Mr. George Meredith writes of "that first-born of common-sense, the vigilant Comic, which is the genius of thoughtful laughter." Folly is the natural prey of this hunter, and Folly is found in the churches as well as in the streets. Some men, however, are non-laughers by birthright, and as men are apt to make a virtue of their deficiencies, it is not surprising if, as Mr. Meredith observes, the "laughter-hater soon learns to dignify this dislike as an objection in morality."
Persons who have read the _Freethinker_ from the first do not need to be a.s.sured of the earnest spirit of its conductors. They fight no less sternly for the iridescent jewels in their swords. But Dr. Coit appears to object to fighting altogether. He seems to bid us rest content with what we have won. That is, he bids us leave superst.i.tion, with all its brood of lies and wrongs, in possession of the schools, the universities, the churches, the hospitals, the workhouses, and every other inst.i.tution. He bids us leave it with its large grasp on the private and public life of the community, and go on with our constructive work in face of all this overwhelming frustration. No doubt he means well, but we are not foolish enough to take his advice. We tell Dr. Coit that he does not understand the obstructive power of theology, and that he is thus unable to appreciate the work of the National Secular Society.
But let us return to the point of ridicule, and the point of "blasphemy." Dr. Coit found two "lessons for the day" in my _Philosophy of Secularism_, and he spoke of my _Shadow of the Sword_ as "a n.o.ble plea for peace." But he complained of my exposing the absurdities and immoralities of the Bible--a book which is thrust into the hands of little children in our public schools. He also complained of my dragging to light the Crimes of Christianity. But his anger was most excited by one of my "Bible Romances"--_A Virgin Mother_. Some fastidious persons even object to the t.i.tle, thus showing their abysmal ignorance of Christian literature. The phrase is common in Catholic books of devotion, like the Mother of G.o.d. It occurs in Milton"s Ode on the Nativity and in _Paradise Lost_. I have marked it a dozen times in Professor Palgrave"s collection of Sacred Songs. But Dr. Coit objects to my comparison of the Holy Ghost"s "overshadowing" of the Virgin Mary with the divine impregnations of earthly women by the G.o.ds of the Greek pantheon. He regards the one as a "mystery" and the others as vulgar amours. But this depends on your point of view. Lord Bacon found a mine of hidden wisdom in some of these "amours," and Mr. Morris makes beautiful poetry of the loves of Zeus and Danae, which is more than any one has ever succeeded in doing with the relations between the Holy Ghost and Mary. I admit, however, that taste is not disputable; and I refer Dr. Coit to the pa.s.sage of my _Virgin Mother_ in which I cite Justin Martyr as appealing to the Pagan not to mock at the Incarnation, on the express ground that they also taught the same doctrine in their stories-of the demi-G.o.ds who were born of women after the embraces of deities. Surely, then, it is idle to complain of _my_ disrespect of this Christian dogma. Nor is it just to say that my criticism of it cannot be read to a mixed audience. That is the fault of the _doctrine_. So far as my _words_ go, there is not a syllable to shock any but a prurient modesty.
With respect to Dr. Coit"s plea for bringing the kindness of social intercourse into the war of ideas, I have this to say--It is impossible.
Timid persons have always sighed for this policy, but when the fight began they have found themselves "between the fell incensed points of mighty opposites." Religion should be treated as freely as other subjects. That is all I claim, and I will not be satisfied with less.
I cannot consent to relinquish any weapon that is legitimate in other warfare. Nor for the sake of temporary _feeling_ will I be false to the permanent _interests_ of my species. I will laugh at folly, scorn hypocrisy, expose falsehood, and bathe my sword in the heart"s blood of imposture. But I will not descend to personalities. I do not war with _persons_, but with _principles_.
My object is to destroy the Christian superst.i.tion and prepare the way for a more rational and humane condition of society. I shall adapt myself, as well as I can, to the shifting conditions of the struggle. My aim is to _succeed_. My policy, therefore, will never be determined by a personal preference. I shall follow the path that promises victory.
But I do not, and will not, dictate to others. Within the scope of our principles there is room for many policies. Let each do his best, according to his light and opportunity. Let Dr. Coit, too, go his way as I go mine. We travel by different routes, but perhaps we shall meet at the goal.
OUR FATHER.
G.o.d"s in his heaven, All"s right with the world.
--R. Browning, Pippa Pa.s.ses.
The Apostles" Creed, with which the Apostles never had anything to do, begins with the words "I believe in G.o.d the Father Almighty." The last word, "Almighty," is an adjective which we owe to the metaphysical genius of Christian theologians; and the first words, "I believe," are the customary shibboleth of the priests of every religion. For the rest, this extract from the Creed is taken from the Lord"s Prayer, which itself is a brief selection from common Jewish prayers before the days of Jesus. According to the evangelists--whoever _they_ were--Jesus taught his disciples to pray to "Our Father which art in Heaven for a number of things which no one ever obtained by that process.
Nevertheless the pet.i.tion is offered up, generation after generation, by millions of Christians, whose hands are first folded in the gesture of prayer on their mothers" knees, and whose lips are taught at the same time a form of words that clings to them for life.
"Our Father!" The words are pretty and touching. When the child hears them he thinks of some one like his own father, but immensely bigger and more powerful; and as the child is taught that all the necessaries and comforts of life he enjoys, at the expense of his parents" labor and loving care, are really gifts from the Father behind the scenes, it is no wonder that this mysterious being becomes the object of grat.i.tude and affection.
_Which art in Heaven!_ Up there in the region of dreams, beyond the sailing clouds, far away through the deep blue, where imagination builds its fairy palace of delight, and G.o.d sits on his golden throne, and swift, bright angels speed forth to execute his commands. Tell a child anything you please about that land of fancy and you will be believed, especially if the tale comes from beloved lips, or from lips that bear the glamor of authority. And what the child is to the adult, early or savage man is to the civilisee. To the African negroes the highest G.o.d is the Sky; the great deity _Dyu_ of our Aryan ancestors was the Sky; the Greek _Zeue_ and the Latin _Jupiter_ were both the Heaven-Father; and we still say "Heaven forgive me!" or "Fear the vengeance of Heaven!"
This Heaven, however, is no longer credible to any one with a tincture of science. Hard as the truth to a child or a savage, the sky is not a reality, but an optical illusion. For forty or forty-five miles from the earth"s surface there is a belt of atmosphere, growing rarer and rarer as it approaches the infinite ocean of aether. Gone for ever is the old delusion of a solid Heaven overhead, with windows in it, through which G.o.d and the angels looked down upon the earth and its inhabitants. And what site is there for Heaven out in the cold blackness of s.p.a.ce?
That Heaven is gone, and where is Our Father? Science shows us a world of absolute order, in which what we call the laws of nature--the observed sequence and recurrence of phenomena--are never broken. The world was not fashioned for man"s dwelling, nor is it maintained for his benefit. Towards the poles he freezes, towards the equator he burns. The rain nourishes his crops or rots them, without asking his pleasure; the sea bears him or drowns him, with equal unconcern; the lightning slays him or spares him, whether good, bad or indifferent, as he happens to be in or out of the line of its dazzling flight; famine pinches his! cheeks if he cannot procure food; the pestilence seizes upon his nerves and blood unless he learns the antidote to its ravages. He stands amidst the play of terrific forces, and only preserves himself by vigilance, patience, courage and industry. If he falls the enemy is upon him, and the doom of the vanquished is death. Nature shows him no mercy. His mistakes are as fatal as his crimes.
"G.o.d" has been in his "Heaven" for eternity, but all is _not_ right with the world. Man is always endeavoring to improve it, but what a.s.sistance comes from above? A Father in Heaven would be a glorious fact. But who can believe it? "Our Father" is utterly careless of his children. The celestial Rousseau sends all his offspring to the Foundling.
The late hard weather has thrown thousands of honest men out of employment, and increased the death-rate alarmingly. Where is the wisdom of this? Where is the goodness? The worst of men would alter it if they could. But G.o.d, they say, can do it, and he does not. Yet they still look up and say "Our Father." And the Father looks down with a face as blenchless as the Sphinx"s, gazing forthright across the desert sands.
What father would permit in his family the gross disparities we see in human life? One gorges and another starves; one is bloated and another is death"s counterfeit; one is dressed in three-piled velvet and another goes in looped and windowed rags; one is idle and another slaves; one is sated with pleasure and another is numbed with pain; one lolls in a palace and another shivers in a hovel. What human father would not be ashamed to treat his children with such infamous partiality?
Look at the physical and moral filth, and the mental abas.e.m.e.nt, in our great Christian cities, where new churches are constantly built for the worship of G.o.d, where Bibles are circulated by the million, and where hundreds of sleek gentlemen flourish on the spoils of philanthropy. Read Mr. Rudyard Kipling"s story of East-end life; read the lucubrations of General Booth; listen to the ever-swelling wail over the poverty, misery, and degradation of hosts of our people; and then say if it is not high time to cease all this cant about Our Father which art in Heaven.
Man has always been his own Savior. His instrument is science, his wisdom is self-help. His redemption begins when he turns his eyes from the delusive Heaven and plucks up his heart from the fear of h.e.l.l.
Despair vanishes before the steady gaze of instructed courage. Hope springs as a flower in the path of endeavor.
WAIT TILL YOU DIE.
Pascal remarked that, whether Christianity were true or false, the Christian was on the safe side; and Diderot replied that the priests and apologists of Mohammedanism, or any other creed, could say the very same thing with equal force. The argument, if it be an argument, implies the possibility of error, and what applies to one religion applies to all.
The votaries of every creed may be mistaken if there is no absolute cert.i.tude; or, if there should be one true religion among the mult.i.tude, and but one, only the devotees of that single faith can be on the safe side. But as no one knows _which_ is the only true religion, it follows, according to the law of probabilities, that the odds are greatly against any particular religion being the right one. The Christian therefore would have one chance of being right, and nine hundred and ninety-nine chances of being wrong. He has thus one chance in a thousand above the Atheist.
But, on the other hand, if all religions but one are certainly wrong, what is the chance of a single one being certainly right? Does not the Christian"s slight percentage of safety fade into something quite inappreciable in the light of this question? And is what is left--if _anything_ is left--an adequate price for the abnegation of manhood?
Would it tempt an honest man, with a sense of human dignity, to play fast and loose with his intellect, and accept a creed because it appeals to his selfish hopes and fears? Could such a slender chance of profit in the next life compensate for slavery in this life?
If belief is the safe side, the proper course is to believe _everything_. And it is useless to cry that this is impossible. Faith enables men to believe against reason, and one act of credulity is little easier than a thousand. He whose creed is determined by his fears should give free scope to such emotions. If they are his guides let him follow them. Why should he argue when argument may mislead? Why should he stumble at trifles when he has surmounted the first great obstacle to credulity? Let him believe all the religions of the world at once.
He can do this as easily as he can believe in the Trinity. And having embraced all, he may rest satisfied that if there be a true religion he undoubtedly possesses it.
We do not suppose, however, that this reasoning will have any effect on Christians, Buddhists, Brahmins, Mohammedans, or Jews. But that very fact shows the hollow character of the argument from which we started.
When the Christian talks about the safe side he is only displaying the weakness of his faith, and appealing to timidity when he has no further appeal to reason.
The argument of "the safe side" would have no pertinency, even with the imbecile, if man were immortal. It seeks advantage from the fact that every man must die. It tries to paralyse reason with the clutch of fear.
How frequent is the superst.i.tionist"s remark, "Wait till you come to die!" He does not always use these very words, but this is the meaning of all his verbiage. He forgets, or does not know, that philosophy destroys the terror of death. A rational man is aware of the truth expressed by Mill, that death is but one incident in life, and often the least important. He recognises with Bacon that we die daily. He knows that every hour is a step towards death. He does not play, like an ostrich, with the universal law of mortality; nor, on the other hand, does he allow the tomb to cast its chill obscurity over the business and pleasure of life. He lives without hypocrisy, and when the time comes he will die without fear. As Hamlet says, "the readiness is all." Another word also comes from the wisest of men--"Cowards do often taste of death; the valiant die but once."
A belief that will do for life will do for death. The religionists prove this themselves. Whatever a man is confident of is sustaining. The Christian dies a Christian, and the Mohammedan a Mohammedan. The one has dying visions of angels--or may be of devils; the other sees heaven burst open, and the black-eyed houris of paradise beckon him with rosy fingers. What they leaned on in life supports them in death. Its truth or falsity makes no difference at that moment.
Freethinkers are sustained by _convictions_. Intellect and emotion concur in their case. They have no visions of angels or devils, but dear loved faces are better than phantoms, and he who has done a little good in the world, however humbly and obscurely, may dream of the happier and n.o.bler days to come, when true words and good deeds will have brought forth the glorious fruit of happiness for the children of men.
We do not mean to a.s.sert that no Freethinker, at any time, ever relapsed on his death-bed. Such cases have apparently occurred during life, and while one particular religion is in the ascendant it is not difficult to understand them. The relapses are always to the creed a man finds about him, or to the creed of his childhood. They simply prove the power of environment and early training, and that a man needs all his strength to stand against big majorities. At best they are cases of mental pathology.
Great historic Freethinkers have always died true to their convictions.
They were used to standing alone. For ample proof of this the reader is referred to my _Infidel Death Beds_. And when smaller Freethinkers are numerous enough they avoid the greatest danger of physical weakness.
It is easy for Christian relatives or friends to pester a dying Freethinker; it is easy even, in the worst moments of weakness, to put words in his mouth. But if Freethought friends visit him, he feels strengthened and relieved. Allies may well be needed, sometimes, in such a battle with bigotry.
After all, "Wait till you die!" is an argument of folly and cowardice.
What can we conjecture of any other life except from our experience of this? On this earth reason is the safe side, honesty is the safe side, humanity is the safe side; and what is the safe side here is likely to be the safe side elsewhere.
DEAD THEOLOGY.
This is an age of "series." Every publisher issues one, and the number of them is legion. As far as possible they are written by "eminent hands," as old Jacob Tonson used to call his wretched scribblers in Grub-street garrets. But not every publisher can secure such an eminent hand as a live Archbishop, This has been achieved, however, by Messrs.
Sampson, Low, Marston, and Company. Having projected a series of "Preachers of the Age," they were fortunate enough to enlist the Archbishop of Canterbury under their banner. His Grace, as it is etiquette to call him, though his natural name is Edward White Benson, leads off the publishers" attack on the British public with a volume of sermons ent.i.tled _Living Theology_. It is well printed on good paper, the binding is appropriate, and the price of three-and-sixpence puts it within the reach of the great middle-cla.s.s public which cares for such things. We are far from sharing the opinion of a carper who remarked that, as sermons go, this volume is rather dear. Thirteen sermons by an Archbishop! Could any man in his senses expect them for less money?
The real wonder is that a man with 15,000 a-year should condescend to publish at all. We ought to feel thankful that he does not charge us a guinea a volume.
Prefixed to the thirteen sermons, at fourpence apiece, including the binding, is an excellent photogravure portrait of the Archbishop. The face is keen and scholarly, and not unpleasant. A noticeable nose, a large fluent mouth, shrewd eyes, and a high well-shaped head, make on the whole an agreeable picture. Something about the features shows the preacher, and something more the ecclesiastic. It is the type, and the best type, of the learned priest. n.o.body could look at this portrait and call Edward White Benson a fool. But is any one in danger of doing so?
Would not every one admit some ability in the unhereditary recipient of fifteen thousand a year? Parsons are not a brilliant body, but to wriggle, or climb, or rise to the top of the Black Army involves the possession of uncommon faculties.
The Archbishop is seldom eloquent, in the popular sense of the word; but his style has a certain force and color, always within the limits of exquisite breeding. If he consigned you to Gehenna, he would do it with bland graciousness; and if he swore at all, he would swear in Latin. His language in these sermons, as in another volume we noticed a year ago, is pure and nervous, with an etymological reason for every word.
Sometimes he is quite felicitous. Now and then he uses metaphor with skill and illumination. The habitual concreteness of his style shows the clearness of his perceptions. Occasionally he is epigrammatic "Strong enemies," he says in one place, "are better to us than weak friends.
They show us our weak points." Finer and higher is another pa.s.sage in the same sermon--"The yearning of mult.i.tudes is not in vain. After yearning comes impulse, volition, movement." It would be difficult, if not impossible, to better this, unless a great poet cast it in the mould of a metaphor.
We confess that, on the whole, we have read the Archbishop"s sermons with some pleasure, as well as with much attention. It is to his credit that he defies a superficial reading. We do not expect to find another volume in the series at all comparable with his. Dr. Maclaren, who comes second, is on a lower level, and the next descent to Mr. Price Hughes is a fall into a slough of incapable and reckless sentimentalism.
_Living Theology_ is the t.i.tle of the Archbishop"s volume, but this is a misnomer, for the t.i.tle belongs only to the first sermon. It misled us in this general application, as it will probably mislead others. We took it to be a setting forth of so much theology as the Archbishop thought _living_, in contradistinction to what he allowed to be _dead_. But we find a very miscellaneous lot of sermons, sometimes rather on Church work than on Church teaching. The t.i.tle, therefore, is what Walt Whitman would call "a suck and a sell." Yet it is hardly worth while to labor the complaint, for t.i.tles are often better than the pages that follow them. Sometimes, indeed, a writer puts all his head into the t.i.tle, and the rest of the book displays his imbecility. But this cannot be said of the Archbishop.
Another difficulty is this. The Archbishop"s sermons are hard for a Freethinker to criticise. He seldom expounds and rarely argues. He addresses an audience who take the fundamentals of Christianity for granted. Yet he lays himself open here and there, and where he does so we propose to meet him.
In the first sermon Dr. Benson is surely going beyond his actual belief in referring to "the earliest race of man, with whom the whole race so nearly pa.s.sed away." He can scarcely take the early chapters of Genesis literally at this time of day. In the very next sermon he speaks cheerfully of the age of Evolution. That sermon was preached at St.