1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/571c76e245aecd5031d5d0f7c7afdadd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UNQc2HI6FdcMBx7iN4RnaDDAEEnPkv4FuvfspSAlUnksQk7rLl3UaA3jidBAgWX-DCahf0x8uRx2uS%7EIlKXSHbJvdoOFQMF0oofnxCVaMr91thQRYkY%7EPSjMqO2z-1Sw8b5nHDXD1FMJWpbA-Ui0qu-qsyez6zzVcfK1bpCDQM56FROzI3SwFol3lQUplzSAr2E2mSiZERGdh6alj2rBOaJM3-ggi6BXiMct9ye4PH1sujFlMt2lbM%7EW-sIg03ghE0Ky23vS-Vf4WrJZC3LQEbvkK1Jq8UWMTyJ3JirbWOBKAiJMbcmkJsG%7EmdYoGxhzeJ0qDKysvF9SCKOxgDCaWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3689d6b03862eb066e2eb8d84370445b
PDF Text
Text
��������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why I am a secularist
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London: Bournemouth
Collation: 7 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Watts; Charles Cattell
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
G974
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (Why I am a secularist), 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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/610c05e2046ef0474ecaaf04e039140b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SfF0DwcnlhEtbgJXQWTS%7Ej-c7DCLn-Q8wKURACPUDCRL9oco9cYi7-IHWO3iej34sDkuW5RQWygI5M3B4Ew0c0K7AHNAOome4DtkQt9IkCNlj7VCe8vEOSlMSW-nNmWKc5n6giCSVUHqcuXUk5kc7x6Edwo9XjCl%7Eh04EvKaxz0MfhMklr-ikHVQeMhWbCmV1DfBoSfSfCgwJoPZ6ACTZp66rAxFdyreS7YS-tLoKTMkxCUg9M%7EsdmGswRwFisDp-UTW8k71tQ5zIJhmGIQ6t%7EJoPxzc6elbaMA-HIbEfNnTMIAOSoE6aNyX3s%7E-IS5E3zsB7Z3Hc1AtcJUjkLXC6A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
12904dc0f4fb39b8ea1a919d6c719b3f
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
R.
MR.
DALE,
W.
M.A.,
On “ Atheism and the House of Commons.”
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL
Author of “ The Martyrs of Progress" etc.
“ Get knowledge, get wisdom, with all thy getting,
get understanding.”
TWO
PENCE.
LONDON :
WATTS
&
Co.,
84,
FLEET STREET.
�WHAT IS A FREETHINKER?
HE Saxon word Free means not in a state of vassalage,
not under restraint, not ruled or obstructed by arbitrary
or despotic power. When we speak of a Free people
we do not mean a wild, reckless gang of robbers, but people
subject to fixed laws only, living under government—but one
made by the consent of the governed. A Freethinker is one
vho thinks without the restraint of any church, priest, or
king, but under the conditions common to all thinking
beings, the laws of their own nature, and those of the great
universe of which they form a part.
A very good lexicon (Imperial) defines Freethinker—
a Deist, an Unbeliever ; one who discards revelation, and
caHs it “a softer name.”
Secularism has been erroneously called a disguise or a
cover for the harsh sounding names Atheist and Infidel, while
the fact is Secularism expresses the policy of a life based on
purely human considerations, altogether independent of
Atheism and theology of all kinds.
No doubt new names tone down public feeling, cool
infla.-med bigotry, and give reason and common sense a chance
of being heard. But in both these eases here referred to it is
not only a change of names, but also of the things signified,
which are not represented by the old names. Secularism
implies progress towards right and light, and is not a
negation. Forty years ago it was a very common saying—
T
�3
“ Give a dog a bad name and you may as well hang him.”
At that time, and for hundreds of years before, to be even
suspected of being a Freethinker was not free from peril.
Names require new definitions, because with an increase of
knowledge come new distinctions. I remember the social
inconvenience of being called “ a Methodist,” and an
Unitarian was considered a kind of wild animal, whose habits
and peculiarities were not generally known—and hence to be
avoided by all prudent people. At that time Christians never
met on what they call “ common ground.” In fact the
“ common ground ” itself was undiscovered. It is not impos
sible that by the end of the present century persons of every
creed and of no theological creed at all, may meet as men for
the promotion of all political and social measures for the
common good. It will then be seen that the evil is not the
inclusion, of all, but the exclusion of any, who can render
service to society. To ask a man’s theological opinions will
then be thought an unpardonable impertinence, showing
ignorance or a want of good manners. The public are not
very particular in the use of words. Hence Voltaire and
Paine are absurdly called Atheists—a term these two great
Freethinkers would have repudiated with as much justice as
the Bishop of London or Mr. Sturgeon might, if the term
Were applied to them. Those two great defenders of Freethought were devout believers in God and a future state.
The same remarks apply to Hume and Gibbon. The term
“Atheist” is probably the most popular, the most successful,
and certainly the most ancient, of all the names by which
people have been held up to the scorn, hatred, or contempt of
mankind. More than 2,000 years ago one of the best men
alive was called an Atheist: Socrates was distinctly charged
with Atheism. The Christians who are so fond of the epithet
were themselves denounced as Atheists in their early days.
�4
Afterwards Christians denounced each other as Atheists, as
Athanasius did Arius, as the Catholics did Erasmus. In a
work by Marechai entitled, “A Dictionary of Atheists,” it is
shown, as the late George Dawson once said to me, that every
great man from Jesus Christ downwards has been called
Atheist. Persons who first disbelieved in witchcraft were
called Infidels and Atheists by eminent writers of the period.
Even telescopes were denounced as atheistical inventions,
because they extended human vision beyond the limits fixed
by God in the natural eye. The folly or at least the absurdity
indulged in by Christians is singularly displayed in their
calling Deists infidels and atheists, while they show their
affection for Theists as being men and brothers. Deist and
Theist mean the same, the only distinction is that one comes
to us from the Latin and the other from the Greek. They
both believe in God, although they differ about his active
interference in writing books, working miracles, and some
other matters. It has often struck me as peculiar that the
many millions of people in the East who do not believe in a
Supreme Being’ have escaped the wrath of the Christian
missionaries. Perhaps being so numerous, and all alike, the
application of the opprobrious epithet Atheist would prove a
failure. If Atheists were as plentiful as blackberries in
England they would probably be deemed as harmless. The
majority of Freethinkers have been believers in God and a
future state. A Deist, Pantheist, Theist, or an Atheist may
be a Freethinker ; but a Freethinker may not be either.
A milestone may be made of wood or iron or partly of
both—the term indicates now a definite idea apart from its
material. A lunatic now need not necessarily be affected by
the moon, and many persons are now melancholy who are not
always sufferers from black bile. An absurd answer was
such an answer as a deaf person would make, but now many
�5
persons who are not ¿leaf make absurd answers. "We now
say a steamer sails on a certain day, but it may not have a sail
on board.
The word person is said to have originated from a mask
worn by actors. Their personation of great characters led to
others, distinguished by certain forms or peculiarities of
character, being called personators or persons. The word
became associated with events and persons of the highest
importance and the greatest dignity in human affairs—hence
the word person was applied to men, and angels, and even
God himself was called a person. The word Religion, in
early times, meant the obligation of a man to do his duty to
and by the State—now it may mean a sort of theological
pantomime, or it may mean an intelligible creed deduced fiom
the Old and New Testaments.
The chief distinction between a ¿Freethinker and other
thinkers on matters theological is that his own reason is his
authority in determining the value of all evidence submitted
to it. The Bible, the Church, the Pope, and all the articles
of faith, by whomsoever promulgated, are to the Freethinker
only human author ¡ties, to be tested like all other authorities,
and to be accepted or rejected on exactly the same grounds.
If a person believes that the Bible or any other book is infal
lible—inspired by an all-wise supernatural agency, and
entirely exempt from error, he is bound to accept, without
question, whatever the book says, and therefore cannot be in
any rational sense a Freethinker. Of course a Freethinker
may believe that God inspires all great writers and speakers ;
but he holds the right to decide for himself which of the
writers or speakers are inspired, and to what extent they
claim his allegiance. His intellect, by which he judges, is at
least as divine as the intellect which produces the poem or
any work of art. He never expects other Freethinkers to
�6
take the same view as himself, however much he may desire it,
or try to persuade others. All conclusions arrived at after
diligent and honest enquiry are equally justifiable, equally
innocent, although they may, in his opinion, differ vastly in
importance. The concZ-wsw»« of Freethinkers may he, and
doubtless are variable ; but their method of following reason,
guided by knowledge and experience, unawed by all authority
but truth, is clearly distinctive to all who care to understand
in what respect it differs from the method of all other
thinkers. A Freethinker is not, as is commonly asserted, a
person who repudiates all great authorities, and treats lightly
the great faiths of the world. He is the one person, above
all others, who takes the trouble to read and examine them.
It is the believer, and not the unbeliever, who takes things on
trust and assents in most cases without examination. It is a
clear indication of industry, intelligence, and patient research
if a person obtains the reputation of being* a Freethinker.
You will seldom find ignorant Freethinkers, or any who lack
moral courage. A Freethinker is always an earnest thinker—
one who cares to know the truth, and is prepared to suffer the
consequences of the most searching enquiry into the claims of
what others may superstitiously regard as too sacred for
human investigation. It is not a question of dates or great
names or reputed divinity, or heavenly origin, with the Free
thinker, as is the question with other thinkers in arriving at a
conclusion on any subject. It is not what is fashionable or
generally believed that influences this mind. It is not the
opinion of the majority which determines his belief in any
matter. The opinion of a Freethinker on any subject may be
the same as that of the majority—it may be the same as all
great authorities in the Church or out of it. Some people
erroneously imagine that a person who is a Freefbin'k-er
delights in not agreeing with anybody, and some stupidly
�1
assert that it is his desire to appear odd, to be something
unlike anybody else, which induces him to adopt an un
fashionable creed. Let those who sincerely think so come
out from their Church, and see how the world will treat them,
and let us hear the result of the experiment. From what is
called “ a worldly point of view ” a person would be more
likely to “ get on” in the smallest congregation of the most
obscure sect of religionists than by numbering himself among
the fraternity of Freethinkers. He will find neither loaves
nor fishes among the faithless few—it is more like taking the
vow of poverty than rolling in riches. When a person
becomes a Freethinker, the question what shall he get by or
lose by it in a worldly sense does not occur, but how shall he set
himself free from priestcraft and superstition regardless of
cost. To become a Freethinker requires that you should set
a higher price on freedom and truth than on all else in the
world besides. He will forsake all to follow these, believing
they will repay him a hundredfold. Those who know the
uses of money and the advantages of wealth will never dispise them, but he who has tasted freedom will never part
with it for silver or gold. We all prize comfort and joy and
th® pleasures of sense, but without freedom what becomes
of mind, the hope of the world or the worth of human
nature ?
“ ’Tis Liberty alone that gives the flower
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume,
And we are weeds without it.”
Intellectual freedom is a necessity of progress, one of the con
ditions of human happiness, the pioneer of civilisation. All
that obstructs it, the Freethinker would sweep away—all that
promotes it, he cherishes, as it is the heritage of our race,
and the great deliverer of humanity from priestcraft, king
craft, and all other superstitions which afflict mankind.
�8
A Freethinker is often called a Sceptic, which means one who
is on the look out—a considérer, one not led away bv every
story teller. He is sometimes called a doubter, and the inten
tion is to convey the idea that the terms Sceptic or Doubter
mean something wicked or derogatory. The fact is the world
owes much to Scepticism and doubting. It is the proper state
of mind in relation to many things in this world. In a state
of uncertainty, in the absence of evidence, where demonstra
tion or proof of any kind is wanting, Scepticism or doubt
must prevail in all healthy minds.
What is a Freethinker ? I should describe him as one
who observes, thinks, and judges for himself. He is one who
has freed himself from the bonds of credulity both illiterate
and priestly. His spirit breathes charity or good will to all.
His hopes, desires, and efforts are in the promotion of the
best interests of mankind. He looks on ignorance and poverty
as two of the greatest afflictions of mankind, towards the
removal of which he devotes his best endeavours. If lie has
a religion it is as free from intolerance as it is from supersti
tion. He stands pre-eminent among men in intelligence and
nobleness of mind. He has the sublime reflection that his
life has been spent in the service of humanity : the conscious
ness of this gives him pleasing thoughts in life and enables
him to die in peace.
�9
MR. R. W. DALE’S SERMON.
EING familiar with newspaper reports of Mr. Dale’s
special public utterances, I had formed the erroneous
/
notion that in his case the preacher was absorbed in
the politician. Any one labouring under a similar hallucina
tion will be speedily restored to their right mind by a perusal
of his sermon on “ Atheism and the House of Commons.”
His view would disqualify the Catholic, Jew, and Freethinker.
It is clear that if Mr. Dale were a Chinese he would join the
celestials in their denunciation of the consumption of Cow’s
milk as unnatural and immoral. The sermon in question was
preached in Carr’s Lane Chapel, Birmingham, June 27th.
Referring to what he calls “the remarkable discussions” in
the previous week, which, on the last page, become “these
disastrous discussions,” he says: “We have had it forced
upon our minds that there are men who can find no evidence
that God exists.” At the same time he says the existence of
God has been the subject of discussion “ for many years,”
“ in every part of England,” and among “ all ranks and con
ditions of people.” If this had been only a political question
(which it most assuredly is, simply and purely) Mr. Dale said
he “ should be satisfied with discussing the subject elsewhere.”
He says, “There is a certain heat of passion almost always
created by political discussions.” In days agone it used to be
theological discussions which caused “heat of passion;” it
�10
seems the “ heat ” has been transferred. The leaders of the
House of Commons did not take Mr. Datte’s view : they
attributed the "heat” to its true sources—theological con
fusion and religious intolerance. Whenever theological
incomprehensibilities and religious fanaticism get mixed up
with politics and common sense there is always a fermentation.
This discussion shows Mr. Hale to be entirely in the wrong ;
for it shows that just government is only possible on the
Secular Method—independent of both Theism and Atheism.
If the proceedings of the past few weeks do not make this
truth clear to Mr. Dale and his friends—neither would they
be convinced if one rose from the dead.
“ Many philosophers,” Mr. Dale says, “ have regarded
the existence of God as a metaphysical hypothesis intended
to account for the order of the universe ; ” and on page 3 he
speaks of this same " metaphysical hypothesis invented for
the explanation of the origin of the universe.” There is no
evidence in this sermon to show that he knows there is any
difference between these two statements. The Origin of the
world is one thing, the Order of the world is another thing_
the study of the lattei’ has g’iven us all our knowledge; the
study of the former has resulted in endless disputes of no
value, being what Lord Bacon calls "milking the barren
heifer.” Mr. Dale says God is "infinitely more than the
great First Cause.” These words imply a little first cause,
a second cause, and any number of causes. Then he applies
the words "eternal” and "infinite” to the same. If you
tell me you have an eternal chain, a chain without beginning
and without end, and then ask me what I think of the first
link, my answer is that I don’t think anything„about it, and
am equally sure that you don’t. Then, if you get angry,
I tell you to your face that you do not know what you are
�11
talking about. Il may be well for the sake of some readers
to put clearly before them what all this is about.
Given the Universe, as it exists, the question arises—
How came it ? To answer this question theories have been
proposed. Something is assumed for the purposes of argu
ment to explain what is not understood—and this is
called an hypothesis. There are three theories or supposi
tions before the world about the universe more or less
satisfactory to those who accept them. To put the whole
matter briefly there are three assertions before us about the
Universe:—
1. That it is Self-existent.
2. That it is Self-created.
3. That it was created by an External Agency.
Mr. Date appears to accept the last. In my judgment there
is no theory which explains the Origin of the Material of
which the Universe consists or of what we call Space, or in
any degree enables us to understand their production out of
Nothing.
Cardinal Newman thinks it a great question whether
No. 1 is not as good as No. 3, that is, whether Atheism is not
as consistent with phenomena as Theism.
Sir William Hamilton says, “ The only valid arguments ”
for the existence of God “rest on the ground of man’s
inoral nature,” which Mr. Dale doubtless regards as utterly
corrupt.
Mr. Dale appears to have selected the term “Atheism”
as a peg on which to hang his scathing denunciations of
persons who are not Atheists : a more confusing or mischievous
proceeding is scarcely conceivable. He says that “ Atheism is
of two kinds ” (which in the nature of things is utterly
impossible)—“ practical Atheism” and “ theoretical Atheism.”
He says in “ theoretical Atheism His existence is denied, and
�12
His authority is, therefore, disregarded.” It is not usual to
disregard the authority of a king who does not exist, as he
very seldom has any.
Then “ There is practical Atheism, in which all the active
powers of man refuse to acknowledge the supreme authority
of God, though the fact of His existence is admitted.”
Mr. Dale should use another phrase instead of 11 practical
Atheism ; ” and I suggest “ impractical Theism,” or “ incon
sistent believing in God.’-’ Atheists whether practical or
impractical would not profess to believe in God and act as
though none existed.
The most serious objection to
Mr. Dale is his mixing up Atheism with the denial of all
obligations to morality and virtue. It is the less pardonable in
Mr. Dale because he reports a conversation between a friend
of his and one who said, “ I do not believe in the existence of
God, but if I did, I do not see that my life in any one respect
would be different from what it is : ” and Mr. Dale says this
man’s character was “ honourable and exemplary.” After this,
what right has Mr. Dale to say of theoretical Atheism,
“this is miserable unbelief?” Surely the believer in God
whose conduct is a living lie, ought to be followed by “ this is
a miserable belief.”
The difference between a practical and speculative Atheist
is thus expressed: “In the soul of the practical Atheist the
the dead corpse of faith is still lying,” and “from the soul of
the speculative Atheist the corpse has been removed.” It will
take more than Mr. Dale’s logic and eloquence to persuade an
Atheist, who is also an honest man, to weep over the departed
“ dead corpse of faith.” People seldom miss what they do
not want.
Mr. Dale is shocked at the words used by an M.P.,
“having some God or another” would satisfy the House.
Now it so happens that “the hon. mem.” who used these
�13
words accidentally spoke the truth. It is a fact that any
God ” is sufficient for the taking of the oath. I do not accuse
the M.P. whose “ profanity” is glaring, or Mr. Dale himself,
with a knowledge of the accuracy of the statement he made.
Mr. Dale says, “The God of the Deist ought not to satisfy
you ; ” but he admits it will do for the House of Commons,
for he says the oath “ may be taken by a Deist.” This shows
that the God of the Theist and the God of the Deist are not
alike, but “ one or the other ” will do.
Strange as it may appear in such a discourse Mr. Dale
introduces the old eternal problem of good and evil, a Pagan
notion which found its way into the Old Testament, and
ultimately got fairly landed in Christian doctrine. Here are
Our friends Light and Darkness struggling as of old.
Mr. Dale says, “We think we see Him in a conflict with
evil,” at the same time confident that “ the ultimate victoij-
will be with God.”
The terrible things which happen in the physical and
moral world Mr. Dale says “ sometimes oppress the faith of,
those who are most loyal to Him.” But why should they ?
Christians believe in a God who said, “ I form the light and
create darkness : I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do
all these things.”
It is the assumption that the Lord does not “ do all these
things” which makes all the difficulty. Surely Christians
remember that on one occasion God destroyed “ every living
substance ” on the earth. The destruction of the whole world
was at once so tragical and complete that “ Noah only re
mained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” On
another occasion He rained fire and brimstone out of heaven,
destroying the cities, inhabitants, and even that which grew
upon the ground.
�14
How can Christians forget that He sent His only begotten
son into the world to suffer death, exclaiming in agony_
“ My God ! My God! why hast thou forsaken me ? ” In the
face of these recorded facts why resort, as Mr. Dale does, to
some revolt having its origin in unknown worlds and under
unknown conditions.” This alternative is utterly uncalled for
and purely imaginary. Incredible as it may sound Mr. Dale
actually says, “ These disorders and evils appear to us to be
the signs of some appalling disturbance of the divine order”
It seems beyond belief that any intelligent man could write
such a statement; for "who can believe it possible to upset
any arrangements made by Almighty power. Alphonso X.
of Castille said if he had been consulted at the creation he
could have suggested a better and simpler plan.
Mr. Dale, in this passage, reminds one of the old Greeks,
to whom the sky was a concave sphere or dome, with the stars
fixed in it, all revolving on a point. It was atheistic to
speak of any but "circular motions;” it would have upset
the divine order of things,” and, in all probability, stopped
the “ music of the spheres.”
Mr. Dale seems to overlook that all things visible and
invisible are the work of God, and known to God from the
beginning of the world. As there is, according to Mr. Dale,
only one source of power in existence, it follows that
whatever happens is according to the will of God, in spite of
the will of God, or without the will of God interfering. In
either case the attributes Mr. Dale applies to Him fade away.
Mr. Dale says God “ satisfies the wants of every livi n g th i n g. ”
Surely that did not apply to those who perished in the flood,
or by famine in India recently, or a third of the population
of France in the 14th century who died of starvation, or to
our own people who daily die of hunger ? Mr. Dale says,
“We live and move and have our being in God.” This
�15
means the Universe and God are one, and not two separate
existences. Is it possible that such a sentence by a Greek
poet, introduced to the Word of God by Paul, and quoted by
Mr. Dale, can express his view ? He refers to the Design
argument approvingly. This argument implies just the oppo
site. It means that we are external to God, the work of His
hand—we are the clay and God the potter. Then again,
Mr. Dale says, “ There is no place which is not consecrated to
the manifestation of His power.”
If we tell Mr. Dale what God has done in the past,
according to His own account in His own inspired word—
if we tell him the plague carried away 5,000 a day, and
sweating sickness killed half the people of England—he says,
“ You may remind me of the disorder and confusion of the
universe.” But of what use to “remind” one who admits
the just and unjust, guilty and innocent, alike suffer and
perish in the presence of God himself? Mr. Dale goes on
with his parable all the same, although virtue and vice are
both disregarded by the author of our common calamities.
He is no respecter of persons ; he smites all alike.
Mr. Date, says, “1 agree with those who regard Atheism
as destructive of the strongest guarantees and defences of
human virtue.” What are the strongest guarantees and
defences of human virtue ? The answer Mr. Dale makes is
faith in a God of perfect righteousness. I “ remind ”
Mr. Dale that this did not furnish guarantees and defences of
virtue, or even human life, or of any living thing, in the cases
here referred to. And if “ the slippery ledge of Theism,” to
use Mr. Gladstone’s expression, does not furnish these
guarantees and defences, how can Atheism be “ destructive ”
of them ? Mr. Dale admits the whole case, but takes refuge
m “ portentous mysteries ” in the face of “tremendous diffi
culties.” Millions upon millions of our fellow creatures have
�16
no Supreme Being- in their religion; yet it stirred men’s
hearts 500 years before Jesus, second to none in antiquity,
it spreads its sway over a fifth of the human race. But they
have no House of Commons containing members who, according
to Mr. Dale “ gamble and get drunk and lead a profligate
life,” and still say—“ So help me God ' ” India has no repre
sentation in the House that rests on 11 the slippery ledge of
Theism,” and therefore no guarantees or defences of political
virtue.
“ Faith in a God of righteousness ” has not afforded
Englishmen “guarantees” of wise and just laws or
“ defences ” against tyranny and robbery. Men may have
“ faith in God” and honestly believe that all men should be
contented, especially if their own situation is a good one.
But suppose a change of places !
“ Faith in God ” lighted the fires of Smithfield, supported
the Inquisition in Spain, made torrents of blood flow in
Europe. “ Faith in God ” and the Bible made the Slave and
closed the door against his Liberator. The Liberators were
embraced by those who had Faith in Humanity, and were
tar’d-and-feathered by those who had faith in God. There is
no tyranny, no persecution, no war, no revolution which men
who have “ Faith in God ” will not frantically support and
promote—if they only have enough of it. Liberty and peace
are only possible in countries where men who have “ Faith in
God ” can be kept in check—be restrained by the sceptical
and indifferent. Not many years ago in this very town, next
door to Mr. Dale’s chapel, Catholics and Protestants would
have torn each other to pieces but for the Secular Powers.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What is a freethinker? with a special reference to Mr. R. W. Dale, M.A., on "Atheism and the House of Commons"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK is 1860-1880. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
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
N125
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 (What is a freethinker? with a special reference to Mr. R. W. Dale, M.A., on "Atheism and the House of Commons"), 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
Free Thought
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/223199cc0276ee7307a4a58f08a3963f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IWZWhthfeDP3M%7Eb7b-b7hm3pnFhwMk9SdiTfn4RF9oFXRrKqv-wJS3R4pF2XTyMYltgxGRvFeJBCeOSCkjV-PqC2TnNbyh8-zA3i6FD5qwU52hTQDj-N-ttPqBPvHFVLcnVUVYM61cLfoAT6V9ZVea4K1uHA9V1W3YOFfFMjHUI8NsQgM4ncUD4W4CoEK3PVXXFta%7EJcH5cW%7Ec6Q9iCUJJeeSDjUzftYaBMEvyYZQigFVFTeJC4%7EScR9tsZHziwQ4qECRfiVrfUYFQFAFat7VgmJDmO60%7Empf9qbDDlB%7E2urtcFRmotVpHmnuU8NcsscfTzViEBSmiMwKZOvIkFMcg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c2f1e27156fcdac30e888ef1d73ca9c6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONÀf SECULAR society
UlU
flf
BEING HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF
THE PERILS & PERSECUTIONS
OF
DISCOVERERS AND TEACHERS OF ALL AGES
AND NATIONS.
BY
CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL.
Compiler of “ A String of Pearls."
“ Freedom has been hunted through the world, and is ever open to
insult and injury. It is crushed by conquest, frowned from courts,
expelled from colleges, scorned out of society, flogged in schools, and
anathematised in churches. Mind is her last asylum ; and, if freedom
quail there, what becomes of the hope of the world or the worth of
human nature?”—W. J. Fox.
LONDON :
CHARLES
WATTS,
84,
FLEET
1878.
STREET,
E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
The Conservative element in human nature no doubt has
it uses, if we could but patiently distil them out. There
has always been sufficient of this element to raise obstacles
to progress. Opposition to new truths has always been the
custom in every country. Whenever one man throws new
light on any subject, a hundred others do their best to ex
tinguish it. The discoverer or teacher of new things has
always been treated as the enemy of the old. The perils
and persecutions endured by men whose ideas were in
advance of their time constitute a page in the history of
the world discreditable to our common humanity. It would
appear to indicate a sign of insanity in any man if he
attempted to extinguish the sun—but hundreds of men
have united to strangle the truth in its infancy—which is,
indeed, the light of the world. An old writer once described
the world as a madhouse, and the allegation seems deserved
when we read of the treatment received by the teachers
and discoverers of past ages. The persecution practised
in past times was not confined to any particular sect or class
of men. Opposition to any new discovery or new doctrine
is legitimate and useful; but the prison, the faggot, and
other engines of torture, cruelty, and death have been the
means employed to prevent the spread of principles anta
gonistic to those prevailing at the time. The memory of
those who perished in their struggle against ignorance,
bigotry, and intolerance should be cherished by all who
inherit the blessings of the new truths and extended liberty
bequeathed them. To show how slowly the world learns
the principle of freedom, so necessary to the happiness and
progress of mankind, we may mention the historical fact,
pointed out by Buckle, that it was not till the end of the
16th century that a man could write anything antagonistic
to his contemporaries without placing himself in bodily peril.
Civil and religious freedom has been won at great cost; and
to value the priceless treasure, and extend its operation
over the wide world, is the privilege and the duty of the
�iii.
present generation. The friends of freedom are no longer
hunted through the world like wild beasts, or put to death
as the enemies of mankind ; but the policy of wise men is
to increase their number, so as to prevent the possibility of
any scientific discovery, or any political or social improve
ment being rejected as blasphemous, treasonable, or absurd.
Even in England these epithets have been employed in the
hearing of men now living. There is still opportunity for
all who can speak, write, or work to establish on a sure
foundation the principles of justice and freedom among
mankind. The story of the perils and persecutions of dis
coverers and teachers extends through scores of generations
for two thousand years. It begins with the dawn of know
ledge, and extends through the life of man, losing its fierce
ness only in the present generation. Let us hope that the
spi
persecution will expire with this age, and that the
future character of humanity will not be defiled and dis
graced by the accursed thing. It is strange that persecu
tion, which nearly always fails to arrest the progress of any
doctrine, or to exterminate opposition, should have been
persisted in by persons of irreproachable character. Many
persons to-day maintain that they should never have
thought of persecuting those from whom they differed.
But, as the late John Stuart Mill points out, they forget
that some of the persecutors were as good as them
selves. It is somewhat remarkable that the emperors and
others who took the most prominent part in the persecutions
of past times were men of high moral character, and re
markable for their sincerity. This was so in Rome and in
Spain. Still the folly and wickedness of persecution remain
—the crime against humanity is none the less—the cruelty
is not lessened by the assertion that the perpetrators be
lieved they were doing the will of God. It is as absurd to
oppose opinions by force as to attempt to storm a castle by
logic. The wildest superstitions have flourished in some
cases because of the persecution of their adherents. The
elder Disraeli refers to a few of the victims of their bigoted,
fanatical, or ignorant contemporaries in the following graphic
sentences, which will explain to the reader the object and
nature of this work :—
“ Before the times of Galileo and of Harvey, the world be
lieved in the diurnal immovability of the earth and the stagna
tion of the blood ; and for denying these the one was persecuted
and the other ridiculed. The intelligence and virtue of Socrates
�IV.
were punished with death. Anaxagoras, when he attempted to
propagate a just notion of a Supreme Being, was dragged to
prison. Aristotle, after a long series of persecutions, swallowed
poison. The great geometricians and chemists, as Gerbert,
Roger Bacon, and others, were abhorred as magicians. Virgilius, Bishop of Salzburg, having asserted that there existed
antipodes, the Archbishop of Mentz declared him a heretic, and
consigned him to the flames ; and the Abbot Trithemius, who
was.fond of improving stenography, or the art of secret writing,
having published some curious works on that subject, they were
condemned as works full of diabolical mysteries. Galileo was
condemned, at Rome, publicly to disavow his sentiments re
garding the motion of the earth, the truth of which must have
been abundantly manifest. He was imprisoned by the Inquisi
tion, and visited by Milton, who tells us he was then poor and
old. Cornelius Agrippa, a native of Cologne, and distinguished
by turns as a soldier, philosopher, physician, chemist, lawyer
and writer, was believed to be a magician, and to be accom
panied by a familiar spirit, in the shape of a black dog ; and he
was so violently persecuted that he was obliged to fly from place
to place. The people beheld him as an object of horror, and
not unfrequently, when he walked, he found the streets empty
at his approach. This ingenious man died in an hospital.
When Urban Grandier, another victim of the age, was led to
the stake, a large fly settled on his head. A monk, who had
heard that Beelzebub signifies in the Hebrew the God of Flies,
reported that he saw this spirit come to take possession of him’.
Even the learned themselves, who had not applied to natural
philosophy, seem to have acted with the same feelings as the
most ignorant; for when Albertus Magnus—an eminent philo
sopher of the thirteenth century—constructed an automaton, or
curious piece of mechanism, which sent forth distinct vocal
sounds, Thomas Aquinas, a celebrated theologian, imagined it
to be the work of the Devil, and struck it with his staff, which,
to the mortification of the great Albert, annihilated the labour
of thirty years. Descartes was horribly persecuted in Holland
when he first published his opinions. Voetius, a person of in
fluence, accused him of Atheism, and had even projected in his
mind to have this philosopher burnt at Utrecht, in an extra
ordinary fire, which, kindled on an eminence, might be observed
by the seven provinces. This persecution of science and genius
lasted till the close of the seventeenth century.”
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
PART
I.
AEsopus.
^Esopus (commonly called AEsop) was born in the sixth
century b.c., where it is unknown, but it is supposed a
Phrygia, in Asia, and perished at Delphi about 560 b.c.
He is generally considered the father of fable writing,
although it appears to have been in existence before, and
the authenticity of some of those published in his name is
doubtful. He passed the greater and first part of his life
in slavery. While a slave in Athens, he acquired some
knowledge of Greek and of moral philosophy. He after
wards became the slave of Iadmon, of Samos, who gave
AEsop his liberty. Croesus, King of Lydia, hearing of
AEsop’s wisdom, invited him to his court, where he lived
several years.
AEsop was sent to Delphi by the king, to present a large
sum of gold as a sacrifice to Apollo, and also to distribute
a sum of silver to each citizen. Finding the citizens ignorant
and lazy, he reproached them, and sent the silver back to
the king, describing the Delphians as unworthy of liberality
This so enraged the Delphians that they brought a false
accusation of sacrilege against AEsop, and hurled him from
the top of the rock Hyamphia, and thus he perished.
When they were going to throw him off the rock, he
related to them the fable of “ The Eagle and the Beetle,”
with the view of showing that divine justice would not let
their act go unpunished. Soon after this event the land
became barren, and pestilence followed, and their oracle
informed them that their misery was caused by the unjust
death of AEsop. His death was much regretted by the
Athenians, who erected a statue to his memory.
The object of fable is to convey some useful truth in
an allegorical form. It is supposed that ?Esop chose the
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
fable form of writing because of his position in life, it
being an inoffensive method of conveying unpleasant truths,
and had more weight than his own person could give.
On passing through Athens, and finding the people dis
satisfied with the usurpation of Pisistratus, he related his
fable of “The Frogs Petitioning Jupiter for a King/’ “The
Fox and the Swallow ” he related to the Samians when they
accused their ministers of plundering the commonwealth,
intending to caution them against appointing a new set
more poor and greedy than those in office.
Solon.
Solon was born at Salamis 637 b.c., and died at Cyprus
in his eightieth year.
His father was a descendant of Codrus, the last. King of
Athens, and his high birth and extensive acquirements
enabled him to obtain the highest office of the State. He
distinguished himself as orator, soldier, poet, and. legislator.
His writings, orations, and acts were intended to inspire the
Athenians with a love of justice and liberty. So far as we
can judge, his own exclamation truthfully describes himself
when he says : “ Oh, my beloved country ! I have served
thee both in word and deed to the utmost of my power.
I have neglected nothing to maintain thy liberty and laws,
but I now stand alone in opposition to the tyrant, therefore
I depart, I leave thee for ever.”
Pisistratus, by flattering the Athenians, made them think
himself more attached to their interest than Solon was.
Solon told them the truth, whether agreeable or otherwise.
He offered to prevent Pisistratus usurping the Government,
but he was treated as a madman.
Previous to this event, the Athenians had offered Solon
¿he supreme power, andeven his most intimate friend blamed
him for not accepting it. But he steadfastly refused to accept
the title of Tyrant—he held it better that his countrymen
should be governed by a certain number of magistrates
than by one absolute ruler. In his letter to Pisistratus he
says : “ I am willing to acknowledge you the best among
tyrants; but I cannot think of returning to Athens after
having’established a free government and refused the
sovereignty.”
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
3
After this he travelled to Sardis, where many of the
most popular Greeks went to reside. Croesus, King of
Lydia, having heard of Solon’s wisdom, invited him to
his court; but Solon replied that he had resolved to live
only in a free State, and that life was to be enjoyed in
tranquillity only where all were on equal footing. He, how
ever, visited Croesus, and astonished the king by his
remarks.
Solon held the opinion that, whenever princes were ap
proached, it ought to be with good council on the lips,
nor ought they to hear anything but the truth. Solon was
fond of social entertainments, but even in these he would
have nothing but the truth spoken. When Thespis had
finished acting one of his own compositions, Solon asked him
if he was not ashamed of telling so many falsities to the
world. Thespis replied : “Not at all; I mean only to
amuse by them, not to injure.” Solon answered, striking
the floor forcibly with his stick: “But if you admit false
hood into your entertainment, and treat it as a jest, we
shall soon find it creeping into public business and our most
serious actions.”
The lover of justice and liberty cannot read the history
of Athens without a feeling of sorrow that Solon, the great,
good, brave, and wise, should have been compelled to exile
himself from it by the folly and ingratitude of his fellow
citizens. Like a noble Roman farmer and a brave English
farmer, Solon refused to become the permanent and un
limited monarch, and for his obstinacy his friends were
inclined to think him a fool or a madman.
Solon was the author of the excellent maxim—“ Observe
moderation in all things.-” He seemed disposed to a system
of equality, by which the poor understood that all were to
be on equal footing, and the rich that it meant distribution
according to the birth and dignity of individuals. Solon
abrogated all the laws of his cruel predecessor, Draco,
under whose government all offences were punished with
death, and hence arose the saying that “ his laws were
written in blood.”
Solon divided the people into three classes, according to
their property at the time, giving all, except artisans, a part
in the management of affairs. The principal magistrate
was to be always elected from the first-class of citizens.
He who remained neutral in tumult was to be considered
infamous.
�4
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
He prohibited speaking ill of the dead. He who dis
sipated his fortune was deprived of all privileges, as were
those who refused to support their parents, Foreigners he
admitted who sought some profession, as also those who
were banished from their own country. The children of
those who fell in defending their country were kept at the
public cost. Theft and adultery he punished with death,
and he who caused the loss of another’s eye was to lose
both his own.
All his laws were engraved on tablets. The council
bound themselves to keep them, and make others do like
wise, and the first who failed was to present to the temple
of Apollo a statue of gold the weight of himself?
Solon maintained that we have no better guide of conduct
than reason, and that we ought to neither say nor do any
thing without consulting it; that a man’s probity is more
to be regarded than his oath; that friendships ought to
be carefully formed, and could not be broken off without
danger; that the safest and quickest way of repelling in
jury was to forget it; that no man ought to command
until he had learnt to obey : that falsehood ought to be *
abhorred, parents reverenced, and no intercourse held with
the wicked.
Pythagoras.
Pythagoras was born about 586 b.c., and died about
506 B.C.
He was a native of Samos, and is said to have derived
his name from the fact that his oracles were as true as those
of the Pythian Apollo. In his youth he is stated to have
made three silver cups, which he presented to the priests of
Egypt, from whom, after much difficulty, he obtained many
years’ instruction. He afterwards returned to his native
place to establish a school. This not proving successful,
he visited Delos, offered cakes to Apollo, and received
certain moral doctrines, which he afterwards delivered as
divine precepts at Samos. This he did with an air of
sacred authority. He was a man of dignified appearance,
and preserved his countenance from emotion of grief, joy,
and anger. He wore a long robe, and, by his abstemious
habits, &c., he made himself appear superior to humanity,
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
5
and his doctrines as the oracles of heaven, from which
place he pretended to receive them. He had also a secret
cave, in which he lived a whole year; and when he emerged
from it, looking pale, meagre, and frightful, he informed the
people he had visited the infernal regions. While on . this
visit he is said to have observed the soul of Hesiod chained
to a column, grievously tormented; and the soul of Homer
was suspended from a tree, surrounded by serpents, for the
falsehoods he had told and attributed to' the gods. He
also observed that the souls of husbands who had treated
their wives with harshness and severity were horribly tor
mented.
During his seclusion in the cave his mother reported to
him all that had occurred on the earth, the . relation of
which by himself caused the people to consider him a
■divinity. He also gained credit with the .populace by
working what were esteemed wonderful miracles.
After pursuing his plan of instruction at Samos with con
siderable success, he incurred the displeasure of Polycrates.
Being unable to bear the oppression of Polycrates, he exiled
himself from his country, travelled into Italy, and founded
a school at Crotona. While in this city he taught with
great success. Many persons visited him from various
■countries. He is said to have had from six hundred to two
thousand disciples, who submitted to the strict discipline
and abstinence he prescribed. They held, in common
with their master, that among friends all aré equal, and all
things ought to be common. They accordingly established
a small republic, or fraternity, in which about six hundred
lived, together with their wives and families. Their time
was divided, and appropriated to education, amusement,
and civil and domestic affairs, under admirable regulations.
Before any one could enter their “ common auditory ” he
had to be examined by Pythagoras., and to pass through a
severe course of abstinence, exercise, and silence. Those
who distinguished themselves in this fraternity were sent
out as missionaries. He recommended his disciples a whole
some practice of interrogation, proposing to themselves
■such questions as—Where have you been ? In what have
you been employed ? What have you done well or ill ?
He is noticed as the first who refused the title of sage.
His words had an importance equal to the oracles of
Delphos, and he is said to have framed laws for various
•countries.
�6
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
It is generally believed that no written laws or doctrines
exist of his own except those attributed to his disciples.
What are known as “ The Golden Verses ” are considered
a summary of his doctrines. He taught music, and the
invention of the monechard is attributed to him. He
imagined that the planets produced sound by striking the
ether through which they passed in the celestial spheres;
and, as they were all adjusted with perfect regularity, they
necessarily produced harmonious sounds by their revolu
tions. It was he who first discovered the morning and
evening star to be the same. He seems to have possessed
some general notions of astronomy. He describes the
revolutions of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Mercury, and
Venus. The earth he considered a globe, admitting of
antipodes inhabited by persons whose feet were opposite to
ours. The moon and other planets he believed to be
habitable. He seems, however, to have considered the
sun, moon, and stars as gods, because pervaded by a subtle
ether.
He taught that the winds were caused by the rarification
of the air; the thunder was occasioned by the collision of
the clouds ; earthquakes by air pent up in caverns; and
that the overflowing of the Nile was caused by the melting
of the snow of Ethiopia, which formed torrents that dis
charged themselves in the sources of the Nile. The origin
of animals he attributed to heat and moisture. He held
that the rainbow was caused by the reflection of the solar
rays from a cloud opposite the sun; the moon to be an
opaque body, habitable, and with mountains, rivers, and
valleys like the earth ; and the sun to be a body of red-hot
iron. The last declaration called down the anathemas of
the priests, who considered it nothing less than Atheism.
Indeed, he believed the universe to be animated and in
telligent, and that from its soul or principle of life emanated
the souls of men and all other animals ; that the elements
were subject to succession of changes, but that nothing in
the universe could be totally lost. He was fond of mathe
matics and goemetry. He first demonstrated that the
interior angles of every triangle are together equal to two
right angles ; that in sectangular triangles the square of the
side which subtends the right angle is equal to the two.
squares of the sides which contain the right angle. It is
said he was so transported by the discovery of the latter
theorem that he sacrificed a hundred oxen to the gods, to>
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
whom he believed himself indebted for the discovery. Arch
bishop Fenelon says that (Pythagoras being a strict vege
tarian), if we credit this story, we must assume the oxen to
have been made of flour and honey. Pythagoras only
offered loaves, cakes, etc., believing that the gods turned
away in horror from bleeding victims, and to make offeiings
of such was the surest way to draw down the indignation
of the gods. He forbade oaths and appeals to the gods,
holding that a man’s integrity ought to be. such that his
bare assertion would be received without hesitation.
According to Aristotle, moral philosophy, or precepts for
the guidance of human conduct, were first taught by Pytha
goras. He divides virtue into public and private-private
virtue implies education, fortitude, sobriety, prudence,
silence, abstinence from animal food. . When the passions
are kept in subjection by reason, there is virtue.
Children should be tamed to subjection, so that they
may be able to submit to reason; let them be conducted in
the best course, and habit will make it most pleasant. Do
whatever you judge to be right, irrespective of what the
vulgar may think; if you despise their praise, despise their
blame. That which is good is to be preferred before that
which is agreeable. Sobriety is the strength of the soul;
drunkenness is temporary frenzy. Animal pleasures are
only to be enjoyed in accordance with nature. Wisdom
and virtue are our best defence. It is better for men to
respect you than to fear you, for the former produces admi
ration, and the latter hatred. The proof of good education
is being able to endure the want of it in others. To avoid
contention between friends, shun all possible occasions of
strife, suppress resentment, and exercise mutual forbearance.
Friendship is never to be interrupted ; a friend ought never
to be forsaken in adversity, nor for infirmity of nature;
and, if depraved, we should endeavour by acts and words
to reclaim him. True friendship is an immortal union.
Pythagoras divided man’s life into four parts. Man is a
child till 20, a youth till 40, a man at 60, and an old man
at 80. After this, he is no longer to be reckoned among
the living.
Pythagoras compared life to a fair, where some go for
one reason, and some for another. So in life some are the
slaves of ambition, some of glory, and others are contented
with the investigation of truth.
He taught that, next to gods and demons, the highest
�8
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
reverence is due to heroes, legislators, and parents. God
is the universal mind, giving life, motion, and intelligence,
diffused through all things.
Man is a microcosm j his soul is the self-moving prin
ciple j the rational portion is seated in the brain, and the
sensitive in the heart. The sensitive perishes, but the
rational, being a part of the supreme and incorruptible, is
also immortal, The rational soul, being released from the
body, assumes the ethereal form, passes into the dead
regions, and afterwards returns to become the inhabitant of
sorne^ body—human or otherwise. When sufficiently puri
fied it enters the regions of the gods, and becomes asso
ciated with . the eternal source from which it originally
proceeded.
Pythagoras gave special discourses to the public, to
different classes—as husbands, wives, parents, children, etc.
Had he confined himself to teaching philosophy in the
ordinary way, he would not have been interfered with; but
when he urged the people to obtain their rights from
their tyrannical governors, a powerful opposition was raised
against him, his establishment was set on fire, and many of
his disciples perished in the flames. Others were compelled
to fly for their lives; and Pythagoras himself, being sur
rounded everywhere by enemies, took refuge in the temple
of the Muses, where, it is said, he died of hunger.
His disciples afterwards erected a statue to his memory,
converted his house into a temple, and appealed to him as
a divinity.
Ovid thus describes the doctrines of Pythagoras :—
“ What, then, is death but ancient matter, drest
In some new figure, and a varied vest ?
Thus all things are but altered, nothing dies ;
And here and there th’ unbodied spirit flies,
By time, or force, or sickness dispossess’d,
And lodges where it lights, in man or beast,
Or hunts -without, till ready limbs it find,
And actuates those according to their kind ;
From tenement to tenement is tost,
The soul is still the same, the figure only lost;
And as the softened wax new seals receives,
This face assumes, and that impression leaves ;
Now called by one, now by another, name,
The form is only changed, the wax is still the same.
So death, thus call’d, can but the form deface,
Th’ immortal soul flies out in empty space,
To seek her fortune in some other place.”
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
9
Aristides.
Aristides was born in Alopece, flourished in the fifth
century b.c., and died at Pontus 467 b.c.
According to Plutarch, Aristides was the son of Lysimachus, of the tribe of Antiochis. In his youth he is
described as having been' steady, inflexibly just, incapable
of using falsehood, flattery, or deceit, even at play. He
served his country as a duty, without expecting reward or
profit. The people considered that the following words
of JEschylus accurately described Aristides :— t
“To be, and not to seem, is this man’s maxim ;
His mind reposes on its proper wisdom—
He wants no other praise.”
He executed justice impartially, as a judge ought to—not
only to his friends, but to his enemies also. Plato believed
that Aristides was the only man among the illustrious of
Athens who was worthy of real esteem. Aristides evinced
on several occasions extreme magnanimity of character
when placed in a position where he might have punished
those who had injured him; but he never indulged in
revenge. He neither envied the prosperity of his enemies
nor rejoiced at their misfortunes. With regard to himself
and his country, he would only that justice be done, and
for that he lived and fought. The Athenians were attached
to him on this account, and gave him the divine title of the
Just, which, says Plutarch, kings and tyrants were never
fond of. Their ambition invariably moves in another
direction ; they esteem it the greatest honour to be named
takers of cities, “ thunderbolts or conquerors,” always pre
ferring the fame of power to that of virtue. “ They foolishly
neglect virtue, the only divine quality in their power; not
considering that it is justice alone which makes the life of
those flourish most in prosperity and high stations, heavenly
and divine; while injustice rendersit grovelling and brutal.”
When invested with great authority Aristides did not
abuse it. While others filled Athens with magnificent
buildings, wealth, and luxuries of life, his object was to
increase its virtues. An answer given by the direction of
Aristides to the Lacedaemonians shows this. The Athe
nians said that “ they could easily forgive their enemies for
thinking that everything was to be purchased with silver
and gold, because they had no idea of anything more
�IO
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
excellent.” Aristides bade the Spartan ambassadors tell
them that “ the people of Athens would not take all the
gold, either above or under ground, for the liberties of
Greece.”
Greatly was Aristides loved and honoured for his gran
deur of character. Through his exposure of the conduct
of some men of his time he was condemned; but by the
exertion of some virtuous citizens he was again elected
chief treasurer.
In the year 483 b.c. he was banished by the method
called “ ostracism.” It would have been difficult to find a
man less deserving of such treatment, for he is described
by Herodotus as the “justest and best man in Athens.”
In revising the constitution, he advised that men should be
elected to office without regard to birth or wealth. Plutarch
says that when this noble man died his tomb had to be
erected by the State, as he did not leave sufficient in his
house to pay for his burial. After his death it is said that
the Athenians voted land and money to his son and
daughter as a mark of respect to the memory of their
father.
Anaxagoras.
Anaxagoras was born at Clazomene, Ionia, 500 B.c., and
died at Lampsacus 428 b.c.
The most ancient school of Grecian philosophy was in
stituted by Thales, of Ionia. He taught that the first sub
stance which produced all things was water. He considered
God the most ancient Being; that all things are full of him,
and that he animates the universe as the soul does the body
of man. The principle of motion he held to be mind or
soul.
To Anaxagoras is' ascribed the motto, “ Know
thyself■” but it appears to have been the motto of his pre
decessor, Thales.
The sciences commenced by Thales were cultivated by
Anaximander, his disciple. He, however, taught that the
first principle or origin of things was Infinity, and he was
the first who committed the principles of science to writing.
The disciple of Anaximander was Anaximenes, who taught
that the origin of all things was air; that the form of the
earth, sun, and moon was that of a circular plate; that the
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
II
stars were fixed in the heavens as nails in a crystalline
plane, and that the earth was a tablet supported by air. The
disciple of Anaximenes was Anaxagoras, the subject of the
present sketch.
When young he left his country, and visited Athens to
study eloquence and poetry. He particularly admired
Homer as the best preceptor in both writing and morals.
Hearing of the fame of the Milesian school, he left Athens,
and became the disciple of Anaximenes. Whilst engaged
in the pursuit of knowledge, his property at home was
wasting; and, when he discovered it, he remarked “ that to
his ruin he owed his prosperity.” Some years after he
returned to Athens, to teach philosophy; and among his
pupils were Euripides, Pericles, Socrates, and Themistocles.
Anaxagoras was the first of the Greeks who believed mind
to exist apart from matter. The Deity he described as pure
intelligence, capable of forming and giving motion to the
material mass of matter. Anaxagoras separated the active
living principle, which he concluded must have existed from
all eternity. He supposed that various bodies were gene
rated from particles of the same nature.
The world
originated from a confused mass of different kind of par
ticles. His system is described in the following lines of
Lucretius :—
“ With Anaxagoras, great nature’s law
Is similarity ; and every compound form
Consists in parts of minute, each like the whole ;
And bone is made of bone, and flesh of flesh ;
And blood, and fire, and earth, and massy gold,
Are in their smallest portions still the same.”
He assumed the particles or basis of nature to be without
life or motion, and from that inferred the existence of an
infinite and eternal mind, having motion and life in itself,
communicating these properties to matter, and, by uniting
the various particles of matter, produced the various forms
that exist in nature. God, in his philosophy, is the author
of life and motion. Instead of assuming, like his pre
decessors, the necessary motion of matter, he assumed
that pure mind, free from all material concretions, governs
the universe.
Anaxagoras describes the creation thus : “ In the begin
ning all things were mingled together, and remained in one
confused mass until superior intelligence separated and dis
posed them as we now see them.” He did not believe that
�12
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
this intelligence called matter out of nothing, but only that
it arranged matter. It was this doctrine that caused him to
be distinguished by the epithet “mind.”, He acknowledged
no other divinity than intelligence, and held in perfect
contempt the gods of the people. This caused Lucian to
say that he was destroyed by Jupiter with a thunderbolt.
The chief good he placed in contemplation, and said he
came into the world to contemplate the sun, moon, and
other objects in nature.
The fame of Anaxagoras caused him to be cruelly per
secuted. He w’as imprisoned and condemned to death ;
but, by the influence of Pericles, his sentence was altered
to banishment. The causes of his persecution have been
variously stated. Some attributed it to his teachings regard
ing the sun, which he considered merely an inanimate and
fiery body, unworthy of worship. He boldly contradicted
the vulgar superstition of the people, and ridiculed the
priests for pretending that an unfortunate event would occur,
because of a ram having only one horn. He opened the
head of the ram, and showed them that the cause of the
phenomenon was purely natural, the head being so con
structed as to make the growth of a second horn a natural
impossibility. This being considered “ Atheism,” he was
banished from Athens to Lampsacus. When he was in
formed of his sentence, he said : “ Nature will one day
pronounce the same sentence on them.” While in exile, in
answer to a question of a friend, he said : “ It is not I who
have lost the Athenians, but the Athenians who have lost
me.” When Pericles paid him a visit, he was wrapped up
in his cloak preparing to die ; and Pericles having neglected
him, he exclaimed : “O Pericles, those who need a lamp
should always give it oil.” When dying he was asked if he
wished his body taken to his native city, to which he an
swered : “ It is unnecessary; the way to the other world is
everywhere alike open.” On being asked how he should
like respect paid to his memory, he answered : “ By granting
a holiday every year on the day of his death to all the
schools of Lampsacus,” which custom was observed for
many centuries.
The inhabitants erected a tomb to his memory, on which
was inscribed—“ This tomb great Anaxagoras confines,
whose mind explored the paths of heavenly truth.” Two
altars were also erected—one dedicated to mind, and the
other to truth.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
13
Cicero.
Cicero was born at Arpinum January 3rd, 106 b.c., and
killed December 7th, 43 b.c.
According to Plutarch, his mother was delivered of him
without pain, and a spectre appeared to his nurse, which
foretold that the child she had the happiness to attend
would one day prove a great benefit to the whole common
wealth. These things, says Plutarch, might have passed
for idle dreams had he not soon demonstrated the truth of
the prediction.
Cicero was the son of a Roman knight, and in his youth
he studied under various eminent masters, greatly distin
guishing himself in literary contests with his companions.
After careful and laborious study, Cicero, at the age of
twenty-six, appeared as a pleader at the Roman bar.
He wrote several valuable works, among which are the
following :—“ De Oratore,” containing precepts of the art
he practised; De Legibus, “ On Laws,” in which he con
tends that—the universe being one immense commonwealth
of gods and men, who participate in the same essence, and
form one community—reason dictates that the law of
nature and nations should govern men according to the
rule of right which the Deity has impressed on every
virtuous mind. Cicero also wrote many philosophical
works, among which were—“ On the Universe,” “ On the
Gods,” and “ On Moral Offices.”
Upon receiving the news of the total defeat of Antony
before Mutina, Cicero delivered his fourteenth and last
philosophical oration. Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius
agreed to give up the enemies of each party, and on
Antony’s list the name of Cicero was registered. Cicero,
being informed of his danger, fled to Caieta for safety.
Here, in the middle of the night, the soldiers of murderous
intent discovered him : an alarm was given, and his friends,
in the hope of saving him, removed him towards the sea.
But the messengers of death pursued him, and, overtaking
him in a wood, approached his litter. Cicero, perceiving
a stoppage (laying aside the copy of Euripides’s “ Medea ”
he was reading), put out his head to inquire the cause, and
immediately the soldiers struck off his head and hands.
His mangled remains were carried to Antony, who had
them fixed up on the rostrum from which Cicero had so
often denounced him.
�14
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Archimedes.
Archimedes was born in Sicily 287 b.c., and killed at
Syracuse 212 b.c.
For the purpose of raising water out of the canals of
Egypt, Archimedes is said to have invented a machine
which bears the name of his screw. The mounts and
bridges of the Nile are attributed to his inventive genius.
He is described as the first to determine the exact space
bounded by a curve line. He also states the proportion
between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and
gives the ratio as between 3’1428 and 3’1408. He greatly
admired his discovery of the lever, and once said : “ Give
me a spot to stand on, and I will move the earth.”
Syracuse, after the death of Hiero, became the prey of
contending factions; the city was seized by Marcellus and
Appius, and Archimedes’s mechanical skill was applied to
its defence. At length the Romans gained the city, and
plundered it on all sides. On seeing it approach to ruin, it
is said that Marcellus wept. He also requested that Archi
medes and his house might be saved; but this was dis
regarded by the furious plunderers.. While they were plun
dering from house to house, Archimedes, unmoved by their
violence, continued to contemplate a mathematical diagram.
When a soldier burst into the room Archimedes refused to
attend him till he had finished his demonstration. The
soldier, with utter recklessness of the value of that great
life, killed the philosopher on the spot. Thus perished one
of the greatest philosophers of the world.
Socrates.
Socrates was born at Alopece, near Athens, 469 b.c., and
put to death 399 b.c.
His parents were of humble position in life, his father
being a sculptor, and his mother a midwife. Socrates
studied philosophy under Anaxagoras and Archelaus, elo
quence he learnt from Prodicus, poetry from Evenus,
geometry from Theodoras, and music from Damo. The
name of Aspasia is also mentioned as a lady of intellectual
accomplishments, to whom Socrates owed some of his edu
cation.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
15
Socrates is said to have had two wives, one of whom,
named Xantippe, Gellius describes as “an accursed, forward
woman, always chiding by day and night.” Her ill-humour
has made her life immortal. According to Socrates him
self, he married her to exercise his patience. When Alcibiades expressed surprise that he could live in the same
house with so perverse and quarrelsome a companion,
Socrates answered, “ That being daily inured to her illhumour at home, he was better prepared to encounter annoy
ance and injury abroad.” In a dialogue with his son
Lamprocles, he admits that Xantippe had domestic virtues ;
and, when Socrates was in prison, she visited him with her
child, and manifested her sympathy with him in his sufferings.
Lucian remarks that Socrates was the only philosopher
who obtained renown in military movements. In the struggle
between Athens and Lacedaemon, he exhibited his valour
and endurance. When he saw Alcibiades falling wounded,
he advanced to defend him, and saved him. The prize of
valour due to himself on that occasion he gave to Alcibiades.
In a severe Thracian winter Socrates wore his usual cloth
ing, while others were clothed in furs. He volunteered in
a military expedition against the Boeotians, on which occa
sion, observing Xenophon lying wounded, he took him upon
his shoulders, and carried him beyond reach of the enemy.
In another instance, the Athenians being totally defeated,
Socrates was the last to quit the field, and assumed an aspect
so determined, that those who were in pursuit of the fugi
tives had not the courage to attack him.
Believing that morals could be better understood by acts
than by words, he not only taught, but practised with the
utmost fidelity, his views of truth and justice ; and it was
this that made him a man of influence and noble character,
and so much superior to his predecessors, who contented
themselves with the admiration of virtue, and the investiga
tion of first causes and of the mysterious agencies by which
they supposed themselves surrounded.
Fenelon, speaking of Socrates, calls him “ the most
virtuous and enlightened of the ancients
and Cicero and
our Lord Shaftesbury both speak of him as “ the founder of
moral philosophy.” Socrates adopted the character of a
moral philosopher, and took every opportunity of teaching
his fellow-citizens wherever he met them. In the morning
he visited places for walking and public meetings ; at noon
he appeared in the bazaar or exchange ; the remainder of
�16
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
the day he spent in those parts of the city most frequented.
He sometimes addressed an audience in the Lyceum from
the chair, whilst the audience were seated around him.
He not only taught young men of rank and fortune, but
sought disciples among artisans and labourers. His common
method of teaching was by a series of questions, and to
lead the persons he wished to instruct to deduce the truths
he desired them to believe as necessary consequences of
his own concessions. In his model questioning and con
vincing he did not display arrogance or superiority, for his
constant profession was that “he knew nothing.”
Our philosopher left no written account of his doctrines ;
but “The Memorabilia,” by Xenophon, is considered a
reliable exposition of his views on many subjects.
According to Plato and Xenophon, Socrates inferred,
from the mind and eye of man, that there existed a supreme
God of intelligent omniscience; and that God, amidst suc
cessive changes, preserved the course of nature unimpaired,
to whose laws all beings were subject. The soul of man he
believed to be allied by its nature with the Supreme, and
that it would exist after death with the gods.
He considered the reverence of a good man the best
offering he could make to the gods, and when he prayed to
them he asked for “ such things as they considered good
and useful.” He would no sooner think of praying foi*
riches and honours than of petitioning for an opportunity
to rush into battle. The effect of his teaching, which proved
beneficial to his country, was attended by disaster to Socrates
himself. The boldness he displayed as Senator, and his
manly opposition to political and every other corruption,
made him a marked man. The insults offered to the
popular superstitions by two of his former professed disciples
were carefully and constantly kept before the eyes of the
Athenians, who were extremely jealous of their superstitious
ceremonies.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
PART II.
L ’A n
n a:
us
Seneca.
L’Annalus Seneca was born 6 a.c. in Spain, and was taken
to Rome in his infancy. His father taught him eloquence,
and he studied philosophy under the Stoics. He was him
self, however, inclined more to the doctrine of Pythagoras ;
but the remonstrances of his father, and the threat of
Tiberius against the Jews, who abstained from certain
meats, caused him to abandon the system of Pythagoras.
He wrote several works, which are distinguished for the
pure morality and virtue they advocate. Indeed, St.
Jerome placed him among the early Christian writers—
so greatly esteemed were his writings in the early ages.
Being (falsely, it is believed) accused of an intrigue with
Julia Livilla, the daughter of Germanicus, caused him to
leave Rome; and he was banished to Corsica by Claudius,
where he remained in exile about eight years. After the
disgrace and death of his accuser, Messalina, he was re
called from exile by the influence of Agrippina, who had
become the wife of Claudius. Seneca became the educator
of her son Nero, who afterwards became emperor. Nero,
however, at length, forsaking the precepts of his master,
threw off every restraint of morality, which rendered the
life of Seneca insecure. Seneca, accordingly, desired per
mission to retire to solitude, which was refused by Nero;
but Seneca kept at home on the plea of bad health. At
the conspiracy of Piso, Seneca’s name was mentioned by
Natalis, without any charge that could criminate him; but
Nero took advantage of the opportunity to issue an order
for Seneca to destroy himself. When the messenger arrived
from this murderer of his own mother, and some of his best
friends, Seneca was seated at the table with his wife Paulina.
He received the message with calmness and firmness
�2
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
becoming a philosopher, and remarked that such a message
he might long have expected from such a man. A vein in
his arm was opened ; but it bled so slowly that he was
induced to apply to his friend Annseus for a dose of poison,
which, however, his limbs being chilled, did not affect him.
He afterwards caused himself to be placed in a hot bath.
This proving ineffectual, and the soldiers becoming clamor
ous, he was carried into a stove, and suffocated by steam.
His body was afterwards burnt without pomp or funeral
ceremony. On the centurion refusing him to make his
will, Seneca called on his friends to take a pattern by his
life. He reasoned against their tears and wailings, asking
if they had not learnt better to withstand the violence of
tyranny. He embraced his wife, and urged her to bear his
death by contemplating his life of virtue. Paulina would
not be consoled, but insisted on dying with her husband ;
she called for the aid of a minister of death, who opened
both their veins at the same time; but hers was bound up,
and the bleeding was stayed. She retained with reverence
and esteem the memory of her husband, but died a few
years after him.
Origenes,
commonly called
Origen.
Origen was born 185 a.c. at Alexandria, and died at
Tyre 254.
This Father of the early Christian Church was the son
of Leonidas, who suffered as a martyr in the reign of
Severus; and it is said that, had not his mother prevented
it, the zeal of Origen would have led him to share his
father’s fate. To support his widowed mother and his
orphan brothers, he became a grammatical tutor. He
then was appointed Professor of Sacred Literature at
Alexandria, and commenced preaching and _ practising
extraordinary mortifications and asceticism, which gained
him many disciples.
.
He then began his “ Hexapla,” which first gave the idea
of Polyglot Bibles. Having taken the order of priesthood,
Demetrius of Alexandria was displeased. The Bishop pre
tended to have discovered errors in the writings of Origen,
and prohibited his preaching, and banished him. When
the Christians were persecuted by Maximin, Origen sought
refuge in Athens, and corrected the erroneous belief of the
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
3
Bishop of Bostra relative to the pre-existence of Christ.
He also assisted in the correction of the Arabians, who
held the heresy—now popular—that the soul dies with the
body, and will rise again at the Resurrection.
Origen himself, however, does not appear to have entirely
escaped the charge of heresy. One of his most formidable
heresies was his belief in the finite duration of future punish
ment, and the ultimate salvation of the devils themselves.
These heresies, it is said, brought great scandal on the
Church. He applied the allegorical method to the Scrip
tures, as the Platonists did to mythology.
In the Decian persecution (250) Origen suffered imprison
ment and torture, and some say martyrdom; but it is more
generally believed that he died a natural death in 254.
Arius.
Arius, a native of Cyrenaica, Africa, was born in the
third century, and died 336.
He was a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, and
was distinguished for personal beauty, ascetic habits, exten
sive learning, and eloquence. He is known chiefly as the
founder of the sect of Arians.
Arius maintained, in contradiction to Alexander, that
Christ did not exist from all eternity, but that he was
created out of nothing before the universie by the will of the
Father, and could only be called God by his participation
in extraordinary powers. He held the doctrine of three
persons in the Deity to be erroneous.
In 321 Alexander cited Arius before a synod of one
hundred bishops, and declared his opinions heretical, and
excommunicated from the Church, and expelled from the
city Arius and all his followers.
In 325 Constantine assembled 318 bishops at the
Council of Nice, to settle the important question raised by
Arius. Here it was decided that Christ was consubstantial
with God, and the Nicene Creed was signed and established
as the orthodox belief. At the same time the doctrine of
Arius was condemned, and himself banished to the province
of Illyricum. An edict followed this, in which his followers
were stigmatised as Porphyrians, his writings were ordered
to be burnt, and capital punishment was declared against
all who would not deliver up his writings.
�4
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Several attempts were made to restore him to the Church,
but this was opposed by Athanasius. Constantine and
others appointed a day for his solemn reception into the
Church, but on the preceding Sunday Arius died. Gibbon
says that those who desire to know the real cause of Arius’s
death “ must make their option between poison and miracle.”
Whatever may be thought of his views, he was a man of
integrity, a firm believer and advocate of what he deemed
the truth.
Peter Abelard.
Peter Abelard was born at Palais 1079, and died in the
Priory of St. Marcellus 1142.
No work on biography can be said to be complete that
does not give some account of Abelard, and his beautiful
and singular, beloved Heloisa.
Abelard was of noble family, and his father intended him
to become a soldier; but his love for learning was so great
that the intention was not carried out. Abelard was first
the pupil of Roscelinus, the founder of Nominalists, and
afterwards entered the University of Paris. At Paris he
soon excited the jealousy, and became the superior, of his
master, and set up a teacher on his own account. Under a
second master he soon excited a similar feeling of jealousy.
As a teacher of theology and philosophy at Paris, he was
visited by scholars from all parts of France, and from Spain,
Germany, Italy, and England. At the height of his repu
tation for science, he determined to practise somewhat in
the “ art of love.” Accordingly, in embuing the mind of
Heloisa with his philosophy, he at the same time inspired
it with affection for himself.
Notwithstanding the authority of the Church respecting
celibacy, the result of Abelard’s affection for Heloisa was
the birth of a son, to whom they gave the name of Astrolabius. Previous to this event they were unmarried, seem
ingly because Abelard’s oath would not permit it, and
Heloisa’s views were opposed to it, as she believed that
the bonds of love were stronger without the additional
security offered by the Church. They were afterwards pri
vately married; and the old gentleman insisting on publicity
being given to the affair, produced the most melancholy
results. As Abelard resisted this request of his father, the
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
3
“ old brute” hired a number of ruffians to break into the
chamber of Abelard and deprive him of his manhood.
Abelard and Heloisa then separated ; but the affection of
the latter terminated only with her life, for after his death
she daily offered up a prayer to heaven over the grave of
her departed husband.
Besides being unfortunate in his love, Abelard became
again the object of envy among his contemporaries. They
endeavoured to damage him by exciting the ecclesiastical
authorities against his views on “the unity of God,” some
thing like Arianism. After an unfair inquiry, this book
was condemned to be burnt with his own hands; he was
also caused to read a recantation, and to be imprisoned.
A second persecution against him was caused by his hete
rodox assertion that the founder of St. Denys of France
was not Dionysius of Athens. For this outrageous offence
he was denounced as “an enemy of his order and his
country.” So violent was the aspect of affairs that, to
preserve his person from destruction, he was compelled to
escape in the night to a convent in Champagne. But'
there jealousy overtook him again, and he had to seek
another asylum. He then fell into the hands of the holy
and polite St. Bernard. He accused Abelard of heresy, of
ensnaring souls, and called him an “ infernal dragon,” more
dangerous than Arius, Pelagius, and Nestorius, and the
“ precursor of Antichrist.”
It appears that the vengeance of the saint was aroused
by Abelard’s attempt to explain the Trinity by syllogisms.
For this grave and immoral offence the Pope, without hear
ing any defence, on the motion of St. Bernard, condemned
Abelard to eternal silence.
The brave old Abelard, who never gave way, set off for
Rome to remonstrate against this terrible sentence. On
his way to Rome he called to see his friend, Peter, the
Abbot of Cluni, who prevailed upon him to stay there.
Being unable to resist the powerful opposition that was
made to him, he produced a sort of declaration of faith,
which gained him two years of private life, at the end of
which he expired.
Some writers have, spoken lightly of Abelard; but one
who excited so much jealousy, persecution, and admiration
must have been more than an ordinary man.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Arnaldo
de
Brescia.
Arnaldo de Brescia was born early in the twelfth century,
at Brescia, in Lombardy, and died at Rome 1155.
He visited France, where he became a pupil of Peter
Abelard. Upon his return to Lombardy he put on thehabit of a monk, and began to preach several “ new and
uncommon ” doctrines ; particularly that the Pope ought
not to enjoy any temporal estate; that those ecclesiastics
who had any estates of their own, or held any lands, were
entirely cut off from the least hope of salvation; that the
clergy ought to subsist upon the alms and voluntary con
tributions of Christians; and that all other revenues belonged
to princes and States, who ought to dispose of them among
the laity as they thought proper. In 1139 these opinions,
as might have been expected, were decided to be “ here
tical” and “damnable” by a council of a thousand prelates.
Arnaldo, fearing the decision of this august body of
divines, fled to Switzerland. On the accession of Adrian
IV., Arnaldo returned to his native country, but found
Adrian no more disposed to tolerate him and his sect than
his predecessors. Adrian took advantage of some popular
tumult, and compelled the heretical Arnaldists to leave the
city.
Arnaldo desired the re-establishment of the Roman Re
public ; he was an honest leader of the people, a man of
irreproachable morals. Adrian IV. applied to Fredrick I.
to have him placed in the hands of the Prefect of Rome,
had him strangled at Rome, his body burnt, and the
ashes thrown into the river Tiber, in. 1155.
Roger Bacon.
Roger Bacon was born near Ilchester, in Somersetshire,
about 1214, and died at Oxford about 1292.
Bacon belonged to the Franciscan Order, and theology,
having set itself in opposition to philosophy, he was grossly
insulted and persecuted by his own fraternity. His micro
scope, with which he penetrated the secrets of nature, gained
him the opprobrious title of “ magician,” and his brethren
prohibited his lectures and writings.
In the sciences he was a great student, and made several
discoveries. Dr. Friend describes him as the first who in
troduced chemistry into Europe. He discovered, or made
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
7
known, that awful instrument of destruction called gun
powder ; and he appears to have had some knowledge of
the telescope and of spectacles. He also gives a philoso
phical explanation of the rainbow being an appearance, and
not a real thing. He was proficient in languages, and
remarks that those by whom he was surrounded were miser
ably deficient. Their ignorance may be taken for granted,
since they pointed to Bacon as “a subject of horror,” “a
magician,” “ a necromancer,” with a view to get him de
stroyed. Bacon was accused of working by “ supernatural
means,” and of being “ leagued with the Devil.” In close
confinement, nearly perishing of hunger, he was kept several
years, until released by his friend Clement IV.
At the request of Clement he wrote his celebrated “Opus
Majus,” which, however, remained in manuscript 500 years.
Some passages in this work show that Bacon’s sentiments
were far in advance of his age, and are still before those of
many who pretend to knowledge in the present age. He
mentions four “ stumbling-blocks” in the way of knowledge,
and that in his time there were prevalent “ a thousand false
hoods for one truth.” This being the state of things, he
says : “ We must not stick to what we hear and read, but
must examine most strictly the opinion of our ancestors,
that tve may add what is lacking, and correct what is erro
neous. We must, with all our strength, prefer reason to
custom, and the opinions of the wise and good to those of
the vulgar.” We must not hold by that which has been
“common,” “ usual,” “ laid down,” etc. Though all the
world be guided by such a rule, “ let us hear freely opinions
contrary to established usage.”
On the death of Clement, Bacon’s superior officer, Jerome
of Ascoli, to show his authority and superlative cruelty,
obtained an order from Nicholas III. to interdict his works,
and to consign Bacon himself once more to the dungeon,
where he remained ten years, subsisting on bread and water.
The charge of heresy put forth against him by the theolo
gians, and confirmed by Rome, was the produce of ignorance
and bigotry.
When Jerome himself became Pope, it is said that Bacon’s
appeal for liberty was met by increased vigour and closer
confinement. During all these years of suffering and starva
tion he was deprived of the means of investigating and
experimenting, and bore all this courageously for the sake
of knowledge, truth, and humanity.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Bacon was in his sixty-fourth year when he was sum
moned to Paris for trial, and although he made many
efforts to gain his liberty, they all proved ineffectual. Some
say he died in prison, but it is generally believed that he was
released by the intercession of some powerful nobles.
Alighieri Dante.
Dante was born at Florence, May Sth, 1265 a.c., and
died of grief at Ravenna, in September, 1321 a.c.
He studied at Florence, and also, it is said, at Bologna
and Padua. Disraeli, in his “ Literary Character,” tells a
story of him from Poggius, “that Dante indulged his medita
tions more strongly than any man he knew; for when deeply
busy in reading he seemed to live only in his ideas. Once
the poet went to view a public procession ; having entered a
bookseller’s shop, and taken up a book, he sank into a
reverie ; on his return he declared that he had neither seen
nor heard a single occurrence in the public exhibition which
had passed unobserved before him 1”
In 1291 he married Gemma Donati, a lady of noble
family, but of violent and ungovernable temper. Boccaccio,
however, in alluding to Dante’s banishment, relates that
Gemma took great care to provide for the children. Dante,
the earliest poet of modern time worthy of being classed
with Greek and Roman authors, is known chiefly as the
author of a most extraordinary poem, which is a description
of his vision (in which the writer is conducted through hell,
purgatory, and paradise), and called by his countrymen,
“ Divina Commedia.” In the dedication of the “ Inferno,”
he tells us that the whole poem is to be considered as an
allegory of man, in his capacity of meriting reward or punish
ment. Dante is described as the first who introduced angels
and devils into poetry.
He was a great lover of civil liberty, and a determined
enemy of ecclesiastical corruption. In his Hell he repre
sents Nicholas III. with his head fixed downwards, and his
heels burning in flames of fire. In his Purgatory he ascribes
the wretched state of the Christian world to the union of
the temporal and spiritual power in the Pope, and repre
sents Adrian being purified from the sin of avarice; St.
Peter is severely condemning his successors for covetousness,
and all the host of heaven are also full of indignation at
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
9
them. Dante, however, seems to have been a Roman
Catholic in superstition, although a sincere hater of abuse
in Church, for he consistently places (in his poem) the
heretics in Hell, and the believers in Paradise. His poli
tical views are expressed in his work concerning Monarchy.
God is one. The universe is an idea of God’s, and is,
therefore, one. God is the source of all; all, therefore,
partakes of his nature. Man is the most excellent product
of creation. As such, he must tend continually to a state
of perfectness, and strive by holiness and knowledge to
attain a likeness to, if not a union with, God. Individual
man is too short-lived to accomplish this; but man has an
historic and collective being, as well as an individual life.
Humanity, aggregate man, is long-lived and indefinitely
progressive. Humanity, like God, is one. Harmony, and
as a consequence association, are the condition of co-working
unity. Unity must be embodied and represented. To give
embodiment to human unity, there must be an outer form
government and an inner spirit-law. A people, aggregated
together into an organic whole, by a general agreement
under the same laws and government, constitutes a nation.
Law and government, however, must have means of enforce
ment, and hence arises the need of an imperial or other
head; not as a superior to, but as an agent of, the law; as
the agent of the people, the chief administrator of the law,
and the representative to other nationalities of the will of
the aggregated and incorporated citizens of the State over
which he bears rule. Dante’s “ Monarchy ” was burnt after
his death, at Bologna, by order of the Papal legate.
In 1300 Dante was the chief of the Priors, who were the
supreme authority in the State, which office placed him
amidst civil strife. While on a visit to Rome as ambassador
to the Pope on behalf of his fellow citizens, his enemies in
1302 contrived to have him fined 8,000 florins, and con
demned to two years’ banishment. In a second sentence
he was condemned to be burnt alive.
Dante was a bold man, and joined the side of the Emperor
versus the priests and the Pope. The party he espoused
(the Bianchi) being vanquished by its antagonists (the Neri),
his property was confiscated, and he was banished from his
native land, which he dearly loved. He severely felt his
banishment, but never returned to Florence to reside.
Dante’s courage, inspired by conscious innocence, would
not permit his return, except on honourable terms, and thus
�IO
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
he died an exile in a foreign land. He was crushed by the
ruins of the faction he embraced ; and while his bones were
crumbling into dust, the Pope excommunicated him, and
desired that his remains might be scattered to the winds,
that none should know his eternal resting-place.
The Florentines discovered their loss after Dante’s death,
and desired to have the relics of this great man whom they
robbed and banished in his lifetime. Among other appli
cants to Leo X. for the dust of Dante, was one from a great
man, in the following words : “ I, Michael Angelo, sculptor,
address the same prayer to your holiness, offering to make
for the divine poet a monument which shall be worthy of
him.” All the supplications were of no avail; but Angelo
has recorded his admiration of the “ divine poet ” in the
following sonnet:—
“ON DANTE.
“ How shall we speak of him ? for our weak eyes
Are quite unfit to bear his dazzlings rays.
’Tis easier far to blame his enemies,
Than for our tongue to speak his slightest praise.
For us did he explore the realm of woe ;
At his approach high heaven did soon expand
Its lofty portals, though his fatherland
Refused to ope her gates. Yet thou shalt know,
Ungrateful country! e’en in thine own despite,
That thou hast quickened best thy Dante’s fame.
Virtue opprest dost then shine out most bright ;
And brighter shall his glory therefore be
For suffering so, of all, unguiltily.
Hence in the world there lives no nobler name.”
The Florentines raised a monument to his memory, which
was opened to the public in 1830.
John Huss.
Huss was born at Hussinatz, in Bohemia, about 1370,
and died at Constance, 1414.
He was the son of poor parents. After receiving some
education in the University of Prague, he was ordained a
priest in 1400. He was the first opponent of transubstantiation, and defender of Wycliffe, whose tenets he adopted and
boldly advocated from the pulpit. He preached against
Pope, purgatory, and indulgence. The Archbishop of
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
11
Prague accordingly denounced his views as “heretical.”
Huss, being confessor to Sophia, the Queen of Bohemia,
obtained the support of the king; but the heads of the
university proclaimed that whoever taught Wycliffe’s views
should be expelled.
The German students then repaired to Leipzig, to a
university provided by the Elector of Saxony.
Huss, then becoming Rector of the University of Prague,
taught his heretical views, and had the works of Wycliffe
translated into Bohemian. No sooner had they appeared
than the Archbishop had them burnt, and excommunicated
ail who professed to believe in them. Huss being dismissed
from his sacred office, the people assembled to hear him in
houses and fields. The people thus taught became dispu
tants and partisans, and ultimately caused their leader to be
summoned by Pope John XXIII. “ to appear and answer ”
at Bologna certain charges made against him ; but, as he did
not appear, he was excommunicated.
He then retired to his native village. After the death
of the Archbishop, Huss again appeared at Prague, and
opposed a Papal bull. He then received another “ invita
tion” from the Pope, but refused to notice it. In 1414
the Council of Constance called on him to appear before
them. Huss having received a “safe conduct ” from Sigis
mund, he went; but immediately on his arrival was arrested,
and condemned as a heretic. As Huss refused to retract
his heresies, the Council handed him over to the magistrate,
who, by an order from the emperor, had him burnt alive.
It has been urged that the Council merely “ handed him
over to the secular arm,” which meant death, or what ?
When in the flames he displayed such admirable fortitude
that even his enemies were moved to reverence him.
Thus died the great reformer and martyr, John Huss, a
man of irreproachable life, full of courage and sincerity.
The cruel death of this great man is an everlasting stain on
the memory of Sigismund and the Council of Constance.
Geoffrey Chaucer.
Geoffrey Chaucer was born at London 1328, and died
there October 25th, 1400.
He was educated at Cambridge and Oxford, and lived a
considerable period at the Court of Edward III. Two
�12
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
large works he wrote while at college, and many after he
left it. Among the latter we need only mention his name
in connection with the charming Canterbury Tales. Several
writers give an account of Chaucer’s sufferings consequent
upon his espousing the tenets of Wycliffe, and his writing to
expose the ignorance and vices of the clergy. They state
that he was compelled, to escape from his enemies, to fly
to Hainault, and thence to Zealand; and that, on his
return, in a state bordering on starvation, he was imprisoned
in the Tower, until released by his making some disclosures
to the Government. This story, however probable, is con
tradicted by Sir H. Nicholas, who says that Chaucer, during
his recorded exile, regularly received his. pension from Go
vernment. It seems certain that he did suffer adversity
and persecution through his attachmeut to the causes of
John of Gaunt and Wycliffe, whatever truth there may or
may not be in the story of his imprisonment and exile.
Sir John Oldcastle (Lord Cobham).
Sir John Oldcastle was born in the reign of Edward III.,
and died in 141 7.
He obtained the title of Lord Cobham by marrying a
daughter of Lord Cobham. He distinguished himself in
the French military movements of Henry IV. and V., and
is described as displaying great talents for the cabinet and
the field. He was witty in conversation, and possessed of
great learning. In the early ages of the Reformation from
the Church of the Pope he drew up a number of articles
against the vices of the priests and the spiritual power of
the Pope. Flaving examined the writings of Wycliffe, he
became a convert, transcribed his works, and maintained a
number of men to preach the doctrines contained therein.
The Archbishop of Canterbury summoned him ; but he
did not appear, and was consequently excommunicated,
and sent to the Tower, whence he escaped into Wales. To
secure his person, the priests got up a report of a pretended
conspiracy against him. After having offered 1,000 marks
for his head, they succeeded in capturing him in four years,
and, without any attempt to justify their proceedings, hung
him in chains on the gallows at St. Giles, London; and,
placing a fire underneath him, they roasted him alive in
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
B
December, 1417. Thus perished “ Cobham the Good,” the
first author and first sufferer among the nobility in the cause
of freedom in religion.
Nicolaus Copernicus.
Nicolaus Copernicus was born at Thorn, in Prussia, in
January or February, 1472, and died May 23rd, 1543.
He was educated at the University of Cracow, and after
wards went to Italy to receive instruction. He passed
several years at Rome, where, in some official capacity,
he gained a considerable reputation by giving public in
struction. It was there also that he made his first astro
nomical observations. On his return to Prussia, a few
years after, his uncle gave him a Canonry in the Church
of Frauenburg. After this he appears to have occupied
his time usefully in three ways—by devoting himself to
his clerical duties, administering medical advice to the
poor (being an M.D.), and by pursuing his astronomical re
searches.
He was eminent as an astronomer, and adopted and im
proved the Pythagorean, Ptolemaic, and other systems,
which made the earth the centre, and partially indicated
some of the motions of the heavenly bodies and the earth.
He puts forth his views, wishing them to be considered
as hypotheses only, as were those of the ancients, into which
he had carefully and greatly investigated, especially regard
ing the motions of our own globe. He placed the sun
in the centre of the universe, and all the other bodies “fixed
in crystal spheres,” performing circular motions around it,
or a compound of uniform and circular motions. Coper
nicus is ever, and chiefly, to be remembered for his theory
of the variation of the seasons, which he attributes to the
continual parallelism of the earth’s axis, the procession of
the equinoxes, and the station of the planets. His system
met with great hostility, and its author was satirised on the
stage of Elburg. In consequence of the “ apprehensions ”
that prevailed regarding the “ novelty ” of his opinion, he
was compelled to keep his work in manuscript till about
1541. A remarkable preface to his work says that no one
should expect anything certain from astronomy, since that
science can afford nothing of the kind. Reference is also
made to the approval of a cardinal and a bishop, and it
�U
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
represents the work as not maintaining the motion of the
earth. These and other strangely-invented precautionary
steps were taken to avoid the opprobrium of the ignorant
and bigoted, and probably the Inquisition. This work, how
ever, did great service in the way of overturning the autho
rity of Greek and Hebrew Scriptures in matters of science.
. Copernicus, after many years’ delay, just lived to publish
his work; but no sooner had a copy been sent to him than
he was seized with a violent effusion of blood, which put
an end to his life. His friend, alluding to the melancholy
event, says that the book arrived, a complete copy, on May
23rd, i543> and that Copernicus saw it and touched it, but
did no more, for he died a few hours after.
Copernicus, although mistaken in some things, and con
siderably behind his successor Galileo, not possessing his
remarkable talents for experimenting, was a great and
original thinker, indulging in freedom of thought to a re
markable extent, in spite of the authorities by which he
was surrounded in the age in which he lived. He was
a great mathematician, and a sincere lover and seeker of
truth regarding all things in the heavens and the earth.
Sir Thomas More.
Sir Thomas More was born in Milk Street, London,
1480, and died July 6th 1535.
Thomas was sent by his father Sir John to be educated
in St. Anthony’s school, and afterwards to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. He also studied at Oxford, where he wrote
his first poems, and formed an acquaintance with Erasmus.
After leaving Oxford he distinguished himself in legal
studies, and obtained considerable practice. In the reign
of Henry VII. he was considered one of the most eloquent
and important men, and his services were sought in all
important legal transactions that occurred in the courts of
law.
Being made a Member of Parliament, More opposed a
grant of money to the king, which so enraged his majesty
that, had not death removed Henry, More must have quitted
his country.
On the accession of Henry VIII. More became once
more an important man. The king was so attached to
him that he would spend a day together with him at his
�15
house. In 1521 he made Sir Thomas More Treasurer of
the Exchequer; and, the second year after, Speaker of the
House. In this capacity he offended Wolsey, but still re
tained the friendship of the king, who in 1529 made him
Chancellor.
At the termination of his Chancellorship, in 1532, More
was surrounded by enemies, and the friendship of Henry
was soon numbered with things of the past. Henry desired
to form “an alliance” with Anne Boleyn, to do which
he required the assistance of Sir Thomas. More, being a
sincere and devoted member of • the Church of the Pope,
could not sanction an act that was denounced by so great
nn authority. This rendered it necessary that Henry and
his old favourite should no longer be united ; consequently
More retired from office. Sir Thomas was soon after set
down as an accomplice with Elizabeth Barton; but from
fthis he escaped.
In 1533 a law was passed making it “treason” to write,
q^ublish, or say anything to the “prejudice” of Henry’s
[marriage with his new wife; and every person was called
tUpori oath to sanction and defend this law.
In 1534 More was summoned before the commissioners
: to take the oath, but he refused, and was, consequently,
, committed to the Tower, where he remained thirteen
months. During his confinement all attempts to alter his
decision, and to get him to acknowledge the supremacy of
“ the Defender of the Faith,” were entirely fruitless. He
>. was accordingly tried for high treason, and condemned to
be hanged, drawn, and quartered, and his head to be stuck
. on a pole on London Bridge. He was beheaded July 6th,
,1535.
An old writer says : “ Sir Thomas having occupied so
, eminent an office, and formerly being so very intimate with
.the king, his gracious majesty ordered him to be ‘merely
beheaded
Judging from the sentiments contained in his letters, Sir
Thomas must have been an amiable and a faithful friend,
a loving husband, an affectionate father, and in other
respects an estimable and benevolent man. There can be
, no doubt that his sincere regard for integrity and truth
ultimately caused his death, and such enabled him to meet
it with cheerfulness and without fear. The characteristics
of his mind are shown, supposing he expressed his own real
opinions, in his “Utopia,” which is a description of a
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
�16
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
model commonwealth, where private property shall not
exist to occasion the labourer to suffer or deprave the
minds of those who live on his labours.
Erasmus, who was a visitor of Sir Thomas, describes his
house as “ like the academy of Plato,” where all was order,
industry, and cheerfulness.
Ulricus Zuinglius.
Ulricus Zuinglius was born January ist, 1484, at the
village of Wildhaus, and died October, 1531.
This celebrated Swiss reformer, whose name is sometimes
written Ulrich Zwingli, was the son of a respectable peasant,
who rose to the office of chief-magistrate of his district.
Young Zuinglius, being of a studious disposition, was sent
to the Universities of Basle and Vienna, and received the
degree of M.A. After becoming qualified, by much reading
and study, he was elected minister at the chief town of the
Canton Glaris. Through gaining considerable knowledge
of the New Testament and of Church history, he early in
life began to preach the most enlightened doctrines of the
Reformed Religion. Even in his age, when the slightest
attempt at preaching common sense was considered revolu
tionary, he taught in his sermons doctrines that reflect
credit on his head and heart. He proclaimed his convic
tion that “ virtuous heathens ” and “ good men ” of all
kinds, who acted in accordance with the dictates of know
ledge and conscience, would receive the reward of final
happiness. In this and other matters he was far before his
time, and his enlightened view's are even now several cen
turies in advance of the English priests and clergy.
In the first volume that he published, “ Observations on
Lent,” he expressed his liberal views about the necessity of
“ fasting and keeping ” particular days of the week and
year. These views were, of course, “ dangerous to society,”
and especially so to the Church, and accordingly the Bishop
of Constance instructed the clergy “ not to permit its ordi
nances to be infringed.”
In 1523 he was called up before the ecclesiastical and
civil powers “to give an account of his heretical views.”
The result of this examination was beneficial to the people,
for it led to the abolition of many superstitious and injurious
practices in the Church.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
17
His views began to take root in other countries besides
that in which he preached, and produced great alarm
amongst the clergy, which finally broke out into fierce and
open hostilities. His “ dangerous doctrines ” had been
the cause of churches being cleared of images and pictures,
the mass being abolished, the suppression of the mendi
cant orders, and the establishment of a system of public
instruction. The hostile feelings created by these innova
tions were repressed by the Treaty of Coppel, in 1529, but
were soon after rekindled. Zuinglius, being appointed to
accompany an expedition against the Catholics, for the pur
pose of exciting the men, met with a fatal wound in an
engagement in which his own party was defeated. Some
Catholic soldiers finding him still alive on the field, one
of them cruelly killed him ; and, by the order of a military
tribunal, his body was burnt, and his ashes were scattered
to the winds.
Thus perished, on the battle-field of liberty in religion, the
amiable, philosophical, humane, and courageous Zuinglius,
in his forty-fourth year, 1531.
It is a source of unmixed pleasure to reflect on the life
and works of this great man, who delivered himself from the
superstitions of his age, and created a mental and moral
reformation, the effects of which still live among his brave
and distinguished countrymen.
Rene Descartes.
René Descartes was born at La Haye, in Touraine, 31st
March, 1596, and died nth February, 1650, at Stockholm.
He was a son of a noble family, and received his educa
tion from the Jesuits of La-Flêche. While there he formed
an acquaintance with a monk, wfliose studies are supposed
to have influenced him in the prosecution of mathematics
and metaphysics.
Having joined the army in his twentieth year, he was
present at the Battle of Prague. Like others, he fulfilled
his duty as a soldier, but did not neglect his philosophical
studies.
An interesting story is told of his perceiving a group of
people reading a placard in Breda, where he was then
studying, on which was written a geometrical problem given
out as a challenge. As a soldier he created some surprise
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
by asking a professor, who happened to be standing by at
the time, to translate it for him. Descartes, having pro
cured the necessary information, told the professor (who
was Principal of the College of Dort) that he would send
him a solution of the problem early in the morning ! After
retiring from the army he visited nearly the whole of
Europe. Thinking he would be better able the prosecute
his studies of philosophy in Holland, he removed from
France thither.
In 1633 he published “ A Treatise of the World,” and in
1636 “ A Treatise of Mechanics.” Some writers consider
that he advanced the science of geometry as much as did
Sir Isaac Newton after him. In his early life, it is said, he
formed the intention of endeavouring to “ unlearn ” all
that had been taught him at college, with the view of in
vestigating the fundamental principles of human knowledge.
The influence of Descartes’s labours was great in his life
time, and is generally believed to have had very consider
able effect even to the present generation.
He was the victim of horrible persecution, and the Church
rose up to do battle against his “heretical” philosophy.
Like many before and after him, he was accused of Atheism.
It was proposed to burn him on an eminence in Utrecht,
in an extraordinary fire that might be seen by the inhabitants
of the seven provinces. In the midst of his dangers and
the hostility of bigots, Christiana of Sweden offered him a
resting-place.
Giordano Bruno.
Giordano Bruno was born at Nola, in the kingdom of
Naples, about the middle of the sixteenth century.
He belonged to the Dominican order; but, having ex
pressed some doubts about some of the Romish dogmas,
he had to run away from his convent. He spent two years
at Geneva, but there incurred the condemnation of the
Protestants, owing to his scepticism of their doctrines. He
then went to Paris, where he attacked the doctrines of the
Aristotelians. Having made enemies both in the Univer
sity and the Church, he visited England in 1583, where
he gained the friendship of Sir Philip Sidney, to whom he
dedicated his work against Rome. During the two years
he was in England he visited Oxford, and held discussions
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
19
with the learned men of the University. He also visited
Germany, where he was invited to become a follower of
Luther, an invitation which he declined. He afterwards
returned to Italy. Being arrested at Venice, he was trans
ferred to the arms of his opponents in Rome in 1598, where
he was kept in the prison of “the holy office” for two years.
The Inquisitors spent their time in vain attempts to make
him recant his heretical opinions. Finding his conversion
by argument too much for them, they passed sentence upon
him as “a confirmed heretic;” and eight days after (February
17th, 1600) he was burnt alive.
Tennemann, in his “ History of Philosophy,” describes1
Bruno as “ the most interesting thinker ” of his age, and
as being endowed with “ a comprehensive and penetrating
intellect.” He was a great classical scholar, and to this
Tennemann attributes his teaching Pantheism—that is, the
system “ of the Eleatæ and Plotinus purified.” God, in
his system, is the substance of all things and the cause. He
is described as holding the idea that the absolute is con
scious, and that what takes place in the universe is intended
to take place. God influences every atom of the universe,
as well as the whole of it. He makes the universe a living
being, and the eternity of its existence a necessity, it being
infinite and imperishable. It fashions and forms itself in
a thousand ways, without any limit. His system has been
described as Atheism, but everything opposed to theo
logians and the Church received that name in all ages.
The explanation of the difference is that he affirms only
one eternal existence, which leaves no room for other exist
ences affirmed by the clericals.
Anne Askew.
Anne Askew was born at Kelsey, Lincolnshire, about 1521,
and died at London 1546.
Anne was the daughter of Sir William Askew, and was
married to a wealthy member of the Roman Church. In
Ballard’s “ British Ladies ” she is described as one of the
early martyrs to the Reformed views of religion. By read
ing the Scriptures, and comparing them with the new doc
trines, she became a convert. This change in her religious
views so enraged her husband, who was not only a Catholic,
but a violent and bigoted one, that he turned her out of the
�20
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
house. She then went to London, where she was befriended
by Queen Katherine and others.
In 1545, being accused by her husband and some priests,
she was arrested and imprisoned on the charge of heresy.
She was repeatedly examined by the Bishop of London and
others, on which occasions she displayed considerable ability.
In answer to a question put by the Lord Mayor, Whether
the priests cannot make the body of Christ ?” she boldly
replied, “ I have read that God made man, but that man
can make God I never yet read.”
Although allowed bail, she was soon brought up again,
and imprisoned in Newgate and the Tower. Bishop Bonner
tried in vain to persuade her to belie her conscience. M ith.
the view of ascertaining what ladies favoured her heresies,
she was cruelly put to the rack, and, on her refusing to
answer the Chancellor Wriothesley and Master Rich, it is
said they applied their own hands to strain the rack, and
with such violence, that every limb in the body of the inno
cent victim was dislocated.
f Such was the courage of this unfortunate woman that
she sat on the ground reasoning with her cruel persecutors
for two hours after this horrible punishment. Pardon was
afterwards offered if she would recant; but she refused all
such offers, and she was finally destroyed by fire. With
admirable courage and fidelity she went to the stake July
ifith, 1546, on which day, with four others, she was burnt
alive in Smithfield.
Jacobus Arminius.
Jacobus Arminius was born at Oudewater, Holland, 1560,
and died 1609.
By the assistance of a priest who was favourable to the
Reformed Religion, he became a student at Utrecht, and
afterwards at Leyden. Having greatly distinguished him
self at Leyden, the merchants of Amsterdam sent him to
Geneva to study under Theodore Beza. Having adopted
the philosophy of Peter Ramus, he commenced teaching
it. This being considered a great “ innovation,” he was
compelled to quit Geneva. He afterwards renounced his
Calvinistic views, and maintained that the merits of Christ
extended to the whole human family, This again exposed
him to great dangers, but the authorities of Amsterdam
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
21
protected him. He was several times troubled by his
-orthodox friends, and was summoned to the Hague to give
•an account of his doctrines.
These vexatious and violent proceedings brought on a
disease that terminated his life October 19th, 1609. His
motto was, “A good conscience is Paradise.”
Arminius, the leader of the Arminians or Remonstrants,
was a friend of universal toleration, and maintained, as a
fundamental principle, that men are responsible to God
alone for their religion. Arminius appears to have desired
the union of all Christians who were not idolators or per
secutors.
Although violently assailed by his bigoted neighbours,
he was a man of integrity; he was also candid, amiable,
and sincere. After his death his views were accepted by
the chief minds of Holland; among others was the cele
brated Grotius. This sect was afterwards condemned by
the Synod of Dort, and disgracefully persecuted under
Prince Maurice.
Arminians still form a distinct sect in Holland, and
similar views are now popular in other countries.
Thomas Cranmer.
Thomas Cranmer was born at Aslacton, Nottinghamshire,
July 2nd, 1489, and died at Oxford March 21st, 1556.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the son of respectable
parents, was educated at a village school, and at Jesus
College, Cambridge. At college he distinguished himself
in the study of Hebrew, Greek, and theology, and after
wards, through his travels, in French, German, and Italian.
At the age of twenty-three he committed the crime of
matrimony, which cost him his fellowship. To particularise
all the events of Cranmer’s life would occupy too much
space. He was the prime mover in the establishment of
a new Church in England, which has been honoured by
the State ever since. His discreditable acts in connection
with Henry VIII. have been sufficiently exposed by the
■critics and enemies of the new religious order of priesthood.
He sanctioned immorality, illegality, and cruelty ; but the
general intention of his nature was moderation, and sincerity
of purpose appears in the majority of his actions. On the
accession of Mary, Cranmer’s influence ceased, and a com
�22
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
mission was given to the bishops to imprison Protestant
ministers on the charges of treason, heresy, and matrimony.
Cranmer was committed to the Tower on the charges of
“treason against the Queen” and “disquieting the State.”
The year after this he was removed to Oxford Prison, and
appeared at the famous discussion on the “Lord’s Supper.”
At the conclusion of the discussion Cranmer was declared.
“ an obstinate heretic in reply to this he said : “ From
this your judgment and sentence I appeal to the just judg
ment of the Almighty.” He was then removed to prison ;
and it was decided that the charge of treason should be
withdrawn, and that he should suffer for heresy, not by theaxe, but by fire. In an hour of weakness he recanted his
opinions, but afterwards he publicly declared he had pub
lished writings (referring to his recantation) contrary to thetruth that he believed in his heart. In consequence of this
confession of his untruthful recantation through fear of
death, after enduring imprisonment and insult, he was led
to the stake and burnt alive. While in the flames he held
out the hand with which he had signed the recantation,
and till his utterance was stifled exclaimed, “ This unworthy
hand!”
Tycho Brahe.
Tycho Brahe was born at Knudsthorp, Denmark, De
cember 14th, 1546, and died at Prague October 24th, 1601.
Otto Brahe, the father of Tycho, descended from a noble
Swedish family; but at the birth of his son was in such
“straitened circumstances” that he proposed educating him
for the military profession. Otto’s brother requesting that
Tycho should become his adopted child, the military pro
posal was abandoned.
While studying at Copenhagen, in 1560, Tycho’s atten
tion was first directed to astronomy by a total eclipse of
the sun, which was expected on August 21st of that year,
eclipses being in those days looked on as supernatural
events which affected the destinies of individuals and
nations.
About his thirtieth year, a most fortunate epoch in his
history, the King of Denmark erected a splendid observa
tory for him on the Island of Hven, at the cost of ^£2 0,000.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
23
This celebrated residence and observatory of Tycho received
the name of Uraniberg, or the City of the Heavens, on which
Tycho expended nearly a ton of gold. As he kept an open
and hospitable house, he was visited by many distinguished
persons. Among others, there was our own King James,
who, it is said, conducted himself in an exemplary manner,
and manifested his gratitude to the astronomer by present
ing him with a magnificent donation, and also a license to
publish his works in England. The life of Brahe has been
described as one of unmitigated pleasure till the year 1591,
when the dark clouds of jealousy and ill-will perceptibly
rose over him. His studies were calumniated by coun
cillors, and his pension was grudged by the Treasury.
The feelings of hostility and envy of the courts and
nobles who unwillingly tolerated his studies and pension
were considerably fermented by certain physicians, who
became extremely envious of his successful and gratuitous
practice of “ the healing art.” Invalids, whose diseases
resisted their medicinal skill, yielded to Tycho’s treatment.
They, having poisoned the mind of the court and the people
by describing his studies as useless, &c., at length succeeded
in depriving him of his canonry, estate, and pension. Being
unable to keep up the establishment himself, and fearing the
consequences of the adverse feeling created against him, he
removed some of his instruments to Copenhagen. After
this two persons, entirely ignorant of astronomy, were
appointed to inquire into the value of his discoveries and
observations, and, as might have been expected, they
declared “ that his studies were not only useless, but
noxious.”
On the strength of their learned report, Tycho’s observa
tions and experiments were prohibited in the King’s name,
and an attack was made on his person, and his servants
were injured in the affray. Tycho afterwards became an
exile from “ the City of the Heavens,” in which he had
spent so many harmless and useful years. The island'was
taken from the noble, and transferred to the nobility. The
only traits that remained of the philosopher have been de
scribed in one sentence : 11 There is in the island a field
where Uraniberg was.”
Tycho made a large quadrant, which enabled him to
make many excellent observations while on a visit to
Augsburg. In 1572 he discovered a new star in the con
stellation of Cassiopea, which is one of the most interesting
�24
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
phenomena in astronomy; it appeared to him larger than
Jupiter, and rivalled Venus in her greatest brilliance. In
1598 he published a work on Astronomiae Mechanica, and
dedicated it to the Emperor Rudolph, and at the same time
he sent him a copy of his MS. catalogue of a thousand fixed
stars.
As a practical astronomer, Tycho is said to have surpassed
all observers. Knight says : “ He showed himself a sound
mathematician in his method for determining refraction, in
his deduction of the variation and annual equation of the
moon, and in many other ways.” He made a great glass
globe with internal wheel-work, by which he imitated the
diurnal motions of the heavens, the rising and setting of the
sun, and the phases of the moon.
He was, indeed, the inventor of a new, but erroneous,
system of the world, and, though it did not succeed, had
many followers. It should be also named that, unlike a
philosopher ought to be, he was very superstitious with
regard to presages, very positive, and impatient of contra
diction.
One not uncommon occurrence in the life of scientific
men happened to Tycho—viz., piracy. One. Paul Witichins, a mathematician of Germany, once visited Tycho,
and played the pirate with him, who explained freely his
invention and method to him. Paul afterwards proceeded
to put forth what he had learned from Tycho, and de
scribed it as his own.
- Tycho’s system places the earth stationary in the centre
of the universe, while the sun and all the other heavenly
bodies revolve around the earth. Sir David Brewster, from
whom I have learned many of the foregoing particulars, says :
“ His theory was consistent with Scripture, and conformable
to the senses, and found many supporters, notwithstanding
the physical absurdity of making the whole universe revolve
round the smallest planet.”
John Kepler.
John Kepler was born at
cember 21 st, 1571, and died
1630.
His education was hindered
and the diseases of his body.
Weil, in Wurtemberg, De
at Ratisbon in November,
by the quarrels of his family
The quarrels with his mother
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
25
caused his father to emigrate, offended all her relations, and
threw the whole of their domestic affairs into inextricable
disorder.
In spite of adverse circumstances, John became a good
mathematician, and gained the degrees of B.A. and M.A.
He seems to have met with many disappointments in his
speculations, for Sir D. Brewster says he spent a whole
summer in fruitless speculations, and praying constantly to
his Maker for success. His friend, Tycho Brahe, gave him
some advice, which is of general application (especially if
the student keep in view the correct definition of the term
-“causes”), “to lay a solid foundation for his views by
actual observation, and then strive to reach the causes of
things.”
Kepler’s marriage was attended by trouble and vexation.
His income was very small, and, his wife’s being smaller
than he expected, he was led into pecuniary difficulties,
and, added to these, disputes with her relations. These
evils were aggravated by religious persecutions of Protes
tants by Catholics, which compelled him to leave his
country. He was afterwards, on his return, excommuni
cated by the Catholics for refusing their opinion of Jesus
Christ. To support his family at this time he was obliged
to make almanacks. While in this state of poverty he
refused the Mathematical Chair at Bologna, rather than live
in a country where his freedom of speech and manners
might expose him to suspicion.
Regarding the eye as similar to the camera obscura,
Kepler discovered that an image of an external object was
painted in an inverted position on the retina by the union
of the pencils of rays. He also explained the cause of long
and short-sighted vision, and the power of accommodating
the eye to different distances, and discovered a method of
calculating eclipses. It is to Kepler we owe the methods
of tracing the progress of rays through transparent bodies
with convex and concave surfaces. He invented the astro
nomical telescope, which consists of two convex lenses. The
three great astronomical truths known as Kepler’s laws are :
The elliptic form of the orbits ; the equable description of
areas ; that the squares of the periodic times are propor
tional to the cubes of the mean distances from the sun.
In 1609 he published his “ New Astronomy,” containing
his great work, “ On the Motion of Mars,” which has been
described as the connecting link between Copernicus and
�2Ô
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Newton. In this remarkable book Kepler discusses the
theory of gravity then held, and advances his own. He
describes two bodies as having the power of attracting each
other over a space in proportion to the mass of each (sup
posing them to be placed in space, and uninfluenced by the
attraction of any third body).
His epitome of the Copernican system was prohibited by
the Inquisition immediately after its publication in 1618;
and his Kalender was publicly burnt by order of the States
of Styria.
Kepler escaped the flames of the faggot, but was often
enveloped in the flames of domestic discord, and was often
found merging into a state of bankruptcy, or linked in the
chains of adversity.
Sir Henry Wootton, when English Ambassador at Venice,
found him, as he generally was to be found, “ oppressed
with pecuniary difficulties.” He invited him to England,
but Kepler would not leave his Continental home. In all
his difficulties and poverty he used to declare he would
rather be author of his books than owner of the Duchy of
Saxony.
In 1630 he made his last attempt to obtain his due from
the Imperial treasury; but the attempt was fruitless, and
the journey brought on a fever that terminated his life early
in November. Delambre has expressed his opinion of
Kepler in the following words :—“ Ardent, restless, burning
to distinguish himself by his discoveries, he attempted every
thing. All his attempts had not the same success ; that
was impossible. Those which failed seemed fanciful;
those which have been more fortunate appear sublime.”
No labour was too great for him ; he would continue his
calculations on one subject for four years ■ and in all his
pursuits he displayed “ that obstinate perseverance, that
must triumph over all difficulties but those which are insur
mountable.”
Sir Walter Raleigh.
Walter Raleigh was born at a farm called Hayes, in
Devonshire, in 1552, and died in London, October 29th,
1618.
Raleigh was the son of a gentleman of ancient family,
the spelling of whose name has considerably varied. The
common method adopted by King James, Hooke, and
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
27
others, is as the above ; while Cayley, Sir R. Naunton, and.
Lord Bacon write it Rawleigh. Some old deeds have it
Rale, and Ralega, and Sir Walter himself used to write it
Ralegh. After the usual school education, he was sent to
Oriel College, where “ he was worthily esteemed a proficient
in oratory and philosophy.” Sir R. Naunton, speaking of
his position in early life, says : “ He was well descended,
and of good alliance, but poor in his beginnings.” Lord
Oxford -called him “a Jack of an upstart.” The same
lord, referring to Raleigh’s promotion and Essex’s execu
tion, remarked that “when Jacks start up, heads go down.”
At college he was successful in learning “ far beyond his
age,” but his active disposition and martial ardour soon
put an end to his aspirations for learning. In 1569, in
company with other noblemen, who in his time went to
study in the schools of Mars the art of warfare, he went to
France for the purpose of preparing himself to assist the
Protestants (or Huguenots), who were at that time greatly
oppressed. How he escaped the dreadful massacre on St.
Bartholomew’s Day is not known.
The generality of noblemen who visited France are said
to have “ ruined their fortunes, constitutions, and morals.”
Not so Sir Walter, who returned, at the end of five years,
“ the best bred and most accomplished man in England.”
In 1578 he went out with an expedition to North America,
but returned the following year, and soon after offered his
services to suppress an attempted rebellion in Ireland. In
1584 he again visited America, and discovered a place which
was called, in honour of the Virgin Queen, Virginia. The
grand issues of this expedition were the importation of the
potato into England—which was afterwards successfully
cultivated on his estate in Ireland—and the importation of
tobacco.
A well-known story is told, in an old number of the
Gentleman’s Magazine, of his first introduction of the nar
cotic weed. Sir Walter, having seated himself in a chair to
take a “ quiet pipe ” after dinner, was unceremoniously
disturbed by the alarm of “ Fire ! fire ! the master’s afire >”
and, before he could extricate himself from his perilous posi
tion, the horrified servant precipitated a pailful of water in
the face of his respected employer.
Several stories are told of his connection with the court.
One day, walking with the Queen Elizabeth, she came to a
spot of mire that obstructed her course; whereupon Sir
�28
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Walter threw down his cloak for her majesty to walk on !
The sacrifice of this one cloak is said to have gained him
many a good suit. He seems from this time to have become
a favourite, and, some say, with justice, since “ whatever he
received with one hand, he bestowed it in acts glorious to
the nation with the other.” When the famous Armada
appeared in the Channel, Sir Walter was one who volun
teered to assist in defeating the enemy.
On his return from Portugal he visited his estate in Ireland,
on which occasion Spenser, with whom he was acquainted,
celebrated him as the “ Shepherd of the Ocean,” and
acknowledged that Sir Walter first introduced him to the
queen. Spenser also described to him the plan and design
of the “ Fairie Queene.”
With the view of getting Raleigh into disgrace with his
royal mistress, Parsens, a Jesuit, published a document
charging him with “ Atheism.”
Soon after this Sir Walter got into disgrace by an amour
with the daughter of Sir N. Throckmorton ; and although
he married the young lady, the queen shut him up in the
Tower two months, and banished him from court. He
soon, however, displayed extravagant signs of grief, and
was liberated. While a prisoner he planned his design for
discovering the Empire of Guiana. He visited it, and took
possession, and afterwards wrote a description of his “ Dis
coveries.” This book of imaginary rather than real dis
coveries Hume describes as “ full of the grossest and most
palpable lies.”
Being once more in favour at court, he gave up his
discoveries, and devoted his time to the House of Commons;
there he opposed all Bills that were contrived to oppress
the middle and lower classes. He advocated principles
that were far before his time, such as claiming the right of
every man to employ his labour or capital how and where
he chose—also the necessity of removing all restrictions on
the trade in corn.
.
These, of course, are some of the best traits of his
character; others might be mentioned to his discredit, as in
some things he resembled his brethren. The queen, how
ever, is said to have paid due respect to every man s merit,
and to none more than Raleigh’s.
The death of Elizabeth was the fall of Raleigh. Till
then he had served his country gloriously, and lived in it
happily.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
*
29
On the accession of James I. a conspiracy was discovered,
in which Lord Cobham (with whom Raleigh was intimate)
was concerned. Raleigh, against whom his former friend
Cecil had completely poisoned the king’s mind, was examined
before a council, and in 1603 was committed on the charge
of treason.
His only accuser was Cobham, a man of disreputable
character, who afterwards retracted all that he had said
against him. Three were executed for this plot, and Sir
Walter was reprieved. His wife, at her own solicitation,
was permitted to become his fellow prisoner. On his trial
his eloquence “ in half a day changed the mind of all the
company from* extremest hate to greatest pity.” Being
committed, it is said that he attempted suicide. He
remained a prisoner about thirteen years, during which
period his ever-active mind created his great work, “ The
History of the World,” which, Hume says, “ is the best
model of our ancient style.”
Prince Henry greatly admired Sir Walter, and cheered
and consoled him in prison, declaring that “ no king but
his father would keep such a bird in a cage.”
In 1615, some of his enemies being dead, Raleigh
obtained his liberty through calling attention to his project
for opening a gold mine in Guiana. This expedition was
betrayed to the Spaniards, and defeated. A conflict ensued
between the two nations’ explorers ; and, Sir Walter’s son
having lost his life at the town of St. Thomas, an English
captain set fire to the town. Complaints reaching King
James from the Spanish Court, Sir Walter, on his return,
was arrested at Plymouth, and committed to the Tower.
James wanted to marry his son into the Spanish Court, and
to succeed in this he sacrificed Raleigh to the Spanish
alliance. The jury being unable to condemn him in the
absence of evidence, James sent a privy seal on October
Sth, 1618, ordering him to be beheaded on the ground of
his former conviction, although sixteen years after that
event, thirteen of which he had been in prison, and from
which he had been released by the king’s own permission.
Dr. Campbell, referring to this abominable act of James,
says : “ This judgment did not only murder Sir Walter, but
subverted the constitution, and ought not to be looked on
only as an act of the basest prostitution, but as the most
flagrant violation of justice that was ever committed.” Sir
R. Naunton, Secretary of State to James, says: “Sir
�30
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Walter’s trial was a disgrace to the judicature of the country.”
James’s own published justification of his conduct specifies
that the offence for which Raleigh was beheaded was that
of “ sacking the town of St. Thomas, and attempting to
escape when he arrived in England,” and not his former
treason. Thus we find that, according to. the king’s own
acts and words, he murders Raleigh for his acts of present
hostility to Spaniards on the grounds of his past amity
towards them. This abomination was perpetrated by a
man who was the chief magistrate of England, the law of
which contains the singular maxim, that, “ the king can do
no wrong.” Of course he cannot so long as the people are
sufficiently vicious to excuse him from obedience to all
human laws.
On October 29th, 1618, Sir Walter was taken to the
scaffold, where his manner was calm, dignified, and manly.
He addressed the people, telling them that he feared death
less than ever, and, as to the manner of it, he preferred it
to dying in a burning fever. He desired to see the axe,
and feel the edge of it, in doing which he remarked : “ This
is a sharp medicine, but a sure remedy for all evils.” Being
asked which way he would lay on the block, he replied :
“ So the heart be right, it is no matter which way the head
lies and, giving the signal, he received the blow with the
utmost composure.
Thus died the tall, handsome, and bold Sir Walter, a
man of high forehead, long face, remarkable aspect, and
“ damnably proudone who distinguished himself as
commander, navigator, discoverer, and statesman; a profi
cient in mechanics, and an author of no mean pretensions.
Although deficient in many respects, he was affectionate,
and beloved by those beneath him. “Take him all in
all,” he was one of the most remarkable men of his time.
Nicholas Ridley.
Nicholas Ridley was born at Tynedale, Northumberland,
early in the sixteenth century, and died at Oxford, October
16th, 1555.
He was educated at Newcastle, Pembroke College,
Oxford, and in France. His knowledge and capacity to
preach gained him the attention of Cranmer; and his early
sermons against holy water, images^ transubstantiation, and
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
31
other matters affecting the Church, made him a distinguished
member of the New Church. He was greatly offended with
Mary for having refused him permission to preach before
her. After this, however, we find him interceding for Mary’s
right to be allowed her own religion. In one of his sermons
before Edward VI. he “ moved the young king’s mind to
works of charity,” to provide houses for the poor—whether
poor by sickness, poverty, or idleness. Having espoused
the cause of Lady Jane Grey, immediately Mary acceded
to the throne she placed Ridley in prison. He was com
mitted to the Tower in 1553, and removed to Oxford in
1554, where he was allowed to attend a Convocation in
company with two other prisoners, Cranmer and Latimer.
After some pretended free discussion of the “ real pre
sence ” doctrine, amidst disorder and insult, the three
reformers were declared to be defeated in argument, and
to be “ obstinate heretics.” Unable to convince Ridley by.
argument, or to compel him to recant, his persecutors
led him to the stake, hung gunpowder around his neck, and
burnt him alive. As the fuel was slow in rising into a
flame sufficient to explode the powder, the extremities of
his body were gradually burnt from under him before he
■expired. Burnet describes Ridley as the most learned and
eloquent of the early advocates of the new religion. At the
same time as Ridley the honest, moral, simple, and zealous
Latimer perished in the flames.
William Tyndale.
William Tyndale was born on the borders of Wales before
1500, and died 1536.
Of his parents nothing is known. He received a good
education, and entered Magdalen College, Oxford. Here
he embraced the tenets of Luther. Being a man of good
moral character, and diligent in his studies, he was appointed
Canon of Christ Church; but his principles soon became
known, and he was immediately dismissed. He then ob
tained a degree at Cambridge, and became tutor to Sir John
Welch. Again his heretical-religious views caused him to
be reprimanded and dismissed. Failing to obtain assist
ance from the great people who promise and seldom per
form, he took refuge in the house of a London Aiderman.
Tyndale was a great reformer, and served his cause very
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
greatly by preparing, while with the Aiderman, his cele
brated translation of the New Testament. But a. prophet
being never received in his own country, and being unable
to bear the ill-usage of the English clergy, Tyndale pro
ceeded to Saxony. Here he was introduced to Luther
and others. Thence he went to Antwerp, where, by the
assistance of John Fry and a friar, he completed and pub
lished his work in 1526. The fifteen hundred copies
printed were most of them sent to England, where they
created terrible alarm among the clergy. Bishops Wareham
and Tunstall, buying all the copies up “ to burn them,
enabled Tyndale to print another edition, which had a wider
circulation.
He then took up his residence at Antwerp with an English
merchant, but there was no abiding peace for Tyndale.
Animated by the extraordinary spirit of the time, Henry
VIII. and his council engaged an inhuman individual, bear
ing the name of Phillips, to betray poor Tyndale to the
Procurator of the Emperor. They succeeded in capturing
him, and in 1536, by the decree of the Emperor, Tyndale
was tried, and condemned to be strangled and burnt. He
was led to the stake, and quietly submitted himself to be
strangled ; afterwards he was burnt. His last words were,.
“ Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” Thus ended the
life of one of England’s sons, a man of irreproachable
manners and character, whose crime was. the endeavour to.
induce the Christians who condemned him to peruse. that
divine book which they claimed to be the word of Almighty
God, and the foundation of the only true religion.
Patrick Hamilton.
Patrick Hamilton was born about the year 1504.
.
Buchanan states that he was the son of Sir Patrick
Hamilton, of Kingcavil, and his grandfather is said to have
married the sister of James III. According to the prevail
ing custom among the nobility, young Hamilton was intended
for the Church, and obtained an abbacy m his childhood.
He seemed, however, destined to act a nobler part than
that prescribed by his parents. In Hamilton s youth what
were called heretical books were being circulated in Scot
land, which presented Christianity in its earlier and purer
form. Consequently, he formed views of religious truth of
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
33
very different character from those which prevailed in the
Church at his time. He was of a bold and questioning
.spirit, and freely spoke of the corruptions of the Church,
and of the intolerant and grossly corrupt character of the
■clergy, beneath whose rapacity and oppression the people
lived. He exposed their oppressive exactions and their
scandalous lives, which excited the mind of the people
against them, and drew down the suspicion of the clergy on
himself. The long slumber of security in which the clergy
had lived was now suddenly disturbed by the spread of the
Lutheran heresy, which made it prudent for Patrick to leave
his country. He therefore visited Wittenburg, at which
•place he was kindly entertained by Luther. After imbibing
the new doctrines from the lips of Francis Lambert, of
Avignon, his faith became thoroughly fixed.
Full of the fervour and zeal of youth, Hamilton at once
resolved to return to Scotland, to proclaim the new truths
to his oppressed and benighted countrymen. Although his
instructor portrayed to him the dangers and perils of this
attempt, he at once began openly to preach the doctrines
he had learnt in Germany and from his Bible. But he soon
had the honour of sealing his doctrines with his blood, for
the clergy thought at once to put down the new “ filthy
heresy,” and to strike universal terror into the minds of the
people by sacrificing so illustrious a victim. With a view
to get Hamilton destroyed, Archbishop Beaton challenged
him to a pretended free conference. Thus in the power of
Beaton, a pretext was soon found for throwing him into
prison. On his trial he defended his opinion with modesty
.and firmness, but his persecutors were determined to put
an end to his life. In 1528, and in his, twenty-fourth year,
with courage worthy of his cause, he perished in the flames.
The last words of this noble man were : “ How long, O
Lord, shall darkness cover this land ? How long wilt thou
suffer this oppression of men ?” Hamilton’s family was
suspected of heresy, and his brother Sir James, and his
•sister Catherine, were both denounced as heretics. Cathe
rine, however, was prevailed on to recant, and she escaped.
�34
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
Daniel De Foe.
Daniel De Foe was born in the parish of St. Giles’s,
London, in 1661, and died there April 24th, 1731Daniel’s father, James Foe, was a butcher by trade, and
his religious profession was Dissenter; and, accordingly, ie
placed his son in a Dissenting academy. Daniel seems to
have been successful at school, for in after life he chalensed one of his adversaries to translate any Latin, French,,
or Italian work. He says he was trained for the ministry,
but he never appeared in that capacity. His first appear
ance as an author was in a pamphlet against High Churcli
views. This, it is said, contained some reflections on cer
tain ecclesiastics, who “ obliged him to explain himself, and
which he did clearly.” “The Shortest Way with the Dis
senters ” gave great offence, and a reward was offered lor
De Foe’s apprehension. The House of Commons decided
that the book was “ scandalous,” and ordered it to be burnt
bv the common hangman. The following proclamation
appeared against him
“ Whereas, Daniel De Foe, alias
De Fooe, is charged with writing a scandalous and sedi
tious pamphlet, entitled ‘The Shortest Way wit 1
e
Dissenters.’ He is a middle-sized, spare man, about forty,,
of brown complexion, and dark brown hair, but wears a
wig; a hooked nose, a sharp chin, grey eyes, and a large
mole near his mouth.” Here followed a statement of his
business, and an offer of ^5° reward t0 *n7 one who
would “ hand him over.” He was soon caught and. impri
soned, fined and pilloried ! While in Newgate prison,_ m
order to set at defiance their abominable usage of him,
he composed a “ Hymn to the Pillory and for more than
twelve months he was busily engaged minting and con
cocting schemes for the future. By this imprisonment, he
says, he lost about ^3,50°, and his wife was reduced to a
state of starvation. By the advice of Harley (Secretary to
Queen Anne) De Foe was set at liberty, and he then
removed to Bury St. Edmunds. Six or seven years after
he published another pamphlet, “What if the Queen should
Die ?” which got him into prison again. He was fined £°oo>
or, in default of payment, to be sent to Newgate, and, of
course, to Newgate he went; he was, however, soon re
leased. His enemies, on the death of the Queen, sur
rounded him on every side : he drew up a defence, and
quitted the field of politics. He then commenced the re
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
35
ligious writing, and published his “ Religious Courtship.”
Soon after followed his immortal “ Robinson Crusoe.” This
story, at the time of its publication, as by many a reader
since, was believed to be “a true account.”
Of course it will not be expected that even a list of his
writings should appear in these pages, since, as Walter Scott
said, Daniel “wrote on all occasions and on all subjects’
—and it may be added that “ he wrote well.” ■ He was a
man of great industry, courage, and firmness—-who served
his country in the best manner he could, according to his
conscience and abilities. In politics he was a Whig; in
religion he was not only a Protestant, but a Dissenter, and
one of the first order.
Hugo Grotius.
Hugo Grotius wras born at Delft, in Holland, April ioth,
1583, and died at Rostock, August 28th, 1645.
He was the son of intelligent and respectable parents,
who were descended from one of the first families in
Holland. Every facility was given him to promote the in
clination for study which he manifested early in life. He
was instructed by Joseph Scaliger and Francis Junius. At
Leyden, in his fourteenth year, he gained considerable notice
by his knowledge of science and law. Having published a
work on the freedom of the seas, in which he claimed the
right of the Dutch as well as the Portuguese to trade in
the Indies, and to fish in the North Seas as did the English,
he came to London, and negotiated with James I. relative
to the Greenland fisheries. James treated him with respect,
but the English clergy were unable to appreciate any one
holding liberal opinions on religion. On his return to
Holland he found that country divided by two parties,
Arminians and Calvinists—the latter being the more
numerous, and supported by Maurice, Prince of Orange.
The liberal political and religious sentiments of Grotius
naturally led him to defend the Arminian cause. Maurice
had him and two compatriots arrested in August, 1618.
The Synod of Dort having decided in favour of Calvinism,
one of his friends was immediately put to death. In 1619
a very irregular trial of Grotius took place, which ended in
�36
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
his being convicted of treason, and sentenced to imprison
ment for life. His estate was confiscated, and he was con
fined in the castle of Loevestein. During the two years he
remained in prison, Grotius wrote his work “ On the Truth
of Christianity.” Grotius was voluntarily accompanied to
prison by his wife, and to her tact and courage he owed his
escape. Being accustomed to receive books in a chest
from a friend, the officers, for some time, duly examined
the vehicle. Finding no objectionable matter therein, they
discontinued their search. This circumstance suggested
the idea of emigration to Madame Grotius, who, having
informed the governor’s wife that she intended sending a
large load of books away, to prevent her husband injuring
his sight, persuaded Grotius to allow himself to be confined
in the chest. At the appointed time Giotius entered-the
chest, and was conveyed therein down a ladder by two
soldiers. One of them, thinking the chest extremely heavy,
remarked in jest : “There must be an Aiminian in it.
Madame replied : 11 There are Arminian books in it.
The
man, not feeling exactly satisfied, told the governor s lady
of the circumstances ; but the lady, having been previously
informed of the cause of the increase in weight, allowed it
¡to pass unexamined. Madame Grotius, having learnt the
safe arrival of the chest, confessed the whole affair. After
being confined more closely for a short time, she was
released, and had the pleasure of rejoining her husband a
few months afterwards.
Grotius first sought an asylum in France, and was favour
ably received by Louis XIII., who granted him a pension
which was paid with extreme irregularity. The Protes an
clergy, however, refused him communion, having embraced
the same view as the Synod that condemned him.
e
also suffered annoyance from well-intentioned people o . ie
opposite party, who were extremely anxious that he mig
embrace the Catholic faith. While resident m France, , he
wrote and published a work called “De Jure Belli et Pacis,
which very greatly added to his reputation. Hearing, o e
death of Maurice, Grotius ventured once more to visit Hol
land ; but his enemies were so powerful, and his friends so
timid, that he was compelled to seek a place of refuge a
Hamburg. He then became Swedish ambassador at Pans,
which office he performed to the advantage of Sweden, and
to his own credit, for about ten years.
.
In 1644 he returned to Sweden; but, being disappointed,
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
37
and suffering from the climate, he resolved to visit Lubeck.
On the way he met with a violent storm, which caused him
to go on shore near Dantzic, and travel thence by waggon.
Travelling in an open waggon, and the continuation of bad
weather, increased his illness so rapidly that, when he arrived
at Rostock, he could travel no farther. .He died there
August 28th, 1645, and his body was carried to Delft, and
interred in the family vault. Thus ended the stormy life
of an exile and a wanderer, of a great man and an intel
ligent Christian; to whose memory, in 1781, a monument
was erected by his countrymen on the spot from which he
was excluded during life.
Rev. Samuel Johnson.
The Rev. Samuel Johnson was born either in Stafford
shire or Warwickshire, 1649, and died in London, 1703.
He was educated at St. Paul’s School, London, afterwards
at Trinity College, Cambridge. Corringham not agreeing with
his health, he removed to London, and took part in the
opposition to the despotic measures of Charles II. This
was the commencement of his career and zeal in the cause
of civil liberty, of which he afterwards proved so distin
guished an advocate. While Lord Russell was engaged in
excluding the Duke of York, Johnson published a tract
called “Julian the Apostate,” a refutation of the “passive
obedience ” advocated by Hickes. This tract got him into
trouble. He was prosecuted and fined, and, being unable
to pay, he was imprisoned. During his confinement, with
the assistance of friends, he published some papers against
Catholicism.
In 1686 his perils were increased by his publishing “A
Humble and Hearty Address to the Protestants in the
Army.” For this offence he was kept in close custody,
tried again, and condemned to stand in the pillory, be fined
500 marks, and be whipped from Tyburn to Newgate. He
was deprived of “ orders,” and the sentence was executed
with great and disgraceful severity. James II. was asked
to remit the whipping, but said that, as Johnson had the spirit
of'a martyr, he must suffer as one. He went through the
terrible and degrading infliction with a brave and courageous
spirit, and afterwards continued to use his pen in defence
�3°
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
of the noble cause he had espoused until the Revolution ;
after that he wrote two pieces justifying the same.
During the time of William, he censured the acts of the
Government, contended for annual Parliaments, opposed
the institution of a standing army, and declaimed against
the wars that render such an institution a national necessity.
He was a bold, brave, and determined defender of the truth,
and was well entitled to the name of martyr, by which his
enemies were accustomed, in derision, to call him. In 1697
he was attacked by a decline, which terminated his life m
1703.
Isaac Orobio.
Isaac Orobio was born in Spain, and died at Amster
dam, 1687.
.
This learned Jew was educated in the Catholic faith of
his parents, and became Teacher of Mathematics in the
university of Salamanca. Afterwards, being a medical
practitioner at Seville, he formed a strong resolution to
accept the faith of his ancestors. This led to his being
accused before the Inquisition of Infidelity and Judaism.
He received all the cruel attention that that institution
usually bestowed on its victims. After remaining three
years in a dark dungeon, and being repeatedly tortured,_ he
showed no signs of repentance, and, there being no particle
of evidence against him, he was liberated. He speedily
disappeared from Spain, and visited France whence he
removed to Amsterdam, where he was allowed to act ac
cording to his conscience. He there had controversies
with Spinoza, and others, on the truth of Christianity; but
no alteration in his religious views was produced thereby.
He practised as a physician with great reputation, and died
in 1687.
Thomas Emlyn.
Thomas Emlyn was born at Stamford, Lincolnshire, _
1663, and died at London, July 3°th> I743After studying at Cambridge and London, he became
chaplain in the family of Sir William Franklin in Ireland.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
39
In 1688 he was minister of a congregation at Lowestoft,
.and. thence removed to Dublin, where he was assistant
to the Rev. J. Boyse. While at Dublin he was suspected
■of Arianism, and was subjected to a disgraceful prosecution.
An inquisitorial examination was commenced by his dis
senting brethren, the result of which was his dismissal from
office. On his return from London to Dublin, finding him
self exposed to public odium and misrepresentation, he
published “ A Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account
of Jesus Christ.” No sooner did this work appear than
he was arrested on a charge of blasphemy. He was tried
and convicted before the Chief Justice of the Queen’s
Bench for holding views inconsistent with the doctrine of
the Trinity. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment
and a fine of a thousand pounds. Being unable to pay
this exorbitant fine, he, by the assistance of some humane
persons, was set at liberty after undergoing about two
years’ imprisonment. He was a man of very excellent
•character and amiable disposition, and his only crime was
that of differing from his neighbours on the doctrine of the
'Trinity.
Jerome Savonarola.
Jerome Savonarola was born at Ferrara 1452, and hanged
Alay 23rd, 1498.
This famous Italian monk took the habit of St. Dominic
in his fourteenth year, and was afterwards prior of a convent
..at Florence. Being a man of considerable talents, and
having a great love of liberty, he used those talents to ex
tend the liberties of his fellow creatures. He was very warm
in his oratorical declamation against the authority of the
Medici family in the State. He spoke with the authority of
a prophet, and with the zeal of a man in earnest; hence he
-was denounced as an enthusiast and an impostor. During
the life of Lorenzo, who respected Jerome’s virtues, he was
protected from danger, and at the approaching death of
Lorenzo he received visits from Jerome. Afterwards
Jerome took a leading part in the Republic, aiding those
citizens who desired a democracy. He professed to be
inspired from heaven, and maintained that Christ would
Teign over the Florentines, and that every citizen would
�40
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
partake, as he ought, in the government of his country.
His influence was greatly increasing, when his denunciations
against Rome brought upon him the sentence of excommu
nication. He was afterwards tried and condemned for
sedition and blasphemy. He bravely defended himself,,
but was ultimately tortured into a confession of guilt, and.
sentenced to be strangled and burnt.
He preached eloquently against the corruption of. thecourt of Rome, particularly against the personal conduct of
Alexander II. He wrote a great number of works having
for their object the increase of morality among the people.
One of his books was entitled “ Triumphus Crucis.”
Being unable to stop the mouth of Jerome in any other
way, the Pope had recourse to the usual method. for theanswering of unpleasant arguments—condemned him to be
hanged and burnt. This sentence was put. into execution.
May 23rd, 1498, in the forty-sixth year of his age.
John Bunyan.
John Bunyan was born at Elston, near Bedford, 1628,.
and died in London 1688.
He was the son of a tinker, and followed the trade of his
parent, who appears to have been an honest and industrious
working man, and who gave our author the best instruction
to be obtained—namely, how to read and write. During
the Civil War he served in the Parliamentary army.
The earliest change in John’s religious career is reported
to have been caused by the accusation of an old woman,
who told him that “ he was the ungodliest fellow for swear
ing that ever she heard in all her life.” From this time hebecame very superstitious, and looked upon events that
happened as judgments upon him for his wickedness. It
is not so clear that he was so vicious as he thought himself.
Early in life he married a pious young woman, and alsoformed the habit of reading what are called religious books.
He soon became an attendant at a Baptist chapel, in which
he was subsequently immersed, and appointed preacher,.
His preaching, however, got him into trouble, since hewas not of the orthodox order. He offended the doctorsand priests, and was indicted for preaching at Elston in
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
41
1657, but escaped without punishment. Shortly after—in
1660—he was again brought up, and convicted of holding
“ unlawful meetings, to the great disturbance and distraction
of good citizens.” He might have escaped even this time
had he only consented to preach no more “ to the distrac
tion of his fellows.” But John believed he had a “call,”'
so would not desist. He accordingly became a prisoner,,
for conscience sake, in Bedford Gaol, where he remained
till 1672, when he was released by James II.
Among the stories told of him, one is that, during his
imprisonment, he made a journey to London to preach, for
giving him permission to do which the gaoler received
severe censure. Another is that a good Quaker once visited
him in the hope of converting him. “ Friend John, I am
come to thee with a message from the Lord ; and, having
searched half the prisons in England for thee, I am glad to
find thee at last.” The Quaker having thus delivered him
self, Bunyan replied : “ If the Lord had sent you, you need
not have taken such pains to find me out, for the Lord
knows I have been in Bedford Gaol for these twelve years
past 1”
While confined in Bedford Gaol his mind and pen wereactive in writing portions of a work that has the admiration
of nearly all nations, which, doubtless, every Protestant in
England has read, and which Lord Macaulay has described
as one of the purest Saxon books. “ In the latter half of
the seventeenth century,” he says, “ there were two creative
minds in England; one produced 1 Paradise Lost,’ and the
other ‘ Pilgrim’s Progress.’ ” Next to the Protestant Bible
“ Pilgrim’s Progress ” was the first human production that
came into my hands in youth, and I still hold it to be a true
miracle of genius, in which all things that are not are made
to appear as though they were.
He lived—and preached with great success after his im
prisonment—till 1688, when, on returning from Reading
(which he had visited for the purpose of reconciling a father
to his son), he caught a severe cold, which terminated his-,
earthly career, August 31st. A monument has recently been»
erected to his memory at Bedford.
�-42
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
George Fox.
George Fox was born at Drayton, Leicestershire, July,
1624, and died January 13th, 1691.
He was the son of a poor weaver, who placed him ap
prentice to the shoe-making. He soon, however, quitted
his master’s service, and commenced a sort of hermit life.
His friends persuaded him to return home, but he soon left
them again. Reflecting on the degenerate state of mankind,
he resolved to attempt the reformation of the people. Being
in possession of the belief that he was specially called
upon by the Lord to commence this great work, he deter
mined to begin to preach. His wife also shared in his
spiritual illumination, and accordingly joined him in the
great enterprise, and assisted him in preaching. With
nothing but his Bible to guide him (having had no educa
tion, nor any collegiate certificate), he commenced teaching
the people “ to receive the inward teachings of the Spirit,
and make that the rule of their lives. Not by Scripture,
but by the Holy Spirit, are men to be guided. He said
that, when the Lord first called him to preach, he was not
;to “ pull off his hat,” nor bid any “ good morning or good
evening,” nor to make any distinction between “high and
low, rich and poor,” etc. This conduct of his, he says,
“ made the professions and sects to rage.” His disciples
imitated him in his frugal habits, plainness of dress, and
reservation of manner in conversation.
He spent forty years of his life in travelling, preaching,
and imprisonment. He suffered greatly from the tyranny
of the Civil Power, and the intolerance of a people who
would not, or could not, appreciate his labours.
Of course every one knows that George Fox was the
originator of the Society of Friends, called Quakers, d he
■term Quaker was first given to him at Derby by Justice
Bennett, before whom Fox was brought for trial. Fox says.
“ He called us Quakers, because I bid him tremble at the
word of the Lord.” Perhaps a better social reformation
was never effected than that by Fox, the influence of whose
labours lives among us even unto this day. One is
times tempted to exclaim, “Oh, that all men were ‘Friends.
In 1655 Fox was a prisoner in Scarborough Castle, which
edifice is now in ruins. The officers described him a»
“ stiff as a tree, and pure as a bell. ’ One of the rooms in
'which he was confined was on the sea-side, which, he says,
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
43
il lying much open, the wind drove in the rain so forcibly
that the water came over my bed and ran about the room,
so that I was obliged to skim it up with a platter.” His
diet was very spare; a threepenny loaf lasted him three
weeks, and his drink was mostly water, into which worm
wood had been infused. The pleasant and fashionable
watering place would hardly have the charm for Fox which
it affords more modern visitors, who, if they ever reflect,
must wonder at the stupidity and bigotry that in times gone
by could imprison a man so good and innocent as the model
of simplicity, George Fox.
Martin Luther.
Martin Luther was born at Eisleben, Saxony, in Novem
ber, 1484, and died there February, 1546.
His father, Hans Luther, was a miner. From school he
was removed to the University of Erfurt, to study the law,
but Martin preferred literature and music. While at the
■university one of his fellow students was killed by lightning,
which had so great an effect on Martin that he resolved at
•once to become a monk, and he accordingly entered the
convent of Erfurt. After overcoming some religious doubts,
adopting the Augustine doctrines, and gaining the consent
of his father, he was ordained, and subsequently made Pro
fessor of Philosophy in the University of Wittemberg.
In 1510 he was sent to Italy ; and, finding a great dis
parity between the profession and practice of his brethren,
he informed the monks of Milan that they ought to fast on
Fridays, for offering which advice he narrowly escaped
with his life. On his way he was amazed at the sensuality,
hypocrisy, and treachery that presented themselves ; and
■even at Rome itself the blasphemous jests and unbelief of
the priests bewildered the mind that had fondly dreamed
of Pontifical purity in the citadel of Christendom. He
returned home, and achieved a high reputation as a divine
and preacher, and in 1512 was made Doctor of Divinity.
Some five years after this event the devout and moral
Luther was greatly shocked at a bull issued by Leo X. for
the sale of indulgences in Saxony, by which, according to
�44
THE MARTYRS OK PROGRESS.
the Monk Tetzel, the ignorant and credulous were released*
from all manner of sin ! Luther having expressed hisdisgust at this procedure, Tetzel threatened all who denied,
the efficacy of his quack indulgences with spiritual a.nd
temporal punishment. Luther, astounded at the gross im
pudence of Tetzel, entered into fierce opposition, denying
that the Pope had power to absolve men from the penalties
of Divine justice, either here or hereafter, and exhibited
the avarice and licentiousness of those who deal in indul
gences, and the fearful consequences of their issue among
the poor deluded people. The debate on indulgencesultimately extended to “free will,” “justification by faith,”
&c. Tetzel and his brethren burnt one of Luther’s books,
and afterwards Leo himself called on the author to “appear
and answer at Rome.” Luther was then examined by a
cardinal, who, instead of arguing with him, called upon
him to retract—asking how he, a monk, could expect to
confront the Pope. Luther answered that neither the
Legate, the Pope, nor St. Peter himself could pretend. to
infallibility. The cardinal, being unable to confute himr
endeavoured to get him expelled from his country; but
this did not succeed, for Frederick the Elector was Luthersfriend, and a greater authority than Rome itself.
Luther was afterwards engaged in controversy with Eckius,
who maintained that the Church was a divine monarchy
with “ a head ” of divine appointment. This Luther ad
mitted, but contended that “ that head ” was Jesus Christ.
Luther published his work on “Christian Liberty,” in which
he attacked the prevailing doctrine of the Church. This
led to Leo X. assembling his cardinals, who, having ex
amined Luther’s writings, and pronounced them “heretical,
condemned and ordered them to be publicly burnt. Luthei
himself was summoned to “ confess and retract.
Instead,
of confessing, he publicly withdrew from the Church, and
burnt on a pile of wood outside the walls of Wittemberg
the Pope’s bull, decrees, and canons, in the presence of a
vast multitude of people. Leo then urged the Emperor
Charles V. to make an example of Luther as an unrepenting
heretic ; but, by the influence of Frederick, Luther, instead,
of being punished, was summoned to appear at a Diet of
the empire, which assembled at Worms in i521* On some
one trying to dissuade Luther from appearing before such
an august assembly of Electors, bishops, and lords, he said
he would go, though there were as many devils in Worms-
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
45
as there were tiles on the roofs of the houses 1 Before
this remarkable assembly he boldly owned all his writings,
and contended for the main truth of all he had written.
He admitted as a man he was, like other men (popes,
•cardinals, and councilmen included), liable to err, and would
consent to burn such portions of his writings as could be
proved erroneous by the testimony of the Scriptures.
Charles V. expressed the common opinion of the Diet in
saying that he could no longer listen to Luther, and that
he should dismiss him and treat him as a heretic. Luther
was ordered to leave Worms with security for twenty-one days.
He accordingly quitted the place; but, on entering a forest
on his way, he was suddenly stopped by a number of armed
men in masks, who carried him off to the Castle of Wartenberg. This little plot, however, was set on foot by his friend
Frederick, and it was reported that the enemies of Luther
had carried him off, no one knew whither. After this event,
the Diet of Worms ordered the reformer to be detained in
prison at the Emperor’s pleasure, and imprisonment and
confiscation were threatened against all who offered him aid.
This impudent threat was easier made than executed, for
Frederick and other Electors were friendly to Luther; and,
moreover, the people, disgusted with Church abuses, were
preparing to side with him. While in confinement at Wartenberg he wrote several treatises, which created a great
sensation in Saxony. The monks began to abolish mass
and demolish images. Hundreds of them quitted the con
vents to enter “the holy estate.” Carlostadt, one of his
disciples, proposed to put all the books out of Wittemberg,
except the Bible, and made an effort to fulfil the sentence
pronounced on Adam by working in the fields, while the
intellectual Melancthon was found busily engaged in a
baker’s shop. This sort of thing was disapproved of by
Luther, and Carlostadt was banished by Frederick as “ a
seditious person, inculcating the doctrine of natural equality.”
Here set in a new source of grief to the great reformer. He
had no sympathy with the Anabaptists, who were for warring
against all property and law. So great was Luther’s dismay
at these proceedings, that he thought the end of the world
was surely approaching. In 1524, believing “ marriage in
its purity is a state of simplicity and peace,” Luther prac
tically renounced the oath of celibacy by marrying Catherina
de Bora, a young nun, who had the year before quitted the
convent.
�46
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
In 1529 the Catholics made an attempt to enforce the
edict of Worms against Luther, but the reformed Electors
opposed it. They then issued a decree against those who
denied the “ real body and blood,” which, however, in
cluded the followers of Luther, who did not deny the
doctrine. It was this that called forth the formal “ Protes
tation ” of the reformed princes and the deputies of
fourteen cities, thus bringing into existence the world-wide
name of “ Protestants.”
One of the greatest works of Luther’s lite was undoubtedly
his German edition of the Bible, through which the Chris
tian and Jewish writings became very popular m Germany.
Although opposed to the Roman Church, Luther was un
doubtedly a sincere believer in Revelation, claiming, of
course, like other Christians, his own right to interpret the
same. But, as a citizen, he was the friend of the poor and
the oppressed, of education for the working classes,_ and a
determined enemy to the encroachments of ecclesiastical
and imperial power, which kept the people in ignorance and
misery.
_
,
„
In 1546 he visited Eisleben, where he restored peace to the
family of Mansfield, and made some regulations for the eccle
siastical government of the State. While there he was taken
ill: and, becoming gradually worse, Dr. Jonas, an old friend,
being present, said : “ Revered father, do you die with a
firm conviction of the faith you have taught? . lo wiici
Luther distinctly replied, “ Yes,” and immediately after
breathed his last. The great and grand revolution inaugu
rated by Luther doubtless laid the foundation for. that
freedom of thought and liberty_ of conscience we so justly
admire and revere in modern times. From his teachings
is deducible the doctrine which proclaims the inalienable
rioht of all men and women to exercise their reason before
accepting or rejecting the doctrines of the Jewish or Chris
tian Churches.
George Buchanan.
George Buchanan was born at Killearn, Stirling, Feb
ruary, 1506, and died at Edinburgh September, 1582.
This man of great learning, and the best Latin scholar
of his time, was a son of poor parents. By the aid of his
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
4Z
uncle, he was sent to Paris University, at which he remained
only two years, in consequence of his uncle’s death. He
returned to Paris, where he obtained the degrees of B.A.
and M.A., and also a professorship in the College of St.
Barbe.. He visited Rome with a nobleman in 1532 • and,
returning to Scotland five years afterwards, he became tutor
to James Stewart, son of James V. At this time, while
on visits to his friend Lord Cassilis, he wrote three poems
satirising the. clergy, which called down their vengeance,
and caused him to be imprisoned as a heretic. It is said
that Cardinal Beaton offered a sum of money to the king
(who had asked Buchanan to write the poems) to order the
immediate execution of him.
He escaped to England ; but, finding himself in danger,
went to Bordeaux, where he wrote some Latin poems, which
occasioned him new troubles from the clergy. Having re
moved from there to Paris, he accompanied his friend Govea,
to the University of Coimbra, in Portugal. But even here
his heresies followed him. The Inquisition condemned
him as a heretic, and shut him up in a monastery. During his
confinement he wrote his “Version of the Psalms.” When
released, he again, visited England, but its political crisis
would not permit his remaining there, and he went to France,
where he remained several years. In 1560 he turned his
wandering steps. homewards to Scotland, and there filled
several high and influential offices with credit and advantage
to himself.
b
At the time his “History of Scotland ” was in the press,
he was called away by death. A few days before, when
some friends visited him, they found him teaching the
nglish language to the servant boy who waited on him.
1 he greater part of this great man’s life was spent in poverty
persecution, and exile; and, although in later years he was
well-to-do, his benevolence was so great that he left in
sufficient inon.ey to meet the expenses of his funeral, and
had to be buried at the public cost.
James Naylor.
James Naylor was born in Yorkshire 1616, and died in
Huntingdonshire 1669.
�,48
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
In early life he was a soldier ; but becoming a ponve^ ta
George Fox, he commenced preaching, and is said to have
greatly distinguished himself as divine and writer. He was
of anexcitable temperament; he believed himself ^spired
from heaven. Having a strong belief in his own and other
people’s divine gifts, he travelled with his friends to Bristol,
FntcFwhich place he made a grand entrance. On reaching
the outside of the town, several women spread their garments
in the way for his horse to walk on ! On either side of his
'horse others walked, singing, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord Go
This exhibition was considered an imitation of Jesus
Christ entering Jerusalem, and the enlightened British
magistrates had Naylor taken before the House of Commons.
Parhament, as wise as the ancients, at once tried
con
demned Naylor as “ a grand impostor and seducei of the
people.” By way of correcting his erroneous opinions, he
Pas ordered to be set on the pillory in the Palace Yard,
and be whipped from thence to Westminster; to haiea
paper fastened. to him describing each of his crimes
tongue bored with a hot iron, and the letter.
.
>■
on his forehead, signifying blasphemer. He
.sent to Bristol, through which place he was taken with
Ice backwards on horseback. On the following market
day he was publicly whipped. He was then 1 emoved
Bridewell prison to work at hard labour, “ restrained fro
the society of all people,” and from the use of pen, ink and
paper. The whole of this wise, humane, and pious sentence
was strictly carried out, and he was then discharged from
prison by the House of “ collective wisdom m 1659. An
old historian informs us that Naylor’s mrld correction.produced good results, for he says it brought h m to his
-senses, and with them to an exemplary degree of humility.
Benedict Spinoza.
Benedict Spinoza was bom at Amsterdam November
«p tA-22 and died at Hague 1677.
.
He was the son of a Portuguese Jew, who is said to have
fought peace in Holland when persecuted elsewhere. Ear y
in life SpTnoza manifested a great love of knowledge and
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
49
truth. He began to doubt the authenticity of the Talmud;
•and, being a devout and thoughtful man, he soon neglected
the ceremonial forms in which his brethren delighted. He
endeavoured to discover the foundation of the Jewish reli
gion, instead of imitating his idle brethren, who reverence,
as profound mysteries, things which they might have dis
covered to be merely absurdities.
Spinoza’s freedom of inquiry brought on him suspicion
and excommunication. One rabbi, full of Jewish zeal,
stabbed him as he came from a play one evening. The
synagogue solemnly dismissed him, his friends closed their
doors against him, and, under the shelter of some charitable
Christian’s house, he was concealed from danger. Finding
himself without a home or any resources, he commenced
as a polisher of glasses for microscopes, etc., and in his
leisure moments continued his philosophical inquiries, which
had already brought him much persecution. He studied
and acquired a knowledge of several languages. A goodnatured Atheist taught him Latin. On the accusation of
impiety, he retired to Rhensburg, and afterwards to near
the Hague, where he continued to support himself by the
work of his own hands. Here he published his treatise on
Cartesian Philosophy. In 1670 he published his “ Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus.” This publication was officially con
demned, and was attacked by nearly all the divines of every
persuasion. Before this “abominable tract” appeared he was
offered a chair in\ the University of Heidelberg, with full
liberty to philosophise. But there was one condition with
which the brave and independent Spinoza could not, and
would not, comply—namely, that he would not dis
turb the prevailing religion. When Louis XIV. offered
him a pension, he declined to accept it, saying that “ he
had no intention of dedicating anything to that monarch.”
The system of Spinoza, or rather those parts of it that
caused his persecution, have some resemblance to the
systems of the early Greeks, who maintained that God was
the soul of the world, etc. He differs, however, from their
doctrines as to the universe being an emanation of the
Divinity, the result of intelligence and design. According
to Spinoza, there is but one substance, the universe, which
he calls God. This substance is infinitely diversified, and
contains within itself the necessary causes of all the modifi
cations of the same, to which we give the name finite. This
substance is not one individual, but the foundation of all
�50
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
individual beings ; it exists of necessity, never has begun
to be, and can only be thought of by itself. Finite objects,
or the mutable limitations of the infinite, are the only objects
that can be said to be limited to time that have a beginning.
His great object was to deduce mathematically the laws of
moral life, founded on this conception of Deity, in order to
establish a system of ethics.
Whatever may be thought of Spinoza’s system, there can
not be two opinions about his character as a man. Although
despised by his relations, repudiated by the rabbis,-cursed
by the Church, and condemned by the State, he was cou
rageous and sincere, and his private life was unexception
able. At the early age of forty-five his life was terminated
by a decline, and he died in full assurance of the truth of
his principles. To avoid the dissemination of untruthful
death-bed stories, he instructed his hostess (as any good
man has a right to do) not to allow any minister to approach
his room during his last hours.
Anthony Lawrence Lavoisier.
Anthony Lawrence Lavoisier was born at Paris August
13th, 1743, and died May 8th, 1794.
This celebrated chemist acquired considerable knowledge
of science early in life, and he first distinguished himself
by obtaining a prize from the Academy of Sciences for the
best method of lighting the streets. He became a member
of the Academy, and greatly distinguished himself by his
chemical experiments, on which he spent a considerable
portion of his fortune. The discovery of oxygen gas by
Priestley led Lavoisier to make interesting experiments on
the composition of water and air. When the new system
of weights and measures was introduced he improved it by
his experiments on the expansion of metals. He also
devoted part of his estate to experimental farming. Nearly
the whole of his large fortune was devoted to the promo
tion of arts and sciences. He employed the most skilful
artists in making instruments, and he held meetings twice
a week at his house for the purpose of discussing, the
theories and discoveries of scientific men. Those inte
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
5i
rested in such studies, both in France and other countries
visited him, and found nothing neglected that coulcl
augment the fund of philosophical information.
It appears strange that so great and good a man as
Lavoisier was not protected from the tyranny and troubles
of his time. He seemed, however, to anticipate the loss ot
his property, and considered how he should best suppor
himself. But he little thought that the sentence of. death
awaited him when the Revolutionary Tribunal of Pans con
demned him, with other farmers-general. They charged
him with being a conspirator, and with adulterating tobacco
with water and ingredients prejudicial to the health of the
citizens. On this extraordinary pretext the illustrious
Lavoisier was beheaded by the guillotine on May 8th, 1794Finding his fate inevitable, he asked for a few days grace,
to afford him an opportunity to make an interesting and
important experiment; but this was refused, him. Heiett
behind an intelligent and accomplished widow, who had
participated with him in his chemical researches, and who
had engraved with her own hand the plates to illustrate his
publications.
Deodatus Dolomieu.
Deodatus Dolomieu was born at Grenoble June 24th,
17co, and died November 26th, 1801.
Early in life he became a member of a religious order at
Malta : but owing to a quarrel, and to a duel that followed,
he was tried and sentenced to death. After being impri
soned, and receiving a pardon, he went to ^.rf-nce, and
joined the army. Forming an acquaintance with Rochefoucault, he became a student of natural history quitted
the army, and was made a member of the Academy of
Sciences. He afterwards visited and examined zLtna,
Vesuvius, and the Apennines. On his return he took part,
on the popular side, in the Revolution. He then accom
panied Bonaparte to Egypt, and on his arrival , home was
made prisoner. At Messina he was confined in a small
dungeon, into which the light and air were admitted through
one small aperture, which was carefully closed every evening.
In order to obtain the slightest amount of air, he was com
�52
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
pelled to constantly fan himself with the dirty old rags
which formed his only clothing. While in this dreadful
hole he formed the plan of a work on “ Mineral Species.”
A fragment of this he wrote, with a piece of bone that he
sharpened against his prison wall, on the margins of books ;
the . smoke from his lamp, mixed with water, serving him
for ink. After long suffering in captivity, he was liberated
by the interposition of Sir Joseph Banks. On visiting his
sister he was attacked by disease, contracted during his
loathsome imprisonment, and which terminated his life
in 1801.
Andre Marie
de
Chenier.
André Marie de Chenier was born at ConstantinopleOctober 22nd, 1763.
When about ten years of age he was taken to France by
his father (who was a French consul), and sent to the Col
lege Naverre, at Paris. He greatly distinguished himself
while at college, especially in Greek and ancient literature.
Close application to study having injured his health, he
travelled to Switzerland and England. Three years after
he returned to Paris, where his attention was devoted
chiefly to poetry. He is described as a man of universal
mind, and some of his earliest efforts as being extremely
beautiful
Unfortunately, Chenier, in his thirtieth year, was over
taken by the terrors of the French Revolution. He
appears to have been alike the enemy of anarchy and of
despotism, and consequently pursued the intervening course
between the king and the people. Having offered to
defend the king on his trial, Chénier rendered himself
obnoxious to the Jacobins, and was compelled to hide
himself. He was soon after arrested ; but, had his father
not been so anxious to save him, he might have escaped
from the prison into which he was thrown. During his
imprisonment, and after his conviction, he is said to have
composed some really admirable poetry. In 1794 he was
taken before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned,
and on July 26th he suffered death by the guillotine.
The poetry of Chénier is said to have been the source of
inspiration to many modern writers ; amongst others, the
exiles Lamertine and the author of “ Napoleon the Little.”'
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
53
Joseph Priestley.
,
Joseph Priestley was born at Birstal, near Leeds, 1736,
and died in America 1801.
He was the son of a cloth-dresser, and,, his mother dying
when he was very young, an aunt sent, him to a grammar
school, where he was taught some Latin and Greek. He
is said to have acquired some, knowledge of modern Euro
pean languages without the aid of a teacher. His studies
in theology led him to embrace heterodox views, and, being
appointed minister of a small congregation, it soon became
smaller when his opinions were discovered. He then turned
schoolmaster, during which time, he arrived at the cone usion that the Atonement was neither scriptural nor reason-
abOn visiting London Priestley met with Dr. Franklin and
Dr Price He was elected a member of the Royal Society,
and was made Doctor of Laws by the Edinburgh University.
These honours appear to have been conferred upon him for
his writings on scientific subjects. In 1774 he discovered
oxygen gas, which he called dephlogisticated air, by concen
trating the sun’s rays on red precipitate of mercury. His
statue erected at Birmingham represents him in the act oi
making this discovery. He was proposed, at a good salary,
to accompany Captain Cook; but his religious principles
were not orthodox enough for the Board of Longitude. He
travelled with the Earl of Shelbourne on the Continent. At
Paris the philosophers told him that he was the only person
of any understanding they had met with who believed in
Christianity.
.
'. .
.
Priestley wrote his views on the sentient principle . m
man, which he declared to be material, immortality, being
conferred by God at the resurrection. This gave him the
titles of “ unbeliever ” and “ Atheist,” the common descriptives applied to thinking and rational men by the orthodox.
In 1785 his work on Christianity had the distinguished
honour of being burnt by the common hangman in the
City of Dort. His reply to Burke on the French Revolu
tion gave great offence to the lower orders of Birmingham,
as they did not approve of that event. A dinner m 1791
to celebrate the anniversary of taking the Bastille, at which
he was not present, occasioned an outburst of violence au.d
fanaticism. The Church-and-King party destroyed public
buildings, including the hotel where the dinner was held,
�54
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
and attempted to set fire to the Doctor’s house, his apparatus,
his library, and his manuscripts.
Finding England an ungrateful and persecuting country,
he went to America in 1794. Here his intentions and
character appear to have been misunderstood, and his dis
appointment is said to have been very great. He was
suspected of being a spy, and it was reported that more
persons feared his opinions than desired to hear them. At
the time of the riot in Birmingham he was minister of the
Unitarian Chapel in New Meeting Street, which has since
been sold to the Roman Catholic Church on the occasion
of the congregation erecting a church in Broad Street.
A few years after his departure to America Dr. Priestley
lost his wife and a son. The bigotry and persecution
manifested towards Dr. Priestley in Birmingham are now
looked upon as a disgrace to the town, and as one of the
blackest spots on the darkest page of its history. The men
of the past generation were violent, and sought his des
truction ; the men of to-day revere his memory, and erect
a beautiful statue in the very centre of the town from which
he fled for his life.
A great change has taken place in the opinion of the
people of England during the past fifty years ; and no
better index as to which way their tendencies point do we
need than a statue at Manchester to Oliver Cromwell, and
one at Birmingham to Joseph Priestley.
Galileo Galilei.
Galileo Galilei was born at Pisa,Tuscany, February, 1564,
and died at Arcetri, January, 1642.
His ancestors filled high offices in Florence. His father
was a philosopher in his way, and a writer on the theory
and practice of music. Galileo was educated under con
siderable disadvantages, owing to the straitened circum
stances of his father. He acquired the elements of litera
ture, music, drawing, and painting, and was particularly
charmed with mathematics. All the attempts to check his
desire for knowledge, and to direct his attention to profes
sional objects, proved fruitless.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
55
Galileo’s habit of observing was formed very early. In
about his twentieth year we find him observing a simple
circumstance that led to the discovery of the best means we
yet possess of measuring time. Disraeli, speaking of the
habit of continuity of attention, says : “ It was one evening
in the Cathedral of Pisa that Galileo observed the vibra
tion of a brass lustre pendant from the vaulted roof, which
had been left swinging by one of the vergers. The habitual
meditation of genius, combined with an ordinary accident,
produced a new idea of science, and hence was conceived
the invention of measuring time by thé medium of a pen
dulum.”
Thus the motion of a body in space, which had doubt
less been observed centuries before, seen by the philosophic
eye of the Florentine youth, suddenly became the source
of a desirable and valuable invention.
To refute one of the axioms of the Aristotelians that
the velocity of bodies was proportionate to their weights
he made an experiment by letting two bodies of unequal
weight fall from the Tower of Pisa. When they saw the
two bodies fall nearly at the same instant, they ascribed it
to some unknown cause, as they preferred the authority.of
their master to that of nature. Thus the experiment, in
stead of making him disciples, made him open and secret
enemies. He then removed to the University of Padua,
where he held a professorship many years. It was here he
and Repley formed a lasting friendship. Here an accusa
tion was brought against him by his enemies that he was
living in an unmarried state with Marina Gamba. The
Senate replied that, if he had a family to support, he had
more need of an increase of salary. Thus orthodoxy winked
and malice lost the day. His popularity without had so
increased that a thousand persons attended his lectures, and
frequently had to adjourn into the open air. Having heard
of a spectacle being invented by which distant objects were
made to appear nearer the observer, he made experiments
till he succeeded in making a telescope, which magnified
three times, and afterwards thirty times. This instrument
excited extraordinary interest, and almost phrensy. Galileo
saw through his “ eye-glass ” the moon, as though distant
the diameter of the earth. He also saw the planets and
fixed stars with incredible delight. This eye-glass was the
first step to astronomical discoveries.
Having perfected his telescope, he saw, as the celebrated
�56
THE MARTYRS OE PROGRESS.
French astronomer Biot said, “ what no mortal before that
moment had seen—the surface of the moon, like another
earth, ridged by high mountains, and furrowed by deep
valleys ; Venus, as well as it, presenting phases demonstra
tive of a spherical form ; Jupiter surrounded by four satel
lites ; the Milky Way, the Nebulae; finally, the whole
heaven sown over with an infinite multitude of stars, too
small to be discerned by the naked eye.”
While studying Archimedes, the Syracusan, he wrote an
essay on the Hydrostatic Balance, describing that instru
ment, and the method by which its inventor detected the
fraud committed by the jeweller in the composition of
Hiro’s crown. This gained him the acquaintance of Guido
Ubaldi, which was one cause of his success in after life.
In relation to the new star of 1604, he proved that the
common hypothesis of its being a meteor was erroneous.
In 1607 he discovered a method of arming load-stones
which enabled them to carry twice as much weight as
before. In 1610 he discovered Jupiter’s satellites, and
afterwards the crescent of Venus, the ring of Saturn, and
the spots on the sun.
The opponents of Galileo regarded his statements about
the £’mountains and valleys” of the moon as impiety. The
moon, according to his opponents, was perfectly spherical
and absolutely smooth, and to cover it with mountains, and
to scoop out of it valleys, was to deface the spherical forms
imprinted by God himself. The professor of philosophy at
Padua sternly resisted Galileo’s request to look through the
telescope, and judge for himself. Sizzi, an astronomer of
Florence, said that, as there were only seven apertures in
the head, only seven metals, and only seven days in the
week, so there could be only seven planets. Horky said
that he had examined the heavens through Galileo’s own
glass, and no satellite existed round Jupiter, and that he
would never concede his four planets to that Italian of
Padua, even if he should die for it.
Owing to the attempts that were made to deprive Galileo
of the honour of some of his discoveries, he afterwards de
clared them under the veil of an enigma. Some difference
of opinion arising respecting the shape of bodies and their
dispositions to sink in water, Galileo published a work on
Hydrostatics, which met with violent opposition. The
announcement of his discoveries in the earth shared a
similar fate to that of his observations in the heavens. The
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
57
Jesuits, who had for some time hated Galileo, reported his
discoveries as being hostile to religion, and had hirn open y
denounced from the pulpit of a friar named Caccini.
Galileo replied to these attacks by explaining his belief
that the Scriptures were to teach men salvation, but that
our minds were given us for the purpose of investigating
phenomena.
The enemies of Galileo, being unable to refute his rea
soning, called on the civil power to crush so dangerous. an
innovation. They accordingly appealed to the Inquisition.
While at Rome in 1615, surrounded by the splendour of
the citadel of Christendom and the metropolis of the world,
he was called before the Inquisition to answer for heretical
opinions he had taught respecting the motion of the earth
and the stability of the sun. On February 20th, 1615, the
Inquisition assembled, and decreed that Galileo should be
enjoined by Cardinal Bellarmine to renounce the obnoxious
doctrines, and to pledge himself not to teach, defend, 01
publish them in future. In the event of his refusing, he
was to be thrown into prison. .
_
.
.
Galileo for a time silenced his enemies, having obtained
some protection and kindness in the persons of Paul V. and
Urban VIII., and in Ferdinand IP’s personal esteem and
friendship. After overcoming various difficulties, in 1632
he obtained leave to publish his views, and dedicated them
to Ferdinand II. His work was entitled, “ Dialogue on
the Ptolemaic and Copernican Systems,” the form of dia
logue, as he thought, being the best for enabling him to
evade his promise to the Inquisition, that he would not
again teach the Copernican doctrines. His expectation of
evading the wrath of the Inquisition was frustrated, for in
1632 he was again summoned to appear at Rome, where he
arrived on February 14th, 1633. This journey to Rome in
his seventieth year was a great trial to him, but the infir
mities of his body and the miseries of the road were urged
in vain against the cruelty of demanding his personal at
tendance. After some months’ residence with the Tuscan
ambassador, Nicolini, who (his name be praised 1) offered
to maintain our philosopher at his own expense, Galileo
was summoned to appear before the Inquisition in the
convent of Minerva.
The following passages convey an idea of the sentence
pronounced against Galileo by decree of the Pope and
cardinals of the supreme and universal Inquisition :—
�58
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
“ i st. The proposition that the sun is the centre of the
world, immoveable from its place, is absurd, philosophically
false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary
to Holy Scripture.
“ 2nd. The proposition that the earth is not the centre
of the world, nor immoveable, but that it moves, and also
with a diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and
theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
“ We decree that the book of the ‘ Dialogues ’ of Galileo
be prohibited by edict; we condemn you to the prison of
this office during our pleasure ; we order you for the next
three weeks to recite once a week the seven penitential
psalms, &c.”
Mark the humiliating words of the greatest philosopher
of that age, borne down by infirmities of body and mind :
11 With sincere heart and faith I abjure, curse, and detest
the said errors and heresies; I swear that I will never in
future say or assert anything, verbally or in writing, which
may give rise to a similar suspicion against me.
“ I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above in my own
hand.”
On June 22nd, clothed in a penitential dress, he appeared
before the Inquisition to receive their judgment and elabo
rate sentence. After the customary invocation of their
Saviour and Holy Virgin, he was called on, with “ a sincere
heart and faith unfeigned, to abjure and curse his heresies,”
and every other heresy against the Church. His “Dialogues”
were prohibited, and he was condemned to imprisonment
during the pleasure of the Inquisition, and for the first three
years, once a week, to recite the seven penitential psalms !
Clothed in sackcloth, the venerable sage fell on his knees
before the wiseacre cardinals, and, laying his hands on the
holy evangelists, he invoked the aid of God Almighty,
abjuring, detesting, and avowing never again to. teach of
the earth’s motion and sun’s stability. He then signed the
precious document containing the charge, and was con
veyed to prison.
After enduring the awful formality of one of the most
detestable ceremonies of ignorance and superstition, we can
easily credit the anecdote so often repeated of him. It is
said that, when Galileo rose from his knees, he stamped on
the floor, and said to one of lais friends, “ E pur se muove!’
(“ It does move for all that J.
�THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS.
59
After years of intense suffering, and the strictest seclusion
till he lost his eyes, which had observed in the universe
more than all the eyes of past generations, he was attacked
by fever, which terminated his life January 8th, 1642, in
his seventy-eighth year. He died a prisoner of the Inquisi
tion, and, accordingly, was not allowed to make a will, and
the Pope refused to allow a monument to be erected to
perpetuate his memory, and his remains were not permitted
burial in consecrated ground.
�I
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The martyrs of progress : being historical sketches of the perils & persecutions of discoverers and teachers of all ages and nations
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: iv, 59 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Watts
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1878
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N123
Subject
The topic of the resource
Reformers
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 (The martyrs of progress : being historical sketches of the perils & persecutions of discoverers and teachers of all ages and nations), 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
Progress
Social Reformers
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b696be7cccd4e6a41b696594303f33e5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BGdY18g3gSwPvX2FLqReK5AKUxDZQoEFSBY37UX%7EaWjQmCPFpK61qVR8Rb0C5pjiXk8YC-2MNgBz8tBrn3w2AaP-jhEnYWIpExL9jIOv2Tuup53q6eKKKyaITL0nOb44dz5FvVAVIfcKG9Ejl4LC5HDRH3qK4gkGPgscX2MUXDDDcvaQzfkoSn-6wdNjQeyfM%7EuMsRkNYtcqeJsHEgHH4pD-UAh-iBwKaBTlyj4sE7UsiPZ1AYXauqoILtzXIy2xgoYn1yiyQlo1OMcjyVTw01pr-t2GYGhI2-AigtsSa%7EN-vQZ6oYGIbLhiezHe%7EW-Oz24EaxXL2hWOMvXibHARtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18111ec56f86cc4947b9c8c58a8fbc81
PDF Text
Text
ß
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIANITY
SHOWING IT UNREASONABLE AND IMPRACTICABLE.
BY CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Author of “ Laconics” “ Which is the True Religion T ¿re., Av,
As I believe it is not legal to say that Christianity is not
true, I only contend that it is unreasonable and imprac
ticable. Think of the millions of people known to live on
this globe, and then listen to the talk of the Christian, you
would imagine that all the world followed his prophet and
professed his faith. The fact is, only a few of the millions
even profess to be Christian; and these are so divided,
that we may say with truth the Christian party in this world
is split up into sects. The sects are so numerous that a
man may many times change his Church, and yet continue
to be what is called a Christian. When dissatisfied with
the Church he may take refuge in the Chapel, and chapels
exist in almost endless variety; and if all these fail him, he
may set up on his own account and be a Free Christian 1
If there is only one Christianity—only one true way to
heaven—the multiplication of sects must be a great source
of confusion to the would-be believer. The Christian passes
from one sect to another in search of the true Church; his
life is a series of changes, being everything by turns, and
nothing long. Some unsettled spirits spend their whole lives
in search of the true Church. Sometimes this ends in urn
belief—that is, unbelief in churches and chapels, and the
reasons given for this form of doubt are often too con
temptible to appear in print. These people “take their
stand on the Bible,” and even they have different ways of
looking at the Bible. Some read it as literal, others as
figurative or poetic, or philosophic, or symbolic, or pro
phetic, or spiritual—or the Lord knows what ! Christian
parties differ so much, that the only thing they are heartily
agreed on is, that the unbeliever ought to be put down !
Yet each sect contends that it alone is right, and every other
wrong. This is the only justification that each sect can urge
for its separate existence. I take the decision of all, which
�2’
is,, that they are each of them wrong. This extraordinary
conclusion is easily explained, by the fact that all the lead
ing points in each are but dreams, matters of conjecture and
fancy.
This great variety is proof to me that nothing is known,
nothing is certain, nothing is demonstrable in any of the
faiths—it is all imagination,, myth, fiction.
Towards the Christians I bear no ill-will, and forgive all
their persecution of me. Times and manners have happily
changed during the past twenty-five years, and in spite of
Christianity the life of an unbeliever is not so rough as it
was—there is less ignorance, and consequently less hatred..
Only once during my life has the peace of Birmingham.been
disturbed 15y contending sects, and that once sufficiently
showed the state of society which would result if Christians
were allowed to exhibit their feelings, and express their
opinions of one another, uncontrolled by the unbelievers,
the indifferent, and the magistrates. It required a secular
army to prevent the saints destroying each other. The
frenzy, the excitement, the ungovernable fury of a believer
would, if unchecked, turn the world into a bedlam, and in
stead of being harmony and peace, society would be one
uninterrupted scene of bloodshed and robbery. Sensible
men have a wholesome horror of theological strife. All
my little efforts have had one object—the subjugation of
bigotry and intolerance, and the increase of liberty and. jus
tice. Freedom for all mankind, consistent with the rights
of each other, that is my doctrine, and when once fully esta
blished, people will be amazed at their ignorance and folly:
they will wonder what power bewitched them, what dia:
bolical influence prevented the adoption of so beneficqnt a
doctrine.
If Christianity had started with this doctrine of universal
freedom, and preached and practised it, what a different
world we might have seen !
Unhappily, the declarations of Christianity on this subject
are most unreasonable, and the results, as declared in the
history of the Christian world, have been most deplorable.
“He that believeth not, shall be damned.” (Markxvi.).
This assumes that a man can believe or not by his own
effort, as though evidence—facts—had nothing to do with
either belief or unbelief. Custom and interest can make
liars and hypocrites, but evidences control, belief.
The truest sentence ever uttered cannot influence any man
unless he understands the language in which it is expressed.
�That two and two make four every one admits who under
stands what is meant, but none other. Men do not believe
unless they understand. But “believe or be damned” is
not only inconsistent with the laws of thought—it ignores
the other declarations of the same book. For instance—
“ It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his
good pleasure.” (Phil. ii.). Again—“ By grace. are you
saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift
of God.” {Eph. ii.).
St. Paul (2 Cor; iii.) goes so far as to state that we are
not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves.
The Master settles this point (John vi.)—“No man can
come to me except the Father draw him.”
Yet St. Paul confirms the opposite doctrine taught by the
same Master, when he writes (2 Cor. vi.J—“ Be ye not un
equally yoked with unbelievers : what part hath he that
believeth with an Infidel ?” He grows quite fierce on the
subject (Gal. i.)—“Tf an angel from heaven preach any
other gospel, let him be accursed,” which, I presume, means
something disagreeable.
This condemnation of all unbelievers, this separation of
men into believing and unbelieving, and this cursing of all
teachers contrary 01 opposed to Christ, lie at the root of
that terrible movement which was carried on for centuries
by fire, sword, and chains^ till the sceptical spirit arose
which shamed the Christian world, and bid it hold its mur
derous hand. The practice of the Christian world for ages
may be read in the awful language of Moses (Deut. xxxii.).
Substitute the Christian Church for the word God in those
verses, and you have a picture of its mode of dealing with
the unbelievers.
It has been urged that this spirit of persecution could not
come from God, because he is a God of love, and that all
the cruelty perpetrated in his name is to be attributed to the
wickedness of God’s servants, that it is antagonistic to his
holy nature.. In order to test this, let us inquire into God’s
character, as given in his. own book. Only a few examples
can be given, and I do not say that these are true, but we
read that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”
The 2 Thessa ii. it, speaking of those who receive not the
love of truth that they might be saved,, says, “' For this
cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie: that they all might be damned,” Other
persons, the same writer continues,, have been chosen from,
the beginning to salvation.
�4
Another instance may be found in i Kings xxii. 22,
wherein the Lord accepts the services of a spirit who offers
to deceive Ahab, by being a lying spirit in the mouth of all
his prophets—“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord had put
a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets.” Again,
“ If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I
the Lord have deceived that prophet, and will stretch out
my hand upon him and will'destroy him,” &c. (Ezek. xiv. 9.)
On one occasion the people complained of having no
bread and no water, “ And the Lord sent fiery serpents
among the people, and they bit the people, and much
people of Israel died.” (Numb. xxi. 6.) On another occa
sion it is related that “ the Lord rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of
heaven, and he overthrew those cities and all the inhabitants,
and that which grew upon the ground.” (Gen. xix. 24.)
Some persons do not believe the Lord would do anything
wrong, but Amos ch. iii. says, “ Shall there be evil in a city
and the Lord hath not done it?” Again, in Micah i. 12,
“ For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good,
but evil came down from the Lord upon the gate of Jeru
salem.” The following is very clear: “ I form the light,
and create darkness ; I make peace, and create evil. I the
Lord do all these things(Is. xlv.).
It would be impossible in the space allotted for this essay
to even name the battles the Lord is said to have arranged,
to say nothing of the number killed and wounded, and the
cities made desolate ; but one transaction in which he was
concerned is too important to be passed over. In Gen. vi.
the Lord is described as planning the wholesale destruction
of all the inhabitants of the earth. We are here told in the
most exact language that “ every living substance was de
stroyed.” “ Noah only remained alive, and they that were
with him in the ark,” and this was done by the Christian s
’ God. The author of Christianity is here described as
planning and superintending a scheme of the most cruel
and revolting character that the world has recorded—sup
plying all the gigantic machinery for effecting this terrible
slaughter of all the creatures he had been at the trouble to
make. What makes the case still worse and more awfully
tragic, is the fact that the same God continued the existence
of the* same kind of creatures which he knew would neces
sitate the cruel death of his only son. An impartial student
of these statements will be able to form an estimate of the
character of the God of the Bible.
�5
A person who makes others in the image of himself to be
destroyed, or that he may destroy them himself, is one to
whom the attribute love is misapplied. Yet in books and
sermons, and even on the walls of our great cities, we read
the extraordinary sentence, “ God is love 1” It is the love
of a father who destroys his own children. The less love
people have of this kind, the better for mankind. Yet this
same God is the author of Christianity—the Christian ideal
of perfect love, mercy, and justice. Millions say they love
this God; can this be possible ?
The story of Christianity, according to the Bible, begins
in the Garden of Eden. A man and woman, the father and
mother of us all, are placed in a Garden, surrounded by
circumstances which are certain sooner or later to bring about
the fall of man. The penalty attached to, the act of disobe
dience is death ; and if this plan had been carried out, there
would have been no sinners, no Christianity, no Saviour, and
no salvation—in fact, no human race, according to this tale.
The fall of man is the cause of Christianity, and Chris
tianity requires the fall of man to justify its existence. One
necessitates the other. That both were portions of God’s
plan is obvious, for “ Known unto God are all his works
from the beginning of the world.” (Acts xv.)
No talk about free-will or the wickedness of the devil will
set aside the important fact that all that which men glory in
calling Christianity, owes its origin to the transgressions of
Adam and his wife. Now, if we admit a devil in the
Garden, and a free-will in Adam, and grant that no Gospel
and ho Christ were possible without these, the fact still re
mains that only one source of power exists to whom we can
refer to the origin of the devil and the free-will, for by God
“ were all things created that are in heaven and earth, visible
and invisible.” (Col. i.)
There is no escape from the conclusion, that whatever
happened in the Garden, or in man, was in accordance with
the will and plan of God, who is the maker and ruler of all
things. To admit any other power, would be to limit the
power of the Almighty, or to recognise more Gods than one.
An unbiassed reader of the third chapter of Genesis
would infer that before the fall, no labour except that of
tending the Garden of Eden was contemplated. After the
fall, Adam is discharged from his situation and is sent forth,
or, as we should now put it, is “ condemned to hard labour
for life ” among thorns and thistles. Now is it not a fact,
that the whole of our modern civilisation is the result of the
�6
combined labour of the human race? Every ship that
floats, every train that runs, every thing in our houses or
on our bodies, every comfort we possess, every science, and
every printed word we read, attest the value of human
labour ! Yet in spite of all these world-wide facts, this
book speaks of labour as the punishment for some fabled
sin against some imaginary God who once dwelt in some
corner of the earth, when its inhabitants consisted of him
self, his gardener, and the gardener’s wife 1 This is indeed
a tale for children in understanding. Yet the Christian
often boasts that civilisation, which is the result of continu
ous labour, is owing to his faith and his book.
Admitting that some calamity involving the eternal in
terests of mankind did happen, in the place and manner de
scribed by the Bible, it must have been by the will of God,
in spite of the will of God, or without God’s will interfering .
whichever it was, either his goodness, his power, or his love
for mankind, must be disbelieved after this.
But what did he do to repair the injury? He destroyed
every living substance, “except those m the ark.
he sent his only son to be put to death, so that by is
blood we shall be saved from wrath” (Rom. v.) What
wrath ? Whose wrath ? God is love !
The death of Christ is in harmony with the character of
God, as before described. Judas betrays him so that he
may be put to death (Mark xiv.), and he submits to this
frightful death by the will of God—yet in the same chapter
(v. 21) he himself says it had been good for Judas if he
had never been born. Never been born I If he had not
been born, had not been a devil, Christ would not have
been betrayed and died, and nobody would have been
saved ! Without a Judas the scheme could not have been
carried out. But John’s words (c. vi.) settle this point:
“ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that
believed not, and who should betray him.
_
Here, then, we have God the father planning the death
of his only son by means specially adapted to secure his
destruction. If a man had done this, we should use very
strong language against him and his plan. _ If God, the allpowerful, could not have “ saved ” mankind without sacri
ficing Jesus, he could have prevented their being lost
if he liked.
_
, ,
What a strange story is this. A good God puts to deatn
an innocent God to deliver wicked people from the wratii
of a God of love. If God the creator had put to death the
�7
first sinner, Adam, there would have been no wicked; or,
failing in that, if he had prevented the building of the ark,
all the wicked might have been drowned. God’s ways are
not as our ways. So much the better for us.
To rectify the evil doings of mankind, God did not send
a race of Christs with absolute power over sin and tempta
tion, but only one innocent Christ to suffer for the guilty
sinners—and still the sinners go on sinning, just as though he
had not come. What would the civilised world say if we pro
posed to hang one innocent man to save all the murderers ?
What would virtuous men and women say if all the
governments in the world combined and put one innocent
person to death in order to release all the offenders against
the laws and morality of the whole world ? The unso
phisticated moral sense of the world would be shocked at
such a proposal. Rather let all men suffer for their own
wrongs, and all the criminals be hanged, than one innocent
person be put to death. How long will mankind profess
to follow so unreasonable a creed ? This may Be divine,
but it is inhuman, cruel, a scheme of blood.
What a strange story I The Son dies to appease the
wrath of God the Father ; the 'Son being equally God and
equally wrathful, why not the Holy Ghost die to reconcile
him ? And, lastly, the third person being equally God,
and equally wrathful, why not the first person die to recon
cile him ? In the end all would be crucified. The illus
trious pagan could not believe in an expiring crucified infi
nite God. Surely no man in his senses does believe in
such an unreasonable story as this. Men only believe they
believe.
On the bright side of this story it is not necessary for me
to dwell. Jesus, as a patriot, exposing the priests, and
dying at the hands of an ignorant and bigoted misguided
multitude, is not the theological Jesus who has done all
the mischief I deplore. It is not against a reformer of
abuses and a benevolent advocate of human rights, that
any Freethinker has one word to say. So soon as the
Gospel is made to mean the intellectual and social eleva
tion of man, it will cease to be all that it is and has been.
Happily for society, the desire for intellectual and social
progress is growing stronger than the belief in the Gospel.
To return. This scheme being carried out, Christ having
died to save the world, is the world saved ? Certainly not.
After all this agony and bloody sweat, another element is
ixffrodued men must believe, and these signs shall follow
�8
them that believe (Mark xvi.)—they shall cast out devils,
they shall take up serpents, “ and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover.”
Now, if only those are believers who can do all these
wonderful things, how many are there alive at the present
time? Is it true that any of the Christians of to-day can
take poison, play with serpents, and cure the sick, better
than the Freethinker ? To show these signs, a person must
have a different skin and stomach to what man has, or every
time a dose of poison is swallowed, God must work a miracle
to prevent it operating. Any sane man would hesitate
before risking his life to show such signs as these, even to
convert an unbeliever. He would argue in favour of the
doctrine rather than attempt his conversion by example.
Only a few fanatics exist in the whole world who rely on
miracle for the cure of diseases. Mankind in general, in
cluding so-called Christians, rely on science and the men
who have studied the curative art, for relief in cases of
physical and mental suffering. Then where are the Chris
tians—“ them that believe ?”
We know it is written (James v.), “ And the prayer of
faith shall save the sick;” but if so, why do Christians sub
scribe to the “medicine men,” to hospitals, and infirmaries?
Is it because they do not believe ? Surely their method
would be less painful to the patient and less costly to society 1
If nearly the whole of Christendom not only ignore their
own method, but adopt the Secular scientific method, where
are the Christians—“them that believe?” The doctrine
is impracticable, that’s the answer. There are but few
real believers, but many sincere persons believe that they
believe.
Test this matter another way. If there were any believers
alive, the following words would have a public importance
that no unbeliever could ignore and no doubter dispute,
“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me,
the works that I do he shall do also—and greater works
than these shall he do.” (John xiv.)
Take the cream of the Christian party—all the bishops
and ministers of the Gospel on the face of the earth—can
they, combined, even feed another five thousand, or fast
forty days, or raise the dead, or walk on the sea, or see all
the world off Snowdon? Without asking them to do “greater
works than these,” if they cannot do even these, where are
the Christians—“ them that believe ?”
�9
To get rid of these difficulties, the followers of Jesus,
who are clever, contend that these extraordinary powers
ceased with the early Christians ; but I tell them that signs
of belief are more needed now than ever, and further, that
I believe they are to-day just as able to show these signs as
the early Christians, and not more so. Where people, are
ignorant even to-day, Christians do not lack pretensions
to being superior to other people in doing impossible
things.
A great deal is urged by preachers and defenders of
Christianity in favour of its broad humanity, on the ground
that it enjoins love even to enemies, and that you are to
bless even those that curse you. Those who have read
history know what Christians did to their enemies and
opponents. They destroyed them. But what does the
Master himself say ? “ Whosoever shall offend one of these
little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a mill
stone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into
the sea.” (Mark ix.)
Again, “ Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will
I also deny before my father, which is in heaven.” (Matt, x.)
The same sentiment is repeated in another place (Mark
viii), and another writer (2 Tim. ii.) says emphatically, “If
we deny him, be also will deny us.”
Again (John xii.)—“ He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, bath one that judgeth him, the word that I
have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”
Any one impressed with the notion that Christ is a forgiving
and generous spirit should read what will take place at this
“last day ” (Matt. xxv.). Here all nations are gathered to
gether, like boys at school, or regiments of soldiers, and
are put to the “ right ” or the “ left ” amongst the “ sheep ”
or the “ goats.” Now for the mercy and love to enemies
-—“ Then shall he say unto them on the left-hand—Depart
from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the
devil and his angels.” In other words (2Thess. i.)—“The
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty
angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know
not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and
to be admired in all them that believe.”
• It is playing fast and loose with language, to preach the
love of Christ in the face of such cruel and revengeful de-
�IO
-clarations as these, which could proceed only from the
mouth of a despot or a savage.
By way of reply to this, it may be urged that this awful
-doom may be avoided, but not unless you believe. All the
“ fearful and unbelieving ” are to go into the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone (Rev. xxi.), where their
worm dieth not, -and the fire is never quenched.
Instead of being so easy for mankind to escape, there is
the greatest difficulty, and the whole of the preaching which
declares that heaven is open to everybody, and hell only
open to those who seek it, is as nearly as possible the re
verse of the truth.
“ Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to
destruction. Strait is the gate and narrow is the way which
leadeth unto life, and /¿w there be that find it.” (Matt, vii.)
Was the road made narrow purposely ?
As regards the narrow road and the strait gate, we are
distinctly told that “ many will seek to enter in and shall
not be able ” (Luke xiii.) And this could not be otherwise,
since “ many are called, but few chosen ” (Matt, xxii.) In
the day when the Son of Man is revealed, we read that “ in
that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall
be taken and the other shall be left ” (Luke xvii.) One
class of men are certain to be shut out, << for it is easier for
a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God ” (Luke xviii.) The only
hope for the bishops and the rich supporters of the Church
is to give away all their wealth to their rich relations before
they start on their celestial journey. There is another class
that will hardly get into heaven—“ them that are without
to them “ all these things are done in parables, that seeing
they may see and not perceive, hearing, they may hear and
not understand, lest at any time they should be converted ”
{Mark iv.)
The idea that Jesus came into the world to open up a
broad road for everyone to walk to glory in is but an idea,
not a fact, since he was not sent save to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel (Matt, xv.) And the Lord “ made the
wicked for the day of evil ” (Prov. xvi.) So they have no
chance whatever, and never had any. And St. Paul (Rom. ix.)
defended this as being in harmony with God’s character 1
Even the conditions of discipleship would deter many
from following Jesus, since their love of humanity is higher
than their love of a sect or a leader, and such could not
comply with—“ If any man come unto me, and hate not
�IT
liis father, mother, wife, children, brethren, sisters, &c., he
■cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv.) It has been urged
that this text is not the pure word of God, that it means
something different; all objectionable texts ought to mean
something different to what they say. For instance, how
absurd to suppose that a follower of Christ should “ hate
his brother,” when we know in that case he. would be .a
“ murderer,” and 11 no murderer hath eternal life abiding in
him ” (i John iii.)
Those who believe the mission of Jesus to be peace, love,
harmony, and goodwill, either do not believe the word, of
God, or require great latitude in interpreting the following
remarkable words : “ I am come to send fire on the earth ”
(Luke xii.); “ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on
earth? I tell you nay, but rather division” (Luke xii.);
“ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I come
not to send peace, but a sword. 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-in-law ”
(Matt, x.)
So far as my observation and reading enable me to judge,
this is the only part of the Gospel of glad tidings and great
joy which has been successfully taught, and the only part
that has been universally adopted in practice.
I believe the amount of family discord, persecution, and
war, caused by. professing religionists, to be almost as great
as has been produced by all other causes put together.
Books have been published to show that Christianity
means pure Democracy, Republicanism, universal liberty,
and all sorts of good things. To judge of these repre
sentations we must appeal to the Book, and truth compels
us to state that there are no such declarations to be found
in it. St. Paul says (Romans xiii.) the powers that be are
ordained of God, and if you resist them you will be damned.
The great patriots that have resisted the powers that be—the
hope of the world and friends of man—are thus all damned.
In Luke xix. we read : “ A certain nobleman went to
receive a kingdom, but the citizens hated him, and said—
We will not have this man to reign over us.” It concludes,
“ But those mine enemies that would not that I should reign
over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.”
These two statements, if they apply to the question at
all, or have any meaning, would appear to teach govern
ment by divine right against the will of the people. If
they illustrate the politics of Jesus, let us be thankful for
�12
his assurance—“My kingdom is not of this world.” (John
xviii.) Submission to governments by divine appointment
received a severe check when the English cut the king’s
head off, and when the French stirred the world by their
mighty revolution.
But the Gospel teaches men not to resist evil—if our
coat is taken, to hand over our cloak; and if our goods are
taken away, not even to ask for them back again! (Matt, v.;
Luke vi.)
Mr. Mill has well said these are texts to pelt adversaries
with, but Christians are not remarkable for anything besides
repeating these texts on Sundays and on special occasions.
Even a Christian does not practise the philosophy of
letting others take from him what he wants and has worked
for himself. The most extreme social theory never pro
poses that another shall take the loaf from my mouth to
fill his own. To do this would be to encourage all sorts
of insult and robbery. The Christians are not such lunatics
as to put these doctrines in practice, but “he that believeth
not shall be damned.”
The Gospel is a message to the poor, we are told, and a
very poor message it is. The poor ye have always with you;
they shall never cease out of the land. “ Blessed be ye
poor;” “Blessed are ye that hunger now” (Luke vi.)
There is a strange contrast between being blessed and
being poor. The one means being in tranquil possession
of good things : the other means wanting proper food,
shelter, comfort, and the means of living a long, pleasant,
and healthy life. Absolute poverty is a state of Christian
perfection, but very few of the bishops are perfect, or care
to be, only those who sit on benches without velvet even
approach perfection among the flock. But “ If thou wilt
be perfect, sell all thou hast, and give to the poor ” (Matt,
xix.; Luke xviii.; Mark x.) “ He that believeth not shall be
damned.”
Suppose this carried out, if one county sells out and
distributes to the poor, and each follows in succession till
the whole nation becomes perfect, it must then sell to some
foreign country, and distribute to some other country, and
when we all become perfect we shall be without a dinner
or a shilling. Very few Christians wish to become perfect,
but “ he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Consistent with this view of poverty is, “ Lay not up
treasures on earth, take no thought for the morrow, for
your life, or what you shall eat, drink, or wear” (Matt, v.)
�i3
Suppose all Europe were converted—ceased to be provi
dent, industrious, and to prepare for the future—how long
would society hold together? Next season the people of
Europe would plant no seed ; they would be imitating the
lords, and bishops, and the lilies of the field, which neither
toil nor spin. The result would be no harvest—no food.
Hence famine and disease would carry them all to glory so
soon as they became perfect Christians. The inhabitants
of these countries would cease to exist, and their Christianity
would recommend itself, by example, only to some nation
desirous of committing suicide !
So soon as Christianity is put into practice, this sinful
world will become the inheritance of the unbelievers. Of
course I shall be told the Christians have more sense than
to put into active service such directions as the Gospel
gives—but “ he that believeth not shall be damned.” To
carry out these doctrines would necessitate constant miracle;
but “ the age of miracles is passed,” saith the wise Shakspere. Science has banished the Deity in our day from all
active or providential interference, and has become itself the
only providence of man. No thoughtful, scientific man
believes that such supernatural aid in this world is either
possible or desirable. The hope of man. now is in know
ledge, industry, and the universal reign of justice.
Miracles reported to have happened are urged in favour
of Christianity being true, but as other systems offer the
same kind of evidence, this does not specially assist the
Christian, and it is not obvious that any doctrine which is
not true and reasonable without miracle, would be so with
miracle. Moreover, Jesus himself shows the futility of
miracles when he says (Luke xvi.) “If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one
rose from the dead.” But did miracles ever happen ? What
is a miracle ?
Let us look at one recorded miracle, that of the loaves and
fishes, the most useful, if it could be wrought. According
to Luke (ix.) an evening party or pic-nic was held away from
the towns and cities, and the natural question arose about
refreshment. About 5,000 men, besides women and chil
dren, formed the party. After inquiry, it was found that
there were only five loaves and two fishes amongst them all.
They sat down on the grass, and were waited on by the
disciples, and were all filled, and twelve baskets of frag
ments remained after this.
Now at a moderate computation each of these fishes,
�14
which one writer describes as “small fishes,” must haveweighed over 2,5oolbs.r and each of the loaves i,ooolbs.r
and the time required to hand it round in the manner de
scribed, at the rate of serving one every minute, would be
over seven hours, long before which time had expired, the
whole party had gone home, according to the Gospel, fer
tile day began towear away before they commenced. Before
evening had come they were alLsent away. (Matt xiv.)
It is highly improbable that “ a lad ” had such loaves and
fishes “ in a basket,” and if not, Jesus must have enlarged
the fishes to the magnitude described, or contracted the
stomachs to fit the occasion. But this is not left doubtful,
because after all had eaten, there were eleven basketsfull’
more than before the eating began.
It is unreasonable to suppose this event ever happened,
and the impracticability of dividing these seven small sub
stances into seven or eight thousand parts, of sufficient mag
nitude to fill an ordinary human stomach, is plain to any
person who devotes five minutes to the consideration of the
subject. To say it was “a miracle” is not to prove that
such an event ever occurred.
Besides, the belief that such an event took place' two
thousand years ago, will not fill one- empty stomach to-day,
and if those who believe can do greater works, why don't they r
i
In a nation containing a million paupers and people dying
of starvation in its greatest cities, such a power of feeding
the empty no benevolent being in heaven or on earth could
refuse to exercise. This is a miracle in print, but in a
country with a national system of education, with the laws of
nature understood by all, and in the presence of a free press,
such a miracle could not be performed. Such is my opinion.
If such a tale were told by the disciples of any other pro
phet, the Christians themselves would reject it as imposture.
And, in my opinion, all the other miracles are like unto this,
evident impossibilities—mere tales.
It is often urged that Christianity must be true because
the early disciples and followers of Jesus had no inducements
to take up the doctrine, that none of their material interests
could be served by it. Let Jesus answer this powerful argu
ment m his own words. Peter said, Lo, we have left all and
followed thee, “ what shall we have I" Jesus said, “Ye
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.” Again, “ Verily I say unto you, there is no man
that hath left house, brethren, sisters, mother, wife, children,
or lands for my sake and the Gospel’s, but he shall receive
�i5
an hundred-fold’ now in this time, houses, brethren, sisters,,
mothers, children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the
world to come eternal life.” (Matt, xix.; Mark x.)
These offers are so tempting, that I have often wondered
why the whole of the Jews did not join the movement for
that reason only. The reader will observe that the word.
“ wives ” does not occur in the “ hundred-fold/’ but “ per
secutions ” does. This, and the fact that they may have
doubted the security, may be offered as a partial explanation.
The Gospel is preached as the charter of freedom to the
oppressed sons of toil. St. Paul advises men to obey their
masters, “with fear and trembling ” (Eph. vi.) If a man haslabour to sell, what has he to fear if the master buys and
pays, for it ? “ Servants, obey your masters in all things
(Col. iii.) “ Be content with such things as ye have,” and
says he himself is contented in any state (Phil, iv.) What
sublime doctrine for nigger-drivers, but how about the nigger ?To him this means perpetual bondage. No man ever raised
himself by being contented, by obeying everybody, or by
living in fear of and trembling at all above him ! The
religion of Christ is much beloved by women. The greatest
apostle writes •. “ Wives submit yourselves unto your own
husbands, as unto the Lord; as the- Church is subject to
Christ, so let wives be to their husbands in everything”
(Eph. v.)
Can anything be more degrading than the entire submis
sion of one half the world to the other half? Because a
human being happens to be a woman—a wife—is that any
reason why she should sink her individuality ? Surely the
black people of America are in a nobler position than this.
But women are getting wiser than the Gospel, and the serf
dom of Paul is being superseded by women becoming
citizens of a free state. This new fashion becomes a woman,
and may it endure when the writings of Paul are forgotten.
The great struggle in modern Europe has been, and is, an
endeavour to reverse all the texts quoted, to counteract the
operation of them, to oppose them, and supersede them.
Instead of all this, called Christianity, we have great efforts
to drive slavery out of existence, to raise the labourer by
co-operation, to institute governments by the people for the
people, to encourage prudence and forethought, savings
banks, sick societies, life insurance societies, sanitary im
provements, improved dwellings, education, and all other
conceivable means for the prevention of evil and the increase
of human comfort.
�i6
Christianity is often defended by quoting sensible, moral
texts borrowed from Secular or Pagan writers, incorporated
in the New Testament, and opposite texts can be quoted in
reply, as shown in this paper. Let Christians admit that
Christianity in its theory is wrong, and that Pagan or Secular
moral teaching is right, then my opposition ceases, not till
then.
.
Apart from the doctrines which some pretend to believe,
and no one attempts to practise, I reject the Jesus whose
father was a god or an angel, who could fast, forty days, see
all the world off the top of one mountain, raise the dead for
no practical purpose, leaving Socrates, Confucius, Plato, and
Aristotle still under ground. I do not believe m the Jesus
who could walk on the sea, and not teach, others how to do
it, feed many thousands on next to nothing, and not leave
the secret how he did it, who could wither a. fig-tree and
get nothing off it, send into the sea innocent little pigs that
belonged to somebody else, who could speak of a glorious
time and not stay to realise it, keeping the word of promise
to the ear, but breaking the heart full of expectation. 1 do
not believe in the Jesus who came to save.the world and
left without saving it, leaving it as full of ignorance and
crime as when he entered it, promising to come again and
upset everything except himself and his own party. 1 do
not believe in the Jesus who went out of the world as mys
teriously as he came into it, leaving men gazing and watch
ing for his second appearance before, they tasted death.
(Matthew xvi.) His divided, persecuting, inconsistent fol
lowers still wait. Let them wait. In the meantime,' we
advise men to look for something better—to throw away
these childish superstitions, to work out their own redemp
tion by intelligence and self-reliant effort—for there, is
nothing more injurious to mankind than this Christian
deified error.
SECOND EDITION.—PRICE TWOPENCE.
Printed and Published by C. Watts, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street,
London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The dark side of Christianity, showing it unreasonable and impracticable
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Tentative date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[C. Watts]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N119
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 dark side of Christianity, showing it unreasonable and impracticable), 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
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/38838516b6c75918ee4767857de30f43.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Xqxl91Axao42YGkmXkd-5M0fhTBDOEkAqIN1gryT8H-59mxj60AwHvEc6l454BP2xxniicOA55poGznR6qt3DOMtzaLcoBtfht0NgsImABYsTBfQrRdBhq2sMfpsb3lVPZnYFxO7sAOzfiecFiN-jtr1umq5X6y4-jSSLiqD0zKDKs%7ECLpDgLJC5EMwgGJ6XMpuJMfB6S2y-80lO0RhxERoJTxBjmxAMsYJ5WdGApi%7EQl94WnASlmEb27DTKIIMfQKk062u7yiSuP%7ESbRyuzv5FOazi1Qj5%7EEoAweIAwFW%7ETpGNlivbumHVrh4NSfMt%7E1-YAaPs9dH85kVoCm7kmrA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8d1938854582751e8a201fb13f1eff83
PDF Text
Text
ur2-4-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
RALPH WALDO
EMERSON,
THE EMINENT AMERICAN
PHILOSOPHER AND ESSAYIST.
gesniptxcn anh (^sthnair nf
ms
WRITINGS.
BY
CHARLES
C.
CATTELL,
Author of “The Martyrs of Progressf “A String of Pearls
&=c., &e.
“ That which befits us, embosomed in beauty and wonder as we
are, is cheerfulness and courage, and the endeavour to realise our
aspirations.”
LONDON :
WATTS & Co., 84, FLEET STREET, E.C.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
��RALPH WALDO EMERSON:
ut jng Writings.
Emerson has been • called the Columbus of modern
thought, the successor to Lord Bacon, with whom, as also
Montaigne, there seems some affinity. He began when
American literature was but a name, when writers worked
for nothing and paid their printer. To-day Emerson’s
influence is felt by all speakers and writers. As a philo
sophic writer, I know none so charming. He is the
Plato of modern times. Nature and science in his hand
seem vivid : he animates all he sees; his wit and humour
playfully enliven fossils and granite rocks. He is master
of metaphorand phrases, so that definitions and formulas
become a burden and he dispenses with them. He
describes the order of nature, points out the distance
from the rock to the oyster, and from thence to man,
thinking and writing. This he does with as much distinct
ness as though he had read the experience of explorers,
and had had private interviews with Murchison, Lyell,
and Darwin before the day of publication. In imagina
tion he equals the writers to whom all men bow, and is
one of the chief ornaments of the modern Saxon race.
His philosophy is not only for boiling pots, it is to give
joy and hope, to make society happy men and women.
It is to develop the intellect of the race, and apply it
to the promotion of the public good, the good of al!.
Emerson has, strangely enough, been taken for the ghost
of Carlyle, has been set down as a sort of moon to
Carlyle’s sun. Nothing is more palpably absurd.
Readers who cannot distinguish crystals from pine
forests make poor critics, and should abandon the pro
fession. The parallel to Emerson is unborn, or at least
undeveloped.
�4
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
In the Atlantic Monthly for 1880 there is an account
of a party to Wendell Holmes, the founder, it being his
70th birthday. The chairman remarks that Emerson
is with us, although silent by preference. I note it is
Emerson’s 77th year, he having been born at Boston, May
25th, 1803. As arrangements have been made by my
friend, Mr. David Kirkwood, to circulate in Boston what
I write, a few words on Ralph Waldo Emerson will be
well timed. I feel my indebtedness to Emerson, and
express it in such unadorned style as my ability permits.
He is an inspired man, rich in imagery, in poetry, in
arts; I am but the poor beggar subsisting on the crumbs
that fall from his table. But it is bad policy to let
people know how poor we are. When equals meet there
is no apology, no introduction, no preface. I approach
Emerson : his ability, age, and influence, demand respec
and a certain condescension from me. He is a giant, I
a pigmy. A friend who once met him at breakfast in
New York tells me he was surprised when the name
Emerson was applied to the gentleman near him, who
looked no better and no worse than others, and not
different from other people. It is as Emerson says, you
cannot see the mountain near. I noticed we could not
see the Saxon emblems when on the spot; but twenty
miles away the horse and the man stood out from the
hill in bold relief.
Ralph Waldo Emerson graduated at Harvard College
in 1821. He was schoolmaster for five years; was
ordained minister of the second Unitarian Church,
Boston, 1829, resigning in 1832 ; and in 1832 and 1847he visited Europe. He was married in 1830; but his wife
died five months after, and he married again in 1835.
He speedily gave up his clerical profession, and retired
to the village of Concord. Here he studied his favourite
theme—the nature of man and his relations to the uni
verse. In 1840 he became associated with Margaret
Fuller in editing a magazine of literature, philosophy,
and religion, entitled the Dial, which continued four
years. In 1852, in connection with W. H. Channing, he
published “ Memoirs of Margaret Fuller, Marchesa
d’Ossoli.” His “ Representative Men ” was popular in
England in 1850, in which he portrays, in his own inimit-
�RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
5
.able manner, types of classes of men under the names of
Plato, Swedenborg, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Napoleon,
and Goethe. In 1856 another popular work appeared,
.giving an account of his travels, entitled “ English
Traits.” Between the years 1837 and 1844 he delivered
addresses and wrote essays, which were circulated in a
cheap form in England; and to these I was indebted for
my introduction to this expositor of “ the divine laws.”
Looking in a window full of selected books is one of
.the delights which fade in the presence of the free public
library. I often think what a debt we owe the old
collectors of books, who made it the business of their
lives to gather a variety for the public choice. The
Church library is carefully selected, resembling a flower
garden painted on a tea tray : Emerson never enters
there. His living thoughts, full of fire, would dissolve
any school collection of innocent Sunday serials.
“ I am owner of the sphere,
Of the seven stars and the solar year,
Of Caesar’s hand and Plato’s brain,
Of Lord Christ’s heart and Shakespeare’s strain.”
Thus Emerson places every individual man on a
common level, giving him a share in the whole estate of
the intellect of the race; he thinks as Plato did, and
there is no saint like whom he may not feel. Perse
cutors and slanderers, to such a well-endowed man.
appear as dwarfs acting under the hallucination that they
are giants. The Bible to him is only a portion of the
scriptures of mankind. Jesus is one of the many young
men hanged or gibbetted at Tyburn. Socrates is no
longer a poor benighted heathen, but a noble, heroic man,
.and Jesus only a brother. After reading Emerson our
idea is that the world is fair and beautiful, although there
are sorrow and death. Before, it was on its last legs
—creation a blunder—men and women had neither
beauty nor dignity. It seemed a pity so much sin and
ugliness were born, and only the long-suffering patience
of their creator prevented their extinction. Everything
pointed to an eternal collapse; but Emerson gives con
fidence in the stability, the self-sustaining power of
nature. We are consoled with the assurance that the
sun and moon will last our time, and we leave the good
�6
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
will to posterity, and transfer our anxiety to their holy’
keeping. It is, then, no longer a misfortune to be born,
a misery to live, or a terror to die. We become cheerful,
and revive our courage. We return to the battle of life
—up again, old heart, and at them : we are yet neither
foam nor wreck.
In reading Emerson the mind acquires new habits of
thought. The ideas generated are new and startling,
and still founded on observation a thousand years old.
The chatter of the theologians is as chaff and chips
Emerson is as sweet and refreshing as a summer’s breeze.
The words of the theologian are like a flickering candle
in a widow’s window on a dark and stormy night; Emer
son’s words are as the brilliant sun shining through the
forest. Compared with Emerson, the doctrines, the
parson, and even the Church itself, appear fossils, mere
wrecks of a former world of beauty and of truth.
Emerson speaks from the heart; he has seen nature,,
and he interprets what he has seen ; everything appears
living and full of purpose. The theologian sees nothing
to-day ; he only reports that God and nature were seen
ages back, when the world was young and innocent. He
is a talking machine, he is a canal, not a river. Emer
son is the waterfall, dashing and sparkling; the theolo
gian a stagnant pool, fed by little brooks that flowed
from the hills after the last flood. The theologian
speaks of a God who died long centuries ago, who left
his will, and appointed him executor to his children.
One cannot help pitying the poor orphans ! Emerson
says God is alive to-day; through me, through you,,
through all pure souls, God speaks to-day. But the God
of Emerson cannot be measured, cannot be put into a.
box, nor be eaten. He does not reside in Judea, nor in
Christendom. “ There is a soul in the centre of nature,
and over the will of every man, so that none of us can
wrong the universe.” “There is a power over and
behind us, and we are the channels of its communica
tions.” Again : “ When we have broken our god of
tradition, and ceased from our god of rhetoric, then
may God fire the heart with his presence.” Elsewhere
he says : “ The baffled intellect must still kneel before
..his cause, which refuses to be named.”
�RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
7
Our quaint names, fortune, muse, holy ghost, are too
narrow to cover the unbounded substance. Every fine
genius has tried to represent it by some symbol. Anaxi
menes, by air; Thales, by water; Anaxagoras, by thought;
Zoroaster, by fire; Jesus and the moderns, by love.
Emerson says that in “ our more correct writing we
give to these generalisations the name of Being, and
thereby confess we have arrived as far as we can go.
I do not believe that there is a soul in the centre of all
things, or that a soul in man presides over and directs all
the organs of his brain; still, I fondly cherish the remem
brance of being lifted into the universal being, which
had its centre everywhere, and its circumference no
where. The bewilderments of metaphysics _ and the
cobwebs of theology make the confused brain so hot
that these words act like a gentle shower in sultry
weather:—
“ The rounded world is fair to see,
Nine times folded in mystery ;
Though baffled seer cannot impart
The secret of its labouring heart,
Throb thine with Nature’s throbbing breast,
And all is clear from east to west.
Spirit, that lurks each form within,
Beckons to spirit of its kin ;
Self-kindled every atom glows,
And hints the future that it owes.”
One thing is clear, that, if a man fails to find conso
lation and peace in nature, he will find it nowhere. If
he sees no beauty in a landscape, receives no pleasure
from looking at a rose, a tree, or a simple weed ; if he
sees no grandeur in a storm; if the rolling, tempestuous
sea excites no feeling of admiration or of awe, of wonder
or fear, he may rely upon it, either his mind or his body
is out of health. Emerson says he knew a physician
who believed that the religion a man accepted depended
very much on the state of his liver. If diseased, he
would be a Calvinist; if that organ was sound, a Uni
tarian. No doubt the kind of religion adopted depends
a great deal on the climate and the state of the blood.
The great idea that Emerson teaches is self-reliance ;
every heart vibrates to that iron string. Individualism
�8
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
is encouraged by him in every chapter he writes. He
delights in the man who sets up the strong present tense,
does broad justice now, and makes progress a fact; to
fill the hour, that is happiness, and leaves no room for
repentance or approval.
“ Work of his hand
He nGr commends nor grieves ;
Pleads for itself the fact;
As unrepenting Nature leaves
Her every act.”
Thus men of character become the conscience of
society, and unite with all that is just and true. Emer
son teaches that the world exists for a noble purpose,
the transformation of genius into practical power. The
popular idea is that the world is in a state of liquidation,
that the Grand Master of the Ceremonies is about to
appear to wind up the whole concern, and only believers
will share what may be realised from the estate. Emer
son, on the contrary, encourages men to work on and
hope on, believing that right and justice will ultimately
triumph.
There is one special feature in Emerson that is worthy
the serious attention of students, and readers of who are
not students. In his writings he shows an acquaintance
with the literature of the Old and the New Worlds. He
places within the reach of ordinary readers a mine of
literary wealth. I have read a great variety of books
during the past quarter of a century, but confess that,
with few exceptions, Emerson knew all I ha' e since
learnt. I know of no more economic method of gaining
an insight into the literature of the Old World and the
New than by reading the writings of this remarkable
man. However practical a man may be, he needs some
poetry to make life tolerable, and in Emerson the poetic
side of life has sufficient attention, although mixed with
science and philosophy.
Emerson is called a visionary dreamer; but do not his
words show that he sees life as it is, and has felt the
dark side of life, been under the shadow of existence ?
While he teaches Individualism, he is not mad, forAhe
writes of love and friendship, and says :—
�RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
9
“ All are needed by each one,
Nothing is fair and good alone.”
In his fable of the quarrel between the mountain and
the squirrel, the squirrel says :—
“ Talents differ ; all is well and wisely put;
If I cannot carry forests on my back,
Neither can you crack a nut.”
In his “ Compensation ” he teaches that “ the world
is dual, so is every one of its parts.” This chapter is
unlike anything written in modern times. He desired,
when a boy, to write this essay, for it seemed to him life
was ahead of theology, and that the people knew more
than the preachers taught.
In politics he says nature is neither democratic nor
Limited-Monarchical, but despotic. Persons having
reason have equal rights—demand a democracy—but
besides persons, the State undertakes to protect pro
perty; and here is inequality—one man owns his clothes,
another a county. He does not urge that the Republic
is “better,” but that it is “fitter.” It suits them. He
holds that the limitation of government, all govern
ments, is the wisdom of men; all men being wise, the
State would disappear. The tendency of the time
favours self-government. The less government we have,
the better. We think we get value for our money every
where, except what we pay for taxes.
In “ The Conduct of Life,” among the many questions
discussed is wealth.
He says: “ As soon as a
stranger is introduced the question is, How does he get
his living ? He should be able to answer. Every man
is a consumer, and should be a producer. He fails to
make his place good in the world who does not add
something to the commonwealth.”
In a chapter on Worship he mentions that some of
the Indians and Pacific Islanders flog their gods when
things take an unfavourable turn. Laomedon threat
ened to cut the ears off Apollo and Neptune in his
anger. King Olaf put a pan of glowing coals on the
belly of Eyvind, which burst asunder, saying, “ Wilt
thou now believe in Christ ?” In the romantic ages of
Christianity, to marry a Pagan husband or wife was to
�IO
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
take a step backwards towards the baboon. To-day he
says, religion is weak and childish; we have the rat-andmouse revelation, thumps in table drawers. To-day, he
says men talk of 11 mere morality,” which is as if one
should say, “ Poor God, with nobody to help him!” He
prophesies that there will be a new Church, founded on
moral science, that will gather science, music, beauty,
picture, and poetry around it.
“ Society and Solitude,” which contains a valuable
chapter on Books, is written in language less angular and
studied than his previous books—more like his
“ English Traits,” which I suppose everybody has read.
The great variety of Emerson’s writings prevents the
notice of any special chapter at any considerable length.
A few allusions sufficiently indicate his wide departure
from the popular theology. The belief in the existence
of God and the immortality of the soul is, with him,
as natural to the soul of man as apples are to apple
trees. Revelation, with him, is the disclosure of
the soul—the popular idea is, that it is telling of fortunes.
He would not believe any man who said the Holy Ghost
told him the last day of Judgment occurred in the
eighteenth century. His teaching seems to indicate
that all opinions, beliefs, conjectures, and anticipations,
to be of use to the individual, must come to him. He
cannot learn from other men; there is nothing second
hand in his divinity. Omniscience flows behind and
through every man ; he is simply a medium. Holding
these transcendental views, still he paints the Sceptic in
his essay on Montaigne with marvellous fidelity. His
description of the position of the believer, the unbeliever,
and the disbeliever is so accurate that one often regrets
the clergy and ministers of the Gospel do not devote
one hour of their long and busy lives to the reading of
this one chapter of Emerson; whatever they might
have to say after might be understood by the persons
holding the opinions they attempt to refute. Emerson
shows that the Sceptic is not a fool; he is the considerer,
the man who weighs evidence, and limits his statement
by the assurance of facts. He does not allow that any
Church or society of men have all the truth. He
knows all knowledge is relative; all conclusions not
�RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
H
based on ascertained facts are open to doubt. Perhaps as
much can be said against as for any speculative opinion.
Who then shall forbid a wise Scepticism ?
In confirmation of my representation of Emerson’s
views, I quote his approval of Spenser. He says:—
“ The soul makes the body, as the wise Spenser teaches;
For of the soul the body form doth take ;
For soul is form, and doth the body make.”
His description of man entering the world among the
lords of life is—
“ Little man, least of all,
Among the legs of his guardians tall,
Walked about with puzzled look.”
He is born in a series of which the extremes are un
known—there are stairs above and below, both beyond
our vision ; no man knows how far they extend in either
direction. “ Life is a string of beads, and as we pass
through them, they prove to be many-coloured lenses,
which paint the world their own hue, and each shows
only what lies in its own focus.”
All martyrdoms look mean when they are suffered;
every ship is a romantic object, except the one we sail in;
our little life looks trivial, and we often wonder how any
thing of use or beauty was produced by us; the land
scape of our neighbour's farm is beautiful to look upon,
but as to our field it only holds the world together.
In 1876 he published “Letters and Social Aims,”
in which we find the last chapter is on Immortality.
Emerson was then in his 73rd year, and might be
expected to tell us something of the life beyond life.
But he knows nothing to impart to another; yet in our
weakness we ask, does Emerson believe it? The mem- bers of the church ask their pastor, is there any resur
rection ? Did Dr. Channing believe we should know
each other ? “ Let any master simply recite to you the
substantial laws of the intellect, and in the presence of
the laws themselves you will never ask such primary
school questions.” He says the Sceptic affirms the
universe to be a nest of boxes with nothing in the last
box.
Montesquieu delighted in believing himself as im
�12
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
mortal as God himself. Young children have a feeling
of terror of a life without end. “What, will it never
stop ? Never, never die ? It makes me feel so tired.”
Penal servitude “ for life ” fills men with terror, but
“for ever” makes them sing and rejoice. The thought
that this poor frail being is never to end is overwhelming.
Herodotus, in his second book, says : “The Egyptians
were the first among mankind who have affirmed the
immortality of the soul.”
As the savage could not detach in his mind the life of
the soul from the body, he took great care of his body.
The great and chief end of man being to be buried well,
the priesthood became a senate of sextons; and masonry
and embalming the most popular of the arts.
Sixty years ago we were all taught that we were born
to die, and theology added all the terrors of savage
nations, to increase the gloom. A wise man in our
generation caused “ Think on Living ” to be inscribed
on his tomb. Emerson says this shows a great change
and describes a progress in opinion. He describes the
soul as master. “A man of thought is willing to die,
willing to live; I suppose because he has seen the thread
on which the beads are strung, and perceived that it
reaches up and down, existing quite independently of the
present illusions.” Matter-of-fact people will pronounce
these sentences nonsense, while they pretend to believe
greater miracles on Sundays and holy days. “And
what are these delights in the vast, permanent, and
strong, but approximations and resemblances of what is
entire and sufficing, creative and self-sustaining life?
Eor the creator keeps his word with us.”
He says, after making our children adepts in arts, we
do not send for the soldiers to shoot them down.
Nature does not, like the Empress Anne of Russia,
employ all the genius of the empire to build a palace of
snow. Emerson thinks the eternal, the vast, the power
ful in nature indicates the permanence of living thought
•—the perpetual promise of the creator. Goethe said :
“ It is to a thinking being impossible to think himself
non-existent; so far every one carries proof of immor
tality.” Van Helmont wishes Atheists “ might taste, if
only for a moment, what it is to intellectually under
�RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
IS
stand; whereby they may feel the immortality of the
mind, as it were, by touching.”
“ The healthy state of mind is the love of life. What
is so good? Let it endure.” This is the language of
the inspired on the mount; but those who live in the
valley inquire, JEzZZ it endure ?
“ I think all sound minds rest on a certain preliminary
conviction—namely, that if it be best that conscious per
sonal life shall continue, it will continue ; if not best, then
it will not.” Whatever it is, “ the future must be up tc>
the style of our faculties—of memory, hope, and reason.”
There is this drawback to all statements—hungry eyes
close disappointed; listeners do not hear what they want.
At last Emerson confesses that you cannot prove your
faith by syllogisms : the reasons all vanish ; it is all flying
ideal; conclusions are always hovering; no written theory
or demonstration is possible : Jesus explained nothing.
Emerson remarks that it is strange that Jesus is esteemed
by mankind the bringer of the doctrine of immortality.
“ He is never once weak or sentimental; he is very
abstemious of explanation ; he never preaches the personal
immortality ; while Plato and Cicero had both allowed
themselves to overstep the stern limits of the spirit, and
gratify the people with that picture.” Emerson compares
the grandeur of the doctrine with frivolous populations :
Will you build magnificently for mice ? Offer empires to
such as cannot keep house ? Here are people on whose
hands an hour hangs heavily—a day ! Will you offer
them rolling ages without end ? At last all drop into
the universal soul; each is as a bottle broken into the
sea. Emerson quotes, “The soul is not born; it does
not die.” This is the Hindoo faith.
Another chapter in the 1876 volume is on “ Quotation
and Originality.” Emerson has been reading and quot
ing and thinking and writing all his long life; hence,
what high value must we set on this chapter ! To the
literary student it is simply invaluable. He is like the
old mountain guide, who never misled a tourist, and never
missed his way. Only those who wander extensively in
new paths can appreciate one to whom all roads are
known. Read Tasso, and you think of Virgil; read
Virgil, and you think of Homer; read Plato, and you
�14
RALPH WALDO EMERSON.
find Christian dogma and Evangelical phrases. Rabelais
is the source of many a proverb, story, and jest.
“ Reynard the Fox,” a German poem of the thirteenth
century, yielded to Grimm, who found fragments of
another original a century older.
M. le Grand showed the original tales of Moliere, La
Fontaine, Boccaccio, and Voltaire in the old Fabliaux.
Mythology is no man’s work. Religious literature
psalms, liturgies, the Bible itself, is the growth of ages.
Divines assumed revelations of Christianity, the exact
parallelisms of which are found in the stoics and poets
of Greece and Rome. After the modern researches,
Confucius, the Indian Scriptures, and the history of
Egypt show that “ no monopoly of ethical wisdom could
be thought of.”
Sayings reported of modern statesmen and literary
men can be traced to Greek and Roman sources
Baron Munchausen’s bugle, hung up by the kitchen
fire till the frozen tune thawed out, is found in the time
of Plato.
Only recently England and America have discovered
their nursery tales were old German and Scandinavian
stories ; and now it appears that they came from India,
and were warbled and babbled by nurses and children of
all nations for unknown thousands of years. “Next to
the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it.
Many will read a book before one thinks of quoting a
passage.” When Shakespeare is charged with debts,
Landor replies : “ Yet he is more original than his
originals. He breathed upon dead bodies, and brought
them into life.” If De Quincey said to Wordsworth,
“ That is what I told you,” he replied, as his habit was
to reproduce all the good things: “No, that is mine—
mine, and not yours.” Marraontel’s principle was : “ I
pounce on what is mine, wherever Ifind it.” Poets, like
bees, take from every flower that suits them, not con
cerned where it originally grew. “ It is a familiar expe^
dient of brilliant writers and witty talkers, the device of
ascribing their own sentence to some imaginary person
in order to give it weight.”
�ALL ABOUT
THE ENGLISH
LAND QUESTION,
FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW.
BY
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
LONDON :
WATTS & Co., 84, FLEET STREET.
�NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL.
One Penny.
RADICALISM AND IMPERIALISM : An Exposition
and Impeachment.
Twopence Each.
WHAT IS A FREETHINKER ? His Distinctive
Principles Stated.
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION, and Notes by the
Way : its Relation to Students, Teachers, Free Inquiry
Morality, and Nature.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON, the American Philoso
pher and Essayist.
LAND NATIONAL PROPERTY. With a Criticism
of the Views of Mr. Bright and Others.
Third
Edition.
SHAKESPEARE: WHAT DID HE WRITE? Fourth
Edition.
THE BACON AND SHAKESPEARE CONTRO-
Sixpence Each.
THE MARTYRS OF PROGRESS. Being a History
of the Perils and Persecutions of Past Genera
tions.
GEORGE DAWSON’S SPEECHES ON SHAKE
SPEARE.
One Shilling Each.
A STRING OF PEARLS FROM THE MASTERS
OF THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE.
ALL ABOUT THE LAND QUESTION, from all
Points of View.
Two Shillings.
GREAT MEN’S VIEWS ON SHAKESPEARE.
London : 'WATTS & Co., 84 Fleet Street.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Ralph Waldo Emerson, the eminent American philosopher and essayist : description and estimation of his writings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Not dated. Internal evidence suggests 1880. Other works by Cattell advertised inside and on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1880]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N124
Subject
The topic of the resource
Emerson, Ralph Waldo
Philosophy
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 (Ralph Waldo Emerson, the eminent American philosopher and essayist : description and estimation of his writings), 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
Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2f657e48a4d3ddaf984a03c75a7224a9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PZLfegkq62QuDAl8MuV9gw9e5NXe34OSJ8nfB5iaHedfAS%7Ebn0TcKYe7uz9paXv7qzUHgSRBhzLXGwfJ5UnqgILofArkaxComRuQavxLIvMFKaw7r%7EyhbwHpzjh1ecbOFaVbKAWwm23Ngf9qA2kQLuCMtNJ6dmK89LR8gDS%7E8APSXT6YSf69FjrVm9EWod9mOHNvD%7EdlNq6EdM2MCViVRjmRjW1lfrRsCLhJaL5a8iIDDad6FKb1lKO7Sor86h2FLQ5M%7EaN56o90w8K7ja0sSQ9oQcJ3oYmo-SL9QOMfkMTTn3AlLZQdOwEWAEQts626fr2akDhMiyHcwsBwTIGrGA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9e0cfc0029298981e7422a91e623ca1
PDF Text
Text
B
S
bJ I ^-’3.
national secular society
LORD BACON:
WRITE
HE
DID
SHAKESPEARE’S PLATS?
A REPLY TO
I JUDGE HOLMES, -MISS D. BACON, & MR. W. H. SMITH,
BY
I
CHARLES C. CATTELL,
Editor of “ Dawson’s Speeches on Shakespeare.”
‘ Know the grounds and authors of it.’—Twelfth Night, Act V Sc. 1
PRICE
(THE
PROCEEDS TO
TWOPENCE.
BE
GIVEN
RESTORATION
Printed
and
TO
THE
LIBRARY
FUND.)
Published
by
G. & J. H. SHIPWAY, 39, MOOR STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
1879.
�NEW
WORK
Just Published, Price One Shilling,
THE
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Opinions—1878.
“A very interesting little work.”—Newcastle Chronicle, March 16th.
“ A series of short biographies of illustrious men who have suffered
tribulation in this world. Apart from this [that some do not deserve
the title], the biographies are interesting and instructive.”—Birming
ham Daily Bost, April 23rd.
“ Might have been made a hundred times as long as it is............ But
this small work very creditably fulfils the purpose which is set forth in
the preface. ”— Weekly Dispatch. March 24th.
“The facts in the various ‘ lives ’ are well marshalled, and the leading
characteristics as well brought out as narratives so very condensed will
admit. The volume bespeaks a large and varied course of reading,
and has substantial literary merit.”—The Advertiser, March 23rd.
“Well worthy of perusal, having been judiciously done.”—Free
Press.
‘1A sort of handy summary of the Foxe’s Martyrs order, and abounds
cheerfully with the headsman’s axe, racks, knouts, and stakes at
Smithfield.”—The Dart, March 16th.
“The biographies are comprehensive, and written in a pleasing
pithy style. The love of freedom which permeates the whole volume
is not the least interesting feature in it.”—Daily Mail.
“It is an excellent work of its kind; and, being very cheap, it
will doubtless find its way into the hands of the young working men
for whom it is adapted.”—7'ruthseeker.
“ Mr. Cattell has compiled a short history of each martyr, the lite
rary merits of which do him as much credit as the generous prompt
ings which led to such a task being undertaken. ’— Brtlish Mercantile
Gazette.
Published by CHARLES Watts, 84, Fleet Street, London.
�BID LORD BACON WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS?
BY
CHARLES
C.
CATTELL.
O some this is an old question, but it is not so old as some
other questions by many thousands of years. Many who
possess the volume entitled “Shakespeare’s Works” are
altogether indifferent as to when or by whom the plays and
poems were written. Then there are the idolaters who regard
the utterance of a doubt, as to Shakespeare being the author,
as gross infidelity, a species of blasphemy against “the divine
William.” But a wise scepticism is a healthy sign in this age
of reason, this age of intellectual activity—such as was never
before seen in the history of mankind. Old and wise heads
have settled this and many other questions to their own satis
faction ; but a new generation seeks solutions of its own, and
desires to discuss and settle questions, unawed by all authori
ty but the evidence, by which alone a thoughtful man is
guided. This humble contribution to the discussion is intended
to serve those whose time or opportunity does not permit them
to consult more expensive and voluminous books on the subject.
Some persons are angry with the heretics ; but it may be
fairly taken as a very high compliment to the genius of
Shakespeare, that his plays and poems are considered worthy
of the pen of so profound a philosopher, scholar, and master
mind as Lord Bacon.
T
�4
Those who think this is a fight with phantoms, a firing into
the air at nothing in particular, should be informed that in
1875 a new edition of Judge Holmes’s work was published,
containing 696 pages, setting forth the claims of Lord Bacon.
Besides this, there is a work by Miss Delia Bacon of 582 pages,
and one by W. H. Smith of 162 pages, and others.
The position taken by the heretics is that Shakespeare was
only a poor strolling, vagabond player—who not only could
not be the writer of the plays or of anything else, except his
own name, and that so badly that it is still an open question
whether he knew how to spell it.
On the other hand, Lord
Bacon could write, was a scholar, and lived at the same time,
in the same country, as Shakespeare, and therefore he might
have written the plays and poems. Dr. Watts laid down as a
sort of logical canon that what might be might not be.
One
argument against Lord Bacon is that several literary men of
eminence, who lived at the time, in the same country, do not
say he wrote the plays, but give the credit of authorship to
William Shakespeare.
The words these men wrote, about Shakespeare being the
author, were published at the time, form part of our national
literature, and remained undisputed for more than 250 years.
Besides Ben Jonson, Francis Meres, and others, Earl
Southhampton calls Shakespeare his “especial friend” and
describes him as the “writer of some of our best English
plays ”
John Milton, in 1632, only a few years after the death of
Shakespeare, which occurred in 1616, sings to his memory a
hymn of praise. Heminge and Condell, who played with him,
were on friendly terms with Earl Pembroke, and had, so far
as we know, thirty years good character, published the plays
�5
and poems in 1623, as we now have them, under the name of
William Shakespeare; and at the same time under their own
signature claimed him as their friend and the author of the
hooks they edited.
In order to sustain the claims set up for Lord Bacon we are
compelled to take refuge in the assumption—that men of
learning, scholars, pure and noble characters—-entered into a
conspiracy to deceive mankind to all eternity, or, otherwise,
that they were the most weak, deluded, drivelling, soft-headed
fools that ever were permitted to breathe the air of Great
Britain. Either they lied or were imposed upon, and neither
one nor the other is laid to their charge—or, instead of being
quoted as ornaments to their age, they would be described as
impostors or idiots.
The so-called arguments of the heretics are made up of
11 if’s,” “hut’s,” and “might he’s.” Those who put forth no
arguments on their side are the most difficult writers to answer
or refute : but the reasoning of the heretics admits of illustra
tion, if not of refutation.
The following will illustrate their method, supposing they
described it as I should:—There was a plague in London; Charles II. was King, and
John Milton was a poet. Now John Milton was poor, and old,
and blind—and had no power over the elements,the army or
the government—but the king had control over the govern
ment and its administration, and therefore he “ might ” have
had something to do with the plague. Although we have
held the opinion for more than twenty years that the King
caused the plague, we never hoped or expected to be able to
prove any such thing!
One conclusive proof against Milton
is he left no manuscript giving instructions about the plague ;
�6
neither did the King, but no doubt he wrote them.
Having
sent a copy of our work, showing that the King caused the
plague, to a gentleman who has devoted many years to writing
a life of the King, and he having thanked us for it, and also
given us his opinion—that our theory and statements are
totally unsupported by facts, and are incredible and absurd
beyond all question ; we think it necessary to bring out anew
edition of our valuable work, which we find is supported by
other independent writers, who have proved nothing at all, and
of whose existence we were entirely ignorant at the time we
wrote our own views on the same subject.
Judge Holmes makes a point of the fact that no manuscript
has been found of Shakespeare’s own writing : but if that
proves anything against him it is equally fatal in the case of
Bacon who has also omitted to leave us manuscript of his
Tragedies and Sonnets.
Dr. Ingleby suggests that Shakes
peare’s manuscripts may have been taken to London by his
friend Ben Jonson, and that they may have been burnt at the
fire which took place at Jonson’s house. Heminge and Condell say they had Shakespeare’s manuscripts of his plays and
poems to print from, but I am not aware of any one having
said that much of Lord Bacon’s. Bacon’s works were not
published till after twelve of the plays, so that plagiarism
would be extremely difficult, especially as his works contained no
plays or sonnets.
Here we have Lord Bacon busy writing his great works,
and having them carefully done into Latin; and we are asked
to believe that at the same time he wrote the same sentiments
(for their evidence consists of parallel passages only) in
sublime tragedies, known and played before, and placed to
the credit of a writer whose name was not Bacon. Moreover
�7
these Dramas which have won the praise and admiration of all
nations were in his eyes such inferior rubbish, that he allow
ed them to remain in English instead of having them done
into Latin to be preserved for posterity. Any one who knows
Bacon’s character knows that that is just what he would not
have done.
The assumption necessary for the heretics’ case is that Bacon
not only wrote the sentiments in majestic prose, about which
there is no dispute; but that he also made the same sentiments
do duty twice—in the second instance they appear in the form
of sublime dramatic poetry—the writing of which he confessed
himself incompetent, and the heretics produce no evidence that
he either could or did.
Holmes says it is ‘ historically known’ that Bacon wrote plays
and poems ; but does not say to whom this history was known,
or who wrote it. Ellis gives a list of fifty persons who wrote
in the reigns of Elizabeth and James, but Bacon is not one.
Bacon wrote in fulsome adulation of his friend James, but did
not produce a sonnet on his accession to the throne, but he did
produce some wretched prose, altogether unworthy of his pen.
It certainly is recorded by himself that he 'prepared a sonnet’
as ' a toy,’ in 1599, to please the queen, and in the same docu
ment he says he did not profess to be ‘a poet.’
It is also‘historically known’ that he ‘assisted’ in preparing
a masque, and the part he did was ' the dumb shows,’ and
the rest was done by others. Another proof that Bacon wrote
Shakespeare is that he wrote a metrical version of the Psalms
of David. I can only make out that he paraphrased VII of
them, and if any body else had produced such—I hesitate to
say what language critics would have used about the VII. To
produce any force, the parallel passages, to prove identity of
�8
authorship, should have been taken from Bacon's tragedies
and sonnets, about which no dispute has taken place because
even their existence has not yet been established. Bacon’s
biographer says—if he did not write the plays of Shakespeare,
of which we have no proof, there is no evidence that Bacon
could write Dramatic Poetry. True enough, say the heretics,
but if he did, which he
that is evidence that he
could. Verily there is “much virtue in ?/.”
Any one reading the plays would infer that the writer had
some knowledge of the stage, and was not unacquainted with
Warwickshire, and even Stratford-on-Avon : —and ‘if Bacon
did not write them, some other person ‘might'' who had some
knowledge of both. The author ‘might' have been a player,
‘if he had once lived on the banks of the Avon.
Of course
Bacon lived at a time when his parents ‘might' have resided
in Warwickshire, and he ‘ might' have obtained some know
ledge of the stage, ‘if' he was a player, although it is not
“ historically known " these mights are in any sense rights.
It is urged that all the difficulty is occasioned by Bacon’s
concealment of his name as a Dramatist; because that character
was unpopular in his time. A more conclusive reason, to my
mind, is the fact that he was unknown to be able to sustain
the character—and that the reason why his name was con
cealed, as the writer of Shakespeare’s plays, was because he
did not write them—and that purely through his lack of
ability to do anything of the sort, as he himself confessed in
writing.
Let any one compare Bacon’s version of the Psalms with any
Tragedy or Drama, attributed to Shakespeare, and see what
sort of an idea can be obtained of a parallel. There is as much
difference between the writings of Bacon and the Plays as
�9
there is difference in the characters of the philosopher and
the poet.
Shakespeare has keen described as honest, open,
gentle, free, honourable and amiable; while Bacon has been
described as ambitious, covetous, base, selfish, unamiable and
unscrupulous. Now, taking these two descriptions as a fair
index of their souls—which is the more likely to have por
trayed the women of Shakespeare’s plays ?
The reasons given for concealment lose all their force
when we remember that Bacon’s complete works were not
published till 1635, one year before he died.
He lived long
enough to see the end of his plays ‘ if’ he wrote them ; so
that the excuse which he ‘ might ’ have had, when a young
rising ambitious man, could not do duty at the age of sixty.
Besides, his friend and servant Ben Jonson had placed the
plays and poems, many a long year before, high up above all
the productions of the genius of the human race. To suppose
a man like Bacon dying and leaving such works unowned—•
leaving them to be fathered by a poor despised player, who
could but just sign his name for cash received from the Queen
and King for acting before them—is—what ? To assert that
such is within the limits of probability is unmitigated twaddle.
It is a known fact that Bacon was very anxious about how
he should appear to posterity—and yet we are asked to believe
that he allowed his plays, ‘if’ he wrote them, which he
might not, to come down to us, published under his very eyes,
with 20,000 errors.
Then there is the important point that Shakespeare had
little or no education--very irregular—short in duration—and
the absence of proof that he ever went to school at all—and
if he did go—he must have begun to write before he was
qualified either by college or university.
�10
At the very starting point in this investigation the presump
tion is that the boy Shakespeare was totally unprepared for
the office of poet at the time when he was busy at it. Now, ‘ if
he did go to school, his father being a yeoman and having
served as chief magistrate, he ‘ might ’ have had an education
like his friend Lord Southampton.
Ben Jonson says Shake
speare had “small Latin and less Greek,” so that it seems
quite possible that he obtained these at some school—and is it
too much to assume that his friend Ben, who was a scholar,
could, and would, and did assist him ?
Many of the books he ‘might' have read in English, ‘if
that be added to his Latin and Greek, which is not impossible,
as he lived at a time when English was spoken and written.
Surely Ben Jonson would help his ‘beloved author ’ to Ovid
and Virgil, about the only two he would want besides trans
lations. It should be remembered that much of Shakespeare
is the work of genius observing nature and man, and that he
does not write alone as books enable and as colleges teach.
He may also have in some measure resembled Pope, Goldsmith,
and Burns, whose education was not of a very high order •
but they, as also Dryden, Milton, Coleridge, and others
began to write before they were twenty, Milton being a fair
classical scholar at 17. Shakespeare having, according to Emerson, “the best head in the universe,” and some knowledge
of Latin and Greek, and some mysterious mental power sur
passing that of the wisest of the ancients, he might have been
able to produce some of the great works which make his name
immortal, without being Lord Bacon in disguise, or the mere
puppet of the great philosopher, who had as much to do with
the plays as the writer of this.
�11
Holmes cites a number of passages from Bacon containing
the same words and illustrations as are found in Shakespeare’s
plays, and asks “ can all this be accidental ?”
Yes : but if
not, things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one
another : so that if parallels prove identity of authorship, the
inference that Shakespeare wrote Bacon is as logical as the in
ference that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. The evidence consists
solely of similarity of expressions, as the following will illustrate.
Bacon writes that he remembers in a chamber at Cambridge
there was “ a pillar of iron erected for a prop,” in another
place he speaks of “ Ancient pillars.”
Shakespeare also speaks of “ a prop to lean upon,” “ props
of virtue,” “pillars that stand to us,” and “deserving pillars of
the law.” To me this only proves that both used the words
pillar and prop. Bacon speaks of “the finger of God.”
Shakespeare speaks of “the fingers of the powers above.”
Bacon speaks of “ the soul having shaken off her flesh.”
Shakespeare speaks of “ when we have shuffled off this mortal
coil.” Bacon speaks of “ the mole that diveth into the darkness
of the earth.” Shakespeare says—“ old mole ! canst work i’
th’ ground so fast ? ” Bacon writes—
“ As a tale told, which, sometimes men attend,
And sometimes not, our life steals to an end.”
Shakespeare writes :—
“ Life is as tedious as a twice told tale,
Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.”
Bacon :—“ The great navies look like walking woods.”
Shakespeare :—
“Anon, me thought,
The woods began to •move.”
It should be noted that the last two quotations from Bacon are
�12
translations from the Psalms, so that, if they prove any
thing, they prove that Shakespeare was written by King David.
Holmes discovers that the plays were written between 1582
and 1613 ; Bacon at the same time living thirty-one years,
from 21 to 52, “ corresponding exactly to that portion of Ba
con slife in which we may most easily suppose they could have been
written by him.” Shakespeare also lived thirty-one years dur
ing the same period, corresponding exactly to that portion
of Shakespeare’s life from 18 to 49, in which we may easily
suppose he wrote some of the plays.
This would be very easy
indeed if we took Holmes as a guide. For instance, in speak
ing of the style of Heminge and Condell’s affectionate dedication,
he says, “it is much more nearly that of Bacon; but it may very
well have been Jonson.” Again, Holmes says, there are traditions
that Jonson severely criticised Shakespeare’s productions,
and was envious of his fame—“and from these it should be
inferred that Jonson could not really have believed that
Shakespeare was the actual author of the works.”
While reading this sentence it will be well to bear in mind
that Jonson paid the highest compliment to Shakespeare’s
genius, and that Holmes himself contends that the works so
“ severely criticised ” were written by no less a person than
Lord Bacon. If we believe in Holmes and his logic, Jonson
was a fool in criticism and a liar in eulogy.
Holmes quotes a postscript from a letter by Tobie Matthew
to Lord Bacon, in which allusion is made to a ‘ ‘ most prodigi
ous wit ”—“ of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by
another.”
Who else could this refer to but Shakespeare?
He calls this a “very remarkable piece of evidence.”
To me
the sentence is by no means clear—as to whom it refers —
is a kind of literary conundrum—the true answer to which,
�13
Judge Holmes himself has not, in my opinion, yet discovered.
The sentence to me is remarkable as evidence of an
obscure style of letter writing, and of interest, or even intelligi
ble, only to the initiated correspondent.
Miss Delia Bacon, whose sincerity is indisputable, since she
sacrificed her reason and her life in pursuing this subject,
states that she will not place any value on Ben Jonson’s evi
dence in favour of Shakespeare’s authorship until he has ex
plained why he did not mention to the author of the “ Advance
ment of Learning ” the name of the author of ‘‘ Hamlet” as,
she says, two such remarkable persons “ might like to meet each
other.” She offers no evidence that Jonson did not do this, or
that they did not meet.
The imputation upon the honour of
Jonson is therefore unsupported, except by thejgreat argument
which the heretics fall back upon on all occasions, which is
founded on the fact that all the historians and biographers are
entirely silent on the subject.
This comes with great force
because historians and biographers so seldom agree, but on this
point they are unanimous, in saying nothing !
She may be excused for her enthusiasm since she believed
she had discovered “hidden treasure” under the surface of
Shakespeare’s plays, although for years she had been a
student of the bard, and, like all the rest of the world, found
only beautiful ideas clothed in the most majestic words of one
of the greatest living languages.
But she, with keener eye
than ordinary mortals, saw, “under the surface of Shakepeare’s plays,” the philosophy of Sir Walter Raleigh, and the
imperishable thoughts of Lord Bacon, the father of the induc
tive method. Strange as this may appear to some—it is mar
vellous what hidden things may be discovered in any great
book, if you gojzo it with a theory preconceived, and with a
�14
settled purpose of finding in it some support to your theory.
A remarkable illustration of this is found in the case of the
English Bible. A thousand discordant sects fly to the book of
books in search of illustrations and facts and sanctions to en
force their views, and they come back loaded with texts innum
erable with which they pelt each other for hundreds of years.
Moreover they not only thus fight each other but they combine
to pelt all who differ from the whole of them with a vigour
that can only be appreciated by those who have been engaged
in what Coleridge’s coachman called “something in the oppo
sition line.”
My contention is, that if you did not first catch your hare
you could not cook it, that if you did not get your theory first
you would not find it in the book nor the facts in support of it.
I read Bacon’s essays before Shakespeare’s plays and
the thought that one man wrote both was not suggested, and
such a thought would not be suggested by the reading only—
not to one man in a million—and still it might be so—it might
still be true that one man was the author of both.
The mul
titude do not make discoveries. The discoverers of truth, the
proclaimers of truth, and the defenders of truth, have in all
ages been the few—-the minority of the human race.
These facts should be constantly borne in mind, so that per
sonal abuse, persecution in any form, should not be possible
among the students, or even among the admirers, of literature,
art, and science. In the words of Shakespeare, let it become
a common truism, and not the insulting concession called toler
ation, that “ Thought is free.”
Mr. W. H. ^Smith contends that in Bacon alone are to be
found the vast variety of talents possessed by the writer of
Shakespeare’s plays.
�15
The best answer I can give is that the talent required, above
all others, is the ability to write such dramatic poetry as the
book contains, and which cannot be traced to Lord Bacon.
Mr. Smith considers similarity of ideas or coincidence of
expressions unreasonable, and not to be expected, yet here we
find them in the following pointed instances.
Bacon speaking of reputation uses these words “because of
the peremptory tides and currents it hath ” and Shakespeare
says “ There is a tide in the affairs of men.”
Bacon relates an anecdote about a man named Hog, who
claimed kindred on account of his name. Sir N. Bacon replied
“ Ay, but you and I cannot be kindred except you be hanged ;
for Hog is not Bacon until it is well hanged.”
Shakespeare
has also used the words hang, hog, and bacon.
Evans—“Hung, Hang, Hog.”
Dame Quickly—“Hang, Hog is the Latin for Bacon.”
Mr. Smith points out that the word ‘ Essay ’ was new in
Bacon’s time, and yet Shakespeare uses it once, Bacon uses it
as a title.
If the use of the same word by two authors who lived at the
same time proves that one wrote the works of the other, there
wonld be no difficulty in proving that Judge Holmes wrote the
book of W. H. Smith, or vice versa.
As a matter of fact he has been charged with copying Miss
Delia Bacon. In his defence he says that if it were necessary
he could show that for twenty years he had held the opinion
that Bacon was the author of the works of Shakespeare. Such
a declaration would lead any reader to expect something very
conclusive,—yet at the end of his volume he says “ we shall
be told that the sum of the whole does not prove that Bacon
wrote the plays.
We have never said or insinuated that we
hoped or expected to prove any such thing,”
�16
The value of an opinion, although like this of Mr. Smith’s,
may be twenty years of age, depends on the facts which support
it. Any opinion of which there is no hope or expectation is
hardly likely to obtain converts, and maybe very justly left to
expire with the name of W. H. Smith.
IN THE I-'NESS.
TO SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, 2/6.
GREAT MEN’S VIEWS
ON
SHAKESPEAKE,
BY
This work will contain the opinions of the leading writers on
the subject in Germany, France, America, and England.
Subscribers names to be sent to
G. & d. H. SHIPWAY, 39, MOOR ST.,
BIRMINGHAM:.
G. & J. H. SHIPWAY, 39, Moon Street, Birmingham.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Lord Bacon: did he write Shakespeare's plays? A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss D. Bacon, & Mr W.H. Smith
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Other works by Cattell advertised on page [2] and back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
G. & J. H. Shipway
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1879
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N122
Subject
The topic of the resource
Literature
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 (Lord Bacon: did he write Shakespeare's plays? A reply to Judge Holmes, Miss D. Bacon, & Mr W.H. Smith), 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
Authorship
Francis Bacon
NSS
Shakespeare
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca83b94623612bea77ec2f928f8cf880.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nPJxhNuHfAuwyw1j6FnELNLsGiMkYY2q%7EwdkbV-IePSfmz3%7E7IV2cyd-unyrKJpEQHTs06zpIEfTZGtx311PUXEi9i0oJT0KLxqWXUt1TWdV3A3QBnEPKfqINbFNpQ6ZDVI0ti3-q2f7F2P%7EuZ1692olZQuD49kFkrW3hrZ5oNSLKfWM1TPO-Z7Q9Fpd9I6P9T0pYLL3G6cM4NII97OheMB9AaHoqfYJai9uCJ9EO1pzN11aj1y6YeXS7j%7EbgnfJfWjT%7ECD1bJq4MgwTUN4U%7ElI7c0NZh6HXM1drB7D0YFZiYGpdfo%7ESavFHuj0Qvp2QuzhvR6jRk-iW96eGHgJ7ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ccaba3076336eca5feebe4bca2a15bcd
PDF Text
Text
i Z'^'4H 113-1
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
W Atheistic ^UHorm.
VIII.
IS
DARWINISM
ATHEISTIC?
BY
CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL.
Author of “A Search
for the
First Man,'’
etc
LONDON:
EREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is "being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
i 1.—“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By‘Annie Besant.
2. —Mind considered as a Bodily Function. By Alice
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveling,
D.Sc.
4. —“ England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh,
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
6. —“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7. —“ Some Objections
laugh.
to
Socialism.” By Charles Brad
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
In the concluding words of the “Descent of Man ” “w? are
?rntfiere-pC°nCemed
hopes or fears> only with the
truth as far a8 0llr reason permits mt0 discover it”(p
lor? th!
is not Atheism. aijy
eludes the otfS^7
A?r0I10W’ Net whether one el
eiuo.es tne othei is a question which the
unanswered. The Theist looks on the ea^th Ad r •
things as a series of fixed and unchangeable fim™?
the?cXtioSnUnThe n„8'- “
"v ™ the fcst daX »*
eir creation lhe universe, according to his view conlrl
can make to the question’pr°Pfi answer he
aSd vegetXl^Ct^tC^
“They exist bv an
? ClvAlsed, uatl°ns are familial-:
the unlimited ‘existencein
‘and
existences animate and inanimate. I hl
�116
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
and. men only. Others again bring in a bill of divorce
ment for the severance of the universe from the creator,
and introduce the law of nature to take the place of an
active God. Hence in most popular works we meet with
the first cause and secondary causes. By general agree
ment scientific men attribute all the present operations of
nature to second causes, and express their conclusions,
based on observation and experience in terms now popular
—the laws of nature. Even George Combe, a man of
undoubted piety, penned the following sentence:
“ Science has banished the belief in the exercise-by the
Deity in our day of special acts of supernatural power as
a means of influencing human affairs.” Baden Powell
went still further (Inductive Philosophy, p. 67): “There
is not, there never has been, any ‘ creation ’ in the original
and popular sense of the term,” which is now adopted as
“a mere term of convenience.” To this the appearance
of man is no exception, and in no way violates the essential
unity and continuity of natural causes. Again, “by equally
regular laws in one case as in the other, must have been
evolved all forms of inorganic and equally of . organic
existence.” Any single instance of birth or origin as an
exception to physical laws “is an incongruity so prepos
terous that no inductive mind can for a moment entertain
it. All is sub j ect to pre-arranged laws, and the disruption
of one single link in nature’s chain of order would be the
destruction of the whole.” All this was written before
Darwin broached his theory, and I well remember the
reply given more than thirty years ago. “ Why then cry
unto God ? There is no God in nature, only an exhibition
of his legislative power as evinced in his pre-arranged
laws! ” This appears to me an answer. Under this head
may fittingly be placed Darwin’s predecessors, E. G. St.
Hilaire, Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and Goethe, all of
whom attribute changes and modifications to a process of
nature. A brief summary of their views may be read in
Dr. Aveling’s “Darwinian Theory.”
Strange as it may appear, Professor Mivart quotes
Aquinas and Augustine as writing that “ in the first insti
tution of nature we do not look for miracles, but for the
laws of nature,” and he himself says “that throughoiit
the whole process of physical evolution—the first mani
festation of life included—supernatural action is not to be
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
117
looked for.” Mr. Mungo Ponton holds that no organism
•can be said to be created. “It is neither necessary nor
reasonable to suppose the Creator himself to act directly
in the organisation of any organism.” How such lan
guage must shock the pious writer who exclaimed: “ The
hand that made me is divine.”
The genial poet duly shuddered at Baden Powell, who
after all only repeated the words of the Saints of the
JRoman Church:
“ Take thine idol hence,
Cold Physicist!
Great Absentee ! and left His Agent Law
To work out all results.
Nature, whose very name
Implies her wants, while struggling into birth,
Demands a Living and a Present God.”
I fully enter into the spirit of these words, and in my
first work of importance (1864) I urged that such a con■ception negatives all science. There can be no scientific
fact established and reliable, if it is true that there is a
•God
“ Whose power o’er moving worlds presides,
Whose voice created, and whose wisdom guides,”
It appears manifest that there can be nothing certain in
nature if God ever interferes. No prediction of the ap
pearance of a comet or any description of the motion of a
planet is possible, if we allow the possibility of any un
known person interfering with the calculations on which
the predictions are based. This is not a matter of opinion
or belief—it is a self-evident truth. We understand that
two added to two equal four, but the Theistic theory
admits the possibility that they may, under divine control,
be either more or less. If any say no, they admit the
Atheistic position. A God who never interferes is no God
at all.
Those who put Law in place of God explain nothing
Law can no more create, modify, or sustain nature than
God can. It is, in fact, only removing the Divine operator
one step back without any advantage. Such persons think
they thus obviate certain objections to terrible calamities
�118.
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
and sufferings by saying instead of “God did it,” “ the
Law did it.” It matters not whether it be the landlord or
his agent, if we are evicted without compensation, and
starve on the highway.
Mr. M. Ponton (“ Beginning: How and When ? ” p. 357)
may be quoted as a very good illustration of this view. He
contends that God acts in the living organisms only
“mediately, through the instrumentality of the organiser.
We might as well suppose every instinctive action of an
organised being to be a direct act of the creator, as that
every unconscious action contributing to the development,
growth, maintenance, or reproduction of the organism is a
direct act of Divine interference.” Certainly, that is so—
but why not? H the development, growth, and repro
duction goes on without direct interference, there must be
some reason for it, and here it is—“the imperfections and
occasional monstrosities occurring in individual organisms
forbid our supposing these to be the immediate products of
unerring creative wisdom and power.” The blundering is
shifted on to the “organiser”—but whence the organiser
who or which acts so monstrously ?
The parentage is clearly set forth by Mr. Ponton (p.
356) himself, who, in describing all existing organisms,
says : “ But the first in each series must have been, in thestrict sense of the term, a creation—a being brought into
existence by the mere will of the creator.” Now taking
these two statements as an explanation of the mode of
origin of living organisms, I contend that the same login
that forbids us to accept monster from “unerring wisdom ”
equally forbids us attributing the origin of an agent
capable of producing them to the same unerring cause.
A good designer of a good organism is accepted—while
all is plain and fair sailing; but immediately Mr. Ponton
stumbles over an imperfect or monstrous one, he sends theunerring cause flying back into the unknown mist, to
assist at the formation of things in their primeval inno
cence and purity. This is exploded theology over again,
as taught in our dame schools.
A similar idea is developed in religion. The brutal God
of the lews is transformed into a humane God by the
Christians—a God of love.
But if we assume one source of power, it follows that all
efficient causes of good and evil are traceable to that one?
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
119
source, so that there is no advantage in a liberal and loving
philosophy clothing the modern God with only a humane
and beneficent character. Many devout persons have
written books to reconcile us to Theism by picturing the
design in nature to produce the beautiful and beneficent.
If we accept their theory, we are confronted by fact, at
tested before our eyes and recorded in the rocks up to the
earliest time—that animals have been created and sent on
the earth for the purpose of devouring each other. There
is no design or purpose plainer than this.
The world is one vast slaughter-house—one half the
animal kingdom lives in and on other animals. So long
as the lion roams the forest and the tigers seek their prey,
so long the doctrine of benevolent design in nature will
have a living palpable refutation. A power outside nature
that can prevent pain is one of the grossest impositions
the ingenuity of man has ever attempted to prove the
existence of, or by implication to infer, as evidenced by
God “in his works which are fair.”
The only answer that can be made is that it is a good
thing to be devoured! I have heard naturalists describe
the beautiful adaptations by which one creature can and
does kill another I All this takes place by the intention
of a personal God who directs it, or his under unerring and
beneficent laws of nature, according to whichever view is
held.
There was a time, not so distant, when the whole of
nature was believed to be under .the personal direction of
God. Thunder, lightning, storms, eclipses of the sun and
moon, and the motions of the heavenly bodies, all came
under this description. Travellers assure us that savages
usually look upon nature with similar eyes.
All attempts to remove a capricious will of God from
the operations of nature have been denounced as Atheistic.
All discoverers and announcers of new truth have been
denounced as Atheists through all time. A Frenchman
filled a whole dictionary with their names. All science is
necessarily Atheistic in the original sense of the word—
Atheist means ivithout God. Of course it is used in other
senses by some—for instance the denial of God, against
God, an active opposition to Theism, &c. The broad dis
tinction I wish to make is: by Theism we understand a
�120
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
system based upon the Supernatural ; by Atheism, a system
based upon the Natural.
As regards the subject of the present enquiry, the only
great difficulty all along has been the popular conception
of the earth’s recent appearance and its transitory nature.
Called into existence only yesterday and liable to vanish
in smoke to-morrow, it afforded no scope for the evolution
of living things during myriads of ages, millions of years.
So long as minds were occupied with the fall of man
behind them and penal fires before them, and all nature in
a state of possible instantaneous combustion, nothing cer
tain could be expected, no science was possible.
In the presence of a first cause and a last cause and
secondary causes, only confusion could arise. When it
became known that in science a first and last cause was
equally unknown, that changes in nature being intermin
able, so likewise are causes and effects—the names by
which they are known, what we rightly call human know
ledge became possible. The first society started in Eng
land for the collection and diffusion of this sort of know
ledge was the Royal Society for the special study of
Natural, in contradistinction to Supernatural, knowledge.
As regards man, the study has been greatly facili
tated by the discovery of his high antiquity, but aid to
the interpretation of nature in general comes from the
chemist.
To explain anything in the terms of science as a process
of nature required the evidence afforded by quantitative
chemistry. This assures us that, though all nature is con
stantly changing, nothing is lost—hence the indestructi
bility of matter is an established fact. What bearing has
this on our subject? To my mind it is clear that the in
destructible is a never-ending and never-beginning attri
bute.' This being accepted as a logical inference from an
indisputable fact, a beginning and a beginner are both
dispensed with. All are agreed that there is a selfexistent, eternal something—a necessity of human thought;
this appears to me to be the indestructible nature we
know—by whatever name we call it.
In illustration of this, I have often quoted a beautiful
passage from Herschell (Nat. Phil.), who, after referring
to the fact that one of the great powers, gravitation, the
�16 DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
121
main bond and support of the universe, has undergone
no change from a high antiquity, says: “So that, for
aught we know to the contrary, the same identical atom
may be concealed for thousands of centuries in a limestone
rock; may at length be quarried, set free in the lime-kiln,
mix with the air, be absorbed from it by plants, and, in
succession, become a part of the frames of myriads of liv
ing beings, till some occurrence of events consigns it once
more to a long repose, which, however, in no way unfits it
for again assuming its former activity.”
There are some who admit the indestructibility of
matter and its illimitable existence in space and time, who
nevertheless allow there may be something underlying ox*
behind the nature we know. I see no advantage in mul
tiplying assumptions, nor do I see where logically we can
stop if we do. If I assume a self-existent, eternal universe,
and there stop, no one else can do more than repeat the
same proposition containing the same idea. I do not pro
fess to account for it—no one can account for it. Why
anything exists without limit in space and time no man
can tell.
In support of this view, let me quote a passage from the
voluminous writings of Herbert Spencer: “Those who
cannot conceive a self-existent universe .... take for
granted that they can conceive a self-existent creator.”
The mystery they see surrounding them on every side they
transfer to an alleged source, “ and then suppose they have
solved the mystery. But they delude themselves............
Whoever agrees that the Atheistic hypothesis is untenable
because it involves the impossible idea of self-existence,
must perforce admit that the Theistic hypothesis is unten
able if it contains the same impossible idea. ... So that,
in fact, impossible as it is to think of the actual universe as
■self-existing, we do but multiply impossibilities of thought
by every attempt we make to explain its existence.” (“First
Principles,” p. 35.)
Some who do not admit that nature is all in all, reject
the notion I have described as a person creating and sus
taining all existing things—on the ground that it is an
thropomorphic. Be it so, the long name does not alter the
fact. I hold that Paley was right and has never been
answered, when he said that a designer and contrivei’
of nature must be a person. A Man- God is the only rational
�122
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
ancl intelligible conception the human intellect can
form, and they who reject it are manifestly without God—
Atheist.
Those who place Law where Grod used to be are in
advance of Theism, my only difference with them being as
to the meaning they attach to the word Law. I also
believe in the laws of nature, but only thereby express the
invariable order manifested—the way nature acts. They
use Law not to denote the fact that water seeks its own
level, but as though they meant the law either pushed or
pulled the water down the river. In all their writings
they speak of nature, her laws, and the lawgiver. I only
know nature and mode or method. When I say nature
works thus, I add nothing to the fact; they speak of law
as something impressed on matter, something having a
separate existence.
Where I speak of living matter, they speak of matter
endowed with life, endowed with intelligence, &c. This leads
up to the particular question under discussion—does Dar
winism come under the latter view ? A few phrases are
frequently quoted to prove that it does. Darwin writes
that 11 probably all the organic beings which have ever
lived on this earth have descended from some one primor
dial form, into which life was first breathed by the
Creator.” In another place he writes : “The Creator ori
ginally breathed life into a few forms, perhapsfour or five.”
Here we have the word Creator, and the work ascribed to
him, or it, is breathing life into one or perhaps five organ
isms. Darwin’s mind was apparently unsettled with
regard to theology all his life. If he had devoted as many
years to that as he did to the observation of plants and
animals, he would doubtless have uttered a more certain
sound. But his use of popular modes of expression, theo
logical phrases, must be judged by his later utterances.
Theists quote his words about breathing as though he was
in accord with Moses. Surely his tracing man’s origin to
the quadruped and aquatic animals is slightly at variancewith the words of Genesis ! Again it is urged that the
use of the word Creator implies creation, but he has placed
that view beyond all dispute.
The belief in God he traces to natural causes in
“Descent of Man,” p. 93, and points out numerous races
of men of past and present time, who have no idea of God
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
123-
and no word to express such, an idea. With regard to the
existence of a creator and ruler of the universe, he says : •
“.This has been answered in the affirmative by some of thehighest intellects,” but he does not answer it himself.1 Ho
mentions a savage who with “justifiable pride, stoutly
maintained there was no devil in his land.”
. With regard to organisms being the work of a creator,
his later utterances in “Descent of Man,” p. 61, are very
clear. He states that in writing “ Origin of Species” he
had two objects in view, “firstly, to show that species had
not been specially created.” The concluding paragraph
runs: “I have at least, I hope, done good service in airb'ng
to overthroio the dogma of separate creations.” On the
same page, I think, he gives ample explanation of his use
of current theological phrases. “I was not, however, able
to annul the influence of my former belief then almost
universal, that each species had been purposely created.”
Hetraces the objections to his theory to the “arrogance
of our forefathers which made them declare that they were
descended from demi-gods,” and says that before long it
will be thought wonderful that naturalists should have
believed in separate creations. The concluding words of
the volume attest his freedom from dogmatism and his con
siderateness for the. feelings of others. His words are :
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely,
that man is descended from some lowly organised form,
will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many,”
In another place, he says, p. 613 : “I am aware that theconclusion, arrived at in this work will be denounced by
some as highly irreligious.” Whatever maybe said about
it, Darwin says (p. 606): “The grounds upon which this
conclusion rests will never be shaken.” Viewed in the
hght of our. knowledge of the whole organic world : “ The
great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm,”
because it is founded on “facts which cannot be disputed.”'
Darwin s anticipation of the judgment passed upon his
views has been more than realised. The great objection
to his view is commonly expressed in the words—what it
leads to.. There can be no doubt that it leads to the
assumption of natural instead of supernatural causes.* I
�124
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
well remember the same objection was made to Combe’s
theory that the brain was the organ of mind—it would
lead to materialism. Astronomy was objectionable because
it was no longer possible to keep up the dignity of the
earth and its inhabitants as occupying the central position
in the universe, having all the heavenly host surrounding
them as lights and ornaments. It was a manifest degra
dation to reduce the comparative size of the earth to a
pin’s nob surrounded by specks two or three miles in
diameter. A remarkable illustration of this occurred
recently. A gentleman of education and position opened
my “First Man” at the page where I place the last glacial
period at 100,000 years ago. He said: “I can read no
more, not a line.” “Why?” “Because I see what it leads
to—the giving up of all I have been taught to believe as
the infallible word of God.” There can be no manner of
doubt but that is the honest way tt> look at it. Either a
man must have his mind open to new knowledge and new
truth, or remain in ignorance and error. Those who do
not wish to relinquish their notion of the supernatural
producing, sustaining, and guiding the natural had better
leave Darwin alone.
Hugh Miller held that animals preceded each other, man
being last, but not ‘that one was produced by the modifi
cations of others. The present Duke of Argyll admits
that changes in the forms of animal life have taken place
frequently, but not in the course of nature. Professor
Owen argued that as all vertebrate animals had rudi
mentary bones found in the human skeleton they were
types of man—the earliest created perhaps millions of
years ago, being planned to undergo certain modifications
resulting in the appearance of man long before such a
creature as man was known. All these whimsical assump
tions are overthrown by Darwin’s theory, which accounts
for the modification by natural processes. He justly lays
claim to his theory as the only natural solution of the
appearance of rudimentary organs. It is not at all
to be wondered at that such a theory should be called
Atheistic, and Darwin the Apostle of the Infidels—and
that a bishop described him as burning in hell a few days
after he was buried. The opposition of ministers of re
ligion of all denominations might reasonably be expected,
since, as they say, he banishes the creator as an intruder
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC?
125.
in nature, and takes away the foundation on which the
Christian religion is built. The difference between the
clergy and Darwin is a gulf that can never be bridged
over—they find man made in the image of God, whatever
that may mean, while Darwin finds him made exactly in
the image of the ape of the old world, now supposed to be
extinct. The first Adam of Moses is an essential to the
second Adam of Christianity—symbols of death and life
in the human race. Besides ministers of religion, the
Atheistical tendency of Darwinism has been pointed out
by Agassiz and Brewster; the latter stating distinctly that
his hypothesis has a tendency “to expel the Almighty
from the universe.” Reviews, magazines, and many
newspapers put it that Darwinism is practically Atheism;
in which description I think they accurately represent the
fact.
Professor Dawson, who is recognised by all the re
ligious reviewers as a trustworthy exponent of their views,
refers to this subject in his “Story of the Earth,” p. 321,
1880. In discussing whether man is the product of an in
telligent will or an evolution from lower organisms, he
says: “ It is true that many evolutionists, either unwilling
to offend, or not perceiving the consequences of their own
hypothesis, endeavor to steer a middle course, and to main
tain that the creator has proceeded by way of evolution.
But the bare hard logic of Spencer, the greatest English
authority, leaves noplace for this compromise, and shows that
that theory, carried out to its legitimate consequences, ex
cludes the knowledge of a creator and the possibility of his
works.” Again, on page 348, speakingof absolute Atheists
who follow Darwin: “They are more logical than those
who seek to reconcile evolution with design .... The
evolutionist is in absolute antagonism to the idea of crea
tion, even when held with all due allowance for the varia
tion of all created things within certain limits.” It is evi
dent, therefore, from this orthodox authority, that Darwin
ism, is in the estimation of popular Theists, undoubtedly
Atheistic. This might be explained away on the ground
of bigotry, prejudice, or misrepresentation, if the facts ad
duced by Darwin could be quoted in support of the accusa
tion. But the inexorable logic of facts points in the direc
tion of Professor Dawson’s inference, and, however objec
tionable the conclusion may be to him, it rests on a basis
�126
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
'which, can never be moved, on grounds that will never be
■shaken.
Still, Asa Gray and George St. Clair think it reconcilable
with theology, the latter devoting a large volume to prove
his case. Being an acquaintance, and a fellow townsman
now, I read Mr. St. Clair three times, but with unsatis
factory result. It is a book which evinces great ability,
and is full of information, but as regards the particular
point in question, all that bears upon it is assumption and
.assertion. All theology consists of assumptions and
assertions. Every book upon it we open may be described
as stating : There must have been a commencement, and
that could not be without a causing or creating, and that
■could not be without a First Cause or Creator.
Simple as this appears, it contains a contradiction, and
refutes itself. To account for any existence by assuming
a cause before it, implies non-existence, and the .trans
formation of one into the other. If we assume a self
existing, eternal anything, we at once dispose of “there
must have been a commencement.” The evidence of design
-can only be applied to forms (even if there were any evi
dence that any existing animal Or plant had been at any
time designed), therefore the matter of which forms are
built up, and which in its nature is unchangeable, cannot
be referred to any cause limited to time. If the assumption,
as applied to forms of life, gave us any explanation, it
might be tolerated ; but, as it does not, it is worthless. To
justify the assumption of a commencement, it is necessary
that we should have some evidence of destruction.
We are triumphantly referred to the destruction going
-on in animal and plant life, but the facts connected with it
form the foundation of a belief in the order of perpetual
change, without which neither could exist at all on this
earth. If any live, some must die.
The air we breathe has been breathed before, the part
icles of our bodies are but the elements of the dead past, as
are the luscious fruit we eat and the odorous flowers we
smell—even the blood that is the life itself is derived from
the same source. Our finely-built towns, our marble halls,
the very paths in which we walk, all are made of the rocks
which are but the ashes that survive—the tombs of myriads
-of living things. Composition, decomposition, and recom
position is the order of nature. Times innumerable have
�IS DARWINISM ATHEISTIC ?
127
•all natural forms passed through the process of corruption,
decay, and death—
“ Ever changing, ever new.”
The “ Bard of Avon” has been quoted, saying that
“ The great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,”
and it is true he does; but the lines which follow should be
read in conjunction :—
“Bear with my weakness : my old brain is troubled.”
Astronomy has been brought into the controversy, and the
possibility of Pope’s words being realised has not wanted
believers, when he wrote :—
‘ ‘ Atoms or systems into ruin hurled,
And now a bubble burst, and now a world.”
Some slight weight was given to this by the brilliant,
Frenchman, who accounted for the earth by a comet, which,
having mistaken its way, knocked a piece off the sun.
It is a consolation, however, to be told by Christian
astronomers that we do not find within itself the elements
of destruction in our planetary system, that all is in motion
and change everywhere. After millions of years all the
planets will return to their original places only to go
round again, the great bell of their judgment day will never
be sounded. Playfair says : “In the planetary motions,
where geometry has carried the eye so far into "the future
and the past, we discover no symptom either of a commence
ment or termination of the present order . . .
and as re
gards the latter “we may safely conclude that this great
catastrophe will not be brought about by any of the laws
now existing; and that it is not indicated by anything
which we perceive.”
If the “undevout astronomer is mad,” the devout one
surely is not. Name-calling in serious discussions of this
kind is, in my judgment, not only offensive, but inex
cusable. It is not uncommon to find in expensive works
the main proposition of the Theist described as being so
simple and familiar that any one who doubts it may be
laughed at as a fool or be pitied as insane. To me such
language betrays want of thought, ignorance, or vulgarity
�128
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of speech. In every case, on whichever side, the writer
who steadfastly avoids the use of such expressions is a
praiseworthy contributor to a refinement in the inter
change of thought so desirable in a civilised community.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, at 63, Fleet
Street, London, E.C.—1881.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is Darwinism Atheistic?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [115]-128 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 8
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles 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
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N121
Subject
The topic of the resource
Darwinism
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<div style="text-align:left;"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Is Darwinism Atheistic?), 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></div>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Charles Darwin
Darwinism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f7984a0cb7ef625cff977b54f8e5794f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TMf5Ex02lUVXs1zugDbxz2H2HPq5UITeX4AZg3oFuhSnSPycbSFjPYrQ36e2Cj6jQLwuZtaYxl5olVCKWR2lMoEbMGNZdTcYIGVoqW9vQKoaQFZIqzKtzH%7E08PhC6kpZTLkfmZ3IiI5TqU-9G5PNWNgUpV84-AUyZPj8NPcxfOw%7ElJcQO6EH0bxYbJsjaWHG0AB-lpoxH5%7EEPSqIXK0rdvZpamNNGbU6e3qqkOHyQdPipmqnU5xEKer-Do1IIVUktF36m8yqJLmGlQ9W6PvahCzD36ZWSGQ2gO6jWEU3OlNPsdmfIIBROitI%7E7G04eZLjqBT8kOQ095iWYvyJeTgvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9fdbe2b5ed4ff3ab640fb26bc62e53e4
PDF Text
Text
ft aJX-Rl
fJA'XO
IN SEARCH
' Ji
OF
A RELIGION,
AND NOTES BY THE AV AY.
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Author of “ The Martyrs of Progress,” Etc.
“ Fie that will know the truth of things must leave the common
ancl beaten track, which none but weak and servile minds are satis
fied to trudge along continually........... Truth, whether in or out of
fashion, is the measure of knowledge, and the business of the
understanding ; whatsoever is besides that, however authorised by
consent, or recommended by rarity, is nothing but ignorance, or
something worse.”—John Locke, sect, xxiv., Partiality.
LONDON :
CHARLES' WATTS, 84, FLEET STREET, E.C.
gQ,
Saul y-
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
SECTION I.
THE STUDENTS AND TEACHERS OF RELIGION.
It may be a weakness, but it is a confirmed habit .of
mine, to seek the aid of a superior understanding to my
own, with a view of raising my own to the same level.
The use of authorities and great names, when honestly
applied in an independent spirit, is to confirm the view
taken by the writer who applies them. The authority
that admits of no appeal is useless to an independent
thinker, and is by me dispensed with. I purposely
avoid all writers that presume to settle disputed points
for others, and intentionally ignore the Church that sets
itself up as the arbiter of the destinies of the whole
human race. However convenient such a Church may
be to weak or lazy people, it is so clearly an imposition
on the credulity of mankind, and so obvious an insult to
the reason of man, that its pretensions and claims must
be alike discarded in all inquiries entered upon by a
rational human being.
Religion, as a profession, is a paying concern, and
hence it is natural that professors should claim, even as
a matter of self-interest, the particular religion they ad
vocate as being the best. But it is well known that there
is great difference between buying anything and selling
it. • When men in general become sufficiently acquainted
with themjarious markets in the religious world, there will
be greater difficulty in obtaining customers. At the
present time the religions of various nations have not
appeared in Europe, except in the form of samples or
extracts; and the prevailing custom of the priests is to
persuade all would-be religionists that free trade in reli
gion is not necessary, that they have the best possible
article in the world, and that all others that might be
imported are impostures, or spurious editions oi the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
3
original genuine article. Although their assertions are
utterly unfounded, they gain currency and credence.
Of course, the preachers of the great religions of the
world are either believers in what they teach, or main
tain the doctrines because they are paid to do so. Be
sides these two—the real believers and the professors—
there is another class of men, who follow the custom of
their fathers and the habit of the nation in which they
live. It generally happens that in an age of ignorance
there is uniformity of belief, and in an age of inquiry a
diversity of opinion. The past two hundred years of
European history appear conclusive on these points.
Forbes, in his “ Oriental Memoirs,” states that at one
time probably the Hindoo religion spread over the
whole earth. He finds signs of it in every Northern
country, in systems of worship, in various sciences, in
the names of the stars, in the holidays and games, and
in the laws, coins, monuments, and languages. There
is certainly a similarity between all superstitions, and
the religions of the Greeks, Hindoos, Romans, and
Christians have a family likeness of a very striking cha
racter. It must be admitted, however, that, owing to
modifications by climate, race, laws, scientific discoveries,
and the development of poetry, art, and literature, the
various religions of the world would appear, to the un
practised observer, as having each, in their turn, some
claim to an independent origin and purpose. Some
minds have no idea of perspective ; it is always a full
moon they see. What appears before them has no his
tory ; to them it is now as it was in the beginning : as to
what it was in the beginning they are not concerned to
inquire. Our cousin, the Yankee, did inquire, and he
found that there was nothing new and nothing true, and
that it did not matter 1 When a genial soul gets tired of
the conflicting evidences and contradictory views, he
turns—good, easy man !—and consoles himself with
“ Ah well ! it will be all the same a hundred years
hence.”
There are, however, persons who cannot stifle their
desire to know ; they earnestly strive after the true and
the best; they search for treasures under the sincere
belief that there are some hidden. Very few are inclined
to investigate the claims of the religions of various na
tions ; they find sufficient variety in their own country.
�4
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
There are two paths in England both of which have
travellers; the one is occupied by inquirers after the
right road to heaven among the many announced ; the
other is occupied by inquirers as to whether there is any
road to heaven at all, or anybody who knows anything
of heaven itself. Philosophically considered, the latter
path is the best; the method implies that everything
must be proved, that nothing will be taken for granted,
and that demonstration alone will satisfy the inquirer.
This is the sure and certain hope that every inquirer
has a right to look for, and the demand is in conformity
with reason and common sense,
The most numerous class of inquirers, however, assume
that there is one true religion, if they could but find it;
and, owing to the vast .variety presented, the inquiry is
very perplexing, and sometimes consumes the best part
of a lifetime. The philosophical explanation is that the
difficulty arises from the fact that the inquiry is con
cerned with subjects about which nothing is known. The
restless nature of the inquiring mind needs long training
before it can take John Locke’s advice, and sit down in
quiet ignorance of all transcendent subjects. A remark
able book published some years ago by Mr. Herbert
Spencer puts this matter still stronger, for he declares
that the power which the universe manifests to us is
utterly inscrutable. He holds this to be the widest and
most certain of all truths, the result of the most careful
research, and a conclusion arrived at by the most rigor
ous logical process. Notwithstanding the conclusions
and declarations of philosophers, the inquirer finds in
every country distinct societies of men, ever ready to
set his mind at rest, and to present him with a true reli
gion, verified by scholarship, history, and personal expe
rience. Not only are they sure—each of them—that
theirs is the true religion, but they are equally certain
of the falsity and dangerous character of every other
religion in the world. The inquirer who accepts the
assertion of each, that theirs alone is true, and every
other false, is placed in a logical dilemma, for, if he
takes the word of each, the only possible deduction is
that the whole are false. The only way out of the diffi
culty is to reject the whole, or to select one, and read
only such books and arguments as are written in its
favour. So long as you read only one side of a contro-
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
5'
versy, the chances are in favour of your being free from
difficulty and doubt. There is this drawback : for all
you know to the contrary, the religion you select may
be the wrong one.
Lord Bacon would not describe you as “ a believer,”
but only as one of those persons who “believe that they
believe.” Leighton says that men who know nothing
have no doubts; but he maintains, as Coleridge does,
that the road to belief is through doubt; “ never be afraid
to doubt; he never truly believed who was not made
first sensible of unbelief.” Dr. Herbert Croft says that
it is not in any man’s power to make himself believe
anything further than his reason shows him, “ much less
Divine things.” But the clerical party maintain that
“ Divine things ” are not to be approached by the only
faculty man has for distinguishing truth from error:
these Divine things are said to be “above reason.” If
that be so, the uselessness of endowing man with reason
is obvious ; but how the clerical party became acquainted
with “ things above reason ” is not so obvious, unless we
concede, what they sometimes claim, that they are a
superior order of beings, endowed with supernatural
powers, by which they see invisible things, and perceive
things which do not exist. It is quite natural that those
whose profession it is to guide men should warn us that
reason is an unsafe pilot through the raging sea of con
flicting opinions; that through this dark and dreary vale
of tears reason is a blind, fallacious guide; but our ex
perience is that only those decry reason and despise
wit who find these agents powerful enemies of their
pretensions, and the purpose they wish to effect. They
may urge that the exercise of the rational faculties may
breed dissension in the Church, lead us away from the
beliefs of childhood, and possibly from the religion richly
endowed and protected by the State If so, the religion
of the babe and the State must get on as well as it can
without us.
The consequence of exercising reason in matters of
faith is that it leads to inquiry, and thus to knowledge,
which always proves destructive of superstition, which is
opposed to all criticism, and especially criticism of itself
It has always anathematised those who attempted to
examine it. The orthodox of every age fear free thinking
and free inquiry, and denounce them as the worst of
�6
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
crimes. The murderer can have the consolation of the
priest •, but the doubter in religion is cast into outer
darkness among those who weep and wailj and gnash
their teeth. Some men may reason wrongly, others not
at all •, but it has always been the practice of the friends
of superstition to persecute men who do reason. Lord
Bacon says : “ It was a notable observation of a wise
father that those who held and persuaded pressure of con
sciences were commonly interested for their own ends.”
Margaret of the Netherlands advised a much wiser and
more reasonable policy. She said: “Whois this Luther?
........ ..He is an illiterate monk............. Is he so? I am
glad to hear it, Then do you, gentlemen, who are not
illiterate, but are both learned and numerous—do you, I
charge you, write against this illiterate monk? That is
all you have to do. The business is easy, for the world
will surely pay more regard to a great many scholars and
great men, as you are, than to one poor illiterate monk.”
No better advice could have been given, for, as J. S.
Mill remarks in his work on “ Liberty,” “ there is always
hope when people are forced to listen to both sides.”
SECTION II.
RELIGION AND FREE INQUIRY.
It is in vain that Pope, Church, and King proscribe the
free exercise of thought in matters theological. Reason
will assert itself in spite of all attempts to curb it. There
is no power on earth which can prevent the encroach
ments of reason. It is the guide of man unfettered, as
well as the power to break the fetters imposed upon him
by priestcraft and despotism, which can no more stem
the tide of rational inquiry than the king and his cour
tiers could prevent the advance of the sea. They must
clear oqt of the way, or be trampled under foot by the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
7
onward march of freedom. The progress of Freethought,
speech, writing, and action is of more importance to
mankind than any Constitution, Chmch, or other insti
tution in the world.
In the seventeenth century a futile and foolish law was
passed in France condemning to death any person who
taught doctrines antagonistic to those of Aristotle. In the
thirteenth century, in the same country, a law ordered
all his works to be burnt. In various countries in
Furope, at one time, not only authors were excommu
nicated, but also even grasshoppers and other insects.
In fact, absurdities of this kind, showing the folly of our
ancestors, are innumerable. All these foolish enactments
were intended for the good of the persons punished, and
for the protection of truth. The heretic was looked upon
as an enemy in the field of faith, as the grasshopper
was in the field of grain ; hence both were excommuni
cated. To-day the men who attempted to surround the
free inquirer with pains and penalties appear on a level
with the men of Northamptonshire, who tried to keep
the cuckoo out of the orchard by a high hedge; but,
although equally foolish, the results of their folly have
been vastly different. Neither succeeded, but the attempts
to keep the cuckoo out of the fold of the- faithful were
attended by famine, privation, and murder. Yet the
persecutors seemed unconscious that they were commit
ting crimes of the deepest dye against truth and huma
nity. That these enemies to the progress of truth, and
the inflictors of torture and mental agony upon their
fellow creatures, were persons of irreproachable cha
racters, and of pure intentions, has been amply attested
by the historical evidence adduced by both Buckle and
Mill.
Intolerance seems natural to the theological mind; it
appears a duty to put down, by some means, all opposi
tion, especially that which tends to show the futility and
immorality of the principle upon which intolerance is
founded. Mr. Mill shows clearly that the interference
with, and coercion of, those who exercise their power to
think, is illegitimate; that the best government has no
more right to interfere than the worst. The following
appears to me self-evident; and Mr. Mill, in my opinion,
sums up and disposes of the whole case in this sentence :
“ If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and
�8
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
only one person of a contrary opinion, mankind would
be no more justified in silencing that one person than
he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind.”
Progress in science, and improvements of all kinds,
are only possible in the presence of intellectual freedom.
Freedom of opinion is a necessity of progress in human
affairs, and one of the conditions of personal happiness.
“’Tis liberty alone that gives the flower
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume ;
And we are weeds without it.”
Is it not clear, then, and as obvious as the sun at
noon, that any religion that proscribes inquiry (the desire
to know) as a crime, is antagonistic to the nature of
man; out of harmony with his highest faculties; an
obstacle to the progress of the human race?
That which is in unison with the intellectual require
ments of man, and tends to promote bis happiness, is
alone venerable, and all else will be swept away. In the
words of Sir J. Macintosh, “ it is time that men should
learn to tolerate nothing ancient that reason does not
respect, and to shrink from no novelty to which reason
may conduct.”
SECTION III.
RELIGION AND MORALITY.
I think it was Lord Chesterfield who remarked that,
after being informed as to the religion of a man, you
still inquired as to his morals, but, if you knew his morals
first, the question as to his religion would not arise. Sir
J. Macintosh refers to the common saying, that morality
depends on religion, and says that, t( in the sense in
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
9
which morality denotes sentiment, it is more exactly true
to say that religion depends on morality, and springs from
it.” Is it not obvious that any religion that is not based
on morality must be either a frivolous or a mischievous
system? Emerson, in his “ Conduct of Life,” says : “ I
look upon the simple and childish virtue of veracity and
honesty as the root of all that is sublime in character.
..... ....This reality is the foundation of friendship, reli
gion, poetry, and art?’ It was a common complaint at
one time that teachers of religion only enforced what
was termed “ mere morality.” This was urged against
the late Dr. Chalmers. In one of his references to this
question, Emerson makes the following quaint remark :
“ Mere morality ! as though one should say, Poor God,
with no one to help him !” In another place he remarks
that what is called religion is either childish and insig
nificant, or unmanly and effeminating. 11 The fatal trait
is the divorce between religion and morality.” The con
sequence of this centuries ago is pointed out by Milman,
in his “History of Christianity” (vol. iii., p. 528), in
these remarkable words ; “ No sooner had Christianity
divorced morality as its inseparable companion through
life, than it formed an unlawful connection with any
dominant passion. The union of Christian faith with
ambition, avarice, cruelty, fraud, and even license,
appeared in strong contrast with its primitive harmony
of doctrine and inward disposition.” Thus, he says,
Rome, Christian in faith and worship, became worse
than in the better times of heathenism with regard to
“ beneficence, gentleness, purity, social virtue, humanity,
and peace.” This was the reign of faith, when hell was
the most important institution, and the heretic the chief
criminal.
Lord Bacon places the simple virtues first as distin
guishing the ablest men that ever lived. “ Clear and
round dealing is the honour of man’s nature; truth is
the sovereign good of human nature.”
Sir W. Jones describes the greatest man as the best,
and the best as he that has deserved most of his fellow
creatures.
Tillotson taught that truth and sincerity, in words and
actions, would alone last and hold out to the end.
Laplace held truth and justice to be the immutable
laws of social order.
�TO
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
Lord Bacon (on “ Goodness ”) takes goodness “ in
the sense which the Grecians call philanthropia ; and thé
word humanity, as it is used, is a little too light to ex
press it. This of all virtues is the greatest.”
The absence of morality or truth in society is thus
painted by Dr. Chalmers: “ The world of trade'would
henceforth break up into a state of anarchy, or rather
be paralysed into stillness. The mutual confidences be
tween man and man alone render commerce practicable.
If truth were to disappear, it would vitiate incurably every
social and domestic relationship—all the charities and
comforts would take their departure from the world.
The observation of honesty and truth is of such vital
importance that without it society would cease to keep
together.” He concludes : “ On the single transition
from vice to virtue among men does there not hinge
the alternative between a pandemonium and a para
dise?”
David Urquhart, in his “ Familiar Words,” says that re
ligion, in its Latin sense, means the binding of a man by
his faith to perform what are now called political duties.
To the Roman religion did not mean worship, but
binding faith-—of a man to do justice to the State as a
member of the community. Politics in Greek, and reli
gion in Latin, he describes as equivalent to wisdom and
justice ; politics being a knowledge of right, and reli
gion the obligation toperform it. He says there was no
religion to be worn as a vesture, nor politics as a mask.
He repudiates any religion but justice, or that does not
teach man to do his duty to his fellow man. He says :
“ It is he only who does what is just who is a Christian,
whether in his individual capacity, or as a member of a
community.”
Dr. Thomas Brown (“ Philosophy of Mind ”) says :
“We must, if we value our happiness, be careful in
determining what it is that we denominate religion, that
we may not extend its supposed duties to usages incon
sistent with our tranquillity........... When religion is truly
free from all superstition, the delights it affords are the
noblest of which our nature is capable.” In his estima
tion the qualities indicated by it are what “ constitute
whatever we love and venerate in the noblest of our
race.” He says : “ It would not be easy to estimate the
amount of positive misery which must result from the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
II
mere contemplation of a tyrant in the heavens, and of a
creation subject to his cruelty and caprice.”
G. H. Lewes objects to Comte because he makes re
ligion simply and purely what has hitherto been desig
nated morals. Being founded on knowledge, and limited
to the relation of men to one another as social beings,
there is no room for the play of agencies foreign to
nature and the nature of man.
Sir W. Drummond held that “ to give one hour of
comfort to the frail victim of adversity, and to cheer
with one transient gleam of joy the evening of life, ought
surely to be among the pleasures, as they are among the
duties, of humanity.”
The moralist says, in the words of the pious Words
worth, I am—
L“ Well pleased to recognise,
In nature and the language of the sense,
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart and soul,
Of all my moral being.”
The Edinburgh Review once wrote : 11 If there be a
religion of nature, and we believe there is, we conclude
there can be no religion but truth, and no heresy but
falsehood.”
It seems somewhat singular that Dr. Thomas Brown
should take exception to Paley, who defines virtue as
“ doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will of
God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness.” The
latter Dr. Brown maintains to be the most important of
the whole, it being all that constitutes moral obligation.
He regards it as the most degrading of all forms of
selfishness. It is rendered more offensive by the Deity
being presented to the mind “to be courted with a
mockery of affection,” He regards the sensualist as
more worthy than the selfish of another life. He says
the difference in Paley’s case is “ in the scale of selfish
gain ; it is a greater quantity of physical enjoyment which
k' has in view.” It is a singular fact that many great
writers, in attacking each other’s views, strike at the root
of the religion they profess, and seem to be unconscious
of it. Everybody might be supposed to know that the
hope of heaven and the fear of hell are the motive
powers of Christianity. Yet Dr. Brown lashes Paley in
�12
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
no unmeasured terms for maintaining the fundamental
principles of the Christian faith. His logical mind, not
being influenced at the time by the fear of God or the
Devil, could discern that the system is below the highest
form of Pagan morality—in fact, he prefers the- sensualist
in his brutal stupidity to the devout Christian who,
through fear of hell, and for the sake of everlasting
happiness, conducts himself according to the will of
God.
It is a notable fact that the words “ pure religion” occur
only once in the Christian records, and, strange to say,
it is defined without any reference to a belief in God or
a future state; but is strictly confined to moral action
between man and man. Why the word religion is in
troduced at all, and Under what circumstances, I am
unable to explain; but its meaning is expressed as
follows : “ To visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
This is described by James as “pure religion and un
defiled.” Would it be too severe on all existing religions
to say that they are not the genuine article, and that
mankind are the victims of adulterated religions ?
SECTION IV.
RELIGION AND THE ORDER OF NATURE.
The basis of popular religion is God, and its interpreters
to man are the Bible and the Church. The God has
been described by Dr. Southwood Smith as “stern and
sullen, retiring in awful gloom from his creatures ; not
to be approached but with groans, not to be appeased
but by blood.” There appears in the world an extra
ordinary agent, the Son of God, assisted by angels, to
carry out the decrees of God, and also a Devil to prevent
them being carried out. By those agents the course of
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
13
nature is altered and fashioned to obtain their particular
ends. Common sense is set at defiance, and the rational
faculties are bewildered by stories of marvels and miracles.
In the early days the Christian lived in a kind of super
natural world; his dreams came direct from heaven ;
every emotion of his heart was a Divine inspiration, and
every incident in his life was a miracle. God interfered
in season and out of season, and the operations of nature
were nothing but a succession of little miracles, inter
mixed with an occasional big one.
These absurd and contradictory fictions are now chiefly
found in Catholic countries j but in a modified form
they.appear among “ our dear Dissenting brethren,” the
Revivalists, and also among the followers of the late
Mr. Joseph Smith. Fashionable people in the Church
only read St. James’s Epistle; they do not believe in it.
The pious George Combe says : “ Science has banished
the belief in the exercise by the Deity, in our day, of
special acts of supernatural power as a means of in
fluencing human affairs.” Again, he says : “ Disguise
the fact as we will, the order of nature—in other words,
God’s secular providence—is a power which in this world
shapes our destinies for weal or woe.” He says that this
position cannot be met with cries of “ Infidelity,” and
appeals to bigotry and passion, as in days gone by ; for
even Calvinists themselves proceed now on the basis of
natural science when they are sick, when wet seasons
come, and when they send a ship to sea. The orthodox
may decry science, but they enjoy its benefits. They
may call the lightning-conductor “ the heretical stake,”
but they affix one even to the spire of “ the house of
God,” which they might be expected to believe would
be protected by him—
“ Whose power o’er moving worlds presides,
Whose voice created, and whose wisdom guides.”
George Combe says he knows of no sect or church, nor
any body of religious instructors, who have recognised
“ the order of nature ” as the basis for practical precepts,
or as the road to secular virtue and prosperity. Not
one Christian nation—not one example is known since
the promulgation of Christianity. Science attempts it,
but the preachers pronounce that “godless.”
Archbishop Whately was a man of considerable mental
�14
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
power. He could see that the assertion, that God sent
pestilence and famine in consequence of Romanism in
Ireland, could be used by the Catholic as an argument
against the permission of Protestantism to pollute the
sacred soil of St. Patrick. He believed in all the cases
mentioned in the Bible; but the declarations of the
“ uninspired ” men in question he denounced as “ irra
tional, uncharitable, and un-Christian.” Whately wrote
a book on logic, and might be expected to understand
that by assuming the existence of one source of power
we are compelled to trace all causes of good and evil to
that one source, which he believed to exercise supreme
influence over both Catholics and Protestants. While
the assertion of one source of power destroys the possible
existence of one source absolutely good, the alternative
is the banishment, as Combe calls it, of all interference
by the only source of power either on the side of Ca
tholics or Protestants, or against either of them. Of
course, a rational conclusion of this kind, however
logical it may be, is not the conclusion that either sect
is capable of arriving at.
There is a general conception of the order of nature
in the theological mind that it is under special personal
guidance. If water assumes a globular shape in falling,
as in the case of rain, or a tear from the human eye, it
is because some unseen and omnipotent personal power
is behind, shaping the rain and the tears. In the ad
vanced school of theological thought the movements of
nature are conceived as under law. But what are termed
“ the laws of nature ” are assumed to be under the great
law-giver and law-maker. Hence there are three sepa
rate existences—the law-maker, the law, and nature, the
ruled. AU that is really known may be described as
nature and the modes or “ methods of nature
the
latter words convey all that is meant by “ the laws of
nature.” Nature and how she acts are too simple for
the theological mind. It must have nature governed by
laws—that is, when water runs down the hill, it does so
by order of a Divine Act of Parliament, enforced by the
King of Kings, instead of by his own hand, as formerly.
These ideas are what I call fictions of the imagination,
and the only purpose they can serve, that I see, is to mag
nify the importance of the office held by persons paid
to maintain them.
�■ IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
15
Those who admit the existence of an invariable law
of what they call “ physical nature ” still claim an excep
tion for what they call the human soul and her affections.
It is somewhat remarkable that Dr. Priestley and Dr.
Guthrie, both preachers of the Gospel, acknowledged
the existence of mental and moral laws as well as phy
sical laws. One objection to the admission of the intel
lect or the soul to the government of an invariable order
of nature is that the soul would become necessarily the
subject of change—that is, it would live and die. This
would prevent it becoming an inhabitant of a heaven
built on pride, or a hell built on spite. There is the
same objection to the idea that the brain thinks. The
brain, being the subject of life and death, would be
necessarily limited in its operations to this life and this
globe ; in other words, the man who thinks is one and
not two beings, and is thus mortal—that is, ceases to
exist as a thinking being at death’.
The theologians whose minds are overcome by the
facts of science take refuge in miracle. They say : “ We
quite admit that man, as at present constituted, must
fall in with the invariable order of things : he must die,
but he will rise again.” Of course, this is mere assertion,
without a single fact in nature to support it. The illus
trations given by theologians from nature, including the
one found in the New Testament itself, are too inappro
priate to deserve notice. They put a grain of wheat in
the ground, and from it get a number of grains in an ear
of wheat; but by putting a man in the ground do they
secure the production of a bunch of men, or even a
single one ? The expectancy is built on miracle, and
finds no support or illustration in nature, so lar as I
■know. Of course, those who believe in the miracle of
creation out of nothing may believe in the miracle of
re-creation out of the remains of man ; but such beliefs
have no claim on the scientific mind, or on the atten
tion of the rational inquirer. An assertion made for the
purpose of giving negative support to this theory is that
all the faculties of man are not in harmony with this
present existence ; while the fact is that the more we
know of man and nature, the more clearly we see the
adaptation of all his faculties to this globe and this life
that our orbit is all our task, and sufficient to interest
and occupy millions of generations of men. The writers
�■I
j
i6
in search of a religion.
who claim the authority of miracles as a proof of the
truth of any doctrine admit that the early Apostles would
not have been believed, or even listened to, if they had
not urged that miracles had been worked. Baden
Powell, M.A., F.R.S., says : “Thus, if miracles were, in
the estimation of a former age, among the chief slipports
of Christianity, they are at present among the main diffi
culties, and are hindrances to its acceptance.”.
The inductive philosopher accepts the invariable order
of phenomena, and can only believe that which can be
demonstrated to be in harmony therewith. Testimony
cannot square the circle, or discover perpetual motion ;
it avails nothing against reason. It is alleged that the
assertion of miracles was a necessity in the beginning
in order to obtain adherents to Christianity, because of
the incredulity of the age in which the system was first
introduced. My reading is that it was an age of cre
dulity, or the miracles would not have obtained credence.
The disposition to accept anything marvellous, at the
time referred to, appears to have been very general
among all classes of men. The sceptical disposition in
matters religious was not generally manifested for 1,600
years after the promulgation of Christianity. The few
who were bold enough to Question anything were met
with the orthodox demand to give up either their liberty
or their life. After generations of experience, the Chris
tians not only persecuted their avowed enemies, but
they also imprisoned and burnt one another.. The idea
of liberty of conscience never entered their heads; it
was no part of their faith. The absurdity of the argu
ment for miracles, or an interference with the order of
nature, based on their necessity for the. conversion of .
unbelievers, is obvious, since now unbelievers multiply
and miracles diminish, heresy increases and the miracu
lous decreases. That when miracles abound believers
abound is quite true; but by the introduction of Sceptics
the miracles get a poor time, of it—they lose their importance ; and, as believers in an invariable order of
nature continue to increase., the probabilties are strongly
in favour of the total extinction of miracles.
Printed and Published by Charles Watts, 84, Fleet Street, London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
In search of a religion, and notes by the way
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: The Freethought Radical Literature Depot,80, Piccadilly, Hanley. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Watts
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
N120
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (In search of a religion, and notes by the way), 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
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/675b9647a6d5d889519f669bef7bfb1b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CnwuV5K9b1w%7E4uZ0nDWPO1aU1iLfQi%7ELw7oA2t5CpkZFpHjI14RtkwbQKJUPjBLLvWeaHmT2RAX9z3usn7d46j5Ac1ewW5DGt8xdEba-UyqSIDurW5hzh2T7VQs-JL-M-SWZPZI7HzXjVMX8vtGsML110VOaquggw-Jn0ppx16-FQr10oUuwmqphjUEuaPpvCrG6skfOauFoKxJ5ziCei%7EYy4jGU5nh0MMJpV%7EeLH3xAl-AR0-1FDufphmE9r61s3QVF2php85oi45lWX%7EBDqfySgltCCoITPUdjOGk4Am%7EYvIAryeEU%7Ej1i35sYPl3-JDk5DijKLj3UKNnoV89zBg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ea86c81567e681e94a69a7cc9a098528
PDF Text
Text
By the same Author,
“ Life and Times of C. C. Cattell.” One Penny.
“ Perils of Genius ” (Illustrious Men who suffered in times
past). Published at is., post free, 7d., of C. Cattell,
“ Emerson,’’ Boscombe Park, Bournemouth.
Agnosticism :
AN EXPOSITION AND A DEFENCE.
Selected from leading authorities by
CHARLES
COCKBILL CATTELL.
Introduction.
Long before I heard of Huxley, or Agnosticism, I
held that whatever was presented to the intellect de
manding assent, must have reasonable grounds for its
acceptance—rational proof. In forming a judgment
on any subject, faith or authority must never be per
mitted to usurp the place of facts. We find ourselves
living among incessant changes called “causesand
effects,” interminable in time and space. These changes
have been observed to occur in a certain order ; and
such are named “Laws of Nature.” Hence we are
led to believe in universal causation—a first or a last
cause having no meaning.
As to why there is one existence we call “ Nature,” or
why there ’is any existence at all—Who) can tell ?
The idea of one existence includes all that is and all
that is necessary for all that happens.
Science in some measure explains how things now
existing became what they are ; the conditions of
existence appear to determine the duration of their
varying qualities and forms. These conditions must
have been adequate to produce these effects, or the
earth in our time would not supply the varied forms
and manifestations of life. But why all this has taken
�2
Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
place—Who can tell? Spencer teaches that the
power manifested in nature is inscrutable. Those who
do not accept the idea of a power indescribable operat
ing in nature, resort to the alternative of an external
power. This much we know—that all the changes
observable take place tn the nature we know; hence,
a power assumed external to it explains no more than
a power assumed to operate within it. As to the
durability of Nature, the indestructibility of matter
points to unlimited time, an everlasting existence.
Our only scope of inquiry is, therefore, clearly
Nature and its laws; the latter term being a name for
observed changes, and not in any sense implying
causes, such use of the term being misleading, although
very common. Law is not a cause, an agent, or an in
strument, but merely the name of the path or way
along which forces travel to phenomena.
The subject may be made clear by recalling the
fact that while the Theist may affirm a God infinite
and eternal, and the Atheist may affirm the same of
Nature, Agnostics maintain that these terms do not
admit of being thought of at all. At most, they
convey the idea of indefinite extent in space and time,
while every thought implies a boundary, a limit,
something definite.
Some perverse people insist that “ Agnostic ” stands
for Ignorance, and others contend it is adopted through
want of courage to avow what we really are. I hold
the name is a fitting title to distinguish one who finds
it beyond his mental powers to believe in things that
have no relation to common knowledge.
In formulating a thought about anything, we dis
cover it implies likeness, relation, and difference,
which cannot apply to the terms “infinite” or
“ eternal ”—no such thought is possible ; they have no
likeness, relation or difference, although no words
are more commonly heard in the religious world. The
Agnostic’s position is governed by limits found to rule
our intellect in forming conclusions. An examination
of the formulation of consciousness about the infinite
will reveal the fact that parts of known things have
been used in its formation,
�Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
3
A popular writer maintains that he can grasp all
the ideas which the Agnostic deems beyond our powers
to grasp, such as self-existence, eternity, infinity,
“ although it is only by consciousness, by feeling that
we know.”
But no explanation is given as to how finite con
sciousness (and there is none other) can feel infinite
self-existence.
Although in former years I wrote at length on this
subject, I leave the following extracts to represent my
views on the present occasion.
The term Agnostic and Agnosticism arose as
follows:—
“ I took thought and invented what I conceived
to be the appropriate title of Agnostic. It came
into my head as suggestively antithetic to the
‘ Gnostic ’ of Church history, who professed to
know so much about the very things of which I
was ignorant. To my satisfaction the term took ;
and when the Spectator had stood godfather to
it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable
people that knowledge of its parentage might
have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.
That’s the history of the terms.
“ And it will be observed that it does not quite
agree with the confident assertion of the Rev.
Principal of King’s College, that ‘ the adoption
of the term Agnostic is only an attempt to shift
the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion ;
in relation to the Church and Christianity. . .
. . The people who call themselves ‘ Agnostics ’
have been charged with doing so because they
have not the courage to declare themselves
‘ Infidels,’ have adopted a new name to escape the
unpleasantness which attaches to their proper
denomination. . . . Agnosticism is not properly
described as a ‘negative’ creed, nor, indeed, as a
creed of any kind, except in so far as a principle
which is as much ethical as intellectual. The
principle may be stated ir. various ways, but they
all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man
to say that he is certain of the objective truth of
�4
Agnosticism—An'Exposition and a Defence.
any proposition unless he can produce evidence
which logically justifies that certainty. That is
what Agnosticism asserts, and, in my opinion,
it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That
which Agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral,
is the contrary doctrine, that there are propo
sitions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence ; and that repro
bation ought to attach to the profession of dis
belief in such inadequately supported proposi
tions. The justification of the Agnostic principle
lies in the success which follows its application,
whether in the field of natural or in that of civil
history ; and in the fact that, so far as these
topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of
denying its validity. Agnosticism is the essence
of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply
means that a man shall not say he knows or
believes that which he has no scientific grounds
for professing to know or believe. Agnosticism
says that we know nothing beyond phenomena.
. . . . As to the interests of morality, I am
disposed to think that if mankind could be got to
act up to this principle in every relation of life, a
reformation would be effected such as the world
has not yet seen ; an approximation to the
millenium, such as no supernaturalistic eligion
has ever yet succeeded, ior seems likely ever to
succeed in effecting.”—Huxley.
“ That which persists' unchanging in quantity,
but ever changing in form, under the sensible
appearances which the universe presents to us,
transcends human knowledge and conception, is
an unknown and unknowable power, which we
are obliged to recognise as without limit in space,
and without beginning or end in time. This is
in its highest form, the philosophy of Agnos
ticism. . . . If we ask how came the atoms
into existence, endowed with marvellous energy,
we can only reply in the words of the poet :
‘ Behind the veil, behind the veil.’ We can only
form metaphysical conceptions, or I ought rather
�Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
5
to call them the vaguest guesses. One is, that
they were created and endowed with their
elementary properties by an all-wise and allpowerful creator. This is Theism. Another,
that thought is the only reality, and that all the
phenomena of the universe are thoughts and
ideas of one universal all-pervading mind. This
is Pantheism.”
“ Or, again, we may frankly acknowledge that
the real essence and origin of things are ‘ behind
the veil,’ and not knowable or even conceivable
by any faculties with which the human mind is
endowed in its present state of existence. This
is Agnosticism. Agnostics do not deny that, in
the course of evolution, certain feelings and as
pirations have grown up which find a poetical ex
pression in the ideas of God and immortality.
They simply deny that we have, or can have, any
certain, definite and scientific knowledge respect
ing these mysteries.”—Laing.
“ The Agnostic is one who asserts—what no
body denies—that there are limits to the sphere
of intelligence. He asserts, further, what many
theologians have expressly maintained, that these
limits are such as to exclude at least what Lewes
called ‘ metempirical ’ knowledge. But he goes
further, and asserts, in opposition to theologians,
that theology lies within the forbidden sphere.”
“ ‘Trust your reason,’ we have been told until
we are tired of the phrase, ‘ and you will become
Atheists or Agnostics.’ What right have you to
turn round and rate us for being a degree more
logical than yourelves ? You say, as we say, that
the natural man can know nothing of the Divine
nature. That is Agnosticism. Our fundamental
principal is not only granted but asserted. . . .
Dr. Newman’s arguments (in * Grammar of
Assent’) go to prove that man, as guided by
reason, ought to be an Agnostic, and that at the
present moment, Agnosticism is the only reason
able faith for, at least, three-quarters of the
race. . . . The race collectively is Agnostic,
�6
Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
whatever may be the case with individuals. . .
There is not a single proof of natural theology of
which the negative has not been maintained as
vigorously as the affirmative. You tell us to be
ashamed of professing ignorance. Where is the
shame of ignorance in matters still involved in
endless and hopeless controversy ? Is it not
rather a duty.”—Sir Leslie Stephen.
“ The Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves
in a Superior Existence, from lack of satisfying
evidence to warrant affirmation or denial. He is
neutral, not because he wishes not to believe, or
desires to deny, but because language should be
measured by proof of conviction. Huxley’s wise,
useful, and honest word ‘ Agnostic ’ has done
more to teach theologians to think, and incite
in them discrimination and tolerance, than any
other word which has been added to the nomencla
ture of controversy this century.”
“ Is it ‘ dodging ’ to refuse to identify yourself
with the preposterous presumption of the Theist
or the Atheist ? Is it not imposture in any one
to adopt a term which implies all-penetrating
knowledge, when you know you have it not ?
Nature is too illimitable to be conceived, and
the past is beyond all human experience. The
Agnostic neither decries nor disparages them
[Theist and Athiest], but frankly says he is not
of their way of thinking. Many now see no
distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. It
is the wide distinction between knowing and not
knowing. Agnosticism means scruplousness and
truth.”—G. ]. Hol'joake.
“ The contest between Theology and Agnos
ticism is like that between a man in a balloon and
one on the solid ground. The balloon man
shouts down to his enemy, ‘ Come up here and I
will give you a good beating.’ The reply is
‘ No ; I cannot leave the solid ground of fact. I
cannot float myself with the gas of sentiment and
imagination. But, if you come down to terra
firma, I will very soon test the strength of your
�Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
7
balloon. If your silk can stand the sharp edge
of my knife—scientific criticism—well and good,
you will continue to float above the earth. But
if not/and a rent is made, you and your balloon
will collapse into nothingness. The balloon man
shouts down that his antagonist is a coward,
throws some dust into the eyes of the spectators,
and so ascends into the heavens. The theologian,
so long as he remains in the region of emotion
and imagination, is safe from any attack on the
part of the scientist; but the moment he touches
the ground of fact he must prepare for hostilities ;
and it is well that he should understand that
such things as miracles, the inspiration of the
Bible, etc., are subject to criticism, and will be
vigorously combatted.”—John Wilson, M.A.
“ If after devoting our best energies and highest
endeavours to the investigation of the arguments
of Maratheism, Dualism. Polytheism, Pantheism,
and Atheism, we find none entirely convincing,
there is no cowardice involved in the admission.
On the contrary, it becomes our highest duty to
confess that all our labour has been without
fruit or reward. Though we have fervently
sought we have failed to find. We are sceptics
or agnostics, and recognise the fact that, even
should one or other of these five interpretations
of the mystery of existence be accepted as its
true solution it is but a proximate solution and
thus but removes the essential mystery but a step
further back.”—Constance E. Plumptre.
“ We get rid of the accursed spirit of condem
nation, and the setting open wide—as wide as
humanity itself—the gates that lead to truth
and human progress. For the Agnostic is no
narrow pale, on one side of which stand the
saved and the other the lost; and no ascription
of certain social experiments to a corrupt imaginaand an evil heart.........................
“We know nothing of the hereafter—absolutely
nothing. But, freed as we are from the trammels
of superstition and the strangulation of fear, we
�8
Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence.
deny the eternal Hell, and the omnipotent Devil
formulated by old-world ignorance and terror. For
us the life of man is emphatically his life in the
present, and his merits or demerits are determined
by his relations to others. He has, in a word, got
rid of night and its dreams, and has come out into
the light of waking day of which he does not pre
sume to foretell the state of the evening, or the
conditions of the night that follows after. All he
knows is that there must come this evening, when
strength will wane and the light will wax dim ; and
that then will steal down the night—into which he
cannot peer. Whether that night is to be starless,
or brilliant with these “ many mansions ” of light,
must be left to time to settle. No, the Agnostic
does not waste his time in these speculative
futilities. He works for the present and in the
present, and he leaves the undiscovered future to
take care of itself.—Mrs. Lynn Linton.
, “ The essential principles of Agnosticism were
known and recognised before the name was in
vented ; but the introduction of a definite name
arrested the attention of the reflecting classes.
Their attention once fixed on the subject, people
began to say this was what they always thought.
The unseen and unknown presents an ample field
for speculation, and by contemplative minds must
always be viewed with reverence and awe. A con
sciousness that the sphere of known and knowable
phenomena, when expanded to its utmost limits, is
very far from embracing the whole universe, very
far from exhausting the possibilities of thought and
feeling, while the Beyond is, to the upright man
and pure in heart, an unfathomable abyss into which
he looks with much ground for hope and very little
for fear.—Dr. BitheU.
London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
ONE PENNY.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities...
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[W. Stewart & Co.]
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
N118
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
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 (Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities...), 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
Agnosticism
NSS