1
10
14
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/03e743b506736ffd0e0fa2bd8beea1c0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Zwlz9tKuuIKmWnbpXoipuO10L8VJY9b5-PkVdwL-c1Os4wqjLl4qX3NFrAu7onBS0X5rLbOiPT9BSjDsUebBHs2%7E6%7EVw5Vrp2A9a8j-NZC8oISHeep7x%7EsEqpnbA%7EUB-320s-3A-9JVTycq6qz4xbSL86AQrokbCse54U04-nJ4JtfcLvvmLz3mBnRjt6yaL5YiuBUbGSJ3nlk54D%7EqbgwQT8CjZ59pSViPTgJH%7EdC-W5bJCyQ93P2Ec-cyK1FdGPxqRXR2Ysde2NOXvBh4fWX-0VgCGNDboD-ezp0XrJTE9ji3AJUIXeyQjMCP9AL-B6ksciJNqmN%7EC-ILrwcDstQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c285cf878d4fb538f7a81e1b1ceb654b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR CWW A Y
DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. THOMAS COOPER AND
MR. CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
FIRST NIGHT.
On Monday, the 1st ofFebruary, a discussion was begun at the Hail
of Science between Mr. Thomas Cooper, some time Freethinker,
and recent convert, also the well-known author of the “ Pur
gatory of Suicides,” and Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, who has, for
some years past, acquired a very wide spread reputation as lec
turer under the name of “ Iconoclast,” and has devoted the time
which is not occupied by his professional avocations in the elimi
nation of secular and religious anomalies.
The chair was occupied by James Harvey, Esq. The fo-low
ing was the order of the discussion as stated in the published
programme :—
1. Mr. Cooper to state the Argument for the Being of God, as
the Maker of the Universe, on the First Night—and the Argu
ment for the Being of God, as the Moral Governor of the Uni
verse, on the Second Night; and each statement not to extend
beyond half-an-hour.
2. Mr. Bradlaugh to state the Argument on the Negative side,
each night; and each statement not to extend beyond half-anhour.
3. Not more than a quarter of an hour to be allowed for reply
and counter-reply, to the end.
4. No written speeches to be delivered, and no long extracts
from printed books or papers to be read on either side.
5. The chair to be taken at seven o’clock, and the Discussion
to conclude, as nearly as possible, at ten, each evening.
The Chairman said : I have consented to take the chair to-night,
both by request of Mr. Cooper and some friends, and with the
consent of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh; and I think I shall have your
consent also during the discussion which takes place this evening.
You well know that the duty and power of a chairman is very
limited, being entirely confined to the preservation of order; and
unless he has the support of those over whom he presides, his
authority is of little avail. I trust, therefore, that you will listen to
the arguments that will be addressed to you to-night. There must,
of course, be great difference of opinion on every abstract question,
�2
otherwise there would be no reason for discussion ; so that every
lady and gentleman who comes here may be presumed to have
formed an opinion beforehand ; but trusting^ your forbearance, I
have no doubt that we shall be able to get through the business of
the evening without any unseemly interruption. I feel it is a very
important matter that we have under discussion, respecting not
only us who have met to take a part, but humanity in general.
It is “ Whether there be a God ?” And I hope that whatever
arguments may be adduced, you will patiently hear the
speaker to the end (hear, hear), that a speech shall not be inter
rupted in the middle of a sentence; that you will listen thought
fully and decide candidly. If we act on this principle, if we en
tertain this spirit, we shall be conscious that we have not
lost our evening. I am sure that you will hear both parties fully
out, and support any decision at which I may arrive under the
circumstances (hear, hear.) Mr. Cooper will occupy half-anhour in introducing the subject—“For the Being of God, as
Maker of the Universe, and for the Being of God as the Gover*
nor of the Universe.” Mr. Bradlaugh will then state the Argu
ment on the Negative side, and will also occupy half-an-hour.
After that each speaker will occupy a quarter of an hour, or as
much less time as he pleases. In that case, it is the more neces
sary that a speaker should not be stopped in the midst of a sen
tence which the argument may require to be completed; nor
should be be called to time at the exact moment the quarter of
an hour has elapsed. I mention this that no gentleman may
think I am dealing with one more favourably than the other. I
now call on Mr. Cooper, who will take the affirmative of each
statement, to sta*e the case on his side, but not to exceed a period
of time beyond half-an-hour. (Hear and cheers.)
Mr. Cooper then rose, and was received with cheers. He said :
Eight years have elapsed since I stood in this Hall. It was on
the 13th of February, 1856, when I told my audience that I
could not lecture on Sweden, the subject which had been an
nounced. I told them that my mind was undergoing a change.
This hall was closed against me. I need not say why. Mr. Bendall
was ill, and the Hall in John Street was shut, so I was left without
the means of earning bread. After awhile I was allowed to
go down into the cellar of the Board of Health and copy letters
—seventy words for a penny. It was drudgery, and poor Frank
Grant, who is since dead, and a well known person also since
deceased, said to me—“ Why, it is enough to madden a man like
you 1” But a man who could undergo two years’ imprisonment
in the cause of truth, was not to be deterred by drudgery. Mr.
Bendall applied to me. It was before he was struck down with
paralysis. I did not apply to him, but he came to me, and told me
I must come to this Hall. Now, during the years I lectured
�3
here, there were few men whom I respected more than Mr. Ben
dall, so I recommenced here on the 21st of September, 1856, and
concluded on the 13th of May, 1858. I began with the “ Design
Argument,” and continued to lecture in this hall for a year and
nine months. An hour was allowed for discussion. For five
years and eight months. I have maintained my convictions : one
year and eight months I was in Scotland, and four years in Eng
land. I have lectured in chapels, on platforms, in churches and
in pulpits. Owing to the kindness of Mr. Bendall. who has given
the use of this hall for two nights—this night and Wednesday night
—I am again enabled to addiess you. I am accompanied by some
Christian friends and ministers of the gospel. I assure you I
address you in the spirit of kindness, although I think some of
you have not said the best things of me, or allowed the best
things to be said of me (hear and dissent.) I come, then, out of
kindness to you to propose this argument for the being of God.
It is an argument carrying me to the very door of the proposi
tion that accompanies it, and one which I have revolved in my
mind during the five years and eight months that I have been
absent from you. It has been repeated to you so often, it has
been talked about so constantly, that there can be no mistake
about it. I am. I know that I exist; I am conscious of it. I, a
reasoning, conscious, intelligent, personal existence. But I have
not had this personal, conscious, intelligent existence very long.
I have not long existed, but something must have existed before
me. Something must have always existed ; for if there had been
never anything in existence, there must have been nothing still,
and because nothing cannot make something—something alone
makes, originates, causes something to exist. Thus far, then, I
think we are all agreed. I have said I am a personal, conscious,
intelligent existence. Now either this personal, conscious, intel
ligent existence has always existed, or it began to be. If it began
to be, it has had a cause—indeed, if it has not always existed,
but began to exist, it must have had a cause, and must have been
either intelligent or non-intelligent. But non-intelligence can
not create intelligence. You might as well tell me that the
moon is made of green cheese, or the sun of Dorset butter, that
an oak leaf is the Atlantic ocean, or that Windsor Castle is London
Bridge, as to tell me that non-intelligence can cause to exist a
thoroughly conscious, perfect intelligence. Therefore, this per
sonal, conscious intelligence is itself the result or the effect of
an intelligence pre-existing, which is the cause from which I derive
my existence, the same to which men make reference when
they speak of God. But I discern that there is everywhere
not only something that has always existed everywhere,
I discern also that there is no such a thing as “ nowhere
there never was “nowhere,” there cannot be “nowhere.”
�4
Do you feel inclined to dispute this proposition ? Try, then,
to imagine ‘nowhere.” Where will you go?—beyond the
great solar system ? You may go on for millions and
millions of miles, still there is somewhere. If you try to imagine
nowhere, you gradually begin to apprehend that there is “ every
where,” and that intelligence always has existed everywhere.
You say, then, that something has always existed everywhere.
Can you conceive of that something having existed for nothing ?
Then there is no such thing as nothing; there never was nothing ;
there never could have bern nothing. Something must always
have been, and been everywhere. If we decide thus, we have a
right to say that something is not only everywhere, but on every
point of everywhere; and if this chain of reasoning be broken,
there is no line of demarcation to separate one part from the other.
So we come to the idea of motion. I am gifted with certain
senses, and I come to discern motion by a comparison of the
relation of different objects to each other. I observe motion to
be an attribute of master. By a conscious intuition, we are able
to perceive, and, by the aid of reason, to discern that this personal
existence, this preceding cause, is everywhere present, that it is
an eternal, conscious, nnderived, uncreated, uncaused Being whom
men worship and call God. (Cheers.) So by this personal, con
scious intelligence, men have communication with, and can per
ceive the outward features of this natural universe. But this
material universe is not the something that has always existed,
because it is in parts, because it is divisible, and the parts are
moveable one among the other, and not only moveable in the
sense of motion, but separable in the sense of change. Thus
the fleshly clothing of this body is constantly changing. Our
bodies are not now the bodies we had in infancy, nor those
which we had ten years ago the same as we have now. But by
the exercise of the will, which is a part of intelligence, and thia
wifl'Ucting on matter—matter is separable and moveable. So that
man is not one underived, uncreated, eternal existence. Yet
by his intelligent will, with the assistance of his organised
body, which of itself cannot move matter, he can mould it into
various shapes and perform wonderful results—fitting, shaping,
adapting; aud although we judge by these results that a man is
exercising the power of intelligence, we cannot see him exercising
it. You never saw a man contrive. You never saw a man
design. Yon cannot see that. It is only by analogy that you
can judge of it. There are three forces by which he acts—know
ledge, consciousness, and testimony, and by the aid of these
be is constantly designing and contriving. If you come
to observe the fashion of an object, although you see no maker,
yet when you inspect it and observe the various parts of which
it is composed, their suitability and fitness for the purpose they
�fulfil, then you presume that intelligence has been at work there,
and you recognise its operation, although you could not see it
contrive or design. If I come to a piece of a fashion apparently
the most complicated, yet more remarkable when you understand
it, seeing how simple are the principles of its construction, then
is my admiration called forth. And when I look on the curiously
wrought body, and mark all its various parts ; when I examine
this eye with its wonderful lenses and pulleys, when I look over
this hand with all its wonderful contrivances of adaptation and fit
ness, as to render man lord of the endless plain and the wide
mountain--even of the universe; and still when I look on the
wonderful contrivances in the forms of the animals in creation, and
wonder at their entire adaptation to the wants of each—eyes and
lungs fitted to changes of the atmosphere, and yet so little change
in the atmosphere itself, and when I look at “ this brave over
hanging firmament fretted with golden fires,” and see their
systems extend for millions and millions of miles pursuing their
several ends, and going their refulgent round—I am filled with
thoughts which make me humble, and I come to the conclusion
that this universe has its conscious, personal, and intelligent
designer; that he exists, that he is the author of my intelligence,
that he is the author of the intelligence of the millions that sur
round me. He exists. I did not always exist, that, therefore, he
is all-intelligent, and must be the author of the universe.
Finally, that since my will has such power over matter that he
must be uncontrollable, and, therefore, all-powerful, since he has
been able to produce this universe, he is over my existence, over
your existence, and over every existence; that he is the great un
created, underived cause whom men reverence, and whom I call
God.
Mr. Cooper resumed his seat amidst very warm plaudits.
Mr. Bradlaugh rose and said : Sir, I have listened with con
siderable attention, and with some disappointment, to the brief
address which has been delivered to us in proof of the position
which Mr. Cooper has taken upon himself to affirm this evening,
which position, if I understand it rightly, is that there is an all
wise, all-existent, all powerful, underived, uncaused, personal,
conscious, and intelligent being whom he (Mr. Cooper) calls God.
If saying it amounts to proof, then undoubtedly Mr. Cooper has
demonstrated his position ; but if anything approaching to logical
demonstration be required here this evening, then I shall respect
fully submit that it has been utterly and entirely wanting in the
speech to which we have just listened. (Cheers and dissent.) Mr.
Cooper tells us that something has always existed everywhere—
some one thing, some one existence, some one being. All his
speech turns upon that. All his words mean nothing, except in
so far as they go to support that point. Just notice the conse-
�quenceg involved in the admissions contained in his affirmation
that there is only one existence. If God always was one exist
ence, one eternal, omnipresent existence, beside whom nothing
else existed, what becomes of the statement made by Mr. Cooper
to-night, that the material universe is not that infinite existence,
but exists biside it ? There are thus two existences—the one
everywhere, and the other existing somewhere, although nowhere
remains for it. The one infinite is everywhere, beyond it there
cannot be any existence, and the finite universe has to exist out
side everywhere where existence is not. I will take it to be true
as put by Mr. Cooper, that this same one existence, which has
existed everywhere from eternity, is without motion, because, as
he says, motion implies going or moving from point to point:
existence being everywhere has nowhere to go; because it is
always everywhere, and it cannot move from point to point any
where. Just see, then, the lamentable position in which he
places Deity. If Deity be everywhere, and Deity, as he puts it
to you, made the universe, if made at all, it must have been
somewhere, it cannot have been on one of the points occupied by
Deity, for Mr. Cooper would hardly argue that two existences
can occupy the same point at the same time, from which it would
result that it cannot be in everywhere, and it cannot be anywhere
else, because there is nowhere else for it. There can have been no
making, because there was nothing to be made, everything being
already in existence, and there being not the slightest vacuum
for anything more. But the difficulty is more apparent when
you come to weigh his words. Surely if the word making means
anything, it involves the notion of some act; and if so, how can
you have an action without motion ? I should, indeed, like my
friend to explain this. He has evidently some very different
notions from those which I have. I want to know how we can
have the action of making without motion. I want to know how
Deity, which as Deity has been always motionless, has ever
moved to make the universe. We will examine the position still
further. My friend says that these are arguments derivable from
the fact of consciousness, and in illustration of this, he says—“ I
exist. I am a personal, conscious, intelligent being. I have not
been always, and, therefore, there must have been some time i
when I began to be. I am intelligent^ but have not been always,
and, therefore, I must have been caused by an intelligent being,
because non-intelligence cannot originate or create intelligence.”
Whether he meant non-intelligence and intelligence as positive
existences, it is exceedingly difficult to understand, and it would
be worth while, if we are to follow out the argument, that Mr.
Cooper should explain that to you, or else you will perhaps make
some mistake about it. What does he mean, I ask, by non-intel
ligence ? So far as I understand intelligence, it is a quality of a
�4
mode of existence varying in various modes of existence, and we
only know mode of existence as finite. We cannot conceive the
quality to be infinite, which we only know as appertaining to a
mode—that is, to the finite. I want Mr. Cooper to tell me how I
can reason from such a premiss, which only regards intelligence as
a quality of mode—of the finite, up to what he puts to you as a
quality of the absolute. I confess that on a subject like this some
difference may be expected, and my opponent may rely on the
authority of great names ; but I say that I have not relinquished
my right to examine these great problems, and work out the
result if it be possible for my reason to attain them. He says,
then, that non-intelligence cannot form intelligence. I don’t
wish to make mere verbal objections, or I might put it to him
that I do not understand what he means by intelligence being
formed at all. I must trouble him to make this point as clear to
my mind as it is to himself—before such an argument will con
vince me much more is required. I have no doubt that such an
argument must have come to my friend’s mind in some clearer
form before it carried conviction to him. He says, “ This personal,
intelligent, conscious being had a cause.” Yes ! I suppose every
effect must have had a cause. He tells us that analogy is a good
guide in working out a reasonable result. He uses it himself,
but he does not mean to say that by analogy, he argues back
from effect to cause, and that, from himself, he would go back to
an uncaused cause. “What exists merely as a cause exists for
the sake of something else, and, in the accomplishment of that
end, it consummates its own existence.” “ A cause is simply
everything without which the effect would not result, and all
such concurring, the effect cannot but result.” According to
these passages from Sir William Hamilton, “that which exists
as cause exists for the sake of something else.” Effect is thus
the sequel to cause, and causes are but the means to ends. The
only way of dealing with this question of cause and effect is to
put it frankly that every cause of which we can take cognisance,
is, at the same time, effect and cause, and that there is no cause
on which we can lay a finger, that is not the effect of cause pre*
cedent, to it—yon have an unbroken chain. I defy my friend to
maintain the proposition that, without discontinuity, there can
be origination. If he doesnot, his argument falls to the ground. But
I really labour under considerable difficulty arising from the fact
that my friend has used a large number of words and terms without
explaining to you or to me what he meant by them ? I really
must trouble him by pleading my ignorance as to the meaning
which he attaches to the word uncaused caudb, for I frankly allow
that my reason doesinot enable me to comprehend the word un
caused as applied to existence. I conceive existence only modal
of existence itself—the absolute I cannot conceive. I am not
'
&
1
a
1
I
1
�8
enabled by my reason to go beyond modes of existence. I am
not able by the aid of my intelligence to go beyon'd phenomena,
and so reach the noumenon. Until he has enabled me to attach to
these words, which he has used so gliby, a meaning of a definite
kind, I must confess my inability to appreciate his reasoning.
He would say that there is non-intelligence as well as intelli
gence. If he does not mean that, his words have no meaning. He
has said that non-intelligence could not produce intelligence.
That God by his will caused it. But how if intelligence be
everywhere—infinite, one, eternal—if you cannot limit its dura
tion in point of time or its extent in point of space, if it is so in
definite that to follow it as far as the faintest trace of it can be
observed, it is. infinitely intelligent, how can you talk about
non-intelligence at all ? If intelligence is everywhere, then nonintelligence is not possible. My friend worked up his argument
to a strange sort of climax, that the personal, conscious, eternal,
infinite, omnipotent, intell'gent being was what most men wor
shipped and called God. I take exception to that, and say that
the word God does not, in the mind of any one, express that, and
that in the minds of the majority of men it exprtsses something
very different from that. Indeed, so far as I have been able to
ascertain, the great mass of human kind have precisely opposite
notions when they are using the word God. All their ideas
concerning God comprehend the idea of human and fallible
action, and are held in connection with creeds involving contra
dictions innumerable. The word God is the result of old tradi
tions coming from one generation to another, from father to son,
from generation to generation. In no case is it the out-growth
of the unaided intelligence of the man who makes use of it. To
put it further. I say there are no two men who use the word
God in the same sense, and that it is a mere term which expresses
no fixed idea. It does not admit the preciseness of a definition,
nor can it be explained with an accuracy to admit the test of in
quiry. The idea expressed by the word bears in most cases some
relation to what has gone before, and is useful when appealing
to the popular mind to cover deficiencies in the illogical argu
ments addressed to it to account for the universe. Our friend
passed from the argument from consciousness to what is generally
known as the argument from design. He said that, having seen
the result of man’s contrivance, if he met with a piece of work
fashioned after a peculiar mariner with a view to a particular end,
he should expect from analogy some contriver for it. But sup
pose he had never seen any result of contrivance at all—how
much would his argument help him ? In that case he must en
tirely fail, and in this how little does design help him here ? To
affirm origination from design of already existing substance, and
by analogy it is only of this he can give us any illustration, in
�9
volves a manifest contradiction. The argument distinguishes not
the absolute from the material, the conditioned. It is the finite
which he tells you is God, and yet cannot be God. There is
an utter want of analogy. It is impossible to reason from design
of that which is already existing, and thus to prove the creation
of that which before did not exist. There is not a particle of
analogy between these two propositions. But further, if it were
needful to argue on it, if our friend had put before you the
design argument, it is still utterly wanting as an argument for
an infinite Deity, being "one entirely from analogy. Analogy
cannot demonstrate the infinite wisdom, or the infinite, the
eternal existence of God. It cannot demonstrate infinity of sub
stance, for to reason from finite effects as illustrations, analogy
only takes you back by steps each time a little way, and to a
finite cause. To assert an origin is simply to break a chain of
causes and effects without having any warrant for it, except to
cover your own weakness. The argument falls with this; you
cannot demonstrate the infinity of Deity ; for, admitted a finite
effect, how can you from it deduce an infinite cause ? Thus the
omnipresence of Deity remains unproved. If the substance of
Deity cannot be demonstrated infinite, neither can his attributes;
so that, so far as the proof goes, his wisdom and power may be
limited ; that is, there is no evidence that he is either omniscient
or omnipotent. When our friend talks about having, proved an
all-powerful, all-wise self-existence, he simply misrepresents
what he has tried to do, and he should not use a phrase which
does not, and cannot bear the slightest reference to the argu
ment. So far, then, we take exception to the speech which he
has given us to-night. By whatever means my friend has at
tained his present conclusions, he must surely have gained the
convictions upon some better ground than those which he has
expressed here to-night, unless, indeed, we are to suppose him. to
have changed without any reasoning at all. (Cheers.) I wish,
before concluding, to point out to you that in the position I
have taken up I do not stand here to prove that there is no God.
If I should undertake to prove such a proposition, I should de
serve the ill words of the oft-quoted psalmist applied to those
who say there is no God. I do not say there is no God, but I
am an Atheist without God. To me the word God conveys no
idea, and it is because the word God, to me, never expressed a
clear and definite conception—it is because I know not what it
means—it is because I never had sufficient evidence to compel
my acceptance of it, if I had I could not deny it—such evidence,
indeed, I could not resist—it is for these reasons that I am
Atheist, and ask people to believe me not hypocrite but honest,
when I wtell them that the word “ God ” does not, to my
mind, express an eternal, infinite, omnipotent, intelligent, per
�10
Sonal, conscious being, but is a word without meaning and of
none effect, other than that it derives from the passions and
prejudices of those who use it. And when I look round the
world, and find in one country a church with one faith, in another
country, another creed, and in another a system contradicting
each—no two men agreeing as to the meaning of the word—but
cursing, clashing, quarrelling, and excommunicating on account
of its meaning, relying on force of arms rather than on force of
reason—I am obliged to suppose that deficiency of argument has
left them no other weapon with which to meet the power of
reason. In this brief debate, it would be folly to pretend while
we may combat the opposite opinion we shall succeed in con
vincing each other; but let me ask that to which ever side we
may incline, we may use our intelligence as free from pre
judice as possible, so that we may better understand what
force of each other’s reasonings. Let us agree, it we can, in the
clear and undoubted meaning expressed in the terms we use.
There was a time when men bowed before the word God with
out thought and without inquiry. Centuries have gone by, and
the great men of each age have cast light on what was hitherto
dark. Philosophy has aided our intelligence, and stripped from
the name of God much of the force which it had previously held.
It is in the hope that this progress of human thought may be
more rapid and of higher use, and that, from out of debate, fresh
truths may be gained, that it may teach men to rely upon them
selves, and so make their lives better the longer they live.. It is
with this hope that I have taken the position of to-night.
Mb. Bradiaugh resumed his seat amidst general applause, and
some manifestations of dissent, which lasted for several seconds.
Mr. Cooper : I am very sorry to see all that—I am very sorry
to hear it. I do not want any man to clap his hands for me. I
came here to reason. I did not come here simply to meet Mr.
Bradlaugh. I wished to see appointed representative men. It
is to them and to you that I want to speak. I have nothing to
do with Mr. Bradlaugh’s personal opinions. He says he is not
here to take the negative—to prove the non-existence of God. If
he reads the bill which I hold in my hand, it will tell him that
Mr. C. Bradlaugh will take the negative. But he says he is not
here to take the negative—that he is not here to produce an
argument that there is no God. He knows nothing about God.
(Hear and cheers.) Now, what is the meaning of that cheer ?
(Cries of go on with your argument.) Now, I am afraid it is of no
use : you are not disposed to argue—to reason, but the argument
remains, notwithstanding—(cries of question.) This is the ques
tion. I want you to be less excited. We are here to form some
opinion as to the truth, and not to be crowing over ^ch other.
Mr. Bradlaugh said that I said there was only one existence
�11
always—T never said eo. Then, according to him, “he talked
about millions of existences without motion.” But I said with
out motion such as matter has. I suppose the meaning of what
he said was, There may be many kinds of motion beside the
motion of matter.” Then Mr. Bradlaugh said that I talked of
more than one existence being on one point. There may be a
thousand existences on one point for anything that I know. I
do not know why there cannot be only one existence on one point,
I did not say there could be only one existence on one point.
Expressions of the kind I never used. Then, he said, action
implies motion; but what I Baid was, that God had no motion
such as matter. He was kind enough to tell us what existence
and non-existence were—what intelligence and non-intel
ligence meant—but I thought we all knew these things pretty
well before. Then, he says, existence is a quality of a mode. Man,
he says, is fiuite; he cannot perceive that existence can be infinite.
That is a kind of Spinozaism. I wish he would tell me what he
means by “mode.” He says that I said non-intelligence could
form intelligence. I never used such a word—(cries of oh ! oh!)
I never said anything so nonsensical—(loud cries of oh ! oh !) I
said that non-intelligence could not create—that it could not
originate. I never used the word form. Then again, “ Analogy
was a good guide ”—but he said no more about that, and then ha
quoted Sir W. Hamilton to the effect, that cause was that with
out which effect would not result. “ There is no cause,” he says,
“ on which you can lay a finger, aud not say that it is both cause
and effect,” and he defies me to break the chain of causation
cause and effect I suppose he means. He next quotes from Samuel
Taylor Coleridge, a passage which says—there is an infinite chain
of finite things. Why, it is an utter contradiction. Every man
has intelligence enough to perceive that. What we mean by
uncognised is that there is something unknown, uncognised if
you please. There can be no question about that. He com
plains of the time being taken up with such words, and he goes
on to say—“ My reason does not enable me to comprehend the
uncognised.” Certainly it don’t. More than that, I am very
sorry he cannot comprehend it. But there are many things which
we cannot comprehend. The light for instance. We cannot com
prehend what it is to be everywhere present, but we apprehend
it. There are millions of things which we cannot comprehend,
but we can apprehend them. Then, he says, we talk about nonmtelligence and intelligence, because he contends God does not
exercise any amount of ability. Among men, he says, God means
something that is traditional, and which has no reason to support
it. That has nothing to do with the question. Suppose, he says,
I had never seen the result of design—how could I, by the help
of reason, arrive at it ? It cannot, he says, be. No cause, he sayq
�12
can exist without causing a result. The result of design is part
of our intelligence and experience. There is a modification of
existence only—it is not proved that everywhere existed. But
Mr. Bradlaugh knows that existence is being, and he knows, he
says, that, unless you can substantiate the assertion that it has
always existed, it does not show that he was all-wise. We reason
from this personal, conscious intelligence of man, to the fact that
God had created millions of conscious, intelligent beings—that he
was the author of all existence—that he was intelligent—we do
not reason from man’s finite nature. We see in the manifestations
of his will the type of a higher will, of a nature that is supremacy.
The argument is untouched. Something has always existed, as
personal, conscious, intelligent beings exist—either intelligence or
non-intelligence must have produced them : but non-intelligence
cannot create, cannot originate. You might as well tell me that
there is no such thing as existence, as to try by sneers, and ask
ing me what I mean by intelligence, to say that God does not
exist. I say that I exist—that the world exists—that God made
it. We have come here to establish this. We come here to
reason for the existence of God. It is of no use to say that there
was never nothing to make it out of. Our argument is mistaken.'
Mr. Bradlaugh has not taken up the argument. The bill is
before me in which he is stated to take the negative, but he
has not taken the negative; he simply says he knows not whether
there is a God or not. (Cheers.)
Mr. Bradlaugh : We want the argument for the existence of
God! He (Mr. Cooper) is quite right. We do want it. We
have not had it yet. He says I am bound to prove a negative,
and relies on the wording of the bill. This is hardly fair. The bill
is Mr. Cooper’s own fram ng, unaltered by me. I only tried to
have one word different, and that was refused.
Mr Cooper : You should not want to hide your name.
[Some disorder occurred at this point of the debate, when]—
The Chairman interposed and said : I beg that no reference
may be made to anything which might lead to any wrong feeling.
Mr Bradlaugh : My friend, if he wishes the argument ad- ■
hered to, should have himself made no reference to matters which
were altogether beside it. Let him remember what is the
subject chosen for discussion, and adhere to that alone. He says
that, according to the bill, I am to take the negative side. It
has been my lot in life to be present at the trial of many issues, but I
never heard that the defendant had more to do than rebut the
case sought to be made against him. I will take, as example, an
instance, such as when a man had stolen any article, or committed
some act for which he might incur penalties. It was the duty of
the counsel employed in such a case simply to negative the
evidence which was brought to support the case. The onus pro-
�13
bandi to-night lies with my friend, and the only task that lies
upon me here is to show that he has not succeeded in performing
the duty which he came here to perform. He has declined to
explain certain terms used by him, on the ground that everybody
knew them. Surely he might have enlightened my ignorance;
and, at any rate, he had no right to assume that everybody un
derstood them after my declaration to the contrary. He has used
words on the construction of which the whole argument depends,
and he has failed to explain to us the meaning he intended to ex
press. He might have enlightened my ignorance as to the mean
ing of words he used ; but, instead of that, he has called on me
by way of retort to explain some words used by myself. Now,
by “mode,” I mean a phase of conditioned existence. This glass is
cne mode Of existence, and the water, which I have poured out of
it, is another mode of existence. “ Quality” is an attribute or
characteristic. It is some characteristic, or number of charac
teristics, which enables or enable me to distinguish one mode
from another. If he wishes any better explanation that it is
possible to give, I shall be happy to supply him with it. When
he was asked for explanations, he said it was sufficient that he
had said it. Now if non-intelligence cannot create intelligence,
how do you come to the conclusion that intelligence can create
non-intelligence ? Why is one less possible than the other, or
why is one less reasonable than the other ? If intelligence be
everywhere, then non-intelligence—where is that ? In this kind
of argument, by asserting without warranty that intelligence is
everywhere, and non-intelligence somewhere, you contradict your
self. Then, my friend says, “create” is a word everybody under
stands. He confesses that he did not understand me in quoting
from Hamilton, or when I urged that creation and destruction
were alike impossible. Now we are utterly unable to construe it
in thought as possible, that the complement of existence has
either been increased or diminished—we cannot conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
The words creation and destruction are, to me, without mean
ing. When our friend uses these words, he should not pre
sume that the majority of the audience comprehend the
meaning he wished to put upon them, or still less that they
apprehended it- He says he does not come to speak to me but to
you; but, for such as have elected me to appear on their
behalf, I ask for those definitions. But Mr. Cooper says he
never did assert that there was only one existence always. Well,
then, does he mean that his argument admitted the possibility of
two existences occupying the same space ? And if one be every
where, where can the other be 1 Oh ! says my friend, there may
be a thousand existences of different natures on one point, though,
if one be all-powerful, it is hard to imagine it exercising power
�14
over other existences having nothing of common nature, and
with which it can have no relativity. Will he tell me how this
can be ? He puts the matter thus to you, and he is bound to
give you some explanation of it. He says, with regard to
motion, that he did not say that one existence had no motion. I
must trouble him, when he rises again, to tell me what he means
by motion, for I really do not know. I thought I had some
notion of it when he began his speech, but now I think he has no
meaning for it. I am bound to concede to him that the words
represent in his mind some ideas he intends to express; but
when I question him on the words he uses, they represent simply
confusion of thought. When I ask him the meaning of uncaused
cause, he says he cannot comprehend it, but can apprehend it like
light and life ; and he asserted that you can no more comprehend
light and life that you can uncaused cause. If he wished to
choose illustrations destructive of his own argument, he could
not have adduced one better adapted to that purpose. He says
that I cavil with words, but the argument is made up of words.
If you knock all these words to pieces, where does the argument
lie 1 If there be your uncaused cause at all, according to you it
is substance, which substance I define as being that existence
which we can conceive per se, and the conception of which does
not involve the conception of any thing else as antecedent to it.
Life may be defined as organic functional activity. You cannot
give any definition of uncaused cause—you might as well say a
square triangle, or a triangular circumference, or sweet number
three. Now, I am placed in this difficulty, that Mr. Cooper,
not prepared to prove his position, calls on me to take up the
attack. We want, he says, the demonstration of God’s non-existence. There is always a great difficulty in trying to do too
much ; but I will endeavour to do what is possible—i.e., to demon
strate to you that there is no such being as the God my friend
argues for—namely, a God everywhere, whose existence being in
finite, precludes the possibility of conceiving any other ex’stence,
but in proof of whom is involved the conception of another
existence created in addition to everything, and which exists
somewhere beyond everywhere—a God who, being infinitely
intelligent, precludes the possibility of conceiving existence with
out intelligence, and yet beside whose infinite intelligence, nonintelligent substance exists. Nothing is easier than to prove the
negative of this, if that is what my friend means. I will endea
vour, for a moment, to do so. I may be ineffective. Our friend
says that God is all-powerful and all-wise. Now either intelli
gence manifests power and wisdom, or it does not. My lriend
says that it does, because he seeks to demonstrate power and
wisdom from the intelligence he discovers in existence. Surely
if it be assumed that intelligence is evidence of power and
�15
wisdom, the lack of or absence of intelligence must be evidence
ot deficiency of power and wisdom. My friend says there is nonintelligence, and I say that non-intelligence demonstrates want
of power and want of wisdom in creating substance without in
telligence. Intelligence is either good or bad. Our friend savs
it is good because it helps him to make out God’s attribute of ail
goodness. If it is good, then the absence of intelligence must be
the reverse; and if non-intelligence is bad, it must be that the
Creator either had not the will or desire to make existence infi
nitely intelligent. My friend says that there is non-intelligent
existence, and he says that God had all-power and all-knowledge.
God must, therefore, have been without the desire, in which case
he would not be all-good. Our friend says I have misquoted
Coleridge. Coleridge says, without discontinuity, there can be
no origination, and my argument is that you are lost in the con
templation ot the chain of causes and effects, and that you can have
no conception of creation or of origination, and, therefore, must
be without the conception of God. (Cheers.)
Me. Cooper : Mr. Bradlaugh has told us that it has been his
lot in life to be at the trial of many issues. Now we are not
lawyers, and cannot say how far this experience may serve the
argument. My friend said there was one word which he had tried
to get in the bill. He should never put on a great hat, and put
on a great name if he did not earn it. I never called myself by
a great name in my life. If I have had a name, I was content
to receive it from others. I never called myself either Icono
clast or I fiddlestick—(Cries of order, oh I oh 1 and cheers.)
Well, if you do not like this, you should not have encouraged it.
He says I should have enlightened his ignorance. I have often
stooped to enlighten him. When he was only a boy here of
eighteen years old, I had marked out his course. He asks how
we come to the conclusion that non-intelligence does not create.
I did not think that Charles Bradlaugh would have asked a ques
tion of that kind, I thought he had more sense. I did not sup
pose that any one in this assembly—any man of common-sense,
had need to ask such question. I said I should teach him. I am
doing my best to teach him. “ Everybody cannot judge well the
reason why he contrives.” But I should have thought that all
reasonable men would have seen that clearly enough. They
have personal intelligence. But, then, he says non-intelli rence
annihilates intelligence which is everywhere. That is not so.
He says also that creation is a word without any meaning for
him. It means, however, an act of God—of the great existence.
But he wants definitions; and, again, he says since there has been
that intelligence existing everywhere, there must have been two
existences occupying the same space. I never indicated such an
argument in the slightest way. I simply spoke of all other
�16
existences being moved, separate from, and derived. I have not
spoken those words that have been imputed to me. I never
said such words. He wants to know what is the motion of
matter. He cannot conceive what matter is and what is motion.
But why has he been talking about motion if he does not understand
it ? He has given us his ideas of motion. He fails to perceive
what is matter, and what is meant by the motion of matter.
But there is matter enough in this room—there is matter enough
before us. If he does not understand what is meant, I go further
and ask what it is ? I am. to understand by a definition which
he has given of life, that it is organic functional activity. He
has explained to me that this was life. He said the remark that
it was uncognised cause, could not be apprehended. Will he
define what he means by organic functional activity? He is
not bound to believe me, but if he does not give some more pre
cise explanation, it simply comes to nothing. He has not come
to any conclusion. He says there cannot be an uncognised cause ;
that it is as unmeaning as a triangular square, or a triangular
circumference, or sweet number three. He has mentioned Sir
William Hamilton and others. I should have relied upon
such men as Butler, Sir Isaac Newton, L .eke, Samuel
Clarke.
When these great men spoke, I should have
thought it might be admitted that it would do. ’ Oh I no.
This was certainly a modest way of talking. Well, it was the
wrong way. It is the wrong sort of modesty. He says I have
endeavoured to prove the possibility of any other existence. I
have not. I have proved that something also is in existence—that
it must be intelligent, and must exist in part everywhere. Stop.
Take the argument—take hold of it—take it to pieces. It con
vinces my own mind. It has passed through my mind fully and
clearly. I said that God was all-powerful and wise. I do not
want to misrepresent, but I want to tell you what Mr. Bradlaugh
did say, and my reply to it. He says that either there is
everywhere intelligence, or that there is somewhere where there
is no intelligence. He says that non-intelligence cannot create
intelligence. He says that in some part of everywhere, there is
non-intelligence. Because I had said that non-intelligence exists,
he denies that God exists everywhere intelligent. But he
must be intelligent, because he created all the intelligence
that exists—because He created every derived intelli
gence. Now, with regard to the moral argument of God’s
goodness, we have nothing to do with that to-night. If we come
to that, it must be on Wednesday. Then his goodness as a moral
governor of the universe comes into question. Now, I did not
say that Mr. Bradlaugh had misquoted Coleridge, What I said
was, that Coleridge never taught me that an infinite chain of
finite intelligences could have existed. I say that Samuel Taylor
�17
Coleridge never maintained any such thing in his life. Coleridge
was a great believer in God. (Hear and laughter.) No sneer or
laughter, I assure you, disturbs me. I exist ; and I have not al
ways existed. Something has always existed. I am conscious
of an intelligent existence. If it began to be, it was caused to be
by some other existence, and must have been so caused. If any
person can persuade himself that non-intelligence can cause
existence, intelligent, personal, conscious existence, let him show
me that he believes, and that he maintains such a doctrine. I
need go no further at present—-there are just these steps in the
j argument. Here is the argument, and if our friend does not give
us the argument for the non-existence of God—that is, the nega
tive of the question—I have shown that I exist, and that, having
begun to exist, something must have existed before me. I am
intelligent, personal, conscious, and so the something which al
ways has existed was personal, conscious, intelligent. It has
always been or began to be. If it began to be, it has cause, and
the cause must be either intelligent or non-intelligent. I say
that non-intelligence cannot be an intelligent creator, an origina
tor, has no reason, will, judgment, can’t contrive, cannot be a cause.
Therefore, I know that my existence, that personal, conscious, in
telligent existence proceeds from that uncaused, underived, un
created intelligence, whom all men reverence and I call God. I
want that disproved. (Applause.)
Mr. Bradlaugh: Were the Danes and the Germanic forces
on either bank of the river Eider to turn their backs to each
other and fire, they would stand in about the same relation as
Mr. Cooper and myself. He will not give definitions, and he
attaches different meanings to the words he uses to those which
I attach to them. How are we, therefore, to arrive at any con
clusion that will be instructive or useful ? He says that he has
often been able to teach me, and if this is so, he should not
have relinquished the office of teacher to-night; but I confess that
if he has taught me, it has been at the greatest possible distance
between himself and myself. The opportunities have certainly
been often sought by myself for instruction at Mr. Cooper’s
hands, but I have only been favoured once or twice. My friend
urges that he does not put himself forward under a name he has
not won, and though these topics have but little to do with
to-night’s debate, I can say that I have fairly won the right to
use my nom de guerre Iconoclast. I have won fame for it with
d fficulty, and maintained my right to use it despite many a pang.
My opponent, though but one consequence can arise from his
stipulation, has compelled me to print my name—that consequence
is an increased difficulty in my business life. But for this I
do not care. Though, unfortunately, placed in this disadvantage,
I print my name and answer for myself, although I am really
�18
surprised that a man with the love of God and strength of truth,
with ability, with learning all upon his side, cannot allow me
my poor folly, if folly it be, and bear with me and my nom de
plume. He says, “ I will not give definitions.” I say, in reply,
you cannot—that you do not know the force and relevance of the
words you use, and you simply don’t tell us because you do not
know. I tell you in the clearest manner that, from your last
speech, you have no notion of the accurate meanings of the
words you used—you talk about “ other and separate, and
derived,” and seem not to know that the words are contradictory.
Derived existence must be relative, cannot be separate iu sub
stance. At least a teacher in using philosophic language to a
scholar ought to have put it more clearly. Let us see. He says
there is one existence, infinite, intelligent. He says everybody
knows that it is more possible for intelligence to create nonintelligence, than for non-intelligence to create intelligence. I say
sthis has no meaning. I defined intelligence as a quality of a
|mode of existence, and cannot understand quality creating subIstance. He has not told us what was meant by uncaused cause;
|and if he will not take intelligence to be a quality of a mode of
| existence, he has not told us what it is. He says there is intel| ligent existence now, therefore its cause is intelligent. You
j might as well tell us for our information that this glass is hard,
| and, therefore, its cause must be a hard existence, and then you
I might as fairly say that because that glass is hard, its cause is
i eternal hardness. There is no relevance whatever between argu| ments founded on phenomena and the noumenon which it is
sought to demonstrate. It is no use my friend denying the
> truth of any one definition, unless he is prepared to give us a
I better, so that you can compare the one with the other if you please.
? Our friend says that intelligence can create non-intelligence, but
| this involves a contradiction of the most striking character. For
I if intelligence is infinite, non-intelligence is impossible, and for
1 infinite intelligence to create non-intelligence is for it to annihi* late itself. My friend appeals to everybody’s knowledge, but the
I whole force of his appeal lies in his confusion of existence and its
J qualities. Intelligence is a quality of a mode—mode is neither ing finite nor eternal, and the attribute cannot be greater than the
I mode it pertains to. You can have no knowledge of existence
§ other than by mode, and can have no knowledge whatever of
I different existences of which one is all-powerful, all-wise, and
| everywhere present; and the other is, or others are, somewhere
| where this one is not. My friend calls on me to prove that difg ferent kinds of existence do not exist at the same time upon the
1 same point. I think it is for the man who talks about these
| existences, and not for me, to show what he means. By Creation
s Mr. Cooper says he means an act of God; if this is what “ create -
�19
*
*
*
>
means, and if he explains it to you in such terms, then is every act
of God a creation ? Our friend surely won’t say that, and if he
means some one particular act of God, he must enable me to
identify it. I am not dealing with the moral argument as to God
as Governor, but if the argument on design as manifesting intel
ligence is relevant, so far it strikes at the want of power,
want of wisdom of God. Is it not an illustration of the poverty
of my friend’s logic, and the weak efforts that are made to sustain a weak case, when an argument is attempted to be conveyed
in such terms as I fiddlestick (cheers), although a pretty tune
might be played on it ? He says he does not know what I
mean by organic functional activity, and asks me to explain.
Well, suppose I could not tell, that would not explain what is an
uncaused cause, I will, however, try to show that I have not
given an improper definition of life. By organic functional activity,
I mean the totality of activity resulting from or found with the
functions of each organism. My friend comprehends that which I
term organism in the vegetable and animal kingdom. If he tells
me that he does not know what I mean by organism, I can
only refer him by way of illustration to the organism of a tree or
of a man ; and by organism I mean the totality of parts of such
tree or man. It is possible that a better versed man than my
self might make this more clear; but it is not for my friend to
shelter himself under my want of knowledge, and to say he will
not give definitions while he requires them from me. Well,
he says, “ I exist; something has existed. It has not existed
always. It has been originated.” I take exception to the word.
I do not understand the word origin in reference to existence.
He says he will not define it. I do not know whether he means
by origination coming into existence where it was before. If so,
I tell him that the conception of this is impossible, that the ap
prehension of it is impossible, that he has used a form of words
which convey nothing of meaning either to you or to me. But
when we tell him that we do not understand an uncaused
cause, he says he don’t understand a scholar without modesty.
Well, then, Locke understood it, he says, and a great many other
great names understood it. Will he tell us how they understood it 1
Surely I have a right to ask him how they apprehended it. He
uses the phrase, and I have surely a right to assume the onus of
proof to be with him. When he does not or will not give us a
lefinition, I believe it is because he cannot. If he has a great
-esson to teach, I cannot suppose that he would be guilty of the
folly of withholding from you all the information that he had, or
could obtain ; but I am bound to suppose it is from his utter
inability to give you any, that he is wholly unprepared, either
with facts or arguments. If intelligence be a quality of mode,
then in so putting it you have entirely overridden the question of
�intelligence as existence, or as infinite attribute of existence. It
is for my friend to make clear his position to you. I know
that to many of you it may seem mere word play, but it is word
play which strikes at the root of the question. What does he
mean, when he says there may be a thousand existences beside
God 1 Does he mean that there may be a thousand existences
scattered and separate ? What does separate mean? It means clear
from, and distinct, and having no link in common with. If there
are a thousand such existences separate, then God is not infinite ;
and if not, our friend’s argument comes to nothing. I find it
difficult to see how my friend can understand that he has proved
his case. I find it more difficult still to conceive how holding at
one period other opinions, he could have been carried away from
those other opinions by such arguments as these. Surely we have
a. right to ask him to make this matter as clear to us as it is to
himself. The argument which convinced him, should convince
us, each individual here. God is personal ? What does this word
personal mean in relation to the infinite 1 God conscious ? Con
scious of what ? Has he an immutable consciousness? Was he
always conscious of the existence of the universe ?—that is, did
he know it to exist before it was created, or has his consciousness
been modified by the creation?
Was God conscious of the
material universe when it yet was not ? If yes, how could he
e know a thing to be which was not yet in being ? If God’s consciousness was once without the fact of the universe, and if God’s
f ‘ consciousness is capable of change, what becomes of the immu| tability of God ? Tell me how it was supplemented since ; tell me
| how something has been added since? You dexterously play
| with terms which you cannot explain, and hope to affirm by asser
tion what you cannot demonstrate by argument. (Cheers.)
Me. Cooper: I have a note about teaching Mr. Bradlaugh. Well,
I am teaching him now, I cannot help it. He d;d not care ! Well,
a quee” word that for young lads. I do not wonder that he is
unfortunate. Most people are unfortunate who do not care. He is
unfortunate, now where is the worst misfortune, I cannot say.
One does not like to talk about these things. Well, he wants to
know why he should be compelled to believe in God, and why
his little folly should not be granted to him ? Well, he wil find
that out some day (cheers and hisses), he must expect it (renewed
expressions of dissent); now do not get into a bad temper ; he
complains that he cannot demonstrate, that I do not know the
use of the terms I use. Then he says derived from, and separate
cause. Really, I thought I saw a great many persons sepa
rate from one another before me, and we separate from them. I
cannot understand this curious kind of definition. I cannot.
Then again, intelligence is a quality of personal, conscious
existence. Well, I spoke of it so. You may call it an attribute,
�or use the word how you please. Why did I say that God could
create ? Because his will must be all powerful. I was talking of
our intelligence, of our will. We have intelligence. I talked about
the power of man’s will as a part of bis personal, conscious, and
intelligent existence. It is therefore a power in G d, and must
be uncontrollable. That power, therefore, must be all powerful.
I have not confused the quality of existence. I never did. But
I want Mr. Bradlaugh to answer the arguments adduced. The
question, he says, is an attribute or mode, and not of existence.
What is the meaning of that ? I said it was not an argument for
to-night. For the moral argument,*lhe right time will be Wednes
day night. I said we must not bring it on to-night. I said it ia
impossible for a thing to come into exis ence when it was not
before. Has he not come into existence, and have not millions of
people come into existence where they were not before ? Now, I
do not know whatryou mean by this :—“ Is it reasonable to sup
pose something separate over which no power can be exercised ?
That glass is separate from me, aad yet I can exercise power over
it.” (Cries of prove it, cheers and dissent). I wish you would rea
son and would not clap your hands. If you do, I can only say
it is sheer nonsense. What does personal, eternal, infinite consci usness mean ? Has God’s consciousness ever changed ? All
things are present to his mind, and always must have been
present to him from his very nature. But I must ask my friend
what life is. He has not made me to comprehend what life is,
although he defines it as organic functional activity. There is no
man can comprehend life. What is man’s life ? What is angel life ?
—it is in vain to tell me about organic functional activity—what is
vegetable life ? And now, since you twit me with absence of
duration where it was never before, am I to understand that in
telligence is a quality of mode, and not a quali y of substance, or
that separate means something over which no power can
be exercised ? Where is the sense of it ? How am I to understand
it? I believe now I have mentioned every thing of importance.
Mr. Bradlaugh : My friend’s last question is, where was the
sense of it ? If it applies to his own speech, I will tell him nowhere—
it really displayed none from beginning to-end. Our friend must
have ability to know the difference between unconditioned exist
ence and modal existence; or if he has not the ability he
is not justified in championing the cause for which he is argu
ing. What he argues for, is not conditioned existence, but for
God, the absolute. If he does know for what he is arguing, or
knows and will not explain—or if he has not the ability to define
my terms, he should not have come here to teach you. In other
words, he should not, if wise, pretend to an ignorance which seta
before us incoherent statements like those he has made in lieu of
the proof he was bound to furnish. I will show you presently
�22
how little he was able to take the part as affirming the being of God
as maker of the universe; and how much he attempts to conceal
in taking that part. He says that God is immutable, and all
(things are now present to him, and ever have been present to
; him. He says this must have been according to God’s very
i nature, but he did not trouble us with a word of reason for this
I startling statement. His affirmation is, that God was as equally
I conscious of the universe before the creation, as after. But to
| say there was a time when the material universe did not exist, f
? and yet that at that time God was conscious of its existence—is »
absurd, and an utter contradiction. How could God be conscious !
that the universe was when it was not ? The phrase is so ludicrously
self-contradictory, that my friend could not have thought at all
when he u*tered it. If God were at any time without conscious
ness of the material universe, and afterwards became conscious
of the new fact of the origination or creation of the universe,
then there was a change in God’s consciousness, which could
not be immutable, as my friend contends. It would be supple
mented by the new fact. I cannot understand what he means
when he talks of the immutability of God’s consciousness being
a necessity of his nature. Surely such a word as nature implies
the very reverse of immutability. And if not, I should be glad
to know in what meaning my friend used a word which in com
mon acceptation implies constant mutation. In dealing with
the question of separate existence, Mr. Cooper says, that you and
I are separate from each other. We are separate modes of the
same existence, but are not separate existences. Does he mean
that the universe is separate from God in the same way that we
are from each other ? If not, this is a subterfuge. He does not
seem to know himself where the sense of his argument lies.
Then he says, “ I am separate from this glass, but I can exerc se power over it.” Here is the illustration of mode—of mode,
in whica there is common substance, common existence, but it
is not an illustration having any analogy. It is only because
he will not think that there is a difference between relative and
absolute terms, or see that we are each using words in opposite
senses. This discussion is degenerating into talk on one side, and
repetition on the other. He says again he is an existence, I say '
he is a mode of existence. I have already defined existence as ’
identical with that substance, which is that which exists per se, ■
and the conception of which does not involve the conception of
an.y other existence as antecedent to it. Mr. Cooper has not dis
puted this definition. He claims for God such existence, and yet
says he himself is an existence. If he means that he is a separate
existence from God—if he says that he is separate and exists
per se, then I do not, I repeat, understand his meaning. I want
an explanation from him. He cannot exist per se, for he says
�23
that he did not always exist, He cannot urge that he came
into existence from himself, or he would argue that he existed,
and did not exist at the same time. His existence can only be
conceived relatively as a mode of existence, such existence
being in truth before its mode, and existing after this mode shall
have ceased. He is not existence, but only a condition of exist
ence, having particular attributes by which he is distinguished
from other conditions of the same existence. He says that it is
nonsense when two men stand on the same platform to discuss an
important matter, and use the same words in a different sense’.
It is undoubtedly nonsense, when one of the disputants passes
over all the definitions of the words without disputing them, or
supplying others. Does he mean to say that he admits the defini
tions I have given ? If he does, the way he speaks of them clearly
shows that his arguments are based on, and prove only modes of
existence, and do not prove existence absolute, so that he has
admitted the whole point for which I am contending (cheers).
He says separate existences can exercise power over each other.
I ask him to show me how, because I have told him it is im
possible to think of two existences distinct and independent of each
other—that it is equally impossible to conceive that two sub- ,
stances having nothing in common, can be the cause of or affect Eone another. He says then that man’s will has furnished him t
with the basis for arguing for God’s power. He reasons up to the |
will of God from the will of man. But if man’s will be, as 1?
declare it to be, the result of causes compelling that will, and
if God’s will is to be fairly taken as analogical to man’s will, then|
God’s will also results from causes compelling his will. But in
this case, the compelling cause must be more powerful than God,
and thus the supremacy of God’s power is destroyed (cheers). &
I know that in this it is possible I may be arguing beside |
the question, because our friend does not take reasonable pains |
to make any explanation as to the value which he attaches to =
the meaning of his words. Le* us see how his demonstration
breaks down:—God’s will and consciousness are identified by
my friend. God’s consciousness, according to him, has never
changed, and never can change. God belore creation must have
been conscious that he intended to create, but if his conscious-,
ness has never changed, he must have been always intending to ;
create, and the creation could never have commenced. Or, Gocl .
must have been always conscious that he had created, iD which
case there never could have been a period when he had yet to
create. He must either at some time have been conscious that
the material universe did not exist, or he must have been con
scious that it always existed. In the last case, there could be no
creation ; and in the first, if God’s consciousness were unchangedJ j
the universe would not yet exist to him. I am not responsible?;
�24
for the peculiar absurdity of this sentence. God either always
willed to make, or he never willed to make. But he could not
have always willed to make, because otherwise there would have
been some time in existence preceding the act of making, which
there could not have been, because God is immutsne, and could
not have changed—there could never have been making without
change—without change there never was intention preceding act,
nor act preceding intention, and there could never have been
manifested that power which he argues for as demonstrating
Deity. I appeal to the audience to think for themselves, and I ask
them whether our friend has adduced any reasonable evidence for
God as the maker and creator of the universe ? I ask whether
he has not put before you an unintelligible jumble of words
without any relation to the question ? I ask you whether he can
fairly be regarded as presenti’ g the united intellect of that
muster-roll of names which he has given as arguing from design
in favour of Deity. How can he claim to be a teacher, who
cannot explain words he uses, or does not know the meaning of
the words his opponent uses ? I simply claim to be a student.
I admit I have not that confidence in myself that enables Mr.
Cooper to regard himself as impregnably entrenched and en
camped, so secure that nobody can touch him. When one sends
a stone through the window of his argument, he says it is not
broken, and when the doors are battered down he declares that
they still stand. I admit so far he is better off than I am. If
he can convince you, and if that conviction be worth anything,
I can only ask when he taunts me about the trial of issue, whether
this is not the most momentous issue that man can have to try ? I
ask not as a lawyer, but as a man. He must meet the question
fairly and honestly, and without a taunt, or before I have done
he will have full payment for all the taunts he gives. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr Cooper: When Mr. Bradlaugh says that the doot-s have
been battered down, and a stone sent through the window—I
say I never said a word about doors or windows. When he says
I will not teach—I say he will not learn. (Cheers and confusion.)
When he says I wish he would not fling such big words at me
—I say his words are so big they split my ears, as they make
such a terrible noise. (Cheers and hisses.) I hardly know what
be was saying when he was talking—(loud cries of question)
Now we are all to the question. (Laughter and oh ! oh !) Who
is that silly man that says question ? You should have
brought your brains in here, and not come without them. (Hisses
and confusion.) Mr. Bradlaugh says I ought to know there is a
difference in condition. That is what I argue for. He says I
have not the ability to discern it, and, therefore, should not have
come here. He says I know it all or 1 conceal it. I have never
�been in the habit of concealing things in my life. “All,” he
repeats, “ is present to the mind of God, that is his conscious
ness.” I said it was present to his mind because he is always.
If my friend tries to show that it is not, let him show it. Pre
sent to his consciousness! He asks—How can it be present to his
consciousness when it has not existed—how can anything be
present to my conscience that has passed away from existence?
There is memory, and he knows that must exist to all eternity—
that is how it is present to his consciousness, so that his immut
ability and his consciousness are essential, he being perfectly wise.
Show me how that can be, says Mr. Bradlaugh. We are separate
modes of the same existence; that glass is a mode of existence.
What is separate 1—the mode ? A jumble of words—indeed, I call
this gibberish. What is this eibberish that tells us that intel
ligence is a mode, or rather a quality of existence ? Show what
is mode ? How are we the same existence as that glass ? Please
to enlighten me. He talks of those listening to mere talk from
me. I really do not know what he is talking about sometimes.
Then he says it is nonsense for two men on the same platform to
use two words in a different sense. Why there is no debate if
we can agree. I don’t want to use words in the sense that myself
and a glass are the same substance. If there are two existences,
one acting on the other, you say it is an affirmation and was not
proved. .Well, but it did not follow, he says, that God was al
ways creating because his conscience was immutable. “ It don’t
show that he should do anything ; acts of will are not tied to the
proof of his consciousness; that can be consciousness something
else, not will, that may be done.” Why that is playing with '
words. Then, again, he says because conscience is immutable
— make affirmation that bis will is immutable. Now I want
my argument answered. (Cheers and hisses.) He asks what we
mean. Why, if he cannot bring forward a better argument than
he has afforded us to-night, he cannot argue it. I exist; but
something must have always existed. I am a personal, conscious,
intelligent existence. You know what it is, or you could not
ask such a question. You did so for a puzzle, perhaps. It is
an act of intelligence to ask the question. Oh ! but I am asked
to define what intelligence is, and when I define it, then to define
the definition. Organic functional activity, he repeats. I have
no explanation of it. Did you define that definition ? (Cries of
yes, yes, and no, no.) Well, you know there is a personal, con
scious intelligence—either there was always existence, or it began
to exist. Then whatever has come into existence must have a
cause. Non-intelligence can’t create intelligence. Conceive it, if
you can. That which can’t be needs no proof. Justas if one could
perceive than a thing can’t be, and yet it necessarily exists. So
non-intelligence cannot create intelligence. “Our friend has not
�26
A
|
|
/
'
shown that it can.” He says he does not know the meaning of
the word create. “He has not shown what he means,” Mr.
Bradlaugh says, “ by personal, conscious, intelligent existence.”
That it has always been, that it is derived from some personal,
conscious, intelligent always existent being. Well, I mean that,
if you like. (Cheers.)
Mr. Bradlaugh : My friend, in conclusion, said I had not
shown that non-intelligence could create intelligence. Consider
ing that I have repeatedly declared that I do not know the mean
ing of the word create, I think my friend must be rather san
guine to suppose that I would undertake to enlighten him upon
this point. It does not lie upon me to prove that non-intelligence
can create intelligence, but on my friend, who affirmed a con
tradiction in terms, to prove it. This statement of my disincli
nation does not help his inability. If I am lame, it don’t prove
that he can walk without crutches. But Mr. Cooper says that
in representing to you God’s consciousness as immutable, I do
injustice to his views; that, although all things are perpetually
present to God's consciousness—God need not, and does, nut, he
says, always will to create. But surely such a declaration is
entirely without evidence, and nowise improves Mr. Cooper’s
position. If there was any period when God did not will to
^create, then he must have changed when he varied his will to the
act of creating. But I want to know how a thing can be present
'when it is non-existent ? If all things were always present to
God, all things must have always existed. To God there never
could be a time when they did not exist. There never was to
him a time when it was necessary to create—he could not have
created that which to him had ever existed. He said, he did not
understand what I meant, when I talked of intelligence being
quality of mode. He said it is a quality of existence, a quality
of substance, and therefore God, who created substance, must be
intelligent, his intelligence was a quality of all existence. Not
all, for he says there are some existences, or some parts of sub
stance that are not intelligent. Then intelligence is a quality of
existence, and it is not! Because existence, according to Mr. Cooper,
may be, and is with it and without it. Now, I say that intelli
gence being a quality of mode of existence, that in various modes
we find varying qualities. All intelligence is not of the same
degree, but varies as the modes differ. They differ as by their
Various characteristics. It is by difference of quality that you
distinguish the one mode from the other. If intelligence b’e infi
nite, there can be only one kind of it, and of one degree; it can
never be lesser or greater. But intelligence varies according
tv mole. You find different degrees or ii te’ligence ma ues" . * different organisations. (Heat, hear). It must therefore be, if
Mr. Cooper’s logic be worth anything, that one kind of intelli
�27
gence creates like ; then, seeing that no two men are alike
organised or intelligent, there must be as many different Gods to
create as there are different intelligences. I am driven to this
line of argument by the absurdity of my friend’s speeches. I can
not believe but that he must know better ; if he does not, little
indeed can he have read the elaborate essays of modern
thinkers—little can he have examined the terms used by great men
from whom he professes to quote. Little indeed can he have
read either the volumes of Hamilton or Berkeley, or of the men
whose ideas be professes to put before us. Surely the philoso
phy of the unconditioned has formed, at some time or other, a
reading lesson for my friend. He declares that he has the ability of
teaching one so ignorant as he believes myself to be ; but
when he uses words so irrelevant and so void of meaning, I am
obliged to assume that he uses them ignorantly, or he would be
more heedful of giving their meaning. He says that the glass
and himself are different existences : he cannot understand their
being different modes of the same substance. His understand
ing must be sadly deficient, if he cannot distinguish between
the characteristics of this mode and that one and that each
mode has more or less different qualities with the same substance.
Here, theD, in each quality my friend will have something by
which he can in thought separate modes, but he cannot in
thought give a separate existence to the substance of each mode,
because he well knows that the same substance as this glass, in
another mode, might have gone to form an intelligent being at
some period of existence. If he says he does not know what he
means by his own words, then, by obtuseness of intellect
he is incapacitated as a public teacher, or it is evident he
dare not use the plain meanings of technical language, because
he is afraid of its logical consequences. Then he says that God,
who is everywhere present, yet besides whom there is somewhere
where he is not—that he has a consciousness of existence
passed away. I deny that there ever was existence which
has since passed away. I take a firm stand on this, and I sub
mit that the two phrases, “ creation,” and “ existence or substance
passed away,” are utterly without meaning. Our friend, surely
if he meant anything, cannot have meant existence that had
ceased to be—that something could never become nothing, yet he
alks of existence passed away—he speaks of existence as no longer
existing. If he means that God’s range of observation is limited,
and that it did not come within his range of observation, then I
can understand it; but if he means this, then he abandons the
attribute of omniscience for Deity. It is difficult really to
guess what interpretation he wishes to be put upon his words.
If there is anything which does not exist always to God, it can
never have existed, as my friend denies the possibility of anything
�23
beaming n th’ng, Therefore, to speak of anything which has
passed out of existence, is to use words without sense or relevance.
(Laughter and cheers.) Our friend says that he did not know
that the window was knocked out and the portal carried away. I
am afraid he is the only one in this room in so blissful a state of
ignorance. He complains of my loud voice. I am always desirous
to limit my voice to the place in which I speak, and not to give
offence. But I am apt to remember my subject rather than my
voice. I am apt to remember alone the cause in which I am
speaking rather than the manner of speech. I know that there
is much in my address capable of improvement; and if my friend
wishes to reprove me, let it be by the contrast between us. His
better chosen phraseology, courteous and patient demeanour, quiet
and kindly bearing, will, coupled with his calmness while I
am replying, be more effective than any verbal rebuke. (Loud
cheers.)
It was now a quarter to ten, Mr. Cooper begged to be informed
by the chairman as to a point of order. He said that, in his discus
sion with Joe Barker, the order was that the person who opened
the discussion for the night closed it.
The Chairman, in reply, said :—I think that the best way is
to adopt a rule. I understand from the paper, the order of
speaking is to be alternate speeches of a quarter of an hour each. I
think it best that the person opening should not speak last. There
will be two more speeches. Mr. Cooper will speak for a quarter
of an hour, and Mr. Bradlaugh will speak for the following
quarter of an hour, when the discussion will terminate to-night.
Mr. Cooper : I told you I came here in a friendly spirit, but as
this is the last time I shall have to address you, I must say I
have been grieved to observe a contrary spirit in you. I wish
that you could behave not like an audience of bagmen, and could
sit without clapping hands or making ejaculations, and crying up
some person, whether he' has sense or not. (Cheers, hisses, and
confusion.) Why need you come her'e? You say you want
truth, then why can’t we discuss truth with all proper patience
and kindness, and not be clapping each other, with jeers, because;
I suppose our friend understands sarcasm, which you Londoners ‘
like so very much ? I am old and used to you. I used to see
all that thing before. (Cheers, shouts, and hisses.) Well, I will sit
down if you do not want to hear me. (Cries of sit down, go on
with your argument.) I discovered that sauce for goose was not
sauce for gander here. (Cheers, hisses, and laughter.) Do not
be so very hard on a poor man. “He cannot understand a word
of Greek,” I thought every body knew that. “But it was
wrong to bring into existence that which had no existence before.”
Mr. Bradlaugh c nnot understand, and as he does not, he wants .
a definition.^ I did not say that God was always willing. I did
�29
not say there never was a period when he did not will a certain
thing. He may will something at one period, and some'hiag at
another period. But, then, we are told it did not follow that he
either should or did exist always. I repeat, that things may
have been present to his conscious intelligence before he created
them. It happens not to be mine, but Plato’s universe, that is,
Plato’s language—“ all things are present to his conscious intel
ligence before he created them.” Our friend goes on, “ I am an
old fashioned reader of old fashioned men.’’ He tells me “ if it
be a quality of existence, it is a quality of all existence.” There
are different qualities of the same existence, there is only one
intelligence ; but, says Mr. Bradlaugh, if God be infinite, there
must be different Gods. If there be different men and different
intelligences, if he can create them anywhere, does it follow that
they do not understand ? Does he not understand this logic ? He
must know better than I speak that it must be so. (Hear.)
Some poor man said “ hear.” Well, I came to you as friends, I
came maintaining your sincerity. I never called you infidel, because
that term is generally used to signify blackguard. I never spoke
ill of you, I never questioned your sincerity, I do not question Mr.
Bradlaugh’s sincerity. We come with the belief that God exists.
We believe it to be a most important belief, and most important
it is if it be true. I see no reason for calling this glass and my
self different modes of the same existence. There may be some
men here who think otherwise, but that is not proving they are
modes of the same existence. Well, existence that has passed
away may yet exist somewhere, although it is not present to my
vision. It is in my conscious intelligence, everything I have been
acquainted with. That is my meaning. I think it is clear enough,
but before I sit down, I will re-state my argument. I am told
that I argued inconsistently and unmeaningly. I will try again,
while I am in possession of the time, as it is the last opportunity
I shall have to-night. I exist. I say it for yourself now. I exist.
I have not always existed. Something must have always existed.
If there never had been a period when nothing existed, there must
have been nothing still. I am conscious of a personal, intelligent
existence, which must have always existed, otherwise it began to
be. It must have had a cause, and that cause must have been
intelligent or not; non-intelligence cannot create intelligence.
Show me how it was. “ Show me how you can infer the possi
bility of intelligence,” &c., is what I have been asking every time
I rose to speak to-night. But he has not done it. I cannot see
how he can perceive that non-intelligence could bring intelligence
into existence. Since there was that always in existence, I must
have belief in another act of consciousness that I have exercised,
for I am certain from the observation of my own intelligence,
that something has always existed everywhere, in every, part of
�So
everywhere. Therefore, there are no lines of demarcation—it has
no motion such as you affirm of matter. I do not say that it has
no motion at all. It don’t need to move to one point of every
where, that is already in every part of everywhere, and there is
everywhere. And now I have clearly arrived in my own mind,
at the knowledge of an uncaused existence. It has become
clear to my perceptions that as this existence was everywhere,
it was omni-present, all-powerful, uncreated, underived, per
sonal, conscious, reasonable existence. Then, I turn even towards
J this material universe. It cannot be the something that always was.
I know that I exist now. I know that at two years old I existed.
I recognise change, and I know that I have changed ; that this
universe changes, and therefore it can’t be that which has always
existed. I said I could move, mould, shape, fit, and design
matter. I can recognise the results of design, although I cannot
see the act of the mind. I reason by analogy, from my personal,
conscious existence, that men are contriving and designing; if I
find their composition to consist of parts and peculiar fashions
adapted and fitted for the purpose it fulfils, and if the principle
on which it worked were simple, I should admire it, and by the aid
of reason, conclude that it had a personal, conscious, and intelli
gent existence for its designer and contriver. Then, I look at
this curiously formed body, the bodies of animals; and I remem
ber the power of this hand, and when I look through a telescope
at those shining bodies in the heaven, and see their immensity,
and recognise them by the light of reason to be themselves the
suns of other systems, I then say he is al'-intelligent, since all
intelligence must have come from him—he only existed from all
eternity—he is the author of all things. Whatever exists must
have been by his will, and by his power, therefore he is uncon
trollable by aDy other will, and therefore he is maker of this
universe. I have said that he is not the mode, but that he exists
simply by his will, and in him we live, move, and have our
being—therefore, in him is my being and your being, and the
being of every animal, and that they can be kept in existence only
by One Almighty, all-wise, and everywhere present, self-existing,
self-created, underived, uncognised, personal, conscious, intelligent
being, whom I worship, and men call God. I have re-stated my
argument. If any one seeks to overturn it, let him go through it
step by step. No person has done so here. No person can do it.
It is an argument that shall not pass away, but must come every
day before your eyes, and possibly to your minds. (Cheers.)
Mb. Bradlaugh : Our friend says something exists, that the
universe exists. I reply, that if something now exists, you cannot
conceive when it did not exist. The supposition that there ever
was a period when the universe began to be, is introduced and
assumed without the slightest warrant for such an assumption.
�31
You cannot limit its existence, you canmt limit its duration. He
says something is everywhere, but that the universe is finite in
extent, as it is, according to his view, finite in duration. He can
not in thought put a limit as to how long the universe has existed,
or how far it extends. The duration and extent of existence are
alike illimitable. Then, he says that substance is not naturally
intelligent, and that the intelligence we find must result from
infinite intelligence. I have endeavoured during this argument j
to explain to him that intelligence was a word that could only be j
properly used in the sense of a quality of a mode, in the same way i
that you would use the word hardness, broadness; and that as
you could not say it was all broad, or all hard, no more could
you say it was all intelligence, or without intelligence. I must
confess that I have never listened to any argument more pre
tentiously and less ably put, than that of my friend to-n’ght.
There was only one part of it that would, if complete, have
deserved any reply, and that he took imperfectly from Gilles
pie, where you may see what his argument ought to have been,
for it is there put as clearly and comprehensively as possible.
He says, he comes here to talk to us in a friendly way. He
would assume that we had imported into this debate that which
lacks friendliness. If it be so, I regret it. But, when he is
asked the meaning of one term, he says he was not bound to tell
us that, and when a definition is given by me, and the argument
is approached on that basis, he says hemeant no such thing. He has
said he will not reproach you as infidels, for that infidels are iden
tified with blackguards. Infidel does not mean blackguard. It means
without faith, outside the faith, against the faith. Mr. Cooper is
infidel to every faith but his own. I am but in one degree more
an infidel, and surely we are none the more blackguards because
we are opposed to the faith which he preaches. I am not ashamed
of the word infidel. Nobler men than ever I can hope to be,
truer men than I in my highest aspirations can pretend to be,
have been content to be classed among those who had that name
applied to them, and they have won it proudly in the age in which
they lived. There have been heroes in every age—infidels, if you
please —but I declare them heroes in the mental battle fields who
have been able to hold their own in life, assailed though they were
by calumny when the grave had received them. Our friend says
that he cannot tell why I speak of a glass and myself as different
modes of the same substance, but in my first speech I took pains
to define what I meant by substance. If he had a better defini
tion, he should, in justice to his subject, have presented it to us ;
it was not for him to say he would not give it, and then to say
“ I don’t understand my opponent.” But he says that “ some
thing could never have been produced from nothing. Intelligence
exists, and must therefore have been created by an all-wise intelli-
�32
| gent Deity.” “ TV ere is either no existence without intelligence,
|or there is existence without intelligence.” My friend declares all
|existence is not alike intelligent, but that some is unintelligent,
|and in this I urge that he contradicts himself. If Mr. Cooper
gis right in declaring that there is any substance non-intelligent,
[(then it can only be (on the hypothesis that God is infinite intelli| gence) by supposing God in such case, and so far, to have anni^■hilated his intelligence. But, if there is anv substance non- (
intelligent, then intelligence is not infinite, and the God my friend I
' contends for does not exist. If God brought into existence that
f which was not himself, but something different from himself, he !
■ must have brought something not out of himself, but something
; out of nothing! He contradicts his own argument, and indulges
in the strangest assertions The universe is moveable, God is not.
He does not give us the slightest reason for this statement. He
declares that God is the master of the universe, but does not even
show you that he understands the relevancy of the argument
addressed to him. When he used the phrase, he must have
meant either that what God created was the same as himself, or
different from himself. It could not have been the same as him
self, otherwise there would have been no discontinuity, no break—
there would have been, nothing to distinguish the creator from
the created—no break of continuity to enable us -to conceive
creation possible. Nor could that which God created have been
different from himself, unless my opponent is prepared to con
tend that things which have nothing in common with each other can
be the cause of, or affect one another.. This shows that Mr.
Cooper has not well considered the terms he employs. If our
friend bases any argument for God’s existence upon his intelli
gence, let him explain what he means. It is not enough for him
to take cognisance of the universe, and so cognise certain effects.
All those finite effects do not aid him one step towards the infi
nite. His design argument was a structure without a founda
tion. You have seen how little our friend can understand the
meaning of his own words. He has talked about his trials, and
yet he asked how I could talk about my misfortunes. I have
not yet talked of them. I have not said how men, when I was
yet at an early age, for these opinions drove me out from home,
, and from all that I loved and was dear to me, and threw me within
! eight of the truth, where I have had since the happiness of striv
ing for that truth—lifting up the banner of our cause, showing
that true men may be made truer, and the world be better worth
living in than it was before the struggle. (Cneers.)
|
�SECOND NIGHT.
ON GOD AS MORAL GOVERNOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
At seven o’clock precisely Mr. Harvey, the Chairman, accornp^
nied by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Bradlaugh, and several representative
friends, came upon the platform, and were received with loud
cheers. The Hail was not quite so crowded as on the first night,
but was well filled in every part.
The Chairman : I have to announce that the discussion will
now commence. With your permission I willread the subject from
the printed progran&rie. The argument on the first night was
as to the Being of God, to-night -it is for the Being of God as
Moral Governor of the Universe. As before, each speaker will
occupy half-an-hour and no more for his first speech, or as much
shorter, a period as he may think proper, and afterwards a
quarter of ap hour each. I must again ask the audience to give
me their confidence. I hope they will abstain from unnecessary
cheering or calls of time. If either speaker should get out of
order, I will remind him of it. I have no doubt, if you will
listen to the speakers tilt they have concluded, you will have an
evening of instruction, and be able to appreciate their arguments.
Mr. Cooper : If there is one word of more importance to me
than any*other that could be mentioned—one word of more im
portance to me—to human beings, than any other, that word is
duty—duty, a word, I say, that is all-important to me. We are
not talking of the duty of pigs, of dogs, of rabbits, weasels, snails,
butterflies, bullocks, or elephants—duty belongs to man. Crea
tures have no duty. We never talk of the duty of a snail, of a
horse, of a cat, of a bullock. Duty belougs to man. (Cries of
yes, yes, and question.) Well, the parties of your side who pro
fess a philosophic duty, seem to think that there is no such thing as
duty connected with religion. ‘Who told them so? We believe
that there is a duty of religion, though we ought to obey our
own convictions. Well, but you say we are as moral as you are
on the other side—we follow duty. My question is to, a person
who talks about moral duty as a result of philosophy. Is he a
perfect mau? Is any of you a perfect man? If you are, send
your name to the Times, and be sure you have it put in the
second column, where they put all the curious advertisements—
�34
indeed, you might take a house in Belgrave Square, and people
would come to see you if you were a perfect man. But no;
really I am not a perfect man, nor you. There are none of you
perfect men. Then, I say you, each of us, breaks his sense of
duty again and again. You get out of temper with your wives
and children—you ill use them very likely—you say something
that grieves them very much. Oh, it’s all right—you were out
of temper ! You wonder at yourself for striking her; well, but
whenever any one has struck, or ill used, or trampled on you, you
come to a conviction of another kind. In two or three days,
perhaps, after you have been guilty of this misconduct, you are
sorry. You say, “ what a scandal to have used my wife so.” I
should not have done so. But you have done this often. You
say, I must not do these things again. You accuse yourself, you
threaten to flog yourself. What is all this ? But perhaps you
are a shopkeeper; no matter what the article is that you sell.
A.person comes into your shop: perhaps he is fastidious. You
think he has come in to get something as cheap as he can. There
is nothing doing. You show your articles. You say to your
self, what am I to do with this man ? He has spent a quarter of
an hour in your shop, you seem to have had some time waiting
upon him. Something begins to say to you, “ rent and taxes
must be paid.” He seems to want the article. Yes, it’s a very
well manufactured article. Yes, is the reply, what will you take
for it ? You hesitate; you say to yourself, “I must, I will have
as much as I can get for it.” He pays you your price, and you
are struck with wonder. So off he goes. You have charged
him pretty well. It comes up in your mind that day. You
say to yourself, I have to support a family—it is very difficult to
support a family, also to pay rent and taxes. So you reason
against rates and taxes—wife and children—it beggars you—and
so on. Again, you fall into habits of drink. Some sensible
fellow said to you one day—Turn teetotaler. Depend upon it
he was a sensible fellow who said that—gave you that advice.
You thought it was rather hard at first; you tried it, however,
and you found how effectual it was. When you got up in the
morning you said, “ How light I feel—how comfortable I am.
I am not a slave to drink, I do not wallow in the sty,
a sleep does not oppress me now as it did before. One
day last summer, wnen it was very hot, there was an excur
sion to Gravesend. You wanted relaxation. Young people
are rather fond of that, so you went on the excursion, and
you stopped now and then to see the country. At last you saw
somebody take a glass of porter. You were thirsty. He asked
you to have one, as you were one of the party. Well, you are
over-persuaded. You take one You felt it was wrong, a bad
step. But why, how could this be ? I need take no more. But
�85
you do drink another glass, and your thirst is not slaked. Then
somebody said to you, take a drop of something short, that will
queneh your thirst. And so you do, and your senses come short.
You get into bed. You have burning; a great drum thunder
ing through your head. But conscience comes up, and then you
say—“ I am a brute again. I have gone into drunkenness
again.” How was it that you felt condemnation ? How was it
you felt condemnation as a husband, a father, or a man—all that
condemnation ? Iam sure you could not help it. I do not,ear®
whether you call yourself Atheist, Deist, Sceptic, Freethinker, or
whatever you call yourself, you could not help it. It is a part
of your nature, of a moral nature that you have different from
the inferior animals, that you should have remorse for doing
wrong. You threaten to flog yourself, to lacerate yourself for it.
A man may continue to offend against this something. Stop,
what do you mean by a moral nature ? We talk about defining
words. It is quite necessary to define this word. I remem*
her Robert Cooper being present here so long ago as March,
1856, about the time that I was avowing a change in my
opinions, and another time in John Street. He did notreply to me in a speech, but he did so in a pamphlet. In that
pamphlet, he showed that he did not understand what I have
said. “ Man has an immoral nature, and, therefore, he has a
moral government where he has an immoral nature.” If that
was the amount of his acquaintance with the form of moral
philosophy, it showed he knew nothing about the matter in the
philosophic sense. Man has not an immoral nature, but a moral
nature. It is called “ moral Bense ” by Shaftesbury, “ moral
reason ” by Reid, consciousness by Butler, and is a power within
man which warns him of what is right and what is wrong. It
don’t matter where he is—where he lives—what land he possesses
—what language he speaks, or what colour he is—he is sure to
ask of it, and the reply is infallible, What is right and what is
wrong ? Oh ! but that is not consciousness, says the other side.
We say there is no such power.* It is a thing of education, you
say. It depends on how a man has been instructed. “ Your
conscience is not my conscience, one man’s conscience is not
another’s.’’ The conscience of a Jew is not that of a Christian ;
the conscience of a civilised man is not the same as that of a
savage. “ It is a thing of education.” To be sure ! Well, but
somebody says I cannot understand what conscience is. What
is this moral nature ? Let us try to understand. It is a faculty
in man that discerns that there is right and wrong, and testi
mony is infallible—a faculty, no doubt, that needs to be educated.
You cannot educate it in animals—it is not there. There must
be a right for a man to do right, a wrong to do wrong, each of
which his spiritual nature recognises and distinguishes. I shall,
�36
of course, contend!, that we have in this Christian country the
highest moral teaching in Christianity itself; and if this were
denied, a high moral sense, which some of my friends would attri
bute to the discernment of reason. Moral sense, I say, is the
clearest and strongest discernment of moral nature—it discerns to
practise what is right; that virtue, truth, honour, and so on de
serve praise, and in their very nature confer their own reward;
that the practise of vice, error, which we call wickedness, sin,
and trangre^sions deserve punishment. Man has this moral sense.
He has not an immoral nature, which says that virtue deserves
punishment and error reward. Robert Cooper, therefore, did
not know what he was talking about. There is this faculty in
man—it is part of his intellectual nature. Conscience responds to
it more or less ; and as he is a free agent, so he can resist and sin
against it, which he does easily, so that he sears it as with a red hot
iron, and he may sin on till he is steeped to the lips in vice;
still there it is. For instance, a man meets another who
looks very hard at him in the street. He bolts down the next
entry. He says, “ that man knows me.’’ He wishes it was dark
so that nobody would know him, and when it is dark, and he is
in bed, he pulls down the sheet over his face. Criminals have
made these confessions. Oh ! says somebody, you don’t call that
conscience; didn’t Palmer, that Rugby fellow, die as hard as
iron ; he could not have what you call conscience ? Now, I wish
you would listen to a person of extreme credibility, who had it from that criminal himself—viz., Mr. Goodacre, the clergyman
who attended Palmer every night in the gaol. When Palmer
went back to the gaol after the trial, he was as hard as iron. But
the last night came—he was in the condemned cell. The chap
lain spoke to him, but it was, so to speak, like pouring water upon
a duck’s back. There was no conversion. The clergyman goes to his
lodgings, and prays to bring the unhappy criminal to a sense of his
situation. He felt also that he could not go to bed; doubt pressed
upon his mind as to whether he had said all that he ought to
have said, for before eight o’clock the next morning all would be
over. “ I may not,” said this gentleman to himself—“I may not
have said all that I ought to say—I must say all that I can.” He
went back and knocked at the prison door—by law the chaplain
can get admission into the gaol at any hour. This is the rela
tion given by the gentleman, which exactly illustrates the case in
point. He entered the cell where the wretched man was. “I
am come to speak to you,” said the chaplain. “ I must come and
speak to you. You are a great sinner. I am come to say that
there is pardon for you,” and he alluded to the thief who was *
pardoned on the cross. “ Will you try,” he exclaimed, “ and con
fess your sin, and you may yet find pardon.” It had such an effect
on Palmer that he asked—“ How pardon ? If I should confess about
�37
my wife, I should have to confess about my brother too.” Why,
returned the chaplain, and did you murder your brother also ?
And Palmer clung to the bed stock with both hands, and groaned
as if he would rend his soul. That groan was the voice of con
science. He had sinned against his conscience. But you say
this was not remorse for crime, for this was nor. in his character.
Just imagine to yourself an old lion who entered into a corner of
the wilderness, and groaning because he had killed so many
antelopes, or a cat into the chimney corner, because she had
killed so many mice! How does this happen but because we
have this moral nature ? What does it tell us that vice and
wickedness are wrong, that untruthfulness, tyranny, despotism,
sensuality, all deserve blame and punishment—that virtue, honour,
goodness, self-denial, benevolence, deserve praise and reward—in
a word, it is a dictate of the mind of man ? How comes this to be,
but that there is a moral governor to whom we are accountable ?
We cannot get rid of the responsibility. Deny it as we please, it
is there ; it follows the moral governor exists. We look on his
moral government. We see organic law punishing man for sin.
We sin; punishment fearfully suddenly overtakes the wicked.
Men speak and talk about it. We see vice triumphant, men
wading through blood and gaining a throne ; kings grasping
liberty by the neck, and as each moment rolls on dishonesty,
violence, and weakness successful. Well, say you, is it part of
the moral government that we see the rich getting wealth and
the poor growing poorer, and virtue and poverty suffering to
gether? You look on the great man. There is happiness, you
exclaim, and you say, “ this is not right according to the principles
of your moral government.” You can only come to this conclu
sion at last, and that is my conclusion, that he could only resist
the sense of moral conviction, he could only disobey this sense of
responsibility, because God’s moral government has only begun,
and is not completed. There must be a state where wrong will
be righted—where no four millions of black slaves shall be
lorded over by white men—no bad men sit on thrones, no good
men be imprisoned. There must be a state of equality. What
we see in progress here must be worked out finally. We see in all
these things around about us proof that man i° a being of pro
gress, and which shows that he cannot be limited to this state of
existence. This cannot be the be-all and the end-all. I con
clude that this is only the beginning, and that we are going on;
that this life is not the conclusion of our existence—that a moral
governor exists, that his moral government has begun progressing
« towards perfection. We cannot deny that it is here. You say
there is no moral government. Then why are you punished :
has not sin its penalty ? Why this discontent, this uneasiness, if
there be no hereafter, no accountability ? When you see a throne
�88
like Louis Napoleon’s, who will say there is no hereafter ? If
there were not, why not act like great Caesar himselt ? Cato
could have aided him, and Caesar drove him to suicide. Why is
all this if there be no moral government ? What does it prove ?
This, that a moral governor exists. (Cheers.)
Mr. Bradlatjgh : I am delighted to be able to pay the speaker
who has just sat down, the only compliment that has seemed his
due during the time he has spoken since the commencement of
this discussion. It is that he has occupied, with a degree of skill
which I am utterly unable to imitate, a large portion of your
time, but without the slightest relevance to the question which we
are met to discuss. It says a great deal for the presence of mind
of any speaker, seriously to address an audience not in the spirit
of comedy, but in all solemnity, for so long a period without
touching the subject. It says a great deal for his tact when he
can get through twenty-eight minutes of the time in talking
altogether beside the question, and put into the last two minutes
a sort of preface to the topic for debate in lieu of a serious argu
ment. Last evening we had but little approach to discussion, and
were I content to leave the question where my friend has left it
this evening, we should have no discussion at all. There has not
been a particle of evidence adduced by him for the existence of a
moral governor of the universe (hear, hear, and cheers). In all
that he has said there is not a scintilla of evidence, but in lieu we
have some hopes, but however patent his hopes, and however
certain his prophecy, the facts he has stated are evidence only to
himself and not to me. I fancied that my friend was to state the
argument for, and affirm the being of God, as moral governor of
the universe. If he has done anything at all, the most that he
has effected was to allege, without evidence, that there was such
a person or being as he called moral governor of the universe ;
some such thing as that which he called a moral nature, and that
is some evidence for the existence of some being who gave that
moral nature to the individual possessing it. That is the fullest
possible extent to which he has carried his argument. He was
obliged to qualify it, such as it was, with numerous admissions.
He admitted that this faculty which he callad moral sense or
conscience, was a faculty requiring education ; but then he says—
“ It is a faculty which discerns that there is right and that there
is wrong.” I submit, on the other hand, that a man has no
separate faculty, but that his conscience is the result of the
education of the whole of his faculties—that man has no sepa
rate conscience other than is the result of the condition in which
all his faculties may be at any one time of his life, none certainly
that would enable him to judge right and wrong independently
of his education. I submit that a child newly born is without
any such faculty, that it is entirely destitute of any faculty that
�39
would enable it to judge right and wrong, and that that which
my friend calls moral nature, I repeat, is but the result of the
education of all the faculties in man—further, that what he calls
man’s moral nature, if any one chooses to examine the matter
closely, will be found to vary with tribes, countries, and climates,
vary even with the same individuals at various periods of their
lives, and from such a varying, shifting standard you are to pro
duce the evidence of an immutable Deity as moral governor of
the world. If it be po-sible to effect such a demonstration, my
friend will have to display a talent for logic which he has not
manifested during this debate. Let us see whether his facts were
correct. I submit, even if they were, they were worth nothing,
as being irrelevant; that if everything he said were true, from
Alpha to Omega, then it is not worth anything. But I submit
that what he alleged as facts, are not so. “ Did you ever hear,”
asks my friend, “ of a lion that was stricken with remorse over
the numerous animals he has slaughtered ?” Did you ever hear of
a Thug who, having committed murders by the score, felt joy rather
than remorse for his conduct ? What conscience taught him that
he was more sacred to his deities for the skill displayed in his mur
ders ? Our friend, who certainly manifested a more philosophic
conception of words than he w as able to manifest on the last
night of discussion, might have given us a novel definition of
conscience had he read some essays on the practices of Thuggee,
which he might have found in some of our old review—I have
several of these passing through my mind at the present moment
—he would have also found some extremely serviceable evidence
taken before a parliamentary commission, upon the terrible prac
tice of strangling prevailing among the Thugs of India. He
would have found how faithful wives and good mothers to their
children could regard the taking away human life as a positive
virtue, and a matter deserving praise and reward, and that the
more murders they committed, the holier the devotees of Bowanee
regarded themselves. So far from being like Palmer, groaning
as though he would rend his heart, these Thugs regarded murder
as matter of absolute virtue, making them better men and women
than, according to their belief, they could be otherwise. If this
stood alone it would be enough to at least neutralise all that our
friend put before you, but we shall be able to deal with this
question of the moral governance of the universe hereafter more
effectually than this. The whole of our friend’s argument was
founded on what he calls man’s moral nature. I submit that if
his facts had been true, they would not be much evidence on the
subject. But he has cleverly tried to turn the tables on myself.
He said, if there were not this remorse, this uneasiness, this
misery, what inducement would you atheists have to be virtuous 1
But suppose I showed this was not the subject for debate—sup
�40
pose I should urge, as I might have done, that it was only to
introduce an excuse for the occupation of time, that this point was
urged, and suppose I did not choose to take up the question, how
much would that advance my friend’s case ? He was to prove the
existence of a moral governor for the universe. And as he has not
chosen to battle on his own ground, he requires that I should
breach his fortress, aud storm it for him. I will therefore accept
the issues that he has laid before you. But before doing so,
permit me to point you to one or two matters that seem to strike
against the moral governance of God. Is there a moral governor
rewarding virtue. How then is vice in luxury while virtue is
starving ? How can you account for this, that when two thousand
women kneel in one church, that he permitted them to be burnt
and suffocated there ? If you cannot deal with these two thousand,
I will put before you millions instead of thousands. Instead of
these women dying in sudden anguish, rushing round the church,
and crying out to God for mercy, who showed them none, I will
point to millions in the world dying slowly from poverty, that
strikes them down in lingering misery, and whom God pities no".
This gr -at fact meets you in the face, that if there be a governor,
he allows human beings to come into the world faster than food
for them, and that starvation and misery strike myriads down
to die of disease amidst squalid misery. You may tell me that
poverty constituted a crime; it is a disgrace to the world that
it is so. God the moral governor of the universe ! When in the
square of Warsaw women and children prayed to God for help,
for life, for moral strength, when they besought him to hear
their prayer for liberty, and to alleviate their sufferings, you will
hardly tell me that God was moral governor of the universe
when he permitted the Cossack’s lance point to drink the blood
from their breasts as answer to their praying. You will not say
that God is governor, and yet that this happened without punish
ment on the guilty. But you say that because these wrongs are
not redressed here, they will be hereafter. Who made you prophet
for kingdom come? Who gave you the right to require us to
look mildly and contentedly upon all evils here, on the ground
that they will be put right in another world ? You tell me that
when a man is starved to death in this world, he will be led in the
next, when he can eat no longer ; or that if he is unjustly put
here in the prison cell, that it is what God pleases, and that God
will set all this right at some future time. Set it right 1 How
can you hope that ? He it is, if governor, who causes the child
to be born in poverty and misery, and without power to extricate
itself, and helpless to contend against the woe surrounding it.
He kept its parents starving, that they might give the unfortunate
babe a wretched physique. It was he who made the only instructor
of the child, the police or the magistrate. He brought the child
»
�41
from the cradle to the gallows, with a hempen cord round its neck
—he who initiated it into the world helpless to avoid the crime—
he who ended its career there, helpless to escape the retribution.
You make God do all this ill, then you tell me I am a blasphemer
(loud cheers and hisses, which were protracted for some time).
It is you, and not I, who is blaspheming—you, whenyouaffirm that
God rules and that innumerable wrongs result; it is you and not
I who affirm that God rewards vice with imperial purple, virtue
with threadbare fustian; it is you, and not I, who affirm that
God deals thus unfairly with his people.. And when the earth
quake—as that at Lisbon—comes, when it rends not merely the
mansion of the rich but the hovel of the poor, and when after
rending these, it leaves thousands dying from plague and starva
tion in the streets of a great city whose inhabitants it thus
steeped in ruin and misery, by that which you say is the act of
God—don’t tell me of one or more acts apparently beneheent as
illustrating his goodness and sense, until you deal with th&se acts
so clearly malevolent. Do not tell me that God punishes the
wrong-doer here, or if you do, I will ask you why you drag
another world of punishment out of the future ? Don’t tell me
of some wicked men stricken dowu in the streets to die by God’s
decree, for if you do, then do I sav, that God is unjust in smiting
a few and sparing the majority. Your argument lor God’s moral
power is at an end unless you can explain why the imperial mur
derer is spared and the ragged wretch is stricken. (Cheers, hisses,
and confusion). If you want to hiss, wait till I have said some
thing better to deserve it.
The Chairman: I beg that you will keep Order.
Mr. Bradlaugh : You shall have enough to hiss for when I
shall have said what I wish to say against your threadbare
theology, and it is indeed that wh ch I impeach. (Cheers, and cries
of question and time).
The Chairman : It'gentlemen will be quiet and not cheer so or
cry question, all will be able to hear. I will call time when it is
proper to call time (Cheers)
Mr. Bradlaugh: You ask me why I do not steal; why I do
not lie; why I do not, like a neighbouring scoundrel, aspire to a
kingdom, bieaking oaths and shedding Mood togain my point.
I will endeavour to tell you why, but to do this, I must take
up your position that vice must be punished and virtue rewarded
in some future .state. I will say that from the Atheist’s point
of view that is not so. All mere punishment for crime past is
in itself a crime, a wrong, and is omy to be defended in so far
as it goes to the prevention of crime future, but not in so far
as it can be regarded as vengeance lor crime past. The Atheist
view is not that crime should be punished by some overlooking
judge, but that it carries with it its own punishment in limiting
�42
man’s present happiness and increasing his present misery. The
Atheist does not argue that virtue will gain him Heaven hereatter, but declares that it spreads happiness around the virtuous
doer here, and makes happiness for him because it makes hap
piness amongst his fellows—honesty, truth, manhood, virtue,
work their own reward in rendering happy the doer of them,
and in spreading pleasure in the circle in which he moves. You
admit that God suffers rascals to climb into thrones, and permit
his clergy, who at least should know his will, to pray to him to
keep them there. You who know that God has permitted a
great country to be heavily taxed for the support of a clique of
rascals who perpetrated the coup d'etat, and inaugurated the
reign of the imperial scoundrel who now rules in God’s
name, aad as God’s anointed. You say he is going to punish in
the next world the man who thus climbed into a throne in
this, when we know, if your argument be true, he could not have
ciimbed there without G >d’s help. God knew beforehand the
designs of the man "ho broke his solemn oath to the young
Republic; but this man could not have perjured himseli without
God’s permission, if he be 'he omnipotent governor you say,
any more than he could have climbed to a thione without his
aid. God then, according to you, must have helped this cri
minal here in order to punish him some other time. Is that so ?
If these are your views of God as moral governor of the
universe, I give way at once. They are unanswerably absurd.
But does this dispose of the question ? I do not think it does. I
should like our friend, when he pleases to deal with the
question in vyhat he calls its philosophic sense, to be a little
more profuse of his explanations than he was inclined to be
during the discussion of last evening. As to the moral teaching
of Christ, he will find no one more ready than I am to con
sider that question. But we have nothing to do with Christ
here to-night, any more than we have to do with Mahomet,
Moses, or Zoroaster. If he wants to tell me that Christ has
given us a moral system without reproach, I will reply that
under no system of morality which can pretend to be without
blemish, is so much vice permitted. Christianity is a system
which teaches submission to injury; courting wrong, and volun
teering yourself for oppression. I will tell him, that at present
I pa^s it by, because it is not the subject of our argument; it
is no part of the argument, and is at least a mistake, unless
he introduces it for the purpose of evading the real question, as
also the question arising on his allegation of man’s free agency.
If he would discuss to-night Christian morality, he might have
put it forward fairly as a subject for disenssion, when I should
be ready to meet him. He tells me that he is a free agent. He
had much better have supported his argument on both evenings
�43
by some facts, instead of relying on naked allegations. I will
endeavour to show him the most convincing testimony of free
agency that could be required. He says that man is a free agent,
for he can sin against his conscience. I say that he cannot sin-rman cannot resist the circumstances that result in volition. As to
this he has had no freedom of selection. What are these cir
cumstances ? First his org nisation, then the education affect
ing that organisation to the moment of volition. I say that
no man is perfectly free to choose his education, or the organi
sation educated up to the moment of volition. To talk, there
fore, of man sinning against his conscience—itself the result of
education—is to tell you the grossest absurdity that could be
put before you. Well, Samuel Taylor Coleridge says that any
act to be a sin must be originated in the will entirely apart
from and independent of all circumstance extrinsic to the will.
I say there is not this volition preceding any act resulting from
the will, but that all volition is the result of various circum
stances conducing to the wil’.
Then our friend somewhat
abruptly refers to the thief on the cross who got into paradise.
I will admit, if he wants to try the question according to Bible
Christianity, the greatest rascals on earth are the most likely
to be rewarded in heaven ; and if that establishes anything in
favour of moral governance of the world by God, then the New
Testament, corroborated by the Old, shows that those who have
been liars, thieves, and murderers, have got into heaven by God’s
grace, while some of those who have been especially truthftal and
honest became the others’ victims on earth, and were kept out
of heaven. If any of you doubt that, however, I will abandon it, as
the only evidence is that of the Bible, which for me is indefensible,
though for him it is unanswerable. God is an immutable being,
our friend says, and yet declares that his moral government is
begun but not completed. He urges that because vice is
triumphant here, that this must be set right hereafter, that God
the immutable will change his mode of governance, that slavery
he e is to be compensated by eternal freedom hereafter. If this
is to be taken as evidence of future and more complete moral
governance, it must also be taken that the moral government is
at present incomplete, and therefore is no evidence of ability in
the governor to govern more perfectly. He either lacks desire or
ability. One supposition denies his goodness, the other his power.
Then you say, “ that the wicked who escape here shall be sent to
hell fire hereafter.” I am obliged, you add, to admit that the
moral government is incomplete, but these rascals will be punished
by and by, though before this takes place, though before this
retribution comes, they will be dead. Good men will be rewarded
in the next world who have starved in this. Have not men who
made the world resound with the fame of their intellect and utility
�44
of their philosophy, died in garrets neglected and uncared for!
Have they not been villified and calumniated for centuries—men
whose brows were bound with laurel, the fruit of their own selfreliant genius in this world, and oh, by-and-by, God will reward
them. The men who have struggled for liberty have been stricken
down, and have died despairing, while you have been obliged to
admit vice triumphant, despite the moral governor. What, I ask,
is the object of the war that is raging only a few hundred miles
from where we stand ? Does it rage for the rights of man, for
his liberties, for any great principle, or for the purpose of setting
up one piece of state tinsel against another ? Who is it that keeps
this strife up—who starves to pay for this—the people, those whom
you tell me are God’s people, whom God cares for, whom God
helps ? Never till they help themselves—never till they are able to
strike for themselves—never till they upraise themselves. For
those who tell me of a moral government by God, I will turn to
them the whole map of the world, each page of its history, and I
challenge you to show me any people whom God ever helped
until they helped themselves. (Cheers.) Amongst the tribes of
uncivilised people, or even amidst more favoured nations, where
there was the more ignorance the people were more on their knees
praying and less on their feet thinking. It was there where men
were more trodden down, were more serfs, more slaves; there
was always a priesthood to help the king, but never the people.
Where then is the moral government of the universe ? Not by
God. Where even the governance of society ? Not by God but man,
by human intellect; not by Church edict, but by human thought;
not by a moral government outside the world, which teaches right
and wrong according to a standard that can never be altered; but
rather by the advancing knowledge of each hour which, with
better in f ormation, discovers evil to -morrow where it is yet unseen
to-day, and finds truth to-day where yesterday belief bad found
no trace of it. Mankind must be saved by the development of
its common humanity, and we strive in this to advance with
certain steps to the great truths scattered in the depths of the
mighty unknown around us. We seek to gather not pearls,
sapphires, rubies, and diamouds, but truths, that we may build
them into a priceless moral diadem, and therewith crown the
whole human race. (Loud Cheers.)
Mb. Cooper : (Cries of “ go on, Tommy.’’) I will be very much
obliged if you will never clap your hands any more when I rise. I
feel really tired of complaining thus, and I might as well not occupy
your time in this matter, for I am tired of this childish sort of
work, and if anything could disgust me more it would be this silly
laughter. Thomas Cooper is not a man to be laughed at. I have
been a long time on this platform £.I. was never a disgrace to it
(nor any other) when I was on it. Tnever deserted a good prin-
�45
ci pie that once impressed me; I do not know why you are to treat
me in this manner. I think a man of fifty-nine years of age ought
to have some reverence. You have (turning to Mr. Bradlaugh)
just complained before sitting down that every speech delivered
by me as yet was beside the mark—as if a man could live fiftynine years and then argue as if he talked nonsense whenever he
opened his mouth. I have not heard an argument—not a frag
ment of an argument, in answer to what I have stated. Mr.
Bradlaugh says the most I have done is to affirm that man was
not a moral nature. There are many faculties, he says, but the
child has no faculty. That is no argument. In answer, I say the
child has faculties, but does not display them, that everybody
knows, and no one can deny it. Then “God cannot be immutable
because he creates mutable creatures.
He must be mutable
because the creatures must be mutable.” Where is the contradic
tion ? Then he proceeds, “ If what I said were facts, they were,
not facts.” How has that been shown? Because something wa^z
done amongst Thugs. I have not heard about the Thugs. I know
nothing about these young women who were glad they had com
mitted more murders than others. They exulted in it. Now if
any man says there is no moral sense in Thugs, I should like to
have some conversation with him before I believed him. I appeal
to you and not to Thugs. He said, I cleverly tried to throw my
friend off, to turn the tables on him, and some person imme
diately said “ hear.” Do you mean to call me a liar ? I never had
Mr. Bradlaugh in my thoughts. I will re-affirm that he said
that I would introduce anything to occupy the time. He com
menced by stating that I had manifested something like a philo
sophic apprehension of the meaning of words which had no mean
ing, and that I was trying to keep your attention from the ques
tion. Well, there are only the Thugs’before us at present. There
is only an appeal to persons’ nature—we are talking of acts ; we
are going to what our friend says appears to be complete disproof
of the moral government of the universe. He has not dealt with
that fact, that great fact, which you must feel to be fact yourself.
I mean conscience. Can any one of you tell me that he does not
feel when he is sinnin'g against his conscience ? Why then do you
read with such zest the confessions of criminals, the workings of
the human mind, the convictions of a marl that he is a scoundrel,
a bloodthirsty villain? “ Oh, sinning against conscience is the
greatest absurdity that can be mentioned.” Is it ? Strange procla
mation this in the middle of the 19th century. If this is philoso
phy, I do not know what the world will say to it. Abolish all
the laws of government! What is the use of them ? Well, a
man cannot sin against conscience. Do you see what it is you
defend (hear, hear). Will you have the kindness not to cheer a
sentence of that sort without thinking ? Then we heard about
�46
2,000 women whom God shut in and delivered up to the most
terrible of deaths. Then again, I was esteemed a person who had
pretended to look into the future. Will our freind say that God
showed them no mercy ? That is a very large undertaking for my
friend. Then there is the poverty of millions born into the world
and no food to support them. I say plenty of food, but men are
bad one to another. Man is an enemy to man. What sort of
government would you have ? Had you rather that man had
been a moral agent and have no choice ? But you know that you
have a choice, you feel that you can choose, you are sensible of it.
“ God cannot make us free.” Indeed. And you say, “ subject at
the same time.” You allude to the punishment which is inflicted
upon men by God in conformity with the organic formation of
their bodies. “ Millions in poverty.” Yes, indeed, many of them
suffering deeply. Some, however, are poor by their own fault.
Some men are idle and will not work, others spend their wages,
others beat their wives, and others are dishonest. Among the
rich there are dishonest also, so there are dishonest among the poor,
and so suffering comes by a man’s own fault, folly, or vice, as the
case may be. But, says Mr. Bradlaugh, there were 2,000 women
burnt out of existence. The attention drawn to that topic was
something extraordinary to be addressed to men’s judgments.
He says, did moral government exist then, but then 12,600 persons
have died since we came into this room, 84,000 odd, or 32 millions
eyery year. Men die in suffering and great pain. Those 2.000
left children, brothers, relatives, so have the 2,000 that die hourly.
But who complains of the order of life ? Can you tell me of any
particularly good son that would like his father to live for ever ?
How can we believe in a world constituted as this is of men and
animals—who will say that life should be perpetual 1 Now think
of these 2,000 poor women, they were free beings, those priests also,
whom they say acted so cruelly, delivered them over to the Virgin,
and all that sort of thing, but God is not to force man to be good
if he be a free agent. I am asked who made me a prophet of the
moral nature as well as of God’s declaration ? I feel this con
demnation, and I know by it what is wrong. I feel some great
constitutional disease. In the progressive nature of men there must
be moral disease. They would not be governed without it. God
does not train up children to be slaves. I am not to talk about
blasphemy, for there was a hiss when it was mentioned, and you
cheered Mr. Bradlaugh in his sallies against Deity, so that I
should not wonder to hear a hiss when you hear it affirmed that
God trains up a child for happiness. I say God has a moral
government, and that he makes free beings. Men act on each
other’s circumstances. The mere talk about they could not choose
where they were born, that they could not choose their food, that
they were under the control of circumstances, is mere talk and
�nothing more. Circumstances do not altogether control me. I
have trampled on circumstances a hundred times. Men do right
and wrong, we are actuated by it. We sin against our conscience,
where should be the absurdity of God’s government being begun
and net completed? If God exists,he exists from all eternity, and
he has made millions of beings who exist also. Is it to be denied
that one object of his government is that he purposes these beings
for a higher state? This higher state stands before them an
eternity of happiness if they will conduct themselves properly in
this state of trial. I may here take notice that I have been
faithful to my part of the engagement. Mr. Bradlaugh has some
times spoken so loudly I never thought I had a right to say that
has nothing to do with the question. But I see my time is gone
by, and I must reserve what I have to say.
Mr Bradlaugh : I frankly and unreservedly retract the com
pliment I paid my friend for his ability in evading the subject.
It would be improper in me to persist in tendering him a compli
ment which he repudiates. I also frankly confess I now do not
know for what purpose the first speech was delivered at all, and
this the more because the second speech has not improved the
position. Our friend has been kind enough to express his opi
nion, that it is hardly fair towards a speaker to urge that his
speech has nothing to do with the question. Surely my friend
wants me to offer my opinion on his speech. I have done so; and
if any ot the audience agree with my view, so much the worse
for the speech, because it would show that it produced on the
mind of more than one person an impression, that our friend had
not proved anything which he had proposed to affirm. As to
the moral faculty in a child, Mr. Cooper says the child has no
faculty for some years. I ask whether children up to a certain
ace are without aid from the moral government, and whether
they are not in more need of it than men with matured faculties ?
I ask him whether his argument does not altogether break down
when needed most ? He says that I based an argument on the
fact of man being mutable, whilst God is urged to be immutable.
This is not so. Our friend had urged that men were imperfect—
and I put it to you that we con d hardly expect an imperfect
result from a perfect creation and a perfect creator—a being with
ability to make perfect if he pleased. If I have not made this
clear to you before, I hope I have done so now. Mr. Cooper
declares that he has not heard much about the Thugs hugging,
and that I must bring this hugging business closer to you. My
friend boasts that this argument is very wide and without effect.
I cannot very well oblige my friend by dwelling at any great
length on this phase of human error and crime; for I cannot
do him the injustice to suppose that, in hw endeavours to judge
fairly of moral nature, he should purposely have left out the
�48
history of a large portion of mankind when generalising on the
whole, so that he might make out an argument for the moral
government of the world, 14 The Thugs,” he says, “ are a
long way off.” So was Jesus Christ a long way off. If any ad
verse argument is implied in being a long way off. I retort’ that
they are not so far away as Moses, so distant as David, so far
away as Jonah or Jeremiah. I am not quite so far off as these,
and I must tell him if he will dispute the fact of Thugee strang
ling, he must do so boldly. I will undertake to affirm it. If he
does not know whether the facts he talks about are facts,
he ought not to challenge them by inuendo. The audience will
be able to judge for themselves, whether my friend did not leave
them with an equivocal sort of denial which may mean either
admission of their verity or allegation that they are not correct.
Say you do not know anything about these facts, or that you do
not believe; if you say you do not believe them, I will undertake
to prove them. It may fairly be that, however well a man may
be read, be cannot be presumed to know everything, and your
ignorance is no weapon in my hand. Does he take pains to tell
you what he means by the word sin, or what he means by the
word conscience ? He has not done so, yet persists in speaking
of morality, as though it always and everywhere had one meanir g. Here it is immoral to have two wives. In Turkey it is
not immoral to have two wives. The consciences of the men
who commit polygamy in Turkey, do not burthen them with re
morse, because they have committed what we here should term
a crime. I object to the word sin, because theologians have at
tached a cant meaning to it which I deny. My friend has not
told you his definition. He uses it as though it conveyed a
meaning in which you are all agreed. An act which a man could
not help committing, is not a sin. The wretch who steals a loaf
of bread because starvation, ignorance, poverty, misery, squalor,
and degradation have surrounded him, is not even in your eyes
so guilty as a person of better education and better circumstances.
I will put it to you further, that there are many cases in every
day life, when the same act condemned in one instance, so far
from being regarded as culpable, finds precisely the contrary ver
dict in another. If this be so, our friend’s d:scernment of the
moral government of God is exceedingly short-sighted. How, •
then, does he speak of a common standard for judging right and •
wrong ? I will take you to a great many decent men and women
who would rather prefer stealing to being atheists, and who
would regard it as a greater crime to entertain such opinions as
I hold than to be guilty of theft. To me it is no sin against my
conscience. It reproves me not; on the contrary, the mode in
which my faculties have been educated makes me believe it an
honour to hold and avow these views. He is not dealing with
�49
you fairly when he puts it that men have a common standard of
right and wrong. He said, why deal with the two thousand sq
sadly burned, and not with millions dying around us ? That was
what I did. It was only in one or two short sentences I referred
to the Chili catastrophe, in a few words that I dealt with the two
thousand, and then especially commented on the millions killed by
poverty and disease. My friend replies—the case of the two
thousand poor women startles us from the relief in which it
stands out from the great picture of millions that are stricken down,
that are crushed by poverty—which poverty, he says, only exists
by men’s misdoings, but which I say exists, if there is a moral
governor of the universe, because he keeps it there. For whose
misdoing is a poor child born of weak parents, for whose mis
doing are the parents starving in an unhealthy home with in- 1
sufficient clothing, wretched surroundings, squalid, and with
teaching worse than none ? On whom are we to charge
all this? On the father, on the mother? This cannot be,
because both father and mother are but a part of the squalor,
wretchedness, and misery that existed before them. Then does
God the moral governor of the universe allow all this, never
stopping the pain—never checking the evil ? Our friend has
made a most extraordinary admission. He says these things
result from man’s misdoing. We will take it that a man does
wrong'sometimes—he does it, then, in spite of God or by his
permission, or by his instigation ; but he cannot do it in spite of
God, for Mr. Cooper says that God is omnipotent, therefore it is
impossible to do anything against his power—against his will.
The wrong doer must either be instigated to the wrong doing by
God, or permitted by God to do it; but God being infinite in his
will to permit, would be to compel. It is the same to instigate
as to leave the path for a man to do wrong, who without this
could not help but do right. All wrong and misery exist by
God’s wish or against it. But it cannot exist against God’s wish
if he be all-powerful; nor does Mr. Cooper think ev.il exists
against God’s wish, for he makes God remedy hereafter that
which he might prevent here. God, all-powerful, has the ability
to prevent misery; God, omniscient, knows how to exercise this
ability; and God, all-good, would desire to exercise it. The
population problem, which would take too long to fairly examine
in this debate, is pregnant with weighty arguments on this head.
Poverty exists; and God’s existence, or his power, or his wisdom *
or his goodness stands impeached by it. It would take many
evenings to debate this point fairly, but he does not go beyond
bare assertion, or advance one word of argument about it. He
could not conceive how a good son could wish his father to live
forever. If I understand the meaning of this aright—it would
be that all who wished their fathers to live for ever must be bad
�50
gons. (Hear and laughter.) He says, this life is a probation for
some other state. Which other ? What has he to say except
that the present state is so terribly wicked, so full of treachery
and bloodshed and evil, that he is not heard to express a hop®
to make it better, but is obliged to go to some other world as an
.«
escape from this ? (Laughter and cheers.)
i
Mr. Cooper : So in spite of all I have said about the impropriety
jf of it, the want of wisdom of the thing, the decency of doing it,
I i Mr. Bradlaugh commences again in the same manner. He must
II retract his compliment. He is utterly at a loss to account for the
I,1! first speech; he passes on to say that he must chastise me. I
should say, that that was consummate impudence. Seeing that he
approved of the hisses, he must have great confidence in his powers
of effrontery in conduct like this. (Cries of no, no, he told you to
be less excited)—and he turned round and told this person who
cheered me that he was wrong. (Cries of no, no). I did not say
the child had no moral faculty. I said he did not display that
faculty. He said that an imperfect man was hardly to be ex
pected from an imperfect maker. If he could conceive God at all,
he must be a perfect God, and he could not wish any other God,
but if he saw anything bad, he would say that he was not com
petent to be the framer of the universe. I say there is only one
framer of the universe, God invisible, everywhere present,
all-wise, existent always, an almighty, all-holy being. He knows
that that all-wise and holy being cannot make a being as
perfect as himself. You might as well expect him to make a
triangular circumference. “All-being,” he says, “would be perfect.”
Why waste time on words of this sort ? Our friend then said,
he would make it clear what he meant, when he said, there
was no sinning against conscience. Then he told me about
men having two wives in Turkey; that men had no sense of mora
lity, and that there were men in England who had two wives and
did not think it immoral. We think they do wrong. He says an
act which man cannot help committing is no sin. If I were
disposed to indulge in humour, I should exclaim, a Daniel come to
judgment. A man cannot commit a sin in doing what he cannot
help ; if it is no law to him, he cannot transgress the law. It is
no sin to commit an act. (Cries of question). I did not say that
»il men and women in England had the same standard of judging
of right and wrong. I said no to that, and I said the moral faculty
had to be educated. Every faculty has to be educated. I was
not talking about the millions who suffer death through poverty.
* was talking of the millions that die naturally in an hour. There
such a thing as memory. I did not attribute evil to God because
He never limited or checked it. He talked of weak parents and
the injustice of punishment of sin. Do we not see reasons in the - organic punishment for moral crimes that man can bring disease
�on his children and on himself? Yon say why does God dothat?
Does not vice visit itself? What do you do with that fact ? You
say you cannot take a fact out of the world. Well, it is there.
God says that sin is sinful, that it is abominable in his sight, it is
unholy ; he gives it strong punishment here and everywhere. If
man will not regard himself, he may as regards his children.
Give me an idea whether or not there can be any moral government
where there is no freedom, no will, no possibility of transgression.
Show me that. I cannot understand it. I understand moral
government to mean a government of moral agents by a moral
governor. Moral government means that there are laws to observe,
he must have special rules, that is, the governed must know he
has a government, that is to say, there must be law. What is the
sanction of law ?—punishment. Abolish punishment, and you
abolish law virtually. Just conceive that the Queen abolished
all punishment for crime. Let recognised justice go on. Well,
there is a trial to-night, there is the judge in his scarlet robes, the
barristers in their wigs and gowns, the jury in the jury box. It
is a murderer that is to be tried. He is convicted—what follows ?
The judge puts on his black cap, and sentences the murderer to
death. The keeper then lets him go into the street. A robber is
sentenced to ten years, or twenty perhaps ; he rushes out of the
box and joins his companions in the streets. Then at nisi prius,
it is a horse case, lying seems inseparable from a horse case.
Throughout the whole case there is lying, sticking to your false
hood throughout. You are convicted of perjury, and there is no
punishment. How long will this go on ? There is law then, and
there is a penalty which is the sanction of law. Then there is a
governor, good government if there is a law, and if you abolish
law you abolish government. For God to permit suffering and
wrong is not for him to will or to wish it. I may permit several
things, I do not will them. The father does, the mother does,
the wife does—in all relations of life we often permit that which
we do not will in the active sense. If we come to the philosophic
nature of things, yes; and in the broad sense of language we
permit many things that we do not will. So it is from the moment
that life commences, and for ever. Mr. Bradlaugh knew very
well what I meant. (Cheers.) Why do you clap your hands at my
saying this ? Is it a dignified way to come here ? I expected to
have something like reasonable discussion, and I have to complain
that the argument was never touched. (Hear, dissent, and cries of
“not by you.’’) If any one of you will tell me where the argu
ment was touched, I will be much obliged to him. (Cheers and
hisses.) What is the use of encouraging all this vulgar stuff?
(Hisses.) It is not like reasonable men that want to come to the
truth. There was something that Mr. Bradlaugh said before, that
I meant to touch upon, but had not time. He said, that from the
�52
Atheist’s stand-point, vice should not be punished or virtue
rewarded. Punishment was only to be inflicted so far as it is
preventive. It is to be remedial. May it not be so when he
visits the sin of the parents upon the children 1 Is there not 3
warning ? But then we are told that vice works its own punish
ment and virtue its own reward. Why then complain of Louis
Napoleon ? Should he not be punished according to that theory ?
I cannot see that vice works its own punishment there. I love
Mazzini with all my heart. He is the greatest man I have ever
known in my life. Is virtue rewarded in his mournful life ?
Tyrants on thrones and clergy to help them 1 What does Louis
Napoleon care about clergy?—he makes instruments of them. He
does not believe them any more than did the first Napoleon.
There was also some observation in a former speech about the
ignorant being oftener on their knees than on their feet. The
Kaffirs and the lowest races in the world. But that is not in
the round of my reasoning even if it were true.
Mr. Bradlaugh : Our friend puts it that he did not say the
child had no moral faculty, but he said the child did not display
it. I am sorry I misunderstood him. I will wait for the present
till the report comes out, but I fancy that my comment upon the
old man as upon the child did not misapply. How do you know
that the child has got this faculty before it is manifested ? By
what fact do you discover what is not displayed ? You certainly
have not displayed that faculty of putting things clear, or you
would have tried—
Mr. Cooper : That is your impudence.
Mr. Braelaugh:—Tried to give us some reasons for
supposing that a child has what you call the faculty for judging
what you call right and wrong, and yet having this faculty disp!ays it not. You said that God cannot make another being as
perfect as himself, because you say he is infinite—and he cannot
make another infinite. If that is a fair argument, it destroys
the doctrine of creation altogether. If God cannot create another
infinite, neither can he add to his own infinity. To add a finite
universe to infinity is equally as absurd as to add an infinite.
If God’s ability to create a being as perfect as himself is limited,
then he is not omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, there can be no
such limitation. You say that sin is a transgression of law;
law has two meanings, one scientific as expressing invariable
sequence, and the other moral, as command. You cannot trans
gress the one and the other ; you can the right or duty to dis
obey ; command depends upon who gives the command—with
what sanction it is given—whether it be good or bad to obey or
not to obey. There are many statute laws at the present time
which it is perfect virtue to break, and no sin to disobey.
Mr. Cooper : That won’t do.
�53
i
{
•j
f
i
?
?
Mb. Bradlaugh : Then my friend says vice visits itself on
children, and asks, How does the Atheist deal with that ? He
finding, whether there be a God or not, a moral governor or not,
that children begotten of diseased parents are born in a diseased
state ; strives to educate the parents to observe physical laws—
to know the sequences on which health depends, and to carry
out this law so as to ensure health as the result of the physical
law. As an Atheist, he knows that where there is a child born
into the world and the conditions of health have been known
and observed by its parents, the child is more healthy, whether
there be a God or not. You say that moral government implies
that there are special rules established by the inoral governor.
If a man break these rules unconsciously, is there a penalty?
My friend contends, as I understand him, that those who sin not
knowing the law, escape the penalty. The rules of God—do all
know them ? Yes or no. If all do not know them, what
becomes of this special government ? Some are ignorant. Again,
is God able to make all know them ? If yes, and he only teaches
partially, he is unjust, for He requires from one a higher duty
than from another. You say there is a difference between per
mitting error and willing it. The illustration of the father or
mother permitting without willing has no analogy. No argument
founded on man can conduct you to a demonstration for the
character of Deity. If your assertion of God’s will as infinite
betrue, there is no permission without his will, and the will of
any other cannot be in opposition, because he is omnipotent. If
all things be from God, is it not a fair query how augjht can exist
except by God’s will? He says ihe good are to live for ever :did
he say where or how ? Is it to be in the moon for ever, or in the sun
for ever, or where ? My friend simply appealed to your prejudices,
the prejudices created by your religious education, when he spoke
this. He knew that he meant nothing by it— he did not know any
thing about living for ever anywhere. When he says that his
moral nature leads him to hope that when he fiuds that this life
is imperfect—that God is able to make another, which he hopes
will be better, but he don’t know how it is to be, where it is to
be, or indeed whether it is to be at all, he has not given us a partide of information about it. Now, however, he finds it convenient, having said that he was going to take the broad view of
the question, to take you abroad altogether—and he desires to
take you into the next world, which he would have you examine
in preference to the subject, but we have not that before us, but
tojudge of his Deity as moral governor. He could not have been
more unfortunate than wheu he went to the Kaffirs in his speech,
who have no knowledge of this moral government which he sets
up. There are the Kiffirs, the Dyaks of Rajah Brook, and
many other nations of the world, who have no conception of a
�54
future state of existence, who have no conception of God as sepa
rate, apart, and distinct from the universe, and who, therefore,
they do not pray to. He has used such a defence to-night as
will rather defeat his argument for the existence of God. It is
either good or bad that men should know ot God’s existenceIf it was good, then God should give all men that knowledge ; if >
he did not, he himself was not all good—that is, was not God. I
admit that my friend is right when he says I did not hit his argu- J
ment. I tried as hard as I was able, but it is hard to hit nothing.
- (Cheers.) Why blame Louis Napoleon, and praise Mazzini ? I
complain of him whom I hold to be a scoundrel, because I hope
to make the rest of the world avoid his vices—and because I
dare to wake up a nation to a desire for liberty, whom God lets
sleep in political slavery. Mazzini, whom I love and honour as
much as you can—whose truth I have learned to revere as much,
as you have learned to revere it—when you ask me what reward
this man has, I say that his reward is in his own honour, in his
honest truthfulness, in the love for humanity he expresses, which
makes thousands love him. He has no fears such as possess that
man, that vagabond of the Tuileries, with his baud against
every man ; but this exile, almost prisoner, this recluse, this man
shut out from the world, his life of truth gives me the highest
hope, for he gains and gives sympathy forth to the world and to
the noblest in the world. You tell me of your God. Why does he
allow one to be hunted by police, and keep the other in a posi
tion to drive Europe before him with the edge of his sword ?
Why doesjiGod permit the armies of this crowned scoundrel of
France to protect those Roman bandits, who keep daily open the
bloody wounds of wretched Italy ? I did not bring Napoleon
or Mazzini into the debate, but if you want an argument against
God’s moral government, take that sink of vice and crime, Rome,
the birthplace of your Christian faith, and source of all your
Christian frauds ; Rome, the cancer in the womb of Italian liberty.
You shall have my sympathy with liberty and truth wherever
needed, but we rather forget in this the subject for debate. We
come here to discuss one theme which our friend has entirely
neglected. We ought to have some evidence of God’s moral
- government of the world. So far as our friend is concerned,
every theme has been selected but this, and except reading from
his memorandum book the pencil notes which he has made,
my argument he has met by simplv saying that “he cannot
understand." He cannot understand the meanings of the words
he uses himself, any more than the argument which he heard
used against him. And he tells you of my weakness and
my impudence, but each man has the right to say his b st in his
own way. Age carries with it no respect here, other than it
Warrants by matured thought. Mr. Cooper’s past service carries
�55
with it no respect here, unless he continues it by present duty.'
The speech which must not provoke laughter is sober and earnest
utterance, and the service which finds respect is sterling honest i
work. Let our friend rely not on the past, not on old certificates
of respect, but on the services he performs now, in bringing truth
before you, speaking to your hearts and educating your brains,
developing your intellects, and enlarging your humanity. When
he does this he will have done something entitling him to reproach
you if you fail in respect, and he will save himself the need of
reproaching you at all, for he will win, as I do now, your warmest
sympathy. (Loud Cheers.)
Mr. Coopee : I go on to follow the plan which I suppose to
be the right one. He claims to do the same thing. I think this
the right plan to take up every sentence uttered, and to show
that they are not to the point, that they are instead, great non
sense, and don’t bear on the argument, and are simply false con
clusions. I suppose that to be my plain duty. I come here to
argue for the being of God as moral governor of the universe;
Mr, Bradlaugh comes here to argue that there is no moral govern
ment. I spoke of children having a faculty. He asks how I know
that children have a faculty? Isav by watching its develop
ment. He says sin is not transgression of the law, for law con
sists of command and sequence. What has that to do with the
position ? I know that law is command, and there is sequence,
which is punishment, if you do not obey. But how does that
■overthrow the truth of sin being a transgression of the law ? If
children are born without a faculty, how come they to ever dis
cern whether there is a God or not ? Indeed, that is?the question
between us—whether there is a God or not. Do not all men
know God’s laws ? If he says we see this inequality of punish
ment, he would ask what is God ab mt 1 I say that all human
beings know more or less of God’s law. He says that of some,
more than others, God requires duty without reason. I say no:
where precept has not been given to man, God does not expect
him to fulfil. There is no teaching of any sort that I am aware
of against this. I never learned among any class of persons any
other belief in God, but that he dealt with all al ke. Io that
sense, there was no such inconsistency of philosophy. But Mr.
Bradlaugh said I was not to talk of myse.f. When I was talking
cf permission, I did not mean instigation. I did not mean any
•such thing as “to will it.” I was not also to talk of analogy
between men’s nature and God’s, between toe intelligence of man
and that of God. I say again that permission does not mean
instigation. He says it does. I say it don’t. He 3aid something
about “ living forever.” Why does he affect not to know what
every one else knew, why affect to be so stupid ? “ How
ndid I know that there was an hereafter ?” Because life is not so
�56
perfect as my moral nature. I call will choice, and my moral
nature is so strong on these points that I am obliged to attend to
them. All men are aware of this hereafter, and their conscience
in regard to it troubles all. But then he says, “ Where is this
future life to be ? Is it to be here or elsewhere ?” I am not
anxious about that; I know that the judge of all the earth will do
right. I am sure that the God who made me will do right ; I
am, therefore, not anxious. I am sure that it will be right. I
cannot speak to what will be appointed to me. I may particu
larly call your attention to the strange remark made by Mr.
Bradlaugh, when he instanced what he called a fact, that the
Kaffirs had no hope of a future state, and . that all ignorant peo
ple are oftener on their knees than on their feet. He says he has
proved such a deficiency as will overthrow my argument for
God’s existence. I showed that man is forgetful, and he says
that overthrows my argument. I said that the argument had
not been met, and he said he had nothing to meet. Here are
those representative men on this platform. Is the argument to
he dismissed in this manner ? Is that to go forth from this plat
form as an argument ? And then what he says about the glass
being of the same existence as that of man. (Cries of no no.)
I cannot help being surprised at all this gibberish. (Cries of
question, hisses, and cheers.) Why, you are not fit to listen to the
question. (Hisses, and some confusiou.) I am appealing to
representa'ive men What is the use of argument, if this is argu
ment ? He treats the question as he likes. He tells us that he
had a mission, and he said that all precognition was an utter
absurdity. But the argument of the moral sense was the greatest
argument that could be brought for the existence of a moral
government. It has convinced others, and it has convinced me.
That was the way in which such men as Clark and G Hespie, to
whom Mr. Bradlaugh referred, arrived at the knowledge of moral
governance. He said “that I said what I said before was there,
only that it was not there.’’ But if these great men held those
doctrines which I defend, if thousands of other great men have
held them ; if these arguments have passed through rhe strongest
minds of Englishmen, men who have done such mighty things in
mathematics, men of such disciplined intellect, that there is a God *
as maker and moral governor of the universe, I am compelled ,
to remind him that the argument was neither touched nor
answered, and that all this “flibertigibbet ” is not argument. Is
this to be the close ? Can you offer no further argument? Are
you who assemble here to accept that as argument ? Will you try
to argue thequestion out or—(Cries of hear and his-es ) Thankyou
for nothing. He complains of the order of moral government, and he
talks of L >uis Napoleon as having been success'ul while Mazzni ishunted by police, and he says the reason he does so is to rouse the
�57
nation. It is a queer nation that—when one reflects on its meanness,
its littleness, its lickspittleness, one feels contempt instead of admi
ration for a Frenchman at this time of day. (Cheers and hisses, which,
lasted for some seconds). Show me any six men whom you talk
about—you may tell me that I am talking of the body of Frenchmen in the streets of Paris, but I say that they are unworthy as a
nation to enjoy liberty. But in reply to my question, how is
Mazzini rewarded ? You say by his own sense of honour and truth.
Why do you then say that he is neglected ? What is there to
complain of that things were not right ? Why, according to this,
it is right after all. But no, says my friend, it is not right. My
friend blows hot and cold at the same time. Either the con
science of such men is guilty, and that things are not right in this
world, or they are. Which will he have ? He has chosen to
take the latter conclusion with respect to these two cases. Why
do such things exist, but because there is a moral government and
we are moral agents ? Then he talks of Rome, or rather he says,
“We can talk about Rome.” That is not my religion, that is not
where I am. I always hated her for her bigotry and her tyrannies,
and if I were a Roman Catholic and wished to put down Freethought, I should perhaps have to arrest you first. But that is
not my religion. I do not come from Rome. He then complains
of my reading notes. But please come to this fact, that you have
a conscience. I say you know it, and that you cannot conceal the
fact from yourselves, that when you do wrong there is an inward
chiding; you cannot shake it off. How came you to have it there?
and for the future if there is no moral government, all will soon,
be over. “Men reasoned,” and we are told further, that all
sensible men laughed at the notion of immortality I professed.
But he was sure that he would enjoy this world and everything
that he could have in it as well, whether there was no future, and
he referred to broad history But whatever he may say, I say you
sin against conscience, and you are rebuked by your moral sense.
Oh, but he says “ There is no such thing.” I say there is, that if
you do harm to your wife and children, or to your neighbour; if
you commit d shonesty, you know that you blame yourself—the
faculty, the moral faculty blames you. How could yon have it if
there were no accountability—no moral government? How comes
it there ? It has not been esteemed so very ridiculous by some of
the greatest men that ever lived. It was said that when argu*
ments would not convince Pascal, the moral feeling did. It is ou
record of Emmanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, that
when the design argument, and the argument a priori failed to
convince him, the moral sentiment convinced him. It was the
testimony of Liebig that he was convinced by the moral argument
When nothing else could convince him. “ I feel this moral power
Within me, he said; “ I cannot destroy it, I cannot see it, it
"
•
:
i
•
<
>
�58
impels me, it controls me, it blames me. Why is it so, if this be
the be-all and end-all, and there is no moral government ?”
(Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. Bradlaugh : It is not true that it convinced Locke,
Newton, or Samuel Clarke. They take lines of argument opposed
to each other. The illustration is not a fair one, any more than
the quotation from Plato was a correct one. I am surprised at
Mr. Cooper’s lamentable blunder as to laws, as denoting in
variable sequence, telling me that law means command, and that
the sequence follows the breach as punishment. Now, with fiftynine years of experience, to make such a sad blunder when his
distinction of law as command and law as sequence were put before
you in my speech, is at least most extraordinary. I cannot believe
that he has been serious. He surely cannot be so ignorant of the
commonest terms with which thinkers deal; or, if he is so igno
rant, I am justified in standing up in this debate and saying that
he has no right to discuss these subjects at all. If he does not
understand the argument, if he does not understand the ipeaning
of words, then I say that he is unfit to argue; and if he does un
derstand them, his speech is worse than worthless, because wil
fully evasive.
Mr. Cooper : I do not know what you are referring to.
Mr. Bradlaugh : I will do him the justice to say that he did
not, in his last speech, refer to the subject we have met to discuss.
I think I will also do him the justice to say that it was the strangest
and most incoherent speech I ever heard, and I am free to add
that in his attempts to demonstrate Deity he has broken down
lamentably. (Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. Cooper rose, and was understood to say that this was
downright impudence.
Mr. Bradlaugh : I did not interrupt when he was talking
about gib' erish. I have a right to comment on his speech in my
own way—in the way that seems to me best. I asked him how
he knew that the moral faculty existed in children. He says by
watching its development. He took no pains to tell you what
he meant. I will try to do so. The basis for this so-called
faculty is organisation, differing in each individual—that organi
sation is educated, and this education also varies with each.
Therefore this so-called faculty is ultimately resultant from
development of organisation. That basis must be limited and
varied.
It varies perceptibly in different races of mankind.
There is a different development to each individual, and this
education of organisation helps to make up what we call con
science, this conscience varying in its exercise in different
spheres, and by different individuals. Faculty I say it is not,
it is only a condition, the result of all these circumstances, but
-is never independent of them. This alleged moral laculty never
�59
existed without these, either in children, men, or women, at any
age. Then our friend said that all human beings knew more or
less of God’s laws—some knew more, he says, some knew less.
Well, if that is so, if some had abundance, and some were deficient,
then God has been unkind either to them to whom he has given
but little knowledge, or to those to whom he has given much.
The knowledge of God’s laws must be either good or bad. If it
is good for all to have a complete knowledge, then there is in
justice in giving to some more, to some less: if it is bad to have
the knowledge, then there is injustice in giving it to any. In
either case you have an argument against the moral government.
Then our friend goes on to say, “ The future does not trouble
me.” He knows what kind of service will be allotted to him by
God or by any one competent to make the allotment. I can tell
him one kind of service which will certainly not be allotted to
him, and that is, the task of proving that there is a God—or the
moral character of his government. (Cheers.) That duty will
never more be allotted to him. (Cheers.) Our friend was good
enough to tell us that it was the strongest effort of his mind this
demonstration of moral sense, and that he had made it so clear
that there was hardly any use in his arguing the question with
me about it. I will wait till the report shall be in print—that
will speak for itself. I did not refer to last night till he took the
opportunity of introducing it. I would not have brought it
forward because there remained no point needing comment. I
can well conceive a man lamenting during the day over a defeat,
and trying again to-night to talk it into a semblance of victory.
You referred to Mazzini, and asked why I complained. You say—
“ Oh, but it is right or it is wrong.” Why use this term right er
wrong ? If you use them, the one as conducing to happiness,
the other as producing a state of pain, I can unde’-stand what you
mean. It is a state of happiness for a man to work for good—to
work for truth—the development of truth amongst his fellows ;
he finds happiness in so doing. But it is a source of pain to him
to know there is so much evil yet to be undone You can believe
the man more happy who does right than he who commits a
wrong, and this whether there be a God or not. But God, my
friend says, is all-good—that which results from him is there
fore all-good—it must be all-good, as no tvd can come from an in
finite God. Adieism is in the world, and it mu-t come from some
source, as out of nothing nothing can come. God is the source
of all, it must therefore come from God, therefore Atheism is
from God ; but God is good, therefore Atheism i< good. And n w
for the French. They are a queer nation, says our friend He
has been told so perhaps, but those who bave been am mg them
think otherwise. Queer they are, but the men who are most
queer amongst them are the men who are most under the domi-
�60
Stance of theology, and least under the influence of Freethought.
I have found that men who are least under the influence of the
priest are the men who have been best d'spnsed to bring about a
better state of things for their country. These are not the men
you speak of in such unwarrantable language. There are men who
bend before the rising sun, who bow before the crown, but these
are not the men developed by thought and truth. There are men
■who have been mbdeveloped by the misgovernment of kings and
priests ordained by God, who left them without moral thought,
and destitute of manhood. Those men whom you call lick
spittles—men in Paris, men at Lyons, men at Bourdeaux, in the
North and in the South—are men speaking for their country, men
working for liberty, hoping to attain it for their own country and
for others. Men are now striving for liberty again in France.
(Cheers.) Then you come to Borne. Is that so far from your
religion that you can afford to attack it ? Rotten branch, you do
well to shun the stem from which you spring (Loud cheering.)
Matricidal son, you do nobly to plant the dagger of calumny in
the breast of the mother church which bore you How well
pleased her son should be to cover her with odium; but where
would be your church without its early gospel forgeries—where
your Christian establishments, your bishoprics, your evidences,
your prisons, your revenues, all things that go to make up your
faith, if they bad not been treasured up, garnished, furbished in
Rome ? You say you are not Roman Catholic, and that Roman
Catholics will burn men—so will Protestants. Protestants have
burned Roman Catholics. There is a place not so far as
Caff'rar'a, there is Newgate, where Protestant Christian noble
men piled up stones on men of the Romish faith until the blood
gushed from their forehead and finger-ends because they would not
plead before judges who had pre-determined to condemn them.
You tell me you do not—I answer, you do not, because you dare
not do such things now. It is within the brief span of your own
lifetime, when you were but little older than I am now, that
dissenting clergymen sentenced Richard Carlile and Robert
Taylor to Oakham, Giltspur Street, and Newgate, and harassed
Carlile’s family with starvation for holding such opinions I now
hold. (Loud cheers.) You could not do all this to-day, because
the stream of human thought is rushing onward, and would
drown your fires if you dared kindle them. You are only losing
|; time in advocating the past, because new thought is more powerful thau old faith—it has trampled out your faggots. Make not
J a boast over Roman Catholics, both fruit of one tree—rotten fruit
I admit; both are laden with poison, both have given to the
world a heritage—slavery, tyrants, and chains. It is left for the
republic of human intellect to erect a better state of things.
(Loud and protracted cheering.)
*
1
�61
Mb. Cooper : I am returning to the affirmation with which he
sets out. He says that Locke, Newton, and Clark oppose each
other upon this question. I say they don’t. He said what I
quoted from Plato is not in Plato. I say it is. What use in
trying to persuade people that I do not understand my own
argument ? I said I did not understand what Bradlaugh said
about command and sequence. He knew he said that I did not
, understand my own argument. He asked me how did I know
i that men in this world in various nations and situations had
i; more or less knowledge of God’s law ? I said I knew it by their
acts, and then he said it was unkind that God did not reveal to them
the law. He could not; and only when this great moral world
should be destroyed, would there be justice done. If men
transgressed the law, says Mr. Bradlaugh, they should not be
punished for it in this state, he will have no doubt about it in the
next state. So my friend will argue that the virtuous are more
happy even in this world, and yet nothing is right. Can you
understand this reasoning ? He asked me not to blow hot and
cold. It is the most stupid talk I ever heard in the world. He
first tells me that it is right, and then that it is wrong. I cannot
understand all this- The men in France and the priests are so
and so. Yes. Why? Because they bowed to the dominance of
the priests, and not because of theology in general I have it on
the testimony of a gentleman who went to live in a house in
Bordeaux to commence an undertaking as an agriculturist. He
commenced by giving some books to the peasantry on bis estate.
They bowed as they received them, and appeared thankful. In
three days, however, they came back to him, and politely re
quested that they might see the governor of the farm. The Pere
[Mr. Cooper pronounced this word with accent on the last syllable,
a circumstance which caused some laughter and surprise, which
it is necessary to explain, that a portion of the following speech of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s may be understood.] The Pert was a priest in
the village, who, he said, told him that they did not read such
books because of their religion, and they very seldom made acquain
tance with anything beside theology. The great mass of them
bow to the domination of the priest; and so these lickspittles
exist in France, and are, according to my friend, made under God’s
moral government. Has he shown that any other government
will account for the various arguments that have been adduced?
As this is the last time I shall address you, I will simply appeal
to your consciences again. You have a conscience, every man
has a conscience, to which he is responsible in the first instance.
You need not smile—it will not be a smiling matter if, on your
death-bed, your conscience tells you that I am right and that you
are wrong. We will all have to meet it. Every one of us. I
have talked before of death-beds, and there was no indisposition
�62
to listen to me then. If morality is not taught in this room now,
it ought to be. It used to be. You have a conscience which has
dictates, and which, if you do not obey it, flogs you. If you vio
late conscience, on your death-bed it will not be a happy one.
You say there is no future. You may contrive to allay the
gnawings of conscience in some degree—you will not kill them.
They will be there up to the last. You had better listen to con
science before it is too late. The more you ponder on this fact,
the more you will begin to see that there is a moral nature, and
the more clearly you will apprehend that there must be a moral
governor. I wish I had pondered more on this fact in my early
life. It began with that point of government—it began in John
Street in a discussion upon one of Mr. Owen’s propositions, that
man is the creature of circumstances. He was laughed at when
he said there was no praise or blame. In the controversy, I
began to blame myself and praise others. Why, I began to ask,
do you praise such men as Louis Blanc, Mazzini, and Kossuth
when their name is mentioned, and execrate Louis Napoleon?
Praise and blame I We cannot help it. It is no use telling me
there is no such thing as sinning against conscience—there is
something which you cannot get rid of, which cannot be sot out of
the mind, which cannot be got out of the heart. You go about
with this conscience, with the certainty that it is there perpetually
—a tribunal within you. If you reflect on it, the more you will feel
convinced that moral government exists. I reflected, and I said,
what I have ever since maintained, that there exists a moral
government for man, whose head is the Governor and Creator of
the Universe. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Bradlaugh: It would be impossible to demonstrate to
night that my remarks, in reference to Locke, Newton, and Samuel
Clark, were well founded. A quarter of an hour will not suffice
for that purpose. But I will take occasion to say something in
respect of what has been said to come from Plato. It is very
curious that, in the “ Timaeus ” which I hold in my hand, there is a
passage precisely the opposite to that which my friend quoted,
and I have not been able to find any thing like the sentence he
quoted from Plato. What I do find is in opposition to what he
has attributed to Plato. I take pains to be moderately correct
before I challenge an assertion made in this way. (Mr. Cooper
here interrupted ) He tells me the passage is there, and when I
discover a passage having an opposite meaning, he "a;ks me where '
it is. You first quoted the passage which you say is in J^'ato, and f •
it is for you to point it out.
Mr. Cooper : I don’t know what you are talking about.
Mr. Bradlaugh : You soon will know what I am talking
about if you are indecent enough to continually interrupt. If i
you do not begrudge me this last speech, at least keep quiet. If
>
1
�63
fifty-nine years have not taught you the advantage of imitating
younger men by listening patiently to opposite opinions, such a
lesson may be taught you here to-night.
Mr. Cooper: Hold your impudence. (Loud cries of “Keep
your temper.”)
r
Mr. Bradlaugh: With regard to the agricultural population,
that of England would be as little likely to preserve and read the
works of Paine or of Cobbett, as were the agriculturists of the
South of France to read works that were not recognised by the
Roman Catholic Church. I submit that no greater illustration
in favour of my friend could be drawn from the conduct of the
agriculturists in France, than I could draw, on the contrary, from
the agricultural population in this country, and even in the
counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, where the people are
ignorant in the extreme, many of them in these enlightened days
being unable to read or write. They have plenty of clergymen—*
take Harwich and for miles round, it is a place where you will find,
an agricultural population as ignorant, as pious, and as poor as any
in England. Our friend again appealed to conscience, without
having devoted one thought to the way in which he accounted
for conscience. Never having permitted himself to explain one
of the points challenged by me, he talks about conscience as if it
had never been referred to in my speeches. Feeling that his posi
tion was weak, and knowing that he had made nothing of it, he
comes to the old and oft-tried death-bed argument to frighten
those whom he cannot convince. (Cheers.) I ask you, will you
think yourselves the better men that you are frightened into this
conscience dogma, which you could not reasonably believe, and
which you are asked to accept from fear, though you rejected it when
you said there was not evidence enough to convince you ? When
he thus deals with death-beds, is it, does he think, to have some
effect on the conclusion of the debate ? If he search for death
bed arguments, he may find enough for his own refutation. He
has appealed to the cross, and I accept his challenge, and ask him
what were the dying words of Christ himself? “ My God! my
God ! why hast thou forsaken me ?” If he who claimed to be
God and man was so deserted in his dying moments, what hope
? Better recommend salvation by your own manly
thought your own efforts for the development of human hap
piness. My friend says that morality used to be taught in this
room when he was here, and implies that the reverse is now the
case. What call you morality ? Is that a moral act which tends
to the greatest happiness of the greatest number according to the
knowledge of the actor ? No other definition can you give. I
challenge all of you who stand before me whether in every lecture,
teaching, or preaching by me—if you will have it so, whether the
burthen of my lecture has not been the inculcation of morality ?
j
�64
c
II
3
s'
t
t
S
n
b
b
d>
v
I
tj
S<
tl
V
C(
v>
g
tl
Hi
C
ft
r<
ci
P
al
T
h
W
h
d
J it
•' it
The Freethinkers have not fallen away from the cause of truth
and morality. When you presume to deal with myself and my
audience her -, as if we were schoolboys still and you teacher,
you should be prepared with solid instruction as justification for
your presumption, and when you wish men not to laugh at you,
you should have some reason better than your age—something
more argumentative than impudence. You should, at least,
km w better what you are talking about. (Loud cries of question,
question, hear, hear, and cheers.) When the construction of
terms is referred to, and you tell me more than twice that you do
•«. not understand the difference between sequence and command, I am
obliged to tell you that you do not understand the commonest rudimeuts of language, and are unfitted to conduct a grave discussion ;
and when 5 ou say you “ never did say so and so,” that you have a
short nn mory. I can only add that you are either unable to
argue at ail, or you are disingenuously concealing what you know
would be fatal to your position. (Cheers.) There has not been,
I repeat, an attempt by you at logic or argument. How is it that
the friends whom I saw around Mr. Cooper last night have this
evening fled from his flag ? I saw la^t evening, and I was pleased to
see sitting on that side, men of intellect, men of talent—equal to
the task of weighing the force of an argument, addressed to them,
and. knowing the exact value of words. How is it that they
were brought here to wait on victory, but have not returned here
to witness the fray, now the hope for victory has become defeat ?
Is it because there was not on the part of the Chr.stian
advocate even the shadow of a pretence of having advanced any
thing in favour of his side the question ? It is because they came
here seeking in me one who was, as you have declared, too igno
rant to meet you, but notwithstanding I am now here to fulfil
my part, and show that even my ignorance transcends your
knowledge.
"
Mr. Cooper : Is that argument ?
Mr Bradlaugh : I know it is not argument, but it is as good
argument as “gibberish;” it is as good argument and quite as
forcible as the “ impudence,” or that you did not come here to
meet Charles Bradlaugh; that you are not to be answered because
you are fifty-nine years of age. It would have been better for both
of us to have discussed carefully, and to have reasoned together
step by step till we reached the height of this great argument which,
deserves great discussion; but when an attempt is made to override
discussion, I am obliged to turn round, and to show thecause of such
hardiness which lies either in his utter inability or his desire to
avoid the question altogether. (Cheers). I leave the matter in your
hands. I admit that I am not the ablest or the fittest represen
tative the Freethought party might have put forward. But
although I am not the best I have honestly upheld the principles
�/
-of those who trusted their cause to me, and if I have failed, I
have failed in consequence of the weakness of th* advocate; but
you, with the cause of God on your side, and boasting of your
great intellect, you thinking you had only a poor piece of igno
rance to combat—I say you have only made a shadow of a de
fence. On your side has been all the pretence. I remember
when at the Wigan Hail, at the U. P. Kirk, Glasgow, at Man
chester, and here you refused to meet me. (Loud cries of question,
question, cheers, and hisses ) Why, there is not a shred of the
question left. (Great cheering.) I say again it was in the public
Hall at Wigan, it was in the U. P. Kirk, Glasgow, in this Hall of
Science, in the chapel at Manchester, that you told me I was too
ignorant to be met, that I could not understand the meaning of
a&s®
AStow, I words. We have to-night an illustration of your learning when,
sdj .hi ■_ I in the language most commonly spoken throughout Europe and
edF I the world, we hear the word p'ere (father) pronounced pary
rfjae^ I (laughter), proving the extent of your erudition. It would
have been improper for me to deal with this stupid blunder if he
had not been used to boast of the acquisition of fourteen lan
guages, and summoned the world as scholars to hear his champion
■wnttw’ | lectures. Are you then the Christian who placards the walls of
r*®?drio I cities professing to meet all Freethinkers in England with a view
3V!TOOtjf’ | to convert their doubts ? Are you^ar excellence the person who
&MT«Sif': I has read every book carefully to find evidence and argument for
sow -sift I the existence of God, who claim to be teacher and preacher of
■shgfirf-9- I Christian doctrine, bridging over centuries of history with irre
f4d;«»S# | fragable evidences ? It is to be hoped that when it is necessary
i ,m»* o* I to find a champion for the tottering orthodoxy and an argument
MOV-S^Ilf I in favour of a blind belief, some abler representative will be found
i .atflWB
by the Christian body to whom to trust the marshalling of its
forces for another defeat.
----- o----a .tM .
Mr. Bradlaugh sat down amidst loud cheering, which was re
newed again and again. This concluded the discussion, and a
yyMhi'dT
formal vote of thanks having been passed to the chairman, the
meeting separated.
^aimp
�’T-
APPENDIX*
e
f
j
(
1
*
t
5
d
S
1
J
3
ft
rl
c
P
a
£
.
n
hd
dj|
it|j
A PLEA FOR ATHEISM,
CrTTLESPiE says that £*an Atheist propagandist seems a non*
descript monster created by nature in a moment of madness.” Despite this opinion, it is as the propagandist of
Atheism that I pen the following lines, in the hope that I
may succeed in removing some few of the many prejudices
which have been created against not only the actual holders
of Atheistic opinions, but also against those wrongfully suspected of entertaining such ideas. Men who have been
famous for depth of thought, for excellent wit, or great
genius, have been recklessly assailed as Atheists, by those
who lacked the high qualifications against which the spleen
of the calumniators was directed. Thus, not only has
Voltaire been without ground accused of Atheism, but
Bacon, Locke, and Bishop Berkeley himself, have, amongst
others, been denounced by thoughtless or unscrupulous
pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the accusation being that they manifested an inclination to improve
human thought.
It is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation
to speak in unmeasured language of Atheism as favouring
immorality, and of Atheists as men whose conduct is necessarily vicious, and who have adopted atheistic views as a
desperate defiance against a Deity justly offended by the
‘ badness of their lives. Such persons urge that amongst
< the proximate causes of Atheism are vicious training, im- ■
; moral and profligate companions, licentious living, and the <
like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his “ Instructions on Christian Theology,” goes so far as to declare that“ nearly all
the Atheists upon record have been men of extremely
debauched and vile conduct.” Such language from the
Christian advocate is not surprising, but there are others
who, professing great desire , the spread of Ereethought,
�A PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
.
:
■
r
3
and with pretensions to rank amongst acute and liberal
thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and its teachings
cold, barren, and negative. In this brief essay I shall
except to each of the above allegations, and shall en
deavour to demonstrate that Atheism affords greater possi
bility for human happiness than any system yet based on
Theism, or possible to be founded thereon, and that the
lives of true Atheists must be more virtuous, because more
human, than those of the believers in Deity, the humanity
of the devout believer often finding itself neutralised by
a faith with which it is necessarily in constant collision.
The devol ee piling the faggots at the auto da fe of an
heretic, and that heretic his son, might, notwithstanding, be
a good father in every respect but this. Heresy, in the
eyes of the believer, is highest criminahty, and outweighs
all claims of family or affection.
Atheism, properly understood, is in nowise a cold,
barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful
affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion
and action of highest humanity.
Let Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned
—its defence unheard—on the ex parte slanders of the professional preachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose courage
is bold enough while the pulpit protects the sermon, but
whose valour becomes tempered with discretion when a free
platform is afforded and discussion claimed ; nor misjudged
because it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so
unpopular as to render its advocacy impolitic. The best
policy against all prejudice is to assert firmly the verity.
The Atheist does not say “ There is no God,” but he says,
“ I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea
of God ; the word ‘ God ’ is to me a sound conveying no
clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because
I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the
conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that
he is unable to define it to me.” If you speak to the
Atheist of God as creator, he answers that the conception
of creation is impossible. We are utterly unable to construe
it in thought as possible that the complement of existence has
been either increased or diminished, much less can we con
ceive an absolute origination of substance. We cannot con
ceive either, on the one hand, nothing becoming something,
■■
.
-
’
�A PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
or oil the other, something becoming nothing. The Theist
who speaks of God creating the universe, must either sup
pose that Deity evolved it out of himself, or that he pro
duced it from nothing. But the Theist cannot regard the
■ universe as evolution of Deity, because this would identify
Universe and Deiiy, and be Pantheism rather than Theism.
There would be no distinction of substance—in fact no crea1 tion. Nor can the Theist regard the universe as created
out of nothing, because Deity is, according to him, necessa
rily eternal and infinite. His existence being eternal and
infinite, precludes the possibility of the conception of
vacuum to be filled by the universe if created. No one can
even think of any point of existence in extent or duration
and say, here is the point of separation between the creator
and the created. Indeed, it is not possible for the Theist to
imagine a beginning to the universe. It is not possible to
conceive either an absolute commencement, or an absolute
termination of existence; that is, it is impossible to con
ceive beginning before which you have a period when the
universe has yet to be; or to conceive an end, after which
the universe, having been, no longer exists. It is impos
sible in thought to originate or annihilate the universe.
The Atheist affirms that he cognises to-day effects, that
these are at the same time causes and effects—causes to the
effects they precede, effects to the causes they follow.
Cause is simply everything without which the effect would
not result, and with which it must result. Cause is the
means to an end, consummating itself in that end. The
Theist who argues for creation must assert a point of time,
that is, of duration, when the created did not yet exist. At
this point of time either something existed or nothing;,
but something must have existed, for out of nothing no
thing can come. Something must have existed, because the
point fixed upon is that of the duration of something.
This something must have been either finite or infinite
if finite, it could not have been God, and if the something
were infinite, then creation was impossible, as it is impos
sible to add to infinite existence.
j
If you leave the question of creation and deal with the
‘ government of the universe, the difficulties of Theism are ?
by no means lessened. The existence of evil is then a
terrible stumbling-block to the Theist.
Pain, misery,
�A PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
crime, poverty, confront the advocate of eternal goodness,,
and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of
Deity as all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful. Evil is either
caused by God, or exists independently; but it cannot be
caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good;
nor can it exist independently, as in that case he would nofe
be all-powerful. Evil must either have had a beginning,
or it must be eternal; but, according to the Theist, it can
not be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it
have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have ori
ginated in God, or outside God; but, according to the
Theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good,
and out of all-goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil
have originated outside God, for, according to the Theist,
God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or
beyond infinity.
To the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely
different aspect. He declares that evil is a result, but not
a result from God or Devil. He affirms that by conduct
founded on knowledge of the laws of existence it is possible
to ameliorate and avoid present evil, and, as our knowledge
increases, to prevent its future recurrence.
Some declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check
to crime. They allege that the Atheist may commit murder,
lie, or steal without fear of any consequences. To try the
actual value of this argument, it is not unfair to ask—Do
Theists ever steal? If yes, then in each such theft, the
belief in God and his power to punish has been inefficient
as a preventive of the crime. Do Theists ever lie or mur
der ? If yes, the same remark has further force—hell-fire fail
ing against the lesser as against the greater crime. The
fact is that those who use such an argument overlook a great
truth—i.e., that all men seek happiness, though in very
diverse fashions. Ignorant and miseducated men often mistake the true path to happiness, and commit crime in the
endeavour to obtain it. Atheists hold that by teaching
mankind the real road to human happiness, it is possible to
keep them from the by-ways of criminality and error.
Atheists would teach men to be moral now, not because God
offers as an inducement reward by and by, but because in
the virtuous act itself immediate good is ensured to the doer
and the circle surrounding him. Atheism would preserve
�A. PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
man from lying, stealing, murdering now, not from fear of
an eternal agony after death, but because these crimes make
this life itself a course of misery.
While Theism, asserting God as the creator and governor
- of the universe, hinders and checks man’s efforts by de. daring God’s will to be the sole directing and controlling
j power, Atheism, by declaring all events to be in accordance
with natural laws—that is, happening in certain ascertain
able sequences — stimulates man to discover the best condi
tions of life, and offers him the most powerful inducements
to morality. While the Theist provides future happi
ness for a scoundrel repentant on his death-bed, Atheism
affirms present and certain happiness for the man who does
his best to live here so well as to have little cause for re
penting hereafter.
Theism declares that God dispenses health and inflicts
disease, and sickness and illness are regarded by the Theist
as visitations from an angered Deity, to be borne with meek
ness and content. Atheism declares that physiological
knowledge may preserve us from disease by preventing our
infringing the law of health, and that sickness results not
as the ordinance of offended Deity, but from ill-ventilated
dwellings and workshops, bad and insufficient food, exces
sive toil, mental suffering, exposure to inclement weather,
and the like—all these finding root in poverty, the chief
source of crime and disease ; that prayers and piety afford
no protection against fever, and that if the human being be
kept without food he will starve as quickly whether he be
Theist or Atheist, theology being no substitute for bread.
J* *
Iconoclast.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Discussion between Mr Thomas Cooper and Mr Charles Bradlaugh
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cooper, Thomas
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 65, [5] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes appendix: A plea for atheism / "Iconoclast" i.e. Charles Bradlaugh. (5 unnumbered pages at end). Annotations in pencil and crayon. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1864?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N083
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Discussion between Mr Thomas Cooper and Mr Charles Bradlaugh), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God-Proof
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fe3bdc2c234c7261f15cb53eb21b8228.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ndHgsf5V6ZtQLhlDgs1PZp21kph7x4kTe4prmpw49RA6%7EahgoIYX7hiW0GCxClSYwvF-S8DzfmAXGbDXH8%7E0-qsnPjs4u7HAeWx-biDDsvos6lcBmLTvKxYR3NF7a3oZDB4S09EpsGaqxGtj1TvH22egu012NEWLJ4ra55Oog4wn9uF4OpdW7D8FammdTIggGy3CwbE9TYTcv2jk7jn%7EEkCtblP8rrDtzwGUHsCdrpa0AlqFCXw4SoW8SYBP28FAevI1nQhMZOtAayFmbN8gwg5aCkEAs65j%7E-3HaAqmOmkKmiQkLy3biZ2vCnol50H4Zr8W3gCAtFFjP%7Et%7EuzER0g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
212361c2434527130255a9486667c0ec
PDF Text
Text
NO
W
NATlONALSECUlARSOCffil-Y
NEW LIFE OF JACOB.
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
It is pleasant work to present to the reader sketches of God’s chosen
people. More especially is it an agreeable task to recapitulate ^the in
teresting events occurring during the life of a man whom God has
loved. Jacob was the son of Isaac; the grandson of Abraham. These
three men were so free from fault, their lives so unobjectionable, that
the God of the Bible delighted to be called the “ God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” It is true Abraham owned
slaves, was not exact to the truth, and, on one occasion, turned his
wife and child out to the mercies of a sandy desert. That Isaac in
some sort followed his father’s example and disingenuous practices,,
and that Jacob was without manly feeling, a sordid, selfish, unfraternal
cozener, a cowardly trickster, a cunning knave, but they must never
theless have been good men, for God was “the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The name Jacob
js n0^
inappropriate. Kalisch says—“ This appellation, if taken in its obvious etvmological meaning, implies a deep ignominy : for the root
from which it is derived
signifies to deceive, to defraud, and in
such a despicable meaning the same form of the word is indeed used
elsewhere. (Jeremiah ix., v. 3.) Jacob would, therefore, be nothing
else but the crafty impostor; in this sense Esau, in the heat of his
animosity, in fact clearly explains the word, “justly is his name called
Jacob (cheat) because he has cheated me twice.” (Genesis xxvii., v. 36.)
According to the ordinary orthodox Bible chronology, Jacob was born
about 1836 or 1837 b.c., that is, about 2168 years from “in thebegin
ning,” his father Isaac being then sixty years of age. There is a diffi
culty connected with Holy Scripture chronology, which would be in
superable were it not that we have the advantage of spiritual aids m
elucidation of the text. This difficulty arises from the fact that tim
chronology of the Bible, in this respect, like the major portion o
Bible history, is utterly unreliable. But we do not look to the Old or
New Testament for mere common-place, every-day facts; or if we do,
severe will be the disappointment of the truth-seeker; we look there
for mysteries, miracles, paradoxes, and perplexities, and have no dif
ficulties in finding the objects of our search. Jacob was born, together
with his twin brother, Esau, in consequence of special entreaty ad
dressed by Isaac to the Lord on behalf of Rebekah, to whom he had been
married about nineteen years, and who was yet childless. Infidel
physiologists (and it is a strange, though not unaccountable fact, that
all who are physiologists are also in so far infidel) assert that prayer
would do 1’ttle to repair the consequence of such disease, or such
�NEV' LIFE OF JACOB.
2
abnormal organic structure, as would compel sterility. But our able
clergy are agreed that the Bible was not intended to teach us science;
or, at any rate, weSbve learned that its attempts in that direction are
miserable failures. Its mission is to teach the unteachabie ; to
enable us to comprehend the incomprehensible. Before Jacob was
born, God decreed that lie and his descendants should obtain the
mastery over Esau and his descendants, “ the elder shall serve the
younger.”* The God of the Bible is a just God, but it is hard for
weak'flesh to discover the justice of this proemial decree, which so
sentenced to servitude the children of Esau before their father’s birth.
Jacob came into the world holding by his brother’s heel, like some
eowardly knave in tWfe$battle of life, who, not daring to break a gap in
the hedge of conventional prejudice, which bars his path, is yet ready
enough to follow some bolder warrior, and to gather the fruits of his
courage. “ And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a
man of the field: and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.”
One day, Esau returned from his hunting, faint and wearied to the
very point of death. He was hungry, and came to Jacob, his twin and
only brother, saying, “ Feed me, I pray thee ”f ‘‘ for I am exceedingly
faint.In a like case would not any man so entreated immediately
offer to the other the best at his command, the more especially when
that other is his only brother, born at the same time, from the same
womb, suckled at the same breast, fed under the same roof? But
Jacob was not a man and a brother, he was one of God’s chosen people,
and one who had been honoured by God’s prenatal selection. £‘ If a
man come unto me and hate not his brother, he cannot be my disciple.”
So taught Jesus the Jew, in after time, but in this earlier age .Jacob
the Jew, in practice, anticipated the later doctrine. It is one of the
misfortunes of theologv, if not its crime, that profession of love to God
is often accompanied with bitter and active hate of man. Jacob was
one of the founders of the Jewish race, and even in this their pre
historic age, the instinct for driving a hard bargain seems strongly de
veloped. “ Jacob said ” to Esau, “ Sell me this day thy birthright.”
The famished man vainly expostulated, and the birthright was sold for
a mess of pottage. If to-day one man should so meanly and cruelly
take advantage of his brother's necessities to rob him of his birthright,
all good and honest men would shun him as an unbrotherly scoundrel,
and most contemptible knave; yet, less than 4.000 years ago, a very dif
ferent standard of morality must have prevailed. Indeed, if God is
unchangeable, divine notions of honour and honesty must to-day be
widely different from those of our highest men. God approved and
endorsed Jacob's conduct. His approval is shown by his love, after
wards expressed for Jacob, his endorsement by his subsequent atten
tion to Jacob's welfare. We may learn from this tale, so preg-nnt with instruction, that any deed which to the worldly and
sensible man appears like knavery while understood literally; becomes
to the devout and prayerful man an act of piety, when understood
* Genesis, chap, xxv., v. 23.
■ f Ibid, chap, xxv., v. 30.
| Douay Version.
�NEW LIFE OF JACOB.
3
spiritually. Much faith is required to thoroughly understand this;
per example—it looks like swindling to collect poor children’s half
pence and farthings in the Sunday schools for missionary purposes
abroad, and to spend thereout two or three hundred pounds in an
annual jubilatory dinner for well-fed pauper parsons at home ; and so
thought the noble Lord who wrote to the Times under the initials
S. G. O. If he had possessed more faith and less sense he would have
seen the piety and completely overlooked the knavery of the transac
tion. Pious preachers and clever commentators declare that Esau
despised his birthright. I do not deny that they might back
their declaration by scripture quotations, but fitlo deny the narrative
ought to convey any such impression. Esau’s words were, “ Behold
lam at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright be to me?”
Isaac growing old, and fearing from his physical infirmities the near
approach of death, was anxious to bless Esau before he died, and
directed him to take quiver and bow and go out in the field to hunt
some venison for a savory meat, such as old Isaac loved. Esau departed,
but when he had left his father’s presence in order to fulfil his request,
Jacob appeared on the scene. Instigated by his mother, he, by an
abject stratagem, passed himself off as Esau. With a savory meat
prepared by Rebekah, he came into his father’s presence, and Isaac
said, “ Who art thou, my son ? ” Lying lips are an abomination to the
Lord. The Lord loved Jacob, yet Jacob lied to his old blind father,
saying, “ I am Esau thy first-born.” Isaac had some doubts : these
are manifested by his inquiring how it was that the game was killed so
quickly. Jacob, whom God loved, in a spirit of shameless blasphemy
replied, “ Because the Lord thy God brought it to me.” Isaac still
hesitated, fancying that he recognised the voice to be the voice of
Jacob, and again questioned him, saying, “Art thou my very son
Esau? ’ God is the God of truth and loved Jacob, yet Jacob said,
“ I am.” Then Isaac blessed Jacob, believing that he was blessing
Esau : and God permitted the fraud to be successful, and himself also
blessed Jacob. In that extraordinary composition known as the Epistle
to the Hebrews, we are told that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob. But
what faith had Isaac ? Faith that Jacob was Esau ? His belief was
produced by deceptive appearances. His faith resulted from false
representations. And there are very many men in the w o'rid who have
no better foundation for their religious faith than had Isaac when he
blessed Jacob, believing him to be Esau. In the Douay Bible I find
the following note on this remarkable narrative“ St. Augustine
(L. contra mendacium, c. 10J, treating at large upon this place, excuseth
Jacob from a lie, because this whole passage was mysterious, as relating
to the preference which was afterwards to be given to the Gentiles
before the carnal Jews, which Jacob, by prophetic light, might under
stand. So far it is certain that the first birthright, both by divine
election and by Esau’s free cession, belonged to Jacob; so that :p
there were any lie in the case, it would be no more than an officious
and venial one.” How glorious to be a patriarch, and to have a real
saint labouring years after your death to twist your lies into truth by
aid of prophetic light. Lying is at all times most disreputable, but at
�4
NEW LIFE OF JACOB.
the deathbed the crime is rendered more heinous. The death hour
would have awed many men into speaking the truth, but it had little
effect on Jacob. Although Isaac was about to die, this greedy knave
cared not, so that he got from the dying man the sought-for prize.
God is said to love righteousness and hate iniquity, yet he loved the
iniquitous Jacob, and hated the honest Esau. All knaves are tinged
more or less with cowavdice. Jaaob was no exception to the rule.
His brother, enraged at the deception practised upon Isaac, threatened
to kill Jacob. Jacob was warned by his mother and fled. Induced
by Rebekah, Isaac charged Jacob to marry one of Laban’s daughters.
On the way to Haran, where Laban dwelt, Jacob rested and slept.
While sleeping he dreamed ; ordinarily, dreams have little significance,
but in the Bible they are more important. Some of the most weighty
and vital facts (?) of the Bible are communicated in dreams, and rightly
so ; if the men had been wideawake they would have probably rejected
the’revelation as absurd. So much does that prince of darkness, the
devil, influence mankind against the Bible in the day time, that it is
when all is dark, and our eyes are closed, and the senses dormant, that
God’s mysteries are most” clearly seen and understood. Jacob “saw
in his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof
touching heaven; the angels also of God ascending and descending by
it, and the Lord leaning upon the ladder.”* In the ancient temples of
India, and in the mysteries of Mithra, the seven-stepped ladder by
which the spirits ascended to heaven is a prominent feature, and one
of probably far higher antiquity than the age of Jacob. Did paganism
furnish the groundwork for the patriarch’s dream? “No man hath
seen God at any time.” God is “invisible.” Yet Jacob saw’ the
invisible God, whom no man hath seen or can see, either standing above
a ladder or leaning upon it. True, it was all a dream. Yet God spoke
to Jacob, but perhaps that was a delusion too. We find by scripture,
that God threatens to send to some “ strong delusions that they might
believe a lie ancl be damned.” Poor Jacob was much frightened; as
any one might be, to dream of God leaning on so long a ladder. What
if it bad broken, and the dreamer underneath it? Jacob’s fears were
not so powerful but that his shrewdness and avarice had full scope in a
sort of half-vow, half-contract, made in the morning. Jacob said,
“ If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and
will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I shall come
again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Lord be mv
God.” The inference deducible from this conditional statement is,
that if God failed to complete the items enumerated by Jacob, then
the latter would have nothing to do with him. Jacob was a shrewd
Jewr, w'ho would have laughed to scorn the preaching “ lake no thought,
saving, w’hat shall we eat? or, what shall we drink? or, wherewithal
shall we be clothed ? ”
After this contract Jacob went on his journey, and reached the
'lipuse of his mother’s brother, Laban, into whose service he entered.
u Diamond cut diamond ” would be an appropriate heading to the tale
* Genesis, c. xxviii., vv. 12 and 13, Douay version
�5
NEW LIFE OF JACOH.
which gives the transactions between Jacob the Jew and Laban the
son of Nahor. Laban had two daughters. Rachel, the youngest, was
“ beautiful and well-favoured; ” Leah, the elder, was <£ blear-eyed.”
Jacob served for the pretty one; but on the wedding day Laban made
a feast, and when evening came gave Jacob the ugly Leah instead
of the pretty Rachel. Jacob being (according to Josephus) both in
drink and in the dark, it was morning ere he discovered his error.
After this Jacob served for Rachel also, and then the remainder of the
chapter of Jacob’s servitude to Laban is but the recital of a series of
frauds and trickeries. Jacob embezzled Laban’s property, and Laban
misappropriated and changed Jacob’s wages. In fact, if Jacob had not
possessed the advantage of divine aid, he would probably have failed in
the endeavour to cheat his master, but God, who says “ thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour’s house, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s,” en
couraged Jacob in his career of covetous criminalty. At last Jacob,
having amassed a large quantity of property, determined to abscond
from his employment, and taking advantage of his uncle’s absence at
sheepshearing, “ he stole away unawares,” taking with him his wives,
his children, flocks, herds, and goods. To crown the whole, Rachel,
worthy wife of a husband so fraudulent, stole her father’s gods. In the
present day the next phase would be the employment of Mr. Serjeant
Vericute, of the special detective department, and the issue of bills as
follows:—
“ONE HUNDRED SHEKELS
REWARD.
Absconded, with a. large amount of property,
JACOB, THE JEW.
Information to be given to Laban, the Syrian, at Haran, in the
East, or to Mr. Serjeant Vericute, Scotland Yard.”
But in those days, God’s ways were not as our ways. God came to
Laban in a dream and compounded the felony, saying, “ Take beed
thou speak not anything harshly against Jacob.”* This would
probably prevent Laban giving evidence in a police court against Jacob,
and thus save him from transportation or penal servitude. After a re
conciliation and treaty had been effected between Jacob and Laban,
the former went on his way “ and the angels of God met him.” Angels
are not included in the circle with which I have at present made ac
quaintance, and I hesitate, therefore, to comment on the meeting be
tween Jacob and the angels. Balaam’s ass, ata later period, shared the
good fortune which was the lot of Jacob, for that animal also had a
meeting with an angel. Jacob was the grandson of the faithful Abra
ham to whom angels also appeared. Perhaps angelic apparitions are
limited to asses and the faithful. On this point I do not venture to
assert, and but timidly suggest. It is somewhat extraordinary that
Jacob should have manifested no surprise at meeting a host of
angels. Still more worthy of note is it that our good translators
* Genesis, c. xxxi.. v. 24, Douay version.
�6
NEW LIFE OF JACOB.
elevate the same words into “ angels” in verse 1, which they degrade
into “messengers” in verse 3. John Bellamy, in his translation, says
the “angels” were not immortal angels, and it is very probable John
Bellamy was right. Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau, and
heard that the latter was coming to meet him followed by 400 men.
Jacob, a timorous knave at best, became terribly afraid. He, doubtless,,
remembered the wrongs inflicted upon Esau, the cruel extortion of the
birthright, and the fraudulent obtainment of the dying Isaac's blessing.
He, therefore, sent forward to his brother Esau a large present as a
peace offering. He also divided the remaindei- of his flocks, herds,
and goods, into two divisions, that if one were smitten, the other might
escape ; sending these on, he was left alone. While alone he wrestled
with either a man, or an angel, or God. The text says “ a man,” the
heading to the chapter says “an angel,” and Jacob himself says that
he has “ seen God face to face.” W hether God, angel, or man, it was
not a fair wrestle, and were the present editor of Bell’s Life referee, he
would, unquestionably, declare it to be most unfair to touch “ the
hollow of Jacob’s thigh” so as to put it “ out of joint,” and conse
quently, award the result of the match to Jacob. Jacob, notwithstanding
the injury, still kept his grip, and the apocryphal wrestler, finding him
self no match at fair struggling, and that foul play was unavailing,
now trie 1 entreaty, and said, “Let me go, for the day breaketh.”
Spirits never appear in the day time, when if they did appear, they
could be seen and examined; they are often more visible in the twilight,
in the darkness, and in dreams. Jacob would not let go, his life’s in
stinct for bargaining prevailed, and probably, because he could get
nothing else, he insisted on his opponent’s blessing, before he let him
go. In the Roman Catholic version of the Bible there is the following ’
note :—“ Chap, xxxii., v. 24. A man, etc. This was an angel in
human shape, as we learn from Osee (c. xii. v. 4). He is called God
(xv. 28 and 30), because he represented the son of God. This wrestling,
in which Jacob, assisted by God, was a match for an angel, was so
ordered (v. 28) that he might learn by this experiment of the divine
assistance, that neither Esau, nor any other man, should have power
to hurt him.” How elevating it must be to the true believer to con
ceive God helping Jacob to wrestle with his own representative. Read
prayerfully, doubtless, the spiritual and inner meaning of the text (If
it have one) is most transcendental. Read sensibly, the literal and only
meaning the text conveys is, that of an absurd tradition of an ignorant
age. On the morrow Jacob met Esau.
“ And Esau ran to, meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck,
and kissed him; an&tliey wept.”
“ And he said, Wlitat meanest thou by all this drove which I met ?
And he said, these are to find grace in the sight of my lord.”
“ And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast
unto thyself.”
The following expressive comment, from the able pen of Mr. Holyoake, deserves transcription:—“ The last portion of the history of
�NEW LIFE OF JACOB.
7
Jacob and Esau is very instructive. The coward fear of Jacob to meet
his. brother is well delineated. He is subdued by a sense of his
treacherous guilt. The noble forgiveness of Esau invests his memory
with more respect than all the wealth Jacob won, and all the blessings
of the Lord he received. Could I change my name from Jacob to
Esau, I would do it in honour of him. The whole incident has a dra
matic interest. There is nothing in the Old or New Testament equal
to it. The simple magnanimity of Esau is scarcely surpassed by any
thing in Plutarch. In the conduct of Esau, we see the triumph of
time, of filial affection, and generosity ovei’ a deep sense of execrable
treachery, unprovoked and irrevocable injury.” Was not Esau a mer
ciful, noble, generous man ? Yet God hated him, and shut him out of
all share in the promised land. Was not Jacob a mean, prevaricating
knave, a crafty, abject cheat ? Yet God loved and rewarded him. How
great are the mysteries in this Bible representation of an all-good and
all-loving God, thus hating good, and loving evil. At the time of the
wrestling, a promise was made, which is afterwards repeated by God to
Jacob, that the latter should not be any more called Jacob, but Israel.
This promise was not strictly kept; the name “ Jacob” being used
repeatedly, mingled with that of Israel in the after part of Jacob’s
history. Jacob had a large family; his sons are reputedly the heads
of the twelve Jewish tribes. We have not much space to notice them :
suffice it to say that one Joseph, who was much loved by his father,was
sold bv his brethren into slavery. This transaction does not seem to
have called for any special reproval from God. Joseph, who from early
life was skilled in dreams, succeeded by interpreting the visions of
Pharaoh in obtaining a sort of premiership in Egypt; while filling which
office, he managed to act like the Russells and the Greys of our own
time. We are told that he “placed his father and his brethren, and
gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land.”
Joseph made the parallel still stronger between himself and a more
modern head of the Treasury Bench; he not only gave his own family
the best place in tlie land, but he also, by a trick of statecraft, obtained
the land for the king, made slaves of the people, and made it a law over
the land of Egypt that the king should be entitled to one-fifth of the
produce, always, of course, excepting and saving the rights of the priest.
Judah, another brother, sought to have burned a woman by whom he
had a child. A third, named Reuben, was guilty of the grossest vice,
equallea only by that of Absalom the son of David; of Simeon and
Levi, two more of Jacob’s sons, it is said, that “instruments of cruelty
were in their habitations their conduct, as detailed in the 34th chapter
of Genesis, alike shocks by its treachery and its mercilessness. After
Jacob had heard that his son Joseph was governor in Egypt, but before
he had journeyed farther than Beersheba, God spake unto him in the
visions of the night, and probably forgetting that he had given him a
new name, or being more accustomed to the old one, said, “ Jacob,
Jacob,” and then told him to go down into Egypt, where Jacob died
after a residence of about seventeen years, when 147 years of age.
Before Jacob died he blessed, first the sons of Joseph, and then his own
children, and at the termination of his blessing to Ephraim and
�?
NEW LIFE OP JACOB.
Manasseh, we find the following speech addressed to Joseph, " Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took
out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.”
This speech implies warlike pursuits on the part of Jacob, of whic-h the
Bible gives no record, and which seems incompatible with his recorded
life. The sword of craft and the bow of cunning are the only weapons
in the use of which he was skilled. When his sons murdered and
robbed the Hivites, fear seems to have been Jacob’s most prominent
characteristic. It is not my duty, nor have I space here to advocate any
theory of interpretation, but it may be well to mention that many
learned men contend that the whole history of Jacob is but an allegory.
That the twelve patriarchs but typify the twelve signs of the zodiac, as
do the twelve great Gods of the Pagans, and twelve apostles of the
gospels. Those curious to investigate this theory for the purpose of
refutation or verification, should read the works of Sir William
Drummond, M. Dupuis, and the Rev. Robert Taylor.
From the history of Jacob, it is hard to draw any conclusions
favourable to the man whose life is narrated. To heap additional
epithets on his memory, would be but waste of time and space. I con
clude by regretting that if God loved one brother and aated another,
he should have so unfortunately selected for his love the one whose
whole career shows him in a most despicable light.
Printed and Published by Charles Brahlaugh and Annie Besant,
at 28, Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
New life of Jacob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N099
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (New life of Jacob), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jacob (Biblical Patriarch)
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ad2e5247ae1649781210545c1cdfd2ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aeLL9XS8Z%7Ey6LVs1HdbmSaChgV2z-1XjqgD8SHJLJO4EEPwNiXvzexbi5PpFLtF%7E0SpKPX73NuN8W5uC3uKASZCFiH6qKX19HAnPXS-rWtei0oslA1fsjfoIdLcCki6ZQYoZkmUJ2TXTq8XCzmTCimgQZjylHV18q3CcheLnf5RgiwsaXsEyjn-6ds%7Eo3Ix%7EChauwEfh6RPjVgBOPYns5wvmvapBQtzYkJGhhWZEGoOiPFExhtktwY426PNMzZjvrIPy0YpGV090CdpnU536SM4lrGspII-UA7dphS6kF3NKv4Y4H6vpnjeJxFcwXQzRIpV4aaa2ECkMVw82e3mgPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8ee05afcc4f58f1591070a4d60fe6be
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
IS THERE A GOD?
By CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
The initial difficulty is in defining the word “ God ”. It is
equally impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any pro
position unless there is at least an understanding, on the
part of the affirmer or denier, of the meaning of every
word used in the proposition. To me the word “God”
standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the
word repeatedly used even by men of education and refine
ment, and who have won reputation in special directions of
research, rather to illustrate their ignorance than to ex
plain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do affix
arbitrary meanings to the word “ God ”, but often these
meanings are in their terms self-contradictory, and usually
the definition maintained by one sect of Theists more or
less contradicts the definition put forward by some other
sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian Christian,
the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the
Calvinist, the word “God” will in each case be intended
to express a proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those
of the other sects. In this brief essay, which can by no
means be taken as a complete answer to the question
which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take
the explanation of the word “God” as given with great
carefulness by Dr. Robert Elint, Professor of Divinity in
the University of Edinburgh, in two works directed by
him against Atheism. He defines God (“ Antitheistic
Theories,” p. 1,) as “a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent,
omniscient, righteous and benevolent being who is dis
tinct from and independent of what he has created ” ; and
(“Theism”, p. 1,) as “a self-existent, eternal being, in
finite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and
goodness, the maker of heaven and earth”; and (p. 18,)
“the creator and preserver of nature, the governor of
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man ” ; (p. 18,)
�2
IS THERE A GOD ?
“ one infinite personal ” ; (p. 42,) “ the one infinite being ”
who “is a person—is a free and loving intelligence”;
(p. 59,) “the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite
beings”; (p. 65,) “not only the ultimate cause, but the
supreme intelligence”; and (p. 74,) “the supreme moral
intelligence is an unchangeable being”. That is, in the
above statements “ God” is defined by Professor Flint to
be : M supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omni
potent, omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, per
sonal being, creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven
and earth ; who is distinct from and independent of what he has
created, who is a free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the
governor of nations, the heavenly father and judge of man.
The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and
Son, from which this definition has been collected, form the
Baird Lectures in favor of Theism for the years 1876 and
1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved reputation as a
clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a Theistic
advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in
criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me
the definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that
a negative answer must be given to the question, Is there
such a God ? The association of the word “ supreme ” with
the word “ infinite ” as descriptive of a “ personal being ”
is utterly confusing. “Supreme” can only be used as
expressing comparison between the being to whom it is
applied, and some other being with whom that “ supreme ”
being is assumed to have possible points of comparison and
is then compared. But “ the one infinite being ” cannot be
compared with any other infinite being, for the wording of
the definition excludes the possibility of any other infinite
being, nor could the infinite being—for the word “one”
may be dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthink
able—be compared with any finite being. “ Supreme” is
an adjective of relation and is totally inapplicable to “the
infinite”. It can only be applied to one of two or more
finites. “Supreme” with “omnipotent” is pleonastic.
If it is said that the word “supreme” is now properly
used to distinguish between the Creator and the created,
the governor and that which is governed, then it is clear
that the word “supreme” would have been an inappli
cable word of description to “theone infinite being ” prior
to creation, and this would involve the declaration that the
�IS THERE A GOD?
3
exact description of the unchangeable has been properly
changed, which is an absurdity. The definition affirms
“creation”, that is, affirms “ God” existing prior to such
creation—i.e., then the sole existence; but the word
“ supreme ” could not then apply. An existence cannot be
described as “highest” when there is none other ; there
fore, none less high. The word “ supreme” as a word of
description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet
Professor Flint himself says (“Anti-Theistic Theories”,
p. 132), “ that reason, when in quest of an ultimate expla
nation of things, imperatively demands unity, and that only
a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the name of
U philosophy ”. Professor Flint has given no explanation
of the meaning he attaches to the word “ self-existent ”.
Nor, indeed, as he given any explanation of any of his
words of description. By self-existent I mean that to which
you cannot conceive antecedent. By “infinite” I mean
immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable ; i.e., that of which I
cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By
‘(eternal ” I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which
I cannot predicate limitation of duration or progression of
duration.
“ Nature ” is with me the same as “ universe ”, the same
as “ existence ”; i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all
phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be neces
sary for the happening of each and every phsenomenon. It
is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal,
infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discon
tinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the
possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think
forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have
no meaning for the word “ create ” except to denote change
of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely
unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“ Lectures and Dis
cussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new ap
pearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has
originated any new existence ; that we are utterly unable to
think that the complement of existence has ever been either
increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
.Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God ” as existing “ dis
tinct from, and independent of, what he has created ”. But
what can such words mean when used of the “ infinite ? ”
�IS THERE A GOD ?
Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the
“ universe ” existing distinct from God mean in addition to ?
and in other place than ? or, have the words no meaning ?
Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would
be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the
same as I should mean if I used the same words in the
highest possible degree of any human being. Here I
maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his
examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteous
ness and benevolence are two of the words of descrip
tion included in the definition of this creator and governor
of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create
men and govern nations, so that the men act crimi
nally and the nations seek to destroy one another in
war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256)
“ that God could have originated a sinless moral system”,
and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made
many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their
own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have
created only such angels as were sure to keep their first
estate ”. But it is inaccurate to describe a “ God ” as right
eous or benevolent who, having the complete power to
originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have origi
nated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were
not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of
God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot
be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human
beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to
be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevo
lent in “ God ” to contrive and create a hell in which he is
to torment the human beings who have sinned because
made by him in sin. “ God ”, if omnipotent and omnis
cient, could just as easily, and much more benevolently,
have contrived that there should never be any sinners, and,
therefore, never any need for hell or torment.
The Bev. B. A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this
question, says:—
“ ‘Either,’ argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, ‘God could
make a world without suffering, or he could not. If he
could and did not, he is not all-good. If he could not, he
is not all-powerful.’ The reply is, What do you mean by
all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile
things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that
�IS THERE A GOD ?
5
God is all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first en
joying immunity from suffering, and yet possessed of no
bility of character, is a self-contradictory conception.”
That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a “sinless moral
system from the first is a self-contradictory conception ”.
It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations
arranging one set of cannibals to eat, and another set of
human beings to be eaten by their fellow-men. It is im
possible to think a loving creator and governor contriving
a human being to be born into the world the pre-natal
victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason
to affirm this “free loving supreme moral intelligence”
planning and contriving the enduring through centuries of
criminal classes, plague-spots on civilisation.
The word “unchangeable ” contradicts the word “ crea
tor”. Any theory of creation must imply some period
when the being was not yet the creator, that is, when yet
the creation was not performed, and the act of creation
must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or
permanent change in the mode of existence of the being
creating. So, too, the words of description “governor of
nations” are irreconcileable with the description “un
changeable ”, applied to a being alleged to have existed
prior to the creation of the “nations”, and therefore,
of course, long before any act of government could be
exercised.
To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure
contradiction of terms. All attempts to think “person”
involve thoughts of the limited, finite, conditioned. To
describe this infinite personal being as distinct from some
thing which is postulated as “what he has created” is
only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still
more marked when the infinite personal being is described
as “intelligent”.
The Rev. R. A. Armstong, in a prefatory note to the
report of his debate with myself on the question “Is it
reasonable to worship God?”, says: “I have ventured
upon alleging an intelligent cause of the pheonomena of
the universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his
writings Mr. Bradlaugh has described intelligence as im
plying limitations. But though intelligence, as known to
us in man, is always hedged within limits, there is no diffi
culty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In
�6
IS THERE A GOD?
that case the essential conception of intelligence remains
the same precisely, although the change of conditions
revolutionises its mode of working.” This, it seems to
me, is not accurate. The word intelligence can only be
accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the
totality of mental ability, its activity and result. If you
eliminate in each case all possibilities of mental ability
there is no “conception of intelligence” left, either essential
or otherwise. If you attempt to remove the limits, that
is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to be thinkable.
It is unjustifiable to talk of “ change of conditions ” when
you remove the word intelligence as a word of application
to man or other thinking animal, and seek to apply the
word to the unconditionable.
As an Atheist I. affirm one existence, and deny the possi
bility of more than one existence; by existence meaning,
as I have already stated, “the totality of all pheenomena,
and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the
happening of any and every pluenomenon ”. This exist
ence I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished
in thought by its qualities. By “mode” I mean each
cognised condition; that is, each pheenomenon or aggre
gation of phenomena. By “quality” I mean each charac
teristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.
The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist
is that either the Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or
makes a blank avowal of general ignorance. The Atheist
does not do either; there is of course to him much that
is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this
within reach of knowing. With “the unknowable” con
ceded, all scientific teaching would be illusive. Every real
scientist teaches without reference to “God” or “the
unknowable ”. If the words come in as part of the
yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts
his experiments as though the words were not. Every
operation of life, of commerce, of war, of statesmanship,
is dealt with as though God were non-existent. The
general who asks God to give him victory, and who thanks
God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by
his Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance
on God’s omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight.
Cannon, gunpowder, shot, shell, dynamite, provision, men,
horses, means of transport, the value of these all estimated,
�IS THERE A GOD?
7
then the help of “ God ” is added to what is enough with
out God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in
performing some delicate operation relied on God instead
of his instruments—the physician who counted on the
unknowable in his prescription—these would have poor
clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar
people the most pious would avoid their surgical or
medical aid. The “God” of the Theist, the “unknowa
ble” of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the Atheistic
affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown,
affirms the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows
not of any proposition whether it be true or false.
Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare
that at any rate some qualities are infinite, e.g., that
existence is infinitely intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can
only think qualities of phsenomena. I know each pheno
menon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the
qualities of some phenomenon.
So long as the word “ God ” is undefined I do not deny
“ God”. To the question, Is there such a God as defined
by Professor ..Plint, I am compelled to give a negative
reply. If the word “ God ” is intended to affirm Dualism,
then as a Monist I negate “ God ”.
_ The attempts to prove the existence of God may be
divided into three classes:—1. Those which attempt to
prove the objective existence of God from the subjective
notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or from
the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as
the attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which
*{ essay to prove the existence of a supreme self-existent
cause, from the mere fact of the existence of the world by
the application of the principle of causality, starting with
the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the world,
or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue back
wards or upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is
held to be regressive inference from the existence of these
effects”. But it is enough to answer to these attempts,
that if a supreme existence were so demonstrable, that
bare entity would not be identifiable with “God”. “A
demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no
formal theological value. It is an absolute zero.”
3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature,
the fitness of means to an end, implying, it is said, an
�8
IS THERE A GOD?
architect or designer. Or, from the order in the universe,
indicating, it is said, an orderer or lawgiver, whose intelli
gence we thus discern.
But this argument is a failure, because from finite
instances differing in character it assumes an infinite cause
absolutely the same for all. Divine unity, divine per
sonality, are here utterly unproved. 11 Why should we rest
in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged
phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so
varied and so complex ? ”
If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must
avail to show that all the phenomena leading to misery
and mischief, must have been designed and intended by a
being finding pleasure in the production and maintenance
of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of
the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent
result, must he not equally be supposed to have designed
all results? And if the inference of benevolence and
goodness be valid for some instances, must not the in
ference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid
from others ? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from
the illustration of organs in animals supposed to be
specially contrived for certain results, what is the inference
to be drawn from the many abortive and incomplete organs,
muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in man
and other animals ? What inference is to be drawn from
each instance of deformity or malformation? But the
argument from design, if it proved anything, would at the
most only prove an arranger of pre-existing material; it
in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of
substance.
There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer
arranging a finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator
originating all existence. Brom an alleged product you
are only at liberty to infer a producer after having seen a
similar product actually produced.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.—1887.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is there a god?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N096
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Is there a god?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/534b515ecfc915c523a1c5217a125592.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HCLoERwFcBOClH06NYtB%7Ep58mnTSbACwKsOoXHmZr4GEvL4w%7E9v0FYvi%7EwEbKRRNsolSDUGCqCyIdRHTWOWpRdVLCol4yY2F9KT-5blawasRwCIAAA2%7E%7EyTNABZxjXWv%7EDaA9diLsYY-L6QUwkVA4BPZ2r%7EbPzlNpBTqpCBYsjqIAtHiDjaff8AzryVDXUxDcfxPqbuMwXXnto8CgjEeRlA5fhfSEBnBGxM2E87PTSi0r5GmSe4ycQ2nBUAglvzIeB0fYNJN5YQc%7EoJ9DmQh1H%7Eq9ZDnVJyTr6bU6RD54ZhpFs9wGtaKHX9QY4lwyWSqEeY%7EdXjuc9mMks12oPkI5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
62cb12d6224e85b79e0feba4c90a3d11
PDF Text
Text
*'
' -t
V
& A ?p*v
” >y^vr'?X*irW, ?<‘ 7* "x
B ^-2A
bJ < OO
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
BY C. BEADLAUGH
The “Life of Abraham ” was presented to our readers, because, as
the nominal founder of the Jewish race, his position entitled him
to that honour. The “ Life of David,” because, as one of the worst
men and worst kings ever known, his history might afford matter
for reflection to admirers of monarchical institutions and matter for
comment to the advocates of a republican form of government.
The “ Life of Jacob” served to show how basely mean and con
temptibly deceitful a man might become, and yet enjoy God's love.
Having given thus a brief outline of the career of the patriarch, the
king, and the knave, the life of a priest naturally presents itself as
the most fitting to complement the present quadrifid series.
Moses, the great grandson of Levi, was born in Egypt, not far
distant from the banks of the Nile, a river world-famous for its in
undations, made familiar to ordinary readers by the travellers who
have journeyed to discover its source, and held in bad repute by
strangers, especially on account of the carnivorous Saurians who
infest its waters. The mother and father of our hero were both of
the tribe of Levi, and were named Jochebed and Amram. The in
fant Moses was, at the age of three months, placed in an ark of
bulrushes by the river s brink. This was done in order to avoid
the decree of extermination propounded bv the reigning Pharaoh
against the male Jewish children. The daughter of Pharaoh, com
ing down to the river to bathe, found the child and took compas
sion upon him, adopting him as her son. Of the early life of
Moses we have but scanty record. We are told in the New Testa
ment that he was learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians, and
*
that “when he was come to years he refused” by faithf “to be
called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” Perhaps the record from
which the New Testament writers quoted lias been lost; it is certain
that the present version of the Old Testament does not contain
those statements. The record which is lost may have been God’s
original revelation to man, and of which our Bible may be an in
complete version. I am little grieved by the supposition that a
• Acts, c. vii, v. 21,
f Hebrews, c. xi. v. 24.
�2
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
revelation may have been lost, being, for my own part, more in
clined to think that no revelation has ever been made. Josephus
says that, when quite a baby, Moses trod contemptuously on the
crown of Egypt. The Egyptian monuments and Exodus are both
silent on this point. Josephus also tells us that Moses led the
Egyptians in war against the Ethiopians, and married Tharbis, the
daughter of the Ethiopian monarch. This also is omitted both in
Egyptian history and in the sacred record. When Moses was
grown, according to the Old Testament, or when he was 40 years
of age according to the New, “ it came into his heart to visit his
brethren the children of Israel,” “ And he spied an Egyptian smit
ing an Hebrew;” “And he looked this way and that way, and
when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid
him in the sand.” The New Testament says that he did it, “for
he supposed that his brethren would understand how that God, by
his hand, would deliver them.”* But this is open to the following
objections :—The Old Testament says nothing of the kind;—there
was no man to see the homicide, and as Moses hid the body, it is
hard to conceive how he could expect the Israelites to understand
a matter of which they not only had no knowledge . whatever, but
which he himself did not think was known to them ;—if there were
really no man present, the story of the after accusation against
Moses needs explanation ;—it might be further objected that it does
not appear that Moses at that time did even himself conceive that
he had any mission from God to deliver his people. Moses fled
from the wrath of Pharaoh, and dwelt in Midian, where he married
the daughter of one Reuel or Raguel, or Jethro. This name is not
of much importance, but it is strange that if Moses wrote the books
of the Pentateuch he was not more exact in designating so near a
relation. While acting as shepherd to his father-in-law, “ he led
the flock to the back side of the desert,” and “ the angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire that is, the angel was either
a flame, or was the object which was burning, for this angel ap
peared in the midst of a bush which burned with fire, but was not
consumed. This flame appears to have been a luminous one, for
it was a “ great sight,” and attracted Moses, who turned aside to
see it. But the luminosity would depend on substance ignited and
rendered incandescent. Is the angel of the Lord a substanceJsusceptible of ignition and incandesence ? Who knoweth ? If so,
will the fallen angels ingnite and bum in hell ? God called unto
Moses out of the midst of the bush. It is hard to conceive an in
finite God in the middle of a bush, yet as the law of England says
that we must not “deny the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testameut to be of divine authority,” in order not to break
the law, I advise all to believe that, in addition to being in
the middle of a bush, the infinite and all-powerful God also sat
• Aets, c. vii., v. 25.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
on the top of a box, dwelt sometimes in a tent, afterwards in a
temple; although invisible, appeared occasionally; and, being a
spirit without body or parts, was hypostatically incarnate as
a man. Moses, when spoken to by God, “ hid his face, for he was
afraid to look upon God.” If Moses had known that God was
invisible, he would have escaped this fear. God told Moses that
the cry of the children of Israel had reached him, and that he had
come down to deliver them, and that Moses was to lead them out
of Egypt. Moses does not seem to have placed entire confidence
in the phlegomic divine communication, and asked, when the Jews
should question him on the name of the Deity, what answer should
he make ? It does not appear from this that the Jews, if they
had so completely forgotten God’s name, had much preserved the
recollection of the promise comparatively so recently made to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The answer given according to
our version is, “I am that I am;” according to the Douay, “I
am who am.” God, in addition, told Moses that the Jews should
spoil the Egyptians of their wealth; but even this promise of
plunder, so congenial to the nature of a bill-discounting Jew of
the Bible type, did not avail to overcorfie the scruples of Moses.
God therefore taught him to throw his rod on the ground, and
thus transform it into a serpent, from which pseudo-serpent Moses
at first fled in fear, but on his taking it by the tail it resumed its
original shape. Moses, with even other wonders at command,
still hesitated; he had an impediment in his speech. God cured
this by the appointment of Aaron, who was eloquent, to aid his
brother. God directed Moses to return to Egypt, but his parting
words must somewhat have damped the future legislator’s hope of
any speedy or successful ending to his mission. God said, “ I will
harden Pharaoh’s heart that he shall not let the people go.” On
the journey back to Egypt God met Moses “ by the way in the inn,
and sought to kill him.” I am ignorant as to the causes which
prevented the omnipotent Deity from carrying out his intention ;
the text does not explain the matter, and I am not a bishop or a
D.D., and I do not therefore feel justified in putting my assump
tions in place of God’s revelation. Moses and Aaron went t<7
Pharaoh, and asked that the Jew's might be permitted to go three
days’ journey in the wilderness; but the King of Egypt not onlj
refused their request, but gave them additional tasks, and in conse
quence Moses and Aaron went again to the Lord, who told them,
“I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the
name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known
unto them.” Whether God had forgotten that the name Jehovah
was known to Abraham, or whether he was here deceiving Moses
and Aaron, are points the solution of wdiich I leave to the faithful,
referring them to the fact that Abraham called a place Jehovah*
Genesis, c. xxii., v. 14.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
Jireh. After this Moses and Aaron again went to Pharaoh and
worked wonderfully in his presence. Thaumaturgy is coining into
fashion again, but the exploits of Moses far exceeded any of those
performed by Mr. Home or the Davenport Brothers. Aaron flung
down his rod, and it became a serpent; the Egyptian magicians
flung down their rods, which became serpents also; but the rod of
Aaron, as though it had been a Jew money-lender or a tithe col
lecting parson, swallowed up these miraculous competitors, and
the Jewish leaders could afford to laugh at their defeated rival
conjurors. Moses and Aaron carried on the miracle-working for
some time. All the water of the land of Egvpt was turned by
them into blood, but the magicians did so with their enchantments,
and it had no effect on Pharaoh. Then showers of frogs, at the
instance of Aaron, covered the land of Egypt; but the Egyptians
did so with their enchantments, and frogs abounded still more
plentifully. The Jews next tried their hands at the production of
lice, and here—to the glory of God be it said—the infidel Egyp
tians failed to imitate them. It is written that “ cleanliness is
next to godliness,” but we cannot help thinking that godliness must
have been far from cleanliness when the former so soon resulted
in lice. The magicians were now entirely discomfited. The pre
ceding wonders seem to have affected all the land of Egypt; but
in the next miracle the swarms of flies sent were confined to
Egyptians only, and were not extended to Goshen, in which the
Israelites dwelt.
The next plague in connection with the ministration of Moses
and Aaron was that “ all the cattle of Egypt died.” After “all
the cattle ” were dead, a boil was sent, breaking forth with blains
upon man and beast. This failing in effect, Moses afterwards
stretched forth his hand and smote “ both man and beast ” with
hail, then covered the land with locusts, and followed this with a
thick darkness throughout the land—a darkness which might have
been felt. Whether it was felt is a matter on which I am unable
to pass an opinion. After this, the Egyptians being terrified by
the destruction of their first-born children, the Jews, at the in
stance of Moses, borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, jewels
of gold, and raiment; and they spoiled the Egyptians. The fact
is, that the Egyptians were in the same position as the payers of
church rates, tithes, vicars’ rates, and Easter dues : they lent to
the Lord’s people, who are good borrowers, but slow when repay
*
ment is required. They prefer promising you a crown of glory
to paying you at once five shillings in silver.
Moses led th«
Jews through the Red Sea, which proved a ready means of escape,
as may be easily read in Exodus, which says that the Lord “ made
the sea dry land ” for the Israelites, and afterwards not only over
whelmed in it the Egyptians who sought to follow them, but, as
Josephus tells us, the current of the sea actually carried to the camp
of the Hebrews the arms of the Egyptians, so that the wandering
�NW LIFE OF MOSES.
6
Jews might not be destitute of weapons. After this the Israelites
were led by Moses into Sliur, where they were without water for three
days, and the water they afterwards found was too bitter to drink
until a tree had been cast into the well. The Israelites were then fed
with manna, which, when gathered on Friday, kept for the Sabbath,
but rotted if kept from one week day to another.
The people
grew tired of eating manna, and complained, and God sent fire I
amongst them and burned them up in the uttermost parts of the
camp; and after this the people wept and said, “ Who shall give us
flesh to eat? We remember the fish we did eat in Egypt freely;
the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and
the garlic; but now there is nothing at all beside this manna
before our eyes.’’ This angered the Lord, and he gave them a
feast of quails, and while the flesh was yet between their teeth,
ere it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled, and he
smote the Jewish people with a very great plague.
*
The people
again in Rephidim were without water, and Moses therefore smote
the Rock of Horeb with his rod, and water came out of the rock.
At Rephidim the Amalekites and the Jews fought together, and
while they fought Moses, like a prudent general, went to the top of
a hill, accompanied by Aaron and Hur, and it came to pass that
when Moses held up his hands Israel prevailed, and when he let
down his hands Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands w’ere heavy,
and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon,
and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side
and the other ou the other side, and his hands were steady until
the going down of the sun, and Joshua discomfited Amalek, and
his people with the edge of the sword. How the true believer
ought to rejoice that the stone was so convenient, as otherwise the
Jews might have been slaughtered, and there might have been no
royal line of David, no Jesus, no Christianity. That stone should
be more valued than the precious black stone of the Moslem; it
is the corner-stone of the system, the stone which supported the
Mosaic rule. God is everywhere, but Moses went up unto him,
and the Lord called to him out of a mountain and came to him in a
thick cloud, and descended on Mount Sinai in a fire, in consequence
of which the mountain smoked, and the Lord came down upon the
top of the mountain and called Moses up to him; and then the
Lord gave Moses the Ten Commandments, and also those pre
cepts which follow, in which Jews are permitted to buy their fellowcountrymen for six years, and in which it is provided that, if the
slave-master shall give his six-year slave a wife, and she bear him
sons or daughters, that the wife and the children shall be the pro
perty of her master. In these precepts it is also permitted that a
man may sell his own daughter for the most base purposes. Also
that a master may beat his slave, so that if he do not die until a
• Numbers, c. xi.
�6
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
few days after the ill-treatment, the master shall escape justice be
cause the slave is his money. Also that Jews may buy strangers
and keep them as slaves for ever. While Moses was up in the
mount the people clamoured for Aaron to make them gods. Moses
had stopped away so long that the people gave him up for lost.
Aaron, whose duty it was to have pacified and restrained them, and
to have kept them in the right faith, did nothing of the kind. He
induced them to bring all their gold, and then made it into a calf,
before which he built an altar, and then proclaimed a feast. Man
ners and customs change. In those days the Jews did see the
God that. Aaron took their gold for, but now the priests take the
people’s gold, and the poor contributors do not even see a calf for
their pains, unless indeed they are near a mirror at the time when
they are making their voluntary contributions. And the Lord told
Moses what happened, and said, “ I have seen this people, and
behold it is a stiffnecked people. Now, therefore, let me alone
that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may
consume them.” Moses would not comply with God’s request,
but remonstrated, and expostulated, and begged him not to afford
the Egyptians an opportunity of speaking against him. Moses
succeeded in changing the unchangeable, and the Lord repented
of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Although Moses would not let God’s “ wrath wax hot ” his own
“ anger waxed hot,” and he broke in his rage, the two tables of
stone which God had given him, and on which the Lord had graven
and written with his own finger. We have now no means of know
ing in what language God wrote, or whether Moses afterwards
took any pains to rivet together the broken pieces. It is almost
to be wondered at that the Christian Evidence Societies have not
sent missionaries to search for these pieces of the tables, which may
even yet remain beneath the mount. Moses took the calf which
they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder,
and strewed it upon water and made the children of Israel drink
of it. After this Moses armed the priests and killed 3,000 Jew's,
“ and the Lord plagued the people because they had made the
calf which Aaron had made.”* Moses afterwards pitched the ta
bernacle without the camp; and the cloudy pillar in which the
Lord w'ent, descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle;
and the Lord talked to Moses “ face to face, as a man would to
his friend.”f And the Lord then told Moses, “ Thou canst not
see my face, for there shall no man see me and live.”J Before
this Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel, “ saw the God of Israel, and there w'as under his
feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, . . . and
Upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand;
also they saw God, and did eat and drink.Ӥ
* Exodus, c. xxxii., v. 35.
f c. xxxiii., v. 11.
J v. 20.
§ c. xxiv., v. 9.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
7
Aaron., the brother of Moses, died under very strange circum
stances. The Lord said unto Moses, “ Strip Aaron of his garments
and put them upon Eleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered
unto his people and shall die there.” And Moses did as the Lord
commanded, and Aaron died there on the top of the mount, where
Moses had taken him. There does not appear to have been any
coroner’s inquest in the time of Aaron, and the suspicious circum
stances of the death of the brother of Moses have been passed over
by the faithful.
When Moses was leading the Israelites near Moab, Balak the
King of the Moabites sent to Balaam in order to get Balaam to
curse the Jews. When Balak’s messengers were with Balaam,
God came to Balaam also, and asked what men they were. Of
course God knew, but he inquired for his own wise purposes, and
Balaam told him truthfully. God ordered Balaam not to curse the
Jews, and therefore the latter refused, and sent the Moabitish
messengers away. Then Balak sent again high and mighty princes
under whose influence Balaam went mounted on an ass, and God’s
anger was kindled against Balaam, and he sent an angel to stop
him by the way; but the angel did not understand his business
well, and the ass first ran into a field, and then close against the
wall, and it was not until the angel removed to a narrower place
that he succeeded in stopping the donkey ; and when the ass saw
the angel she fell down. Balaam did not see the angel at first; and,
Indeed, we may take it as a fact of history that asses have always
been the most ready to perceive angels.
Moses may have been a great author, but we have little
means of ascertaining what he wrote in the present day. Divines
talk of Genesis to Deuteronomy as the five books of Moses,
but Eusebius, in the fourth century, attributed them to Ezra,
*
and Saint Chrysostom says that the name of Moses has been
affixed to the books without authority, by persons living long after
him.f It is quite certain that if Moses lived 3,300 years ago,
he did not write in square letter Hebrew, and this because the
character has not existed so long. It is indeed doubtful if it can
be carried back 2,000 years. The ancient Hebrew character, though
probably older than this, yet is comparatively modern amongst the
ancient languages of the earth.
°
It is urged by orthodox chronologists that Moses was born about
1450 B.c., and that the Exodus took place about 1491 b.c. Unfor
tunately “ there are no recorded dates in the Jewish Scripture^
that are trustworthy.” Moses, or the Hebrews, not being mentioned
upon Egyptian monuments from the twelfth to the seventeenth
century b.c. inclusive, and never being alluded to by any extant
writer who lived prior to the Septuagint translation at Alexandria
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
(commencing in the third century b.c.), there are no extraneous
aids, from sources alien to the Jewish Books, through which any
information, worthy of historical acceptance, can be gathered else
where about him or them.”*
Moses died in the land of Moab when he was 120 years of age.
The Lord buried Moses in a valley of Moab, over against Bethpeor,
but no man knowetli of his sepulchre unto this day. Josephus says
that “ a cloud came over him on the sudden and he disappeared in
a certain valley.” The devil disputed about the body of Moses,
contending with the Archangel Michael ;f but whether the devil or
the angel had the best of the discussion, the Bible does not tell us.
De Beauvoir Priaulx,J looking at Moses as a counsellor, leader,
and legislator, says:—“Invested with this high authority, he
announced to the Jews their future religion, and announced it to
them as a state religion, and as framed for a particular state, and
that state only. He gave this religion, moreover, a creed so nar
row and negative—he limited it to objects so purely temporal, he
crowded it with observances so entirely ceremonial or national—
that we find it difficult to determine whether Moses merely estab
lished this religion in order that by a community of worship he
might induce in the tribe-divided Israelites that community of
sentiment which would constitute them a nation; or, whether he
only roused them to a sense of their national dignity, in the hope
that they might then more faithfully perform the duties of priests
and servants of Jehovah. In other words, we hesitate to decide
whether in the mind of Moses the state was subservient to the pur
poses of religion, or religion to the purposes of state.”
The same writer observes§ that, according to the Jewish writings,
Moses “ is the friend and favourite of the Deity. He is one whose
prayers and wishes the Deity hastens to fulfil, one to whom the
Deitv makes known his designs. The relations between God and
the prophet are most intimate. God does not disdain to answer
the questions of Moses, to remove his doubts, and even occasionally
to receive his suggestions, and to act upon them even in opposition
to his own pre-determined decrees.”
* G R. Gliddon’s Types of Mankind: Mankind’s Chronology, p 711
f Jude, v. 9
J Quesliones Mosaicae, p. 438.
§ p. 418.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annib Besavt and 0 hables Beadlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.O
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
New life of Moses
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from Champion of liberty (Bradlaugh Centenary, 1933), bibliography. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N100
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (New life of Moses), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Moses (Biblical Leader)
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/eed73d169804ea269ab3f0d58b1bda8f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aqgrsZw-qMrbuD9yz0jIV%7EFNs-j0vXdvbehmxbn3sATQ2YeSNf4i1K2PL9hlDQYu31k2Iow6IaYavmp6Bsfsk2ak5fXKCl%7Eji6UBHa2NMClNvB2jPE87OicdCB5JK6X4xYy1k6N6t8TVWinoEAJWw5lKsHCsvOdounignETSoa-o-ZHaVkycxdbfA0sKG9nFE0Ik0Jdmni2b3bkqwAIVYbvbm2PvJm-sPeTrtPKhhMZFqwkTRGj8n2jbrmoou-Qd2Nm1CURyOz05koxxx52r50WO6SUnLjLTtngPqZR7TrXsUjbiyMcfILn%7EsJGmErpM1p4w6SeZwwoFwP4HieVBNA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ea8e27add8dfd9323bd1f0600d67822e
PDF Text
Text
kv6Uj
Coo?&^- ,
's.ulftuXi
g •xi'71
WIS,O
«>v=Uij£JSX<
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
INTRODUCTORY SKETCH OF THE LIFE
OF ROBERT COOPER.
I first became acquainted with R bert Cooper when he was
editing the London Investigator in 1861, and the following sketch,
is compiled from an autobiographic* < statement written by Mr.
Cooper about two months before h death, and sent to me by
his son for publication in the Nation I Reformer.
Robert Cooper was born on th 29 th December, 1819, at
Barton-upon-Wevell, near Mauches r. His father was an old
Yorkshire Radical, with experience >f Peterloo. At his father’s
house young Cooper had occasio illy to read aloud to the
collected guests from “Godwin’s P itical Justice,” and heard
Lancashire men discuss theviews of Voltaire, Paine, Washington,
Cartwright, Horne Tooke, Cobbe* , Hunt, Richard Carlile,
Robert Owen, Henry Brougham, G orge Combe, Godwin, and
other advanced thinkers. When about twelve years of age
Robert Cooper became a clerk in a A lanchester house, where he
remained for nine years. When foe ■ceen he was also appointed
teacher in the Salford Co-operatr Evening Schools, where
James Rigby and Joseph Smith, w<- i known disciples of Robert
Owen, were then assistants.
Before he was fifteen Robert C< > per was elected Hon.. Sec.
to the School, and soon after delivei d his first lecture, on “ the
necessity of free schools for the wo ting classes ”. About this
time Robert Owen, then in the heych ' of his socialistic agitation,
lectured at Salford, in the first insti ition erected in England by
To use Robert Cooper’s
the promoters of English Socialise
own words, this event “ constitute! an epoch in my life”. Of
Robert Owen, he writes: “ His mil and gentle, yet impressive
and commanding bearing producer profound effect upon me.
It determined my future career. To io day of his death I revered
him as a father, and he treated me s a son. During the latter
portion of his extraordinary labor* ie spent much of his time
with my family in London. When is eyesight began to fail I
accompanied him on the platform t< > •sist in reading his lectures.
His hearing, too, grew weak, and 1 , idertook the task of recapitulating the questions and speeche from the audience close to
his ear.” In 1836, Robert Cooper tened a debate on “ Secularism”—“a term just then coi i ”—before the, debating
Shortly after, the young
society of the Manchester Athen feu
and eloquent Socialist advocate he his first public discussion
with the Rev. J. Bromley, in the C. penter’s Hall, Manchester,
�2
SKETCH OE THE LIFE OF ROBERT COOPER.
and now, on Sundays, lectured through, the towns and villages
of Lancashire on the “ Social System ”. When scarcely eighteen
he published a pamphlet on “ Original Sin ” ; and the present
little work, which was attacked in Parliament, was issued when
Robert Cooper was only twenty years of age. His prominence
as a Socialist led to his dismissal from his situation, and Robert
Cooper then became one of the paid Social Missionaries,
and was first stationed at Hull, whence he was sent North,
passing the greater part of 1842 and 1843 in lecturing in Scot
land. Coming South, in 1843, to Derby, he went thence to
Stockport, again to Scotland, and lastly to the West Riding of
Yorkshire, which was his final appointment as “ Social Mis
sionary”. 1846, which witnessed the dissolution of the Eng
lish Socialistic organisation, found Mr. Cooper conducting
some excellent educational classes at Huddersfield. The
break-up of the Socialistic Mission drove him to London,
where he became a familiar Freethought lecturer at the Old
John Street Institution, and, at intervals, carried on the plat
form work in the West and North of England. While editing
the London Investigator, Mr. Cooper’s health, which had been
undermined by many hardships in his early lecturing career, gave
way, and, in 1856, he was compelled to abandon some of his
work. Fainting more than once on the platform, his lecturing
was brought to a close at John Street Institution, in 1858 : his
medical advisers insisting on abstinence from the excitement
of public speaking. Fortunately, a legacy by Samuel Fletcher,
who died in 1856, came in time to furnish the means for
recruiting lost strength, and Mr. Cooper lived quietly in Man
chester until the breaking out of the Reform agitation in 1866,
when he became Honorary Secretary to the Manchester
Reform Union. The new work, and consequent excite
ment, brought on a fresh attack of the old disease, and
after lingering through 1867, he died on the 3rd May, 1868,
only forty-eight years of age. Writing just before he died,
when misfortune had swept away his resources, he penned the
following touching lines : “ I now rest for succor on the
affections of my children, strengthened by the noble devotion of
a wife who has ever been, through a marriage of twenty-nine
years, an adviser in my struggles, a partner in my successes,
and a companion in my vicissitudes ”; and he adds, “Should
my health not be restored and the couch upon which I repose
be my death-bed, I can leave the world with the assurance that
those who are dearest to me and know me best, love me most
In editing this work some of the quotations have been
abridged, some slight corrections have been made, and some
new matter inserted between brackets.
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
�A
VINDICATION,
WRITTEN FOR THE SECOND EDITION AFTER THE WORK HAD BEEN
SPECIALLY ATTACKED BY THE BISHOP OF EXETER IN
THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
At a period like the present, when the voice of reason and free
inquiry is rousing the intellectual faculties of the people from
their dormancy and enslavement; when the luminary of true
knowledge is diffusing its ennobling and enlightening influence
among mankind, giving, at once, a vitality and intensity to
their highest and noblest aspirations ; when, indeed, men are
becoming intelligent and reflective, instead of ignorant and
credulous beings, it is not to be wondered at that the priest
hood and their abettors should feel so distressingly alarmed,
and have recourse to all kinds of expedients in order to the
maintenance of their power and influence. Knowing as they
do, that priestcraft and enlightenment cannot eventually co
exist or co-operate—they that are at irreconcilable variance—
that there is no affinity between them—that the one must
necessarily stultify and annihilate the other; and, seeing as
they do, the extraordinary developments of mind—the rapid
advances in intelligence and rationality which are every day
taking place, they are almost driven to desperation. They are
beginning to apprehend their case is hopeless, the days of
their domination and ascendancy are over; that they have
passed the meridian of their glory, and must now retire into
utter and permanent obscurity. But being valiant and per
severing men, at least when their own interests are concerned,
they are determined that they will not die without a struggle
—a fearless and desperate struggle. And, therefore, they
have organised all the means at their command, and com
menced a most furious onslaught upon all who have presumed
or will still continue to presume, to advocate views prejudicial
to their own. In this display of clerical zeal and intolerance,
I was not in the least surprised that this work, amongst the
rest, should fall in for its due quantum of abuse. Indeed, I
fully expected it. I anticipated they would make an attack
upon it, not indeed with the weapons of reason and argument
by any means, as they are altogether unaccustomed to the
use of them, but with those of anathema and denunciation.
Notwithstanding, however, that this was my decided expecta
tion, I certainly did not suppose that it would have been
�4
A VINDICATION.
deemed requisite for so august a personage as the Lord Bishop
of Exeter to have opened the attack. Great as my presump
tion may be, impious as my audacity certainly is in their
estimation, it is yet not so great, so impious as to have
emboldened me to have presumed that so sacred and immacu**
late a being as a Bishop would have deigned to have noticed
it.
Yet so it was. Not only did he honor it with an
observation, but he even took the trouble to denounce and
anathematize it, not in a private company, not in any of the
churches of his diocese, but in the highest judicature in the
realm. The weight of his mitre, however, could not crush it.
Since that time to the present the clergy and their partisanShave endeavored to produce an unfavorable impression upon
the public mind as to its object and tendency. Th® most
malicious misrepresentations have been circulated, and in
consequence considerable misapprehension prevails upon the
subject. It is, therefore, to disabuse the public of these mis
apprehensions, and to rebut the charges which have been
brought against it, that this Vindication is written.
One of the most common, and yet, at the same time, one of
the most singular, statements which are made respecting this
work, is that it is a blasphemous publication—-vilifies the
Almighty. Now, so far from its being blasphemous, it is
just the reverse. So far from its impugning, it vindicates
the Divinity. Indeed, the work is written for the avowed
purpose of exposing the blasphemy pronounced against the
Deity by the priesthood and their abettors in saying that
such a book as the Bible originated from him—is His .re
vealed word—His only and especial organ. To attribute tothe Almighty such revolting atrocities, such shameless indecen
cies, such outrageous indignities as are recorded, and directly
ascribed to Him in the Scriptures, is, I contend, one of the
foulest and most monstrous blasphemies that could possibly be
perpetrated. And to denominate a work as blasphemous
whose only and express object is to repudiate such practices,
is a paradox which I am almost at a loss to explain. Had I
not an idea that the priesthood, being conscious of their own
blasphemy were desirous of concealing it by accusing others
of the crime, it would, to me at least, be utterly inexplicable.
To affix the stigma of blasphemy to a work having such
objects in view is precisely as absurd and inconsistent as to
apply the epithet of dishonesty to a man whose invariable
wish had been, through the whole of his career, to pursue an
honorable and straightforward course. This policy of the
priesthood, however, cannot be adopted with success much
longer. The intellect of society is awakening. The long
night of ignorance and credulity is passing away, and the
eyes of the people are opening upon that awful mass of cant
and corruption which is secreted within the strongholds of
the clergy. Let but a few short years roll over, and the
old dilapidated tower of priestcraft, which already totters
to its basement, will fall with a crash that will loudly and
�A VINDICATION.
5
■emphatically proclaim the annihilation of superstition and
intolerance.
It is next affirmed that this is an irreligious work. This
•charge is as false as it is unjust. That it is opposed, however,
to the religion of priestcraft—to a religion that would allow
a selfish and arbitrary priesthood to lord over their fellow
creatures, to trample down their moral and intellectual capa
bilities, and divest them of all that adds purity and dignity to
■ their existence—to a religion that would allow one child of
humanity to drink of the fountain of felicity, and compel
another to perish in the wilderness of sorrow and despair—to a
religion, in short, that would make this world “ a hell to gain a
heaven ”—I freely and unhesitatingly admit; but that it is
inimical to the religion of charity and free inquiry—to the
religion that would infuse the balm of benevolence and love
into the bosom of every human creature, and allow all, of every
Sect, country and color, to express their honest and sincere
opinions without let or hindrance, I distinctly and broadly
deny. No; let it not be imagined that I am averse to an
enlarged, an enlightened religion, for as the poet felicitously
•observed:—
“ My religion is love—’tis the noblest and purest;
My temple the universe—widest and surest;
I worship my God through his works which are fair,
And the joy of my thoughts is perpetual prayer.”
There is no word which has been more abused than that of
religion. It has frequently been made the pretext for the
accomplishment of the most selfish, malignant, and degrading
purposes. In the hands of the priesthood it has teen the bane
of human existence—the poison that has vitiated the virtues of
humanity—the monster that has sought to strangle its intel
lectuality. It has been religion, under the auspices of the
priesthood, which has fomented that awful storm of an
tagonism and cruelty which has from generation to generation
afflicted the human race; which has harrowed up the most
implacable asperities and antipathies of their nature, and
almost shipwrecked their moral sensibilities and aspirations.
Wherever we observe its operations, whether in ancient or
modern times, whether in our own or foreign nations, in
Ancient Chaldea, Egypt, Greece, or Rome, or modern Spain,
Italy, France, or Great Britain, its object and tendency has
been invariably the same—the subjection of human reason—the
contraction of human thought—the paralysation of the human
faculties. On looking into the pages of history we find that
the brightest, noblest, and best of men of every clime—those
who have been the master spirits of the age in which they
flourished—all, indeed, whose exertions have tended to the
enlightenment and emancipation of man, if they have not
fallen actual sacrifices at the altar of bigotry, they have been
necessitated to fly from its scourge, or succumb, more or less,
to its arbitrary domination. If this assertion needs proof,
�6
A VINDICATION.
arise, ye departed spirits of Anaxagoras, Socrates, Pythagoras,
Aristotle, Locke, and a Lawrence, and bear witness! Oh I
when we think of the barbarities and indignities to which
these men were subjected, we cannot but exclaim of religion,
as Madame Poland did of liberty, “ O! Religion, what crimes
are committed in thy name!
No, let it not be conceived,
that this work is inimical to “pure religion, and undefiled
before God ”; it can only be destructive to the cupidity and
intolerance, superstition and delusion practised and perpetuated
under its assumed sanction.
It is next said by these “Ambassadors of God” and their
deluded votaries, that I have endeavored to bring the ‘ ‘ Holy
Scriptures” into contempt by unfair and dishonest means—
that I have entirely disregarded the immense mass of external
evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the
Bible, and contented myself by merely examining its internal
evidence; and to cap the climax of their rage and denuncia
tion, they state that a work like this ought not, for a single
moment, to be tolerated, but the strong arm of the law should
exert its supremacy and immediately stop it. Now, as to my
having endeavored “ to bring the Holy Scriptures into con
tempt by unfair and dishonest means ”, I most unhesitatingly
and fearlessly deny the charge. What are the means which I
have adopted ? They are these. In the first place I stated if
the Bible was the word of God, if he either wrote, or inspired,
men to write it, it could not by any possibility contain
anything absurd, contradictory, or demoralising, but every
chapter, every verse, every sentence, every line would be
perfectly true, consistent, and ennobling. To suppose that
such would not be the case, is to suppose that which is not
only ridiculous and inconsistent, but truly impious and blas
phemous.. Well, this position being established, I proceeded
to ascertain whether the Bible contained passages of an absurd,
contradictory, or demoralising character. On examining it I
found it did contain such passages—that it abounded in them,
that the whole of the books from Genesis to Revelation were
replete with them; and that passages of a rational, consistent
and ameliorating character were very rarely to be met with—
were, like “angels’ visits, few and far between”. Finding this
to be the case, I naturally and reasonably deduced the infer
ence that the Bible could not be the word of God, and therefore
could be nothing more than a mere imposition. Some of the
passages showing it could not be of divine origin I published in
the order in which they are arranged in these pages, and to
obviate any confusion or misunderstanding I affixed the
chapter and verse to each passage. Now, I ask, are not these
means honest, just, and straightforward ? True it is I have not
wasted my time in discussing the external evidence, in en
deavoring to inflict elaborate, erudite and labored dissertationsupon the reader, in order to invalidate the boasted testimony
of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Strabo and others, as I conceive
such is not necessary or advisable when it can be clearly proved.
�A VINDICATION'.
7
from the internal evidence of the book, from his own words, as
it were, that it cannot possibly have originated, directly or
indirectly, from the alleged Cause of all things. No matter
what amount of external evidence might be adduced in favor
of its genuineness and authenticity, if its internal evidence is
invalidated and exploded, it goes for nothing. In this opinion
I do not stand alone. Dr. Conyers Middleton, a celebrated
writer and divine, says: “ Examining the external evidence is
certainly losing time and beginning at the wrong end, since it
is allowed on all hands that if any narration can be shown to
be false, any doctrine irrational and immoral, ’tis not all the
external evidence in the world that can or ought to convince
us that such a doctrine came from God.” And that I have
proved it contains narrations that “ can be shown to be false”,
and “ doctrines irrational and immoral”, I presume the follow
ing extracts fully demonstrate.
As to the statement that this work ought not to be tolerated,
and the strong arm of the law should instantly suppress it, I,
of course, was duly prepared to hear it. Invariably has it been
the modus operandi of the priesthood, whenever they have been
forced from the field of reason and argument, whenever they
have found that they were incapable of sustaining their position
on anything like reasonable grounds, to resort to calumny, foul
and virulent, and to persecution brutal and unjust. The Law !
the Law! ! has always been one of their most obliging and
Constant friends. Indeed, the old musty enactments in our
statute books are the only prop left to support the declining
fatme of priestcraft. Take these away, and the poor sickly
thing will fall upon the earth, helpless and dismembered. It
has been well observed by Fielding : “ Let a man abuse a phy
sician, he makes another physician his friend: let him rail at a
lawyer another pleads his cause gratis; if he libels this courtier,
that courtier receives him into his bosom ; but let him once
attack a hornet’s nest, or a priest, both nests are instantly sure
to be upon him ”, The history of the world, from the most
remote ages of antiquity, amply proves how dangerous it is to
attack the priesthood. There have occasionally been found a
few bold spirits who have presumed to encounter the monster,
but they have generally suffered, more or less, for their audacity;
and all who are determined to follow their steps—who are
resolved to struggle for the mental emancipation of man from
the thraldom of priestcraft—may rest assured, they will have
to experience annoyances, and submit to privation of no trivial
or transitory character. Let them remember, however, that
no great abuse has ever been remedied, no glorious object ever
been attained, without considerable sacrifices. Let them re
member, that should they fall victims to the idol of superstition
and intolerance, still posterity will be free—posterity will bless
them. When the cold hand of death shall have passed over
them, when they are quietly entombed in the bosom of their
mother earth, and the green herbage waves over their graves,
their memories will be revered with grateful and unfeigned
�8
A VINDICATION.
esteem. Oh! one tear* of sympathy and gratitude dropped
upon the grave of a martyr to truth is infinitely more precious
than a thousand diadems placed on the head of a political
despot, or a thousand miti es grasped in the hand of a religious
bigot. Mosheim, the gr-at ecclesiastical writer, says: “It
generally happens that when danger attends the discovery and
profession of truth, the prudent are silent, the multitude believe,
and impostors triumph ”. But shall this be any longer ? Shall
the impostors triumph ? Shall the demon of bigotry and cant
any longer devour the moral and intellectual vitals of man?
Truth, justice, humanity cry, No ; and every honest and inde
pendent mind must respond to the determination. Delightful
and cheering is the thought, that the career of this nuisance is
coming to a termination. A mighty movement is commencing
in society, which will speedily stultify so foul and deleterious a
pestilence. Already has the bright star of reason and free
inquiry dawned upon humanity, and soon by its illuminating
influence will the world be converted from a slaughter-house
of intolerance, persecution, and domination, into an arena of
equity, enlightenment, and peace. To close, in the sublime
words of one of the finest ft male writers that ever graced the
field of literature and moral philosophy—
“ Long have the nations slept—hark to that sound:
The sleep is ended, and the wo Id awakes :
Man rises in his strength, and looks around,
While on his sight ti e dawn of reason breaks.
Lo ! knowledge draws the curtain from his mind,
Quells fancy’s vision, and his spirit tames
Deep in his breast, that law to seek and find,
Which kings would write in blood, and priests in flames.
Shout, Earth ! the creature man, till now the foe
Of thee, and all who tread thy parent breast,
Henceforth shall learn himself and thee to know,
And in that knowledge shall be wise and blest.”
Manchester, July, 1840.
ROBERT COOPER.
�THE HOLY SCRIPTUBES ANALYSED.
.Passages inconsistent with the Attributes generally ascribed to
the Deity by the Christian world.
I.—IMMATERIALITY.
“ God is a spirit.”—John iv., 24.
[Christians allege “that the terms employed are terms of
condescending comparison with the acts and effects of the thus
mentioned organs of the human body, to convey, especially to
unpolished men, a conception of those properties and actions
of God which, to our feeble ideas, have a resemblance, and
that they were so understood —Dr. J. Pye Smith’s “ First lines
of Christian Theology”, p. 129].
1. —“So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Gen. i., 27. [“And they heard the voice of the Lord God
walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Gen. iii., 8.]
2. —“ The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the
•evil and the good.” Prov. xv. 3.
3. —“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my
mouth.” Isaiah lv., 11.
4. —“ These are smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the
day.” Isaiah lxv. 5.
5. —“ His lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a
•devouring fire.” Isaiah xxx., 27.
6. —“ The Lord heard our voice, and looked on our affliction,
and our labor, and our oppression.” Deut. xxvi, 7.
7. —“ Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear; open Lord,
thine eyes and see.” 2 Kings xix., 16.
8. —“And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my
throne, and the place of the soles of my feet where I will
■dwell.” Ezekiel xliii., 7.
9. —“And I myself will fight against you with an out
stretched hand, and with a strong arm.” Jer. xxi., 5.
10. —“The Lord hath made bare his holy arm.” Isaiah lii., 10.
11. —“ When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy
fingers.” Ps. viii., 3.
12. —“And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end
■of communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of
�10
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
testimony, two tables of stone, written with the finger of
God.” Exod. xxxi., 18.
13. —“ And I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance
of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins
even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even down
ward.” Ezekiel i., 27.
14. —“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Genesis vi., 6.
15. —[“Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash
your feet .... and he took butter, and milk, and the calf
which he had dressed, and set it before them : and he stood by
them under the tree and they did eat. And they said unto him,
Where is Sarah thy wife . . . And he said, I will certainly
return unto thee according to the time of life, and lo ! Sarah
thy wife shall have a son . . . And the Lord said unto Abra
ham. wherefore did Sarah laugh ? ... Is anything too hard
for the Lord ? At the time appointed I will return unto thee.”
Gen. xviii., 4—14].
16. —“And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were
gathered together. ” Exod. xv. 2.
17. —“And it shall come to pass while my glory passeth by
that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover theewith my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine
hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not
be seen.” Exod. xxxiii., 22, 23.
18. —“ Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my
mouth.” Jeremiah i., 9.
19. —“ Behold the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it can
not save ; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear.” Isaiah
lix., 1.
20. —■“ Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth,
and my right hand hath spanned the heavens.”
Isaiah
xlviii., 13.
21. —“I will also smite mine hands together, and I will
cause my fury to rest: I the Lord have said it.” Exekiel xxi. ,17.
22. —“ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.” Numbers
xxv., 16.
23. —“ And God spake unto Noah, saying.” Genesis viii., 15.
24. —“ And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out
Jonah upon the dry land.” Jonah ii., 10.
25. —“ And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him
saying.” Genesis xvii., 3.
26. —“And the Lord smelled a sweet savor, and the Lord
said in his heart.” Genesis viii.. 21.
27. —“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life : and
man became a living soul.” Genesis ii., 7.
28. —“ By the breath of God frost is given; and the breadth
of the waters is straitened.” Job xxxvii., 10.
29. —“ So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the
land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he
buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-
�ANALYSED.
11
peor; but no wan knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day,’*
Dent. xxxiv., 5, 6.
30.—“ They shall walk after the Lord; he shall roar like a
lion; when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from,
the west.” Hosea xi., 10.
Also 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 45, 47, 58, 59, 60, 61, 110, 125,
126, 128.
_____
II.—OMNIPRESENCE.
“ One God and father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all.” Ephesians iv., 6.
“Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? Or whither shall I
flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I
take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost part
of the sea ; even there shall thy hand lead me ; and thy right
hand shall hold me.” Psalms cxxxix., 7—10.
31. —“ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to
be equal with God.” Philippians ii., 5, 6.
32. —“And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai on the
top of the Mount; and the Lord called Moses up to the top of
the Mount, and Moses went up.” Exodus xix., 20.
33. —“ And the Lord came down in a cloud and spake unto
him, and took of the spirit that was upon him.” Num. xi., 25.
34. —“ And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud,
and stood in the door of the tabernacle.” Num. xii., 5.
35. —“I will gather all nations and tongues, and they shall
Come and see my glory.” Isaiah lxvi., 18.
36. —“ And come and stand before me in this house, which is
called by my name.” Jeremiah vii., 10.
37. —“ And the Lord said unto Moses. Come up to me into
the Mount, and be there.” Exodus xxiv., 12.
38. —“And he left off talking with him, and God went up
from Abraham.” Gen. xvii., 22.
39. —“And the Lord came down to see the city and the
tower, which the children of men builded.” Gen. xi., 5.
40. —“ And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like
a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said,
Thou art my beloved son.” Luke iii., 22.
41. —“ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1 Thess. iv., 16.
42. —“Thus saith the Lord, I am returned unto Zion, and
will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem.” Zechariah viii., 3.
43. —“ And I will return amongst the children of Israel, and
will be their God.” Exodus xxix., 45.
44. —“ And God met Balaam.” Num. xxiii., 4.
45. —“For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy
camp .... therefore shall thy camp be holy, that he see no
�12
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” Dent,
xxiii., 14.
46. —“They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they
be until the day that I visit them, saith the Lord.” Jer.
xxvii., 22.
47. —“I saw the Lord standing upon the altar.” Amos ix., 1.
48. —“ God that made the world, and all things therein,
seeing that he is the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in
temples made with hands.” Acts xvii., 24.
49. —“ Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying.”
Jer. ii., 1.
50. —“ God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount
Paran.” Habakkuk iii., 3.
Also 1, 59, 62, 65, 320.
III.—OMNIPOTENCE.
“With God all things are possible.” Matt, xix., 26.
51. —“And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the
inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabi
tants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Judges
i., 19.
52. —“ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Cor. i., 25.
53. — “A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth, for
the Lord hath a controversy with the nations; he will plead
with all flesh.” Jeremiah xxv., 31.
54. —“ Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel, for
the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land.”
Hosea iv., 1.
55. —“I will also gather all nations, and will bring them
down into the valley of Jehoshaphat; and will plead with them
there for my people, and for my heritage Israel.” Joel iii., 2.
56. —“ Now, therefore, let me alone that my wrath may wax
hot against them, and that I may consume them.” Exodus
xxxii., 10.
57. —“ In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on
the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” Exodus xxxi., 17.
58. —“For God created man to be immortal, and made him
to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless, through the
envy of the Devil, came death into the world; and they that do
hold of his side do find it.” Wisdom of Solomon, ii., 23, 24.
59. —“And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man
with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw
that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his
thigh ; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he
wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day
breaketh; and he said, I will not let thee go except thou bless
me. And he said unto him, What is thy name ? And he said
Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob,
but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with
�ANALYSED.
13;
menj and hath prevailed.” .... “ And Jacob called the name
of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my
life is preserved.” Genesis xxxii., 24-30.
IV.—OMNISCIENCE.
“Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men.” Acts i.r
24.
*• But God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit: for the
spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”
1 Cor. ii. 10.
“ No thought escaped him, neither any word is hidden from
him ” Ecclesiasticus xlii., 20.
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and know
ledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his
ways past finding out! ” Romans xi., 33.
60. —“ And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto
him, Where art thou ? ” Genesis iii. 9.
61. —“And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?
Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that
thou shouldst not eat?” Genesis iii., 11.
62. —“ And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are
these with thee ?” Numbers xxii., 9.
63. —“ And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab, king of
Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? ”
2 Chron. xviii., 19.
64. —“Thus saith the Lord, What iniquity have your fathers
found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked
after vanity and are become vain ? ” Jeremiah ii., 5.
65. —“Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold I will rain
bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and
gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them
whether they will walk in my law or no.” Exodus xvi., 4.
66. —“ When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John.”
John iv., 1.
67. —“ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men.”
1 Cor. i., 25.
68. —“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to
another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of
remembrance was written before him for them that feared the
Lord, and that thought upon his name.” Malachi iii., 16.
69. —“ The Lord your God, which goeth before you, he shall
fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt
before your eyes.” Deuteronomy i., 30.
70. —“And the Lord came down to.see the city, and the
tower which the children of men builded.” Genesis xi., 5.
71. —“I will go down now and see whether they have done
altogether according to the cry of it. . . . and if not, I will
know.” Genesis xviii., 21.
Also 59, 117, 140, 143, 307.
�14
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
V.—MUNIFICENCE.
“He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is love.”
1 John iv., 8.
“ The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble, and
he knoweth them that trust in him.” Nahum i., 7.
‘ ‘ All the works of the Lord are good; and he will give every
needful thing in due season.” Ecclesiasticus xxxix., 33.
72. —“ For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a
jealous God.” Deuteronomy iv., 24.
73. —“God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord
revengeth and is furious: the Lord will take vengeance on
his adversaries; and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.”
Nahum i., 2.
74. —“ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God.” Hebrews x., 31.
75. —“ For thou shalt worship no other God : for the Lord,
whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.” Exodus xxxiv., 14.
76. —“ They have moved me to jealousy with that which is
not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities;
and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a
people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”
Deuteronomy xxxii., 21.
77. —“I am the Lord, that is my name ; and my glory will I
not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
Isa. lxii., 8.
78. —“Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I
am married unto you; and I will take you one of a city,
and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” Jeremiah
iii., 14.
79. —“The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.”
Exodus xv., 3.
80. —“The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man; he shall
stir up jealousy like a man of war.” Isaiah xlii., 13.
81. —“ The Lord hath opened his armory, and hath brought
forth the weapons of his indignation.” Jer. 1., 25.
82. —“ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. Put every man
his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate
throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And
the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses ; and
there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”
Exodus xxxii., 27, 28.
83. —“ For a fire is kindled in my anger, and shall burn unto
the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase,
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. I will heap
mischiefs upon them, I will spend mine arrows upon them.
They shall be burnt with anger, and devoured with burning
heat, and with bitter destruction. I will also send the teeth of
beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The
sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young
�ANALYSED.
15
man, and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey
Itrafs.” Deuteronomy xxxii., 22, 23, 24, 25.
84. -—** Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God ; visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me.” Exodus xx., 5.
85. —“The Lord hath made all things for himself ; yea, even
the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverbs xvi., 4.
86. —“I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace
and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah xlv., 7.
87. —“ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my
signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh
shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon
Egypt, and bring forth mine armies and my people the children
of Israel out of the land of Egypt, by great judgments.” Exod.
vii., 3, 4.
88. —“ And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote
all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of
Pharaoh, that sat on his throne, unto the first-born of the
captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of
cattle.” Exod. xii., 29.
89. —“ And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with
the sword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children
fatherless.” Exod. xxii., 24.
90. —-“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the
Midianites, and smite them.” Numbers xxv., 16, 17.
91. —“ And the Lord’s anger was kindled the same time, and
he sware, saying: Surely none of the men that came up out of
Egypt from twenty years old and upwards, shall see the land
which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob ; be
cause they have not wholly followed me.” Num. xxxii., 10, 11.
92. —“Now go, and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
1 Samuel xv., 3.
93. «*“ The nations which thou hast removed and placed in
the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the
land; therefore, he hath sent lions among them, and behold,
they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God
of the land.” 2 Kings xvii., 26.
94. —“For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations,
and his fury upon all their armies; he hath utterly destroyed
them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.” Isaiah
xxxiv., 2.
95. —“Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in
the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and four score and five
thousand.” Isaiah xxxvii., 36.
96. —“Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold I will bring
evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape, and
though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.”
Jeremiah xi., 11.
97. —“ The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return until he
�16
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
have done it, and until he have performed the intents of hi®
heart; in the latter days ye shall consider it.” Jer. xxx., 24.
98. —“ They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but it is to fill
them with the dead bodies of men whom I have slain in mine
anger, and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid
my face from this city.” Jer. xxxiii., 5.
99. —“ And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle as if
if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his places of the
assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and Sabbaths
to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of
his anger the king and the priest.” Lam. of Jer. ii., 6.
100. —“The young and the old lie on the ground in the
streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword;
thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; thou hast killed
and not pitied.” Lam. of Jer. ii., 21.
101. —“ Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst
of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute
judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter
into all the winds. Wherefore as I live, saith the Lord God,
surely because thou hast defiled my sanctuary with all thy de
testable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will
I also diminish thee, neither shall mine eye spare, neither will I
have any pity.” Ezek. v., 10, 11.
102. —“So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel; and there
fell of Israel seventy thousand men.” 1 Chronicles xxi., 14.
103. —“ He that is far off shall die of the pestilence, and he
that is near shall fall by the sword, and he that remaineth and
is besieged shall die by the famine; and thus will I accomplish
my fury upon them.” Ezek. vi., 12.
104. —“ Samaria shall become desolate, for she hath rebelled
against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their infants
shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be
ripped up.” Hosea xiii., 16.
Also 53, 70, 113, 114, 117, 122, 138, 141, 186.
VI.—IMPARTIALITY.
“ God is no respecter of persons.” Acts x., 34.
“ For there is no respect of persons with God.” Rom. ii., 11.
105. —“Therefore I endure all things for the elects’ sakes,
that they may also obtain the salvation.” 2 Timothy ii., 10.
106. —“For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God;
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto
himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
Deuteronomy vii., 6.
107. —“And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and
will be their God.” Exodus xxix., 45.
108. —“ I will also gather all nations, and will bring them
down into the valley of Jehosophat, and will plead with
them there for my people, and for my heritage Israel, whom
�ANALYSED.
17
they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.”
Joel iii., 2.
109. —“Lo, I have given thee a wise and understanding
heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither
after thee shall any arise like unto thee.” 1 Kings iii., 12.
110. —“ I have loved you, saith the Lord ; yet ye say, Where
in hast thou loved us ? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother, saith the
Lord ; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his moun
tains and his heritage waste, for the dragons of the wilderness.”
Malachi i., 2, 3.
111. —“ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated.” Rom. ix., 13.
112. —“ Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender
love with the prince of the eunuchs.” Daniel i., 9.
113. —“ For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with
wisdom.” Wisdom of Solomon vii., 28.
114. —“ The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he bringeth
low, and lifteth up.” 1 Samuel ii., 7.
115. —“The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the
maker of them all.” Proverbs xxii., 2.
116. —“ For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will
have compassion.” Homans ix., 15.
Also 87.
VII—IMMUTABILITY.
“For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of
Jacob are not consumed.” Malachi iii., 6.
“Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James i., 17.
‘ ‘ God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man
that he should repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it ? or
hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good ? ” Numbers
xxiii., 19.
_____
117. —“ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have
created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and
the creeping thing, and tbe fowls of the air; for it repenteth
me that I have made them.” Gen. vi., 7.
118. —“ And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought
to do unto his people.” Exodus xxxii., 14.
119. —“ It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.”
1 Samuel xv., 11.
•
120. —“And when the angel stretched out his hand upon
Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and
said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough; stay
now thine hand.” 2 Samuel xxiv., 16.
121. -—“ If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn
from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do
unto them.”—“ If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my
�18
THE HOEY SCRIPTUBES
voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would
benefit them.” Jeremiah xviii., 8, 10.
122. —“For thus saith the Lord, Like as I have brought all
this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all
the good that I have promised them.” Jeremiah xxxii., 42.
123. —“ Turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and
merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth
him of the evil.” Joel ii., 13.
124. —“ And God saw their works, that they turned from their
evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that
he would do unto them, and he did it not.” Jonah iii., 10.
125. —“ Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone
backward; therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee,
and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting. ’ ’ Jeremiah xv., 6.
Also 14 and 26.
VIII.—INCOMPREHENSIBILITY.
“ Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of
every creature.” Coloss, i., 15.
“ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and know
ledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his
ways past finding out I ” Romans xi., 33.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah lv., 8.
126.—“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a
man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus xxxiii., 11.
. 127.—“Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu,
and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of
Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work
of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his
clearness.” Exodus xxiv., 9, 10.
128. —“ And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for
I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Genesis xxxii., 30.
129. —“I sawtheLord standing upon the altar,” Amos ix., 1.
130. —“And Jesus when he was baptised went up straight
way out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto
him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him.” Matthew iii., 16.
131. —“ And the Lord appeared unto him (Isaac), and said,
Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell
thee of.” Genesis xxvi., 2.
132. —“ And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar
of a cloud; and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of
the tabernacle.” Deuteronomy xxxi., 15.
133. —“ Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye
upon him while he is near.” Isaiah lv., 6.
134. —“And ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall
search for me with all your heart.” Jeremiah xxix., 13.
135. —“Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God;
�analysed.
19
'and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.”
1 John iv., 7.
136.—“This, then, is the message which we have heard of
him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no
darkness at all.” 1 John i., 5.
Also 1, 17, 34, 72, 79.
PASSAGES IMMORAL AND OBSCENE.
[We feel so strongly the harm that may be done by printing
at full length the obscene passages from the Bible, that we
only give the references to them. This book is meant for
general circulation, and we cannot reconcile it with secular
morality to print foul and disgusting language, conveying no
useful instruction, and so to aid the Christian Church to
“ corrupt the morals as well of youth as of divers other liege
subjects”, and to “ incite and encourage the said liege sub
jects to indecent, obscene, unnatural, and immoral practices.”]
GOD.
137. —Matthew i., 18, 19, and 20.
138. —“ And I will give this people favor in the sight of the
Egyptians; and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye
shall not go empty. But every woman shall borrow of her
neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of
silver and j ewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them
upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil
the Egyptians.” Exodus iii., 21, 22.
139. —“ So Jehu slew all that remained in the house of Ahab
in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his
priests, until he left him none remaining.”—“ And the Lord
Said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that
which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of
Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children
of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”
2 Kings x., 11 and 30.
140. —“And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou
mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over
Israel ? Fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to
Jesse the Beth-lehemite : for I have provided me a king among
his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go ? If Saul hear it
he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee,
and say I am come to sacrifice to the Lord.” 1 Samuel xvi.»
1, 2.
141. —“Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good,
and judgments whereby they should not live.” Ezekiel xx., 25.
142. -—-“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in
them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth
that they might be saved. And for this cause, God shall send
them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thess.
ii., 10, 11.
143. —“ And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab king of
�20
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? And one
spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that
manner. Then their came out a spirit and stood before the
Lord, and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him
Wherewith ? And he said, I will go out and be a lying spirit
in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou
shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail; go out, and do
even so.” 2 Chron. xviii., 19, 20, 21.
144. —“ And if the prophet be deceived when he have spoken
a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will
stretch out mine hand upon him, and will destroy him from
the midst of my people Israel.” Ezek. xiv., 9.
145. —“And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise
men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men: and
they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the king
whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” Jer. li., 57.
146. —“ Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the
Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, Drink ye and be drunken,
and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword
which I will send apiong you.” Jer. xxv., 27.
147. —“And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever
thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or
for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth; and
thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt
rejoice, thou and thine household.” Deut. xiv., 26.
148. —“ Behold I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon
your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts.” Mai. ii., 3.
MOSES.
149. —“ And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was
grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their
burdens; and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of
his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when
he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid
him in the sand.” Exodus ii., 11, 12.
150. —Numbers xxxi., 17, 18.
151. —“And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some
of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the
Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midiah.”—“And Moses
sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and
Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest to the war, with the
holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.”
Num. xxxi., 3, 6.
DAVID.
152. —2 Sam. xi., 2—25.
153. —“ And David laid up these words in his heart, and was
sore afraid of Achish the King of Gath. And he changed his
behavior before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands,
and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall
down upon his beard.” 1 Samuel xxi., 12, 13.
154. —Psalms xxxviii., 5, 7, 11.
�ANALYSED.
21
155. —1 Samuel xviii., 27.
156. —1 Kings i., 1 to 4.
157. —“ And David gathered all the people together, and
went to Kabbah, and fought against it, and took it. And he
took their king’s crown from off his head the weight whereof
was a talent of gold, with the precious stones, and it was set on
David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in
great abundance. And he brought forth the people that were
therein, and put them under saws and under harrows of
iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the
brick-kiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children
of Ammon.
So David and all the people returned unto
Jerusalem.” 2 Samuel xii., 29 to 31.
158. —“ And behold (says David in his dying moments to his
son Solomon), thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a
Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse,
in the day when I went to Mahanaim : but he came down to
meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord, saying I will
not put thee to death by the sword. Now therefore hold him
not guiltless ; for thou art a wise man and knowest what thou
oughtest to do unto him ; but his hoar head bring thou down
to the grave with blood.” 1 Kings ii., 8, 9.
[ “Thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my
■commandments and who followed me with all his heart, to do
only that which was right in mine eyes.” 1 Kings xiv., 8.]
SOLOMON.
159. —“ And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and
three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his
heart.” 1 Kings xi., 3.
160. —Solomon’s Song vii., 1 to 4.
JOSHUA.
161. —“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city,
both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and
ass, with the edge of the sword.” Joshua vi., 21.
162. —“And it was told Joshua saying, the five kings are
found hid in a cave at Makkedah. And Joshua said, Roll great
stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set men by it for to
keep them. And stay ye not but pursue after your enemies,
and smite the hindmost of them, suffer them not to enter into
their cities: for the Lord your God hath delivered them into
your hand. Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave,
and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave. And
afterwards Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged
them on five trees and they were hanging upon the trees until
the evening.” Joshua x., 17, 18, 19, 22, 26.
.
EZEKIEL.
163. —Ezekiel iv., 12 to 15.
ABRAHAM.
164.—“ And Abraham journeyed from thence towards the
�22
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
south country, and dwelled between Kadqsh and Shur and
sojourned in Gerar. And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife,
She is my sister; and Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took
Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and
said to him, Behold thou art but a dead man for the woman
which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. But Abime
lech had not come near her, and he said, Lord wilt thou slay also
a righteous nation ? Said he not unto me, She is my sister ?
and she, even she herself, said, He is my brother: in the
integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done
this.” Genesis xx., 1-5.
165. —“And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,
which she had bom unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she
said unto Abraham, cast out this bondwoman, and her son;
for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son,
even with Isaac. And Abraham rose up early in the morning
and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar,
putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away;
and she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.”
Genesis xxi., 9, 10, 14.
ISAAC.
166. —“ And the men of the place asked him of his wife : and
he said, She is my sister, for he feared to say, She is my wife;
lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah :
because she was fair to look upon. And it came to pass when
he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the
Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac
was sporting with Rebekah his wife. And Abimelech called
Isaac, and said, Behold of a surety she is thy wife; and how
sayest thou, She is my sister ? And Isaac said unto him because
I said, Lest I die for her.” Genesis xxvi., 7, 8, 9.
NOAH.
• 167.—Genesis ix., 21, 22.
SAMSON.
168. —Judges xvi., 1.
JUDAH.
169. —Genesis xxxviii., 1 to 3. I 171.—Gen. xxxviii., 13 to 30.
170. —Genesis xxxviii., 8 to 9. |
LOT.
172. —Genesis xix., 30 to 36.
RUTH.
173. —Ruth iii., 3, 4, 7, "8, 9, 10, 11.
^RACHEL.
174. —Genesis xxx., 1 to 5. | 1,75.—Genesis xxxi., 33 to 35.
�ANALYSED,
23
POTIPHAR’S WIFE.
176. —Genesis xxxix., 7 to 20.
REUBEN.
177. —Genesis xxxv., 22.
| 178.—Genesis xlix., 3, 4.
AMNON.
179. —2 Sam. xiii., 10 to 14.
ABSALOM.
180. —2 Sam. xvi., 21, 22.
SHECHEM.
181. —Genesis xxxiv., 1, 2.
CHRIST.
182. —“ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv., 26.
183. —“ I am come to send fire on the earth ; and that will I,
if it be already kindled ? Suppose ye that I am come to give
peace on earth ? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” Luke
xii., 49, 51.
184. —“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I
came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a
man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter-in law against her mother-inlaw.” Matthew x., 34, 35.
185. —“Then said he unto them, But now, hethat hatha
purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Luke xxii., 36.
186. —“But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before
me.” Luke xix., 27.
|
187. —“He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi., 16.
188. —“ And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, when ye depart out of that house, or city, shake off the
dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of
judgment, than for that city.” Matthew x., 14, 15.
189. —“And he said unto him, Unto you it is given to know
the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are
without, all these things are done in parables; That seeing they
may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not
understand ; lest at any time they should be converted, and
their sins should be forgiven them.” Mark iv., 11, 12.
190. —“ And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage, and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sendeth forth
two of his disciples. And saith unto them, Go your way into,
the village over against you; and, as soon as ye be entered into
�24
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon, never man sat; loose him,
and bring him. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye
this ? Say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straight
way he will send him hither.” Mark xi., 1 to 3.
191. —“Now there was there, nigh unto the mountain, a
great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him,
saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits
went out and entered into the swine ; and the herd ran violently
down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand)
and were choked in the sea.” Mark v., 11, 12, 13.
192. —“And on the morrow, when they were come from
Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing a fig-tree afar off, having
leaves, he came if haply he might find anything thereon : and
when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves ; for the time
of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No
man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples
heard it. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the
fig-tree dried up from the roots. And Peter, calling to remem
brance, saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou
cursedst is withered away.” Mark xi., 12, 13, 14, 20, 21.
PETER.
193. —“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and
smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The
servant’s name was Malchus.” John xviii., 10.
194. —Peter says “ And it shall come to pass that every soul
which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among
the people.” Acts iii., 23.
195. —“ Then took they him (Christ) and led him and brought
him into the high priest’s house, and Peter followed afar off.
And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and
were set down together, Peter sat down among them. But a
certain maid beheld him, as he sat by the fire, and earnestly
feoked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And
he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. And after a
little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them.
And Peter said, Man, I am not.” Luke xxii., 54 to 58.
PAUL.
196. —“ I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do
you service.” 2 Corinthians xi., 8.
197. —“ For if the truth of God hath more abounded through
my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner.”
Romans iii., 7.
198. —“ But if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant.” 1
Corinthians xiv., 38.
199. —“ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ.” Colossians ii., 8.
200. —“ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
�ANALYSED.
25
/
preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.” Galatians i., 9.
201. —“ If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be
Anathema Maran-atha.” 1 Corinthians xvi., 22.
202. —“ A man that is an heretic, after the first and second
admonition reject.” Titus iii., 10.
203. —“ I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”
Galatians v., 12.
204. —“ But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, be
ing crafty, I caught you with guile.” 2 Corinthians xii., 16.
205. —“ But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by inter
pretation) withstood- them, seeking to turn away the deputy
from the faith. Then Saul (who also is called Paul) filled with
the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all sub
tlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of
all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways
of the Lord. And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon
thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season.
And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and
he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.” Acts
xiii., 8 to 11.
BARNABAS AND PAUL.
206. —“ And, some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let
us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have
preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And
Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname
was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them,
who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with
them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between
them, that they departed asunder, one from the other; and so
Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus. And Paul chose
Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto
the grace of God.” Acts xv., 36 to 40.
JOHN.
•
207.—“ If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God
speed.” 2 John, 10.
GENERAL.
217. —Ezekiel xxiii.
208. —Isaiah xx., 4.
209. —Jeremiah iii., 9.
218. —2 Kings xviii., 27.
219. —1 Kings xiv., 10.
210. —Job xl., 17.
220. —Isaiah xvi., 11.
211. —Isaiah xlvii., 1, 2, 3.
221. —Isaiah xxvi., 18.
212. —Jeremiah xxx., 6.
222. —Judges iii., 21, 22.
213. —Isaiah xxxvi., 12.
223. —Deut. xxiii , 1.
214. —Isaiah xxxii., 11.
215. —1 Kings xiv., 24.
224. —1 Samuel xxv., 22.
216. —Ezekiel xvi., 4 to 58.
225. —Deut.-xxiii., 13.
226.—“Hethat is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he
which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous,
�26
THE HOLY SCRIPTUBES
let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy
still.” Rev. xxii., 11.
227. ---Leviticus xi., 16, 17, IS, 24, 25, 32, 33.
228. —Leviticus xv., 2 to 13, 16 to 28, 32, 33.
229. —Leviticus xviii., 6 to 23.
230. —Leviticus xx., 10 to 21.
231. —Genesis xxv., 21 to 26.
232. —Deuteronomy xxviii., 57.
233. —Deuteronomy xxii., 15, 20, 21.
234. —Romans i., 26,- 27.
235. —2 Samuel xii., 11.
236. —Revelation xvii., 1 to 4.
237. —“ And there was war in heaven : Michael and his
angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and
his angels.” Revelation xii., 7.
238. —“ And he was clothed in a vesture dipt in blood: and
his name is called, The Word of God. And the armies which
were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine
linen, white and clean.” Revelation xix., 13, 14.
PASSAGES ABSURD AND UNNATURAL.
239. —“ Then spake Joshua unto the Lord, in the day when
the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel,
and he said, in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon
Gibeon, and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged
themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and
hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua x., 12, 13.
240. —“ The sun and moon stood still in their habitation ; at
the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy
glittering spear.” Habakkuk iii., 11.
241. —“ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and
the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that
night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon
the dry ground ; and the waters were a wall unto them on their
right hand, and on their left.” Exodus xiv., 21, 22.
242. —“ And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will
not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice : for they will say,
The Lord hath not appeared unto thee. And the Lord said
unto him, What is that in thine hand ? And he said, A rod.
And he said, Cast it on the ground; and he cast it on the ground
and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And
the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by
the tail; and he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it be
came a rod in his hand.” Exodus iv., 1, 2, 3, 4.
243. —“And the Lord said unto Moses, say unto Aaron,
stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may
become lice throughout all the land of Egypt. And they did
so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote
�ANALYSED.
the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man and in beast:
all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of
Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments to
bring forth lice, but they could not; so there were lice upon
man and upon beast.” Exodus viii., 16—-18.
244. —“Make thee an ark of gopher-wood : rooms shalt thou
make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without, with
pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of;
the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth
of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window
shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it
above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side
thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make
it. And behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the
earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from
under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt
come into the ark; thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy
sons’ wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh,
two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive
with thee ; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their
kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing on
the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee
•to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that
is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; • and it shall be for
food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah ; according to all
that God commanded him, so did he.” Genesis vi., 14—22.
245. —“ And the flood was forty days upon the earth ; and
the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up
above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased
greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the
waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth;
and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were
covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail, and the
mountains were covered.” Genesis vii., 17—20.
246. —“ Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are,
and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained
not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.”
James v., 17.
247. —“ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.” Genesis ii., 7.
248. —“ And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up
the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God had
taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the
man.” Genesis ii., 21, 22.
249. —“Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he over
threw those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of
the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his
�28
THE HOLY .SCRIPTURES
(Lot’s) wife looked back from behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt.” Genesis xix., 24, 25, 26.
250. —“And he (Jacob) dreamed, and behold a ladder set
upon the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and
• behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And
behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God
of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon
thou liest to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.” Genesis
xxviii., 12, 13.
251. —“And it came to pass, as they still went on and talked,
that behold there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire,
and parted them both asunder: and Elijah went up by a
whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings ii., 11.
252. —“Now the Lord had prepared a great fish [which Christ
tells us in Matthew xii., 45, was a whale] to swallow up Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three
nights. Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the
fish’s belly. And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited
out Jonah upon the dry land.” Jonah i., 17, and ii., 1 and 10.
253. —“And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put
forth his hand and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon
heaps, with the jawbone of an ass, have I slain a thousand
men.” Judges xv., 15,*16.
254. —“ And it came to pass, when she (Delilah) pressed him
(Samson) daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul
was vexed unto death : that he told her all his heart, and said
unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head, for I
have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb; if I
be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall
become weak, and be like any other man.” The story then
proceeds to represent Delilah as betraying Samson into the
hands of his enemies the Philistines, who shave off the hair of
his head, and afterwards put out his eyes and imprison him.
In course of time his hair begins to grow again, when his
strength returns. The Philistines then take him to their temple,
that he may make sport for them, and Samson then says unto
the lad that held him by the hand, “ Suffer me that I may feel
the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon
them. Now the house was full of men and women, and all the
lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the
roof about three thousand men and women that beheld while
Samson made sport............ And Samson took hold of the
two middle pillars, upon which the house stood, and on which
it was borne up, of the one with his right hand and the other
with his left.
And Samson said, Let me die with the
Philistines, and he bowed himself with all his might; and the
house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were
therein; so the dead which he slew at his death were more than
they which he slew in his life.” Judges xvi., 16—30.
255. —“And these three men,Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-
�ANALYSED.
29
nego, fell down bound in the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning
fiery furnace, and spake and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth and come
hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came forth of
the midst of the fire. And princes, governors, and captains, and
the king’s counsellors being gathered together, saw these men
upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of
their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the
smell of fire had passed on them.” Daniel iii., 23, 26, 27.
256. —“ Then the king commanded and they brought Daniel,
and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and
said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he
will deliver thee. Then the king arose very early in the morn
ing, and went in haste unto the den of lions. And when he
came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel:
and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel servant of the
living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to
deliver thee from the lions ? Then said Daniel unto the king, O
king live for ever. My God hath sent his angel and hath shut
the lion’s mouths that they have not hurt me, forasmuch as
before him innocency was found in me ; and also before thee, O
king, have I done no hurt.” Daniel vi., 16, 19, 20, 21, 22.
257. —“And God saw the light that it was good; and God
divided the light from the darkness.” Genesis i., 4.
258. —“ And God made two great lights; the greater light to
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the
stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven,
to give light upon the earth.” Genesis i., 16, 17.
259. —“ And there shall be upon every high mountain, and
upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters, in the day
of the great slaughter when the towers fall. Moreover, the light
Of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day
that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth
the stroke of their wound.” Isaiah xxx., 25, 26.
260. —“ Again, the Devil taketh him (Christ) up into an ex
ceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of
the world and the glory of them.” Matthew iv., 8.
261. —“ The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me
out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of
the valley which was full of bones, and caused me to pass by
them round about; and behold, there were very many in the
open valley; and lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me,
Son of Man, can these bones live ? And I answered, O Lord God
thou knowest. Again he said unto me prophesy upon these
bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the
Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones, Behold, I will
cause breath to enter into you and ye shall live. And I will lay
sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover
you with skin, and put breath in you; and ye shall live, and ye
�30
THE HOLY SCBIFTITRES
shall know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I was com
manded ; and as I prophesied there was a noise, and behold a
shaking and the bones came together bone to his bone. And,
when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and
the skin covered them above : but there was no breath in them.
Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, Son
of Man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God, Come
from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain,
that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and.
the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their
feet, an exceeding great army.” Ezekiel xxxvii., 1—10.
262. —“And it came to pass as they were burying a man, that
behold, they spied a band of men, and they cast the man into
the sepulchre of Elisha, and when the man was let down and
touched the bones of Elisha he revived, and stood up on his
feet.” 2 Kings xiii., 21.
263. —“Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.” John v.,
28.
264. —“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 1 Cor. xv., 52.
265. —“ Eor the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of
God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, which
are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be
with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians iv., 16, 17.
266. —“And I saw the dead small and great, stand before
God; and the books were opened, and another book was
opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged
out of those things which were written in the books according to
their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;
and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them;
and they were judged every man according to their works. And
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death.” Revelation xx., 12—14.
267. —“ I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold I am
alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of
death.” Revelation i., 18.
268. —“But Mary stood without at the sepulchre, weeping;
and as she wept she stood down, and looked into the sepulchre.
And seeth two angels in white, sitting the one at the head, and
the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And
they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ? She saith unto
them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not
where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she
turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that
it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?
whom seekest thou ? She supposing him to be the gardener,
saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me
where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus
�analysed.
31
saith unto her, Mary; she turned herself, and saith unto him,
Rabboni, which is to say Master.” John xx., 11—16.
269. —But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was
not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore
saith unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them,
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into
his side I will not believe. And after eight days again his dis
ciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus,
the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace
be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy
finger, and behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side ; and be not faithless but believing.”
John xx., 24—27.
270. —“Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of
his disciples durst ask him, Who art thou ? knowing that it was
the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them,
and fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus showed
himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.”
Johnxxi., 12, 13, 14.
271—“And when he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their
sight. And while they looked steadily toward heaven, as he
went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
Acts i., 9, 10, 11.
272. —“ Then the Spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a
voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the Lord
from his place. So the Spirit lifted me up, and took me away,
and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand
of the Lord was strong upon me.” Ezekiel iii., 12, 14.
273. —“ And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me
by a lock of mine head; and the Spirit lifted me up between
the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God
to Jerusalem to the door of the inner gate, that looketh toward
the north, where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which
provoketh to jealousy.” Ezekiel viii., 3.
274. —“And Habbakuk said, Lord I never saw Babylon;
neither do I know where the den is. Then the angel of the
Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his
head, and through the vehemency of spirit, set him in Babylon
over the den. And Habbakuk cried, saying, O Daniel, Daniel,
take the dinner which God hath sent thee.” Bel and the
Dragon, 35—37.
275. —“Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were
with him (which is the sect of the Sadduces) and were filled
with indignation. And laid their hands on the apostles, and
put them in the common prison. But the angel of the Lord by
night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said
�32
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people, all the words
of this life.” Acts v., 17—20.
276. —“And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled
back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Matthew
xxviii., 2.
277. —“And the angel of the Lord came again the second
time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat, because thy
journey is too great for thee.” 1 Kings xix., 7.
278. —“Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the
staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh, and the un
leavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and
consumed the flesh, and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel
of the Lord departed out of his sight.” Judges vi., 21.
279. —“ Then Tobit called his son Tobias, and said unto him,
My son, see that the man have his wages which went with thee,
and thou must give him more. So he called the angel, and he
said unto him, Take half of all that ye have brought, and go
away in safety.” Tobit xii., 1, 5.
280. —“ Then the woman came and told her husband, saying,
A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the
countenance of an angel of God, very terrible; but I asked him
not whence he was, neither told he me his name.” Judges
xiii., 6.
281. —“ Whose throne is inestimable, whose glory may not be
comprehended, before whom the hosts of angels stand with
trembling.” 2 Esdras viii., 21.
282. —“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exod. xxii.,
18.
283. —“A man also, or woman that hath a familiar spirit, er
that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone
them with stones : their blood shall be upon them.” Lev. xx.,
27.
284. —“ And the woman said unto him, Behold thou knowest
what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those who have
familiar spirits, and the wizards out of the land : wherefore, then
layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die ? ” 1 Sam.
xxviii., 9.
285. —“Jesus saith unto them, Eill the water pots with water.
And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them,
Draw one now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And
they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water
that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the
servants which drew the water knew), the governor of the feast
called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the
beginning doth set forth good wine ; and when men have well
drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good
wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana
of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples
believed on him.” Johnii., 7 to 11.
286. —“And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way;
and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his
�ANALYSED.
33
servant was healed in the selfsame hour. And when Jesus
was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid,
and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever
left her; and she arose, and ministered unto them.” Matt,
viii., 13, 14, 15.
28*7.—“And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples
followed him. And behold, there arose a great tempest in the
sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves; but
he was asleep. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him,
saying, Lord, save us, we perish. And he saith unto them,
Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith ? Then he arose, and
rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.”
Matt, viii., 23 to 26.
288. —“And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went
unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw
him walking on the sea, they were, troubled, saying, It is a
spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus
spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer! it is I; be not
afraid. And Peter answered him, and said, Lord, if it be thou,
bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And
when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the
water, to go to Jesus.” Matt, xiv., 25 to 29.
289. —“ And Jesus arose and followed him, and so did his
disciples. And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and
saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, he said unto
them, Give place, for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth; and
they laughed him to scorn. But when the people were put
forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid
arose.” Matt, ix., 19, 23, 24, 25.
290. —“ And behold, a woman, which was diseased with an
issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched
the hem of his garment. For she said within herself, if I may
but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned
him about, and when he saw her he said, Daughter, be of good
comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman
was made whole from that hour.” Matt, ix., 20, 21, 22.
291. —“ And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud,
voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth,
bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was
bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose
him and let him go.” John xi., 43, 44.
292. —“And when the day began to wear away, then came
the twelve and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that
they may go into the towns and country round about, and
lodge, and get victuals; for we are here in a desert place. But
he said unto them, give ye them to eat; and they said, we
have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should
go and buy meat for all this people. For they were about five
thousand men. And he said to his disciples, make them sit
down by fifties in a company. And they did so, and made
them all sit down. Then he took the five loaves and two fishes,
and looking up to heaven he blessed them, and brake, and
�34
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. And they
did eat and were all filled, and there were taken up of frag
ments that remained to them twelve baskets.” Luke ix., 12
to 17.
293. —“And, when the day of Pentecost was fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there
appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat
upon each of them. And they were filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak, with other tongues, as the spirit gave
them utterance.” Acts ii., 1 to 4.
294. —“ And he (Moses) was there with the Lord forty days
and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water;
and he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the
ten commandments.” Exodus xxxiv., 28.
295. —“ And the angel of the Lord came again the second
time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat, because the
journey is too great for thee. And he arose, and did eat and
drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and
forty nights, unto Horeb the mount of God.” 1 Kings xix.,
7, 8.
296. —“Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou
findest; eat this roll (of a book), and go speak unto the house
of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat
that roll. And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly
to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then
did I eat it, and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.”
Ezekiel iii., 1 to 3.
297. —“And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she
fell down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and
he smote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth
of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto
thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times ? ” Num,
xxii., 27, 28.
298. —“ And I beheld, and lo, the eagle rose upon her talons,
and spake to her feathers, saying, Watch not all at once:
sleep every one in his own place, and watch by course. Then
1 heard a voice, which said unto me, Look before thee, and
consider the thing that thou seest. And I beheld, and lo, as it
were a roaring lion chased out of the wood ; and I saw that he
sent out a man’s voice unto the eagle, and said, Hear thou, I
will talk with thee, and the highest shall say unto thee,” etc.
2 Esdras xi., 7, 8, and 36, 37, 38.
299. —“ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth,
and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from
his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.”
Jonah iii., 8.
300. —“ And I took it and drank; and when I had drank of it,
my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast,
for my spirit strengthened my memory.” 2 Esdras xiv., 40.
SOI.—“ In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is
�ANALYSED.
35
found; but a rod is for the back of him that is void of under
standing.” Proverbs x., 13.
302. —“ Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto
you, if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this
which is done to the fig tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this
mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it
shall be done.” Matthew xxi., 21.
303. —“And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou
plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it
should obey you.” Luke xvii., 6.
304. —“Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye
desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall
have them.” Mark xi., 24.
305. —“ Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born
•of every creature.” Colossians i., 15.
306. —“ While we look not at the things which are seen, but
at the things which are not seen; for the things which are ceen
are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
2 Corinthians iv., 18.
307. —“And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his
disciples were with, him; and he asked them, saying, Whom
•say the people that I am ? ” Luke ix., 18.
308. —“ I and my father are one.” John x., 30.
308 [2],—“For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three
are one.” 1 John v., 7.
309. —“And David danced before the Lord with all his might;
and David was girded with a linen ephod.” 2 Samuel vi., 14.
310. —“ And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the
heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all their host
shall fall down as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a
falling fig from the fig tree.” Isaiah xxxiv., 4.
311. —“ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth ; for the
first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there
was no more sea.” Revelation xxi., 1.
312. —-“Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold I will rain
bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and
gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether
they will walk in my law or no. And they gathered it every
morning, every man according to his eating; and when the
Sun waxed hot it melted.” Exodus, xvi., 4, 21.
313. —“And it came to pass as they fled from before Israel,
and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast
down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and
they died; they were more which died with hail-stones than
they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.”
Joshua x., 11.
314. —“Then the Lord rained upon Sodom, andupon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Genesisxix., 24.
315. —“ And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty,
if I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and
�36
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
consume thee and thy fifty, and there came down fire from
heaven and consumed him and his fifty.” 2 Kings i., 10.
316. —“And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you,
and he shut up the heaven that there be no rain, and that the
land yield not her fruit, and lest ye perish quickly from off the
good land which the Lord giveth you.” Deuteronomy xi., 17.
317. —“ When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because
they have sinned against thee; if they pray towards this place,
and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou
afflictest them.” 1 Kings viii., 35.
318. —“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell; God knoweth) such an one caught up to
the third heaven.” 2 Corinthians xii., 2.
319. —“ And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was
silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.” Lev. viii., 1.
320. —“ After this I looked; and behold, a door was opened
in heaven ; and the first voice which I heard was as it were of
a trumpet talking with me ; which said, come up hither, and I
will show the things which must be hereafter. And immediately
I was in the spirit; and behold a throne was set in heaven, and
one sat on the throne; and he that sat was to look upon like a
jasper, and a sardine stone ; and there was a rainbow round
about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. And round
about the throne were four-and-twenty seats ; and upon the
seats I saw four-and-twenty elders sitting, clothed in white
raiment, and they had on their heads crowns of gold. And out
of the throne proceeded lightnings, and thunderings, and voices,
and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne,
which are the spirits of God. And before the throne there was
a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne,
and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before
. and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and
the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts
had each of them six wings about him, and they were full of
eyes within; and they rest not day and night saying, Holy,
holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to
come.” Revelation iv., 1—8.
321. —“And, when they shall have finished their testimony
the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make
war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”
Revelation xi., 7.
Also 30.
PASSAGES CONTRADICTORY.
322.—“ And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke
strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nationshall
�ANALYSED.
37
not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more.” Micah iv., 3.
323.—‘ ‘ Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning
-hooks into spears; let the weak say I am strong.” Joel iii., 10.
324. —“ Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tink
ling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have
all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity,
I am nothing.” 1 Corinthians xiii., 1, 2.
325. —“ As we said before, so say I now again, if any man
preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.” Galatians i., 9.
326. —“ Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye
know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
1 John iii., 15.
327. —“ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv., 26.
328. —“ Then said Jesus unto them, put up again thy sword
into its place ; for all they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword.” Matthew xxvi., 52.
329. —“ Then he said unto them, but now he that hath a purse,
let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword
let him sell his garment and buy one.” Luke xxii., 36.
330. —“ But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but who
soever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also.” Matthey v., 39.
331. —“ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood
be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” Gen. ix., 6.
332. —“But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them that despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Matthew
v., 44.
333. —“Then said he unto the disciples, it is impossible but
that offences will come; but woe unto him through whom they
come.” Luke xvii., 1.
334. —“ And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, when ye depart out of that house, or city, shake off the
dust of your feet.” Matthew x., 14.
335. —Christ says, “ Whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be
in danger of hell-fire.” Matthew v., 22.
336. —And yet he exclaims, “ Ye fools and blind, for whether
is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold.”
Matthew xxiii., 17.
�38
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
337. —“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus
xx., 3.
338. —“ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth.” Genesis i., 26.
339. “ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to the-m, nor serve
them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me.” Exodus xx., 5.
340. “The soul that sinneth it shall die; the son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son ; the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him.” Ezekiel xviii., 20.
341. —“ But the children of the murderers he slew not ac
cording unto that which is written in the book of the law of
Moses, wherein the Lord commanded saying, The fathers shall
not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to
death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for
his own sin.” 2 Kings xiv., 6.
342. —“ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days
shalt tnou labor, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is
the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor
thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within
thy gate.” Exodus xx., 8, 9, 10.
343. —“ And he entered again into the synagogue; and therewas a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched
him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day: that they
might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the
withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it law
ful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil ? to save life
or to kill ? but they held their peace. And when he had looked
round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hard
ness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine
hand. And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored
whole as the other.” Mark iii., 1—5.
344. —“ Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may
be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
Exodus xx., 12.
345. —“ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he- cannot be my disciple.” Luke
xiv., 26.
346.—“ Thou shalt not kill.”
Exodus xx., 13.
�ANALYSED.
39
347. —“ But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.”
Luke xix., 27.
348. —“ And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out
from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man
his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his
neighbor.” Exodus xxxii., 27.
349. —“ Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Exodus xx., 14.
350. —“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise;
when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Matthew i., 18.
351. —“Thou shalt not steal.” Exodus xx., 15.
352. —“And I will give this people favor in the sight of the
Egyptians; and it shall come to pass, that when ye go, ye shall
not go empty. But every woman shall borrow of her neigh
bor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver
and jevels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them upon
your sons and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the
Egyptians.” Exodus iii., 21, 22.
Vide Note 137.
353. —“The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are
over al his works.” Psalms cxlv., 9.
354. —“ Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which
Amalel did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way
when le came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek,
and uterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;
but sla; both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, <amel and ass.” 1 Samuel xv., 2, 3.
355. —“ The Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow
to ange* and of great mercy.” Psalms cxlv., 8.
356. —“ And he smote the men of Beth-Shemesh, because
they hal looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the
people ifty thousand and three score and ten men: and the
people amented, because the Lord had smitten many of the
people nth a great slaughter.” 1 Samuel vi., 19.
v
•
------- "
357. —“ Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity,
and paseth by the transgression of the remnant of his heri
tage ? h retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth
in mere}” Micah vii., 18.
358. —‘And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them be
fore the; thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou
shalt maeno covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.”
Deut. vi, 2.
�40
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
359. “The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and
will not at all acquit the wicked; the Lord hath his way in the
whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his
feet.” Nahum i., 3.
360. —“So shall it be at the end of the world : the angels
shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall be
wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew xiii., 49, 50.
361. —“ And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for they
shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of
them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I
will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah xxxi., 34.
362. —“ Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father,
so also. the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth it
shall die.” Ezekiel xviii., 4.
363. —“And rend your heart and not your garments, and
turn unto the Lord your God ; for he is gracious and nerciful,
siow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth bin of the
evil.” Joel ii., 13.
364. —“ And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall
walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the
Lord; and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their
flesh as the dung.” Zephaniah i., 17.
.—------- —
/
365. —“ The Lord is not slack concerning his pronise (as
some men count slackness), but is long-suffering to is-ward,
not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance.” 2 Peter iii., 9.
366. —“ The Lord hath made all things for himsel ; yea,
even the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverbs xvi., 4.
367. —“ For thou lovest all the things that are, and a&horrest
nothing which thou hast made; for never wouldst thi>u have
made anything if thou hadst hated it.” Wisdom of Solomon
xi., 24.
368. —“ For God loveth none but him that dwelljth with
wisdom.” Wisdom of Solomon vii., 28.
369. —“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Savior. Who will have all men to be saved, andto come
unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy ii., 3, 4
370. —“ And for this cause God shall send then strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians
ii., 11.
I
371.—“Yet saith the house of Israel, the way of tl Lord is
not equal, O house of Israel, are not my ways equal are not
your ways unequal ? ” Ezekiel xviii., 29.
�ANALYSED.
41
372. —“ For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God:
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto
himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
Deuteronomy vii., 6.
373. —“Lying lips are abominations to the Lord; but they
that deal truly are his delight.” Proverbs xii., 22.
374. —“ Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying
spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath
spoken evil concerning thee.” 1 Kings xxii., 23.
375. —“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
John iii., 17.
376. —“ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a
man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw.” Matthew x., 34, 35.
Also 182 and 183.
377. —“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom;
and with all thy getting, get understanding.” Proverbs vi., 7.
378. —“For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that
increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” Ecclesiastes i., 18.
379. —“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of
wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as
doves.” Matthew x., 16.
380. —“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the
prudent.” 1 Cor. i., 19.
381. —“The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he
shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.” Psalms xcii., 12.
382. —“The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to
heart; and merciful men are taken away, none considering
that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.” Isaiah
lvii., 1.
383. —“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not
one.” Romans iii., 10.
384. —“ Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for
another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer
of a righteous man availeth much.” James v., 16.
385. —“ Pray without ceasing.” 1 Thessalonians v., 17.
386. —“ And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide
mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers I will
not hear; your hands are full of blood.” Isaiah i., 15.
387. —“Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law.” Romans iii., 28.
�42
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
388. —“ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.” James ii., 24.
389. —“ For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that
not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God.” Ephesians ii., 8.
390. —“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without
works is dead.” James ii., 20.
391. —“ As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away; so he
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.” Jobvii., 9.
392. —“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after
his resurrection and went into the holy city, and appeared unto
many.” Matthew xxvii., 52, 53.
Also 268, 269, 270 and 271.
393. —“In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.” Genesis i., 1.
394. —And the earth was without form and void.” Genesis
i., 2.
395. —“ And God saw the light, that it was good; and God
divided the light from the darkness.” Genesis i., 4. (This
was on the first day.)
396. —“ And God made two great lights ; the greater light
to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made
the stars also.” Genesis i., 16. (This was on the fourth day.)
397. —“ And God saw everything that he had made, and
behold it was very good. And the evening and the morning
were the sixth day.” Genesis i., 31.
398. —“ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the
earth was filled without violence.” Genesis vi., 11.
399. —“Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the
heavens are not clean in his sight.” Job xv., 15.
400. —“ All things were made by him; and without him was
not anything made that was made.” John i., 3.
401. —“ For by him were all things created that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things
were created by him, and for him.” Colossians i., 16.
402. —“For God made not death; neither hath he pleasure
in the destruction of the living.” Wisdom of Solomon i., 13.
403. —“ For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,
as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians xiv., 33.
404. —“ One generation passeth away, and another generation
cometh; but the earth abideth for ever.” Ecclesiasticus i., 4.
405. —“All these things live and remain for ever, for all
uses, and they are all obedient.” Ecclesiasticus xiii., 23.
�ANALYSED.
43
406. —“So shall it be at the end of the world; the angels
shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.”
Matthew xiii., 49.
407. —“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also, and the works that are therein shall be burnt up.”
2 Peter iii., 10.
Also 311.
408. —“ For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favor
is life ; weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the
morning.” Psalms xxx., 5.
409. —“ And the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel, and
he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all
the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was
consumed.” Numbers xxxii., 13.
410. —“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted
of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth
he any man.” James i., 13.
411. —“ And it came to pass after these things, that God did
tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham, and he said,
Behold, here I am.” Genesis xxii., 1.
412. —“ And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil: for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for
ever. Amen.” Matthew vi., 13.
413. —“ And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in
heaven.” John iii., 13.
414. —“And it came to pass, as they still went on and talked,
that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire,
and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirl
wind into heaven.” 2 Kings ii., 11.
415-—“ And I (Jesus) say unto you, my friends, be not afraid
• of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that
they can do.” Luke xii., 4.
416.—“ After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he
would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him ”
John vii., 1.
417. —“ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are
one.” lJohnv.,7.
418. “ And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become
as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth
his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever.” Genesis iii,, 22.
419. —“There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are
�44
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one
baptism; One God and father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.” Ephesians iv., 4—6.
420. —“For there is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy ii., 5.
421. —“Remember the former things of old ; for I am God,
and there is none else; I am God; and there is none like me.”
Isaiah xlvi., 9.
422. —“ I and my father are one.” John x., 30.
423. —“ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works; that we may know and believe that the Father is in
me and I in him.” John x., 38.
424. —“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband
man.” John xv., 1.
425. —-“And the father himself, which hath sent me, hath
borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his shape.” John v., 37.
426. —“ The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand.” John iii., 35.
427. —■“ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him.” Johni., 18.
428. —“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen,
nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting.” 1 Tim.
vi., 16.
429. —“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a
man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus xxxiii., 11.
430. —“Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu,
and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of
Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of
a sapphire-stone, and as it were the body of heaven in In's
clearness.” Exodus xxiv., 9, 10.
Also 17, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132.
431. —“ And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there
shall no man see me, and live.” Exodus xxxiii., 20.
432. —“ And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I
have see God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Genesis
xxxii., 30.
Also 429.
433. —“Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
damnation.” John v., 28, 29.
434. —“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened,
�ANALYSED.
45
which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books, according to
their works.” Rev. xx., 12.
435,—“ For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth
beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so
dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man
hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go
unto one place : all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the
spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth ! Where
fore I perceive that there is nothing better than that a man
should rejoice in his own works, for that is his portion ; for
who shall bring him to see what shall be after him ? ” Eccles,
iii., 19—22.
Also 391.
436. —“ The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand.” John iii., 35.
437. —“ For though he (the Son) was crucified through weak
ness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak
in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward
you.” 2 Corinthians xiii., 4.
438. —“ And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the
temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” Mat
thew xxvii., 5.
439. —“Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the re
ward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in
the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Acts i., 18.
440. —“And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have
ye ? and they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. And he took
the seven loaves and the fishes and gave thanks, and brake
them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multi
tude. And they did all eat, and were filled ; and they took up
of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. And they
that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and
children.” Matthew xv., 34, 36, 37, 38.
441. —“But he said unto .them, Give ye them to eat. And
they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes;
except we should go and buy meat for all this people. For
they were about five thousand men. And he said to his dis
ciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company. Then he
took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to
heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples
to set before the multitude. And they did eat, and were all
filled; and there was taken up of fragments that remained to
them twelve baskets.” Luke ix., 13, 14, 16, 17.
Vide 292.
�46
THE HOLY SCBIPTURES
442. —“ And set np over his head, his accusation written,
This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” Matthew xxvii., 37.
443. —“ And the superscription of his accusation was written
over, The King of the Jews.” Mark xv., 26.
444. —“And a superscription also was written over him, in
letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This is the King of
the Jews.” Luke xxiii., 28.
445. —“And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.
And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”
John xix., 19.
446.—“ But while he thought on these things, behold the
angel of the Lord appeared unto him (Joseph) in a dream, say
ing, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee
Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Ghost.” Matthew i., 20.
In 448 the angel is represented not as appearing unto Joseph,
but unto Mary, his wife.
448.—“And the angel said unto her, fear not, Mary; for
thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt con
ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his
name Jesus. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this
be, seeing I know not a man. And the angel answered and
said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God.” Luke i., 30, 31, 34, 35.
449.—“ In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn to
wards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdelene, and
the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.” Matthew xxviii., 1.
450—“ And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet
spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early
in the morning of the first day of the week they came into the
sepulchre at the rising of the sun.” Mark xvi., 1, 2.
451.—“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the
stone taken away from the sepulchre.” John xx., 1.
452.—“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which
they had prepared and certain others with them. ” Luke xxiv., 1.
The individuals coming to the sepulchre are Mary Magda
lene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other
women. Verse 10.
In 450 it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
and Salome that came; in 449 it was only Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary; and in 451 it was only Mary Magdalene.
453.—“And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the
�ANALYSED.
47
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled
back the stone from the door and sat upon it.” Matthew
xxviii., 2.
454.—“And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us
away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ? And when
they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was
very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young
man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment;
and they were affrighted.” Mark xvi., 3, 4, 5.
In 453 the angel is represented as sitting outside the sepulchre
upon the stone which he rolled from the door, and in 454 as
sitting within the sepulchre on the right side.
455.—“ And they entered in, and found not the body of the
Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed
thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining**
ments.” Luke xxiv., 3, 4.
1
In 453, 454, and 456, the angels are represented nc
standing, but as sitting.
1
456.—“But Mary stood without at the sepulchre, weepl
and as she wept she stooped down, and looked into the sepull
and seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the ha
and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lai
John xx., 11, 12.
I
In this and 455 there are represented as being two angl
while according to 453, 454, there was only one. In this Ml
merely looked into the sepulchre; while in 454 she and thl
who accompanied her went into it.
457. —“And the angel answered and said unto the womtW
Fear not ye ; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucifkfig
He is not here ; for he is risen, as he said : Come, see the plaM
where the Lord lay.” Matthew xxviii., 5, 6.
k
458. —“ And when she had thus said, she turned herself bac®
and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. JesiB
saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ? whom seekestthouB
She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, B
thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid hinl
and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. Shi
turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to sal
Master. Jesus saith unto her; Touch me not; for I am not y 1
ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say un B
them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to ml
God and your God.” John xx., 14-17.
1
In 457 the angel is represented as telling the women or]
woman of Christ’s rising from the dead; in 458 Christ is re-'
presented as telling them himself.
j
�48
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ANALYSED.
4a9.—“ And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen
fropa the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee ;
there shall ye see him; lo, I have told you. Then the eleven
disciples went away into Gallilee, into a mountain where Jesus
had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped
him ; but some doubted.” Matthew xxviii., 7, 16, 17.
460. “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to
Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and them
that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath
appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in
the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of
them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” Luke xxiv
33-36.
’
•
/
---------
( In 459 the eleven disciples went to Galilee to meet Jesus
according to appointment, where they saw him and worshipped
460 they did no such thing> but Jesus appeared unto
' „
quite unexpectedly, as they were assembled together at
thou salem.
ceive
_____
nami
he, sll>—“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them (the
said en apostles that were sat at meat), he was received up to
powven, and sat on the right hand of God.” Mark xvi., 19.
thaf62.—“ And he led them (the eleven apostles) out as far as to
Sonluiny; and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And
lame to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from
4<m, and carried up into heaven.” Luke xxiv., 50, 51.
Christ ascended into heaven from the place where the
the08?!68 were sa4 a4 meat, after he had done speaking to them;
4d in 462 he first led them out to Bethany, and then hisascenan(jn took place.
spi
in
sei
ea
st'
n
tl
k
W'
a
iijb
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Holy scriptures analysed or: Passages inconsistent with the attributes generally ascribed to the Deity by the Christian world
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: [2nd ed.]
Place of publication: [Manchester]
Collation: 48 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Last page torn. Introductory sketch of the life of Robert Cooper / Charles Bradlaugh (p.[1]-2) -- A vindication written for the second edition after the work had been specially attacked by the Bishop of Exeter in the House of Lords / Robert Cooper (p.[3]-8) -- The Holy Scriptures analysed (p.[9]-48). Publisher and place of publication from British Library. "Vindication" dated Manchester, July 1840. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cooper, Robert [1819-1868]
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Published by Jas. Cooper]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1840
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N180
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Holy scriptures analysed or: Passages inconsistent with the attributes generally ascribed to the Deity by the Christian world), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b842d10258a06cf2c9e19b58b7c47821.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XPdEP-cws2l6Or5xnxbUvvn5cdPAJJkorexzc8wgMG%7EmMZmjnblk4KTrPAie4Ub-nszoNt7oXNcHCjEfySk0uNd3v4PS-pfrie13-kE2MUlx7UIkrCiWFt04FZtnkfTYqcDCg-eFTe8Sddr9fyawx62NG%7EG6unyt5SKRW1UruJLUCe2VowjEHN9XqsDNL8kSoXk7WSpG2v7anxI38k10FnO09dHhQEYTTZ0KJUAskoXbnA-QFDilv3yZ93-kE9ZLUjo2tmNyy9oqbVlDBMpRoK-B1%7EB-j70UR8U03vAzcMLxzkg84v-8PV9QZodM9tbo4-ArviOqwhdFBvgC-njO8A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c608985cf50ae52c38e9fc0b35b82b37
PDF Text
Text
2»
&
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
BwAl au< k;
CL<5l v~(es
REPEAL OF THE BLASPHEMY
LAWS.
I
shall,
at the next meeting of the Norwood Liberal
and Radical Association, move :—
“That this meeting is of opinion that all Statutes
inflicting penalties for opinion (as the 9th and
10th William III, cap. 35), or placing hindrances
in the way of lectures and discussions (as the
21st George III, cap. 49), ought to be forthwith
repealed ”.
S. HARTMANN.
The following is a reprint of the speech made by Mr.
Bradlaugh on this subject in the House of Commons, on
12th April, 1889 (“Hansard,” vol. 335, page 450):—
Mr. Speaker, the Bill, the second reading of which I have
asked the House to pass, is directed against prosecutions
which are partly prosecutions at common law and partly
prosecutions by Statute. The Statute is the 9th and 10th,
William III, chapter 35, and that Statute enacts that any
person convicted of blasphemy, shall, for the first offence,
be adjudged incapable and disabled in law, to all intents
and purposes whatsoever, to have, to hold, or enjoy any
office or offices, employment or employments, and shall,
for a second offence, be adjudged disabled from being a
�( 2 )
plaintiff or defendant in any suit, or from being the guar
dian of his own children, or from being capable of receiv
ing any legacy, and shall be liable to imprisonment for
the space of three years. The Act has been held to be
supplemental to the common law. I may best describe
the Statute by using the words of Lord Coleridge uttered
in a case which was tried six years ago. In the course of
the defence, the Statute had been described as shocking,
and Lord Coleridge said—
“ Some old things, and amongst them this Statute, are
shocking enough, and I do not defend them.”
In a judgment which Lord Justice Lindley delivered in
1885, His Lordship spoke of this Statute as cruel in its
operation against the persons against whom it was directed.
The Statute of 6th of George, chapter 47, which applies
to Scotland, makes the offence punishable by 14 years’
transportation. Now, Mr. Justice Stephen in his “ His
tory of the Criminal Law ”, which was written and passed
through the Press in 1882, although it was published in
1883, wrote—
“ Offences against religion can hardly be treated as an actually
existing head of our criminal law. Prosecutions for such of
fences are still theoretically possible in a few cases, but they
have in practice become entirely obsolete.”
Unfortunately, whilst. the History was passing through
the Press, several prosecutions were initiated, one of which
4 was tried at Maidstone, two which were tried at the Old
Bailey, and two, in one of which I was myself the de
fendant, which were removed by certiorari to the High
Court, and were tried before the present Lord Chief Justice
of England. Here are two views of the law which it
is my duty to submit to the House, one, the view taken by
the present Lord Chief Justice of England—namely, that
it is only the manner of a blasphemous libel which should
be censured and that a calm, and clear, and cool statement
of views could not bring a person within the operation of
�( 3 )
the laws relating to blasphemy; and the other, the view
which, with all submission to the great Judge, who has
expressed the contrary opinion, I am afraid is the real
view of the law—the other, the view which was formed by
Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr. Justice Hawkins sitting in I "
the Queen’s Bench Division, which was mentioned in the
charge of Mr. Justice North in the trials at the Old Bailey,
and which was formed in the case of the AttorneyGeneral v. Bradlaugh reported in the Weekly Reporter, |
vol. 433, especially by Lord Justice Lindley. It seems to
me that the real state of the law has been very fully
explained by Mr. Justice Stephen in an article which
appeared in the Fortnightly Review, and which was pub
lished in examination and criticism of the charge of Lord
Coleridge to the jury in the case of the Queen v. Foote
and others. Mr. Justice Stephen urges that the law as
it now stands is a bad law, and recommends the very
measure which I am bringing before the House to-night.
It is right, however, I should state Lord Coleridge’s view
—the view that it is the manner and not the matter of the
blasphemous libel which should be considered, before I
put what I conceive is, unfortunately the real view of the
law. Lord Coleridge says—
“It is clear, therefore, to my mind that the mere denial of
the truth of the Christian religion is not enough alone to con
stitute the offence of blasphemy.”
and he goes on to point out that all prosecutions for blas
phemy, according to his view, tend to failure. Further on
in his judgment Lord Coleridge says—
“ Persecution, unless thorough-going, seldom succeeds. Ir
ritation, annoyance, punishment which stops short of exter
mination, very seldom alter men’s religious convictions. En
tirely without one fragment of historical exaggeration, I may
say that the penal laws which 50 or 60 years ago were enforced
in Ireland were unparalleled in the history of the world. They
existed 150 years ago ; they produced upon the religious con
victions of the Irish people absolutely no effect whatever.”
�( 4 )
I submit to the House that all kinds of enactments which
are in the nature of persecution for opinion are enactments
which fail in doing anything except driving the expression
of opinion into its worst and roughest forms, and, there
fore, ought not to be desired by anyone who has in any
degree any faith in any kind of liberty. Mr. Justice
Stephen, reviewing the charge of Lord Coleridge, a charge
which he praises in language not too strong, says —
“My only objection to it is that I fear that its merits may
be transferred illogically to the law which it expounds and lays
down, and that thus a humane and enlightened judgment may
tend to perpetuate a bad law by diverting public attention
from its defects. The law I regard as essentially and funda
mentally bad.”
Now when a learned judge, who is now engaged in trying
cases, can thus describe this portion of the law, I think I
can submit there is something like a prima facie case for
its appeal. Lord Justice Lindley in delivering judgment
in the case of the Attorney-General v. Bradlaugh says—
“ It is a mistake to suppose, and I think it as well the mistake
|$ *
,i'
7 should be known, that persons who do not believe in a Supreme
Being are in the state in which it is now commonly supposed
they are. There are old Acts of Parliament still unrepealed by
H which such people can be cruelly persecuted.”
And it was because Lord Justice Lindley found this law
on the Statute Book, that he said he felt constrained to
hold as he did in the case then before him. What is the
state of the law ? I prefer to put it in the words of Mr.
Jnstice Stephen than in my own. He quotes in support
of his statement a large number of cases, and he says—
“ The result of the examination of the authorities appears to
me to be that to this day Blackstone’s definition of blasphemy
must be taken ,to be true; and, if this is the case, it follows
that a large part of the most serious and most important litera
ture of the day is illegal—that, for instance, every bookseller
who sells, every one who lends to his friend, a copy of Comte’s
Positive Philosophy, or of Renan’s Vie de Jesu, commits a crime
punishable with fine and imprisonment. It may be said that
so revolting a consequence cannot be true; but, unfortunately,
�( 5 )
this is not the case. I suppose no one will, or indeed can deny
that if any person educated as a Christian, or having ever made
profession of the Christian religion, denied that the Bible was
of divine authority, even by word of mouth, he would incur the
penalties of the 9 and 10 William III, c. 32. I will take a par
ticular instance by way of illustration of this. The late Mr.
Greg was not only a distinguished author, but an eminent and
useful member of the Civil Service. I suppose he was educated
as a Christian, and no one could have a stronger sympathy with
the moral side of Christianity. In every one of his works the
historical truth of the Christian history is denied : and so is the
divine authority of the Old and New Testament. If he had
been convicted of publishing these opinions, or even of express
ing them to a friend in private conversation, his appointment
would have become void, and he Would have been adjudged in
capable and disabled in law to hold any office or employment
whatever; in a word, he would have lost his income and his
profession. Upon a second conviction, he must have been im
prisoned for three years, and incapacitated, amongst other things
to sue or accept any legacy. About this there neither is, nor
can be, any question whatever.”
And after a long and careful summary of the law, as laid
down in many decisions, Mr. Justice Stephen winds up—
“ In my own opinion the practical inference is that blasphemy
and blasphemous libel should cease to be offences at common
law at all, that the Statute of William III should be repealed,
and that it should be enacted that no one except a beneficed
clergyman of the Church of England should be liable to ecclesi
astical censures for ‘ atheism, blasphemy, heresy, schism, or any
other opinion ’. Such an abolition would not only secure com
plete liberty of opinion on these matters, but it would prevent
their recurrence at irregular intervals of scandalous prosecutions
which have never in any one instance benefited anyone least of
all the cause which they were intended to serve, and which
sometimes afford a channel for the gratification of private malice
under the cloak of religion.”
•
I ask this House to give effect- to what the learned Judge
has said. I know there are one or two arguments which
may be used to weigh heavily against me. One is, that
the class for whom I speak is a comparatively small class.
(Mr. DeLisle : “ Hear, hear.”) There would be no reason
in denying liberty to one man, even if he stood alone.
Every opinion, in every age, has been at some time small,
�( 6 )
and those who hold opinions which, within 100 years have
been the subject of cruel persecutions within this realm,
should be the last to endorse the doctrine of persecution
against those weaker than themselves. It may be urged
that the severe penalties of the law are seldom enforced.
It is only about 50 years ago that under this Act one man
suffered nine years and eight months’ imprisonment in
this country, and was also condemned to pay an enormous
fine. It did not check the issue of the literature by him
against which the prosecution was directed. It only had
the effect of endearing him to a large number of people,
and of making many purchase the writings he issued who
might otherwise not have done so. I hardly like to seem
to be thrusting my personal case upon the House, but I
may be permitted to remind the House that the declaration
has been made very formally in print that the prosecution
which was directed against me, was initiated for the direct
purpose of disqualifying me, under this Statute, for the
term of my natural life, from taking part in the political
work of the country. I submit to the House that, ruling
as it does over 330,000,000 of human beings, of every kind
of faith or lack of faith, it is our duty to treat all alike.
What is the effect of the law as it stands ? Two years ago
a legacy was left to myself and a gentleman in Manchester
for the purpose of endowing an institution. We were all
persons who might have been indicated as blasphemers
under the law. The legacy was left for purely educational
purposes, but the legacy was set aside, first of all in the
Court of the Palatine of Lancaster, and next on appeal,
on the ground that a bequest for such a purpose was an
j illegal bequest and voidable. It may be said “ we would
not object to you being allowed to utter your views, but
we object to you uttering your views in an offensive
language”. But if persons utter their views in an of
fensive manner, and so as to provoke a breach of the
peace, they are punishable under the law as it now stands.
The fact that the law is not always enforced, the fact that
�( 7 )
it is seldom enforced, the fact that Mr. Justice Stephen
in his “ History of the Criminal Law ”, describes the law
as obsolete, the fact that Lord Justice Lindley has referred
to the law as cruel in its operation, should tend, I submit,
to induce the House to grant the Second Reading of this
Bill. I can quite understand it is possible that people
will say that views which are different from their own
should not be offensively urged, but that brings in the
question of the manner of the advocate rather than that
of the matter, and I put it to persons who hold this view,
whether the keeping on the Statute Book of this harsh
and cruel law, does not deprive' any of us, who may wish
to tone and temper argument, of any fair reason for
checking harsh or hasty speech or utterance. Again, let
me point out that the word blasphemy for which' you
punish to-day, has been an ever-changing word. It is
only 240 years ago that a man, Naylor, the Quaker, of
the same faith as the man (Mr. Bright) all of us in this
House honored, was tried for blasphemy. George Box,
William Penn, and scores of their co-workers were sent to
gaol, or whipped at the cart tail as blasphemers. The
Unitarians, had they lived even later than the times of
which I have just spoken, would have come within the
penalties of this Statute which Lord Coleridge says gives
a ferocious power against people, and which Lord Justice
Lindley condemns as an essentially bad law. I feel' that
this is not a time of night to trespass unduly on the
attention of the House. I can only appeal to the generosity
of the majority, but I would point out to them the position
in which they put those who differ from them when they
lack generosity themselves. I have sometimes tried to
argue with my friends in Prance against the strict en
forcement some of them have put on the Anti-Clerical
laws ■ they have answered me “ the Church shows us no
mercy ”. It is that kind of unfortunate spirit which treats
opinion as if it were a crime and thought as if it were a
crime, when the very honesty of the utterance of that
�thought, that expression of opinion, shows you that
the persons against whom you direct your Statute,
have, at least, the virtue of honesty to redeem their
action from being classed as that of the ordinary
criminal. It is against this unfortunate spirit I am
arguing; it is for these people I am pleading to-night.
I am pleading for many who have found trusts for their
children cancelled, as was the case with a member of this
House, honored while sitting in it because of the family
to which he belonged, and for the great name and greater
traditions associated with it—I mean Lord Amberley. He
found his trust for his children cancelled, because the man
whom he honored enough to give the trust, might
have been brought within the scope of this statute. It is
too late to-day to keep these penalties on the Statute Book.
The Bill may not receive sanction for its second reading
to-night, but it is something—and I thank the House for
it—that the House has listened patiently and generously
to an appeal made on behalf of an unpopular minority;
and one day or other justice will have to be done, and I
ask the House to do it whilst those for whom they are
asked to do it are few and weak, rather than leave us to
win, as win we will, that outside public opinion by the
ballot which determines what the law shall be.
A. Bonner, Printer, 34 Bouverie St., E.C,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Repeal of the blasphemy laws
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Reprint of speech made by Bradlaugh in the House of Commons on 12 April 1889. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner, Printer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1889?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N103
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Repeal of the blasphemy laws), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d6d73c2f4656a2966f96781cf1b7e629.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XkY%7E4NyL0XOIW-HT-LD7X1syK3Qglymvuwvw9KgtiqHPfoKvJIgCNI2Chn-oU1ZU7KaVATdA18-iSzUv7o-5g3UosPaFPK4WD7dx8IFQ9FHw3e88E8eCri-Fg6ZsQfbCiHaTWG9-lTdmclJBJiVI9A12byPpvcZwBugoP7llAvGfkEt0slRDH1TnXY1drimBqOcZTBe3md7FFg%7Ebckhj4rYhLYoOioxBYkFX8%7EsMTNAJ9SaStqXs67xgryjxKS%7EbF6v7lG7TehUTE0D2e8lEmOueY1Iyn9B3WrWROTcI3UlUhsILggflOcU-UadqWaAZSFXfiH2V-TfVlxDBmWvkRA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
eed281eecda63eeca9da2d84a997f49d
PDF Text
Text
K)0$
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
ATONEMENT.
BY 0. BRADLAUGH.
“Quel est done ce Dieu qui fait mourir Dieu pour apaiser Dieu?’
J
The chief feature of the Christian Religion is that Jesus, A;
the Son of God, sacrificed himself, or was sacrificed by God
the father, to atone for Adam’s transgression against the
divine command. It is declared in the New Testament, in A
clear and emphatic language, that in consequence of the one I
man, Adam’s sin, death entered into the world, and judg- '
ment and condemnation came upon all men. It is also
declared that a Christ died for the ungodly
“ that he died
for our sins,” and “ was delivered for our offences.” On
the one hand it is urged that Adam, the sole source of the
human family, offended Deity, and that the consequence of
this offence was the condemnation to death, after a life of
sorrow, of the entire race of mankind. On the other side of
the picture is pourtrayed the love of God, who sent his only
beloved son to die, and by his death, procuring for all
eternal life, to save the remnant of humanity from the
further vengeance of their all-merciful heavenly father. The
religion of Christ finds its source in the yet undiscovered
garden watered by a four-armed river.
Adam’s sin is the corner-stone of Christianity ; the key< I j
stone'd? the arch. Without the fall there is no redeemer, / I
for there isjio fallen one to be redeemed. It is then to the ’ [
fiistory of Adam that the examinant of the Atonement
theory should first direct his attention. To try the
doctrine of the Atonement by the aid of science would
be fatal to religion. As for the one man Adam, 6,000 years
�9
THI ATOKEiaWT.
ago the first of the human race, his existence is not
only unvouched for by science, but is actually ques
tioned by the timid, and challenged by the bolder expo
nents of modem ethnology. The human race is traced back
far beyond the period fixed for Adam’s sin. Egypt and
India speak for humanity busy with wars, cities, and
monuments, prior to the date given for the garden scene in.
Eden.
The fall of Adam could not have brought sin upon man
kind, and death by sin, if hosts of men and women had lived
and died ages before the words “thou shalt surely die,” were
spoken by God to man.
Nor could alL men inherit Adam’s misfortune, if it be true
that it is not to one, but to many centres of origin that we
ought to trace back the various races of mankind.
The theologian who finds no evidence of death at all
prior to the offence shared by Adam and Eve, is laughed to
scorn by the geologist who points to the innumerable
petrifactions on the earth’s bosom, which with a million
tongues declare more potently than loudest speech, that
organic life in myriads of myriads was destroyed incalculable
ages before man’s era on our world.
Science, however, has so little to offer in support of any
religious doctrine, and so much to advance against all purely
theologic tenets, that we turn to a point giving the Christian
greater vantage ground ; and accepting for the moment his
premises, we deny that he can maintain the possibility of
Adam’s sin, and yet consistently affirm the existence of an
All-wise, All-powerful, and All-good God. Did Adam sin?
We will take the Christians’ Bible in our hands to answer
the question, first defining the word sin. What is sin ?
Samuel-TayLor Coleridge^says, “ A sin is an evil which has
its ground or origin in the agent and not in the compulsion
of circumstances. Circumstances are compulsory from the
absence of a power to resist or control them, and if this
absence be likewise the effect of circumstances (that is, if
it have been neither directly nor indirectly caused by the
agent himself) the evil derived from the circumstance, and
therefore such evil is not sin, and the person who suffers it,
�THE ATONEMENT.
3
or is the compelled actor, or instrument of its infliction on
others, may feel regret but not remorse. Let us generalise
the word circumstance so as to understand by it all and
everything not connected with the will. . . . Even
though it were the warm blood circulating in the chambers
of the heart, or man’s own inmost sensations, we regard
them as circumstantial, extrinsic, or from without. . . .
9 An act to be sin must be original, and a state or act that has
not its origin in the will, may be calamity, deformity, or dis
ease, but sin it cannot be. It is not enough that the act
.1 aPPeara s0 voluntary, or that it has the most hateful passions, 5
or debasing appetite for its proximate cause and accompani
ment. All these may be found in a madhouse, where
neither law nor~humanity permit us to condemn the actor of I
Bin. The reason of law declared the maniac not a free
agent, and the verdict follows of course, not guilty.” Did 1
Adam sin?
The Bible story is that a Deity created one man and on©
woman ; that he placed them in a garden wherein he had
also placed a tree, which was good for food, pleasant to the
eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise. That
although he had expressly given the fruit of every tree
bearing seed for food, he, nevertheless, commanded them not
to eat of the fruit of this attractive tree under penalty of
death. Supposing Adam to have at once disobeyed this in
junction, would it have been sin? The fact that God had
made the tree good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree
to be desired to make one wise, would have surely been
sufficient circumstance of justification on the God-created
(inducement to partake of its fruit. The inhibition lost its. a
f value as against the enticement. If the All-wise had in- 1
i Tendedthe tree to be avoided, would he have made its allure- /
. ments so overpowering to the senses? But the case does not I
rest here. In addition to aJ I the attractions of the tree, and I
as though there were not enough, there is a subtle serpent
gifted with suasive speech, who either wiser or more truthifiil than the All-perfect Deity, says that although God has
threatened immediate death as the consequence of dis- '
obedience to his command, yet they“shall not die ; for God
�TSE ATONEMENT.
doth know that in the .day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall
be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and
evil.” The tempter is stronger than the tempted, the
witchery of the serpent is too great for ihe spell-bound
woman, the decoy tree is too potent in its temptations ;
overpersuaded herself by the honey-tongued voice of the
seducer, she plucks the fruit and gives to her husband
also. And for tbis^their offspring are to suffer ! The /
>
unbonrScbildren^ are. to be the victims of GocTs
j i vengeance ontheir parents’ weakness—though he had Hi
I made them weak. Though indeed he had created the If J
tempter sufficiently strong to practise upon this weakness,
and had arranged the causes, predisposing man and woman
to commit the offence—if indeed it be an offence to pluck
the fruit of a tree which gives knowledge to the eater. It
ss for this fall that Jesus is to atone. He is sacrificed to
redeem the world’s inhabitants from the penalties for a weak
ness (for sin it was not) they had no share in. It was not sin ;
for the man was influenced by circumstances pre-arranged
by Deity, and which man was powerless to resist or control.
But if the man was so influenced by such circumstances, '
then it was God who influenced the man—God who punished
the human race for an action to the commission of which he
impelled their progenitor.
Adam did not sim He ate of the fruit of a tree which
God had made good to be eaten. He was induced to this
through the indirect persuasion of a serpent God had
made for the very purpose to persuade him. But even if
4 Adam did sin, and even if he and Eve, his wife, were the
(first parents of the whole human family, what have we^to do
withjtheir sin ? We unborn when the act was committed,
and without choice as to coming into the world. Does
Jesus atone for Adam’s sin? Adam suffered for his own
offence ; he, according to the curse, was to eat in sorrow of
the fruit of the earth all his life as punishment for his
offence. Atonement, after punishment, is surely a super
fluity. Did the sacrifice of Jesus serve as atonement for
the whole world, and, if yes, for all sin, or for Adam’s sin
only ? If the atonement is for the whole world, does ii
�THE ATONEMENT.
0
extend to unbelievers as well as to believers in the efficacy ?
. If it only includes believers, then what has become of those 1
1 generations who, according to the Bible, for 4,000 years I
succeeded each other in the world without faith in Christ J
j because without knowledge of his mission? Should not Jesus have come 4000 years earlier, or, at least, should he
’ not have come when the Ark on Ararat served as monu’ ment of God’s merciless vengeance, which had made the
whole earth a battle field, whereon the omnipotent had
crushed the feeble, and had marked his prowess by the in- 1
numerable myriads of decaying dead? If it be declared
that, though the atonement by Jesus only applies to be
lievers in his mission so far as regards human beings born
since his coming, yet that it is wider in its retrospective
effect; then the answer is that it is unfair to be born after
Jesus to make faith the condition precedent to the saving
efficacy of atonement, especially if belief be required from
all mankind posterior to the Christian era, whether they have
heard of Jesus or not. Japanese, Chinese, savage Indians,
Kaffirs, and others have surely a right to complain of this
atonement scheme, which ensures them eternal damnation
by making it requisite to believe in a Gospel of which they
have no knowledge. If it be contended that belief shall \
only be required from those to whom the Gospel of Jesus \
has been preached, and who have had afforded to them the
opportunity of its acceptance, then how great a cause of
complaint against Christian Missionaries have those peoples
who, without such missions, might have escaped damnation
for unbelief. The gates of hell are opened to them by the I
/ earnest propagandist, who professes to show the road to ;
heaven.
’
But does this atonement serve only to redeem the human
family from the curse inflicted by Deity in Eden’s garden
for Adam’s sin, or does it operate as satisfaction for all sin ?
If the salvation is from the punishment for Adam’s sin
alone, and if belief and baptism are, as Jesus himself affirms,
to be the sole conditions precedent to any saving efficacy in
the much-lauded atonement by the sin of God, then what
becomes of a child that only lives a few hours, is never bap-
�e
1
I
•
1
|;
THE ATONEMENT.
tised, and never having any mind, consequently never has
any belief ? Or what becomes of one idiot born who, through
out his dreary life, never has mental capacity for the accept
ance or examination of, or credence in any religious dogmas
whatever? Is the idiot saved who cannot believe? Is the
infant saved ThaFcailnot believe? I, with some mental
faculties tolerably developed, cannot believe. Must I be
damned ? If so, fortunate short-lived babe 1 lucky idiot 1
That the atonement should not be effective until the person
to be saved has been baptised, is at least worthy of com
ment ; that the sprinkling a few drops of water should [Z
quench the flames of hell, is a remarkable feature in the $■
Christian’s creed.
“ One can’t but think it somewhat droll
Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul.”
K
How many fierce quarrels have raged on the formula of
baptism amongst those loving brothers in Christ who believe
he died for them I How strange an idea that, though G-od j I
I has been crucified to redeem mankind, it yet needs the font 11
■ of water to wash away the lingering stain of Adam’s crime. 1I
One minister of the Church of England, occupying the
presidential chair of a well-known training college for
Church clergymen in the North of England, seriously de
clared, in the presence of a large auditory and of several
church dignitaries, that the sin of Adam was so potent in
its effect, that if a man had never been born, he would yet
have been damned for sin. That is, he declared that man
existed before birth, and that he committed sin before he
was born ; and if never born, would notwithstanding deserve
to suffer eternal torment for that sin.
It is almost impossible to discuss seriously a doctrine so
monstrously absurd, and yet it is not one whit more ridi
culous than the ordinary orthodox and terrible doctrine, 1
that God the undying, in his infinite love, killed himself i r
under the form of his son to appease the cruel vengeance'J
ofjfiod, the just and merciful, who, without this, would
have been ever vengeful, unjust, and merciless.
I
The atonement theory, as presented to us by th*
Bible, is in effect as follows ;—God creates man surrounded
I
�the atonement.
7
by euch circumstance as the divine mind chose, in the selec
tion of which man had no voice, and the effects of which
on man were all forek nown and predestmed"hy "Deity,
’ldie result is’"man’s fall on the_very first temptation,
so frail the nature with which he was endowed, or so
powerful 'the temptation to which he was subjected.
For this fall not only does the All-merciful punish Adam,
but also his posterity; and this punishing went on for
many centuries, until God, the immutable, changed his pur
pose of continual condemnation of men for sins they had no
share in, and was wearied with his long series of unjust
judgments on those whom he created, in order that he
might judge them. That, then, God sent his son, who was
himaelf and was also his own father, and who was immortal,
to die upon the cross, and, by this sacrifice, to atone for the
sin which God himself had caused Adam to commit, and
thus to appease the merciless vengeance of the All-merciful,
which would otherwise have~been continued against men
yet unborn for an offence they could not have been con
cerned in or accessory to. Whether those who had died
before Christ’s coming are redeemed, the Bible does not
clearly tell us. Those born after are redeemed only on
condition of their faith in the efficacy of the sacrifice
offered, and in the truth of the history of Jesus’s life. The
doctrine of salvation by sacrifice of human life is the doe^
trihe~oFa barbarous and superstitious age; the outgrowth
of a brutal and depraved era. TheGod who accepts thj£
bloody offering of an innocent victim in lieu of punishing
tifF^fiilty culprit, shows no mercy in sparing the offender:
fie has already satiated his lust for vengeance on the first
object presented to him.
Yet sacrifice is an early and prominent, and with slight
exception an abiding feature in the Hebrew Record— sacri
fice of life finds appreciative acceptance from the Jewish
Deity. Cain’s offering of fruits is ineffective, but Abel’s
altar bearing the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof,
finds respect in the sight of the Lord. While the face of
the earth was disfigured by the rotting dead after God in.
his infinite mercy had deluged the world, then it was that
�8
THE ATONEMENT.
. the ascending smoke from Noah’s burnt sacrifice of bird
and beast produced pleasure in heaven, and God himself
smelled a sweet savour from the roasted meatsT^fo reach
atonement for the past by sacrifice is worse than folly—it
is crime. The past can never be recalled, and the only re
ference to it should be that, by marking its events we may
avoid its evil deeds and improve upon its good ones. For
Jesus himself—can man believe in him ? In his Listory.
contained in anonymous pamphEEs”uncorroborated by con
temporary testimony ? This history, in which, in order to
fulfil a prophecy which does not relate to him, his descent
from David is demonstrated by tracing through two self
contradictory genealogies the descent of Joseph who was
j^ot his father. This history, in which the infinite God
grows from babyhood and his cradle through childhood to
manhood, as though he were not God at all. This history
full of absurd wonders, devils, magicians, and eviFspirits,
rather fit for an Arabian Night’s legend, than the word
Qi God to his people. This history, with its miraculous
raisings of the dead to life, disbelieved and contradicted by
the people amongst whom they are alleged to have been
performed; but, nevertheless, to be accepted by us to-day
with all humility?'' This history of the Man-God subject to
human passions and infirmities, who comes to die, and who
prays to his heavenly father—that is, to himself, thathe
will spare him the bitter cup of death. Who is betrayed,
having himself, ere he laid the foundations of the world,
predestined Judas to betray him, and who dies being God
immortal crying with his almost dying breath—“ My God !
my God! why hast thou forsaken me ?”
Printed and Published by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant,
at 28, Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The atonement
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Extensive annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N081
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The atonement), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atonement
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/044c01547fa3da254c5e5189a7b15668.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=N%7Ez78IZJDI2eXj53mUGtQLT0iRD%7Ea0xRVCnmxf1yDfow0y5TiZukfbBJskuzIpdxJ1QzI6Pnd1rQoyu9RVS0PAvX9V0GFtn1bdOkznHRfOF8j23J87L%7EaBNTGwY493ne3fWKhlo3qpRiqdrTSVOt2ZeGF4sc3BANUryFVDyL0P2Z8-wqu2Hzq-07FOZPBYavAuACp49K9ICndjAzIDyUlGaV9vJ09q3wUYlcB7G2cSsBiIJUWvMl1PoMHSEv2t1-2dco8IaFEdlaYaK4XwW9YXDy5BRsHp-%7EZWYP7l01feDkBaCgq6jpjMmY-J9KacNpec4U9ncb93Is4E3zGd2Nog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
459918f8bfe08162256b6e7700683d87
PDF Text
Text
P> 2^4~
national secular society
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS
WRITTEN ?
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUG1L
[fourth edition.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET E.C.
1881.
�i
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
----- .
AN ANSWER TO THE RELIGIOUS TRACT
SOCIETY.
The Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, pre
faced with their high commendation, a translation of a
pamphlet by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf, entitled “ When
were our Gospels Written ? ” In the introductory preface
we are not unfairly told that “ on the credibility of the four
Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on its
foundations.” It is proposed in this brief essay to deal
with the character of Dr. Tischendorf’s advocacy, then to
examine the genuineness of the four Gospels, as affirmed by
the Religious Tract Society’s pamphlet, and at the same
time to ascertain, so far as is possible in the space, how far
the Gospel narrative is credible.
The Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Tischendorf’s
brochure is a repetition of “ arguments for the genuineness
and authenticity of the four Gospels,” which the erudite
Doctor had previously published for the learned classes,
“ with explanations ” now given in addition, to render the
arguments “ intelligible ” to meaner capacities ; and as the
“Infidel ” and “ Deist ” are especially referred to as likely
to be overthrown by this pamphlet, we may presume that the
society considers that in the 119 pages—which the trans
lated essay occupies—they have presented the best paper
that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on
this question. The praise accorded by the society, and
sundry laudations appropriated with much modesty in his
own preface by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf to himself,
compel one at the outset to regard the Christian manifesto
as a most formidable production. The Society’s translator
impressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times
�6
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
printed in Germany and twice in France ; that it has been
issued in Dutch and Russian, and is done into Italian by an
Archbishop with the actual approbation of the Pope. The
author’s preface adds an account of his great journeyings
and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an original
capital of a “ few unpaid bills,” ending in the discovery of
a basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the
Christian monks in charge, but which from the hands of
Dr. Tischendorf are used by the Religious Tract Society to
neutralise all doubts, and to “ blow to pieces ” the Ration
alistic criticism of Germany and the coarser Infidelity of
England. Doubtless Dr. Tischendorf and the Society con
sider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and
authenticity of the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was
enabled to spend 5,000 dollars out of less than nothing, and1
that the Pope regards his pamphlet with favor, or they would
not trouble to print such statements. We frankly accord
them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly
be based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorse
ment by the Pope is certainly a mattei* which a Protestant
Tract Society—who regard “ the scarlet whore at Babylon”
with horror—may well be proud of.
Dr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted
himself to the textual study of the New Testament, and it
ought to be interesting to the orthodox to know that, as a
result of twenty-seven years’ labor, he now declares that
“ it has been placed beyond doubt that the original text
. . . . had in many places undergone such serious modi
fications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty
as to what the apostles had actually written,” and that “ the
right course to take” “is to set aside the received text
altogether and to construct a fresh text.”
This is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by
authority of the managers of the great Christian depot in
Paternoster Row, from whence many scores of thousands of
copies of this incorrect received text have nevertheless been
issued without comment to the public, even since the society
have published in English Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration of
its unreliable character
With the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to
great men, Dr. Tischendorf records his successes in reading
hitherto unreadable parchments, and we learn that he has.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
7
received approval from “ several learned bodies, and even
from crowned heads,” for his wonderful performances. As
a consistent Christian, who knows that the “ powers that be
are ordained of God,” our “ critic without rival,” for so he
prints himself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher
in degree than that of learned bodies.
The Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS. on which he now
relies to confute audacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St.
Catherine at Sinai; he brought away a portion, and handed
that portion, on his return, to the Saxon Government—they
paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did not then
divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advan
tage of humankind that the place should be known at once,
for, at least, two reasons. First, because by aid of the re
mainder of this MS.—“ the most precious Bible treasure in
existence ”—the faulty text of the New Testament was to be
reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the better
for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole
story of the discovery might then have been more easily
confirmed in every particular.
For fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the
world the precise locality in which his treasure had been
discovered. Nay, he was even fearful when he knew that
Other Christians were trying to find the true text, and he
experienced “peculiar satisfaction” when he ascertained
that his silence had misled some pious searchers after reliable
copies of God’s message to all humankind; although all this
time he was well aware that our received copies of God’s
revelation had undergone “serious modifications” since the
message had been delivered from the Holy Ghost by means
of the Evangelists.
In 1853, “ nine years after the original discovery,” Dr.
Tischendorf again visited the Sinai convent, but although
he had “enjoined on the monks to take religious care” of
the remains of which they, on the former occasion, would
not yield up possession, he, on this second occasion, and
apparently after careful search, discovered “ eleven short
lines,” which convinced him that the greater part of the
MS. had been destroyed. He still, however, kept the place
secret, although he had no longer any known reason for so
doing; and, having obtained an advance of funds from the
Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for his
�8
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
pearl of St. Catherine,” which, in 1853, he felt convinced
had been destroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in
the meantime, been troubled by fears that the good cause
might be aided by some other than Dr. Tischendorf discover
ing and publishing the “priceless treasure,” which, according
to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced did
not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor dis
covered “ the very fragments which, fifteen years before, he
had taken out of the basket,” “ and also other parts of the
Old Testament, the J\ew Testament complete, and, in addi
tion, Barnabas and part of Hermas.”
With wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr.
Tischendorf refers the transcription of the discovered Bible
to the first half of the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischen
dorf s patrons here ever read of MSS. discovered in the
same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which an
account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and
concerning which the Westminster Review said, “ We share
the suspicions, to use the gentlest word which occurs to us,
entertained, we believe, by all competent critics and anti
quarians.”
In 18b3 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the
Russian Emperor, a splendid but very costly edition of his
Sinaitic MS. in columns, with a Latin introduction. The
book is an expensive one, and copies of it are not very
plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society
have not contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the
pious Emperor of all the Russias. Surely a text on which
our own is to be re-constructed ought to be in the hands at
least of every English clergyman and Young Men’s Christian
Association.
“ Christianity,” writes Dr. Tischendorf, “ does not, strictly
speaking, rest on the moral teaching of Jesus “it rests on
his person only.” “ If we are in error in believing in the
person of Christ as taught in the Gospels, then the Church
herself is in error, and must be given up as a deception.”
“ All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else
than biographies of Christ.” “We have no other source of
information with respect to the life of Jesus.” So that,
according to the Religious Tract Society and its advocate, if
the’’ credibility of the Gospel biography be successfully
impugned, then the foundations of Christianity are destroyed.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
9
It becomes, therefore, of the highest importance to show
that the biography of Jesus, as given in the four Gospels, is
absolutely incredible and self-contradictory.
It is alleged in the Society’s preface that all the objections
•of infidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however,
not true. It is rather the fact that the advocates of Chris
tianity when defeated on one point have shuffled to another,
■either quietly passing the topic without further debate, or
loudly declaring that the point abandoned was really so
utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the
assailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any
case, all the arguments had been repeatedly refuted by pre
vious writers.
To the following objections to the Gospel narrative the
writer refuses to accept as answer, that they have been pre
viously discussed and disposed of.
The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popu- I
larly associated with each do not tell us the hour, or the
■day, or the month, or—save Luke—the year, in which Jesus
was born. The only point on which the critical divines, who
'have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is, that Jesus
was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,
collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us
a period of more than seven years within which to place the
■date. So confused is the story as to the time of the birth, ?
that while Matthew would make Jesus born in the lifetime
■of Herod, Luke would fix the period of Jesus’s birth as after ■
Herod’s death.
Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious cere
monies of pagan origin, and in no way serving to fix the
25th December as the natal day. Yet the exact period at
which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the world to
redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of
Adam’s ancient sin, should be of some importance.
Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of >
Christ. The Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus,
reproached him that he ought to have been born at
Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of Nazareth. Jesus
never appears to have said to either, “I was born at
Bethlehem.” In Matthew ii., 6, we find a quotation
from the prophet: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of
Judah, art not the least amongst the princes of Juda, for
�10
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my peopleIsrael.” Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem,
and Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child
to Bethlehem for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is
done to fulfil a prophecy. Micah v., 2, the only place in
which similar words occur, is not a prophecy referring to
Jesus at all. The words are: “ But thou Beth-lehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that isto be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting.” This is not quoted correctly in
Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of
language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on
which Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in
default of contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are
not lessened in tracing the parentage. In Matthew i., 17,
it is stated that “ the generations from Abraham to David
are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying
away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera
tions.” Why has Matthew made such a mistake in his
computation of the genealogies—in the last division we have
only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the
name of Jesus? Is this one of the cases of “painful
uncertainty ” which has induced the Religious Tract Society
and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set aside the textus receptus
altogether ?
From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament
twenty generations ; in Matthew, seventeen generations ;
and in Luke, twenty-three generations. In Matthew from
David to Christ there are twenty-eight generations, and in
Luke from David to Christ forty-three generations. Yet,
according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the credi
bility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history
that the foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy
in the first Gospel arriving at David traces to Jesus through
Solomon; the third Gospel from David traces through
Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are Solomon,
Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old
Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah,
whom I presume to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd
Chronicles xxii., 11, we find one Joash, who is not men-
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
11
tioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in Matthew is
correct, why is the name not mentioned ? Amaziah is
mentioned in chap, xxiv., v. 27, and in chap, xxvi., v. 1,
Uzziah, neither of whom are mentioned in Matthew, where
Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, when in fact three
generations of men have come in between. In Matthew
and Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel,
while in 1 Chronicles iff., 17—19, Zerubbabel is stated to be
the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. Matthew
says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (chap, i., v. 13).
Luke iii., 27, says Zorobabel’s son was Rhesa. The Old
Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and
Hananiah, and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii., 19),
as the names of Zorobabel’s children. Is this another piece
of evidence in favor of Dr. Tischendorf’s admirable
doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the text ?
. three names agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel,
Zorobabel, and Joseph—all the rest are utterly different. , |
! 1 The attempts at explanation which have been hitherto
offered, in order to reconcile these genealogies, are scarcely
creditable to the intellects of the Christian apologists. They
allege that “ Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob,
in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli
and Jacob were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who
was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law
directed, married his widow; in consequence of such mar
riage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.’^
This is pure invention to get over a difficulty—an invention
not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you
suppose that these two persons were brothers, then unless
you invent a death of the mother’s last husband and the
widow’s remarriage Jacob and Heli would be the sons of the
same father, and the list of the ancestors should be identical
in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty the pious j
do this. They say, although brothers, they were only half
brothers ; although sons of the same mother, they were not
sons of the same father, but had different fathers. If so,
how is it that Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and
son in both genealogies ? Another fashion of accounting
for the contradiction is to give one as the genealogy of
Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. “ Which?
�12
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
I “ Luke,” it is said. Why Luke ? what are Luke’s words ?
Luke speaks of Jesus being, “as was supposed, the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” When Luke says
Joseph, the son of Heli, did he mean Mary, the daughter of
Heli ? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another ?
because if that argument is worth anything, then in every
case where a man has a theory which disagrees with the
text, he may say the text means something else. If this
argument be permitted we must abandon in Scriptural
criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to
convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant
daughter, why does the same word mean son in every other
' case all through the remainder of the genealogy ? And if
the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and the
genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have
any point of agreement at all until brought to David. They,
nevertheless, do agree and contradict each other in several
places, destroying the probability of their being intended as
distinct genealogies. There is some evidence that Luke
does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself.
We are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered
because he was of the house of David : if it had been Mary
it would have surely said so. As according to the Christian
» theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it is not unfair
to ask how it can be credible that Jesus’s genealogy could
I be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?
So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to
which the genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth
would make her rather appear to belong to the tribe of
Levi.
To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and
birth would be to insult the human understanding. The
mythologies of Greece, Italy, and India, give many prece
dents of sons of Gods miraculously born. Italy, Greece, and
India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The inIcarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ.
A miraculous birth would be scouted to- day as monstrous ;
-antedate it 2,000 years and we worship it as miracle.
1
Matt, i., 22, 23, says: “ Now all this was done, that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
13
being interpreted is, God with us.” This is supposed to be
a quotation from Isaiah vii., 14—16 : “ Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign ; Behold a virgin shall con
ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse
the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall
know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that
thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate
quotation, the very words are omitted which would show its
utter inapplicability to Jesus. Even in those which are
given, the agreement is not complete. Jesus was not called
Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a virgin,
this does not help the identity, as the word
OLME in i
Isaiah, rendered “virgin” in our version, does not convey
the notion of virginity, for which the proper word is nbUTZl
BeThULE; OLME is used of a youthful spouse recently
married. The allusion to the land being forsaken of both
her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the passage
is prophetic of Jesus.
The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one
Gospel, to Mary in the other, is hardly credible on any ex
planation. If you assume the annunciations as made by a
God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should, at least, have
been to prevent doubt of Mary’s chastity; but the annun
ciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by
Joseph. Two annunciations are made, one of them in a
dream to Joseph, when he is suspicious as to the state of
his betrothed wife ; the other made by the angel Gabriel
(whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who apparently
conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although
with child not by her intended husband. The statement—
that Mary being found with child by the Holy Ghost, her
husband, not willing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily—is quite incredible. If
Joseph found her with child &?/ the Holy Ghost, how could
he even think of making a public example of her shame
when there was nothing of which she could be ashamed—
nothing, if he believed in the Holy Ghost, of which he need
have been ashamed himself, nothing which need have in
duced him to wish to put her away privily. It is clear—
according to Matthew—that Mary was found with child,
�14
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
and that the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined
by Joseph until after he had dreamed about the matter.
Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by
an angel, and although Mary sang a joyful song consequent
on the annunciation, corroborated by her cousin’s greeting,
yet when Simeon speaks of the child, in terms less extra
ordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it and do not
understand it. Why were they surprised ? Is it credible
that so little regard was paid to the miraculous annuncia
tion? Or is this another case of the “painful uncertainty”
alluded to by Dr. Tischendorf ?
Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in
the temple, and he says, “ Wist ye not that I must be about
my father’s business ? ” they do not know what he means, so
that either what the angel had said had been of little effect,
or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any reliance
be placed on a narrative so contradictory ? An angel was
specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be
born is the Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished
when her son says, “ Wist ye not I must be about my
father’s business ? ”
The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made
publicly known by means of certain wise men. These men
saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them much, for
they were obliged to come and ask information from Herod
the King. Is astrology credible ? Herod inquired of the
chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was
right, if he said, “ The prophets prophecy falsely and the
priests bear rule by their means,” for these chief priests
misquoted to suit their purposes, and invented a false pro
phecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a few
words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after
they knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went
before them, until it came and stood over where the young
child was. The credibility of this will be better understood
if the reader notice some star, and then see how many houses
it will be over. Luke does not seem to have been aware
of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells
some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adven
ture does not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod
at all. Is it credible that Jesus was born twice ? After the
wise men had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
15
with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly, and re
mained there with the young child and his mother until the
•death of Herod ; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a
prophecy. On referring to Hosea xi., 1, we find the words
have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that, therefore,
-either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of the
prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale
of the flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at
all in his childhood. Directly after the birth of the child
his parents instead of flying away because of persecution
into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to fulfil all
things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth,
and apparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every
year until Jesus was twelve years of age.
In Matthew ii., 15, we are told that Jesus remained in
Egypt, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my
sou.” In Hosea ii., 1, we read, “When Israel was a child,
then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” In no
•other prophet is there any similar text.
This not only is
not a prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference
to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manu
factured to give an air of credibility to the Gospel history,
or how will the Religious Tract Society explain it? The
Gospel writings betray either a want of good faith,
or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the
mode adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testa
ment ?
When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age
he was baptised by John in the river Jordan. John,
who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade him
directly he saw him; but, acccording to the writer of
the fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had, there
fore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an “ invisible ”
“spirit,” whom no man hath seen (John i., 18), or can see
(Exodus xxxiii., 20); but the man John saw the spirit of
God descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at
that time was in heaven, from whence he said, “This is my
beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Although John
heard this from God’s own mouth, he some time after sent
two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really the
Christ (Matthew xi., 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility
�16
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
of this story, says Dr. Tischendorf, that Christianity rests
like a building on its foundations.
It is utterly impossible John could have known and not
have known Jesus at the same time. And if, as the New
Testament states, God is infinite and invisible, it is in
credible that as Jesus stood in the river to be baptised, the
Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,
and that God from heaven said, “This is my beloved son, in
whom I am well pleased.” Was the indivisible and invisible
spirit of God separated in three distinct and two separately
visible persons ? How do the Religious Tract Society recon
cile this with the Athanasian Creed ?
The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the lan
guage used as to John, who baptised Jesus. It is said,
“ This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias,
saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Isaiah xl.,
1—5? is? “ Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your
God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto
her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned ; for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double
for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilder
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be
exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low :
and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
places plain : and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.”
These verses have not the most remote relation to John ?
And this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of
bolstering up a tale, serves to prove that the writer of the
Gospel tries by these to impart an air of credibility to an
otherwise incredible story.
Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the
Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There
he fasts forty days and forty nights.
John says, in chapter i., 35, “Again, the next day after,
John stood and two of his disciples ; and looking upon
Jesus as he walked, he said, behold the Lamb of God. And
the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.”
Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, “ The day following Jesus
would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith
unto him, follow me.” And in chapter ii., 1, he says, “And
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
17
the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and
the mother of Jesus was there ; and both Jesus was called
and his disciples unto the marriage.” According to Matthew,
there can be no doubt that immediately after the baptism
Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.
And we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil
and fasting in the wilderness, and at the same time feasting
at a marriage in Cana of Galilee ? Is it possible to believe
that Jesus actually did fast forty days and forty nights ? If
Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in what capacity
did he fast ? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast
would be a mockery; and the account that he became a
hungered must be wrong. It is barely possible that in some
very abnormal condition or cataleptic state, or state of
trance, a man might exist, with very slight nourishment or
without food, but that a man could walk about, speak, and
act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food
is simply an impossibility.
Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible ? If
Jesus be God, can the Devil tempt God ? A clergyman of
the Church of England writing on this says: “ That the
Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is cer
tainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more
remote age, have appeared among the sons of God, in the
presence of God himself, to torment the righteous Job. But
that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and literally through
the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then to the
topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable,
it is an insult to our understanding, and an affront to
our great creator and redeemer.” Supposing, despite the
monstrosity of such a supposition, an actual Devil—and this
involves the dilemma that the Devil must either be Godcreated, or God’s co-eternal rival; the first supposition
being inconsistent with God’s goodness, and the second
being inconsistent with his power; but supposing such a
Devil, is it credible that the Devil should tempt the
Almighty maker of the universe with “ all these will I
give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me ? ”
In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an un
certainty as to one, whose name was either Lebbmus, Thad
daeus, or Judas. It is in Matthew x., 3, alone that the name
of Lebbaeus is mentioned, thus—“Lebbaeus, whose surname
�18
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
was Thaddaeus.” We are told, on this point, by certain
Biblicists, that some early MSS. have not the words “ whose
surname was Thaddaeus,” and that these words have pro
bably been inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to
Matthew with that attributed to Mark. In the English
version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by
our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between
Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words
“ Lebbaeus whose surname was,” leaving only the name
“ Thaddaeus ” in Matthew’s text. The revised version of
the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims version,,
and the omission will probably meet with the entire concur
rence of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society,,
now they boast autograph letters of approval from the in
fallible head of the Catholic Church. If Matthew x., 3,.
and Mark iii., 18, be passed as reconciled, although the first
calls the twelfth disciple Lebbeeus, and the second gives him
the name Thaddaeus; there is yet the difficulty that in Luke
vi., 16, corroborated by John xiv., 22, there is a disciple
spoken of as “ Judas, not Iscariot,” “Judas, the brother of
James.” Commentators have endeavored to clear away this
last difficulty by declaring that Thaddams is a Syriac word,
having much the same meaning as Judas. This has been
answered by the objection that if Matthew’s Gospel uses
Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thad
daeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected’
also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a
Hebrew original for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there
is not the slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote
in Syriac. The Gospels also leave us in some doubt as to.
whether Matthew is Levi, or whether Matthew and Levi are
two different persons.
The account of the calling of Peter is replete with con
tradictions. According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw
Peter, the latter was in a vessel fishing with his brother
Andrew, casting a net into the sea of Galilee. Jesus walk
ing by the sea said to them—“Follow me, and I will make
you fishers of men.” The two brothers did so, and they
became Christ’s disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one
was with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on,
the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their father
mending nets, and these latter were separately called. From
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
19
John, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of
John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus,
Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter
who, if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him
!:we have found the Messiah,” and that Andrew then
brought Peter to Jesus, who said, “Thou art Simon, the
son of Jonas ; thou shalt be called Cephas.” There is no
mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further
on, or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is
clearly on land. Luke’s Gospel states that when the call
took place, Jesus and Peter were both at sea. Jesus had
been preaching to the people, who pressing upon him, he got
into Simon’s ship, from which he preached. After this he
directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the
nets. Simon answered, “ Master, we have toiled all night
and taken nothing ; nevertheless at thy word I will let down
the net.” No sooner was this done, than the net was filled
to breaking, and Simon’s partners, the two sons of Zebedee,
came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought their
ships to land, and followed him.
Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that
the Gospels being inspired, you could have three contradic
tory versions of the same event ? Has the story been here
“ painfully modified,” or how do Dr. Tischendorf and the
Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it credible
that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon’s house, and
cured Simon’s wife’s mother, before the call of Simon, but
did not go to Simon’s house for that purpose, until after the
call of Simon, as related in Matthew ? It is useless to reply
that the date of Jesus’s visit is utterly unimportant, when
we are told that it is upon the credibility of the complete
narrative that Christianity must rest. Each stone is im
portant to the building, and it is not competent for the
Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the
Holy Ghost has considered important enough to reveal.
Are the miracle stories credible ? Every ancient nation
has had its miracle workers, but modern science has relegated
all miracle history to realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion,
or fraud. Can Christian miracles be made the exceptions ?
Is it likely that the nations amongst whom the dead were
restored to life would have persistently ignored the author
of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if in
�20
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
tended to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his
intentions effective ? That five thousand persons should be
, fed with five loaves and two fishes, and that an apparent
f excess should remain beyond the original stock, is difficult
to believe; but that shortly after this—Jesus having to
again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons—
his own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder
from whence the food was to be derived, is certainly start
lingly incredible. If this exhibition of incredulity were
pardonable on the part of the twelve apostles, living wit
nesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable the
unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract
Society seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events
all contrary to probability, and with nineteen centuries
intervening.
I The casting out the devils presents phenomena requiring
j considerable credulity, especially the story of the devils and
t the swine. To-day insanity is never referable to demoniacal
possession, but eighteen hundred years ago the subject of
lunacy had not been so patiently investigated as it has been
since. That one man could now be tenanted by several
devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the
present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the
repudiation of its present possibility can hardly be consistent
with implicit credence in its ancient history. That the devils
and God should hold converse together, although not with
out parallel in the book of Job, is inconsistent with the
theory of an infinitely good Deity ; that the devils should
address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be
allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous ; yet all
this helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf
relies. That Jesus being God should pray to his Father
4 that “ the cup might pass ” from him is so incredible that
even the faithful ask us to regard it as mystery. That an
angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty
God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so pro
minently preached to thousands, the priests should need any
-one like Judas to betray the founder of Christianity with a
kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging the dealers, his
wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus’s
daughter should have secured him, if not the nation’s love,
faith, and admiration, at least a national reputation and
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
21
notoriety. It is not credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a
kiss that the latter should have been arrested upon his own
statement that he was Jesus. That Peter should have had I
a so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times in a <
few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had i
remained unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the
; incarnate Deity. The mere blunders in the story of the I
j denial sink into insignificance in face of this major difficulty.
Whether the cock did or did not crow before the third denial,
whether Peter was or was not in the same apartment with
Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively
trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are
based may be the consequence of the errors which Dr.
Tischendorf says have crept into the sacred writings.
Jesus said, “ as Jonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Jesus was
crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday evening, and yet
the first who went to the grave on the night of Saturday
as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of
Jesus already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three
days and three nights in the grave ? Is there any proof
that his body remained in the grave for three hours ?
Who went first to'* the grave? was it Mary Magdalene
alone, as in John, or two Maries as in Matthew, or the two
Maries and Salome as in Mark, or the two Maries, Joanna,
and several unnamed women as in Luke ? To whom did
did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary
Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in
Luke, or to the two Maries near the sepulchre, as in
Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish and honeycomb by
a dead God credible ? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the
I very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly
six weeks intervene ?
Is this history credible, contained as it is in four con- '
t tradictory biographies, outside which biographies we have, ■
as UrTTischendorf admits, “no other source of informa- •
tion with respect to the life of Jesus ” ? This history of
III an earth-born Deity, descended through a crime-tainted .
ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through one I
I who was not his father ; this history of an infinite God nursed
G as a baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any
J
�22
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
frail specimen of humanity; this history, garnished with
bedevilledjnen, enchanted tig tree, myriads of ghosts, and
scores of miracles, and by such garnishment made more
akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history ; thjs
picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as,
man; immutability subject to human passions and infirmi
ties ; the 'creator come to die, yet wishing to escape the
death which shall bring peace to Tris God-tormented crea
tures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own prayer;
God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor ; God the
immortal dying, and in the agony of the death-throes—
stronger than the strong man’s will—crying with almost
the last effort of his dying breath, that he being God, is
God forsaken !
* If all this be credible, what story is there any man need
hesitate to believe ?
Dr. Tischendorf asks how it has beeu possible to impugn
the credibility of the four Gospels, and replies that this has
been done by denying that the Gospels were written by the
men whose names they bear. In the preceding pages it has A
, been shown that the credibility of the Gospel narrative is
impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary
history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many
of its incidents are prima facie most improbable, and some
of them utterly impossible. Even English Infidels are quite
prepared to admit that the four Gospels may be quite anony
mous ; and yet, that their anonymous character need be of •
no weight as an argument against their truth. All that is |
urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history ■
have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise un- |
reliable narratives by a pretence that some of the Evange
lists, at least, were eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. ‘
Dr. Tischendorf says: “The credibility of a writer clearlyic*
I' depends on the interval of tifrle which lies between him and |
I the events which he describes. The farther the narrator is ■ i
removed from the facts which heTays before us the more ( y,
his claims to credibility are reduced in value.” Presuming
t truthfulness in intention for any writer, and his ability to
comprehend the facts he is narrating, and his freedom from a
prejudice which may distort the picture he intends to paint
correctly with his pen: we might admit the correctness of
the passage we have quoted; but can these always be pre
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
(
23
sumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels ? On the
contrary, a presumption in an exactly opposite direction may
he fairly raised from the fact that immediately after the
Apostolic age the Christian world was flooded with forged
testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus, or in favor
of his disciples.
A writer in the Edinburgh Review observes : “ To say
nothing of such acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic
constitutions and liturgies, and the several spurious Gospels,
the question of the genuineness of the alleged remains of
the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is very
material. Any genuine remains of the ‘ Apostle ’ Barnabas,
of Hermas, the contemporary (Romans xvi., 14), and
Clement, the highly commended and gifted fellow laborer
of St. Paul (Phil, iv., 3), could scarcely be regarded as less
•sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally
we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the
present day, the critics best competent to determine it. have,
agreed in opinion, that the extant writings ascribed to Bar
nabas and Hermas are wholly spurious-—the frauds of a
later age. How much suspicion attaches to the 1st Epistle
of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally
rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times
it has never been allowed the place expressly assigned to it
among the canonical books prefixed to the celebrated Alex
andrian MS., in which the only known copy of it is included.
It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly lays claim
to inspiration, that Ireneeus quotes Hermas as Scripture,
and Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in
modestly disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles,
clearly implies there would have been no essential distinction
in the way of his being ranked in the same order. But the
question is, how are these pretensions substantiated ? ” So
far the Edinburgh Review, certainly not an Infidel publica
tion.
Eusebius, in his “Ecclesiastical History,” admits the4
*’ existence of many spurious gospels and epistles, and some .
writings put forward by him as genuine, such as the corres
pondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from it
this that many of the most early Christians considered the
then existing testimonies insufficient to prove the history of
�24
WHEN WERE O'UR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
Jesus, and good reason is certainly afforded for carefully
examining the whole of the evidences they have bequeathed us.
On p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings
belong to the extreme end of the second century, as though
that Bishop must be taken as vouching the four Gospels as
we now have them. Yet, if the testimony of Irenaeus be
reliable (“ Against Heresies,” Book III., cap. i.) the Gospel
attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed
in Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a
Messiah of the royal line of David, Matthew having the
same desire to a yet greater degree, strove to give them full
satisfaction. This may account for some of the genealogical
curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but hardly
renders Matthew’s Gospel more reliable ; and how can the /
| suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Mat- I
ithew penned the first Gospel, which has only existed ini
Greek ? Irenaeus, too, flatly contradicts the Gospels by \
declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended over ten years I
and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age (“Against £
Heresies,” Book II., cap. 22).
If the statement of Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” Book’
11“ III., cap. 11) that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the 1
errors of Cerinthus and Nicolaus, have any value, then the
’ actual date of issue of the fourth Gospel will be consider- £.
* ably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf’s statement that
i Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is noth,
I even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All w
that is said in the passage quoted (Eusebius, “ Ecc. Hist.(” "
Book V., cap. 20) is that Irenaeus when he was a child
heard Polvea.rn reneat from memorv the dise.onrses of John I?
- in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy jj
to have read them from the MS. as to repeat them from n
memory. Dr. Tischendorf might also have added that
I the letter to Florinus, whence he takes the passage on '
which he relies, exists only in the writings of Eusebius, to ,
whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence
since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says : “Any
testimony of Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back
to the Evangelist himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to
Irenaeus of this Gospel as the work of his master, St. John,
must have learned from the lips of the apostle himself,.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
25
evidence
whether he was its author or not.” Now, what evidence^
is there that Polycarp ever saida single word as to the
authorship of the fourth Gospel, of of any Gospel, or that
, he even said that John had penned a single word? In the (\\
[ I Epistle to the Philippians (the only writing attributed to
; Polycarp for which any genuine character is even pre
tended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is
there even a single passage in the Epistle which can be
identified with any passage in the Gospel of John.
Surely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to
make his witnesses bear good testimony, that the highest
duty of an advocate is to make the truth clear, not to put
forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to deceive the igno
rant. It is not even true that Irenasus ever pretends1
, that Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospsl as
having been written by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had
the cool audacity to say “there is nothing more damaging
to the doubters of the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel *
than this testimony of St. Polycarp.” Do the Religious
Tract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant
that they thus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or
are the Council of the Religious Tract Society themselves
unable to test the accuracy of the statements put forward
on their behalf by the able decipherer of illegible parch
ments ?
It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr. Con
stantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse
English sceptic regrets that the only other alternative will
be to denounce him as a theological charlatan.
Dr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that |
the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is by some treated'
. as genuine and by others as spurious, and that it is no easy
matter to decide.
Many critics, of no mean order, class it I
amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but whether the
/ Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation
I I from, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John.
M ‘ To what is said of Irenasus, Tertullian, and Clement of
l\ Alexandria, it is enough to note that all these are after
a.d. 150. Irenasus may be put 177 to 200, Tertullian about
193, and Clement of Alexandria as commencing the third' _
century.
One of Dr. Tischendorf’s most audacious flourishes is that
(p. 49) with reference to the Canon of Muratori, which we
�26
I
|
I
'
i
I
i,
'
'
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
are told “enumerates the books of the New Testament
which, from the first, were considered canonical and sacred,”
and which “ was written a little after the age of Pins I,
about a.d. 170.”
First the anonymous fragment contains books which were
never accepted as canonical; next, it is quite impossible to
say when or by whom it was written or what was its original
language. Muratori, who discovered the fragment in 1740^ 1|
conjectured that it was written about the end of the second i
dr beginning of the third century, but itjg, noteworthy that
neither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates
ofjhe third, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It
may be the compilation of any monk at any date prior to
1740, and is utterly valueless as evidence.
Dr. Tischendorf’s style is well exemplified by the positive
manner in which he fixes the date a.d. 139 to the first
apology of Justin, although a critic so “ learned ” as the un
rivalled Dr. Tischendorf could not fail to be aware that
more than one writer has supported the view that the date
of the first apology was not earlier than a.d. 145, and others
have contended for a.d. 150. The Benedictine editors of
Justin’s works support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues
for a.d. 155—160. On page 63, the Religious Tract Society’s
champion appeals to the testimony of Justin Martyr, but in »
order not to shock the devout while convincing the profane,
he omits to mention that more than half the writings once
attributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of
doubtful character or actual forgeries, and that Justin’s
value as a witness is considerably weakened by the fact that
he quotes the acts of Pilate and the Sybilline Oracles as
though they were reliable evidence, when in fact they are
both admitted specimens of “ a Christian forgery.” But |
what does Justin testify as to the Gospels ? Does he say
that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were their writers ?
On the contrary, not only do the names of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the writings
of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to
Jesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels.
The very words rendered Gospels only occur where they are
strongly suspected to be interpolated, Justin usually speaking
of some writings which he calls “ memorials ” or “memoirs
of the Apostles.”
»
.
I
j
’
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
27
Dr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the
G-ospels are placed side by side with the prophets, and that
“this undoubtedly places the Gospels in the list of canon
ical books.” If this means that there is any statement in
-Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr. Tischendorf
was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline
oracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He
‘-quotes statements as to Jesus, which may be found in the
-apocryphal Gospels, and which are not found in ours, so that
if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it certainly does not
tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four Gospels
were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The
Rev. W. Sanday thinks that Justin did not assign an ex
clusive authority to our Gospels, and that he made use also
of other documents no longer extant. (“ Gospels in 2nd
Century,” p. 117.)
On p. 94 it is stated that “as early as the time of Justin i»
’ the expression ‘ the Evangel ’ was applied to the four 7
Gospels.” This statement by Dr. Tischendorf and its »
"publication by the Religious Tract Society call for the
I strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of Justin
are the words “the Evangel” applied to the four Gospels.
Gardner only professes to discover two instances in which
the wTord anglicised by Tischendorf as “Evangel,” occurs;
■€.vayyeX.L<i> and evayyeXca, the second being expressly pointed
out by Schleiermacher as an interpolation, and as an in
stance in which a marginal note has been incorporated with
the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word prove
that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the
word is merely a compound of ev good and ayyekta message;
nor is there the slightest foundation for the statement that
in the time of Justin the word Evangel was ever applied to
■designate the four Gospels now attributed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John.
Dr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the “ faith of the I
! Church . . . would be seriously compromised ” if we ;
>do not find references to the Gospels in writings between /
a.d. 100 and a.l>. 150; and—while he does not directly '
.assert—he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were
“ treated with the greatest respect,” or “ even already
treated as canonical and sacred writings
and he distinctly
affirms that the Gospels “ did see the light ” during the
�28
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
“ Apostolic age,” “ and before the middle of the second’
century our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the
Church,” although for the affirmation, he neither has nor
advances the shadow of evidence.
The phrases, “ Apostolic age ” and ‘‘Apostolic fathers”
denote the first century of the Christian era, and those
fathers who are supposed to have flourished during that
period, and who are supposed to have seen or heard, or had
the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some
one or more of the twelve Apostles., Barnabas, Clement,
Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are those whose names
figure most familiarly in Christian evidences as Apostolic
fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic fathers is
of a most unreliable character. Mosheim (“ Ecclesiastical
t History,” cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that “ the Apostolic
history is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties,” and
that not long after Christ’s ascension several histories were
current of his life and doctrines, full of “ pious frauds and
fabulous wonders.” Amongst these were “The Acts of
Paul,” “ The Revelation of Peter,” “ The Gospel of Peter,”
I “The Gospel of Andrew,” “The Gospel of John,” “The
.Gospel of James,” “The Gospel of the Egyptians,” etc.
The attempts often made to prove from the writings of
Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence of the four
Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of
phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for
the moment the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if
the proof is intended to carry the matter higher than that
such and such statements were current in some form or other,
at the date the fathers wrote. As good an argument might
’ be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted from
* the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the
4 mouth of Jesus, words which are not found in any of our
four Gospels, and make reference to events not included in
the Gospel narratives, clearly evidencing that even if the
four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
were in existence, they were not the only sources of infor
mation from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived
their knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the
four Gospels had attained no such specific superiority as to
entitle them to special mention by name.
Of the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is sup-
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
29
<posed by its supporters to have been written in the latter
part of the first century, which, Paley says, is probably
genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as spurious (“Eccle
siastical History,” book iii., cap. 25), and which Dr.
Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to
ascribe to Barnabas the Apostle (“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,”
vol. i., p. 100), it is only necessary to say that so far from
speaking of the Gospels with the greatest respect, it does not
mention by name any one of the four Gospels. There are
some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical in
phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has
been argued are quotations from one or other of the four
Gospels, but which may equally be quotations from other
Gospels, or from writings not in the character of Gospels.
There are also passages which are nearly identical with
several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great
framer of Christian evidences, Gardner, declares his convic
tion that none of these last-mentioned passages are quota
tions, or even allusions, to the Pauline or other epistolary
writings. Barnabas makes many quotations which clearly
demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence and
if he had access to them, could not have been his only source
of information as to the teachings of Jesus (E. G., cap. 7).
“ The Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast
should be put to death.” “ He required the goats to be of
goodly aspect and similar, that when they see him coming
they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat.” Says he,
“ those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom,
must through tribulation and suffering obtain me” (cap. 12).
And the Lord saith, “When a tree shall be bent down and
again rise, and when blood shall flow out of the wound.”
Will the Religious Tract Society point out from which of
the Gospels these are quoted ?
Barnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to
eat weasel flesh, “ because that animal conceives with the
mouth,” and forbad them to eat the hyena because that
animal annually changes its sex. This father seems to have
made a sort of melange of some of the Pentateuchal
ordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned
in Numbers) was a type of Jesus, that the three (?) young
men appointed to sprinkle, denote Abraham, Isaac, and
- -Jacob, that wool was put upon a stick because the
�30
I
.
,
1
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and
(cap. 9) that the 318 men circumcised by Abraham
stood for Jesus crucified. Barnabas also declared that
the world was to come to an end in 6,000 years (“Free
thinkers’ Text Book,” part ii., p. 268). In the Sinaitic
Bible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for
misguided Christians, been discovered in the original Greek.
To quote the inimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, “ while
so much has been lost in the course of centuries by the
tooth of time and the carelessness of ignorant monks, an in
visible eye had watched over this treasure, and when it was
on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed itsdeliverance;” “while critics have generally been divided
between assigning it to the first or second decade of the
second century, the Sinaitic Bible, which has for the first
time cleared up this question, has led us to throw its com
position as far back as the last decade of the first century.”
A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool assertion
without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason
given. How does the Siniatic MS., even if it be genuine,
clear up the question of the date of St. Barnabas’s Epistle?
Dr. Tischendorf does not condescend to tell us what has led
the Christian advocate to throw back the date of its com
position ? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact, what
Dr. Tischendorf calls a “throw back,” is if you look at
Lardner just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas
prove, even if it be genuine ? Barnabas quotes, by name,
Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the pro
phets, but never to either of the four Gospels.
There is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, whichhas been preserved in a single MS. only where it is coupled
with another epistle rejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson(“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i-, p. 3) declares that who the
Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed cannot
with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand
on equal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is
received. In this epistle while there is a distinct reference
to an Epistle by Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention
by name of the four Gospels, nor do any of the words attri
buted by Clement to Jesus agree for any complete quotation
with anyone of the Gospels as we have them. The Rev.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
31
W. Sanday is frank enough to concede “ that Clement is
not quoting directly from our Gospels.”
Is it probable that Clement would have mentioned a
writing by Paul, and yet have entirely ignored the four
Gospels, if he had known that they had then existed ?
And could they have easily existed in the Christian world in
his day without his knowledge ? If anyone takes cap. xxv.
of this epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact,
and as evidence for the reality of the resurrection, he will be
better able to appreciate the value of this so-called epistle
of Clement.
The letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf
are regarded by Mosheim as laboring under many difficul
ties, and embarrassed with much obscurity. Even Lardner,
doing his best for such evidences, says, that if we find
matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that
Ignatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages
as interpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely,
especially in the “ scarcity ” of such testimonies.
There are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly
forgeries. Of the remaining seven there are two versions, a
long and a short version, one of which must be corrupt,
both of which may be. These seven epistles, however, are
in no case to be accepted with certainty as those of Ignatius.
Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles are
genuine (“Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i., pp. 137 to 143).
The Rev. W. Sanday treats the three short ones as probably
genuine, waiving the question as to the others (“ Gospels in
Second Century,” p. 77, and see preface to sixth edition
“ Supernatural Religion”), Ignatius, however, even if he be
the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never mentions
either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the
Epistles to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to
the birth and death of Jesus, not to be found in either
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
If the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then
it vouches that in that early age there were actually Chris
tians who denied the death of Jesus. A statement as to
Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle to the Ephesians is
not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In his
Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied
the real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to
�32
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
quote the evidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John,
if such evidence had existed in his day. In cap. eight
of the Epistles to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says, “I have
jlr heard of some who say : Unless I find it in the archives I
*' will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written,
they answered that remains to be proved.” This is the
most distinct reference to any Christian writings, and how
little does this support Dr. Tischendorf’s position. From
which of our four Gospels could Ignatius have taken the
words, “lam not an incorporeal demon,” which he puts into
the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii., the epistle to the Smyrnasans ?
Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is not of decisive value; might he not go
farther and say, that as proof of the four Gospels it is of no
value at all ?
On page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without
any qualification. Surely the English Religious Tract Society
might have remembered that Dodwell says, that the name
of Hippolytus had been so abused by impostors, that it was
not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That Mill de
clares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his
name are all spurious. That, except fragments in the writ
ings of opponents, the works of Hippolytus are entirely
lost. Yet the Religious Tract Society permit testimony so
tainted to be put forward under their authority, to prove the
truth of Christian history. The very work which Dr. Tis
chendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Euse
bius, in the list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus.
On page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before ».
\ a.d. 138, and Valentinus, about a.d. 140, make use of
three out of four Gospels, the first using John and Luke,
the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What words of
either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this ,
reckless assertion ? Was Dr. Tischendorf again presuming
’ on the utter ignorance of those who are likely to read his
pamphlet ? The Religious Tract Society are responsible
for Dr. Tischendorf’s allegations, which it is impossible to
support with evidence.
The issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides
or the followers of Valentinus may have used these gospels,
but whether there is a particle of evidence to justify Dr.
'Tischendorf’s declaration, that Basilides and Valentinus
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
33
themselves used the above-named gospels. That the four
Gospels were well known during the second half of the first
century is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and
statements attributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ■*
ought to be attributed to their followers, will go but little
way as such proof (see “ Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., pp
41 to 63).
It is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of
Tischendorf chaff. On page 98, and following pages, the
erudite author applies himself to get rid of the testimony of
Papias, which was falsified and put forward by Paley as of
great importance. Paley says the authority of Papias is com- 1
plete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley
says Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was /
not. We leave the champions of the two great Christian
evidence-mongers to settle the matter as best they can. If,
however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration
that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the
chief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It
pleases Dr. Tischendorf to damage Papias, because that
father is silent as to the gospel of John ; but the Religious
Tract Society must not forget that in thus clearing away
<1 the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut away
their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are
mentioned byname within 150 years of the date claimed for
the birth of Jesus. In referring to the lost work of Theo
philus of Antioch, which Dr. Tischendorf tells us was a
kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the four narra
tives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor
forgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving I
some account of Theophilus, actually doubted whether the ;
so-called commentary was really from the pen of that
writer. Lardner says : “ Whether those commentaries which »
> St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may |
be doubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were ■
observed by Jerome to differ in style and expression from
his other works. However, if they were not his, they were
the work of some anonymous ancient.” But if they were
the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what be
comes of Dr. Tischendorf’s “ as early as a.d. 170?”
1
Eusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his
using the Apocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted
�34
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
the Bishop of Antioch’s “ Commentary on the Four Gos
pels,” if it had existed in his day. Nor is it true that the
references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to
Theophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf,
or even the phrase of Jerome, “gm quatuor Evangelistarum
in unum opus dicta comping ens. ” Theophilus seems, so far
as it is possible to judge, to have occupied himself not with a
connected history of Jesus, or a continuous discourse as to
his doctrines, but rather with mystical and allegorical eluci
dations of occasional passages, which ended, like many pious
commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the
point dealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian com
mentary than without it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo
doret and Eusebius speak of Tatian in the same way—that
is, as though he had, like his Syrian contemporary, composed
a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also inaccurate.
Eusebius talks of Tatianus “having found a certain body
and collection of Gospels, I know not how,” which collection
Eusebius does not appear even to have ever seen; and so far
from the phrase in Theodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorf’s
explanation, it would appear from Theodoret that Tatian’s
Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious gospel, “The
Gospel of the Four” differing materially from our four
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither
Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to
other works of Tatian, make any mention of this. Dr.
Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or “the
Gospel of the Five,” has also been a title applied to this
work of Tatian.
, In the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers
/' to apocryphal writings “which bear on their front the names
of Apostles” “used by obscure writers to palm off” their
forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that these spurious books
were composed “partly to embellish” scripture narratives,
and “ partly to support false doctrine ; ” and he states that
in early times, the Church was not so well able to distin
guish true gospels from false ones, and that consequently
some of the apocryphal writings “ were given a place they
did not deserve.” This statement of the inability of the
Church to judge correctly, tells as much against the whole,
\ as against any one or more of the early Christian writings,
and as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to
I
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
35
those now rejected, it deserves the most careful conside
ration. According to Dr. Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls
into the category of those of the Church who were “not so
critical in distinguishing the true from the false; ” for Justin,
says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and the
Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive mate
rials for the life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded
the Gospel of St. James and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine
and authentic writings; while Dr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a
greater critic than Justin, condemns the Gospel of St. James
as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate “a pious fraud ; ”
but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that
* “Justin made use of this Gospel” and quotes the “Acts of
Pontius Pilate,” then, according to his own words, Justin
did not know how to distinguish the true from the false,
and the whole force of his evidence previously used by Dr.
Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been
seriously diminished, even if it had been true, which it
is not, that Justin Martyr had borne any testimony on the
subj’ect.
Such, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract
Society, by their champion, “which we employ against un
believing criticism.” And what are these weapons ? We
have shown in the preceding pages, the suppressio veri and
the suggestio falsi are amongst the weapons used. The
Religious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication
of evidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward
the cause of Christ with craft and chicane. But even this
is not enough ; they need, according to their pamphlet, “ a
new weapon; ” they want “to find out the very words the
Apostles used.”
True believers have been in a state of
delusion ; they were credulous enough to fancy that theft
authorised version of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully 1
represented God’s revelation to humankind. But no, says ‘
Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so seriously modified in the
copying and re-copying that it ought to be set aside alto-i
gether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news thisk
for the Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall 1 Glad tidings
to be issued by the Paternoster Row saints 1 After spending
hundreds of thousands of pounds in giving away Bibles to
soldiers, in placing them in hotels and lodging-houses, and
shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears that
�36
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
| the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true
version being all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount
Sinai, watched over by an “invisible eye.” But, adds Dr.
| Tischendorf, “if you ask me whether any popular version
contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No. I
say Yes as far as concerns your soul’s salvation.” If these
are enough for the soul’s salvation, why try to improve the
matter? If we really need the “full and clear light” of
the Sinaitic Bible to show us “ what is the Word written
by God,” then most certainly our present Bible is not
believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word
written by God. The Christian advocates are in this
I dilemma : either the received text is insufficient, or the pro* posed improvement is unnecessary. Dr. Tischendorf says
( that “ The Gospels, like the only begotten of the Father,
will endure as long as human nature itself,” yet he says
“ there is a great diversity among the texts,” and that
the Gospel in use amongst the Ebionites and that used
’^amongst the Nazarenes have been “ disfigured here and
there with certain arbitrary changes.” He admits, more1 over, that “ in early times, when the Church was not so
critical in distinguishing the true from the false,” spurious
Gospels obtained a credit which they did not deserve. And
- while arguing for the enduring character of the Gospel, he
requests you to set aside the received text altogether, and to
try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr. Tischendorf’s patent Sinaitic invention.
We congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their
manifesto, and on the victory it secures them over German
Rationalism and English Infidelity. The Society’s trans
lator, in his introductory remarks, declares that “ circum
stantial evidence when complete, and when every link in
the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct
testimony; ” and, adds the Society’s penman, “ This is the
kind of evidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the
genuineness of our Gospels.” It would be difficult to
imagine a more inaccurate description of Dr. Tischendorf’s
work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence carefully
tested in the Doctor’s boasting and curious narrative of his
journeys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culmi
nating in much cash ? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf’s
concealment for fifteen years of the place, watched over by
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
37
an invisible eye, in which was hidden the greatest biblical
treasure in the world ? Is the circumstantial evidence
shown in the sneers at Renan ? or is each link in the chain
tested by the strange jumbling together of names and con
jectures in the first chapter ? What tests are used in the
cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the second chapter?
How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the references
in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there
a pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to
the apostolic fathers ? All that Dr. Tischendorf has done
is in effect to declare that our authorised version of the New
Testament is so unreliable, that it ought to be got rid of
altogether, and a new text constructed. And this declara
tion is circulated by the Religious Tract Society, which
sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand,
and in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring
that many passages of the Religious Tract Society’s New
Testament have undergone such serious modifications of
meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what
was originally written.
The very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the
study of the Gospels, as contained in the authorised version,
is to be found in the very candid preface to the recentlyissued revised version of the New Testament, where the
ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most sweeping
description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers,
we are told that, with regard to the Greek text, the trans
lators of the authorised version had for their guides “manu
scripts of late date, few in number and used with little
critical skill.” The revisers add what Freethinkers have
long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits for
maintaining, viz., “ that the commonly received text needed
thorough revision,” and, what is even more important,
they candidly avow that “it is but recently that materials
have been acquired for executing such a work with even
approximate completeness.” So that not only “ God’s
Word” has admittedly for generations not been “God’s
Word ” at all, but even now, and with materials not formerly
known, it has only been revised with “ approximate com
pleteness,” whatever those two words may mean. If they
have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of
the new and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even
�38
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
after all their toil, they are not quite sure that god’s reve
lation is quite exactly rendered into English. So far as the
ordinary authorised version of the New Testament goes—
i and it is this, the law-recognised, version which is still used
in administering oaths—we are told that the old translators
“used considerable freedom,” and “ studiously adopted a
variety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly con
sistent with the requirements of faithful translation.” This
I is a pleasant euphemism, but a real and direct charge of dis
honest translation by the authorised translators. The new
revisers add, with sadness, that “ it cannot be doubted that
they (the translators of the authorised version) carried this
liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity
in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in
the same context, is one of the blemishes of their work.”
These blemishes the new revisers think were increased by
the fact that the translation of the authorised version of the
New Testament was assigned to two separate companies, who
never sat together, which “ was beyond doubt the cause of
many inconsistencies,” and, although there was a final super
vision’, the new revisers add, most mournfully : “ When it
is remembered that the supervision was completed in nine
months, we may wonder that the incongruities which remain
are not more numerous.”
Nor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and
misgiving on their own work. They had the “ laborious
task ” of “ deciding between the rival claims of various
readings which might properly affect the translation,” and,
as they tell us, “ Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek
New Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and’
difficulty, and even now leaves room for considerable variety
of opinion among competent critics.” Next they say: “ the
■ frequent inconsistencies in the authorised version have caused
| us much embarrassment,” and that there are “ numerous
passages in the authorised version in which .... the
studied variety adopted by the Translators of 1611 has pro
duced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled
with the principle of faithfulness.” So little are the new
revisers always certain as to what god means that they
provide “alternative readings in difficult or debateable
passages,” and say “ the notes of this last group are
numerous and largely in excess of those which were ad
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
39
mitted by our predecessors.” And with reference to the
pronouns and other words in italics we are told that “ some
of these cases .... are of singular intricacy, and make
it impossible to maintain rigid uniformity.” The new
revisers conclude by declaring that “ through our manifold
experience of its abounding difficulties we have felt more
and more as we went onward that such a work can never be
accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and criticism
unless assisted by divine help.” Apparently the new revisers r
are conscious that they did not receive this divine help in
their attempt at revision, for they go on: “We know full H
well that defects must have their place in a work so long and
so arduous as this which has now come to an end. Blemishes
and imperfections there are in the noble translation which 11
we have been called upon to revise ; blemishes and imper- ‘
fections will assuredly be found in our own revision; . .
. . we cannot forget how often we have failed in express- I
ing some finer shade of meaning which we recognised in the
original, how often idiom has stood in the way of a perfect
rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve a familiar
form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added ,
I another perplexity to those which have already beset us.”
J
THE END.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
When were our gospels written?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 4th ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 39 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N105
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (When were our gospels written?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible. N.T. Gospels
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/425147319123b75e45aacea1cab04313.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dQ2xQZJJ-MslVCjyCUubnox2TGdOwGj7hoiwOFIgFi1LLwqVrsm2DrWPxL2bYXYdW76AMD59MgIzx-T7fdbp%7EWvhHd15makTHHBE7oATJf6QaoY-wlXzlF0VxRThbLBlAeLDJoRmiyJzesjZ8OVXslZg6EEZRoyJd9dE%7E6k-An521BnQwUTLCCez5tFd7XCKw7MiSXR8sKvrpNmAYm4jRK-wX6RE7en6E4k9M1SLs%7EFNgjQiE8y8%7E5ExXa3T9QMBOiUgCEPKM-zoyr9LTWaBjf%7EhMjPAkEDF5OyA9%7EDkxKHVs88PseROi%7EEe%7EdpRYk3V52mW6h8BZ9VLisPIVE4Xzg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8177eb544bfab33763c540e0b3799ed8
PDF Text
Text
LABOURS PRAYER.
BY C. BBADLAUGH.
“ Give us thisday our daily bread ” is the entreaty addressed
by the tiller of the soil to the “ Otr Father,” who has pro
mised to answer prayer. And what answer cometh from
heaven to this the bread winner’s petition? Walk amongst
the cotton workers of Lancashire, the clothweavers of
Yorkshire, the Durham pit men, the Staffordshire puddlers,
the Cornish miners, the London dock labourers, go any
where where hands are roughened with toil, where foreheads
are bedewed with sweat of work, and see the Lord’s res
ponse to the prayer, the fatlrer’s answer to his children!
The only bread they get is the bread they take; in their
hard struggle for life-sustenance, the loaves come but
slowly, and heaven adds not a crust, even though the
worker be hungry, when he rises from his toil-won meal.
Not even the sight of pale faced wife, and thin forms of
half starved infants can move to generosity the Ruler of
the world. The labourer may pray, but, if work be scant
and wages low, he pines to death while praying. His
prayer gives no relief, and misery’s answer is the mocking
echo to his demand.
It is said by many a pious tongue that God helps the
poor; the wretchedness of some of their hovel houses, found,
alas ! too often in the suburbs of our wealthiest cities, grimy,
black, squalid, and miserable; the threadbare raggedness of
their garments ; the unwholesomeness of the food they eat;
the poisoned air they breathe in their narrow wynds and
filthy alleys; all these tell how much God helps the poor.
Do you want to see how God helps the poor ? go into any
police court when some little child-thief is brought up for
�2
labour’s prayer.
hearing; see him shoeless, with ragged trousers, thread»
bare, grimy, vest, hardly hanging to his poor body, shirt
that seems as though it never could have been white, skin
dull brown with dirt, hair innocent of comb or brush, eye
ignorantly, sullenly-defiant, yet downcast; born poor, born
wretched, born in ignorance, educated amongst criminals,
crime the atmosphere in which he moved ; and society, his
nurse and creator, is now virtuously aghast at the depra
vity of this its own neglected nursling, and a poor creature
whom God alone hath helped. Go where the weakly wife
in a narrow room huddles herself and little children day after
day : and where the husband crowds in to lie down at night:
they are poor and honest, but their honesty bars not the
approach of disease, fever, sorrow, death—God helps not
the line of health to their poor wan cheeks. Go to the
country workhouse in which is temporarily housed the
worn out farm labourer, who, while strength enough re
mained, starved through weary years with wife and several
children on eight shillings per week—it is thus God helps
the poor. And the poor are taught to pray for a continu
ance of this help, and to be thankful and content to pray
that to-morrow may be like to-day, thankful that yester
day was no worse than it was, and content to-day is as
good as it is. Are there many repining at their miseries,
the preacher, with gracious intonation, answers rebukingly
that God, in his wisdom, has sent these troubles upon them
as chastisement for their sins. So, says the church, all are
sinners, rich as well as poor, but rich sinners feel the
chastising rod is laid more lightly on their backs than it
is upon those of their meaner brethren. Week-day and
Sunday it is the same contrast; one wears fustian, the
other broadcloth, one prepares for heaven in the velvet
cushioned pew, the other on the wooden benches of the
free seats. In heaven it will be different—all there above
are to wear crowns of gold and fine linen, and, therefore,
here below the poor man is to be satisfied with the state of
life into which it has pleased God to call him. The pastor
who tells him this, looks upon the labourer as an inferior
�LABOUR. S PRAYER.
S
animal, and the labourer by force of habit regards the great
landowner and peer, who patronises his endeavours, as a
being of a superior order. Is there no new form of prayer
that labour might be taught to utter, no other power to
■which his petition might be addressed ? Prayer to the un
known for aid gives no strength to the prayer. In each
beseeching, he loses dignity and self-reliance, he trusts to
he knows not what, for an answer which cometh, he knows
■not when, and mayhap may never come at all. Let labour
pray in the future in another fashion and at another altar.
Let labourer pray to labourer that each may know labour’s
rights, and be able to fulfil labour’s duties. The size of
the loaf of daily bread must depend on the amount of the
daily wages, and the labourer must pray for better wages.
But his prayer must take the form of earnest, educated en
deavour to obtain the result desired. Let workmen, in
stead of praying to God in their distress, ask one another
why are wages low? how can wages be raised? can we
raise our own wages? having raised them, can we keep
them fixed at the sum desired ? what causes produce a rise
and fall in wages ? are high wages beneficial to the labourer ?
These are questions the pulpit has no concern with. The
reverend pastor will tell you that the “ wages of sin is death,”
and will rail against “filthy lucrebut he has no incli
nation for answering the queries here propounded. Why
are wages low? Wages are low because the wage-winners
crowd too closely. W ages are low because too many seek
to share one fund. Wages are lower still because the
. ’abourer fights against unfair odds; the laws of the country
overriding the laws of humanity, have been enacted with
out the labourer’s consent, although his obedience to them
is enforced. The fund is unfairly distributed as well as
too widely divided. Statutes are gradually being modified,
and the working man may hope for ampler justice from the
employer in the immediate future than was possible in
the past, but high and healthy wages depend on the work
ing man himself. Wages can be raised by the working
classes exereising a moderate degree of caution in increase
�4
LABOUR’S PRAYER.
ing their numbers. Wages must increase when capital in
creases more rapidly than population, and it is the duty of
the working man, therefore, to take every reasonable pre
caution to check the increase of population, and to accelerate
the augmentation of capital.
Can working-men, by combination, permanently raise the
rate of wages ? One gentleman presiding at a meeting of
the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science
for the discussion of the labour question, very fairly said,
“ It is not in the power of the men alone, or of the masters
alone, or of both combined, to say what shall be the amount
of wages at any particular time in any trade or country.
The men and the masters are, at most, competitors for the
division at a certain rate, of a certain fund, provided by
[themselves and] others—that is, by the consumers. If that
fund is small, no device can make the rate of profit or rate
of wages higher.” This is in theory quite correct, if it
means that no device can make the total divisible greater
than it is, but not if it refers to the increase of profit or
wages by partial distribution. In practice, although it is
true that if the fund be small and the seekers to share it
be many, the quotient to each must be necessarily very
small, yet it is also true that a few of the competitors—i.e.t
the capitalists, may and do absorb for their portions of
profits an improper and unfairly large amount, thus still
further reducing the wretchedly small pittance in any case
receivable by the mass of labourers. It is warmly con
tended that the capitalist and labourer contend for division
of the fund appropriable in fair and open field; that the
capitalist has his money to employ, the man his labour to
sell ; that if workmen are in excess of the capitalist’s
requirements, so that the labourer has to supplicate for
employment, wages cannot rise, and will probably fall; but
that if, on the contrary, capital has need to invite additional
labourers, then wages must rise. That is the law of supply
and demand brought prominently forward. In great part
this is true, but it is not true that capital and labour com
pete in fair and open field, any more than it is true that a<
�labour’s prayer.
yron-elad war vessel, with heavy ordnance, would compete
in fair field with a wooden frigate, equipped with the
materiel in use thirty years ago. Capital is gold-plated,
and carries too many guns for unprotected labour. The
intelligent capitalist makes the laws affecting master and
servant, which the uneducated labourer must obey, but has
no effective voice to alter. The capitalist forms the govern
ment of the country, which in turn protects capital against
labour; this government the labourer must sustain, and
dares not modify. The capitalist does combine, and has
combined, and the result of this combination has been an
unfair appropriation of the divisible fund. Why should
not the labourer combine also ? The answer is truly that
no combination of workmen can increase the rate of wages,
if at the same time the number of labourers increases more
rapidly than the capital out of which their wages must be
paid. But the men may combine to instruct one another
in the laws of political economy; they may combine to
apply their knowledge of those laws to the contracts be
tween employer and employed. They may combine to
compel the repeal of unjust enactments under which an un
fair distribution of the labour fund is not only possible,
but certain. Organisations of labourers are, therefore, wise
and necessary: the object of such organisations should be
the permanent elevation and enfranchisement of the mem
bers. No combination of workmen, which merely dictates
a temporary cessation from labour, can ultimately and per
manently benefit the labourer; while it certainly imme
diately injures him and deteriorates his condition, making
his home wretched, his family paupers. Nor can even co
operative combination, praiseworthy as it certainly is, to
procure for the labourer a larger share of the profits of his
labour, permanently benefit him, except in so far that
temporarily alleviating his condition, and giving him lei
sure for study, it enables him to educate himself: unless,
at the same time, the co-operator is conscious that the in
crease or reduction in the amount of wages depends entirely
on the ratio of relation preserved between population and
�labour’s prayer.
its means of subsistence, the former always having a tendency to increase more rapidly than the latter. It is with
the problem of too many mouths for too little bread that
the labourer has really to deal: if he must pray, it should
be for more bread and for fewer mouths. The answer often
given by the workman himself to the advocate of Malthusian
views is, that the world is wide enough for all, that there
are fields yet tfnploughed broad enough to bear more corn
than man at present could eat, and that there is neither too
little food, nor are there too many mouths ; that there is, in
fact, none of that over-population with which it is sought
to affright the working-man. Over-population in the sense
that the whole world is too full to contain its habitants, or
that it will ever become too full to contain them, is certainly
a fallacy, but over-population is a lamentable truth in its
relative sense. We find evidences of over-population in
every old country of the world. The test of over-population
is the existence of povei’ty, squalor, wretchedness, disease,
ignorance, misery, and crime. Low rate of wages, and food
dear, here you have two certain indices of relative over
population. Wages depending on the demand for and
supply of labourers, wherever wages are low it is a certain
sign that there are too many candidates for employment in
that phase of the labour market. The increased cost of
pioduction of food, and its consequent higher price, also
mark that the cultivation has been forced by the numbers
of the people to descend to less productive soils. Poverty
is the test and result of over-population.
It is not against some possible increase of their numbers,
which may produce possibly greater affliction, that the
working men are entreated to agitate. It is against the
_ existing evils which afflict their ranks, evils alleged by
sound students of political economy to have already resulted
from inattention to the population question, that the ener
gies of the people are sought to be directed. The operation
. the law of population has been for centuries entirely
agnoie by those who have felt its adverse influence most
severely. It is only during the last thirty years that any
�labour’s prayer.
pf the working classes have turned their attention to the
question; and only during the last few years that it has
been to any extent discussed amongst them. Yet all the
prayers that labour ever uttered since the first breath of
human life, have not availed so much for human happiness
as will the earnest examination by one generation of this,;
the greatest of all social questions, the root of all political
problems, the foundation of all civil progress. Poor—man
must be wretched. Poor—he must be ignorant. Poor—
he must be criminal: and poor he must be till the cause
of poverty has been ascertained by the poor man himself,
and its cure planned by .the poor man’s brain, and effected
by the poor man’s hand
Outside his own rank none can save the poor. Others
may show him the abyss, b ut he must avoid its dangerous
brink himself. Others may point out to him the chasm,
but he must build his own bridge over. Labour’s prayer
must be to labour’s head for help from labour’s hand to
strike the blow that severs labour’s chain, and terminates
the too long era of labour’s suffering.
During the last few years our daily papers, and various
periodicals, magazines, and reviews have been more fre
quently, and much less partially, devoted than of old to the
discussion of questions relating to the labourer’s condition,
and the means of ameliorating it. In the Legislative As
sembly debates have taken place which would have been
impossible fifty years since. Works on political economy
are now more easily within the reach of the working man
than they were some few years ago. People’s editions are
now published of treatises on political economy which half
a century back the people were unable to read. It is now
possible for the labourer, and it is the labourer’s duty, to
make himself master of the laws which govern the produc
tion and distribution of wealth. Undoubtedly there is
much grievous wrong in the mode of distribution of wealth,
by which the evils that afflict the poorest strugglers are
often specially and tenfold aggravated. The monopoly of
land, the serf state of th$ labourer, are points requiring
�iiABOtritsr PAAYEte.
energetic agitation. The grave and real question is, ho^S
ever, that which lies at the root of all, the increase of
wealth as against the increase of those whom it subsists.
The leaders of the great trades’ unions of the country, if
hey really desire to permanently increase the happiness of
the classes amongst whom they exercise influence, can
speedily promote this object by encouraging their members
to discuss freely the relations of labour to capital; not
moving in one groove, as if labour and capital were neces
sarily antagonistic, and that therefore labour must always
have rough-armed hand to protect itself from the attacks
of capital; but, taking new ground, to inquire if labour and
capital are bound to each other by any and what ties, ascer
taining if the share of the labourer in the capital fund
depends, except so far as affected by inequality in distribu
tion, on the proportion between the number of labourers and
the amount of the fund. The discussing, examining, and
dealing generally with these topics, would necessarily
compel the working man to a more correct appreciation of
his position.
Any such doctrine as that ‘ ‘ the poor shall never cease
out of the landor that we are to be content with the
station in life into which it has pleased God to call us ; or
that we are to ask and we shall receive, must no longer
avail. Schiller most effectively answers the advocates of
prayer—
“ Help, Lord, help ! Look with pity down!
A paternoster pray;
What God does, that is justly done,
His grace endures for aye.”
u Oh, mother! empty mockery,
God hath not justly dealt by me:
Have I not begged and prayed in vain;
What boots it now to pray again ?”
Labour’s only and effective prayer must be in life action
for its own redemption ; action founded on thought, crude
thought, and sometimes erring at first, but ultimately
developed into useful thinking, by much patient experi
menting for the right and true*
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Labour's prayer
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from the Selection of Bradlaugh's political pamphlets / John Saville (New York: 1970).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1865]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N097
G5678
Subject
The topic of the resource
Labour
Social problems
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Labour's prayer), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Labour Movement-England-History-19th Century
Wages
Working Classes
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e55ca3fdefe21dcc616b69ada9779fc5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c8VeQrYpCnKKFi6zrvOMhGulUIcpqc1XGFxOJqwIAgGG1oSKxmP0TfEidFNrsrJFC6gjdrqhyaGwRQMu0ilOT3ZPDbrYUBZt6KtSHS3-vQahqyE6on1PSqOyimYnm8DH1JsvqdzOX2ZSBDtjqWLWlZ0950t5adREQfZ-92NN2Z7I8Tv9kYZiPor%7EF3ybM%7EgQlHZIywK2Ckt9mJaB-nv%7ENkcb5JsdLu6fCvQwi91uWJIL67yBOpRWv2VTC7HJch2zraqGI-jpROwoORQJzRG2woo%7ENYXyNLSW03jFtOZCbmXXY9870Ul6Xr-kzImTwbOy-1rmxVR%7Ew9Ud5gKqTEx6YA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0f0ff68edb488848c4a4e6d1fc15e59a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
COMMON
SENSE.
BY
THOMAS PAINE.
Wiflj
arár an
fxr
LONDON:
FREETHOUG-HT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1884.
PRICE
SIXPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, ®.C
�B "2^5
INTRODUCTION.
4
'
In the T08 'years which have passed since Thomas Paine ad
dressed this pamphlet to the Anglo-Saxons in British North
America, the extension of the territory and population has been
of the grandest description. The jurisdiction of the thirteen
colonies was then everywhere circumscribed by the Indian lines,
and the number of the population—when the United States first
declared themselves a confederation—did not exceed three mil
lions. To-day in 88 States and in 10 territories, with an area of
3,603,844 square miles, exclusive of the Indian territory, the
American Republic has a population of more than 50,000,000.
When Paine penned the words now re-printed, the doctrine of
independence was scarcely comprehended by any ; George Wash
ington was a Royalist by education and association, and even the
most advanced disciples of Otis shrank from breaking with the
Monarchy. Paine’s “ Common Sense ” appealed, however, to
the people, and their decision was swift, universal, and perma
nent. The 4th of July was the grand answer of the American
people—an answer they have never had reason to regret.
The very month it was issued Washington regarded the situa
tion as “ truly alarming,” and wrote that “ the first burst of
revolutionary zeal had passed away.” Paine’s pen revived the
zeal, and achieved a victory which at that time Washington’s
sword was insufficient to conquer. In England the fear of
Paine’s pen was widespread, as may be seen by reading the trial
of the shoemaker, John Hardy, for high treason.
|To-day Paine’s “ Common Sense ” has a merit beyond its mere
local significance, mighty as this was, and no apology is needed
for its re-publication.
Chaeles Beadlaugh.
��AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION
-------- ♦--------
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not
yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor ; a long
habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appear
ance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes
more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of
calling the right of it in question (and in matters which might
never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated
into the inquiry), and as the King of England hath undertaken
in his own right to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs,
and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by
the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into
the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of
either.
In the following sheets the author hath studiously avoided
everything which is personal among ourselves. Compliments
as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The
wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and
those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease
of themselves, unless too much pains are bestowed upon their
conversion.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all
mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not
local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers
of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections
are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword,
declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extir
pating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the con
cern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feel
ing ; of which class, regardless of party censure, is
The Author.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
��COMMON SENSE.
-------- ♦--------
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general, with concise
Remarks on the English Constitution.
Some writers have so confounded Society with Government, as
to leave little or no distinction between them ; whereas they are
not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced
by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively, by uniting our affections; the
latter negatively, by restraining our vices. The one encourages
intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron,
the last a punisher.
Society, in every state, is a blessing ; but government, even in
its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an
intolerable one ; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country
without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting, that
we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like
dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are
built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For, were the
impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed,
man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case,
he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to
furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is
induced to do by the same prudence which, in every other case,
advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,
Security being the true design and end of Government, it un
answerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most
likely to ensure it to us with the least expense and greatest bene
fit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in
some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest;
they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of
the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their
first thought. A. thousand motives will excite them thereto ; the
strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so
unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the
same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable
dwelling in the midst of a wilderness; but one man might labor
Out the common period of his life without accomplishing any
thing ; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor
erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would
�Common Sense.
urge him from his work, and every different want call him a
different way. Disease, nay, even misfortune, would be death ;
for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him
from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might be
rather said to perish than to die.
Thus, necessity, like a gravitation power, would soon form our
newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of
which would supersede and render the obligations of law and
government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to
each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it
will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount
the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in
a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attach
ment to each other; and this remissness will point out the neces
sity of establishing some form of government to supply the
defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a state-house, under the
branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliberate
on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws
will have the title only of regulations, and be enforced by no
other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament
every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase
likewise, and the distance at which the members may be sepa
rated will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on
every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their
habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This
will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the
legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at
stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in
the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present.
If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to
augment the number of the representatives ; and that the interest
of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found
best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending
its proper number; and that the elected may never form to them
selves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point
out the necessity of having elections often; because, as the elected
must by that means return and mix again with the general body
of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be
secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for them
selves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a com
mon interest with every part of the community, they will mutually
and naturally support each other: and on this (not the unmean
ing name of king) depends the strength of government and the
happiness of the government.
Here, then, is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
govern the world; here too is the design and end of government,
viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be
�Common Sense.
9
dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understand
ing, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in
nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any
thing is the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier re
paired when disordered : and with this maxim in view I offer a few
remarks on the so-much-boasted constitution of England. That
it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erec
ted is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the
least remove therefrom was a glorious risk. But that it is im
perfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what
it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature)
have this advantage with them, that they are simple ; if the
people suffer they know the head from which their suffering
springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a
variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is
so exceedingly complex that the nation may suffer for years to
gether without being able to discover in which part the fault
lies ; some will say in one, and some in another, and every po
litical physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long-standing pre
judices ; yet if we suffer ourselves to examine the component
parts of the English constitution we shall find them to be the
base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some
new Republican materials.
First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of
the king.
Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons
of the peers.
Thirdly.—The new Republican materials in the persons of the
commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first being hereditary are independent of the people,
wherefore, in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing to
wards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three
powers, reciprocally checking each other is farcical; either the
words have no meaning or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons are a check upon the king, presup
poses two things :
First.—That the king is not to be trusted without being looked
after, or, in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the
natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.—That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the
crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons power
to check the king, by withholding supplies, gives afterwards the
king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to
reject their other bills, it again supposes that the king is wiser
�10
Common Sense.
than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him.
A mere absurdity.
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition
of monarchy ; it first excludes a man from the means of informa
tion, yet it empowers him to act in cases where the highest judg
ment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world,
yet the business of a kiDg requires him to know it thoroughly;
wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and des
troying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus:
the kiDg, they say, is one, the people another; the peers are a
house in behalf of the king, the commons in behalf of the people;
but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against
itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet
when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it always
happens that the nicest construction that words are capable of,
when applied to the description of something which either can
not exist or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of
description, will be words of sound only, and though they may
amuse the ear they cannot inform the mind; for this explanation
includes a previous question, viz., “ How came the king by a
power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged
to check ? ” Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power which needs checking be from
God ; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes
such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either
cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a
felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less,
and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it
only remains to know which power in the constitution has the
most weight; for that will govern ; and though the others, or a
part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity
of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it their endeavors
will be ineffectual, the first moving power will at last have its
way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part of the English con
stitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole
consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions
is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to
shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same
time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of
the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen in favor of their own govern
ment, by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from
national pride than reason. Individuals are, undoubtedly, safer
in England than in some other countries, but the will of the
king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with
this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his
mouth it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of
�Common Sense.
11
an Act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath
only made kings more subtle;—not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in
favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly
owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitu
tion of the government, that the crown is not so oppressive in
England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary : for as we are
never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we
continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither
are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered
with an obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a
prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepos
session in favour of a rotten constitution of government, will
disable us from discerning a good one.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.
Mankind being originally equal in the order of creation, the
equality only could be destroyed by some subsequent circum
stances ; the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure
be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh
and ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression
is often the consequence, but seldom the means, of riches ; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously
poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
Bftt there is another and greater distinction, for which no
truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female
are the distinctions of Nature ; good and bad, the distinctions of
Heaven ; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted
above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth
enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or
of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the Scripture
Chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which
was, there were no wars. It is the pride of kings which throws
mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king, hath enjoyed
more peace for the last century than any of the monarchical
governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark;
for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs have a happy
something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced to the world by
the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the cus
tom. It was the most prosperous invention the devil ever set
on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The heathen paid divine
honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath
improved on the plan, by doing the same to its living ones. How
�12
Common Sense.
impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in
the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be de
fended on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the
Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet ,Samuel,
expressly disapproves of government by kings. All antimonarchical parts of the Scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments; but they undoubtedly
merit the attention of countries which have their governments
yet to form. “ Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,”
is the Scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without
a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic
account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion,
requested a king. Till then, their form of government (except
in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was
a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of
the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to
acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.
And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage
which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that
the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a
form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
of Heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in Scripture as one of the sins of the
Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.
The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
Gideon marched against them with a smsll army, and victory,
through the Divine interposition, decided in his favor. The
Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of
Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, “ Rule thou over
us, thou and thy son, and thy son’s son.” Here was a tempta
tion in its fullest extent: not a kingdom only, but a hereditary
one. But Gideon in the piety of his soul, replied, “ I will not
reign over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord
shall rule over you.” Words need not be more explicit.
Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to
give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented decla
rations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet
charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King
of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again
into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the
idolatrous customs of the heathen, is something exceedingly un
accountable ; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct
of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular
concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to
Samuel, saying, “ Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in
�Common Sense.
13
thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the other
nations.” And here we cannot but observe that their motives
were bad, viz., that they might be like unto other nations, i.e.,
the heathen; whereas their true glory laid in being as much un
like them as possible. “Bat the thing displeased Samuel when
they said, Give us a King to judge us ; and Samuel prayed unto
the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all they say unto thee, for they have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not
reign over them. According to all the works which they have
done since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, even unto
this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other
gods ; so do they also unto thee. Now, therefore, hearken unto
their voice, howbeit protest solemnly unto them, and show the
manner of a king that shall reign over them (z.e., not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after; and notwithstanding
the great difference of time, and distance, and manners, the cha
racter is still in fashion). And Samuel told all the words of
the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he
said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over
you ; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for
his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before
his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men), and he will appoint them captains over thou
sands, and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his
ground, and to reap his harvest, and make his instruments of
war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your
daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be
bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
oppression of kings), and he will take your fields and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants;
and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards,
and give them to his officers and his servants (by which we see
that bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of
kings) ; and he will take the tenth of your men-servants, and
your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your
asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of
your sheep, and you shall be his servants ; and ye shall cry out
in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen,
and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do
the characters of the few good kings who have lived since either
sanctify the title or blot out the sinfulness of the origin ; the
high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially
as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. “Never
theless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and
they said, Nay, but we will have a King over us, that we may be
like all the nations, and that our King may judge us, and go out
before us, and fight our battles.” Samuel continued to reason
with them, but to no purpose ; he set before them their ingrati
�14
Common Sense.
tude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their
folly, he cried out: “I will call unto the Lord and he shall send
thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the
time of wheat harvest), that ye may perceive and see that your
wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord,
in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the
Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly
feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto
Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we
die not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king.”
These portions of Scripture are direct and positive. They admit
of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath there
entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or
the Scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe
that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding
the Scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy
in every instance is the Popery of Government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult
and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equal,
no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in
perpetual preference to all others for ever ; and though himself
might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contempo
raries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of heredi
tary right in kings is, that nature disproves it, otherwise she
would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind
an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public
honors than were bestowed upon them, so the givers of those
honors could have no right to give away the right of posterity.
And though they might say: “ We choose you for our head,”
they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say,
“that your children and your children’s children shall reign over
ours for ever,” because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural com
pact might, perhaps, in the next succession, put them under the
government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their
private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with con
tempt ; yet it is one of those evils which, when once established,
is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from super
stition, and the most powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to
have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable
that, could we take off the dark covering of antiquity and trace
them to their first rise, we should find the first of them nothing
better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose
savage manners or pre-eminence in subtilty, obtained him the
title of chief among plunderers; and who, by increasing in
power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and
�Common Sense.
15
defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.
Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to
his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves
was incompatible with the free and unrestained principles they
professed to live by. Wherefore hereditary succession in the
early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim,
but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no re
cords were extant in those days, and traditionary history is
stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few
generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently
timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats
of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threaten, or seemed
to threaten, on the decease of a leader, and the choice of a new
one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) in
duced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions ; by which
means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good
monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad
ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under
William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French
bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing him
self King of England, against the consent of the natives, is, in
plain terms, a very paltry, rascally original. It certainly hath
no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time
in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so
weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass
and the lion, and welcome ; I shall neither copy their humility,
nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask, how they suppose kings came at
first? The question admits but of three answers, viz., either
by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was
taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which ex
cludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession
was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction,
there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any
country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent
for the next; for to say that the right of all future generations
is taken away by the act of the first electors, in their choice, not
only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel
in or out of Scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which
supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
comparison (and it will admit of no other) hereditary succession
can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the
first electors all men obeyed; so in the one all mankind are
subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty: as our
innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and
as both disable us from re-assuming some further state and privi
lege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary suc
cession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion !
Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
�16
Common Sense.
As to usurpation no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and
that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
contradicted. The plain truth is that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
succession which concerns mankind. Did it insure a race of
good and wise men, it would have the seal of divine authority;
but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the im
proper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men, who look
upon themselves as born to reign, and on the others to obey,
soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their
minds are easily poisoned by importance, and the world they act
in differs so materially from the world at large that they have
but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignor
ant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the
throne is liable to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which
time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, has every
opportunity and inducement to betray its trust. The same
national misfortune happens when a king, worn out with age
and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who
can tamper with the follies either of infancy or age.
The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor
of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from civil
wars; and were this true it would be weighty ; whereas, it is
the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The
whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and
two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the
conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revo
lution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions.
Wherefore, instead of making for peace it makes against it, and
destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession between the houses
of York and Lancaster laid England in a scene of blood for many
years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges,
were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry
prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And
so uncertain is the fate of war, and temper of a nation, when
nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that
Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and
Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as
sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed
him ; the Parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was
not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the
families were united; including a period of sixty-seven years,
viz., from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid, not this or that
�Common Sense.
17
kingdom only, but the world in blood and ashes. It is a form of
government which the word of God bears testimony against, and
blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king we shall find that in
iome countries they have none ; and after sauntering away their
lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation,
withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the
same idle ground. In the absolute monarchies the whole weight
of business, civil and military, lies on the king ; the children of
Israel, in their request for a king, urged this plea, “ that he may
judge us and go out before us, and fight our battles.” But in
countries where he is neither a judge nor a general a man would
be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a Republic the less
business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a
proper name for the government of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present state it is un
worthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown,
by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swal
lowed up the power and eaten out the virtue of the House of
Commons (the Republican part of the constitution), that the
government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France
or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them,
for it is the Republican, and not the monarchical, part of the con
stitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty
of choosing a House of Commons from out of their own body ;
and it is easy to see that when Republican virtue fails slavery
ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the Republic, the crown hath engrossed
the Commons ?
In England the king hath little more to do than to make war
and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to impoverish
the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business
indeed, for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling
a-year for, and worshipped into the bargain ! Of more worth is
One honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the
crowned ruffians that ever lived.
Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs.
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts,
plain arguments, and common sense ; and have no other prelimi
naries to settle with the reader than that he will divest himself
Of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his feelings to deter
mine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will
not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge
his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked
in the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs ; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate
�18
Common Sense.
is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; and
the appeal was the choice of a king, and the continent hath
accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham, who, though an
able minister, was not without his faults, that on his being
attacked in the House of Commons on the score that his measures
were only of a temporary kind, replied: “They will last my time.”
Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies
in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered
by future generations with detestation.
The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. It is not
the affair of a city, a county a province, or of a kingdom, but of
a continent—of, at least, one-eighth part of the habitable globe.
It is not the concern of a day, a year, or an age ; posterity are
involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even
to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed
time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture
now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the
tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the
tree, and posterity read it in full-grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for
politics is struck, a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
plans, proposals, etc., prior to the 19th of April, i.e., to the
commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of last year,
which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the
question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a
union with Great Britain ; the only difference between the parties
was the method of affecting it, the one proposing force, the
other friendship ; but it hath so far happened that the first hath
failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as
we were, it is but right that we should view the contrary side of
the argument, and inquire into some of the many material
injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by
being connected with, and dependent on, Great Britain. To
examine that connexion and dependence, on the principles of
nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if
separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some that, as America had
flourished under her former connexion with Great Britain, the
same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and
will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious
than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because
a child has thriven upon milk it is never to have meat, or that the
first twenty years of our lives are to become a precedent for the
next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I
answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power anything to do
with her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are
�Common Sense.
19
the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating
is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed
us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as
her own is admitted ; and she would have defended Turkey from
the same motive, viz., the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and
made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted of the
protection of Great Britain, without considering that her motive
was interest, not attachment; but she did not protect us from
our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own
account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other
account, and who will always be our enemies on the same
account. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at
peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain.
The miseries of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against
connexions.
It has lately been asserted in Parliament that the colonies have
no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e.,
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England ; this is certainly a very round
about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only
true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and
Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as
Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country say some. Then the more
shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,
nor savages make war on their families; wherefore the assertion,
if true, turns to her reproach ; but it happens not to be true, or
only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for
the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty in every part
of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces
of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so
far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England),
and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood
with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity
of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we sur
mount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaint
ance with the world. A man born in any town in England
divided into parishes, will naturally associate with his fellow
parishioner, because their interests in many cases will be com
mon, and distinguish him by the name of neighbor ; if he meet
B2
�20
Common Sense.
him but a few miles from home, he salutes him by the name of
townsman ; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any
other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and
calls him countryman, ie., county man ; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France, or in any other part
of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that
of Englishman. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
countrymen ; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale, which the divisions of street, town and county, do on the
smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.
Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent
or mother country applied to England only, as being false,
selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of English descent, what does
it amount to? Nothing. Britain being now an open enemy,
extinguishes every other name and title ; and to say that recon
ciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England
of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman,
and half the peers of England are descendants from the same
country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning, England
ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies; that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the
world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of wars is un
certain ; neither do the expression mean anything; for this
continent never would suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants,
to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defi
ance ? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will
secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe ; because it is
the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her
trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and
silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show
a single advantage this continent can reap by being connected
with Great Britain ; I repeat the challenge, not a single advan
tage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in
Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them
where you will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that con
nexion are without number ; and our duty to mankind at large,
as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance, be
cause, any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain tends
to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and set
us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friend
ship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial
connexion with any part of it. It is the true interest of America
�Common Sense.
21
to steer clear or European contentions, which she can never do,
while by her dependence on Britain she is made the make-weight
in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at
peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her
connexion with Great Britain. The next war may not turn out
like the last, and should it not the advocates for reconciliation
now will be wishing for a separation then, because neutrality
in that case would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every
thing that is right or natural pleads for a separation. The blood
of the slain, the weeping voice of nature, cries. It is time to part.
Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England
and America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of
the one over the other was never the design of heaven. The
time, likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds to the
weight of the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled
increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the
discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home
should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form
of government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a
serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward,
under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls
“ the present constitution ” is merely temporary. As parents we
can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently
lasting to ensure anything which we may bequeath to posterity ;
and by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next
generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise
we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line
of our duty rightly we should take our children in our hands,
and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence
will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices
conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence
yet I am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doc
trine of reconciliation may be included within the following
descriptions : Interested men, who are not to be trusted ; weak
men, who cannot see ; prejudiced men, who will not see ; and
a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European
world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged
deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this conti
nent than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene
of sorrow ; and the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors
to make them feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for
a few moments to Boston ; that seat of wretchedness will teach
us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom
we can have no trust; the inhabitants of that unfortunate city,
�22
Common Sense.
who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now
no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg.
Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within
the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their
present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemp
tion, and in a general attack for their relief they would be ex
posed to the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offences of Britain, and still hoping for the best, are apt to call
out: “ Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But
examine the passions and feelings of mankind, bring the doctrine
of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me
whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the
power which hath carried fire and sword into your land ? If you
cannot do all these then you are only deceiving yourselves, and
by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connex
ion with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be
forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of
present convenience will in a little time fall into a relapse more
wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass the
violations over then I ask, hath your house been burnt ? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face ? Are your wife
and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on ?
Have you lost a parent or child by their hands, and you yourself
the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are
you a judge of those who have ? But if you have, and still can
shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy the name
of husband, father, friend, or lover ; and whatever may be your
rank or title in life you have the heart of a coward, and the
spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, by trying them
by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and
without which we should be incapable of discharging the social
duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to
exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to
awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue
determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of
Britain, or of Europe, to conquer America, if she do not conquer
herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an
age, if rightly employed, but if neglected the whole continent
will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which
that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will,
that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and
useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to
all examples of former ages, to suppose that this continent can
longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine
in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human
wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation,
which can promise the continent a year’s security. Reconciliation
is now a fallacious dream. Nature has deserted the connexion
�Common Sense.
and art cannot supply her place ; for as Milton wisely expresses:
“ Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly
hate have pierced so deep.”
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers have been rejected with disdain, and only tended to
convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in
kings more than repeated petitioning ; and nothing hath contri
buted more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe
absolute; witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since
nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake let us come to a final
separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting of
throats under the violated, unmeaning names of parent and
-child.
To say they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary ;
we thought so at the repeal of the Stamp Act, yet a year or two
undeceived us ; as well may we suppose that nations which have
been once defeated will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to
do this continent justice. The business of it will soon be too
weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree
of convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant
of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.
To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale
or petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which,
when obtained, requires five or six more to explain it, will in
a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness. There was
a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to
cease.
Small islands, not capable of protecting themselves, are the
proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there
is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetu
ally governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the
satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and
America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of
nature, it is evident they belong to different systems : England,
to Europe ; America, to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independence. I am
clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the
true interest of the continent to be so ; that everything short of
that is merely patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,
that it is leaving the sword to our children, and slinking back at
a time when a little more, a little farther, would have rendered
the continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards
a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained
worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the
expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
The object contended for ought always to bear some just pro
portion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have ex
�24
Common Sense.
pended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience
which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the Act»
complained of, had such repeals been obtained ; but if the whole
continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is
scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry
only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the Acts, if that
is all we fight for ; for, in a just estimation, it is as great a folly
to pay a Bunker Hill price for law as for land. As I have always
considered the independence of the continent as an event which,
sooner or later, must arise, so from the late rapid progress of thè
continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore,
on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth while to have
disputed a matter which time would have finally redressed, unless
we meant to be in earnest ; otherwise it is like wasting an estate
on a suit of law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant whose
lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for recon
ciliation than myself before the fatal nineteenth1 of April, 1775 ;
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected
the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever, and
disdained the wretch that, with the pretended title of Father of
his People, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and com
posedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But, admitting that matters were now made up, what would be
the event ? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for
several reasons.
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of
the continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate
enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power,
is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies : “You
shall make no laws but what I please ” ? And is there any in
habitant in America so ignorant as not to know that, according,
to what is called the present constitution, this continent can.
make no laws but what the king gives leave to ? And is there
any man so unwise as not to see (considering what has happened)
he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits his pur
pose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws
in America as by submitting to laws made in England. After
matters are made up, as it is called, can there be any doubt but.
the whole power of the crown will be exerted to keep this con
tinent as low and as humble as possible ? Instead of going
forward, we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or
ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater than the king,
wishes us to be, and will he not endeavor to make us less ? To
bring the matter to one point : Is the power who is jealous of
our prosperity a proper power to govern us ? Whoever says no
to this question is an independent ; for independency means no
more than whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the
king (the greatest enemy this continent hath or can have) shall
tell us : “ There shall be no laws but such as I like.”
1 Lexington.
�Common Sense.
25
But the king, you will say, has a negative in England; the
people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of
right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a
youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened), shall say toseven millions of people, older and wiser than himself—I forbid
this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline
this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absur
dity of it, and only answer that England, being the king’s resi
dence, and America not so, make quite another case. The king’s
negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can
be in England ; for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a
bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as pos
sible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be
passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British
politics. England consults the good of this country no farther
than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which
doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it.
A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand
Government, considering what has happened! Men do not
change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name;
and in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous
doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the King at this
time to repeal the Acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the
government of the provinces ; in order that he may accomplish
by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot do by force
and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly
related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms which we can expect to
obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a
kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer
than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state
of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising.
Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country
whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and that is
every day tottering on the brink of commotion and distur
bance, and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of
the interval to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
independence, i.e., a continental form of government, can keep
the peace of the continent, and preserve it inviolate from civil
wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as
it is more than probable that it will be followed by a revolt
somewhere or other ; the consequences of which may be far mor©
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity ! thousands
more will probably suffer the same fate! Those men have other
feelings than we, who have nothing suffered. All they now
possess is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its
service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission.
�26
;
, j
•Common Sense.
Besides, the general temper of the colonies towards a British
government, will be like that of a youth who is nearly out of his
time ; they will care very little about her. And a government
which cannot preserve the peace is no government at all, and in that
case we pay our money for nothing ; and pray what is it Britain
can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil
tumult break out the very day after reconciliation ? I have heard
some men say, many of whom, I believe, spoke without thinking,
that they dreaded an independence, fearing it would produce
civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here ; for there are ten times more
to dread from a patched-up connexion than from independence.
I make the sufferer’s case my own, and I protest, that were I
driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my
circumstances ruined, that, as a man sensible of injuries, I could
never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself
bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and
obedience to continental government as is sufficient to make
every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man
can assign the least pretence for his fears on any other ground
than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz., that one colony
will be striving for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions, there can be no superiority ;
perfect equality affords no temptation. The Republics of Europe
are all, and we may say always, at peace. Holland and Switzer
land are without wars, foreign and domestic: monarchical gov
ernments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a
temptation to enterprising ruffians at home ; and that degree of
pride and insolence, ever attendant on regal authority, swells into
a rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a Republican
government, by being formed on more natural principles, would
negociate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is
because no plan is yet laid down : men do not see their way out.
Wherefore, as an opening to that business, I offer the following
hints ; at the same time modestly affirming, that 1 have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of
giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts
of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials
for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The re
presentation more equal; their business wholly domestic, and
subject to the authority of a continental congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred and ninety.
Each congress to sit * * * * and to choose a president by the
following method :—When the delegates are met, let a colony be
taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot; after which let the
�Common Sense.
27
whole congress choose, by ballot, a president from out of the
delegates of that province. In the next congress, let a colony be
taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which
the president was taken in the former congress, so proceeding on
till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And
in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satis
factorily just, not less than three-fifths of the congress to be
called a majority. He that will promote discord under a govern
ment so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his
revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom and in what
manner this business must first arise; and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent that it should come from some inter
mediate body between the governed and the governors, that is,
between the congress and the people, let a continental conference
be held, in the following manner and for the following
purpose:—
A committee of twenty-six members of congress, viz., two for
each county. Two members from each house of assembly or
provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at
large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province,
for and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified
voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the pro
vince for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives
may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts there
of. In this conference thus assembled will be united the two
grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The
members of congress, assemblies, or conventions, by having had
experience in national concerns, will be able and useful coun
sellors ; and the whole, empowered by the people, will have a
truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their business be to
frame a continental charter, or charter of the united colonies,
answering to what is called Magna Charta of England; fixing
the number and manner of choosing members of congress, mem
bers of assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line
of business and jurisdiction between them ; always remembering
that our strength is continental, not provincial; securing freedom
and property to all men ; and, above all things, the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such
other matter as it is necessary for a charter to contain. Imme
diately after which the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies
which shall be chosen conformable to the said .charter to be the
legislators and governors of the continent for the time being,
whose peace and happiness may God preserve ! Amen.
. Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some
similar purpose, I offer them the following extract from that wise
observer on governments, Dragonetti:—“ The science,” says he,
“ of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness
and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages,
who should discover a mode of government that contained the
�Common Sense.
greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national
expense.”—Dragonetti, on “ Virtue and Rewards.”
But where, some say, is the king of America ? I will tell you,
friend, he reigns above, and does not make havoc of mankind,
like the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to
be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set
apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth, placed
on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed
thereon, by which the world may know that so far we approve of
monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute
governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought
to be king, and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use
should afterwards arise, let the crown, at the conclusion of the
ceremony, be demolished and scattered among the people, whose
right it is.
A government of our own is our natural right; and when a
man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he
will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form
a constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner, while we
have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to
time and chance. If we omit it now, some Masaniello may
*
hereafter arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may
collect together the desperate and discontented, and by assuming
to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government
of America return again to the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief
can Britain have ? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal busi
ness might be done, and ourselves suffering, like the wretched
Britains, under the oppression of the conqueror. Ye that oppose
independence now, ye know not what ye do ; ye are opening a
door to eternal tyranny.
There are thousands and tens of thousands who would think it
glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish
power which hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy
us ; the cruelty hath a double guilt—it is dealing brutally by us
and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us
to have faith, and our affections, wounded through a thousand
pores, instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day
wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them,
and can there b§ any reason to hope that, as the relationship
expires, the affection will increase ; or that we shall agree better
when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel
over than ever ?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to
* Thomas Aniello, otherwise Masaniello, a fisherman of Naples, who, after
spiriting up his countrymen in the public market-place against the oppression of
the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and
in the space of a day became king.
�Common Sense.
29
us the time that is past? Can you give to prostitution its former
innocence ? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The
last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting
addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot
forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can a
lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress as the continent forgive
the murderers of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us
these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes.
They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social
compact would dissolve and justice be extirpated from the earth,
or have only a casual existence, were we callous to the touches
of affection. The robber and the murderer would often escape
unpunished, did not the injuries which our temper sustains pro
voke us into justice.
O ye that love mankind; ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth ; every spot of the old world
is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round
the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her, Europe
regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning
to depart. O receive the fugitive ; and prepare in time an asylum
for mankind.
Of the present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous
Reflexions.
I have never met with a man, either in England or America
who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the
two countries would take place one time or other. And there is
no instance in which we have shown less judgment than in
endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of
the continent for independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion
of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general
survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very
time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for
the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious
union of all things, prove the fact.
It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies;
yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all
the world. The continent hath, at this time, the largest body of
armed and disciplined men of any power under heaven, and is
just arrived at that pitch of strength in which no single colony
is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accom
plish the matter ; and either more or less than this might be fatal
in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval
affairs, we cannot be insensible that Britian would r ever suffer an
American man-of-war to be built while the continent remained
in her hands, wherefore we should be no forwarder a hundred
years hence in that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we
shall be less so, because the timber of the country is every day
�30
Common Sense.
diminishing, and that which will remain at last will be far off
and difficult to procure.
Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings
under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
sea-port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend
and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned
to our wants, that no man need to be idle. The diminution of
trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a
new trade.
Debts we have none, and whatever we may contract on this
account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we
but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an inde
pendent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be
cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile
acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy
the charge, is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because
it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their
backs from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is
unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a
narrow heart and a peddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard, if the
work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
debt; a national debt is a national bond, and when it bears no
interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a
debt of upwards of one hundred and fifty millions sterling, for
which she pays upwards of four millions interest. As a compen
sation for the debt, she has a large navy ; America is without a
debt and without a navy; yet, for the twentieth part of the
English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The
navy of England is not worth more at this time than three
millions and a half sterling.
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing
her with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, together with a pro
portion of eight months’ boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea stores,
as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the Navy, is as
follows:—
For a ship of 100 guns...................................... £35,552
90
.................................... 29 886
80
23.638
70
17,785
60
14,197
50
................................... 10,606
40
7,758
30
5,846
20
3,710
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather,
of the whole British navy, which, in the year 1757, when it was
at its greatest glory, consisted of the following ships and
guns:—
�Common Sense.
Ship.
Guns.
Cost of one.
31
Cost of all.
£35,553 ............. ........... £213 318
100
6
29,886 ............. ...........
358 632
12
90
23,638 ............. ...........
283 656
12
80
17,785 ............. ............
70
764.755
48
14,197 ............. ...........
60
496.895
35
10,606 ............. ...........
40
50
424,240
7,758 ............. ...........
40
344,110
45
3,710 ............. ...........
58
20
215,180
85 Sloops, bombs, and)
fireships, one with;- 2,000 ..........................
170,000
another.
J
----------Cost ......................... 8,270.786
Remains for guns
....
229,214
£3,500,0001
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally
capable of raising a fleet, as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for
nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring
out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are
obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought
to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being
the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money
we can lay out. A navy, when finished, is worth more than it
cost; and is that nice point in national policy in which commerce
and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not,
we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with
ready gold and silver.
In point of manning a fleet people in general run into great
errors. It is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailors.
The “Terrible,’’privateer,Captain Death, stood thehottestengagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board,
though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A
few able and sociable sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number
of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore,
we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than
now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and
our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of
seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New
England, and why not the same now? Ship building is America’s
greatest pride, and in which she will in time excel the whole
world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and
consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her.
Africa is in a state of barbarism, and no power in Europe hath
either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of
materials. Where nature hath given the one she has withheld
1 Mr. Paine would be a little astonished if he could to-day examine
the estimates for an English ironclad.
�32
Common Sense.
the other. To America only hath she been liberal in both. The
vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea ; where
fore her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only
articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet ? We are not
the little people now which we were sixty years ago. At that time
we might have trusted our property in the street, or field rather,
and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or
windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence
ought to improve with our increase of property. A common
pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware and
laid the City of Philadelphia under instant contribution for what
sum he pleased, and the same might have happened to other places.
Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns,
might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a
million of money. These are circumstances which demand our
attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say that after we have made it up with
Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean
that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose?
Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored
to subdue us is, of all others, the most improper to defend
•us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship,
and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last
cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted
into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us ? A
navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on
sudden emergencies none at all. Wherefore, if we must here
after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves ? why do it
for another ?
The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but
not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service,
numbers of them not in being, yet their names are pompously
continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship; and not
a fifth part of such as are fit for service can be spared on any one
station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean,
Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim,
make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of preju
dice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting
me navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the
/vnole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason supposed
mat we must have one as large, which not being instantly prac
ticable, has been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from
truth than this, for if America had only a twentieth part of the
naval force of Britain, she would be by far an overmatch for her,
because, as we neither have nor claim any foreign dominion, our
own force will be employed on our own coast, where we should,
in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had
three or four thousand miles to sail over before they could
attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and
�33
Common Sense.
recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath a check over
our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the
West Indies, which, by lying in the neighborhood of the continent,
is entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in
the time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support
a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to
build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty,
thirty, forty, or fifty guns (the premiums to be in proportion to
the loss of bulk to the merchants,) fifty or sixty of those ships,
with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a suffi
cient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil
so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in
time of peace, to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of
commerce and defence is sound policy, for when our strength and
our riches play into each other’s hands we need fear no external
enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes
even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron
is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to
any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre
and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is
hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and
courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it we
want ? Why is it that we hesitate ? From Britain we expect
nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of
America again, this continent will not be worth living in.
Jealousies will be always arising ; insurrections will be constantly
happening; and who will go forth to quell them ? Who will
venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedi
ence ? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut,
respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a
British government, and fully proves that nothing but continental
authority can regulate continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others
is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet
unoccupied, which, instead of being lavished by the king on his
Worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the
discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of
government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage
as this.
The infant state of the colonies, as it is called, so far from being
against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are suffi.
oiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.
It is a matter worthy of observation that the more a country is
peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers the
ancient far exceeded the moderns; and the reason is evident, for
trade being the consequence of population, men become too much
absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce dimiishes the spirit both of patriotism and military defence; and
history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements
C
�34
Common Sense.
were always accomplished in the nonage of a nation. With the
increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of
London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued
insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to
lose, the less willing they are to venture. The rich are in general
slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling
duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in
individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the
continent into one government half a century hence. The vast
variety of interests, occasioned by the increase of trade and popu
lation, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony.
Each being able, might scorn each other’s assistance ; and while
the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise
would lament that the union had not been formed before. Where
fore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The
intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which
is formed in misfortune, are of all others the most lasting and
honorable. Our present union is marked with both these cha
racters ; we are young, and we have been distressed; but our
concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable era
for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which never
happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into
a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and
by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their
conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they
had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles
or charter of government should be formed first, and men dele
gated to execute them afterwards; but from the errors of other
nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present oppor
tunity—to begin government at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them
law at the point of the sword, and until we consent that the seat
of government in America be legally and authoritatively occupied,
we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruf
fian, who may treat us in the same manner; and then, where
will be our freedom ? where our property ?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all
governments to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I
know of no other business which government hath to do there
with. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that sel
fishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so
unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his
fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls,
and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and con
scientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there
should be a diversity of religious opinions among us; it affords a
larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way
of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for
probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various
�Common Sense.
35
denominations among us to be, like children of the same family,
differing only in what is called their Christian names.
In page twenty-seven I threw out a few thoughts on the pro
priety of a continental charter (for I only presume to offer hints,
not plans), and in this place I take the liberty of re-mentioning
the subject by observing that a charter is to be understood as a
bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to sup
port the right of every separate part, whether of religion, per
sonal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckon
*
ing make long friends.
In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large
and equal representation, and there is no political matter which
more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a
small number of representatives, are equally dangerous ; but if the
number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the
danger is increased. As an instance of this I mention the follow
ing : When the Associators’ petition was before the House of
Assembly of Pennsylvania twenty-eight members only were pre
*
sent; all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it,
and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole
province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger
it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch, likewise,
which that House made in their last sitting, to gain an undue
authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the
people at large how they trust power out of their own hands. A
set of instructions for the delegates were put together, which in
point of sense and business would have dishonored a schoolboy ;
and after being approved by a few, a very few, without doors,
were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of th®
whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know with what
ill-will that House had entered on some necessary public
measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them un
*
worthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which, if
continued, would grow into oppressions. Experience and right
are different things. When the calamities of America required
a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so
proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of As
sembly for that purpose ; and the wisdom with which they have
proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is
more than probable that we shall ever be without a Congress,
every well-wisher to good order must own that the mode for
choosing members of that body deserves consideration. And I
put it as a question to those who make a study of mankind,
whether representation and election are not too great a power
for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are
planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxima
and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr.
Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, treated the petition
c 2
�36
Common Sense.
of the New York Assembly with contempt, because that House’
he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling
number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole.
We thank him for his involuntary honesty.
*
To conclude : however strange it may appear to some, or how
ever unwilling they may be to think so, matters not; but many
strong and striking reasons may be given, to show that nothing
can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined
declaration for independence. Some of which are:
First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for
some other powers not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as
mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace; but
while America calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power,
however well-disposed she may be, can offer her mediation.
Wherefore, in our present state, we may quarrel on for ever.
Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose that France or Spain
will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use
of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and
strengthening the connexion between Britain and America, be
cause those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.
Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain,
we must, in the eyes of foreign nations, be considered as rebels.
The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to
be in arms under the name of subjects ; we, on the spot, can solve
the paradox; but to unite resistance and subjection requires an
idea much too refined for common understandings.
Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and dispatched
to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured,
and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress,
declaring, at the same time, that not being able any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British Court,
we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connexion
with her; at the same time assuring all such Courts of our
peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering
into trade with them ; such a memorial would produce more good
effects to this continent than if a ship were freighted with petitions
to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can
neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all Courts
is against us, and will be so until, by an independence, we take
rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult;
but like other steps which we have already passed over, will in a
little time become familiar and agreeable; and until an indepen
dence is declared, the continent will find itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day,
yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over,
and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
♦Those who would fully understand of what great consequenee a large
and equal representation is to a State, should read Burgh’s “ Political Disquisi
tions.’’
�Common Sense.
37
APPENDIX.
„
5
*
Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or
rather on the same day on which it came out, the king’s speech
made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy
directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought
it forth at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time.
The bloody-mindedness of the one shows the necessity of pursu
ing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge.
And the speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the
manly principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even silence, from whatever motive they may
arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of
countenance to base and wicked performances ; wherefore, if this
maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king’s speech,
as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves,
a general execration both by the Congress and the People. Yet
as the domestic tranquillity of a nation depends greatly on the
chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is
often better to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to
make use of such new methods of dislike as might introduce the
least innovation on the guardian of our peace and safety. And,
perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the
king’s speech hath not, before now, suffered a public execration.
The speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a
wilful, audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and
the existence of mankind ; and is a formal and pompous method
of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this
general massacre of mankind is one of the privileges, and the
certain consequence of kings: for as Nature knows them not,
they know not her; and although they are beings of our own
creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their
creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is
not calculated to deceive; neither can we, even if we would, be
deceived by it; brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it.
It leaves us at no loss ; and every line convinces, even in the
moment of reading, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the
naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of
Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining, Jesuitical
piece, fallaciously called “The Address of the People of England
to the Inhabitants of America,” hath, perhaps, from a vain sup
position that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp
and description of a king, given (though very unwisely on his part)
the real character of the present one. “ But,” says this writer,
“if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration
which we do not complain of ” (meaning the Marquis of Rock* ngham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act), “ it is very unfair in
ou to withhold them from that prince by whose nod alone they
�38
Common Sense.
were permitted to do anything.” This is Toryism with a witness!
Here is idolatry even with a mask! and he who can calmly hear
and digest such doctrine hath forfeited his claim to rationality—
an apostate from the order of manhood—and ought to be con
sidered as one who hath not only given up the proper dignity of
man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and con
temptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She
hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty
to take care of than to be granting away her property, to sup
port a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and
Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a
nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as
ye who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty,
if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by
European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But
leaving the moral part to private reflexion, I shall chiefly coniine
my farther remarks to the following heads:—
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from
Britain.
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
Reconciliation or Independence ? with some occasional remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce
the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on
this continent; and whose sentiments on that head are not yet
publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position ; for no
nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce,
and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive
at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what
opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made
stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but child
hood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at,
had she, as she ought to have, the legislative power in her own
hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would
do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the continent,
hesitating on the matter, which will be her final ruin, if neglected.
It is the commerce and not the conquest of America by which
England is to be benefited ; and that would in a great measure
continue, were the countries as independent of each other as
France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a
better market. But it is the independence of this country of
Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object
worthy of contention ; and which, like all other truths discovered
by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will
be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself, both in public and private
companies, with silently remarking the specious errors of those
who spoke without reflecting. And among the many which I have
heard, the following seems the most general, viz.: That had this
�Common Sense.
39
rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the
continent would have been more able to have shaken off the de
pendence. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this
time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which,
in forty or fifty years’ time, would have been totally extinct. The
continent would not, by that time, have had a general, or even
a military officer, left; and we, or those who may succeed.us,
would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient
Indians. And this single position closely attended to, will unan
swerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others.
The argument turns thus: At the conclusion of the last war we
had experience, but wanted numbers, and forty or fifty years
hence we shall have numbers without experience ; wherefore, the
proper point of time must be some particular point between the
two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a
proper increase of the latter is obtained; and that point of time
is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly
come under the head I first set out with, and to which I shall
again return by the following position, viz :
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain
the governing and sovereign power of America (which, as matters
are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely), we shall
deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have
or may contract. The value of the back land, which some of
the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust exten
sion of the limits of Canada, valued at only five pounds sterling
per hundred acres, amounts to upwards of twenty-five millions
Pennsylvania currency ; and the quit rents at one penny sterling
per acre, or two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk,
without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon will
always lessen, and in time will wholly support the yearly expense
of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying,
so that the lands, when sold, be applied to the discharge of it;
and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being
will be continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz.: Which is the easiest
and most practical plan, Reconciliation or Independence ? with
some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of
his argument, and on that ground I answer generally—that
independence being a Bingle simple line contained within our
selves, and reconciliation a matter exceedingly perplexed and
complicated, and in which a treacherous, capricious court is to
interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man
who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government,
without other mode of power than what is founded on, and
granted by courtesy; held together by an unexampled occurrence
of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which
�40
Common Sense.
every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present
condition is legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a
constitution without a name ; and what is strangely astonishing,
perfect independence contending for dependence. The instance
is without a precedent; the case never existed before ; and who
can tell what may be the event; the property of no man is secure
in the present embarrassed system of things; the mind of the multi
tude is left at random; and seeing no fixed object before them,
they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal ;
there is no such thing as treason; wherefore everyone thinks
himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not to
have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives,
by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of
distinction should be drawn between English soldiers taken in
battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are
prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty,
the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in
some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions.
The continental belt is too loosely buckled ; and if something be
not done in time, it will be too late to do anything, and we shall
fall into a state, in which neither reconciliation nor independence
will be practicable. The Court and its worthless adherents are
got at their old game of dividing the continent; and there are not
wanting among us printers, who will be busy in spreading specious
falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letters which appeared,
a few months ago, in two of the New York papers, and likewise
in two others, are an evidence, that there are men who want
either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes or corners, and talking of recon
ciliation ; but do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task
is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the continent divide
thereon ? Do they take within their view all the various orders
of men, whose situations and circumstances, as well as their own,
are to be considered therein ? Do they put themselves in the
place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier
who hath quitted all for the defence of his country ? If their
ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations
only, regardless of others, the event will convince them “that
they are reckoning without their host.”
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three.
To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain to comply with ; neither will she propose it; but if it
were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question,
by what means is such a corrupt and faithless Court to be kept
to its engagements? Another Parliament, nay, even the present,
may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being
violently obtained, or unwisely granted ; and in that case, where
is our redress ? No going to law with nations; cannon are the
barristers of crowns ; and the sword, not of justice, but of war,
decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not
�Common Sense.
41
sufficient that the laws only be put on the same state, but that
our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state ; our burnt
and destroyed towns repaired or built up; our private losses
made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged ;
otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that envi
able period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year
ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent—but it
is now too late, “ the rubicon is passed.”
Besides, the taking up arms merely to enforce the repeal of a
pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as
repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce
obedience thereto. The object on either side does not justify
the means ; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away
on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to
our persons ; the destruction of our property by an armed force ;
the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscien
tiously qualifies the use of arms; and the instant in which such
a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain
ought to have ceased ; and the independence of America should
have been considered as dating its era from, and published by the
first musket that was first fired against her. This line is a line of
consistency ; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition;
but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were
not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and
well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three
different ways by which an independency can hereafter be effected ;
and that one of those three will one day or other be the fate of
America, viz. : By the legal voice of the people in Congress, by a
military power, or by a mob. It may not always happen that our
soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men;
virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first
of those means, we have every opportunity and every encourage
ment before us to form the noblest, purest constitution on the
face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world
over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened
since the days of Noah till now. The birthday of a new world
is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event
of a few months. The reflexion is awful—and in this point of
view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavillings of
a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the
business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period,
and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we
must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather
whose narrow and prejudiced souls are habitually opposing the
measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons
to be given in support of independence, which men should rather
privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now
�42
Common Sense.
to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but
anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis,
and uneasy rather that it is not yet begun upon. Every day
convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings
yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous
to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first
protected them from popular rage, so a wise and well-established
form of government will be the only certain means of continuing
it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough
to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for
independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep
us together ; we shall then see our object, and our ears will be
legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a
cruel enemy. We shall then, too, be on a proper footing to treat
with Britain; for there is reason to conclude that the pride of
that Court will be less hurt by treating with the American States
for terms of peace, than with those whom she denominates
“rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our
delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our
backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, with
out any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain
a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to
open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England
will be still with us, because, peace with trade is preferable to
war without it; and if this offer be not accepted, other courts
may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet
been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions
of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof that either the doctrine
cannot be refuted, or that the party in favor of it are too
numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each
other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us hold
out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in
drawing a line which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in
forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig
and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard amoDg us than
those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous
supporter of the rights of mankind, and of the free and inde
pendent States of America.
�Common Sense.
43
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called
Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing
a late Piece, intituled: “ The Ancient Testimony and Principles
of the People called Quakers renewed, with respect to the King and
Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these
and other parts of America, addressed to the People in England.'’’
The writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonor
religion, either by ridiculing or cavilling at any denomination
whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable
on the score of religion. Wherefore this epistle is not so properly
addressed to you, as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling
in matters, which the professed quietude of your principles
instruct you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put
yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so the
writer of this, in order to be on equal rank with yourselves, is
under the necessity of putting himself in the place of all those
who approve the very writings and principles, against which your
testimony is directed ; and he hath chosen this singular situation
in order that you might discover in him that presumption of
character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he
nor you can have any claim or title to political representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder
that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner
in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics (as a reli
gious body of men) is not your proper walk ; however well
adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of
good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn
therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages (and the whole doth not make four), we
give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you because
the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is
the natural as well as the religious wish of all denominations of
men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an
independent constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in
our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired
of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in final
separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of intro
ducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils
and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will
steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a con
nexion, which hath already filled our land with blood; and
which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of
future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride
nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and
armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of
�44
Common Sense.
our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and in our own
land, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies
in the character of highwaymen and housebreakers; and having
no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish
them by the military one, and apply the sword in the very case
where you have before now applied the halter. Perhaps we feel
for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the
continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made
its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye
mistake not the cause and ground of your testimony. Call not
coldness of soul religion, nor put the bigot in the place of the
Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles!
if the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more
so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable
defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and
mean not to make apolitical hobby-horse of your religion, convince
the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies,
for they likewise bear arms. Give us a proof of your sincerity by
publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders-in-chief at Boston,
to the admirals and captains who are piratically ravaging our
coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting
in authority under the tyrant whom ye profess to serve. Had
ye the honest soul of Barclay, ye would preach repentance
*
to your king ; ye would tell the despot of his sins, and warn him
of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives
against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye
are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of
that reproach, which ye are bringing upon yourselves, for we
testify unto all men that we do not complain against ye because
ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be, and are not
Quakers.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your
testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was
reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and
that by the people only. Ye appear to us to have mistaken party
for conscience ; because the general tenor of your actions wants
uniformity ; and it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to
many of your pretended scruples ; because we see them made by
the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming
against the mammon of this world, are, nevertheless, hunting after
* “ Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity! thou knowest what it is to be
banished thy native country, to be overruled as well as to rule, and set upon the
throne: and being oppressed,thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor
is both to God and man. If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost
not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in
thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy
condemnation; against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or
do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will
be to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and
which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins.”
Barclay’s Address to Charles II.
�Common Sense,
45
it with a step as steady as time, and an appetite as keen as
death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third
page of your testimony, that when a man’s ways please the Lord,
he maketh “ even his enemies to be at peace with him,” is very
unwisely chosen on your part, because it amounts to a proof that
the tyrant whom ye are so desirous of supporting does not please
the Lord, otherwise his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that for
which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:—
“ It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we are
called to profess the light of Christ Jesus manifested in our con
sciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings
and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative for causes best
known to himself ; and that it is not our business to have any hand
or contrivance therein ; nor to be busy-bodies above our station,
much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of
them, but to pray for the king and safety of our nation and good
of all men ; that we might live a peaceable and quiet life, in all
godliness and honesty, under the government which God is
pleased to set over us.” If these are really your principles, why
do ye not abide by them ? Why do ye not leave that which ye
call God’s work to be managed by himself ? These very principles
instruct you to wait with patience and humility for the event of
all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will
towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
testimony, if you fully believe what it contains ? And, therefore,
publishing it proves that you either do not believe what ye
profess, or have not virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a
man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any and every govern
ment which is set over him. And as the setting up and putting down
of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most
certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore the prin
ciple itself leads you to approve of everything which ever
happened, or may happen, to kings, as being his work. Oliver
Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died, not by the hands of
men; and should the present proud imitator of him come to the
same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the testimony
are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact.
Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in
governments brought about by any other means than such as
are common and human ; and such as we are now using. Even
the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was
effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on
one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other, but to wait
the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority,
to prove that the Almighty, who hath created and placed this new
world at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and
west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of
its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned Court of
�46
• Common Sense.
Britain; unless, I say, ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground
of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people
“ firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and mea
sures as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy con
nexion we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great
Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king,
and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him."
What a slap of the face is here ! the men who, in the very para
graph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the order
ing, altering, and disposal of kings and governments into the
hands of God, are now recalling their principles, and putting in
for a share of the business. Is it possible that the conclusion which
is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid
down ? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could
only have been made by those whose understandings were
darkened by the narrow and crabbed spirit of a despairing poli
tical party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of
the Quakers, but only as a factional or fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony (which I call
upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and
judge of fairly), to which I subjoin the following remark : “ That
the setting up and putting down of kings,” must certainly mean,
the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him
no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in
the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down,
neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with
them. Wherefore, your testimony, in whatever light it is viewed,
serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many other
reasons had better have been left alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all
religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to
make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being
concerned therein and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental
harmony and friendship which yourselves, by your late liberal
and charitable donations, have lent a hand to establish ; and the
preservation of which is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.
Sincerely wishing that, as men and Christians, ye may always
fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right;
and be in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that
the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion
with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabi
tant of America.
�Works by CHAS. BRADLAUGH—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I.¥ Section I.—“The Story
of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and by Science.” Sec
tion II.—“What is Religion?” “How^has it Grown ?” “God and
Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—Ninth edition. Is.
Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is.
Debates—
Four — with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool; the Rev. Dr.
Harrison, in London; Thomas Cooper, in London; the Rev.
R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham ; with Three Discourses by
the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by C. Bradlaugh.
Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s.
. gji-w
What does Christian Theism Teach ? A verbatim report' of two
nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. Second
edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible. A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d.
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the
Universe. A verbatim report of a two nights’ Discussion with
Thomas Cooper. 6d.
Has Man a Soul? A verbatim report of two nights’debate at
Burnley, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and Faith.
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with
Special Replies. 6d.
’
Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial and Immoral.
Threo
nights’ debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is.
Is it Reasonable to Worship God? A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
Is.
The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain
ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons ; Mr. Bradlaugh’s
Three Speeches at the Bar of the House, etc., etc.
0 6
Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th
Thousand
0
May the House of Commons Commit Treason? ...
0
A Cardinal’s Broken Oath
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand
...
0 2
Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family
...
0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle...
0 2
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of
Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles
Sumner and Ledru Rollin ...
0 4
Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast...
0 6
Anthropology. In neat wrapper
0 4
When were our Gospels Written ?
0 6
Plea for Atheism
0 3
Has Man a Soul ?
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
0 6
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population
Question
0 2
�Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole
ridge for Blasphemy, in three Special Extra Numbers of the
National Reformer. 6d.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Bradlaugh and
Besant. Cloth, 5s. With Portraits and Autographs of the two
Defendants. Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the
judgments of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
Works by ANNIE BESANT—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part II. “On Christianity.”
Section I.—“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section
II—“Its Origin Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.”
Section IV.—“Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth,
3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution. Cloth, 2s.
My Path to Atheism. Collected Essays. The Deity of Jesus—
Inspiration—Atonement— Eternal Punishment—Prayer — Re
vealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examiner) and
rejected; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be. Second Edition.
In limp cloth, Is.
Light, Heat, and Sound. In three parts, 6d. each. Illustrated.
Bound in limp cloth, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Christianity on
the World. Two nights’ Debate with the Rev. A. Hatchard. Is.
Social and Political Essays. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate. 2s. 6d.
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
... q 2
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought 0 2
The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny... 0 6
God’s Views on Marriage
...
...
...
... o g
The Gospel of Atheism. Fifth Thousand
...
... o 2
Is the Bible Indictable ?
...
...
...
... q 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the
Standard of Morality. Seventh Thousand ...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment. Third Thousand ...
... 0 1
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker,
with Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his
Sociology. Being a short and convenient resumd of Posi
tivism for the general reader. Third Thousand
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth
Century. His Life and Works. Third Thousand
... 0 1
The Law of Population: Its consequences, and its bearing
upon Human Conduct and Morals. Seventieth thousand 0 6
Social Aspects of Malthusianism
...
...
... 0 q
The Physiology of Home — No. 1, “Digestion”; No. 2,
“Organs of Digestion”; No. 3, “Circulation”; No. 4,
“Respiration”; Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ... 0 4
Electricity and its modern applications. Four lectures.
Id. each. Together, in wrapper
...
...
... 0 4
Eyes and Ears
...
...
...
...
’ q 3
Vivisection...
...
...
...
...
q q
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights.
Fourth Thousand...
...
...
...
... q 2
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, Fleet Street.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Paine, Thomas [1737-1809]
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published Philadelphia: William and Thomas Bradford, 1776. Works by Bradlaugh and Besant listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N526
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy
NSS
Political science-History-18th century
United States-Politics and Government-1775-1783