CHAPTER
3
(The Bible or the
Church?, Chapter 2, pp. 12-24)
24
"AS soon as man grew distinct from the animal he became religious."
No one gifted with a sense of humour could have gravely penned a suggestion
so grotesque as this. That the remote descendant of an ape might become
intelligent, philosophical, mathematical, musical, poetical, scientific—all
this possibly we could understand, but why should he become religious?
And yet this dictum of
Renan's[1] is most important
as a testimony from such a quarter to the fact that man is a religious
being. The universality of religion has, indeed, been denied;[2]
but the
25
following testimony will carry conviction that the denial is based on
grounds that are inadequate.
[1] Vie
de Jesus, chap. i.
[2] See
ex. gr. Sir John Lubbock's Prehistoric Times, chaps. xi,
xii, xiii.
"The statement," says Professor
Tiele, "that there are nations or tribes which possess no religion,
rests either on inaccurate observations, or on a confusion of ideas.
No tribe or nation has yet been met with destitute of belief in any
higher beings, and travellers who asserted their existence have been
afterwards refuted by facts. It is legitimate, therefore, to call religion,
in its most general sense, an universal phenomenon of humanity." And
in quoting these words, Professor Max Mueller declares: "We may safely
say that, in all researches, no human beings have been found anywhere
who do not possess something which to them is religion."[3]
And Charles Darwin himself admits that "a belief in all-pervading spiritual
agencies seems to be universal."[4]
[3]
Origin and Growth of Religion, lect. ii.
[4] Descent
of Man, part iii, chap. xxi.
Accepting the conclusion,
therefore, that man is by nature religious, the question remains, How
can this fact be accounted for? Philosophers may amuse themselves with
the theory that it is due
26
to his losing a tail and learning to talk; but all who acknowledge the
reign of law, and insist on seeking a cause for an effect, will see
in it a proof that, as even heathen poets taught, man is in a special
sense the offspring of God.[5]
[5]
The words of Aratus (tou` ga;r kai; gevnos
e;smevn) are quoted in Acts xvii.28. [And similar words are
used by Kleanthes.—Bible
or Church] Twice again the Apostle Paul quotes from heathen poets.
In 1 Cor. xv. 33, "Evil communications corrupt good manners," is from
the Comic poet Menander, who possibly took it from Euripides. And in
Titus i. 12, he quotes Epimenides (Alford).
This conclusion suggests
the inquiry why it is that he is so unworthy of his origin. Were there
a competent court to issue the writs, what damages human nature might
obtain in libel actions against biological science and Augustinian theology!
Bad as it is to proclaim that man is the child of an anthropoid ape,
it is almost worse to declare that, through and through, and in every
sense, he is only and altogether bad. True it is that the history of
the race has been black and hateful. No less true is it that wrong-doing
is easy, whereas well-doing calls for sustained effort. But in this
connection such facts, important though they be, are not everything.
In a real sense the truest test of a man is not what he does, but what
27
he approves; not what he is, but what he would wish to be. Vicious indulgence
may have so depraved him that vice seems no longer vicious. Just as
his physical faculties may be destroyed by abuse, so his conscience
may become "seared as with a hot iron." But this is an abnormal condition.
What is called the "moral"
law is so described because it is the law of our being. It was not the
commandment which made thieving wrong. It was because it was wrong that
the commandment was given. It has been said, indeed, by a modern disciple
of Hobbes, that "Thou shalt not steal " is merely the selfish precept
of the hog in the clover to warn off the hog outside the fence. But
such teaching is the outcome of a reprobate mind, and merely exemplifies
the fact that a man may sink morally to the level of a hog. But, it
may be urged, we can point to communities that see no evil in theft.
True; and we could also point to a nation whose women have stumps instead
of feet. But let the lowest savage and the Chinese woman be removed
in infancy from the influences which distort the conscience of the one
and the limbs of the other, and in both cases nature will assert itself.
28
A full discussion of this problem would fill a volume. But no such discussion
is necessary here. For no infidel will raise the question; and in the
case of the believer an appeal to Scripture should settle it. Its testimony
is clear: "When Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of
the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; in that they
show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing
witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else
excusing them."[6]
[6]
Rom ii. 14-15, R.V. It may be useful to note that it is not the
law, but the work of the law, which is written in man's heart
by nature.
Words could not be plainer.
A heathen, though destitute of a Divine revelation, has a knowledge
of good and evil, for that is inherent in man. That such a knowledge
was implanted in him by his Creator will be very generally admitted,
but the popularity of a belief is no pledge of its truth. According
to Scripture man was created innocent, and it was his lapse from
innocency that brought him the knowledge of evil.
But the knowledge of good
and evil would not
29
of itself make man religious. He was religious before he acquired
that knowledge, and the atheistic evolutionist is theoretically
right in holding that he might possess it now apart from religion. The
fact is that what is so commonly mistaken for "conscience" is but a
subordinate characteristic of conscience. For it is what may be termed
God-consciousness, and not the knowledge of good and evil, which constitutes
man a religious being; and it was this that the Creator implanted in
him when He made him a spiritual being.
Here then is the question:
Man being the "off-spring of God," and having instincts befitting his
origin, how is it that he does not always choose the good and turn from
the evil? Who will dare to answer that it is because he cannot? Not
the Christian, certainly; for his Scriptures assert the responsibility
of man; and indeed the whole doctrine of future judgment is based upon
that truth. Nor yet the infidel, for the dignity of humanity is his
favorite theme. But the fact remains that while some, not only among
Pagans, but even among those who, like Renan for example,
30
affect to ignore all religions, can lead worthy and excellent
lives, these are few and exceptional. The lives of the vast majority
of men are evil. And they choose the evil in spite of knowing that it
is evil, and in spite of a fitful desire to shun it. Apart from special
depravity, a man's higher nature turns towards the good even while he
yields to the evil. He praises virtue though he practises vice. It is
his will that is paralyzed, not his judgment. He is like a bird with
a broken wing, whose instincts prompt it to fly while it flounders helplessly
on the ground. Man has instincts[7]
and aspirations which indicate for him a noble origin and a still nobler
destiny, but yet he is practically a failure. How is this to be accounted
for? In the whole range of nature, man excepted, there is nothing to
correspond with it. It must of course be due to the operation of some
law which applies only to the human race. All other creatures fulfil
31
the patent purpose of their being: man alone not merely falls short
of this but outrages it. How is this mystery to be explained?
[7] I
speak of a religious instinct with knowledge of what Professor Max Mueller
and others have urged against the expression (Origin of Religion,
lecture iv). But if I might venture to do so, I would express a doubt
whether the objector always distinguishes between ''instinct" and ''faculty."
It is not instinct which enables a duckling to swim; but it is instinct
which leads it to seek the water.
It may be said perhaps
that man's vices are merely the natural propensities of the brute from
which he is derived. But here we can silence the evolutionist once again
by appealing to the phenomena of religion. The religious instincts of
the race are certainly not derived from the brute, and it is precisely
in this sphere that the corruption and perversity of human nature are
most manifest. If it were merely a question of animal-worship among
Pagan races, the evolutionist might again bring in his theories. But
the fact to be explained is that, in the most advanced civilizations,
whether of classic heathendom or of modern Christendom, religion has
invariably tended to degenerate, and to make its votaries a prey to
superstition.
Let us approach the matter
from another standpoint. The bird is unable to fly: is it unreasonable
to suppose that some mishap must have occurred to it? Let us then tentatively
adopt the suggestion that some disaster in the moral and
32
spiritual sphere befell the human race in primeval times; and let us
consider what results might be expected as the consequence of such a
catastrophe? Man's moral equilibrium would of course be disturbed. The
machinery of his moral being would, so to speak, be thrown out of gear.
But the effect upon his spiritual nature, by reason of its greater
delicacy and sensitiveness, would be absolutely disastrous. A broken
water-pipe may in a measure serve its purpose, but no electricity will
pass along a broken wire.
And is not this precisely
in accordance with experience? In the sphere of morals men differ vastly
from one another. Apart from Christianity altogether, some men lead
pure and excellent lives. Others are steeped in vice. And the fact that
some are moral is proof that all might be so. In this limited sphere,
indeed, we may, even at the risk of being made the quarry in a heresy
hunt, adopt the dogma of Pelagius, "That as man has ability to sin,
so has he also not only ability to discern what is good, but likewise
to desire it and to perform it." And the truth of this is recognised
when our selfish interests are involved.
33
If a man steals his neighbour's cash, he goes to gaol [i.e., jail
- ed.]; for "original sin" is no defence to a criminal charge. True
it is that a thief comes in time to weaken his moral power to keep his
hands out of his neighbour's pocket. But prison discipline is rightly
deemed a useful tonic in such a case. And what the fear of human judgment
is to the criminal, the fear of Divine judgment is intended to be to
the sinner. But orthodoxy so dins it into men's ears that they have
no power to live moral and virtuous lives, that they naturally believe
it, and cease to make the effort. That they can, but will not, is the
righteous basis of the judgment that awaits them.
The vital error of the
Pelagian heresy was the application of it in the spiritual sphere. But
in the fifth century, revealed truth had been swamped by theology, and
the distinction was ignored. A traveller who has missed his way in a
forest can stand upright and walk like a man; but so long as the heavens
are shut out from his view, he cannot direct his steps, he is lost.
The morality of Saul of Tarsus, the profane persecutor, was as unimpeachable
as that of Paul, the inspired apostle;
34
but his splendid morality only served to bring into stronger relief
the depth of his spiritual blindness and depravity.[8]
[8]
Some people are held in high esteem by all who do not know them: the
Apostle Paul could appeal to those who had known him from his youth
(Acts xxvi. 4-5) "I have lived in all good conscience before God until
this day," he could declare in the scene of his early life (xxiii. 1).
His life throughout had been blameless (a[memtos:
Phil. iii. 6). Never perhaps did any other mere man live a life so perfect.
Therefore it was he wrote the words: "Christ Jesus came into
he world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. i. 15).
The claim to stand forth as "first" (prw`tov~),
in all the long line of sinners, was not inspired (as with thousands
who since have adopted the words) by "the pride that apes humility;"
it was due to the fact that while he had had advantages which raised
him above all other men, his religion had served only to make him a
God-hater, "a blasphemer and a persecutor." Mere religion always drags
a man down spiritually.
Man, then, is a religious
being, not moral, merely, but religious. And he is religious
because he is spiritual. Here is the parting of the ways, where we must
break once for all with the mere evolutionist. It is idle for him to
talk to us of embryonic developments"—dog's teeth and donkey's
ears, and any amount besides. Even if we accept his account of the origin
of man's animal structure, the fact remains that the spiritual element
in his complex being must have come from God.
35
But this only serves to emphasize our difficulties. Were we to reason
out the matter a priori, we should expect to find complete unity
in the religious beliefs of the race, and they would have for us the
same certainty as the truths and facts which are apparent to reason
or the senses. And further, religion would always and inevitably tend
to elevate and ennoble mankind. But if we could imagine any so ignorant
and simple as to cherish such dreams, the records of the past and the
facts of life on earth should bring them a rude awakening. As for the
religious beliefs of the world, there is nothing too crude, too wild,
too false, too monstrous, to find enthusiastic adherents. And whenever
a great teacher has appeared, and has sought to elevate the religion
of men, his system has soon been perverted and depraved.
It has ever been so. Of
the early Egyptian religion, all that was sublime was demonstrably ancient,
and its last stage was the grossest and most corrupt. In China the lofty
system of ethics formulated by Confucius has suffered the utmost deterioration.
In India the pure nature-worship
36
of the Vedas has ended in superstitious puerilities. And the teaching
of Gautama, sublime in its rejection of all idolatry and priestcraft,
has ended in the gross asceticisms and superstitions of modern Buddhism.
The Divine revelation of Judaism was degraded to the level of "the Jew's
religion," which made that race the common enemy of God and His people.
And Christianity itself has been almost swamped by the religion of Christendom,
that tangled skein of Divine truth and Pagan superstition.
The whole history of the
race records no exception to the rule. It is a law, like that of gravitation,
that religion ever tends to degenerate, and in its decadence to corrupt
and deprave mankind. This subject will claim further notice in these
pages. The question here is, What explanation can be given of facts
so patent and yet so extraordinary?
In the moral sphere we
have to account for the phenomenon of a right judgment thwarted and
violated. But in the spiritual sphere the problem is stranger still.
It is not that the bird has a broken wing, but that instead of endeavouring
37
to soar, its normal instinct is utterly perverted, and it clings to
the ground and even struggles to burrow into it. How is this mystery
to be accounted for? Only one solution of it has ever been proposed,
and that is the story of the Eden Fall. And that explanation is so entirely
reasonable and adequate that if it had been left for some thinker to
suggest it, the discovery might well have evoked an exclamation such
as that with which Huxley is said to have greeted the Darwinian theory
of the origin of species, "How stupid not to have thought of that."
[9]
[9]
I do not stop to inquire whether the story of the Fall should be taken
literally or as an allegory, for I desire to avoid here all side issues.
If any choose to regard the forbidden tree as a "sacrament" (I use the
word in the classical, not the superstitious, sense), it will not affect
the argument.
* *
*
The
preceding chapter was taken from:
THE BUDDHA OF CHRISTENDOM (revised and republished in 1908 as
The Bible or the Church?) by Sir Robert Anderson.
Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1899, no copyright.
Buddha of Christendom, Chapter 4 / Bible or Church?, Chapter 3
|
