CHRISTIAN APOLOGIES CHRISTIAN apologists make some daring claims on behalf of their religion. The truth of Christianity is proved, they say, by its endurance and by its power; the beneficence of its results testifies to the divinity of its origin. These claims command wide acceptance, for the simple reason that those who deny them cannot get a hearing. The Christians have virtual command of all the churches, universities, and schools. They have the countenance and support of the Thrones, Parliaments, Cabinets, and aristocrasies of the world, and they have the nominal support of the World's Newpaper Press. They have behind them the traditions of eighteen centuries. They have formidable allies in the shape of whole schools of philosophy and whole libraries of eloquence and learning. They have the zealous service and unswerving credence of millions of honest and worthy citizens: and they are defended by solid ramparts of prejudice, and sentiment, and obstinate old custom. The odds against the Rationalists are tremendous. To challenge the claims of Christianity is easy: to get the challenge accepted is very hard. Rationalists' books and papers are boycotted. The Christians will not listen, will not reason, will not, if they can prevent it, allow a hostile voice to be heard. Thus, from sheer lack of knowledge, the public accept the Christian apologist's assertions as demonstrated truth. And the Christians claim this immunity from attack as a triumph of their arms, and a further proof of the truth of their religion. Religion has been attacked before, they cry, and where now are its assailants? And the answer must be, that many of its assailants are in their graves, but that some of them are yet alive, and there are more to follow. But the combat is very unequal. If the Rationalists could for only a few years have the support of the Crowns, Parliaments, Aristocracies, Universities, Schools, and Newspapers of the world; if they could preach Science and Reason twice every Sunday from a hundred thousand pulpits, perhaps the Christians would have less cause for boasting. But as things are, we "Infidels " must cease to sigh for whirlwinds, and do the best we can with the bellows. So: the Christians claim that their religion has done wonders for the world; a claim disputed by the Rationalists. Now, when we consider what Christianity has done, we should take account of the evil as well as the good. But this the Christians are unwilling to allow. Christians declare that the divine origin and truth of their religion are proved by its beneficent results. But Christianity has done evil as well as good. Mr. G. K. Chesterton, while defending Christianity in the Daily News, said: Christianity has committed crimes so monstrous, that the sun might sicken at them in heaven. And no one can refute that statement. But Christians evade the dilemma. When the evil works of their religion are cited, they reply that those evils were wrought by false Christianity, that they were contrary to the teachings of Christ, and so were not the deeds of Christians at all. The Christian Commonwealth, in advancing the above plea as to real and false Christianity, instanced the difference between Astrology and Astronomy, and said: We fear Mr. Blatchford, if he has any sense of consistency, must, when he has finished his tirade against Christianity, turn his artillery on Greenwich Observatory, and proclaim the Astronomer Royal a scientific quack, on account of the follies of star-gazers in the past. But that parallel is not a true one. Let us suppose that the follies of astrology and the discoveries of astronomy were bound up in one book, and called the Word of God. Let us suppose we were told that the whole book-facts, reason, folly, and falsehoods-was divinely inspired and literally true. Let us suppose that any one who denied the old crude errors of astrology was persecuted as a heretic. Let us suppose that any one denying the theory of Laplace, or the theory of Copernicus, would be reviled as an "Infidel." Let us suppose that the Astronomer Royal claimed infallibility, not only in matters astronomical, but also in politics and morals. Let us suppose that for a thousand years the astrological-astronomical holy government had whipped, imprisoned, tortured, burnt, hanged, and damned for everlasting every man, woman, or child who dared to tell it any new truth, and that some of the noblest men of genius of all ages had been roasted or impaled alive for being rude to the equator. Let us suppose that millions of pounds were still annually spent on casting nativities, and that thousands of expensive observatories were still maintained at the public cost for astrological rites. suppose all this, and then I should say it would be quite consistent and quite logical for me to turn my verbal artillery on Greenwich Observatory. Would the Christians listen to such a plea in any other case? Had Socialists been guilty of tyranny, of war, of massacre, of torture, of blind opposition to the truth of science, of cruel persecution of the finest human spirits for fifteen centuries, can any one believe for a moment that Christians would heed the excuse that the founders of Socialism had not preached the atrocious policy which the established Socialist bodies and the recognised Socialist leaders had put in force persistently during all those hundreds of cruel years? Would the Christian hearken to such a defence from a Socialist, or from a Mohammedan? Would a Liberal accept it from a Tory? Would a Roman Catholic admit it from a Jew? Neither is it right to claim credit for the good deeds, and to avoid responsibility for the evil deeds of the divine religion. And the fact must be insisted upon, that all religion, in its very nature, makes for persecution and oppression. It is the assumption that it is wicked to doubt the accepted |