certain control over the atmosphere, whereby he was supposed 
 to wield the powers of thunder and lightning, or such a 
 control over matter as we ourselves have (only in a much 
 greater degree), whereby the mountain Olympus, which was 
 supposed to be his throne, could be shaken by his nod 
 ("-^neid," ix. 106). But however this be, the power to create is 
 a power utterly impossible to man, and to accuse us of 
 anthropomorphism for attributing this power to God, however 
 little intended by Mr. Spencer and Dr. Tyndall, is to utter a 
 most unfounded calumny against those who believe in the 
 Creator of heaven and earth. 
 
 The belief in successive creations is made to sound more 
 improbable still by Dr. Tyndall, through the use of an 
 
 * "^neid," i, 315, and vii. 419.
 
 19 
 
 expression whose unfairness is indubitable. In p. 58 of the 
 Belfast address he describes that belief as ^' a theory which 
 converts the Power whose garment is seen in the visible 
 universe into an artificer, fashioned after the human model (the 
 usual cavil again) and acting by hrolien efforts/^ as man is seen 
 to act/^ The effect of the word " efforts '^ on the mind of an 
 unthinking person would be that he should imagine the 
 efibrts of the Creator, or at least some of them, to have been 
 unsuccessful. Else why call them efforts ? Why not say 
 they are ads, which word means successful efforts, and would 
 truly describe the work ascribed to the Deity by believers ? 
 But he also calls them hrohen efforts, thereby intensifying the 
 idea of want of success, because the expression seems to imply 
 that they had to be broken off, some of them at least, in an 
 unfinished state. If this were not the object, ^' successive,^' 
 or some such word, would be the correct one^to use. It might 
 be asked. How would Dr. Tyndall like to hear the words 
 " broken efforts '^ applied to a series of successful physical 
 experiments conducted by himself ? 
 
 It is really surprising that men of philosophical mind and 
 habits of thought should condescend to such quibbling. If it 
 were to promote any other object than the depreciation of 
 religion, I cannot think they would. But for such an object 
 as that, it seems all stratagems are allowable. 
 
 Mr. Spencer, in an earlier part of his book than that to 
 which I have been lately referring C^^First Principles/' pp. 33-4), 
 carefully calls attention to the inadequacy of the " carpenter- 
 theory ■" to serve as a simile for creation. But he does so 
 under the delusion that Theists have adopted that theory, the 
 fact being that it is falsely attributed to them by the men of 
 his school. Theists, especially those of them who are 
 Christians, have no theory whatever on the subject of creation. 
 By a theory is generally meant a hypothesis explanatory of 
 some fact. The fact of creation they acknowledge, but they 
 confess their inability to account for it by any theory. What- 
 ever else, therefore, may be said against us, let us no more be 
 charged with accepting, or requiring others to accept, the 
 carpenter-theory of creation. 
 
 The next objection we have to consider is that in which we 
 are accused of ascribing a love of adulation to the Deity. 
 
 If we take the word ^^ adulation " in its usual sense, it is 
 enough simply to deny the charge. That God is pleased with 
 His creatures for their own sake, when they appreciate His 
 character, however inadequately, and when they have a 
 
 * The italics are mine.
 
 20 
 
 grateful sense of His gooclDcss towards tlicm^ is a trutli which 
 behevers are not ashamed to confess. And for the outward 
 expression of such feelings on the part of men^ they use the 
 word *^ praise/^ but not '^ adulation/^ The word 'Upraise/' 
 however^ would not have answered Mr. Spencer's object^ and 
 therefore he prefers to call it " adulation.'''' Now, adulation 
 means flattery, which is a very different thing from praise. 
 If I might venture to explain the difference, the word '' adula- 
 tion'^ includes in the idea expressed by it, the notions of 
 servility and insincerity on the part of the flatterer, together 
 with the supposition that the flattered person is so vain as to 
 swallow all that is said to him, and so weak as to be induced 
 to confer favours without reference to the question whether 
 the object of them be deserving or not. Praise includes none 
 of these elements. It is the outcome of admiration of the 
 divine attributes, among which are right and justice, and 
 freedom from all those weaknesses to which human beings 
 are liable. This word therefore would not have served Mr. 
 Spencer's turn. ^'Adulation''' suits him much better; only 
 it has this disadvantage, that it is utterly inapplicable to the 
 Deity in whom Christians believe. I hope, therefore, we 
 may no more hear believers charged with worshipping a God 
 who loves adulation. 
 
 The next charge brought against the God whom Christians 
 acknowledge is, that they consider punishment to be a divine 
 vengeance, and that divine vengeance is eternal. Now it 
 may be fully admitted that the Scriptures often use such 
 words as ^^ vengeance/' ^'^ anger," "wrath,'' &c., when 
 speaking of punishment inflicted by God. But inasmuch as 
 the God in whom Christians believe is described by them as a 
 Spirit, "without parts or passions," as already observed, it 
 is evident that they do not understand the words in question 
 in the sense in which they are used when applied to human 
 beings. They are used to signify that God does what in a 
 man would bo looked upon as the result of one of those 
 passions, but it is not meant that the Deity acts upon any 
 such impulse, or from any other motive than to do what is 
 right. When the Scriptures say that the eyes of the Lord are 
 over the righteous, and His ears open to their prayers, no one 
 imagines them to mean that the Deity has the bodily parts 
 there mentioned, inasmuch as they always represent Him 
 as pure Spirit. Similarly when they say His hand is stretched 
 out, or His arm uplifted, no one is so absurd as to think they 
 attribute to Him literally the possession of arms or hands. 
 Why, then, should they not be understood in a somewhat 
 similar manner when they speak of divine vengeance ? The
 
 21 
 
 character of Grod is so little comprehensible to us_, that we can 
 only take in descriptions of it which are couched in human 
 language. We are quite unable to represent to ourselves the 
 state of mind (to use a very inadequate expression) which 
 corresponds in Him to the feeling which we call vengeance. 
 Beyond the fact that it terminates in acts something similar 
 to those which are the outward manifestation of vengeance in 
 us, we know nothing about it. We can only believe that God 
 punishes the wicked, because He sees it to be fitting and right 
 that He should do so. There are, no doubt, some who question 
 the fitness or righteousness of the acts of the Deity in this 
 matter. But I believe that such persons speak of a matter of 
 which they are no judges. If we were our own judges, no 
 doubt we should punish ourselves lightly, if at all. And it 
 appears to me that we are only able to look upon the matter 
 from our own standpoint. I mean that we can only know 
 what judgment we should pronounce upon our own demerits, 
 but have no means of judging how they ought to appear in 
 the sight of God, or with what degree of punishment it is 
 right that they should be visited. Those of whom I have now 
 been speaking admit God^s justice in inflicting a certain 
 amount of punishment. They believe that His inflictions are 
 not vengeance, such as men would exercise, and here their 
 view of Christianity differs from that depicted by Mr. Spencer. 
 Whether the punishment be greater or smaller, shorter or 
 longer, he attributes it (in his representation of that view) to 
 a motive cf revenge — for although he calls it vengeance, 
 which is a word of somewhat wider siguification, the implied 
 motive is revenge, otherwise the objection would amount to 
 nothing. Vengeance may, I think, be explained to be the 
 infliction of punishment from a motive of revenge. And this, 
 all believers refuse to accept as the explanation of Divine 
 punishment. Surely if Mr. Spencer had considered the greab 
 love for the world which Christians ascribe to God, and which 
 induced Him to give His only Son to save its inhabitants 
 from the punishment which justice would otherwise oblige 
 Him to inflict — he might have been saved from giving so 
 false and injurious a representation of the divine motives^ as 
 forming a part of the Christian system. 
 
 What I have said about applying to God words ordinarily 
 used to express human feelings, may be taken as explanatory 
 of the Christian view (mentioned under the last division of our 
 subject), that God is pleased when His creatures express their 
 appreciation of His perfections in terms of praise. As we can 
 form no adequate conception of the feeling in Him to which 
 we give the name of vengeance,, so neither can we form an
 
 22 
 
 adequate conception of the feeling in Him wMcli we call 
 pleasure. All we can say is, that everything shows us that 
 God is good, and wills that His creatuiss should be good also 
 in their degree. Goodness in man is accompanied by the 
 appreciation of goodness in other beings, and therefore chiefly 
 in the Divine Being, in whom it is found in all perfection. 
 Therefore, they who appreciate the divine character as they 
 ought are good — are, to a certain extent, such as God would 
 have them be, and so we say that God is pleased with them, 
 and with the praises they offer Him. 
 
 The next objection, as stated by Mr. Spencer, is, ''Hhat 
 actions instigated by an unselfish sympathy, or by a pure love 
 of rectitude, are intrinsically sinful.'^ 
 
 It seems probable that the allusion here is to the thirteenth 
 of the " Articles of Religion,^' in which it is declared that 
 '^ works done before justification,^^ or, as further explained, 
 '^ before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit, 
 are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith 
 in Jesus Christ,^^ and that not being done as God hath willed 
 and commanded them to be done, ^' we doubt not but they 
 have the nature of sin /^ or it may be that Mr. Spencer had 
 in his mind some passages of Scripture to the same effect, as 
 '* without faith it is impossible to please Him^^ (Heb. xi. 6), 
 and " they that are in the flesh cannot please God^^ (Rom. 
 viii. 8). Now, it cannot be necessary to observe here, except 
 for the information of some outsiders who may read the Trans- 
 actions of this Society, that the Christian doctrine is this — 
 that owing to the fallen nature which we all inherit from the 
 first human pair, no works that we can do, even when assisted 
 by grace, are free from much that is imperfect and sinful; 
 and that still more is this the case when we are not so assisted. 
 Thus, so far from saying that an act springing from a purely 
 good and unselfish motive is intrinsically sinful, the Chris- 
 tian teaching is that such an act is never done ; that, however 
 excellent a deed may appear in the eye of man, in the sight 
 of God it is so mixed up with sinful thoughts and motives 
 that it can only be made acceptable to Him when it is done 
 in faith, and that, for the sake of the atonement made by His 
 Son, whereby what is wrong in it is, as it were, washed out 
 and not had in remembrance before Him. In the Christian 
 system, faith is set forth as the root of all that is good in our 
 character, and as that which makes us to be accounted righ- 
 teous in God's sight. Thus, works that are done in faith are 
 looked upon, notwithstanding all their imperfections, as good. 
 The goodness in which they are deficient is inqyuted to them. 
 But without faith they are not pleasing to God ; and, as this
 
 23 
 
 is owing to tlieir being so mixed up with worldly, selfish, or 
 sinful motives and feelings, works not done in faith are said 
 in the Articles to '' have the nature of sin/^ 
 
 Now, Mr. Spencer^s way of representing this teaching would 
 make Christianity answerable for the absurd assertion that 
 works intrinsically good are to be looked upon as intrinsically 
 sinful ; whereas its true teaching is that no human works are 
 intrinsically good, but that such of them as are done in faith 
 have a goodness imputed to them which does not actually 
 belong to them, and so are rendered acceptable to God for the 
 merits of His Son. 
 
 We may observe the contrast between the mode of expres- 
 sion adopted in the Article and that made use of by Mr. 
 Spencer. The Article adopts as mild a form of words as could 
 well be thought of. It does not say that the works of which 
 it speaks (works done previous to justification) are actually 
 sinful, much less intrinsically so, but merely that '^ they have 
 the nature of sin ^^ (Latin, ^^peccati rationem habere ^^). Mr. 
 Spencer, on the contrary, intensifies the assertion by the 
 addition of the adverb " intrinsically,^' leaving no stone un- 
 turned whereby religion might be made to appear absurd in 
 the eyes of his readers. 
 
 The fifth and last of the misrepresentations (I do not say 
 intentional ones) comprised in the comprehensive paragraph 
 quoted near the commencement of this paper is, ^^that 
 conduct is truly good only when it is due to a faith whose 
 openly-professed motive is other-worldliness.''' 
 
 The gist and force of this lies in the rather unusual word, 
 ^^ other- worldhness.-'-' As worldliness — i.e., a regard to our 
 well-being in this world — is generally looked upon as a low 
 motive to action, the imputation of o^/ier- worldliness has the 
 appearance of implying that a regard to our well-being in the 
 world to come is a low motive also. ISTow, no Christian looks 
 upon a regard to our welfare, whether in this world or the 
 next, as the highest motive ; but neither is it to be looked 
 upon as a wrong one. To excite a prejudice against Chris- 
 tianity, some unbelievers have called it selfishnessj and pro- 
 nounced it immoral, while they at the same time erroneously 
 represent it as the only motive held out by the Christian 
 system to those who believe in it. Thus they would have the 
 world to suppose that the whole of Christianity rests on an 
 immoral foundation. It might seem that a charge so absurd 
 as this might well be left to refute itself. But it is so often 
 urged in the present day, and that by writers whose eminence 
 in other departments than that of religion imparts to them a 
 factitious influence over the minds of the unthinking, that it
 
 24 
 
 is incumbent on the Clirlstlan advocate to endeavour to take 
 it to pieces and point out its baselessness and unfairness. 
 
 I shall begin, then, by calling attention to the distinction 
 between selfishness and self-love. They are sometimes in used 
 the same sense, but there is a proper and praiseworthy self- 
 love, to which no blame whatever is to be attached. I should 
 prefer to avoid the use of the word, as being liable to be mis- 
 understood, were it not that it has been adopted by Bishop 
 Butler as a convenient expression for that regard to our own 
 interests and happiness which it is not only our privilege, but 
 our duty, to act upon. He calls it reasonable or cool self-love, 
 as leading us to consider and reflect upon the best means of 
 ensuring our happiness in the long run. But while he looks 
 upon this reasonable regard to our well-being as a right and 
 proper motive, he is very far from representing it either as 
 the highest, or the only one that ought to influence us. 
 Benevolence, or a regard for the good of others, should come 
 in at least in an equal degree {'^ Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 as thyself^'), but both of these principles are subordinate to 
 the moral sense, or conscience, by means of which we judge 
 whether an action is right or wrong, virtuous or vicious, 
 abstracted from its consequences to ourselves or others. This 
 is the moral test to which our actions should be submitted, 
 the principle which, as it were, reigns supreme over all the 
 other principles of our nature. If an action be prompted by 
 benevolence or by that reasonable self-love which I have 
 endeavoured to describe, yet if we see it to be wrongj we 
 ought at once to refrain from doing it. 
 
 That the Christian religion recognises and proceeds upon 
 the view of morality here set forth, cannot, I think, be reason- 
 ably disputed. No doubt it holds out other motives in addition 
 to those above mentioned, but its morality is founded upon 
 eternal principles of rectitude. The Deity Himself acts upon 
 such principles, as already observed, and the precepts given 
 in Scripture show that He would have men to act upon them 
 too. 
 
 Bishop Butler designates a reasonable self-love by the 
 name of 'prudence, observing that although subordinate to 
 moral considerations, it is very superior to acting merely on 
 such desires as happen for the moment to be uppermost. It 
 is not properly called worldUness ; for prudence is a good and 
 useful trait in the human character, whereas worldliness is not 
 looked upon as such. Worldliness as a term of reproach 
 appears to have little meaning, except when used by believers 
 in a future state of retribution. Christianity recognises pru- 
 dence, or a reasonable regard to one^s own interests, as a
 
 25 
 
 duty, when it does not lead to any violation of tlie principles 
 of rectitude ; only it ouglifc not to be confined to the present 
 life, but should provide also for happiness in a life to come. 
 When it is confined to the present life, it is called worldliness, 
 which has thence become a term of reproach, as implying the 
 neglect of a man's highest interests, while unduly caring for 
 his worldly welfare. But when used by an unbeliever in a 
 world to come, there can be no reproach implied in it, be- 
 cause then it simply means a prudent regard to prosperity 
 and comfort in the only world whose existence he acknow- 
 ledges. If this be a correct description of worldliness, as I 
 venture to think it is, there is really no intelligible meaning 
 in the term ^'^other-worldliness,'' as implying that a regard to 
 happiness in a future state is a wrong motive. The very per- 
 sons who use it would be among the last to find fault with a 
 due regard to worldly welfare, and are therefore inconsistent 
 when they insinuate that there is anything faulty in the en- 
 deavour to secure lasting happiness in another world. A 
 desire for happiness, in short, is one of the strongest princi- 
 ples implanted in our nature, and nothing can be more absurd 
 than to expect that a religion which has any pretension to 
 exert an influence in the world, should ignore it, or fail to 
 contain a provision for working upon it; .subordinate, of 
 course, to the higher motive of acting according to right. 
 This higher motive is that which the enemies of Christianity 
 endeavour to keep out of view. 
 
 That selfishness is not to be confounded with a reasonable 
 self-love is obvious. A selfish person is one who thinks only 
 of himself, and has no regard to the feelings, wishes, or com- 
 forts of others. But a reasonable self-love is quite compatible 
 with a regard to the happiness of others. There may, no 
 doubt, be particular cases in which we are compelled to choose 
 between the good of ourselves and that of our neighbours, 
 but these are comparatively rare : and it is evident that the 
 two 'principles of a desire for our own and for our neighbour's 
 advantage are quite compatible, and in general conducive the 
 one to the other, when all the circumstances are taken into 
 account. 
 
 I have said that besides the duty of regulating our actions 
 by the rule of rectitude, Christianity supplies us with motives 
 which, if duly encouraged and cultivated, are of great assist- 
 ance towards enabling us to act up to what is right. The 
 chief and highest of these additional motives is love to God, 
 with the desire to please Him which such love is calculated to 
 engender. This, as well as that principle of rectitude which 
 lies at the root of all morality, is entirely left out by Mr. 
 
 E
 
 26 
 
 Spencer in tlie summary of Christianity (as lie represents it) 
 wliicli forms, as it were, tlie text of tliis paper, so as to make 
 it appear that the only motive to do what is right is a love of 
 self, and this love of self he characterizes by a term of re- 
 proach entirely inapplicable and undeserved, namely, other- 
 worldliness. 
 
 Upwards of three years ago a controversy appeared in the 
 Nineteenth Century, on a subject very much akin to that which 
 is now before us, namely, the question whether atheism 
 destroys the foundations of morality. The advocate of atheism 
 was Miss Bevington, who maintained that morality, so far 
 from suffering any loss, would be rather a gainer by the 
 rejection of a belief in God. Her opponent was Mr. Mallock, 
 the author of " Is Life Worth Living ? " and of other works, 
 who maintained, on the other hand, that the rejection of a 
 belief in God Uecessarily involved the abolition of moral dis- 
 tinctions. To me it appears that both of these gifted writers 
 were mistaken, believing, as I do, in opposition to Miss 
 Bevington, that morality would lose very substantially if a 
 belief in God should perish from the world, and, in opposition 
 to Mr. Mallock, that morality has its root in the nature of 
 things, and need not absolutely perish if a belief in God were 
 rejected. There is, indeed, reason to fear that, practically, 
 great moral laxity would follow the extinction of theism ; but 
 I believe that there would still remain the distinction between 
 virtue and vice, although the obligation to follow the one and 
 avoid the other would have a much looser hold on the gene- 
 rality of human beings. When I speak of belief in God, I of 
 course mean the acknowledgment that there is not only a 
 god of some kind or other (such, perhaps, as the Persistence 
 of Force), but a Deity conscious, intelligent, powerful, and 
 who has a regard to the conduct of His creatures. Nothing 
 short of this would be a belief that could influence human 
 conduct. 
 
 To consider, one by one, the arguments used by Mr. Mallock 
 and Miss Bevington respectively, would both occupy too much 
 time, and would be beyond the scope of this paper. But I 
 may perhaps be permitted to briug forward one or two 
 considerations of a general nature in connexion with the 
 subject. 
 
 It seems evident at once that a belief in the God whom 
 Christians acknowledge not only supplies additional motives for 
 morality, but also enlarges its domain. The motives to which 
 I refer are the love and fear of God, and the enlargement of 
 the domain of morality consists in the addition of a distinct 
 class of duties, comprised under the head of Duty to God.
 
 27 
 
 Neither these duties nor those motives could possibly "have 
 place in the morality of an unbeliever. In these respects^ 
 therefore^ morality must be a loser by the extinction of belief 
 in God, unless indeed it could be shown that duty to God 
 forms no part of it, and that love to God and unwillingness to 
 incur His displeasure have no influence on those who believe 
 in Him. To prove that duty to God forms no part of morality, 
 would require that it should be first proved that there is no 
 God in the beli everts sense of the word ; and this, I venture to 
 say, never has been, or can be, done. That the love and fear 
 of God have little or no influence on those who acknowledge 
 Him, Miss Bevington attempts to shx)w, but in my mind she 
 entirely fails to do so. She brings forward a number of 
 motives by which the generality of mankind are influenced as 
 much, or more, than they are by religion ; and asserts that 
 " a man who is capable of making difiicult exertion, restraining 
 a furious passion, or patiently enduring a painful experience, 
 for the sake of a loved and ideal God, or a vague and distant 
 heavenly reward, is equally capable of doing so for the sake 
 of a fellow creature, or for the reward he receives through the 
 exertion of his sympathetic afiections.^'' This is quite true, 
 but no argument. The man who can endure pain and restrain 
 a furious passion for the sake of a loved God and a heavenly 
 reward (I omit Miss B.-'s disparaging epithets, as not being to 
 the purpose, and put and instead of or before '^ a heavenly 
 reward,-'-' because Christianity holds out both motives) is, 
 according to Christian belief, under the influence of Divine 
 grace, which will certainly prove no hindrance to the exercise 
 of sympathy and benevolence towards his fellow creatures, but 
 rather increase it. Thus religion aids morality by supplying 
 additional motives and good dispositions. I do not say it 
 creates morality. I have already stated my belief that morality 
 would exist if there were no religion, though it Would stand a 
 much worse chance of being practised. But the question is not 
 between religious motives alone and ordinary motives alone. It 
 is between ordinary motives alone and ordinary motives plus 
 religious motives. It is, therefore, only a source of confusion 
 and fallacy to discuss the question whether religious or ordinary 
 motives are the more efficacious. With the generality of 
 mankind, it is too true that the visible aflects them more than 
 the invisible — the things seen, which are temporal, more than 
 the thiugs unseen, which are eternal. But our position is, 
 that whether this be so or no, religion is calculated to come to 
 the aid of morality by supplying motives and principles which 
 morality alone does not supply. If morality rests on motives 
 connected with what is visible, religion does not discard these.
 
 28 
 
 but supplies motives derived from tlie invisible also, and there 
 can be no doubt that these two together are calculated to be of 
 more force than one of them alone. 
 
 But Miss Bevington, in dwelling upon the little power which 
 religion has to improve the generality of those who acknow- 
 ledge the Deity _, seems entirely to ignore that class of believers 
 who are what we call true Christians. That there are too 
 many who, while intellectually acknowledging God, yet act as 
 though they disbelieved His existence, and seldom or never 
 give Him a thought, is a melancholy fact, and one which the 
 Scriptures fully recognise. But there is also a large class of 
 them — though, it is to be feared, not so large — who '^set God 
 always before them,^' rememberiug that He is ever present, 
 and that He watches over all that they do or think ; loving to 
 do His pleasure, and careful to avoid whatever may be dis- 
 pleasing to Him; recognising His authority, and looking to 
 the reward held out to those who endeavour to follow Christ's 
 example. These are not free from imperfections ; temptations 
 may at times get the better of them, and the hopes and allure- 
 ments of this life may occasionally obscure their visions of the 
 world to come. But their course, notwithstanding occasional, 
 or even frequent, deviations, is heavenly, and many of them 
 have shown that they are ready to endure pain and imprison- 
 ment, yea, to suffer death itself, for the sake of Christ, who 
 suffered and died for them. These would be among the last 
 to say they are perfect, but they trust that their imperfections 
 and sins will be washed away in the blood of the atonement. 
 This is a class of persons which seems to be entirely left out 
 of sight by those who say that religion is no help to morality. 
 As long as there are true Christians in the world, so long will 
 it be evident that such a position is false. Let unbelievers say 
 what they will, such as these are "the salt of the earth,'' and 
 if they were not living examples of what religion can do in 
 promoting love to our neighbours, which lies at the root of 
 practical morality, it seems quite possible that belief in 
 religion might become a thing of the past. 
 
 1 would just notice one other statement of Miss Bevington's, 
 in the articles contributed by her to the Nineteenth Century, 
 It is this ; that the requisites to an action being virtuous 
 are: — 1. That it should be useful; and 2. That it should be 
 difficult. I think it is easy to show that these two charac- 
 teristics do not constitute the ground of virtue. We may 
 presume that Miss Bevington means to say that the action, in 
 order to be virtuous, should be done with the intention that it 
 should be useful ; and I think it may also be presumed that 
 by '' useful/' she does not mean useful to some, while it causes
 
 29 
 
 greater injury, perhaps^ to others, but that on a balance being 
 struck, the good which the action is calculated to produce 
 should exceed the injury ; and, therefore, that on the whole it 
 may be looked upon as useful. This interpretation of her 
 meaning appears to be warranted by other passages in her 
 essay, in which she alludes to motives and to the general 
 good, though her not having included the motive in this, the 
 only one (if I don't mistake) in which a formal statement of 
 that in which virtue consists is attempted, cannot but be 
 considered a great omission. The great consideration is the 
 motive. If an action ever so difficulty and ever so useful to 
 the majority of human beings, be done from malice, for the 
 purpose of injuring even one person, that action, so far from 
 being a virtuous one, will be highly wicked. This I am sure 
 Miss Bevington would admit. What we have to consider, 
 therefore, is whether the fact of an action being diffictdt, and 
 done for the purpose of causing more good than harm^ 
 necessarily makes it a virtuous one. 
 
 In the first place, it does not clearly appear that difficulty 
 is an essential ingredient in a virtuous action at all. Difficulty 
 requires self-denial, and self-denial is virtuous only when it is 
 undergone for the sake of doing a virtuous action. It may be 
 undergone, however, for the sake of doing a very vicious 
 action, and then it is far from being virtuous. Self-denial, 
 therefore, is not in itself a virtue, nor could it make an action 
 virtuous that was not so independently of it. If I pay a just 
 debt, I am doing a right thing, whether I had the money 
 ready wherewith to discharge it, or whether I have been 
 compelled to work hard in order to obtain it. I admit that 
 the endurance of pain and labour may be a certain test of the 
 strength of the virtuous principle in my character. It is 
 possible that a man who pays his debt without any trouble 
 might be disposed to repudiate it if he had a difficulty in 
 procuring the means. But the payment is not the less an honest 
 act on that account. That which tests the strength of a 
 principle is no more the essence of that principle than a spirit- 
 gauge is the essence of the spirit of whose strength it is an 
 index. We must here distinguish between a particular act of 
 honesty and the principle of honesty in the human character. 
 An act done with a view to give a man what belongs to him is 
 an honest act, independent of the question whether the doer 
 of it would have the principle of honesty sufficiently strong to 
 enable him to do it if the difficulty were greater. Thus it 
 cannot be said that one honest act is more honest than another, 
 while yet it may be said that one man is more honest than 
 another, because in the one case we are speaking of what a
 
 30 
 
 man does^ and in the otlier of tlie man himself. Again_, if 
 difficulty were essential to a virtuous act^ tlie vicious character 
 of an act would also depend on whether it is easy or difficult. 
 And I don^t think any one would maintain that the guilt 
 attached to the perpetration of a murder would not be guilt if 
 the question whether it was easy or difficult were decided 
 either way. If it be done under difficulties^ it only shows the 
 determiuation of the murderer to be the stronger_, and if it be 
 done with ease^ it is equally a wicked deed. It seems to me, 
 therefore^ that we have now disposed of the question whether 
 difficulty is essential to the moral character of an action^ and 
 have fairly decided it in the negative. 
 
 There remains still the question whether utility makes an 
 action to be virtuous. Here, again, we must take in the 
 consideration of motive, as the most useful action that ever 
 was done must be morally bad if the motive that induced it be 
 bad. The question, then, should be put in this form. Does 
 the intention of doing good, or — if its results be of a mixed 
 character — of doing more good than harm, make an action to 
 be morally good ? 
 
 As this question has long exercised the deliberations of 
 moralists, of whom there are two schools, chiefly represented 
 by Bishop Butler on the one hand and Archdeacon Paley 
 on the other, it seems to me that it would be a superfluous 
 task to discuss it here. My only reason for not entirely 
 leaving the matter in the hands of those two eminent writers 
 is, that Butler, in opposing the doctrine that utility is the 
 foundation of morality, assumed a Creator, and thence inferred 
 the reality of moral distinctions, on the principle that God has 
 so constituted us as to have a perception of those distinctions, 
 which we cannot suppose He would have done if they did not 
 exist. As this argument could not have weight with those 
 who deny a Creator, and as our present business is with these, 
 a few words seem necessary to make our subject complete. 
 
 It cannot, I think, be denied that there are certain things 
 which all human beings have a right to. Every one, for 
 example, has a right to his life, as is acknowledged in the 
 laws of civilised countries, which make homicide in self- 
 defence to be justifiable. Every one also has a right to his 
 limbs, as is acknowledged in the laws against mutilation ; and 
 every one has a right to his personal liberty. These rights 
 may be called natural, as without the recognition of them all 
 social relations must be destroyed, and man is by nature 
 sociable. It is true that rights may, under certain circum- 
 stances, be forfeited, as when a murderer justly suffers the 
 punishment of death, with the loss of his liberty for the time.
 
 31 
 
 he is allowed to live. But such cases are exceptional, and (as 
 is often the case) they prove the rule, because society must 
 punish outrages which tend to its own destruction, and it is 
 on the existence of society that the rights just mentioned are 
 founded. I am not forgetting, here, that Christians have a 
 still better foundation than society for the acknowledgment of 
 these rights, but it must be kept in mind that from the nature 
 of the case I am compelled to take ground which unbelievers 
 must^ or ought to, acknowledge; and as these only acknow- 
 ledge what is natural, and man is naturally sociable, they must 
 hold that rights founded on society are natural. 
 
 Now, the very idea of a man's having a right to anything, 
 involves moral distinctions. For, if A has a right, B does 
 wrong if he endeavours to deprive him of it. To do so would 
 be to do him an injury — an injustice."^ It is something more 
 than merely inflicting pain upon him, which is cruelty. The 
 idea of its being an offence against right is also included. On 
 this account I look upon moral distinctions as having a 
 foundation in nature — in human nature at any rate. And it 
 is because we have no right to injure our neighbour that the 
 precepts of the Decalogue — those of them, at least, which 
 inculcate our duty to our neighbour — were given. The object 
 of those precepts was to enforce morality, not to supersede it; 
 and therefore it is that I look upon Mr. Mallock as going 
 much too far in his laudable zeal for religion when he says 
 that without it there would cease to be any distinction between 
 virtue and vice, as such. I so far concur with him, however, 
 as to believe that men would have much less regard to moral 
 distinctions even than they have now, little as, alas ! they 
 now regard them ; and, therefore, that with the extinction of 
 religion, morality would receive a most severe blow, and 
 perhaps be in danger of perishing altogether. 
 
 T have mentioned natural rights, such as the right to the 
 possession of life and limb. There are, however, other rights, 
 founded on the rules and customs of society, which may be 
 different in different countries, and which may be looked upon 
 as natural in a secondary sense, because society itself has its 
 foundation in nature — in human nature especially, but we see 
 the germs of it in the lower animals also. In civilised society 
 these rules and customs include the laws of the country, and 
 as life and limb are possessions to which nature itself gives 
 every one a right, there are other possessions, external to the 
 individual, the right to which is given by the law of the land. 
 
 From Latin in, signifying not^ and jns, right.
 
 32 
 
 Hence the idea of ownersld'p. Hence also the general consent 
 of mankind that it is a wicked thing to deprive any one, either 
 by force or subtlety, of what is his own. 
 
 Many are the speculations suggested by these considera- 
 tions, but I must forbear to enter upon them. My chief aim 
 has been to make it appear that the Christian religion rests 
 upon a moral foundation ; that, while appealing to our desire 
 for happiness — that desire which is ingrained in the constitu- 
 tion of man — it holds out no selfish motives, such as its 
 enemies are so anxious to accuse it of, but proposes to us the 
 noblest aims, and calls forth the highest principles of our 
 nature ; and that the God whom Cbristians acknowledge and 
 adore is falsely accused when He is represented as " a man- 
 like artificer,^' as delighting in adulation, or as indulging 
 feelings of revenge. If I have in any degree, however small, 
 contributed to bring out and disseminate these results, my 
 object has been gained. 
 
 Mr. Alexander McArthur, M.P., moved : " That our best thanks be 
 presented to the Lord Bishop of Derry for reading the late Lord O'Neill's 
 Address, and. to those who have contributed papers during the session." 
 We deeply regret the loss of our excellent friend Lord O'^STeill, and we 
 must all be much obliged to the right reverend gentleman for having read 
 his paper. We have also to express our thanks to those who have taken 
 the trouble to prepare and read papers at the meetings of the Institute 
 during the past year. Many of these papers have been very vakiable, and 
 those wlio have heard them read, or who have themselves read them after- 
 wards, must, I am sure, have derived much benefit, and will be desirous of 
 returning their best thanks to the authors. 
 
 The Bishop of Ballarat : I have very great pleasure in seconding the 
 resolution. I hope I shall be excused from making a speech, but I will 
 offer one remark. It struck me, when the Bishop of Derry was reading the 
 very luminous paper of the late Lord O'Neill, that it forcibly illustrated the 
 truth, that we really ought not to be frightened at the formidable words and 
 expressions which some Freethinkers make use of ; because, when you come 
 to look into them, you find there is really nothing whatever in them. They 
 remind me of the passage in Shakespeare's " Second Part of Henry IV.," 
 where the hostess, after listening to one of Pistol's magniloquent but inane 
 utterances, exclaims, "By my troth, captain, these are very bitter words." 
 And so they were to her, no doubt ; but they meant absolutely nothing. 
 (Laughter.) Some of the epithets applied to Christianity sound very 
 alarming indeed ; but, when one comes to examine them, the dismay and 
 horror which are intended to be inspired altogether vanish. I second with 
 great pleasure the resolution which has been proposed by Mr. M' Arthur 
 and I very much congratulate myself, on the eve of returning to Australia,
 
 3:3 
 
 at having been present at this meeting, and having heard so valuable and 
 interesting a paper as that of the late Lord O'Neill. 
 
 The motion was unanimously agreed to. 
 
 The Bishop of Derry : Perhaps I may be allowed to say just one word 
 I am sure it will be a great consolation to Lady O'Neill to hear of the favour 
 with which her husband's most excellent paper has been received. The 
 Bishopof Ballarat, in the remarks he made, spoke of things as they ought to 
 be, and not, I am afraid, as they are. I am afraid that long words do make a 
 great impression, especially on the minds of young men. Archbishop 
 Whateley was in the habit of illustrating this by telling some of his 
 friends a story about a lady to whom he gave some advice as to medicine 
 for her children. When he told her to give them some tartar emetic she was 
 horrified ; but when he said she should give them a little antimonial wine 
 she replied that she would be very glad to do so. "With reference to the 
 paper itself, a nickname is very often a sort of condensed epigram. The 
 very word " carpenter " throws ridicule on the larger idea of the creation, and 
 the word '''adulation" makes praise odious. I have to thank the meeting 
 very much for the attention which they have bestowed upon the paper. Jus 
 to recall for one moment what Lord O'Neill was, I must say that he was a 
 once a man of extreme modesty and a man of very singular gifts. If not 
 a heaven-born mathematician, he was exceedingly able in mastering mathe- 
 matical problems. His musical gifts were something marvellous. He was a 
 learned divine and ripe scholar, and up to the last days of his life one of his 
 greatest pleasures was to walk out with a friend and talk over with him a 
 chapter of the Greek Testament. Above all and beyond all, his soul was 
 based on a rock, and that rock was Christ. 
 
 Mr. D. Howard (Yice-Pres. Inst. Chemistry). — It is not without deep 
 feeling that I rise to propose a vote of condolence to Lady O'Neill. 
 The beautifully lucid paper to which we have just listened comes to us with 
 the deep solemnity of a voice from beyond the tomb. These are almost the 
 last words of one who had devoted all the exceptionally high powers of his 
 mind to the highest uses, and is now gone to join the heavenly choir, where 
 the music he loved so well here shall find its highest expression ; to that 
 heaven where all the deep problems with which he dealt here find their true 
 solution, to live for ever in the beatific vision of Him who is the Truth. 
 
 The thought of this is specially fitting for us as members of an Institute 
 which seeks to harmonise all our intellectual powers with the life to come 
 and to teach us so to pass our lives in things intellectual and philosophical 
 that finally we lose not things eternal. 
 
 Mr. HoRMuzD Kassam. — Permit me to second this vote. 
 
 Bishop Kyan, D.D. — I have great pleasure in proposing that the thanks 
 of this meeting be presented to Sir Henry Barkly, our chairman upon the 
 present occasion. During some eventful years of my life I often had the 
 pleasure of seeing Sir Henry Barkly in the chair at meetings in the distant 
 land of Mauritius, where he was always ready to encourage scientific know- 
 ledge. I was very much struck with one of the speeches we have heard, and 
 
 P
 
 34 
 
 in which we were told how we should proceed in our investigations so as to 
 lead up from one question to another. That was Voltaire's method. Vol- 
 taire wanted to be an Atheist, and he could not. In such an assembly as 
 this I need not scruple to give his own words :— " Ce monde m'embarasse 
 et je ne puis songer que cet horloge existe, et n'a par d'horloger. 
 " This world troubles me. I cannot imagine how there can be this beautiful 
 Avorld, and yet none to construct it." I l)elieve that real, honest investigation 
 must always lea 1 to points like this. A remark has been made about works 
 of the Society being addressed to those outside. I remember an episode that 
 
 occurred in Gosport on one occasion. There was a man there named S 
 
 who was in great trouble. I said to him: "S , what is the matter with 
 
 you ? " He replied : " I have a set of fellows about me who are Atheists and 
 Infidels, and I don't know what. They are plaguing me morning, noon, and 
 night." I said, " take this book to them." It was Bishop Watson's answer 
 to Tom Paine. Those wdio remember Paine's time know that his book was 
 doing immense harm, and the Christian Knowledge Society brought out 
 
 a cheap edition of Bishop Watson's reply. After S had taken that 
 
 book to his friends he said it fell like a bombshell among them. They who 
 know the book know that Bishop Watson argues the whole matter learnedly 
 and simply, so that the most ignorant and the most intelligent and 
 well-informed can find something in it that will profit. I think that this 
 Society should endeavour to bring out books of this kind, and see that 
 they are clearly and simply written, and are circulated far and wide. 
 (Hear, hear.) It does not do to tell the masses they must not 
 read the works of our opponents, for they will read them. I am a good 
 deal among the manfacturing population in Yorkshire. An artizan in 
 Bradford came up to me in the street the other day and said : " Bishop 
 Ryan, I am very much troubled in mind." I asked him why ? He replied : 
 " I have been reading Professor Tyndall's address at Belfast," I asked him 
 how often he had read it right through ? " Once," he answered. Then I 
 told him that I had read it three times and suggested that he should read 
 it again. The man did so, and his trouble vanished. The fact is, that we 
 must show boldness, especially in this matter. With regard to other books, 
 I have seen those containing gross and violent attacks on Christianity, and 
 have kept them in my study, saying to those who came to me about them : 
 " There are the books, read them if you like ; but read also the answers to 
 them." (Hear.) There was one remark made by the Bishop of Derry 
 which was exactly what had been passing through my mind : It was with 
 regard to Lord O'Neill's statement being deep and solid, and coming from 
 the heart. With regard to Herbert Spencer, I think his accusing Christians 
 of ascribing a love of adulation to God, only shows what straits men are in 
 for an argument when they are driven to the use of such words. Let us 
 all remember that whenever there is anything very startling w^e ought to 
 examine it, and it may be that, as in this Institute, we shall find that 
 in the discussion of infidel objections we come to the blessed truth of the
 
 Word of God, by which we can carry the mind to that heav«n into which 
 His servants have entered. 
 
 Sir Thomas Gladstone, Bart. — I have been unexpectedly called upon to 
 discharge a very pleasing duty. Having been an intimate friend of the late 
 Lord O'Neill, I am able to express my entire participation in every word 
 that has fallen from the right rev. prelates who have just addressed you. 
 Not one word they have said was undeserved by the deceased nobleman. It 
 is not my intention, however, to intrude on you beyond making one remark 
 with regard to the very able speech we have heard from the right hon. 
 gentleman on my left, and in reference to the suggestion he has oifered to 
 this society, that it should produce such a work as he has so ably sketched 
 out. I would venture to express a hope that he may himself put his 
 shoulder to the wheel, and try what he can do in carrying out such a work. 
 I now beg to second the resolution, which has been so ably proposed, of a 
 vote of thanks to our Chairman. (Applause.) 
 
 The vote of thanks having been carried by acclamation, 
 
 Sir Henry Barkly said : I thank you for the compliment you have 
 paid me, and which I have done so little to deserve. I have long taken 
 great interest in the work of this Society, and it has been a privilege on my 
 part to preside at so large and influential a meeting as this, and to have 
 heard the late Lord O'Neill's paper. I believe the Society is doing a great 
 work, and that it deserves support in its efforts to show that science, when 
 properly cultivated, is not antagonistic to religious truth, but that they are 
 really one and the same. I will not detain you longer, and can only repeat 
 my thanks for the compliment paid to me. 
 
 The proceedings having terminated, the members and their friends 
 adjourned to the Museum, where refreshments were served.
 
 1
 
 mm 
 
 mm 
 
 ;«;,^ #^^ 
 
 ^l 
 
 ?^^, 
 
 % 
 
 M. 
 
 %% 
 
 ?^i 
 
 .Ik 
 
 » -.v 
 
 i^m-i