Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith: Three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with special replies by Mr. C. BradlaughBradlaugh, Charles
Religion
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith: Three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with special replies by Mr. C. Bradlaugh
reasonable experiment, but still it is an experiment, and you may try
it. If you have a simple and earnest desire to ascertain its truth,
try it, casting aside the trivial interests that the profligate man
has in the disproof of it. Try it and see if there does not come
into your soul that conviction not created by science, but springing
from the inner life of the soul, that shall be like a well of water
springing up to everlasting life. As in life so in religion,
“blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
SECOND REPLY
OF
MR. C. BRADLAUGH.
CHRISTIANITY AND SCEPTICISM.
ON Tuesday evening, April 4th, Mr. Bradlaugh delivered his second lecture
on “Christianity and Scepticism,” before a very crowded audience, in the
Free Library. He commenced by observing:
In continuing this course of lectures, I naturally follow the same
wording of the subjects as that taken by the Bishop of Peterborough; and
I may say that those who charge me with misquoting the Bishop, will
probably think differently when I say that I have taken fair pains to be
accurate in my representation. I took careful and almost verbatim notes,
and I hold in my hand a transcript of the notes of an independent
shorthand writer, and where these have disagreed, which has been very
seldom, I have checked them by so much of the lecture as appeared
summarised in the _Daily Press_. It appeared to me to be accurate, and I
think there was no ground for saying that I misrepresented the Bishop.
You who think so, had better leave that for him to say, if he thinks it
necessary. He took the instance of Thomas as that of a representative
Sceptic. He was good enough to tell us that the unbelief of Thomas was
not unreasonable, that, on the contrary, it was reasonable and natural
that he should feel some doubt about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I
propose to examine that position. Was it reasonable that Thomas should
doubt? Thomas was a disciple selected by Jesus. He had been present at
the whole of the miracles of Jesus. If the Bishop’s case be true, he had
seen Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, he had heard Jesus say he came to
die, and to rise again; and I ask you, if it was reasonable for Thomas to
doubt after he had seen a hundred miracles performed, then how much more
reasonable for me to doubt? I have never seen any miracles. But, said
the Bishop, Thomas is a fair example of the Sceptic, for Thomas said, I
will not believe unless I see, &c. This, the Bishop said, is the very
essence of scepticism. Now I don’t know where my Lord Bishop got his
notion of scepticism; I am sure that there is no writer on the side of
the party which permits me to speak for it, who defines scepticism in
that manner. I have here the explanation of Buckle, which I take as that
of a man occupying a position independent of the prejudices attaching to
my extreme heresy. “By Scepticism, I merely mean hardness of belief, so
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account