Reviews.

Freethought Review, Volume II, Issue 21, 1 June 1885, Page 12

Reviews.

The Old Flag : Song : Words by Vincent Fyke ; composed by G. R. West. At the present time when “ wars and rumours of wars ” are the order of the day, the advent of a new and patriotic song is nothing unexpected, and provided that the sentiment is free from “jingoism,” it is sure to be acceptable. On this score the above-mentioned composition is not likely to offend. The words are by °ur versatile friend Vincent Pyke, who has caught the spirit which, we trust, may always be exhibited, as it is now, towards the Old Country. The poetical idea of adding the “ Cross of the South ” to the three of the “ Jack,” is very happy. The composition of the music has been entrusted to Mr. Geo. West, the popular organist and music seller of Dunedin. This is by no means the first effort of his pen, and is quite equal to his previous productions. The piece is written in D., in six-eight time, and has a lively vigorous swing. It is further commendable for its simplicity, which places it within the range of the most ordinary vocalist or pianist. We feel sure that it will meet with a favourable reception. Mr. Martin, the late bandmaster of the 23rd has written an arrangement for brass bands. The printing and lithography is very creditable.

Religion Without Superstition : By Hartley Williams. George Robertson and Company, Melbourne, 1885. If “ a great book is a great evil,” a small book on a great subject is often a great good. This is certainly true in the case of Mr Williams’ little book. An attentive perusal of it will show out of what fragile materials the existing structure of Theological Christianity has been built up. Of course this is well known to most Freethinkers, but to those who have accepted orthodox dogmas upon trust, it will come as a surprise. But well as Mr Williams has done his work, the value of his book, as an effective argument, is mainly due to the fact that its author is one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria. That to a mind trained to estimate evidence according to its real weight, the evidence in favour of Christianity should appear of little value, is not to be wondered at. It is indeed notorious that lawyers and judges are rarely “ true believers,” in spite of their otherwise conservative tendencies. It may, however, be fairly regarded as one of the signs of the times, when we see Judges in England, India, and Australasia, not only holding but publishing their opinions on religious questions. To our thinking, two facts are indicated by this new departure. First, that earnest men who are competent to form an opinion on the subject, are beginning to regard dogmatic Christianity as a mischievous superstition, and secondly, that they perceive that the educated portion of the community at least has become tolerant of discussion and by no means inclined to follow the lead of its clerical guides. We may be quite certain that a man in the position of Mr. Justice Williams writes with a due sense of responsibility, and that it is not merely for the sake of amusement that he has disturbed the swarm of theological wasps that are now buzzing about his ears. We, of course, do not allude to gentlemen like the Bishop of Melbourne and the Bishop of Ballarat (who we are glad to see are endeavouring to answer Mr. Williams) but to the wretched bigots who are clamouring for the removal of the Judge from the Bench, We shall not attempt to criticise the destructive portion of Mr. Williams’ book, with which we are almost in entire agreement. Its tone is admirable, and the writer shows adequate knowledge of his subject. He will probably be declared superficial by those who mistake a parade of learning for learning itself. If, however, truth, lies at the

bottom of a well, there is no need to dig half through the earth to find it. Judge Williams discusses the doctrine of the Trinity on the assumption that “ the Bible is the inspired revelation of God” and finds—as most people do who study the Bible apart from Church traditions— “ that according to the Bible there is only one God ” that “ there is no mention of God the Son ” or of “ God the Holy Ghost,” and that “ Jesus himself distinctly denies the doctrine of co-equality with God,” while “ the doctrine of co-eternity with God cannot be reconciled ” with Scripture. These propositions he proves conclusively, and our only wonder is that any intelligent man should, at this time of day, require such proof. Of course it will be said that from almost the earliest ages of Christianity the doctrine of the Trinity was discussed with infinite fulness and settled to the satisfaction, not only of intelligent men, but to that of men of genius, and that now only sciolists and persons very inferior, intellectually and morally, to the Fathers of the Church, deny its truth. To this our reply is that the patristic logic and learning which satisfied past ages, will not satisfy this, and that a dwarf, standing on the shoulders of a giant, may see further than the giant himself. Judge Williams deals with the “ incarnation,” “ the inspiration of the Bible,” miracles, “ the atonement and advent,” partly as questions to be decided by reading the Scriptures as he would statute law, and so finding out what the writers intended to convey, or actually do convey, and partly on critical, scientific, and moral grounds. The result is entirely destructive, and it would astonish those who have only studied the evidences for Christianity and not those against it as well, to find how much of their faith is derived, not from the Bible, but from tradition and the unsupported assertions of theologians. To Judge Williams, the doctrine of the atonement appears as morally iniquitous as it does to most persons whose consciences have not been perverted by ecclesiastical teaching. He quotes with approval the remark, that “ the doctrine of sacrifice or vicarious punishment is the most universal, and yet the most absurd of all religions tenets that ever entered into the mind of man. That there should be any manner of connection between the miseries of one being and the guilt of another; or that the punishing the innocent and excusing the guilty should be a mark of God’s detestation of sin ; or that two acts of the highest injustice should make ' one act of justice , is so fundamentally wrong, so diametrically opposed to common sense, and to all our ideas of justice, that it is astonishing that so many should either believe it themselves, or impose it upon others.” This will no doubt be met, as theologians arc accustomed to meet which they know laymen feel to be true, by the usual evasions which thinly disguise doubts they are more than half conscious of themselves. But those who are sufficiently cultured “ to “ know ” even a little of “ the best that has been “ thought and said in the world,” to use Mr. Matthew Arnold’s phrase, can no longer be imposed upon by this sort of thing. At the same time, Judge Williams’ attempt to purge religion of superstition but to retain Theism, is an excellent illustration of the truth of the shrewd observation made by Mr. Leslie Stephen in his ‘ History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,’ that “ the most unflinching sceptic carries “ with him far more than he knows of the old methods of conception.” Certainly Judge Williams does not while “ giving up hell admit that hell is the only sanction for morality,” but he seems to think that conscience is the voice of God, and that its existence, together with the indications furnished by science, are sufficient to prove “ that there exists throughout space, and has existed throughout all time, some force some life—some will — some power— some master mind—some cause— such as theology calls, and we for the sake of convenience, call ‘ God.’ ” This is certainly almost as vague as that “ sort of a something ” over which Mr. Frederick Harrison made merry a short time ago, when discussing the suitability of Herbert Spencer’s “ inscrutable power ” to form the basis of a religion. We fear judge Williams has only raised another of these “ ghosts of religion ” which go roaming

about the philosophic world so unquietly just at present. To the scientific mind there is something suggestive of the “bogey” about them all, and though Judge Williams’ “ ghost ” is one guaranteed by him to be of the highest character, yet we can’t help fearing that if too easily admitted to exist, theology will make good use of him in the interests of those very superstitions which Judge Williams has endeavoured to eliminate from the popular creed. “ For science,” as has been well said, “ God is simply the stream of tendency by which all things fulfil the law of their being;.” For morality the command of God is the “short title” for all those laws which the personal and inherited experience of manking shows to be essential to social and individual well being. The law of gravitation would not express more, but less, if it were referred to the will of God, and “ a deed of violence or injustice ” is a breach of the moral law, whether it is supposed to please or offend some supernatural power. Indeed as everyone is aware who has studied the history of religion (in the sense of supernaturalism) its connection with morality was by no means invariable. Its utilisation for the purpose of providing both a standard and sanction for morality is comparatively modern. Everything points to the fact that civilised mankind are rapidly coming to the conclusion that it has served its purpose and may be dismissed, like a Grand Jury, respectfully and with thanks. We are sorry but not surprised that Judge Williams should consider its services essential. That he does so by no means detracts from the value of his book. Perhaps it even adds to it. People do not mind being shocked a little but they do not like being shocked too much. The Trinity is a little too unthinkabletoo much like trying to think of a stick with only one endso, in spite of the Athanasian creed, it is given up by many who find no difficulty in accepting the “ Carpenter theory of creation.” Without a God we might all be murdered in our beds, they fancy ; with one, and the police, we are safe, and so “ Religion without Superstition ” need not be placed in the index. Thus a step is gained towards the ultimate goal of Religion without Theology.

Father Lambert's Notes on Ingersoll: London : W. Nicholson and Sons. This pamphlet appears to be a reprint of one originally published in 1883, at the office of the ‘ Catholic Mirror and Times,’ Buffalo, N.Y. From the opinions of the Press—Protestant and Secular as well as Catholic —throughout America—extracts from which are appended to it, these “ Notes ” seem to be considered a crushing reply to Colonel Ingersoll, and a great triumph for orthodoxy. From these notices we select a few. The ‘ San Francisco Monitor’ says, “ We hope this pamphlet will find numerous readers among non-Catholics who desire to see the rot and rant of Ingersoll rubbed out by the learning and logic of Father Lambert,” “Fully answers the blatant infidel says the ‘Central Methodist.’ The‘American Christian Review,’ of Cincinnati, puts its opinion in what its readers doubtless consider forcible and elegant language, thus, “ In this book Lambert gives Ingersoll a scathing such as he has never had before. He takes the very hide off him. He chews him into mincemeat, and spits him out, and an awful spit it is, too. On nearly every page of his book, Lambert makes Ingersoll a liar. This is the most deserved castigation this Attila of infidelity ever enjoyed. It will be good for his soul (if he has any) to read his own condemnation and digest it.” Certainly Father Lambert goes far towards towards emulating the style of this particular “ American Christian,” while the writer of the prelace, a gentleman who signs himself Patric Cronin almost surpasses it in sustained illfeeling and insolent vulgarity of thought and expression. He says the pamphlet is “ unquestionably the most crushing reply yet made to that notorious little fraud—lngersoll—who so loves to pose as a profoundly original thinker ; and who lives, moves, and has his being, in tire laughter and applause which his fescennine buffonery provokes.” In the interests of Religion he pointed out to the author of the Notes the

advisability of having them “spread broadcast,” and wishes that “ those whose minds have been poisoned by the specious pen and brilliant rhetoric of our American arch - blasphemer, could read these Notes They would then see how untruthful in statement, illogical in reasoning, dishonest in inference, vile in innuendo, and malevolent in purpose, is the man upon whose every utterance they hung with delight.” In a fine burst of enthusiastic eloquence he exclaims, “ Oh ! that we had to-day more Father Lamberts, especially in these United States, to give us opportune pamphlets like this; and to make short work of the blatant revilers of all revealed truth, who like a reptile brood, hiss forth their venom against Christ and His Church.” He declares that “ Infidelity knows no standard of Right and Wrong ; and such standard is the corner-stone upon which society rests.” From Father Lambert’s introduction it seems the ‘North American Review’ for August, 1881, published an article on the Christian Religion by Ingersoll, together with a reply to it by Jeremiah S. Black, of Washington City. In the November number of the same ‘ Review,’ Mr. Ingersoll replied to Black’s defence, and there the controversy came to an abrupt end. Mr Black’s silence was construed into an admission of defeat, but according to Mr. Black the ‘ Review ’ was under the control of Mr. Ingersoll, who prevented him from having sufficient space in which to answer, what he calls “ fifty pages of the foulest and falsest “ libel that ever was written against God or man,” in the same number. Not being able to gain his point which seemingly was to mix his own criticism of “ this new effusion of filth,” with it, as a sort of disinfectant we presume,—after some further negotiation, he allowed the matter to drop. According to Father Lambert “ Mr. Ingersoll, in his reply, indignantly accused Judge Black of personal detraction, and says, very justly, The theme (the Christian Religion) is great enough to engage the highest faculties of the human mind, and in the investigation of such a subject vituperation is singularly and vulgarly out of place.” Father Lambert admits that “ nothing can be truer than this ” and then occupies a page or two in practically saying to Ingersoll “ you’re another,” you abused the Christian Religion, you attacked Moses who couldn’t reply, and now you cry out when the tables are turned. He does not deny that Mr. Black was abusive and personal, but evades the question by saying, “ if Mr Black has been guilty of personal detraction, as Mr. Ingersoll insinuates, he has done wrong.” Considering that Father Lambert had the materials for forming a judgment before him this cautious expression of opinion shows more cunning than candour, and gives a hint to the intelligent reader what he may expect to find further on. As to Mr. Black, he has, in the few short sentences we have quoted, given us a specimen of his style, from which we may fairly conclude that Colonel Ingersoll’s complaints were not unfounded. Father Lambert, in coming to the rescue of his friend, Mr. Black, is careful to follow in his footsteps in his mode of dealing with the enemy. He is evidently afraid that if he lets Ingersoll speak for himself the bane will be worse than his own critical antidote, so far as the effect produced on the minds of his orthodox readers is concerned. He therefore selects a number of short extracts from Ingersoll’s reply, and comments upon each at considerable length. The first chapter of the “Notes” is headed “ Mr. Ingersoll’s ‘ Idea,’ and what comes of it,” and he begins in dialogue form as follows : “ Ingersoll, —The universe, according to my idea, is, always was, and forever will be. * * * * It is the one eternal being—the only thing that ever did, docs, or can exist.” Comment When you say according to my idea ” you leave the inference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development ”; and then follows half a page of similar impertinence, in which Father Lambert asserts, what neither Ingersoll nor any one else ever denied, that this “ idea ”is not original. After this comes a good deal of metaphysics evidently derived from that “ scholastic philosophy, so famous for several ages which has since passed away and been forgotten,” as Hallam says.

He rings the changes on the infinite, and the eternal, liberty and material forces, and solves several metaphysical equations to his own satisfaction without having the slightest notion apparently that the “ unknowns” they contain remain as unknown as ever. In the more definite region of physical science Father Lambert is even more hopelessly at sea. He quotes Ingersoll as saying that “ we know nothing of what we call the laws of nature except as we gather the idea of law from the uniformity of phenomena springing from like conditions. To make myself clear : Water always runs down hill.” On this Father Lambert observes that “ the idea of law in general is, and must be prior to the idea of particular laws.” He then argues at some length that “ the principle of casuality is the basis on which we make our deductions from phenomena.” This, as Comte has demonstrated, is the special vice of the theological and metaphysical modes of thought which the scientific and positive method carefully avoids, by directing attention to co-existences and sequences in phenomena, and withdrawing it from the fruitless search after efficient causes. Father Lambert then goes on to argue that Mr. Ingersoll’s illustration is unfortunate, for water does not always run down hill. “ How did it get up hill,” he says ; “is there a perennial spring up there? Water does not always run down hill. In the present condition of the physical world the tendency of water is upward and outward.” The heat of the sun draws it up, the rotation of the earth heaps it up toward the equator, &c., &c. In other words, the phenomena is relative, which is just what Ingersoll, guided by positive science, contends all phenomena are. He expressly speaks of phenomena being uniform under “ like conditions.” Really Father Lambert’s childish argument on this question is beneath contempt, and show's either very great ignorance or gross unfairness. Indeed w r e may say the same thing of the greater part of these “ Notes,” in which Ave have marked more than twenty passages which are either misrepresentations of Ingersoll’s meaning, mere quibbles, or impudent assertions. To examine all of them is impossible with any due regard to time or space. His chapter on the “ Justice of God, &c.,” advocates the usual immoral theological doctrine that because God’s justice is infinite, finite man cannot judge of it. As applied to a being which theology necessarily makes anthropomorphic, the notion that the moral attributes of God differ, not only in degree but in kind from the best human attributes, really strikes at the root of all morality and religion. The God who is not a God of justice, as the term justice is understood by man, may also not be a God of love and truth, as these terms are understood by man, and Revelation itself may be but an infinite lie intended to mislead man in order to gratify infinite malice ! The whole of this self destructive theological argument has been as thoroughly exploded by Mill, in his criticism of Mansel, that Ave need not dwell upon it. Father Lambert’s competency for historical criticism may be gathered from the fact that he boldly asserts that “there can be no reasonable doubt whatever that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them,” and quotes Julian, the Apostate, as a witness to the truth of the Christian miracles; while to Ingersoll’s assertion that the well known passage in Josephus, about “Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is lawful to call him a man,” “ is admitted to be an interpolation,” he replies : “ Admitted by whom ? By you and Paine, and Voltaire, and other infidels, Tooley Street tailors.” Of course he uses the usual argument that the same kind and amount of evidence that proves the ordinary facts of history are sufficient to prove a miracle. “ Can we believe on the testimony of those about whose character we know nothing, that Lazarus was raised from the dead,” writes Ingersoll. “ Yes, we can, and must,” says Father Lambert, “ just as Ave believe the facts of all history. We believe that Caesar was assassinated by Brutus ; that Philip was King of Macedon, &c., &c,, &c.” In other words, because experience shows that testimony to the truth of facts within its range is credible, therefore we ought to give equal credence to testimony contrary to all experience but that of the unknown

witness, who, as experience also shows, may deceive or mistake, especially where religion is concerned. Father Lambert, who prides himself on his “ logic,” should certainly have carefully studied chapter sixteen on “Credulity and Incredulity ” in “Bains’ Logic” before he committed himself to such an absurdity. However, Father Lambert is prepared to swallow anything in the interests ot theology, or perhaps to speak more exactly has unlimited faith in the gullibility of his readers. As an instance of this his answer to Ingersoll’s remark, “is it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these prodigies,” is sufficient. He says “ the prodigies you refer to are, “ ist. The massacre of the infants by Herod ; 2nd. The Star of Bethlehem ; 3rd. The darkness at the time of the crucifixion, &c. The first is referred to by Macrobius, a heathen historian, in such a manner as to leave no doubt of the universal belief in the fact. The second is mentioned by Chalcidus, a Platonic philosopher, who attests the fact in almost the same words as the Gospel.” He gives the words, and continues, “ the third (the darkness) is mentioned by “ Phlegon, of Trallium, a Pagan, who lived in the middle of the second century.” He gives his evidence as to an “ eclipse of the sun, the grandest that ever had been hitherto,” and a “great earthquake” having taken place at a date which he contrives to make tally with that of the crucifixion, of course ignoring all the astronomical difficulties and chronological doubts involved. In his slippery fashion, Father Lambert avoids saying in so many words, here is evidence that some contemporary historians did mention these prodigies, which was what Ingersoll really denied, and leaves his readers to jump to the conclusion that as one of his admirers says he has made Ingersoll a liar.” Now what are the facts. Phlegon, a Greek freeman of the Emperor Haydrian, wrote a book, part of which has come down to ns. A modern scholar describes it as a “poor performance, full of the most ridiculous tales, and with one exception the worst of the Greek treatises on the subject,” of wonderful events. Its value, as evidence, is about equal to what that of a book written by a Maori would be as to a miracle said to have occurred at the date of the accession of George the second. It is doubtful whether Chalcidius was a Christian, Jew, or Heathen ; Monsheim suggests that he was a mixture of all three. Writing in the sixth century he speaks as a believer might of the Star of Bethlehem, and expresses a vague admiration of Moses. Of course his evidence is conclusive as to events which were said to have happened at a period almost as remote from his time as the defeat of Edward the second by Bruce at Bannockburn is from ours ! What adds to its value is, that if a “ Platonist ”as Father Lambert says he was, he doubtless adopted the recognised critical canon of the Neo-Platonists and accepted all stories concerning the divine and supernatural without too curious inquiry, Macrobius is only cited as evidence of “ universal belief” not of fact, as if any one doubted that many erroneous beliefs could grow up in the space of more than four hundred years. We should be sorry to vouch for the truth of all the history recorded between now and the Wars of the Roses. Even Mr. Rusden has found himself involved in an action for libel, because with all the written and oral testimony at his command, he recorded a “ massacre of the innocents ” which took place within some fourteen years of the time he wrote, in terms not in accordance with fact. By the way, Father Lambert’s brutality of statement in reference to Indians and “ scalping ” is we hope only forced upon him by the necessity of defending the bloodthirsty Jehovah from Colonel Ingersoll’s attacks. Even this truculent priest would we trust refrain from practising what he preaches. In conclusion, if to use his own words, the pamphlet we have examined is an “ evolution of himself on paper,” we are sorry for Father Lambert and sorry for the Church of which he is a member. He boasts that Colonel Ingersoll “ can not ” answer him and has “ publicly declined to reply.” His satisfaction might be diminished if he remembered the old saying, that a gentleman may fairly decline to wrestle with a sweep. R.P.