1 10 14 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf51d1fe908d7f25339604a28adf46e6.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=NV83roVwsW8kVvQ0xvL3btYoj5A22isl5AFRrQ8HsW%7EsI-inTBBlaBXW2i7aWzaQQOeruiFv42D1%7EWeRejn4gczcid3YQc%7EO%7E9aRSqdj8ugDKXdiLqBX7KRyclSDza1KXgEINX8cpI10HwkV4Ow7cQrvOl3bzXdBbgr1PuAsoPnCFvJHtDFZGCahPYVrD7SEz7TvWV0rrUxe0ZpKjeacgmcefBEZZP9vgN7oWrHieTNLMjemDiTuv-o9icyB9jWPkF%7EmSQmZxjWBO%7Em0k1IyircSU1daRMtoGZtwZp8%7Epr2JN-2%7EKoEzc3LvFEq8-HtPZ3v-xlJxHE6V%7EHj4lUWj5g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5fbc9e292c88dfe78331c2ddc850e248 PDF Text Text g X2^7 0 ?B NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY NEW LIFE OF DAVID. BY i CHARLES BRADLAUGH. [revised edition.] LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63, FLEET STREET E.C. 1 8 8 4. PRICE TWOPENCE. COMPANY. �LONDON: PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. -------------- _ In compiling a biographical account of any ancient per­ sonage, impediments often arise from the uncertainty, party bias, and prejudiced coloring of the various tra­ ditions out of which the biography is collected. Here no such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be imagined, for, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an all­ wise God’s perfect and infallible revelation to man, and thus are enabled to present it to our readers free from any doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty. There is perhaps the fear that the manner of this brief sketch may be adjudged to be within the operation of such common law as wisely protects the career of the saints from mere sinful common-sense criticism; but as the matter is derived from the authorised version for which England is in­ debted to James, of royal and pious memory, this new life of David may be safely left to the impartial judgment of Mr. Justice North, aided by the charitable and pious counsel of Sir Hardinge Giffard. The latter, who has had more than one criminal client for whom he has most ably pleaded, might be relied on to make out a strong, if not a good, case for punishing any one who is unfair to the man after God’s own heart. Mr. Justice Stephen has furnished me with some slight guide in his notice of Voltaire’s play called “ David ” :— “ It constitutes, perhaps, the bitterest attack on David’s character ever devised by the wit of man, but the effect is produced almost exclusively by the juxtaposition, with hardly any alteration, of a number of texts from different parts of David’s history. It would be a practical impossibility to charge a jury in such a case, so as to embody Lord Coleridge’s view of the law. The judge would have to say : “ It is lawful f.o say that David was a murderer, an adulterer, a treacherous �4 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. tyrant who passed his last moments in giving directions for assassinations; but you must observe the decencies of contro­ versy.. You must not arrange your facts in such a way as to mix ridicule with indignation, or to convey too striking a contrast between the solemn character of the documents from which the extracts are made, and the nature of the extracts themselves, and of the facts to which they relate.” It is in the spirit of this paragraph that I have penned the present life. The father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of Bethle­ hem Judah, who had either-eight sons, (1 Samuel c. xvi., w. 10 and 11, and c. xvii., v. 12), or only seven (1 Chronicles, c. ii., vv. 13 to 15), and David was either the eighth son or the seventh. Some may think this a difficulty, but such persons will only be those who rely on their own intellectual faculties, or who have been misled by arithmetic. If you are in any doubt, consult some qualified divine, and he will explain to you that there is really no difference be­ tween eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer and faith, by the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly infidel acquirement, and one which all true believers should eschew. The proposition that three times one are one is a fundamental article of the Christian faith. When young, David tended his father’s sheep, and apparently while so doing he gained a character for being cunning in playing, a mighty valiant man, a man of war and prudent in matters. He obtained his reputation as a soldier early and wonderfully, for he was “but a youth;” and God’s most holy word asserts that when going to fight with Goliath, he tried to walk in armor and could not, because he was not accustomed to it (1 Samuel c. xvii., v. 39 c. f. Douay version). Samuel shortly prior to this anointed David, who, while yet a lad, had been selected by the (Lord to be King of the Jews in place and stead of Saul, who had wickedly disobeyed the commands of the Lord, who in his infinite love and mercy had said (1 Sam., c. 15, v. 3): “ 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.” Saul, however, behaved unrighteously, for he “ spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, i and of the failings, and the lambs, and all that was good, * and would not utterly destroy them.’’ This not unnaturally �NKW LIFE 01* DAVID. 5 irritated and annoyed the Lord. “ Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be King : for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments,” and the Lord bid Samuel fill a “horn with oil,” and sent Samuel, who anointed David the son of Jesse in the midst of his brethren, and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. If a man takes to spirits his life will probably be one of vice, misery, and misfor­ tune ; and if spirits take to him, the result in the end is nearly the same. Every evil deed which the Bible records as having been done by David was after the spirit of the Lord had so come upon him. Saul being King of Israel, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.. The devil has, it is said, no love for music, and Saul was recommended to have David to play on a harp, in order that harmony might drive this evil spirit back to the Lord who sent it. The Jew’s harp was played successfully, and Saul was often relieved from the evil spirit by David’s ministrations. There is nothing miraculous in this; at the People’s Concerts many a working man has beenrelieved from the “bluedevils” by a stirring chorus, a merry song, or patriotic anthem; and on the contrary many evil spirits have been aroused by the most unmusical performances of the followers of General Booth. David was appointed armor-bearer to the King; but curiously enough, this office does not appear to have interfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed, the care of his father’s sheep took precedence over the care of the king’s armor, and in the time of war he “ went and returned to feed his father’s sheep.” Perhaps his ■“ prudence in matters ” induced him thus to take care of himself. A Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose height was six cubits and a span, or about nine feet six inches, at a low computation) had defied the armies of Israel. This Goliath was (to use the vocabulary of a reverend sporting corres­ pondent to a certain religious newspaper) a veritable cham­ pion of the heavy weights. He carried in all about two cwt. of offensive and defensive armor upon his person, and his challenge had great weight. None dared accept it amongst the soldiers of Saul until the arrival of David, who brought some food for his brethren. David volnnteered to fight the giant, but Elias, David’s brother, having �6 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. mocked the presumption of the offer, and Saul objecting’ that the venturesome lad was not competent to take part in a conflict so dangerous, David related how he pursued a n lion and a bear, how he caught him, by his beard and slew ' him. Which animal it was that David thus bearded the i text does not say. The Douay says it was “a lion or a bear.” To those who have chased the king of the.forests or studied the habits of bears, the whole story looks, on an attentive reading, “very like a whale.” David was permitted to fight the giant; his equipment was simple, a ) * sling and stones, and with these, from a distance, he slew the giant. Some suggest that the weapon Goliath fell under was the long bow. This suggestion is rendered pro­ bable by the book itself. One verse says that David slew the Philistine with a stone, another verse says that he slew him with the giant’s own sword, while in 2 Samuel c. xxi., v. 19, we are told that Goliath the^Gittife”was slain by Elhanan. Our translators, who have great regard for our faith and more for their pulpits, have kindly inserted the words “the brother of ” before Goliath. This emendation saves the true believer from the difficulty of understanding how Goliath of Gath could have been killed by different \ men at different times. David was previously well known to Saul, and was much loved and favored by that monarch. He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do battle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet (as if to verify the proverb that kings have short memories for their friends) Saul had forgotten his own armor-bearer and much-loved harpist, and ’was obliged to ask Abner who David was. Abner, captain of the king’s host, familiar with the person of the armor-bearer to the king, of course knew David well; he therefore answered: “As thy soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell.” David, having made known his parentage, was appointed to high command by Saul; but the Jewish women over-praised David, and thus dis­ pleased the king. One day the evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men often talk great nonsense under the influence of spirits, which they some­ times regret when sober. It is, however, an interesting4It tyl fact in ancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied I I with a devil in him. Under the joint influence of the devil i and prophecy, Saul tried to kill David with a javelin, and this was repeated, even after David had married the king’s �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 7 daughter (whose wedding he had secured by the slaughter of two hundred men). Saul then asked his son and ser­ vants to kill David; but Jonathan, Said’s son, loved David, ‘ ‘ And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.” It is interesting as showing the utility of oaths that after having thus sworn Said was more determined than ever to kill David. To save his own life David fled to Naioth, and Saul sent there messengers to arrest David; but three sets of the king’s messengers having in turn all become pro­ phets, Said went himself, and the spirit of the Lord came upon him also, and he stripped off his clothes and pro­ phesied as hard as the rest, “laying down naked all that day and all that night.” David lived in exile for some time in godly company, having collected round him every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented. Saul made several fruitless attempts.<to effect his capture, with no better result than that he twice placed himself in the power of David, who twice showed the mercy to a cruel king which he never conceded to an unoffending people. David having obtruded himself upon Achish, King of Gath, doubtful of his safety, feigned madness to cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious life, sometimes levying a species of black mail upon defence­ less farmers. Having applied to one farmer to make bim some compensation for permitting the farm to go unrobbed, and his demand not having been complied with, David, who is a man after the heart of God of mercy, immediately determined to murder the farmer and all his household for their wicked reluctance in submitting to his extortions. The wife of farmer Nabal compromised the matter. David '''accepted her person ” and ten days after Nabal was found dead in his bed. David afterwards went with 600 men and lived under the protection of Achish, King of Gath, and while thus residing (being the anointed one of God who says, “ Thou shalt not steal ”) he robbed the inhabitants of the surrounding places. Being also obedient to the statute, “Thou shall do no murder,” hs slaughtered, and left neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to King Achish; and as he “ always walked in the ways ” of a God to whom “ lying lips are an abomination,” he made false reports to Achish in relation to his actions. Of �NEW LINE OF DAVID. course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are not as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in another of the constantly recurring conflicts with the Israelites. Who offered them the help of himself and band ? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen ? David, the man after God’s own heart, who obeyed God’s statutes and who walked in his ways, to do only that which was right in the sight of God. The Philistines rejected the traitor’s aid, and prevented the consnnmm.fion of this baseness. While David was making this un­ patriotic proffer of his services to the Philistines, his own city of Ziglag was captured by the Amalekites, who were doubtless endeavoring to avenge some of the most unjusti­ fiable robberies and murders perpetrated by David and his followers in their country. David’s own friends evidently thought that this misfortune was a retribution for David’s crimes, for they spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites had captured and carried off everything, but they do not seem to have maltreated or killed any of their enemies. David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured the spoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who escaped on camels. In consequence of the death of Saul, David was elevated to the throne of Judah, while Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, was made king of Israel. But Ishbosheth having been assassinated, David slew the assassins, when they, hoping for reward, brought him the news, and he reigned ultimately over Israel also. As religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God of Israel, after the time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top of an ark or box, between two figures of gold; and on one occasion David made a journey with his followers to Baal, to bring thence the ark of God. They placed it on a new cart drawn by oxen. On the journey the oxen stumbled, and consequently shook the cart. One of the drivers, whose name was Uzzah, possibly fearing that God might be tumbled to the ground, took hold of the ark, apparently in order to steady it, and prevent it from overturning. God, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any one should presume to do any such act of kindness, and killed Uzzah on the spot as a punishment for his sin. This shows that if a man sees the Church of God tumbling down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be not strong enough to save itself, the sooner it falls the better �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 9 for humankind—that is, if they keep away from it while it is falling. David was much displeased that the Lord had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems to have wished for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested dis­ pleasure when any killing was done unauthorised hy himself. Being displeased, David would not take the ark to Jerusalem, but left it in the house of Obed Edom; then, as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom than he had done to Uzzah, David determined to bring the ark away, and did so, dancing before the ark in a state of semi-nudity, for which he was reproached by Michal. Lord Campbell’s Act is intended to hinder the publication of indecencies, but the pages of the Book which the law affirms to be God’s most holy word do not come within the scope of the Act, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have legal gratification so long as the Bible shall exist. The God of Israel, who had been leading a wandering life for many years, and who had “walked in a tent and in a tabernacle,” and “from tent to tent,” and “from one tabernacle to another,” and “who had not dwelt in any house” since the time that he brought the Israelites out of Egypt, was offered “ an house for him to dwell in,” but he declined to accept it during the lifetime of David, although he promised to permit the son of David to erect him such an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and having many wives and concubines, saw one day the beautiful wife of one of his soldiers. To see with this licentious monarch was to crave for the gratification of his lust. The husband Uriah was fighting for the king, yet David was base enough to steal his wife’s virtue during Uriah’s absence in the field of battle. “ Thou shalt not commit adultery ” was one of the commandments, yet we are told by God of this David, that he was one ‘ ‘ who kept my command­ ments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only that which was right in mine eyes” (1 Kings, c. xiv., v. 8). David having seduced the wife, sent for her husband, wishing to make him condone his wife’s dishonor. In modern England under a Stuart or a Brunswick, Uriah might have become a Marquis or a Baron. Some hold that virtue in rags is less worth than vice when coroneted. Uriah would not be thus tricked, and David, the pious David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to be executed, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all­ �10 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. just; and David having committed adultery and murder, God punished and killed an innocent child, which had no part or share in David’s crime, and never chose that it should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this king David was even more cruel and merciless than before. Previously he had systematically slaughtered the inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed people with saws, cut them with harrows and axes, and made them pass through brick-kilns. Yet of this man, God said he “did that which was right in mine eyes.” So bad a king, so treacherous a man, a lover so inconstant, a husband so adulterous, was of course a bad father, having bad children. We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son Amnon robbed of her virtue his own sister, David’s daughter Tamar, and that Amnon was afterwards slain by his own brother, David’s son Absalom, and we are scarcely astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in the sight of all Israel, should complete his father’s shame by an act worthy a child of God’s select people. Yet these are God’s chosen race, and this is the family of the man “who walked in God’s ways all the days of his life.” God, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man that he should repent, repented that he had made Saul’ king because Saul spared one man. In the reign of David the same good God sent a famine for three years on the descendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason for thus starving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was that he sent the famine on the subjects of David because Saul slew the Gibeonites. Satisfactory reason!—because Oliver Cromwell slew the Eoyalists, God will punish the subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is, to profane eyes, equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural dean would soon show how remarkably God’s justice was manifested. David was not behindhand in justice. He had sworn to Said that he would not cut off his seed—2.0., that he would not destroy Saul’s family. He therefore took two of Saul’s sons, and five of Saul’s grandsons, and gave them up to the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful are the ways of the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites, therefore years afterwards God starves Judah. The Gibe­ onites hang men who have nothing to do with the crime of Saul, except that they are his descendants, and then we are told “the Lord was intreated for the land.” The �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. II anger of the Lord being kindled against Israel, he, want­ ing some excuse for punishing the descendants of Jacob, moved David to number his people. The Chronicles say that the tempter was Satan, and pious people may thus learn what there is of distinction between God and Devil. Philosophers would urge that both personifications are founded in the ignorance of the masses, and the continu­ ance of the myth will cease with the credulousness of the people. David caused a census to be taken of the tribes of Israel and Judah. There is a trival disagreement of about 270,000 soldiers between Samuel and Chronicles, but readers must not allow so slight an inaccuracy as this to stand between them and heaven. What are 270,000 men when looked at prayerfully ? That any doubt should arise is to a devout mind at the same time profane and preposterous. Statisticians suggest that 1,570,000 soldiers form a larger army than the Jews are likely to have possessed; but if God is omnipotent, there is no reason to limit his power of miraculously increasing or decreasing the armament of the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did wrong in numbering his people, but we are never told that he did wrong in robbing or murdering their neighbors, or in pillaging peaceful agriculturists. David said: “I have sinned,” and for this an all-merciful God brought a pesti­ lence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites, for an offence which their ruler had committed. The angel who was engaged in this terrible slaughter stood some­ where between heaven and earth, and stretched forth his hand with a drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem itself; but even the bloodthirsty Deity of the Bible “repented him of the evil,” and said to the angel: “It is enough.” Many volumes might be written to answer the enquiries—where did the angel stand, and on what ? Of what metal was the sword, and where was it made ? As it was a drawn one, where was the scabbard ? and did the angel wear a sword-belt ? Examined in a pious frame of mind, much holy instruction may be derived from the attempt to solve these solemn problems. David now grows old and weak, and at last his deathhour comes. Oh! for the dying words of the Psalmist I What pious instruction shall we derive from the death-bed scene of the man after God’s own heart I Listen to the last words of Judah’s expiring monarch. You who have �12 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. been content with the pions frauds and forgeries perpe­ trated with reference to the death-beds and dying words of the great, the generous, the witty Voltaire; the manly, the self-denying, the incorruptible Thomas Paine; the humane, simple, child-like man, yet mighty poet, Shelley— you who have turned away from these with unwarranted horror—come with me to the death-couch of the special favorite of God. Bathsheba’s child stands by his side. Does any thought of the murdered Uriah rack old David’s brain, or has a tardy repentance effaced the bloody stain from the pages of his memory? What does the dying David say ? Does he talk of cherubs, angels and heavenly choirs ? Nay, none of these things passes his lips. Does he make a confession of his crime-stained life, and beg his son to be a better king, a truer man, a more honest citizen, a wiser father ? Nay, not so—no word of sorrow, no sign of regret, no expression of remorse or repentance escapes his lips. What does the dying David say ? This foul monster whom God has made king; this redhanded robber, whose life has been guarded by “our Father which art in Heaven; ” this perjured king, whose lying lips have found favor in the sight of God, and who, when he dies, is safe for Heaven. It is written: “ There shall be more joy in heaven before God over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine righteous men.” Does David repent ? Nay, like the ravenous wolf, which, tasting blood, is made more eager for the prey, he too yearns for blood; and with his dying breath begs his son to bring the grey hairs of two old men down to the grave with blood. And this is God’s anointed king, the chief one of God’s chosen people. The learned and pious Puffendorf explains that David having only sworn not himself to kill ‘Shimei (1 Kings ii. 8) there was no perjury on the part of David in persuad­ ing Solomon to contrive the killing from which David had sworn to personally abstain. David is alleged to have written several Psalms, but of this there is little evidence beyond pious assertion. In one of these the psalmist addresses God in pugilistic phrase°l°gy, praising Deity that he had smitten all his enemies on the cheek-bone, and broken the teeth of the ungodly. In these days when “muscular Christianity ” is not without advocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 13 magnificent Benicia Boy may find many admirers. In the eighteenth Psalm, David describes God as with “smoke coming out of his nostrils and fire out of his mouth,” by which “coals were kindled.” He represents God as coming down from heaven, and says: “he rode upon a cherub.” The learned Parkhurst gives a likeness of a one-legged, four-winged, four-faced animal, part lion, part bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot be any criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct, will give some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character of the equestrian feats of Deity. In addition to a cherub, God has other means of conveyance at his disposal, if David be not in error when he says that the chariots of the Lord are 20,000. In Psalm xxvi. the writer adds hypocrisy in addition to his other vices. He has the impudence to tell God that he has been a man of integrity and truth, and that he has avoided evil-doers, although, if we are to believe Psalm xxxviii., the hypocrite must have already been subject to a loathsome disease—a penalty consequent on his licentious­ ness and criminality. In another Psalm, David the liar tells God that “ he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.” To understand David’s pious nature we must study his prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix., w. 6-14) : “ Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be con­ demned : and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few : and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be con­ tinually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let their be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin' of his mother be blotted out.” A full consideration of the life of David must give great help to the orthodox in promoting and sustaining faith. While spoken of by Deity as obeying all the statutes and keeping all the commandments, we are astonished to find that murder, theft, lying, adultery, licentiousness, and �14 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. treachery are amongst the crimes which may be laid, to his .charge. David was a liar, God is a God of truth ; David was merciless, God is merciful, and of long suffering; David was a thief, God says: “Thou shalt not steal;” David was a murderer, God says : ‘‘ Thou shalt do no mur­ der;” David took the wife of Uriah, and “ accepted” the wife of Nahal, God says : “ Thou shalt not covet thy neigh­ bor’s wife.” Yet, notwithstanding all these things, David was the man after God’s own heart! Had this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his character ? Was he a good citizen? If so, the Bible has carefully concealed every action which would entitle him to such an appellation. Was he a kind and constant husband ? To whom ? To which of his many wives and mistresses ? Was he grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need? Bather, like the serpent which, half-frozen by the wayside, is warmed into new life in the traveller’s breast, and then treacherously stings his succorer with his poisoned fangs, so David robbed and murdered the friends and allies of the King of Gath, who afforded him protection against the pursuit of Saul. Does his patriotism outshine his many vices ? Does his love of country efface his many misdoings ? Not even this. David was a heartless traitor who volun­ teered to serve against his own countrymen, and would have done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous help. Was he a good king? So say the priesthood now; but where is the evidence of his virtue ? His crimes brought plague and pestilence on his subjects, and his reign is a continued succession of wars, revolts, and assassinations, plottings and counterplots. The life of David is a dark blot on the page of human ’ history, fit in companionship for the biographies of Con­ stantine the Great and Henry VIII.; but it is through David that the genealogies of Jesus are traced, and with­ out David there would be no Christian faith. �Works sold by the Freetliought Publishing Com­ pany, 63, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Postage must be sent with Orders less than One Shilling in value. Cheques should be crossed “ London and South- Western Bank.” Bradlaugh., Charles—(See also Biternational Series.) Genesis : its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth, gilt, pp. 341, 5s. The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I. Section I.—“ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and 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—All Verbatim Reports. 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. What does Christian Theism Teach ? Two nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. 6d. God, Man, and the Bible. Three nights’ Discussion, at Liverpool, with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d. God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the Universe. Two nights’ Discussion with Thomas Cooper. 6d. Has Man a Soul ? 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. Three nights’ Debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is. Is it.Reasonable to Worship God ? Two nights’ Debate, at Not­ tingham, with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong. Is. �Bradlaugii, Charles {continued)—• Pamphlets— s. d. 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 & Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th Thousand ... ... ... ... ... 0 | May the House of Commons Commit Treason ? ... ... 0 £ Correspondence with Sir Stafford Northcote, M.P. ... 0 2 John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough—“Mob,” “Scum,” and “Dregs” ... ... ... ... ...0 2 A Cardinal’s Broken Oath ... ... ... ... 0 1 Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand ... ... 0 2 Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family ... ... 0 1 Real Representation of the People ... ... ... 0 2 Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry 0 1 Why do Men Starve ? ... ... ... ...0 1 Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus: an Essay on the Population Question ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Poverty and its effect upon the People ... ... 0 1 Labor’s Prayer ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle ... 0 2 India. A lecture ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 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 G Anthropology. In neat wrapper ... ... ... 0 4 When were our Gospels Written ? ... ... ... 0 6 Plea for Atheism ... ... ... ... ... 0 3 Has Man a Soul ? ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Is there a God? ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Who was Jesus Christ? ... ... ... , ...01 What did Jesus Teach ? ... ... ... ... 0 1 The Twelve Apostles ... ... .. ..0 1 The Atonement ... ... ... ... ...0 1 Life of David ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Life of Jacob ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life of Abraham ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life of Moses ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life cf Jonah ... ... ... ... ...0 1 A Few Words about the Devil . . ... ... 0 1 Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ? ... ... 0 1 Heresy: its Morality and Utility. A Plea and a Jus: ification ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 9 The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy ... ... 0 6 Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole­ ridge for Blasphemy, in Three Special Extra Numbers of the National Reformer. 6d. � 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 &amp; 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 David Description An account of the resource Edition: Rev. ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. 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 1884 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N098 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 David), 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 Hebrew Bible King David NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b17e54a0ca78b8e5523efa4ba566a1ba.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=ZfsZz0EvSaGfNQbL3cs1keiEqSiMQ0w-GW0HGAsIpznj-pb-ddtDHm0HLNLi44iC-CrbWQGLTQGpnZX9rBIQ2F1fuzN-kHvUw%7EOkFrFQTI8BIzR2R5L94%7ES7l5G3ZRHAqhhXyeZClBmLP5L3gSTehHhLwEOzjCcKR2Z9UYGEUfDUIe39AauqzlHtBKu1wM9fIo2PJYtDVh4DoenHwoteAAZj3vWBR5Cwg2Uu4Q8t22BLPkEWFLTzmPHVVR-T4mDYmgeMkW9-KiyexqVArY44SIRL-OTqK%7EF%7E0TG90OyhXcI2TReWR5qkAto6QIElWWY0RQ9rnsFicUKi-vm%7EiK2D%7EQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM fc867c8a956e4cdece02e876219417d8 PDF Text Text (Llj£ Cbljnmwl ®nnnd: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT? <* --------------------- - By CJ^LEg BHJTOIiJlU'QjI, JI.P. LONDON: Printed and Published by A. Bonner, 34, BOUVERIE STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C. Price 2d. ��THE CHANNEL TUNNEL: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT ? ---------- +---------- I went down to the House of Commons on August 3rd intending to speak and vote in favor of the second reading of the Channel Tunnel Experimental Works Bill, but on the appeal made first by the Chairman of Committees, and repeated by the leader of the House—an appeal also con­ curred in by Mr. John Morley, speaking on behalf of the front Opposition bench—I refrained from speaking, and contented myself with a silent vote in favor of the measure. Since then I find such a concurrence of opinion in the press hostile to the Channel Tunnel that I think it my duty to publicly state my reasons for my vote, especially as Sir Edward Watkin, in moving the Bill, directly asked for an expression of opinion from the English democracy, and on the division being taken the representatives of labor in the House were in opposing lobbies on the question. A circular signed by Mr. C. Sheath, Secretary pro tem. of the Channel Tunnel Company, clearly stated the objects of the Bill voted on, i.e., “To authorise the promoters to prosecute the experimental works which they have commenced at their own cost under authority granted �4 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. by Parliamant in 1874, to test the practicability of con­ structing a tunnel beneath the Straits of Dover”; and explained that “the Bill empowers her Majesty’s Govern­ ment, in the event of the experimental works proving successful, to sanction the prosecution of permanent works under such conditions and safeguards as the Government in their absolute discretion may impose. The experi­ mental works for which permission is now sought will be made upon the promoters’ own property and at their own cost. The public are not asked to contribute towards the work, which will not impose any pecuniary obligation upon the country.” I, however, quite admit that those who are prepared to support the experimental works ought also to be pre­ pared—in the event of these workings proving successful •—to authorise the construction of a complete working tunnel, and that any objections which might be valid as against the complete undertaking ought to be admitted as conclusive against the experimental proposal. I am personally in favor of the Channel Tunnel because I believe it would promote peaceful relations between the peoples of France and England. I am not a shareholder in either the French or English scheme solely because I have not the pecuniary means to acquire shares. I believe that peaceful relations between Great Britain and Europe would be rendered more probable by the facilities afforded for commercial intercommunication. I hold that the more peoples trade with each other, the more they know one another, the less likely they are to fight one another. It is because I am in favor of peace between France and England that I am in favor of the Channel Tunnel. Here I only reaffirm what was so well �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 5 •said by the late Richard Cobden, speaking on this very question of a tunnel between England and the Continent: “It is not enough to put the Government and the higher ■classes of each country on a friendly footing; that good feeling ought to penetrate the masses of the two nations ; and it is our duty to multiply all the means for an inces­ sant contact, which will certainly put an end to super­ annuated prejudices and old ideas of antagonism?’ The horribly increased and always augmenting Euro­ pean army and navy expenditure of the last twenty-five years, the British share of which Lord Randolph Churchill now strongly denounces, can only be efficiently checked by concurrent and decided peace action on the part of all European peoples. The great need for early disarming is admitted. The peaceful co-operation of France and England would enable each, relying on the other’s good will, to waste less money in warlike preparations. It is in this interest that I support the proposed submarine pathway between this island and the Continent. I believe that increased facilities for friendly intercourse would pro­ mote and secure the peaceful co-operation I desire. Something has already been done towards showing that the Channel betwixt Kent and the Pas de Calais can be tunnelled. Last year I visited the works, near Shakspere’s Cliff, on the west of Dover, and penetrated under the sea to the place where the engine, worked by compressed air, had bored from England through the greyish clay chalk If miles in the direction of France. I found the piece of tunnel already executed quite dry; the air was perfectly pure, the ventilation being provided by the compressed air which works theboringmachine; and the work of tunnelling—which under the supervision of a Government official was allowed �6 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to be continued for a few seconds—seemed astonishingly easy, as the revolution of the machine cut the chalk away and delivered it into the waggon behind ready for removal.. The experimental tunnel is bored in the strata which are sup­ posed to represent the continuous earth surface—between what are now the coasts of France and England—in pre­ historic times when the land, now these islands, formed, part of the great European continent. Messieurs Lavalley, Larousse, Potier, and Lapparent, in their report to theFrench Channel Tunnel Company, presented in 1877, say: “Examination of the cliffs on each coast of the Straitsshows that the geological strata are the same in the area which concerns us, and which includes especially thecretaceous formation. On both sides are the same strata, with the same characteristics, and, remarkable to say, with, the same thickness. Hence the presumption—authorised indeed by other considerations—that in the prehistoricperiod, instead of an arm of the sea, separating two coasts, there stretched here a continuous, more or less undulating, plain, between the points at which have since been built Calais and Boulogne on the one side, Folkestone and Doveron the other. According to this hypothesis, the Straits would be due to the gradual erosion of a soil of slight consistency, such as the cretaceous formation in general, which yielded before the ceaseless repetition of blows from, the waves of the Northern Sea, a sea so stormy during therougher months of the year. From this we gather thehope that the strata encountered beneath the sea, through which the tunnel must be driven, will be free from seriousdislocations, and will only present slight undulations to which it will generally be possible to conform the plan of.' the subterranean railway without any great difficulty. �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 7 “ This hope is confirmed by the following circumstance: the strata of the chalk formation on the two sides of the Straits, although thrown out of the horizontal plane they first occupied, have not acquired a steep inclination. The inclination is always slight. Over the greater part of the area of the Straits, starting from France, the gradient is but f, a fact that seems to indicate that the force of the upheaval which threw the strata out of the horizontal plane was not violent.” I am told that on the French side a similar boring to the one which I visited near Dover has been made towards this country, so that about one-eighth of the experimental work has already been executed. Why is it not continued to completion? The promoters on both sides are ready enough; the French Government is willing; but the British Government—influenced as I think by the worst form of national prejudice—absolutely forbids further working on this side, and the French are of course unwilling to continue costly works—which can only be completed with our full consent—until that con­ sent is officially secured. The only reason for objecting to the Channel Tunnel is that it will render us specially liable to invasion. Some contend that the Tunnel will not pay ; but that, as the British Government said thirteen years ago, is rather the business of those who, believing in the probabilities of its financial success, are willing to risk their moneys in the hope of reasonable financial profit. The war danger is the only cry to which the democracy need pay any attention. When the matter was discussed between the Governments of Great Britain and France thirteen years ago, this war danger was examined by the Government of the day of this country �8 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. and dismissed as not serious. In a despatch from the Foreign Office to Count de Jarnac, the French Ambassador, dated 24th December, 1874, the Earl of Derby wrote that “Her Majesty’s Government consider that it is for the promoters of the undertaking to weigh well the questions of the physical possibility of the undertaking, and its probable financial success; but they see no objection to the proposed preliminary concession to the French pro­ moters, for the execution of the preliminary works, for a term of three years, nor to the concession of five years for making a definite contract with an English Company for the completion of the undertaking, on the understand­ ing that, should the promoters fail to fulfil these condi­ tions, the land in England occupied by them, and the works upon it, should revert to the Crown, or other present owners thereof, so that the occupation of the land by a Company which has failed, may not stand in the way of any other undertaking. “Her Majesty’s Government have no objection to offer to the proposed grant to the promoters of a monopoly for thirty years after the final completion of and opening of the tunnel, nor to the concession itself extending to a period of ninety-nine years from the same date, the ques­ tion being reserved of some limitation being imposed as tothe date of the final completion.” And it is clear that the military side of the question had not been overlooked, for Lord Derby in a dispatch of the same date to Lord Lyons says: “In regard to the refer­ ence made in the papers received from Count de Jarnac to the military necessities of either country, her Majesty’s Government will only now observe that they must retain absolute power not only to erect and maintain such works �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 9 at the English mouth of the tunnel as they may deem expedient, but also, should they apprehend danger of war, or of intended war, to stop traffic through the tunnel; and it remains to be considered whether they should not have the right to exercise their power without claim for com­ pensation.” Nor was the military question neglected or glossed over, for two months later the following memorandum was submitted to the Surveyor-General of Ordnance by Sir W. Drummond Jervois, Deputy-Director of Works, on 3rd March, 1875, Sir Frederick Chapman being at that time the Inspector-General of Fortifications : ‘1 Memorandum with Deference to the Proposed Tunnel between England and France. “ There appears to be no military objection to the pro­ posed tunnel, provided due precautions be adopted. “Should this country, in alliance with France, be at war with another Continental power, the existence of the tunnel might be advantageous. “ Should this country be at war with France, the pro­ posed tunnel could no doubt be readily closed. Having regard, however, to the possibility of the tunnel being unnecessarily injured under the influence of panic, and to the probable cost of repairing such injury, it is desirable to obviate, as far as possible, the necessity for adopting extreme measures, and with this object to pay due regard to defensive considerations in the construction of the tunnel. “ Moreover, unless proper military precautions be taken, it might under some circumstances happen that France might be able, in anticipation of a declaration of war, to �10 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. send a body of troops through, the tunnel, and thus obtain an important military advantage. Such a body of troops could readily intrench themselves, and could be rapidly reinforced. “ If, however, suitable defensive arrangements are made, such an undertaking would be impracticable, and even in case of war being imminent, no fears need be entertained which might lead to the partial destruction of this costly work.” In April, 1876, the French Ambassador at the Court of St. James applied on behalf of La Societe Frangaise Concessionnaire du. Chemin de Fer Sous-Marin entre la France et l’Angleterre for the permission of her Majesty’s Govern­ ment to take soundings in British waters near Dover for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the bottom of that part of the English Channel, and the Board of Trade were informed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, on the 10th June following, that the necessary application had been granted. Although a Channel Tunnel Company, with Lord Stalbridge (then Lord R. Grosvenor) as chairman, had ob­ tained an Act of Parliament in 1875 authorising the com­ mencement of experimental tunnelling works, nothing was really done by way of submarine boring from the English coast until the summer of 1880, when the borings just referred to were commenced by the South Eastern Railway, which obtained special powers from Parliament in 1881 for continuing the work and purchasing the necessary land. These works and powers were taken over and con­ tinued in 1882 by the Submarine Continental Railway Company, Limited. The new company, however, found itself almost immediately interrupted in the work by the �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 11 intervention of the English Government, such intervention being the result of a panic created by military alarmists. In August, 1881, the Board of Trade wrote to the Admiralty that “ the work of forming a subway under the Channel was making considerable progress ”, and that “public susceptibility having been aroused as to possible danger to this country from a tunnel under the Channel”, the Board desired “to be fortified with the opinion of the naval and military authorities ”. In January, 1882, Admiral Cooper Key sounded the panic trumpet, and did much to excite the opposition which has, up to the present, proved fatally obstructive to the progress of the English borings. In May, 1882, a memorandum—most important because issued after the panic opposition had got into full cry— was issued by Sir John Adye, then Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, embodying the report of a military com­ mittee, presided over by General Sir A. Alison, which had been instructed to consider “the means by which, sup­ posing the Channel Tunnel completed, its use could be interdicted to an enemy in time of war ”. Sir J. Adye says : “The military precautions necessary to provide against such a contingency almost naturally divide themselves into two parts:—1. The defence or command of the exit by means of batteries and fortifications. 2. The closing or destruction of the tunnel itself, either temporarily or per­ manently, both as regards its land and submarine portions. The Committee have dealt with both points in some detail. As regards the former they urge, that whilst the land portion of the tunnel should be constructed in the vicinity of a fortress, it is also important that its exit should lie outside but under the full command of the �12 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. batteries in the outworks of the fortress itself. With respect to the partial closing or entire destruction of the tunnel, both in its land and submarine portions, the Com­ mittee have entered into various details, and have made numerous proposals by which, if necessary, these objects may be accomplished. According to my judgment their recommendations, both as to defence and closure, are sound and practical, can be carried on without great cost or difficulty, and will amply suffice for the objects in view. I agree with them that the general line of the land portion of the tunnel had better be constructed not far from the lines of a fortress, whilst the exit should also be under the command of the guns of its outworks. Such a dis­ position of the tunnel will facilitate the arrangements in respect to the preparation of mines, etc., whilst a full command of the mouth will render its use or occupation by an enemy practically impossible. The various details and proposals of the Committee as to obstruction and closure, partial or permanent, are such as, I think, will commend themselves to engineers, civil or military, as being efficacious for the purpose; and I would further point out that whilst they are comparatively simple, it is evident they can be multiplied indefinitely, and have the further advantage, that the possession of the tunnel and its exit by an enemy would not prevent their being carried into effect; and even should some of them fail, such a contingency would not necessarily entail the failure of others. The means of obstruction, in short, are not only various but are independent of each other, and many of them could be improvised or multiplied even at the last moment. Nothing, indeed, is more obvious than the facility with which the tunnel can be denied to an enemy, �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 13> by means which no vigilance on his part could prevent or remove.” And yet the British democracy are in 1887 asked to reject the tunnel scheme because a real or counterfeit fear, in any case begotten of ignorance and prejudice, has seized on some of our “great generals” and hysterical journalists. In April, 1883, a joint Select Committee of the Lords, and Commons, five members from each House, was. appointed ‘ ‘ to inquire whether it is expedient that Par­ liamentary sanction should be given to a submarine com­ munication between England and France ; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned This Committee, presided over by the Marquis of Lansdowne, held fifteen sittings, but although several draft reports were prepared none was accepted, but the majority of the Committee, six against four, wereof “opinion that it is not expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France The minority report pre­ sented by Lord Lansdowne is a paper of remarkable ability, and sets out with great clearness the reasons for and against the proposed tunnel. General Sir Edward Hamley, M.P., who rose to speak against the tunnel, as I rose to speak in its favor, but who did not deliver his speech for the same reason which kept me silent, wrote a letter to the Times, which the editor, also hostile to the tunnel, says, “contrasts the position of an invading army which had succeeded in effecting a landing before a tunnel was formed with that of such an army in the event of a tunnel being constructed—its helplessness and peril, the difficulty in getting supplies �14 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. or reinforcements, the risk that we should again obtain command of the Channel in the former case, and the power to draw indefinite supplies through the tunnel in the latter case. The letter brings into relief the fact that even if we succeeded in preventing an invader from coming on our soil by means of this communication, it would be a great .aid to invaders who had actually made good their footing ■otherwise.” 11 1 The possession of both ends would render the invader independent of the sea. . . . Night and day a stream of troops and supplies would be pouring through the tunnel, possibly under the keels of our victorious but helpless Channel fleet. Now, in this case—and I would impress this point—it would no longer be a contest between two armies, but between the entire military resources of France on the one side and what we could oppose on the other.’ Thus a tunnel makes hostile occupation, if not invasion, easier.” I submit that this is really carrying panic to madness point, for, if an invading army, large enough and strong enough to capture Dover, had landed otherwise than through the tunnel, our state must have become so hope­ less that discussion as to how such an enemy would get supplies and reinforcement would cease to be material. Such an army so invading England, otherwise than by the tunnel, would be as dangerous to England whether or not the tunnel existed. The view now put forward by Sir E. Hamley was fully raised and considered in 1883, and discussed in the Minority Report of Lord Lansdowne, Lord Aberdare, the Right Hon. W. E. Baxter, and Mr. Reel, now Speaker of the House of Commons. The editor of the Times treats Sir E. Hamley’s objection as not having been answered; �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 15 but it was in truth exhaustively examined and completely answered in that Report. In paragraph 92 the Report examines seriatim the principal apprehensions expressed for the safety of the tunnel. “ These are to the effect that it might pass into the hands of an enemy— “(1) By surprise, effected through the tunnel itself; “(2) By surprise, effected by a force landed in the neighborhood of the tunnel, with or without the aid of troops passed through the tunnel; 11 (3) By surprise, facilitated by treachery; “ (4) After investment by an invading force; “ (5) By cession as the condition of a disastrous peace.” All these apprehensions are really expressions of fear of hostility from Prance. If anyone of these apprehen­ sions had carried weight with Italy, Germany, or France, the St. Gothard Tunnel, or the Mont Cenis Tunnel would never have been made. The three suppositions, 1, 2, and 3, are possible in case of an attempt made by Frenchmen when France and England are both at peace, and indeed this is Lord Wolseley’s contention. “ The seizing of the tunnel by a coup de main is, in my opinion,” says his lord­ ship, “ a very simple operation, provided it he done without any previous warning or intimation whatever by those who wish to invade the country.” “My contention is, that were a tunnel made, England, as a nation, could be destroyed without any warning whatever, when Europe was in a condition of profound peace............. the whole plan is based upon the assumption of its being carried out during a time of profound peace between the two nations, and whilst we were enjoying life in the security and unsuspicion of a fool’s paradise.” My short answer to this wild contention is that all �16 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. intercourse between nations would be impossible and life would be unendurable, if in time of “ profound peace ” we are always to treat neighboring nations as ever ready without provocation to suddenly assail our shores in order to rob and destroy. The European experience of the past century is entirely against the monstrous con­ tention put forward by Lord Wolseley that Erance might suddenly surprise us whilst we were in peace and alliance with her and all European powers. It is an insult to suspect our French neighbors of any such possible treason. The repetition of such insulting suspicions is in itself a provocation. In modern times there is no instance of any outbreak of hostilities between two great powers which has not been preceded at least by rumors and ex­ pressions of uneasiness and highly strained diplomatic negotiations on the points likely to culminate in rupture of peaceful relations. Yet, except on such a traitorous sur­ prise, Lord Wolseley himself guarantees the safety of the tunnel, for he says that, if sufficient notice were to be given, “fifty men at the entrance of the tunnel can pre­ vent an army of 100,000 men coming through it ”. The strongest military objections to the proposed tunnel are those stated with considerable literary skill, heightened by strong flavor of romance, in the long Memorandum of Adjutant-General Sir Garnet (now Lord) Wolseley, dated 16th June, 1882. The weight of Lord Wolseley’s objec­ tions on military grounds is a little weakened by the almost special pleading in which he indulges on the com­ mercial and diplomatic aspects of the question. The whole attitude of Lord Wolseley towards the Channel tunnel is that of an advocate who has a very hostile brief. He is not in this memorandum a serious military �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL, 17 counsellor, warning his countrymen against real dangers. He has recourse to poetry, pathos, general denunciation of treaties as valueless, and to tricks of curiously irrelevant appeal to national passion and national fear. Every objection stated by Lord Wolseley was seriously weighed by Lord Lansdowne and those who concurred in the minority report. ‘‘With regard to the possibility of seizing the English end of the tunnel by means of a small force landed in its neighborhood,” Lord Lansdowne and those concurring with him report: “we have endeavored to ascertain pre­ cisely the conditions, of which the presence would be indispensable if such an attempt were to have any chance of success. Those conditions would, we understand, be the following: “(1.) It would be necessary that the invading force should be despatched with absolute secrecy. “ (2.) That it should cross the Channel unobserved and unmolested by our fleet. “ (3.) That the state of the weather should offer no difficulties to the disembarcation. “(4.) That its landing should be effected without hindrance. “ (5.) That it should advance without molestation from the point at which it might be landed to the works by which the exit of the tunnel would be protected. “(6.) That it should find the garrison in a state of absolute unpreparedness. “(7.) That it should succeed in carrying by a simul­ taneous rush the whole of the various works surrounding the exit of the tunnel. “ (8.) That this capture should be effected so rapidly as �18 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to render it impossible for the defenders of those works to have recourse to any of the means which would be in existence for the purpose of closing or destroying the tunnel, or, that the whole of those means should simul­ taneously chance to be out of working order. “ That every one of these conditions should be present at the same time appears to us most improbable. We can well conceive that, with the rapid communications now available for the movement of troops by land or sea, a force such as that contemplated might be collected and despatched, and possibly reach our coasts without warn­ ing. That its landing, formation, and forward movement could altogether escape detection we can scarcely conceive. It would, we learn from Admiral Rice, take twelve hours, even under the most favorable conditions, and assuming the landing to be unresisted, to land 20,000 men, the force contemplated by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Such a force could not, however, in Admiral Rice’s opinion, be landed with­ out attracting attention. A smaller body could, of course, be landed with greater rapidity, but the diminution of its numbers would not increase its chance of success. A force of 1,000 men could, Sir Cooper Key informs us, be landed under favorable circumstances in an hour; ‘the larger the number of men,’ however, this witness adds, ‘ the more the difficulties that would arise against the time, but I have no hesitation in saying, that if they were equipped for it, with boats properly prepared, and a good clear beach, they could land 10,000 men under ten hours.’ That such a force, or one approaching to it in strength, should be able to traverse without detection or hindrance, the distance intervening between the point of landing and the exit of the tunnel, which, unless the recommendations �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 19 of the military committee are altogether disregarded, would be at a considerable distance from the shore, appears to us difficult to conceive; were it to be detected, and the alarm given, the complete surprise of the garrisons of the different forts would no longer be possible.” One most extraordinary objection to the tunnel was gravely urged before the joint Committee of Lords find Commons in the evidence by the late Mr. Eckroyd, M.P. for Preston, in answer to a suggestive question from the Earl of Devon : “ Earl of Devon : You spoke of the probable influence you anticipated from the introduction of Erench labor upon the pecuniary interests of the British workman in the manufacturing departments of industry with which you are concerned; does it occur to you that any other evil might arise by the spread of Socialistic or Com­ munistic views from an increased intercourse between the large body of French and English workmen ?—Mr E.: That is an apprehension that is very often felt; and I believe we have found that, specially in periods of slack­ ness of employment and discontent, there would be an active propaganda of an Atheistic and Socialistic kind ” As though any ideas now circulated in France or on the Continent could be hindered from permeating here by mere refusal to construct a submarine tunnel! Lord "Wolseley and the Duke of Cambridge fear that French soldiers may conquer us bodily, coming for that purpose secretly through the tunnel. The Earl of Devon and Mr. Eckroyd have like fears of French Atheists and Socialists, who would find in the Channel tunnel a con­ venient conduit-pipe for their propaganda! The great plague of Europe just now, and one that has been increasing in its virulence and oppressiveness for the �20 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. last quarter of a century, is the huge waste of men and material in every European country in preparing for armed offence and defence. If the figures compiled by Mr. Lewis Appleton are correct, then during the year ending 31st December, 1886, Europe had under arms, not including reserves, no less than 4,123,675 men, and the European forces available for war, including reserves, were 16,697,484. In 1886 Europe spent on army and navy no less than £187,474,522. Unless there be disarmament, there must be fierce war or terrible revolution. The burden of in­ creasing taxation is too continuously heavy for long peaceful bearing. The rulers find pride and pomp in the controlling and array of huge masses of armed men. It is the peoples who pay and suffer. Commerce is an eloquent peace preacher; the frequent and more complete intermingling of unarmed peoples begets distaste for war; national prejudices die away under frequent contact; explanations are easier as peoples know one another better. I am in favor of this Channel tunnel because it will give to us in this island easier moans of seeing our European brethren in their own cities. It will afford to the folk of France the opportunity of knnwing for themselves that the English workmen do not desire quarrel or war. � 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 &amp; 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 Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available A. Bonner Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N082 Subject The topic of the resource International relations 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 Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it?), 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 Channel Tunnel France Great Britain-Foreign Relations-France NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e9d251061049dd89e1f0a5108bbb2bdd.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=ThDjsC9AP0OT%7Ehc-6PsNbdwtBVGIbRtROgbe-GyHcmSjIhC7KkjfT%7EfZQK8qUg0f9U40bKWQmG5VNJO3JOk1QwmC3sl4i3a4yoLXwrHjn4Dh8cxj16bDrpw5sGHMgJhIKjyMkOsMBQzQryswMID7BE9AQGiVUIXQR-zpNKsKq-XyWzRE3DKcLoSPfGXLR17pBusPTjsZ4sDhTCu8O4fMZ0tM7C2Q5pcG2Y-lUKG17Alxy7kLC24oQcJndoAFH3iQMdhJwmxD7Xi5Awk51tQ6Yzo01eex-eldQv4WpFWxHJGY%7ESYxCDPZiEkq-VXP0BALqqg7eFEeJ4htwHdgbafJSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c69a8d9d69e624f857e13aba9b1728b PDF Text Text NATIONAL secular society HUMANITY’S GAIN from UNBELIEF. BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH. [Reprinted from the “North American Review” of March, 1889.J LONDON: •FREETHOUGrHT PUBLISHING- 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9. PRICE TWOPENCE. COMPANY, �LONDON : PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63 ELEET STREET, E.C. �HUMANITY’S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. As an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has been real gainer from scepticism, and that the gradual and growing rejection of Christianity—like the rejection of the faiths which preceded it—has in fact added, and Will add, to man’s happiness and well being. I maintain that in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and that general progress is impossible without scepticism on matters of religion. I mean by religion every form of belief which accepts or asserts the supernatural. I write as a Monist, and use the word “nature ” as meaning all phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for the happening of any and every phenomenon. Every religion is constantly changing, and at any given time is the measure of the civilisation attained by what Guizot described as theywszte milieu of those who profess it. Each religion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and practice by the gradual development of the peoples amongst whom it is professed. Each discovery destroys in whole or part some theretofore cherished belief. No religion is suddenly rejected by any people ; it is rather gradually out-grown. None see a religion die ; dead religions are like dead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is long and—like the glacier march—is only perceptible to the careful watcher by comparisons extending over long periods. A superseded religion may often be traced in the festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has replaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be found in popular customs, in old wives’ stories, and in children’s tales. �4 humanity’s GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. It is necessary, in order that my plea should be under­ stood, that I should explain what I mean by Christianity ; and in the very attempt at this explanation there will, I think, be found strong illustration of the value of unbelief, Christianity in practice may be gathered from its more ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the Greek Churches, or from the various churches which have grown up in the last few centuries. Each of these churches calls itself Christian. Some of them deny the right of the others to use the word Christian. Some Christian churches treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as heretics or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants in Great Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly cruel one to the other; and the ferocious laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, enacted by the English Protestants against English and Irish Papists, are a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring longest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political mischief and agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the tolerant indifference of scepticism that, one after the other, has repealed most of the laws directed by the Established Christian Church against Papists and Dissenters, and also against Jews and heretics. Church of England clergymen have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing non­ conformity ; and even in the present day an effective sample of such denunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of orthodox catechism written by the Rev. F. A. Gace, of Great Barling, Essex, the popularity of which is vouched by the fact that it has gone through ten editions. This catechism for little children teaches that “ Dissent is a great sin ”, and that Dissenters “ worship God according to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not ac­ cording to his revealed will, and therefore their worship is idolatrous ”. Church of England Christians and Dissent­ ing Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves, often publicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively deny that these have any sort of right to call themselves Christians. In the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers were flogged and imprisoned in England as blasphemers ; and the early Christian settlers in New England, escaping from the persecution of Old World Christians, showed scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is �humanity’s gain from unbelief. 5 customary, in controversy, for those advocating the claims of Christianity, to include all good done by men in nomi’ nally Christian countries as if such good were the result of Christianity, while they contend that the evil which exists prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out that the ameliorating march of the last few centuries has been initiated by the heretics of each age, though I quite concede that the men and women denounced and per­ secuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are fre­ quently claimed as saints by the pious of a later genera­ tion. What then is Christianity ? As a system or scheme of doctrine, Christianity may, I submit, not unfairly be gathered from the Old and New Testaments. It is true that some Christians to-day desire to escape from submis­ sion to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this very tendency seems to me to be part of the result of the beneficial heresy for which I am pleading. Man’s humanity has revolted against Old Testament barbarism; and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the Old Testa­ ment from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments are accepted as God’s revelation to man, Christianity has no higher claim than any other of the world’s many religions, if no such claim can be made out for it apart from the Bible. And though it is quite true that some who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament completely in the background, this is, I allege, because they are out-growing their Christianity. Without the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity, as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam’s fall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences of that fall cannot be believed. Both in Great Britain and in the United States the Old and New Testaments are forced on the people as part of Christianity; for it is blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority; and such denial is punishable with fine and imprisonment, or even worse. The rejection of Christianity intended throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the Old and New Testaments as being of divine revelation. It is the rejection alike of the authorised teachings of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England, as these may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the encyclicals, �6 HUMANITY S GAIN FKOM UNBELIEJ’. the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both of these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity of Luther, of Calvin, and of Wesley. A ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is that the progress and civilisation of the world are due to Christianity; and the discussion is complicated by the fact that many eminent servants of humanity have been nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My allegation will be that the special services rendered to human progress by these exceptional men, have not been in consequence of their adhesion to Christianity, but in spite of it; and that the specific points of advantage to human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition to precise Biblical enactments. A. S. Farrar says1 that Christianity “ asserts authority over religious belief in virtue of being a supernatural communication from God, and claims the right to control human thought in virtue of possessing sacred books, which are at once the record and the instrument of the communi­ cation, written by men endowed with supernatural inspira­ tion ”. Unbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted authority, and deny this claim of control over human thought: they allege that every effort at freethinking must provoke sturdier thought. Take one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief, i.e., in the abolition of slavery in some countries, in the abolition of the slave trade in most civilised countries, and in the tendency to its total abolition. I am unaware of any religion in the world which in the past forbade slavery. The professors of Christianity for ages supported it; the Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws ; the New Testament has no repealing declaration. Though we are at the close of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, it is only during the past three-quarters of a century that the battle for freedom has been gradually won. It is scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous emancipa­ tion amendment was carried to the United States Constitu­ tion. And it is impossible for any well-informed Christian to deny that the abolition movement in North America was most steadily and bitterly opposed by the religious bodies in the various States. Henry Wilson, in his “Itise and 1 Farrar’s “ Critical History of Fieethought ”, �humanity’s GAIN from unbelief. 7 Fall of the Slave Power in America ” ; Samuel J. May, in his “Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict ” ; and J. Greenleaf Whittier, in his poems, alike are witnesses that the Bible and pulpit, the Church and its great influence, were used against abolition and in favor of the slave­ owner. I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men pro­ fessing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years since the European Christian powers jointly agreed to abolish the slave trade. What of the effect of Christianity on these powers in the centuries which had preceded ? The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom whilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many centuries Christian Spain and Christian Portugal held slaves. Porto Rico freedom is not of long date; and Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a Christian King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in Spanish America the slave trade between the Old World and the New. For some 1800 years, almost, Christians kept slaves, bought slaves, sold slaves, bred slaves, stole slaves. Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool less than 100 years ago openly grew rich on the traffic. During the ninth century Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the eleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in Rome, and the profit went to the Church. It is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was a Christian. But at any rate his Christianity was strongly diluted with unbelief. As an abolitionist he did not believe Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have rejected Exodus xxi, 2-6 ; he could not have accepted the many permissions and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to capture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on 18th February, 1796, Wilberforce reminded that Christian assembly that infidel and anarchic France had given liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic England was “obstinately continuing a system of cruelty and injustice”. Wilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery, found the whole influence of the English Court, and the �8 HUMANITY S GAIN FBOM UNBELIEF. great weight of the Episcopal Bench, against him. George III, a most Christian king, regarded abolition theories with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was utterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When Christian missionaries some sixty-two years ago preached to Demerara negroes under the rule of Christian England, they were treated by Christian judges, holding commission from Christian England, as criminals for so preaching. A Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established Church of England, signed the auction notices for the sale of slaves as late as the year 1824. In the evidence before a Christian court-martial, a missionary is charged with having tended to make the negroes dissatisfied with their condition as slaves, and with having promoted discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful masters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the Demerara abolitionist missionary to be hanged by the neck till he was dead. The judges belonged to the Estab­ lished Church ; the missionary was a Methodist. In this the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no worse than Christians of other sects : their Boman Catholic Christian brethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the Jesuits as criminals because they treated negroes as though they were men and women, in encouraging “two slaves to separate their interest and safety from that of the gang ”, whilst orthodox Christians let them couple pro­ miscuously and breed for the benefit of their o wners like any other of their plantation cattle. In 1823 the Royal Gazette (Christian) of Demerara said : “We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by law our property, till you can demonstrate that when they are made religious and knowing they will continue to be our slaves.” When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and most earnest abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery address in Boston, Massachusetts, the only building he could obtain, in which to speak, was the infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland, the “infidel” editor of the Boston Investigator, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy. Jlvery Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garri­ son the use of the buildings they severally controlled. |jloyd Garrison told me himself how honored deacons of �humanity’s GAIN UHOM UNBELIEF. 9 a Christian Church, joined in an actual attempt to hang him. When abolition was advocated in the United States in 1790, the representative from South Carolina was able to plead that the Southern clergy “did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade ” ; and Mr. Jackson, the repre­ sentative from Georgia, pleaded that “from Genesis to Revelation ” the current was favorable to slavery. Elias Hicks, the brave Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as an Atheist, and less than twenty years ago a Hicksite Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern American Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these abolitionist “ Friends ”. When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in North America, large numbers of clergymen of nearly every denomination were found ready to defend this infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous aboli­ tionist, was driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely because of his attacks on slaveholding. Northern clergy­ men tried to induce “silver tongued” Wendell Philips to abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits rang with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner. The slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed Christian men. Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the •Church exerted its influence to restrain slavery, says (“European Civilisation”, vol. i., p. 110) : “It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery among modern people is entirely due to Christians. That, I think, is saying too much. Slavery existed for a long period in the heart of Christian society, without its being particularly astonished or irritated. A multitude of causes, and a great development in other ideas and principles of civilisation, were necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all iniquities.” And my contention is that this “development in other ideas and principles of civilisation ” was long retarded by Governments in which the Christian Church was dominant. The men who advocated liberty were imprisoned, racked, and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough to be merciless. The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his recent earnest volume1 on the struggles of labor, admits 1 “ Capital and Wages”, p. 19. �10 humanity’s gain from unbelief. that “ a few centuries ago slavery was acknowledged throughout Christendom to have the divine sanction.......... Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the decline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can be defined. It was doubtless due to a combination of causes, one probably being as indirect as the recognition of the greater economy of free labor. With the decline of the belief the abolition of slavery took place.” The institution of slavery was actually existent in Christian Scotland in the 17th century, where the white coal workers and salt workers of East Lothian were chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern States thirty years since; they “ went to those who succeeded to the property of the works, and they could be sold, bartered, or pawned”? “There is”, says J. M. Robertson, “no trace that the Protestant clergy of Scot­ land ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew up before their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after republican and irreligious France had set the example, that it was legally abolished.” Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the unbelief, or rather disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry. Apart from the brutality by Christians towards those suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to scientific initia­ tive or experiment was incalculably great so long as belief in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries, and especially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much earlier and much more largely, but for the foolish belief in witchcraft and the shocking ferocity exhibited against those suspected of necromancy. After quoting a large number of cases of trial and punish­ ment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J. M. Robertson says: “The people seem to have passed from cruelty to cruelty precisely as they became more and more fanatical, more and more devoted to their Church, till after many generations the slow spread of human science began to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy resist­ ing reason and humanity to the last ”. The Rev. Mr. Minton1 concedes that it is “ the advance 2 of knowledge which has rendered the idea of Satanic 1 “ Perversion of Scotland,” p. 197. 2 “ Capital and Wages ”, pp. 15, 16. �HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. 11 agency through the medium of witchcraft grotesquely ridiculous”. He admits that “ for more than 1500 years the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom ”, and that “ the public mind was saturated with the idea of Satanic agency in the economy of nature ”. He adds: “ If we ask why the world now rejects what was once so unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing knowledge has gradually undermined the belief ”. In a letter recently sent to the Pall Mall Gazette against modern Spiritualism, Professor Huxley declares, “that the older form of the same fundamental delusion—the belief in possession and in witchcraft—gave rise in the fifteenth,, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries to persecutions by Chris­ tians of innocent men, women, and children, more extensive, more cruel, and more murderous than any to which the Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the authorities of pagan Borne.” And Professor Huxley adds : “No one deserves much blame for being deceived in these matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in youth by the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and witchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The majority of us are taught nothing which will help us to observe accurately and to interpret observations with due caution.” The English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under James was disfigured by enactments against witchcraft passed under pressure from the Christian churches, which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of the disbelief in the Christian precept, ‘1 thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned to death “all persons invoking any evil spirits, or con­ sulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, feed­ ing, or rewarding any evil spirit ”, or generally practising any “infernal arts”. This was not repealed until the eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison’s phono­ graph would 280 years ago have insured martyrdom for its inventor; the utilisation of electric force to transmit messages around the world would have been clearly the practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that unbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made the road free for her upward march. �12 humanity’s gain from unbelief. Is it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which has been apparent in the wiser treatment of the insane, consequent on the unbelief in the Christian doctrine that these unfortunates were examples either of demoniacal possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries under Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly treated. Exorcism, shackles, and the whip were the penalties rather than the curatives for mental maladies. From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of the last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every step illustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to humanity in the unbelief not yet complete, but now largely preponderant, in the dogma that sickness, pesti­ lence, and famine were manifestations of divine anger, the results of which could neither be avoided nor pre­ vented. The Christian Churches have done little or nothing to dispel this superstition. The official and authorised prayers of the principal denominations, even to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of health, experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful applications of medical knowledge, have proved more efficacious in preventing or diminishing plagues and pestilence than have the intervention of the priest or the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold the old faith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are to-day termed “peculiar people”, and are occasionally indicted for manslaughter when their sick children die, because the parents have trusted to God instead of appealing to the resources of science. It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that the Church which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the truth has been overborne by the growing unbelief of the age, even though our little children are yet taught that Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for Hezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle, arguing for the morality of scepticism, says1 : “ As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the immediate finger of God, and as long as they believe that an eclipse is one of the modes by which the deity expresses his anger, they will never be guilty of the blasphemous presump­ tion of attempting to predict such supernatural appearances. 1 “ History of Civilisation,’’ vol. i, p. 345. �HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. 13 Before . they could dare to investigate the causes of these mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should believe, or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena themselves were capable of being explained by the human mind.” As in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge to . humanity has been almost solely in measure of the rejection of the Christian theory. A century since it was almost universally held that the world was created 6,000 years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first man, Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology and Anthropology have only been possible in so far as, adopting the regretful words of Sir W. Jones, “intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the primi­ tive world ”. Surely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has sprung up. against the divine right of kings, that men no longer believe that the monarch is “God’s anointed” or that “the powers that be are ordained of God”. In the struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church was mostly thrown on the side of the tyrant. The homilies of the Church of England declare that “even the wicked rulers have their power and authority from God ”, and. that “such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious against their princes disobey God and procure their own damnation ”. It can scarcely be necessary to argue to the citizens of the United States of America that the origin of their liberties was in the rejection of faith in the divine right of George III. Will any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is not . certain gain to humanity to spread unbelief in the terrible doctrine that eternal torment is the probable fate of the great majority of the human family? Is it not gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of the wretched and the miserable to be content with the lot in life which providence had awarded them ? If it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as justification for heresy the approach towards equality and liberty for the utterance of all opinions achieved because of growing unbelief. At one period in Christendom each Government acted as though only one religious faith could be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate the �14 humanity’s gain from unbelief. making known, any other opinion was a criminal act deserving punishment. Under the one word “ infidel”, even as late as Lord Coke, were classed together all who were not Christians, even though they were Mahommedans, Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian faith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore //ors de la loi. One hundred and forty-five years since, the Attorney-General, pleading in our highest court, said1 : “What is the definition of an infidel? Why, one who does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a Jew is an infidel.” And English history for several centuries prior to the Commonwealth shows how habitually and most atrociously Christian kings, Christian courts, and Christian churches, persecuted and harassed these infidel Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were such infidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn as witnesses. In 1740 a legacy left for establishing an assembly for the reading of the Jewish scriptures was held to be void2 because it was “ for the propagation of the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian religion”. It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have been accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty years since they have been allowed to sit in Parliament. In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate in debate3 objected “that they should have sitting in that House an individual who regarded our Redeemer as an impostor”. Lord Chief Justice Raymond has shown4 how it was that Christian intolerance was gradually broken down. “A Jew may sue at this day, but heretofore he could not; for then they were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce has taught the world more humanity.” Lord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no right of any kind, with whom no contract need be kept, to whom no debt was payable. The plea of alien infidel as answer to a claim was actually pleaded in court as late as 1737.5 In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says6: “ All infidels are in law perpetui inimici; for between them, as 1 Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29. 2 D’Costa v. D’Pays, Arab. 228. 3 3 Hansard cxvi. 381. 4 1 Lord Raymond’s reports 282, Wells v. Williams. 5 Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51. 6 7 Coke’s reports, Calvin’s case. �humanity’s gain from unbelief. 15 with, the devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility ”. Twenty years ago the law of England required the writer of any periodical publica­ tion or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give sureties for £800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was the last person prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance with that law, which was repealed by Mr. Gladstone in 1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an infidel in Scot­ land was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court on condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity. If he lied and said he was a Christian, he was accepted, despite his lying. If he told the truth and said he was an unbeliever, then he was practically an outlaw, incompetent to give evidence for himself or for any other. Fortunately all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act on 24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a little in this struggle through unbelief ? For more than a century and a-half the Roman Catholic had in practice harsher measure dealt out to him by the English Protestant Christian, than was even during that period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever. If the Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation, which to a sincere Romanist was impossible, he was in effect an outlaw, and the “jury packing” so much com­ plained of to-day in Ireland is one of the habit survivals of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by law excluded from the j ury box. The Scotsman of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860 the Rev. Dr. Robert Lee, of Grey friars, gave a course of Sunday evening lectures on Biblical Criticism, in which he showed the absurdity and untenableness of regarding every word in the Bible as inspired ; and it adds : “We well remember the awful indignation such opinions inspired, and it is refreshing to contrast them with the calm­ ness with which they are now received. Not only from the pulpits of the city, but from the press (misnamed religious) were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P. minister went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the students under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress made since then, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris, Dr. Lee’s successor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the Confession of Faith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did, and yet he is considered supremely orthodox, whereas the stigma of heresy was attached to the other all his life.” �16 humanity’s gain from unbelief. And this change and gain to humanity is due to the gradual progress of unbelief, alike inside and outside the Churches. Take from differing Churches two recent illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay Alexander, a strict Calvinist, in his important work on “ Biblical Theology”, claims that “ all the statements of Scripture are alike to be deferred to as presenting to us the mind of God ”. Yet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says: “We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred authors] statements which no ingenuity can reconcile with what modern research has shown to be the scientific truth— i.e., we find in them statements which modern science proves to be erroneous.” At the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Con­ ference at Derby, the Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the Rev. J. G. Richardson said of the Old Testament that “ it was no longer honest or even safe to deny that this noble literature, rich in all the elements of moral or spiritual grandeur, given—so the Church had always taught, and would always teach—under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes mistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history, and sometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality. It assumed theories of the physical world which science had abandoned and could never resume; it contained passages oi narrative which devout and temperate men pronounced dis­ credited, both by external and internal evidence; it praised, or justified, or approved, or condoned, or tolerated, conduct which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of the Christian alike condemned.” Or, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by un­ belief is that “the teaching of Christ ” has been modi­ fied, enlarged, widened, and humanised, and that “the conscience of the Christian ” is in quantity and quality made fitter for human progress by the ever increasing additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical days. � 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 &amp; 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 Humanity's gain from unbelief Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review of March 1889. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 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 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N095 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 (Humanity's gain from unbelief), 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 Atheism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3662d5d53410b5372489ea1206356a79.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=rHjqiuTSf5zlqWRtWSshiYc44nLJ7noqKTlSTabT7KIo1uqxfaBNpzVqXfR3ffGBrfbyLVKUBs86ZuiXYCBHp0hzOU-ctvLJ4VrMwyxwF%7EmkDM6BsAm%7EN2xTMC7gik6Y8w30Lt1CLU3DxKNfEAPvwapjsNd%7EPHBGPuBUYPk7TwqzAGkgY-Wtc6zjsO2d24QlezDEB3rVik5iXmkgXHemZQHlhoqjfESVrKrLha95xY1qADxzDZs-Gtxri-suISZld5yGaA1FVmsrLTRmT8UNda-MoKfATF0YpOxiMTnQSyttbWY-7OmO7ld3u7bIs1Li6bidV7GSE3hDPRqXpWLW7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 97d8705d23f6bd56ddb9acc914a49354 PDF Text Text B'ZrXS NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY POVERTY: ITS EFFECTS ON THE . POLITICAL CONDITION OF TEE PEOPLE. BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 9 0. PRICE ONE PENNY. COMPANY, �Since this little pamphlet was first issued, nearly twentyfive years ago, there have been enormous changes. The Reform Bills of 1867 and 1884 have placed the suffrage in town and country in the hands of the very lowest. The working of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has developed in the masses a higher and more acute sense of suffering as well as capacity for happiness. The incite­ ments to the poorest to require from the legislature and the executive remedies for all wrongs are loud and frequent. There are fairly good people, as well as very wild ones, who seem to think that an Act of Parliament or an Order in Council can provide food for the hungry and work for the unemployed. In 1877, I was indicted for trying to place within the reach of the very poor the knowledge necessary to the application of the arguments here outlined. From 1877 until now I have, on this ground, been the object of coarsest assailment and grossest misrepresentation. Yet, at least, I have the satisfaction of knowing that the birth-rate in this country has sensibly diminished; that an association of Church clergymen and others in the East End of London has helped in this direction; and that a respectable journal, the Weekly Times and Echo, has boldly taken the very course for which I was nearly sent to gaol. I have had, too, the advantage of reading a judicial deliverance at the Antipodes, which more than outweighs many of the hard things said of me here. My co-defendant in 1877 has, in her “Law of Population”, dealt with details necessary to be known by the very poor. This pamphlet is, as it was at first intended, only a finger-post to a possible road. 1890. �POVERTY, AND ITS EFFECT ON THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE. ‘'•'Political Economy does not itself instruct how to make a nation rich, but whoever would be qualified to judge of the means of making a nation rich must first be a political economist.”—John Stuart Mill. “The object of political economy is to secure the means of sub­ sistence of all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which might render this precarious, to provide everything necessary for supplying the wants of society, and to employ the inhabitants so as to make their several interests accord with then- supplying each other’s wants.”—Sir James Stewart. At the close of the eighteenth century, a people rose searching for upright life, who had previously, for several generations, depressed by poverty and its attendant hand­ maidens of misery, prowled hunger-stricken and discon­ solate, stooping and stumbling through the byways of existence. A terrible revolution resulted in much rough justice and some brutal vengeance, much rude right, and some terrific wrong. Amongst the writers who have since narrated the history of this people’s struggle, some penmen have been assiduous and eager to search for, and chronicle the errors, and have even not hesitated to magnify the crimes, of the rebels; while they have been very slow to recognise the previous demoralising and dehumanising tendency of the system rebelled against. In very briefly dealing with the state of the people in France immediately prior to the grand convulsion which destroyed the Bastille Monarchy, and set a glorious example of the vindication of the rights of man against opposition the most formidable that can be conceived; I hold that in this illustration of the condition of the masses in France who sought to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious edifice of civil and religious liberty, an answer may be found to the question—“What is the.effect of poverty on the political condition of the people? ” In taking the instance, of France, it is not that the writer for one moment imagines that poverty is a word without meaning in our own lands. In some of the huge aggre­ gations making up our great cities there are extremes of poverty and squalor difficult to equal in any part of the �4 civilized world. But in England poverty is happily partial, while in France in the eighteenth century outside the palaces of the nobles and the mansions of the church, where luxury, voluptuousness, and effeminacy were supreme, poverty was universal. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries travellers in France could learn from the sadness, the solitude, the miserable poverty, the dismal nakedness of the empty cottages, and the starving, ragged, population, how much men could endure without dying . On the one side a discontented, wretched, hungry mass of tax-providing slaves, and on the other a rapacious, pampered, licentious, spendthrift monarchy. This culmi­ nated in the refusal of the laborers to cultivate the fertile soil, because the tax-gatherer’s rapacity left an insufficient remnant to provide the cultivator with the merest necessaries of life. Then followed “ uncultivated fields, unpeopled villages, and houses dropping to decay; ” the great cities— as Paris, Lyons, and Bordeaux—crowded with begging skeletons, frightful in their squalid disease and loathsome aspect. Even after the National Assembly had passed some .measures of temporary alleviation, the distress in Paris itself was so great that at the gratuitous distributions' of bread ‘‘old people have been seen to expire with their hands stretched out to receive the loaf, and women waiting their turn in front of the baker’s shop were prematurely delivered of dead children in the open street ”. The great mass of the people were as ignorant as they were poor; were ignorant indeed because they were poor. Ignorance is the pauper’s inalienable heritage. Partial education to a badly fed and worse housed population is only the stimulus to the expression of discontent and disaffection. When the struggle is for the means of subsistence, and these are only partially obtained, there is little hope for the luxury of a leisure hour in which other emotions can be cultivated than those of the mere desires for food and rest—sole results of the laborious monotonousness of machine work; a round of toil and sleep closing in death—the only certain refuge for the worn-out laborer. Without the opportunity afforded by the possession of more than will satisfy the immediate wants, there can be little or no culture of the mental faculties. The toiler, when badly paid and ill-fed, is separated from the thinker. Nobly-gifted, highlycultured though the poet may be, his poesy has no charms for the father to whom one hour’s leisure means short �5 food for his hungry children clamoring for bread. At best the song like that of the Corn Law Rhymer, or the Ca Ira of Paris, serves as a hymn of vengeance. The picture gallery, replete with the finest works of our greatest masters, is rarely trodden ground to the pitman, the ploughman, the poor pariahs to whom the conceptions of the highest art-treasures are impossible. The beauties of nature are almost equally inaccessible to the dwellers in the narrow lanes of great cities. Out of your narrow wynds in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and on to the moor and mountain side, ye poor, and breathe the pure life-renewing breezes. Not so ; the moors are for the sportsmen and peers, not for peasants ; and a Scotch Duke—emblem of the worst vices of a selfish, but fast decaying House of Lords—closes miles of heather against the pedestrian’s foot. But even this paltry oppression is unheeded. Duke Despicable is in unholy alliance with King Poverty, who mocks at the poor mother and her wretched, ragged family, when from the garret or cellar in a great Babylon wilder­ ness they set out to find green fields and new life. Work days are sacred to bread, and clothes, and rent; hunger, in­ clement weather, and pressing landlord forbid the study of nature ’twixt Monday morn and Saturday night, and on Sunday God’s ministers require to teach a weary people how to die, as if the lesson were not unceasingly inculcated in their incessant toil. Oh! horrid mockery; men need teaching how to live. According to religionists, this world’s bitter misery is a dark and certain preface, “ just pub­ lished,” to a volume of eternal happiness, which for 2,000 years has been advertised as in the press and ready for publication, but which after all may never appear. And notwithstanding that everyday misery is so very potent, mankind seem to heed it but very little. The second edition of a paper containing the account of a battle in which some 5,000 were killed and wounded, is eagerly perused, but the battle in which poverty kills and maims hundreds of thousands, is allowed to rage with com­ paratively small expression of concern. “ If a war or a pestilence threatens us, every one is excited at the prospect of the misery which may result; prayers are put up, and every solemn and mournful feeling called forth; but these evils are to poverty but as a grain of sand in the desert, as the light waves that ruffle a dark sea of despair. Wars come, and go, and perhaps their greatest evils consist in their �6 aggravation of poverty by the high prices they cause ; pesti­ lences last a season and then leave us; but poverty, the grim tyrant of our race, abides with us through all ages and in a 1 circumstances. For each victim that war and pestilence have slain, for each, heart that they have racked with suffering, poverty has slain its millions whom it has first condemned to drag out wearily a life of bondage and degradation.” The poor in France were awakened by Rousseau’s start­ ling declaration that property was spoliation; they knew they had been spoiled, the logic of the stomach was con­ clusive ; empty bellies and aching brains were the pre­ decessors of a revolution which sought vengeance when justice was denied, but which full-stomached critics of later days have calumniated and denounced. Warned by. the past, ought we not to make some endeavor to give battle to that curse of all old countries -—poverty ? The fearful miseries of want of food and leisure which the poor have to endure seriously hinder their political enfranchisement. Those who desire that men and women shall have the rights of citizens, should be conscious how low the poor are trampled dowm, and how incapable poverty renders them for the performance of the duties of citizenship. The question of political freedom is really determined by the wealth or poverty of the masses; to this, extent, at any rate, that a poverty-stricken people must, if that state of pauperism has long existed, neces­ sarily be an ignorant and enslaved people. The problem is, how to remove or at least to lessen poverty,. as it is only by the diminution of poverty that the political emancipation of the nation can be rendered possible. Twenty years ago the average food of the agricultural laborer in England was about half that allotted by the gaol dietary to sustain criminal life. So that the peasant who built and guarded his master’s hay­ stack got worse fed and worse lodged than the incendiary convicted for burning it down. An anonymous writer, thirty years ago, said :— The rural population of many parts of England are, as a general rule, half-starved. They have to toil like bond­ slaves, with no leisure for amusement, education, or any other blessing which elevates or sweetens human life; and after all, they have only half enough of the very first essential of life, the working classes in the towns, are also miserably paid, often half-starved ; and are sweated to death in unhealthy sedentary diudgery, such as tailoring, cotton-spinning, weaving, etc.” �4 How can suoli poverty bo removed and prevented? “ Thero is but one possible mode of preventing any evil— namely, to seek for and romovo its cause. The cause of low wages, or in other words of Poverty, is over-population; that is, the existence of too many people in proportion to the food, of too many laborers in proportion to the capital. It is of the very first importance, that the attention of all who seek to remove poverty, should never be diverted from this great truth. The disproportion between the numbers and the food is the only real cause of social poverty. Individual cases of poverty may be produced by individual misconduct, such as drunken­ ness, ignorance, laziness, or disoaso ; but these of all other accidental influences must bo wholly thrown out of the question in considering the permanent cause, and aiming at the pre­ vention of poverty. Drunkenness and ignorance, moreover, a,re far more frequently tho effect than the cause of poverty. Population and food, like two runners of unequal swiftness chained together, advance sido by side; but tho ratio of increase of tlio former is so immensely superior to that of tho latter, that it is necessarily greatly cheeked ; and tho chocks are of course either more deaths or fewer births—that is, either positive or preventive.” Unless the necessity of the preventive or positive chocks to population bo perceived ; unless it be clearly seen, that they must operate in one form, if not in another; and that though individuals may escape them, the race cannot; human society is a hopeless and insoluble riddle. Quoting John Stuart Mill, the writor from whom the foregoing extracts have been made, proceeds— “The groat object of statesmanship should bo to raise tho habitual standard of comfort among the working classes, and to bring them into such a position as shows them most, clearly that their welfare depends upon themselves. For this purpose ho advises that there should bo, first, an ex­ tended scheme of national emigration, so as to produce a, striking and sudden improvement in the condition of the laborers loft at home, and raise their standard of comfort; also that tho population truths should bo disseminated as widely as possible, so that a powerful public fooling should bo a,wakened among tho working classes against undue pro­ creation on tho part of any individual among them- a feel­ ing which oould not fail greatly to influence individual conduct; and also that we should use every endeavor to got rid of tho present system of labor—-namely, that of employers and employed, and adopt to a. great extent that of independent or associated industry. His res,son for this is, that a, hired laborer, who has no personal interest in tho work he is �8 engaged in, is generally reckless and without foresight, living from hand to mouth, and exerting little control over his powers of procreation; whereas the laborer who has a personal stake in his work, and the feeling of independence and self-reliance which the possession of property gives, as, for instance, the peasant proprietor, or member of a co­ partnership, has far stronger motives for self-restraint, and can see much more clearly the evil effects of having a large family.” The end in view in all this is the attainment of a greater amount of happiness for humankind—the rendering life more worth the living, by distributing more equally than at present its love, its beauties, and its charms. In one of his latest publications, John Stuart Mill wrote— ‘ ‘ In a world in which there is so much to interest, so much to enjoy, and so much also to correct and improve, every one who has a moderate amount of moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which may be called enviable; and unless such a person, through bad laws, or subjection to the will of others, is denied the liberty to use the sources of happi­ ness within his reach, he will not fail to find this enviable existence, if he escape the possible evils of life, the great sources of physical and mental suffering, such as indigence, disease, and the unkindness, worthlessness, or premature loss of objects of affection. The main stress of the problem lies, therefore, in the contest with these calamities, from which it is a rare good fortune entirely to escape, which, as things now are, cannot be obviated, and often cannot be in any material degree mitigated. Yet no one whose opinion deserves a moment’s consideration can doubt that most of the great positive evils of the world are in themselves removable, and will, if human affairs continue to improve, be in the end reduced within narrow limits. Poverty, in any sense implying suffering, may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals. Even that most intractable of enemies, disease, may be in­ definitely reduced in dimensions by good physical and moral education and proper control of noxious influences, while the progress of science holds out a promise for the future of still more direct conquests over this detestable foe.” My desire is to provoke discussion of this subject amongst all classes, and I affirm, therefore, as a proposi­ tion which I am prepared to support—‘1 That the political condition of the people can never be permanently reformed until the cause of poverty has been discovered and the evil itself prevented and removed.” Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Beadlaugh, 63 Fleet St., E.C.—1890. � 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 &amp; 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 Poverty : its effect on the political condition of the people 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: First published 30 May 1863 in the National Reformer. - 1890 ed. has a foreword, unsigned, by Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 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 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N102 Subject The topic of the resource 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 (Poverty : its effect on the political condition of the people), 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 NSS Political Economy Poverty https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e55ca3fdefe21dcc616b69ada9779fc5.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=nSZr1gugilJjSgyabu3nznVYqUUPn1-TJ-wO5jYi5wfAbgO5xxU3inZeKwh8FJcazupjj1EcBskLAF3i7Zy4NcmgTUvMkOQ5oCC-qRIJUsgjVWFwKLV7Zj2h63ie7Y7i5rckXy3Eyt7oO7YsAFo%7EBVLtoFl2lRoLfbhmxdyVWK2RfvRPrbZvMmEIfUY2XZXuRpICaRufFpdNR6KSxAGgPeoNBsfHa4Fao4Jv-8IuG5zc-tfw--HKYbGTO2%7Ex0bRveQHOCOIIPhnAcxTB8CXox%7E4bACV%7EXkpVTZ5vVcBKd%7EQcdT1qY6nCp4InW1YRe-P1yOVQOuMTLqrWN9zILGlrAA__&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 &amp; 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 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/425147319123b75e45aacea1cab04313.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=PNIXuBhS8oW1Ei2cxCD0Sr-LUIWCH5hHuXT5axL6sN92bs9ZE9CGkXzd0tDf8Yaq1-bmz8zmJwh8r8sCdSQVxKdMCkaF9VbJZs0xps9BeNvWCyFqwFJMyOBG3IhgGaJPSKmckxzhMlqFTU9tn3utPBmw8qNNEI5Nmg0if4d0-GHah2yRcmo7D-wPJLLLwQgtdSaBgGx-JdEYbLteUivohI-v%7ElfHtNZLnnDMSiFf7NXnALx32pyDGQPcQ%7Efy9O3hOoovHUNSuLNCszn8YoBikgmkjHW-NNjiUV2u-NzS2oXn6cBc%7Eu81DviejuY1m5DIrgW%7EIArmoRg2W5fKS3verw__&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 &amp; 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/044c01547fa3da254c5e5189a7b15668.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=jhNblDzL3F1nlSKdsdXltKSw1YaohGEfuQXmbljm9Q37bk5kSk6pFjpGyKKbS5mmrLzLlhjCsSHDFEXYBLKbOZ3oP%7EkaNrAEaGqxT9zF1ULTk1ccZenufq1eaqq9WrdULy37%7E%7ExgkGkRiu642j%7E5jgnv4SHBeZzChesmc7idXXDTCYrgWETCxtl9M02zswlC2H0JLGeOnBILNxYGwzFwK0hV88Wr2XzsqNNwPd51ICekpZD%7E3DpBNb7-vqkqTKjItl6Mt2uC0jvurbc0H06YHJQf9Rjtd-AJkmKovE2nuIzeOtJWldHT%7EvdAG7hfqAtwZGMfkjGXJKGg53QG5rBi4Q__&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 &amp; 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/d6d73c2f4656a2966f96781cf1b7e629.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=PUZwhu3mmXvSfUp1ti-8aDMQeOEUezEe95c8HcfBuM1ZsS79zqI5LVl1DWizf%7EB9g6m6DSyBLWD97vQLcf5P1swvYaX8ekmaf-YYO8d5DTSip7pkjJngUVFAcKeytMYnmOAB3Pw-dt1cLIQjL1DyIXOliCd%7EfX9cBsVo-Ai7eyXMNNUH9ZTdF%7EvPPqfqOhJ%7E%7Et453ZPM0xNx6zTOTxs7%7EzygjEUmaqB%7ErJxerAoLOs15YYx5md4D1InCdXP3BK2oUbJCN%7ESw-zGw-BjdKo%7Eg5pURvk9HLFSxIF-3NSPAKoU0kitRVjfBeWYOsoZqKlItj51URhWstZLrMGCAeGENFQ__&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 &amp; 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/b842d10258a06cf2c9e19b58b7c47821.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=vU4gQzRgce2jMmkp7WansBcj8K8cA2JDFbxwlzAwD2ozNQE1yN2hk2q2sLcXOL4XcgmJVCpwieg-7PhtOOK92WtB5ta6dEIrugvYeC6CA3V5ORJ9dKMiAPhFO9ir5jg1vZzV%7ENmJUNntFSD2yOR0-yoN-blx1pe6O6puivWrm80mm4iXCepbFTAqK%7Er5W-WhsUk8x%7E-CelqNEZJCBXtM9CzIytqcgIaKOaFzxwDA0%7EuO7W6Lee2zj4NhLl5QXVtUupvaFQL5ABry1fGn4DWkS4AzIqtcUhXPrs6-MqSqX5LgizGUjmt6BmxxrXw0r-Aj9YFJDB5-5oPTfMdKyJzRCg__&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 &amp; 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/eed73d169804ea269ab3f0d58b1bda8f.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=FvuSVeGc6rgbGlIK-wmvfmsH6YUEsP8oRGjkQ3FH%7E3JCYWN5jPZiWngk6lpnLnGW32LXiYyXRohdDLm8LUmhbWPErtEUeUtTp2B39X%7ECFhdc0qqM9nHX7S0aEeaegab3rRQkjGKf-UburDZOWjeKg2YQYUGLsQKzW-4E-zvFXhEEi6JiJkObPo%7E2OGvWGe3M9sy7YgEunMSglv8Kvls3jDQFOq16OKon6EgQMw%7Evchefsrzgl4wp%7Et3BNyd%7E4a0sBZ3Nc3iRP-n5tx38GnqMs6oQWq1Hu9Qa0C7ORhE0b0awjryJYpo1Yj94dwL7MSMZonm1Xweo44vWyoRZPlfkXg__&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 &amp; 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