Most men and nearly all women accept, without any inquiries or any doubts, the conventions and beliefs of those who surround them. They accept them, as they accept their alphabet and their arithmetic, without any curiosity as to their origins, and with a vague feeling that they are the products of nature rather than the work of man. They either do not know that some men disregard those conventions, and that some men deny the truth of those beliefs, or they look upon such disregards and denials as the follies of the ignorant and the wilful perversions of the evil-minded. But there is a minority who ponder on these things, and who believe, like Descartes, that the first principle of philosophy is that, "in order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt of all things"-to doubt once, not necessarily in order to disbelieve always, but to discover whether our beliefs are well founded, to strengthen our trust in those which are well founded, and to discard those which are ill founded.
At a time of great convulsions, more than at any other time, men and women are driven to examine their most cherished convictions, and to inquire whether the misfortunes which mankind suffers are not due to men's own erroneous beliefs and false aims. In the last great disaster which has so nearly overwhelmed civilization-the great War which, though nominally ended, still hinders by its aftermath the co-operative progress of human society, and still inflames national passions thousands of people, who would probably, had it not taken place, never have questioned the customs, the creeds, and the conventions in which they- were brought up, have been aroused from their complacent acquiescence in things as they are. They have begun to examine not only the generally accepted political, social, and fiscal theories, but also the religious doctrines which they have inherited rather than consciously accepted. Sons are inquiring into the reasons for believing doctrines which their fathers would have thought it impious to question. The " man in the street " has begun to learn what the philosopher in his study has known for a long time.
From inquiry into the basis of our beliefs nothing but good can ensue. Those things which are true can always survive exposure to light; only morbid growths succumb to the rays. Most people now realize this, and also realize that peace, progress, and prosperity civilization itself depend upon the recognition of facts, and not upon the bolstering up of presences. Founded upon the truth, or at any rate upon the nearest approach to the truth of which we are capable, civilization can stand and may progress. Founded upon shame and conventions, civilization must fall.
But there still survive a minority who fear that the foundations of society would be endangered by any aIteration in its structure, or by the removal of any material known to be decayed. These people do not maintain that the material is sound, but they oppose any proposals for the substitution of sound for rotten material, and, dreading the publicity of repairs, advocate another coat of whitewash to conceal the decay.
Early in this year there was carried on, in the columns of the "Times," a correspondence about " Shaken creeds." By the uninitiated it might be thought that the questions in dispute were about matters of fact, but by those who have followed the theological controversies of the last few years it is known that ths real issue is whether the acknowledged and recognized facts should be openly admitted or still concealed from the public. The facts are no longer disputed by any theologian or layman with a reputation for learning.
The clerical dignitaries who took part in this correspondence themselves write of traditions which are "largely derived from the erroneous speculation of past ages," of "obsolete formulae," of phrases tolerated only because of their archaeological associations, and of formularies which have so far fallen "out of correspondence with general contemporary standards of knowledge and belief as to acquire an air of unreality." Not one of these defenders of the faith, who object to the demand for a re-statement of the Church's creeds, ventures to affirm that her present creeds are in fact true. They all disguise the "real issue in a drapery of pious irrelevancies," recommend "a policy of silence, patience, and thought," and express their doubts whether an adequate re-statement is possible.
To the onlooker the situation appears quite clear. All the educated clergy have ceased to believe in certain doctrines which are contained in the creeds of the Church to which they belong. Some of them, indeed, still succeed in persuading themselves by giving new meanings to old words that they believe in some doctrines closely resembling those enshrined in their creeds. Others more honest or more logical do not even pretend to believe, though they too still repeat the creeds of their liturgy.
The situation has become intolerable for those of the clergy whose work lies among educated folk men and women who, they feel, must suspect their honesty. But the ecclesiastical authorities fear to move. They think of the large numbers of ignorant devotees in their flocks who have not yet felt a breath of the wind which shakes the creeds, and who would be scandalized to hear to-day of any proposals for the alteration of those creeds which yesterday they were bidden to put their trust in.
Several bishops have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to discuss the disputed doctrines a commission which would " achieve its purpose by systematic work extending over a long period" in fact a period so long that it is suggested that the committee should report "in a year or two" whether they are likely to bring their labours to a successful conclusion. The evil moment would be postponed; the problem perhaps shelved for ever. But what of the poor men who must still repeat words which they do not believe ?
Evidently there is but one cure for the troubles which afflict our clergy. Their flocks must be taught what they themselves already know. If they cannot speak, laymen can. Fully-informed congregations will not obstruct the progress of their pastors from archaeological positions to modern ones. Those who desire to know what is shaken, and how it is shaken, will be able to form their own opinions.
The present book is intended to serve as an introduction to the study of those problems which such men and women desire to examine. Those who do not wish to investigate these problems, those who prefer to accept without question and without interest the doctrines in which they were nurtured, are not likely to read it, and have no right to complain of its being written for those others who are more interested in their religion. There is an old cry an ancient cant or chant repeated not only by a choir who never analyse the meaning of the words they use, but by some people for whose opinion one must have every respect that it is better not to "disturb" the minds of those who find in their religion satisfaction for all their spiritual requirements. That argument was used by some of the Romans who opposed the introduction of Christianity, and by every priest and every politician who has been more concerned with the maintenance of his own position than with the attainment of truth. It can apply with any force only to those persons who live in intellectual backwaters, who read only the lightest of light literature, and who pass their days like the ruminants, concerned only with the satisfaction of their appetites. Such persons will, either for good or evil, remain undisturbed by the issue of yet another book, as they are no more likely to read it than the previously published works dealing with similar topics. Their placid intellectual slumbers will not be disturbed. They are under no compulsion to read or to wonder.
But the minds of thinking men are already "disturbed," and can be quieted only by a frank discussion of the matters which disturb them. If men believe that there exists a conspiracy of silence formed to hoodwink them, mental disturbance violently externalizes itself. Men who think that their rulers and teachers have combined to humbug them become filled with blind fury. A great deal of the most violent revolutionary writing and talk which goes on to-day, in various inconspicuous and as yet not very numerous corners of our great cities, is founded upon, and attempts to justify itself by, this alleged conspiracy to humbug. Silence and pretence have, in the words of Canon Barnes, "encouraged the prevalent belief that religious people have a low standard of truth.'' The real problem is not to disturb the minds of the taught, but to enable the teachers to acknowledge, without entire loss of authority and influence, the errors made in the past by themselves and their predecessors. Before that problem can be satisfactorily tackled, it is necessary to inquire what those errors are, how they came to be accepted in the past, how they survived until the present, and what elements of truth may be mixed up with the false theories that have come down to us from a past when men were, not indeed more foolish than we are, but more ignorant about the processes of nature.
By the majority of our parsons the problem is ignored, and silence is kept about those matters which will be discussed in this book. The more enthusiastic and the better educated of the clergy, however, have at last realized that the problem must be faced and discussed. They know, and they acknowledge, that the sceptic is not always, as is so often alleged, a mere destroyer; and that his aim generally is " the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made; that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." "The things that have been shaken-shaken so severely that they have been shaken out of the hearts and minds of modern educated Englishmen still remain in our Church's formularies, in our Prayer Book, in our hymn-books, and also, owing to their training, in the minds of many of our clergy." "Those who do not know these things are shaken, and who can in consequence live in a fool's paradise or paddle little boats in ecclesiastical backwaters," are now few in number; but it is they who, backed by the force of conservative inertia which is at once the strength and the weakness of the English character, strive to allow " the English Church to become so burdened with the impedimenta of the past that she must become an ineffective obscurantist sect," regarded by the general public as a " narcotic for the doping of humanity, or an invention of self-seeking priests."
In a recent work of Christian apologetics this necessity for bringing Christian doctrine more into line with modern knowledge, and for approximating nominal creeds to actual beliefs, is stated as follows:-
"The modern world is asking questions. Christianity and its traditional theology have come down to us from an age very different from our own an age when the sun and the stars moved round the earth, when the meaning of natural law and evolution was only dimly apprehended, when the psychology of religion, the historical method, and the critical study of ancient documents were yet unborn. These things touch the foundations of the old beliefs, and it is about the foundations that the world is asking.
"The world is calling for religion, but it cannot accept a religion if its theology is out of harmony with science, philosophy, and scholarship."
"Those who believe . . . should set themselves to a careful re-examination, and, if need be, re-statement, of the foundations of their belief in the light of the knowledge and thought of the day."
"The men whose position in the Church is such that they cannot speak at all except with authority 'cannot risk such experiments.'
"The average man and church-goer have still to realize the situation. They are bound to suffer in a measure the convulsions already undergone by a minority."
"What, then, is the position of the Christian preacher?.....His hold on a supernatural Gospel may be weak."
"Doubtless, despite all that has been claimed for this generation, the mass of men in this country-certainly the majority of church-goers - have still to realize it" (i.e., the conclusions which inevitably follow the consideration of facts unknown to most men a generation ago; unknown to all men, though suspected by a few, a century ago).
The authors of the book (or rather series of essays) from which the above quotations are taken are all, with the exception of one, ordained clergymen; the seventh being a layman and a fellow and lecturer in Philosophy of Lincoln College. Their evidence for the necessity of re-statement - evidence which is repeated, without much result, by a large number of other scholarly ecclesiastics-should convince even those unacquainted with the facts of the case that there is good reason for taking stock of our professed religious beliefs.
Though, from their position perhaps naturally, these seven authors hesitate to follow their own arguments to their logical conclusions, though they evade many of the principal issues, and though their arguments, like those of most theologians, often seem directed to proving, not that their doctrines must be true, but that it is just possible that there may be some element of undemonstrable truth hidden in them, this very recognition of the problem they deal with justifies, even if other justifications were lacking, the publication of an account, intended for beginners in such studies, of the origin of one of the doctrines that have been assailed.
There are some past whom the flood of modern thought sweeps unnoticed-men and women who continue to chatter among themselves about the correct cut and colour of a clergyman's vestments, or about whether the curate turns to the East or to the West, or about "High" and "Low." Such people are oblivious of the really fundamental questions which the Church is being asked, and for such I do not write, as they seldom read anything but the lightest of literature, and are unlikely to embark upon a study which must appear to them so arduous, so unnecessary, and so uninteresting.
I write for those who are non-plussed by the scepticism which cultured men and women in general, and many distinguished writers in particular, display regarding their ancient creeds, and who wish to study more closely the reasons for that scepticism; for those who have heard echoes of the controversies, and who wonder what it exactly is that is doubted, and why it is doubted; and for those who wonder why so many earnest, worthy, and learned citizens have ceased to take part in the religious observances of their national Church.
To deal adequately with all the questions at issue would require several volumes. I have selected for treatment but one-namely, the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin and begotten by the Holy Ghost.
To understand how and when that doctrine arose it is necessary to have some acquaintance with the facts that are known about the authorship of the New Testament books, and (I think) some acquaintance with the doctrines of those early Christians who were known as Gnostics. I have therefore in Part I dealt briefly with those two subjects. Those to whom these subjects seem uninteresting are recommended to skip Part I, and to begin with Part II; but the questions at issue cannot be fully comprehended without some acquaintance with the subjects discussed in the first part of the book.
The facts which I have collected together have been for some time well known to all students of theology; the conclusions at which I have arrived are the same as those which most modern inquirers have reached.
It is useless to blink at facts because at first sight they do not seem to be pleasant ones. It is better to face them boldly, and, when we learn that what we have hitherto relied on was not the truth, to seek new hopes and a new faith founded upon solid realities.
The mere fact of holding a false belief is not necessarily harmful. Firm believers in the most foolish of superstitions have often lived noble lives, and sometimes led the march of progress in departments other than that of their misbelief. What is harmful is that men should pretend to believe things which they really do not believe, and that men in prominent positions should be suspected of pretending to believe things which they do not really believe.
As Carlyle pointed out in his lecture on "The Hero as Priest," "the fatal circumstance of Idolatry" was not that the idols were false, but that eventually men continued to worship them after they had begun to realize that they were false. Worship became a presence. "Souls are no longer 'filled' with their Fetish, but only pretend to be filled, and would fain make themselves feel that they are filled . . . . No more immoral act can be done by human creature . . . . Men are no longer 'sincere' men. I do not wonder that the earnest man denounces this, brands it, prosecutes it with inextinguishable aversion."
"You do not believe," said Coleridge; "you only believe you believe." So even if the creeds of the Church are suitable, as one of their apologists in the above-mentioned "Times" correspondence declares, "for those simple souls who take things for granted," yet their retention cannot be justified if they are untrue in the eyes of those who do not take everything for granted. The number of the extremely simple becomes daily smaller: to cater only for the simple results in diminishing congregations, and will eventually result in no congregations at all-a prospect which should be viewed with alarm by those who consider that the Church has an ethical function to perform in a community inclined to worship material success as the greatest, if not indeed the only true, God.
J. R.
I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. Thomas Whittaker, who has kindly read the proofs of this book. For any errors that still remain I alone am responsible. For freedom from error, in so far as that unattainable ideal has been approached, my thanks are due to him.
September 1, 1922.