1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3fd30942ccfb28e1660d4e3e8c3f7dce.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bHCWnWVGY1NQLWbKhFSnzuTH81hcD4jwI5XDG0GW5%7E%7EBbtX-cd19BPQaqttCLwlgNI2wrQbIpdZzbZnAd0uDyRFtILSTWVXEmudwReZnri3D87gwk3Lja6u-Y9QxWT9NYViiLMpckdUA1w3DJ7veFp%7EjX%7EbURu71uVkig%7E9W-hLZBrkE1YnQGpa6Y0SNpJ8wcjd4cpFhboqHd1fNWDPD1CNEgloGSl53h-JkF8psyayStLLiAKaiPzLHSI3zYAFzdxkEaqjoPRaG1z9ZdjMPkSjy3NRAptM9xjsXsw8las3mfwT%7EcdvpDHZ5cCcS1Y0CGFKKp7pvYe2KTINotpI41g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6b0cc2123ed4f96b4d10440d9f5972aa
PDF Text
Text
i
K)s$7
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ALECTURE
ON
WOMAN’S RIGHTS,
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
PEOPLE'S SUNDAY MEETING,
IN COCHITUATE HALL, BOSTON,
On Sunday, October 19th, 1851.
BY
MRS. E. L. ROSE.
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1886.
�WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
My Fkiends:—The observing and reflecting mind
that casts its vision far beyond the panoramic scenes of
every day life, must perceive that our present age is fast
ripening for the most impottant changes in the affairs
of man. The desire for freedom has shaken Europe to
its very centre. The love of Liberty has convulsed the
nations like the mighty throes of an earthquake. The
oppressed are struggling against the oppressors. Kings
and priests are called upon to give an account of their
stewardship, for man no longer believes in the divine
right of force and fraud.
Yet great as these signs of the times are, they are not
new. From the time of absolute despotism to the pres
ent hour of comparative freedom, the weak had ever to
struggle against the strong, right against might. But a
new sign has appeared in our social zodiac, prophetic of
the most important changes, pregnant with the most
bencflcial results that have ever taken place in the
annals of human history. And to him who can trace
the various epochs in human life, it is as cheering as it
is interesting to mark the onward movement of the race
towards a higher state of human progression—that while
nations strive against nations, people against people, to
attain the same amount of freedom already possessed in
this country, Woman is rising in the full dignity of her
being to claim the recognition of her rights. And though
the first public demonstration has been here, already
has the voice of Woman in behalf of her sex been
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
3
carried, as it were, on the wings of lightning to all parts
of Europe, whose echo has brought back the warmest
and most heartfelt responses from our sisters there.
Among the many encouraging letters received at the
recent Woman’s Convention at Worcester, there was
one exceeding all the rest in the soul-stirring interest it
created. It spoke, through the dungeon walls, the
cheering and encouraging words of sympathy from two
incarcerated women of Paris, to the hearts of their sis
ters in America. The cause of their imprisonment was
their practically claiming the fulfillment of that g’orious
motto, “ Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” destined to
shake the thrones, break the sceptres, and bow down
the mitres of Europe. One of them presented herself
as candidate for Mayor of an Arrondissement, the other
(to the honor of the genuine Republicans of Paris, be it
said,) was nominated by the Industrial Union, consist
ing of two hundred and twenty Societies, as a member
of the Assembly. For these offences they were cast
into prison. Oh! France, where is the glory of thy
revolutions? Is the blood thy children poured out on
the altar of freedom so effaced, that th’’ daughters dare
not lift their voices in behalf of their rights? But so
long as might constitutes right, every good cause must
have its martyrs. Why, then, should woman not be a
martyr to Tier cause?
But how can we wonder that France, governed as she
is by Russian and Austrian despotism, does not recog
nize the higher laws of humanity in the recognition of
the rights of woman, when even here, in this lar-famed
land of freedom and of knowledge, under a republic that
has inscribed on its banner the great truth that all men
are created free and equal, and are endowed with in
alienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi
ness,—a Declaration wafted like the voice of Hope on
the breezes of heaven to the remotest parts of earth, to
whisper freedom and equality to the oppressed and
down trodden children of men,—a Declaration that lies
�4
woman's rights
at the very foundation of human freedom and happiness,
yet in the very face of that eternal truth, woman, the
mockingly so called “better half of man,” has yet to
plead for her rights, nay, for her life. For what is life
without liberty? and what is liberty without equality of
rights; and as for the pursuit of happiness, she is not
allowed to pursue any line of life that might promote it;
she has only thankfully to accept what man, in the
plenitude of his wisdom and generosity, decides as pro
per for her to do, and that is, what he does not choose
to do himself.
Is woman, then, not included in that Declaration?
Answer, ye wise men of the nation, and answer truly;
add not hypocrisy to your other sins. Say she is not
created free and equal, and therefore, (for the sequence
follows on the premises,) she is not entitled to life, lib
erty, and the pursuit of happiness. But you dare not
answer this simple question. With all the audacity
arising from an assumed superiority, you cannot so libel
and insult humanity as to say she is not; and if she is,
then what right has man, except that of might, to de
prive her of the same rights and privileges he claims for
himself?
And why, in the name of reason and justice, I ask,
why should she not have the same rights as man? Be
cause she is woman? Humanity recognizes no sex—
mind recognizes no sex—virtue recognizes no sex—life
and death, pleasure and pain, happiness and misery,
recognize no sex. Like him she comes involuntarily
into existence; like him she possesses physical, mental,
and moral powers, on the proper cultivation of which
depends her happiness; like him she is subject to all the
vicissitudes of life; like him she has to pay the penalty
for disobeying Nature’s laws, and far greater penalties
has she to suffer from ignorance of her far more com
plicated nature than he; like him she enjoys or suffers
with her country. Yet she is not recognized as his
�LECTURE BY MBS. ROSE.
5
equal. In the laws of the land she has no rights; in
government she has no voice, and in spite of another
principle recognized in this Republic, namely, that taxa
tion without representation is tyranny, woman is taxed
without being represented; her property may be con
sumed by heavy taxes, to defray the expenses of that
unholy and unrighteous thing called war, yet she cannot
give her veto against it. From the cradle to the grave,
she is subject to the power and control of man,—father,
guardian, and husband. One conveys her like some
piece of merchandize over to the other.
At marriage she loses her entire identity. Her being
is said to be merged in her husband. Has Nature there
merged it? Has she ceased to exist or feel pleasure and
pain? When she violates the laws of her being, does he
pay the penalty? When she breaks the laws of the land,
does he suffer the punishment? When his wants are
supplied, is it sufficient to satisfy the wants of her na
ture? Or when, at his nightly orgies, in the grog-shop,
the oyster cellar, or the gaming table, he spends the
means she helped by her co-operation and economy to
accumulate, and she awakens to penury and destitution,
will it supply the wants of her children to tell them that
owing to the superiority of man she has no redress by
law, and that as her being was merged in him, so also
ought theirs to be?
But it will be said that the husband provides for the
w:fe, or, in other words, he is bound to feed, clothe, and
shelter her. Oh! the degradation of that ideal Yes, he
keeps her; so he does his horse. By law both are con
sidered his property; both can, when the cruelty of the
owner compels them to run away, be brought back by
the strong arm of the law; and, according to a still ex
tant la v of England, both may be led by the halter to
the market place and sold. This is humiliating, indeed,
but nevertheless true, and the sooner these things are
known and understood, the better for humanity. It is
�6
woman’s rights.
no fancy sketch. I know that some endeavor to throw
the mantle of romance over the subject, and treat wo
man like some ideal existence not subject to the ills of
life. Let ‘hose deal [in fancy that have nothing better
to deal in. We have to do with sober, sad realities, with
stubborn facts.
But again, it will be said, the law presumes the hus
band would be kind, affectionate, and that he would
provide for and protect the wife; but I ask, what right
has the law to presume at all on the subject? What
right has the law to intrust the interest and happiness
of one being to the power of another? And if this
merging of interests is so indispensab’e, then why
should woman always be on the losing side? Turn the
tables; let the identity and interest of the husband be
merged in the wife, think you she would act less gener
ous towards him than he towards her?—that she would
be incapable of as much justice, disinterested devotion,
and abiding affection, as him?
Oh! how grossly you misunderstand and wrong her
nature. But we desire no such undue power over man.
It would be as wrong in her as it now is in him; all we
claim is our own rights. We have nothing to do with
individual man, be he good or bad, but with the laws
that oppress woman. Bad and unjust laws must in the
nature of things make man so too. If he acts better, if
he is kind, affectionate, and consistent, it is because the
kindlier feelings instilled by a mother, kept warm by a
sister, and cherished by a wife, will not allow him to
carry out the barbarous laws against woman; but the
estimation she is generally held in, is as degrading as it
is unjust.
Not long ago, I saw an account of two offenders
brought before a Justice in New York; one, for stealing
a pair of boots, for which offence he was sentenced to
six months’ imprisonment; the other, for an assault and
battery on his wife, for which offence he was let off
with a reprimand from the Judge! With my principles
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
7
I am entirely opposed to punishment. I hold to reform
ing the erring, and removing the causes, as being much
more efficient, as well as just, than punishing; but the
Judge showed the comparative value he set on these
two kinds of property. But you must remember that
the boots were taken by a stranger, while the wife was
insulted by her legal owner. Yet it will be sa;d that
such degrading cases are few. For the sake of humanity
I hope they are, but as long as woman is wronged by
unequal laws, so long will she be degraded by man.
We can hardly have an adequate idea how all-power
ful law is in forming public opinion, in giving tone and
character to the mass of society. To illustrate this
point, look at that inhuman, detestable law, written in
human blood, signed and sealed with life and liberty,
that eternal stain on the statute books of this country,
the Fugitive Slave Law. Think you that before its
passage you could have found any in the free Slates,
except a few politicians in the market, base enough to
desire such a law? No, no! Even those that took no
interest in the subject would have shrunk from so bar
barous a thing; but no sooner is it passed, than the
ignorant mass, the rabble of the self-styled Union Safety
Committee, found out we were a law-loving and lawabiding people. Such is the magic power of law; hence
the necessity to guard against bad ones, and hence also
the reason why we call on the nation to remove the legal
shackles from woman.
Set her politically and civilly free, and it will have a
more benelicial effect on that still greater tyrant she has
to contend with, public opinion. Carry out the Repub
lican principle of universal suffrage, or strike it from
your banner, and substitute freedom and power to one
half of society, and submission aud slavery to the other.
Give women, then, the elective franchise. Let married
women have the same right to property that man has;
for whatever the difference in their respective occupa
�8
woman's rights.
tions, the duties of the wife are as indispensable and far
more arduous than the husband’s. Why, then, should
the wife, at the death of her husband, not be his heir to
the same extent that he is to her?
In this legal inequafity there is involved another
wrong. When the wife dies, the husband is left in the
undisturbed possession of all, and the children are left
with him. No change is made, no stranger intrudes on
his home and his affliction; but when the husband dies,
not only is she, as is too often the case, deprived of all
or at best receives but a mere pittance, but strangers
assume authority denied to the wife and mother. The
sanctuary of affliction must be desecrated by executors,
everything must be ransacked and assessed, lest she
should steal something out of her own house, and, to
cap the climax, the children are taken from her and
p’aced under guardians. When he dies poor, no guar
dian is required; the children are left with the mother
to care and toil for them as best she may; but when
anything is left for the maintenance and education of
the children, then it must be placed in the hands of
strangers for safe keeping, lest the mother might defraud
them. The whole care and bringing up of the children
are left with the mother, and safe they are in her hands;
but a few hundred or thousand dollars cannot be in
trusted with her.
But it will be said, that in case of a second marriage,
the children must be protected in their possession. Does
•that reason not hold as good in his case? Oh! no! for
when he marries again he still retains his identity and
power to act, but she becomes merged once more into a
mere non-entity, and therefore the first husband must
rob her to prevent the second from doing it. But we
say, make the laws reg dating marriage, if any are re
quired at all, equal for both, and all these difficulties
would be obviated. According to a late act, the wife
has a right to the property she brings at marriage, or
received in any way after marriage. Here is some pro
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
9
vision for the favored few, but for the laboring many
there is none. The mass of the people commence life
with no other capital than the head, heart, and hand.
To the result of this best of all capital, the wife has no
right. If they are unsuccessful in married life, who
suffers more the bitter consequences of poverty than the
wife? But if successful, she cannot call a dollar her
own. He may will every dollar (of his personal pro
perty) and leave her destitute and penniless, and she
has no redress by law; and even when real estate is left,
she receives but a life interest in a third part of it, and
at her death she cannot leave it to any of her relations;
it falls back even to the remotest of his relations.
This is law, but where is the justice of it? Well might
we say, that laws were made to prevent, but not pro
mote, the ends of justice. Or, in case of separation, why
should the children be taken from the protecting care
of the mother? Who has a better right to them than
she? How much do fathers generally do towards the
bringing them up? When he comes home from business,
and the child is in good humor and handsome trim, he
takes the little darliDg on his knee and plays with it;
but when the wife, with the care of the whole household
on her shoulders, with little or no help, was not able to
put them in the best order and trim, how much does
the father do towards it? Oh! no? Fathers like to
have children good-natured, well-behaved, and comfort
able; but how to put them in that desirable condition is
out of their philosophy. Children always depend more
on the tender, watchful care of the mother, than the
father. Whether from nature, or habit, or both, the
mother is more capable of administering to their health
and comfort than the father, and therefore she has the
best right to them; and where there is property, it ought
to be divided equally between them with an additional
provision from the father towards the maintenance and
education of the children.
Much is said about the burdens and responsibilities of
�10
woman’s rights.
married men. Responsibilities there are, if they only
felt them; but as to burdens, what are they? The sole
province of man seems to be centred in that one thing,
attending to some business. I grant that owing to the
present unequal and unjust reward for labor, some have
to work too hard for a subsistence; but whatever his vo
cation, he has to attend to it as much before as after
marriage. Look at your bachelors, and see if they do
not strive as much for wealth, and attend as steadily to
business as married men. No; the husband has little
or no increase of burden, and every increase of comfort
after marriage, while all the burdens, cares, pains, and
penalties of married life fall entirely on the wife. How
unjust and cruel, then, to have all the laws in his favor I
If any difference ought to be made by law between hus
band and wife, reason, justice, and humanity, if their
voices were heard, would dictate it in her favor.
It is high time, then, to denounce such gross injus
tice, to compel man by the might of right to give woman
her political, legal, and social rights. Open to her all
the avenues of emolument, distinction, and greatness;
give her an object for which to cultivate her powers,
and a fair chance to do so, and there will be no need to
speculate as to her proper sphere. She will find her own
sphere in accordance with her capacities, powers, and
tastes; and yet she will be woman still. Her rights will
not change, but strengthen, develope, and elevate her
nature. Away with that folly that her rights would be
detrimental to her character—that if she is recognized
as the equal to man, she would cease to be woman! —
Have his rights as a citizen of a republic, the elective
franchise with all its advantages, so Changed his nature
that he has ceased to be a man? Oh! no! But woman
could not bear such a degree of power; what has benefitted him would injure her; what has strengthened him
would weaken her; what prompted him to the perform
ance of his duties would make her neglect hers!
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
11
Such is the superficial mode of reasoning, if it deserves
that name, that is brought against the subject. It re
minds me of two reasons given by a minister of Milton,
on the North River. Having heard I had spoken on the
rights of woman, he took the subject up the following
Sunday, to prove that woman ought not to have equal
rights with man,—first, because Adam was created be
fore Eve; and secondly, man was compared to the fore
wheel, and woman to the hind wheel of a wagon! These
reasons are about as philosophical as any that can be
brought on the subject. Man forgets, or he never knew,
that our duties spring from our rights, and in proportion
to the rights we enjoy are the duties we owe, and he
that enjoys the most rights owes in return the most
duties; though until now, while man enjoys the rights,
he preaches all the duties to woman.
But, say some, in point of principle we grant it is
right enough, but would you expose woman to the con
tact of rough, rude, drinking, swearing, fighting men, at
the ballot-box? What a humiliating confession lies in
this plea for keeping women in the back-ground! Is the
brutality of some men, then, a reason why woman should
be kept from her rights? If man, in his superior wis
dom, cannot devise means to enable woman to deposit
her vote without having her finer sensibilities shocked
by such disgraceful conduct, then there is an additioual
reason, as well as necessity, why she should be there to
civilize, refine, and purify him, even at the ballot-box.
Yes, in addition to the principle of right, this is one of
the reasons why women should participate in all the
important duties of life; for, with all due respect to the
other sex, she is the true civilizer of man. Without
her, he is at best but a semi-barbarian. From my very
heart do I pi’y the man who has grown up and lives
without the benign influence of woman!
Even now, in spite of being considered the inferior,
she has a most beneficial effect on man. Look at your
�12
woman’s rights.
annual festivities where woman is excluded, and ycu
will find more or less drunkenness, disorder, vulgarity,
and excess, to be the order of the day. Compare them
with such where woman is the equal participant with
man, and you will find rational social enjoyment and
decorum prevail; and if this is the case now,—and who
can deny it?—how much more beneficial would be her
influence, if, as the equal to man, she would take her
stand by his side, to cheer, counsel, and aid him in the
drama of life, in the Legislative Halls, in the Senate
Chamber, in the Judge’s chair, in the Jury box, on the
Forum, in the Laboratory of the Arts and Sciences, and
wherever duty would call her for the benefit of herself,
her country, her race? In every step she would carry a
humanizing influence.
And why, I would ask, should she not occupy all these
stations? Why should one half of the race legislate for
the other? In this country it is considered wrong for
one nation to enact laws and enforce them against
another. Does the same wrong not hold good of the
sexes? Is she a being like him? Then she is entitled
to the same rights, is she not? Then how can he legis
late rightfully against a being whose nature he cannot
understand, whose motives he cannot appreciate, and
whose feelings he cannot realize? How can he sit in
judgment and pronounce a verdict against a being so
entirely different? No, there are no reasons for it, but
there are deep-rooted, hoary-headed prejudices against
her.
The main cause of them is, that pernicious falsehood
propagated against her being, viz.: that she is inferior
by her nature. Inferior in what? What has man ever
done, that woman, under the same advantages, could
not be made to do? In morals, bad as she is, she is
generally considered his superior. In intellect, give her
a fair chance before you pronounce a verdict against
her. Cultivate that portion of the brain as much as
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
13
that of man’s, and she will stand his equal, at least.
Even now, where her mind has been called out at all,
her intellect is as bright, as capacious, and as powerful
as his.
Will you tell me, we have no Newtons, Shakespeares,
and Byrons? Greater natural powers than even these
possessed, have been destroyed in woman for want of
proper culture—a just appreciation and reward for
merit, as an incentive to exertion and freedom of
action, without which, mind becomes cramped and
stifled. It cannot expand under bolts and bars; and
yet, under all these blighting, crushing circumstances,
confined within the narrowest possible limit, trampled
upon by prejudice and injustice, from her education
and position forced to occupy herself almost exclusively
with the most trivial affairs—in spite of all these diffi
culties, her intellect is as good as man’s.
The few bright meteors in man’s intellectual horizon
could well be matched by woman, were she allowed to
occupy the same elevated position. There is no need
of naming the De Staels, the Rolands, the Somervilles,
the Wollstonecrafts, the Wrights, the Fullers, the
Martineaus, the Hemanses, the Sigourneys, the Jagiellos, and the many more of modern as well as ancient
times, to prove her mental powers, her patriotism, her
heroism, her self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of
humanity—the eloquence that gushes from her pen or
from her tongue. These things are too well known to
require repetition. And do you ask for fortitude of
mind, energy, and perseverance? Tnen look at woman
under suffering, reverse of fortune, and affliction, when
the strength and power of man has sunk to the lowest
ebb, when his mind is overwhelmed by the dark waters
of despair. She, like the tender plant, bent but not
broken by the storms of life, not only upholds her own
hopeful courage, but, like the tender shoots of the ivy,
clings around the tempest-fallen oak, to bind up the
�14
woman’s rights.
wounds, speak hope to his faltering spirit, and shelter
him from the returning blast of the storm.
Wherein, then, is man so much superior that he must
forever remain her master? In physical strength? Then
allow me to say that the ox and the elephant is his su
perior! But, even on this point, why is she the feeble,
sickly, suffering being we behold her? Look at her
most defective, irrational education, and you will find
the solution of the problem. Is the girl allowed to ex
pand her limbs and chest in healthful exercise in the
fresh breezes of heaven? Is she allowed to inflate her
lungs and make the welkin ring with her cheerful ex
panded voice, like the boy? Whoever heard a girl com
mitting such improprieties? Strongly developed limbs
in a girl is unfashionable—a healthy, sound voice is
vulgar—a ruddy glow on the cheek is coarse; and when
life within her is so strong as to show itself in spite of
bolts and bars, then she has to undergo a bleaching
process, eat lemons and slate pencils—drink vinegar,
and keep in the shade!
And do you know why these irrationalities are prac
ticed? Because man wishes them so, and whatever he
mostly admires in woman will she possess. That is the
influence man has over woman, for she has been made
to believe that she was created for his benefit only.—
“ It was not well for man to be alone,” therefore she
was made as a plaything to pass away an idle hour, or a
drudge to do his bidding; and until this falsehood is
eradicated from her mind—until she feels that the ne
cessities, services, and obligations of the sexes are mu
tual—that she is as independent of him as he is of her;
that she is formed for the same aims and ends in life
that he is;—until, in fact, she has all her rights equal
with man, there will be no other object in her education
except to get married, and what will best promote that
desirable end will be cultivated in her.
When a boy arrives at the age of twelve or so, the
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
15
parents consult as to the kind of education that shall
best fit him for all the purposes of life, to enable him
to become a useful, respectable, independent member
of society; and in accordance with the knowledge and
means of the parents, and the capacities of the boy, so
do they direct his education to make him a farmer, me
chanic, merchant, lawyer, doctor; or, if the boy is not
bright enough for any of these callings or professions,
then he is destined for the ministry. But for what
purpose is the girl educated? Do parents ever direct
the education of a daughter for any such purposes? Ohl
no! The rich man’s daughter is taught to dance, to
play on the piano, to draw and paint, (which she some
times practices on her own face,) to speak a little bad
French, <fcc., &c., not for the intrinsic value and beauty
of these accomplishments, but to attract, and ultimately
catch a beau and get married; for no sooner is she mar
ried, than these things are all laid aside as some idle
things to be thought of no more. How many ladies past
the age of fifty use these accomplishments from a pure
love of them, and the gratification of the family around
them? Among the musical nations of Europe you may
find some, but here these accomplishments are acquired
as a means to an end;—that end once obtained, there is
no further use for them.
The working classes educate their daughters in ac
cordance with what would now be required of them—
namely, to cook a dinner good enough for a poor man,
darn his stockings, sew on buttons, &c. Now these
things are all very good in themselves; every girl ought
to know them, and know them well, yet it is not enough
for a healthy, happy, rational, intellectual life, but then
it is all man now requires of woman. When he will
look for higher and nobler mental accomplishments and
powers, Bhe will possess them.
Do you not yet understand what has made woman
what she is? Then see what the sickly taste and per
verted judgment of man now desires in woman. Not
�16
woman’s rights.
health and strength of body and mind, but a pale, deli
cate face; hands too small to grasp a broom, for that
were treason in a lady; a voice so sickly, sentimental,
and depressed, as to hear what she says only by the
moving of her half-parted lips; and, above all, that ner
vous sensibility that sees a ghost in every passing
shadow—that beautiful diffidence that dare not take a
step without the arm of a man to support her tender
frame, and that shrinking (mock) modesty that faints
at the mention of the leg of a table! I know there are
many noble exceptions that see and deplore these irra
tionalities, but as a general thing it is so, or else why
set up the hue-and-cry of “ manish,” “ unfeminine,”
“ out of her sphere,” &c., whenever she evinces any
strength of body or mind, and takes part in anything
deserving a rational beirg?
Oh! the crying injustice towards woman! She is
crushed in every step she takes, and then insulted for
being what a most pernicious education and corrupt
public sentiment has made her. But there is no confi
dence in her powers nor principles. After last year’s
Convention of women, I saw an article in a Unitarian
paper edited by the Rev. Mr. Bellows of New York,
where, in reply to a correspondent upon the subject of
woman’s rights, in which he strenuously opposed her
taking part in anything in public, he said, “ Place wo
man unbonneted and unshawled before the public gaze,
and what becomes of her modesty and her virtue?” In
his benighted mind, the modesty and virtue of woman
is but shawl deep, and, when in contact with the atmos
phere, evaporates like chloroform. But I refrain to com.
ment on the subject; it carries its own condemnation
with it. When 1 read the article, I earnestly wished I
had the ladies of his congregation before me to see
whether they could realize the estimation their pastor
held them in; yet I hardly know which sentiment was
strongest in me, contempt for such foolish opinions, or
pity for the writer; for a man that has such a degrading
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
17
opinion of woman, of the being that gave him life and
sustenance—that sustained his helpless infancy with her
ever-watchful care, and laid the very foundation for the
little mind he may possess—of the being he took to his
bosom as the partner of his joys and sorrows—the one
whom, when he strove to win her affections, he courted
as all such men court woman, like some divinity—such
a man deserves our pity, for I cannot realize that man
purposely and willingly degrades his mother, sister,
wife, and daughter.
No! my better nature, my best knowledge and con
victions forbid me to believe it. It is from ignorance,
not malice, man acts as he does. In ignorance of her
nature, and the interest and happiness of both, he con
ceived ideas, laid down rules, and enacted laws concern
ing her destiny and her rights. The same ignorance,
strengthened by age, sanctified by superstition, ingraft
ed into his being by habit, makes him still carry them
out to the detriment of his own as well as her happiness;
for is he not the loser by it? Oh! how severely he suf
fers! Who can fathom the depth of suffering and mis«
ery to society from the subjugation and injury inflicted
on woman? The race is elevated in excellence and
power, or kept back in progression, in accordance with
the scale of woman’s position in society. The attain
ment of woman’s co equality with man, is, in itself,
not the end, but the means towards a still higher eleva
tion of the race, without which, it never can attain.
But so firmly has prejudice closed the eyes of man to
the light of truth, that though he feels the evils, he
knows not the cause. Those that have their eyes already
open to these facts, earnestly desire the restoration of
her rights, to enable her to take her proper position in
the scale of humanity. If all could see it, all would
desire it as they desire their own happiness, for the in
terest and happiness of the sexes cannot be divided.
Nature has too closely united them to permit one to
�18
woman's rights.
oppress the other with impunity, and therefore I can
cast no more blame or reproach on man than on woman;
for she, from habit based on the same errors, is as much
opposed to her interest and happiness as he is. Yes, I
will do man the justice to say, that I never mentioned
the subject to any man capable of reflection, but he ac
knowledged the justice of it; and how long is it since
any of us have advocated this righteous cause?—how
long since any of us have come out of the darkness into
the light of day? The longest period is but as it were
Bince yesterday, and why? From the same reason that
so many of both sexes are opposed to it yet—ignorance.
Both have to be aroused from that deathly lethargy in
which they slumber. The worse than Egyptian dark
ness must be dispelled from their minds before the pure
rays of the sun can penetrate them.
And therefore, while I feel it my duty—aye, a pain
ful duty, to point out the wrong done to woman and its
evil consequences, and would do all in my power to aid
in her deliverance, I can have no more ill feelings to
wards him than for the same errors towards her. Both
are the victims of error and ignorance, and both suffer;
and hence the necessity for active, earnest endeavors
to enlighten their minds; hence the necessity to protest
against the wrong and claim our rights, and in doing
our duty we must not heed the taunts, ridicule, and
stigma cast upon us. We must remember we have a
crusade before us far holier and more righteous than
led warrior to Palestine—a crusade not to deprive any
one of his rights, but to claim our own; and as our
cause is a better one, so also must be the means to
achieve it. We therefore must put on the armor of
charity, carry before us the banner of truth, and defend
ourselves with the shield of right against the invaders
of our liberty. And yet, like the knights of old, we
must enlist in this holy cause wi'h a disinterested devo
tion, energy, and determination never to turn back un
til we have conquered, not indeed to drive the Turk
�LECTURE BY MRS. ROSE.
19
from his possession, but to claim our rightful inherit
ance for his benefit as well as our own.
To achieve this great victory of right over might,
woman has much to do. She must not sit idle and wait
till man inspired by justice and humanity will work out
her redemption. It has well been said, “ He that would
be free, himself must strike the blow.” It is with
nations as with individuals, if they do not strive to help
themselves no one will help them. Man may, and in
the nature of things will, remove the legal, political,
and civil disabilities from woman, and recognize her as
his equal with himself, and it will do much towards her
elevation; but the laws cannot compel her to cultivate
her physical and mental powers, and take a stand as a
free and independent being. All that, she has to do.
She must investigate and take an interest in everything
on which the welfare of society depends, for the interest
and happiness of every member of society is connected
with that of society. She must at once claim and exer
cise those rights and privileges with which the laws do
not interfere, and it will aid her to obtain all the rest.
She must, therefore, throw off that heavy yoke that
like a nightmare weighs down her beBt energies, viz.,
the fear of public opinion.
It has been said, that “ The voice of the People is the
voice of God.” If that voice is on the side of justice
and humanity, then it is true, if the term God means
the principle of Truth and of Right. But if the public
voice is oppressive and unjust, then it ought to be
spurned like the voice of falsehood and corruption; and
woman, instead of implicitly and blindly following the
dictates of public opinion, must investigate for herself
what is right or wrong—act in accordance with her best
convictions and let the rest take care of itself, for obe
dience to wrong is wrong itself, and opposition to it is
virtue alike in woman as in man, even though she
should incur the ill will of bigotry, superstition, and
�20
WOMAN’S KIGHTS.
priestcraft, for the approval of our fellow-being is val
uable only when it does not clash with our own sense
of right, and no farther.
The priests well know the influence and value of
women when warmly engaged in any cause, and there
fore as long as they can keep them steeped in supersti
tious darkness, so long are they safe; and hence the
horror and anathema against every woman that has in
telligence, spirit, and moral courage to cast off the dark
and oppressive yoke of superstition. But she must do
it, or she will ever remain a slave, for of all tyranny
that of superstition is the greatest, and he is the most
abject slave who tamely submits to its yoke. Woman,
then, must cast it off as her greatest enemy; and the
time I trust will come when she will aid man to remove
the political, civil, and religious evils that have swept
over the earth like some malignant scourge to lay waste
and destroy so much of the beauty, harmony, and hap
piness of man; and the old fable of the fall of man
through a woman will be superseded by the glorious
fact that she was instrumental in the elevation of the
race towards a higher, nobler, and happier destiny.
�
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
A lecture on woman's rights : delivered before the people's Sunday meeting, in Cochituate Hall, Boston, on Sunday, October 19th, 1851
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 20 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.P Mendum
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N557
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women's rights
Women
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 (A lecture on woman's rights : delivered before the people's Sunday meeting, in Cochituate Hall, Boston, on Sunday, October 19th, 1851), 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
Women's Rights
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0a69e02a0095dafda63250817aa8b9d9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gSJYfW3ndvbgfhzAwHDfCgEwPxDqnLlJ7s-n15rEPhq%7E5ini0iYst405Gqc%7EZ4rmVzRN0fhs8Wl9NXvaazqZDT-gDPHHgh-Tw0chi828Z8Rbgh8BfZg5OEztDj%7ETEdh4Z5i9bUUAQfo%7ENQWWGD8AHIArXDSMNwBieEnJ12sH1X0EA7kr9%7EcoKA44uyUAeKnsDvVuWCAnJtFjvicEEi93JMo3Vl9HZ1vbZazRRANeGPFzmTu44hODRViQeQpBv8W64PGevW%7EJipxyNYNpcOIFOWlHT0Wt58QleYSPVkcHBbxig9EDsxlyRAsblWrVWSd07PQ9kuHeFpV2gE35MArYog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fd57b18f6844a76fa6acdb3b1743783a
PDF Text
Text
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM:
BEING
A LECTURE
DELIVERED IN
MERCANTILE HALL, BOSTON,
APRIL 10, 1861,
BY MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE.
BOSTON: •
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1881.
��A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
My Friends :—In undertaking the inquiry of
the existence of a God, I am fully conscious of
the difficulties 1 have to encounter. I am well
aware that the very question produces in most
minds a feeling of awe, as if stepping on forbid
den ground, too holy and sacred for mortals to
approach. The very question strikes them with
horror, and it is owing to this prejudice so deeply
implanted by education, and also strengthened by
public sentiment, that so few are willing to give it
a fair and impartial investigation,—knowing but
too well that it casts a stigma and reproach upon
any person bold enough to undertake the task,
unless his previously known opinions are a guar
antee that his conclusions would be in accordance
and harmony with the popular demand. But be
lieving, as I do, that Truth only is beneficial, and
Error, from whatever source, and under whatever
name, is pernicious to man, I consider no place
too holy, no subject too sacred, for man’s earnest
investigation; for by so doing only can we arrive
at Truth, learn to discriminate it from Error, and
be able to accept the one and reject the other.
Nor is this the only impediment in the way of
this inquiry. The question arises, Where shall
we begin ? We have been told, that “ by search
ing none can find out God,” which has so far
�4
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
proved true ; for, as yet, no one has ever been
able to find him. The most strenuous believer
has to acknowledge that it is only a belief, but he
knows nothing on the subject. Where, then, shall
we search for his existence? Enter the material
world ; ask the Sciences whether they can disclose
the mystery ? Geology speaks of the structure of
the Earth, the formation of the different strata, of
coal, of granite, of the whole mineral kingdom.—
It reveals the remains and traces of animals long
extinct, but gives us no clue whereby we may
prove the existence of a God.
Natural history gives us a knowledge of the
animal kingdom in general; the different organ
isms, structures, and powers of the various species.
Physiology teaches the nature of man, the laws
that govern his being, the functions of the vital
organs, and the conditions upon which alone health
and life depend. Phrenology treats of the laws
of mind, the different portions of the brain, the
temperaments, the organs, how to develop some
and repress others to produce a well balanced and
healthy condition. But in the whole animal econ
omy—though the brain is considered to be a “ mi
crocosm,” in which may be traced a resemblance
or relationship with everything in Nature—not a
spot can be found to indicate the existence of a
God.
Mathematics lays the foundation of all the ex
act sciences. It teaches the art of combining num
bers, of calculating and measuring distances, bow
to solve problems, to weigh mountains, to fathom
the depths of the ocean; but gives no directions
how to ascertain the existence of a God.
Enter Nature's great laboratory—Chemistry.—
She will speak to you of the various elements,
their combinations and uses, of the gasses con
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
5
stantly evolving and combining in different pro
portions, producing all the varied objects, the in
teresting and important phenomena we behold.
She proves the indestructibility of matter, and its
inherent property—motion; but in all her opera
tions, no demonstrable fact can be obtained to in
dicate the existence of a God.
Astronomy tells us of the wonders of the Solar
System—the eternally revolving planets, the ra
pidity and certainty of their motions, the distance
from* planet to planet, from star to star. It pre
dicts with astonishing and marvellous precision
the phenomena of eclipses, the visibility upon our
Earth of comets, and proves the immutable law
of gravitation, but is entirely silent on the exist
ence of a God.
In fine, descend into the bowels of the Earth,
and you will learn what it contains; into the
depths of the ocean, and you will find the inhab
itants of the great deep; but neither in the Earth
above, nor the waters below, can you obtain any
knowledge of his existence. Ascend into the
heavens, and enter the “ milky way.” go from
planet to planet to the remotest star, and ask the
eternally revolving systems, Where is God ? and
Echo answers, Where ?
The Universe of Matter gives us no record of
his existence. Where next shall we search ? En
ter the Universe of Mind, read the millions of
volumes written on the subject, and in all the
speculations, the assertions, the assumptions, the
theories, and the creeds, you can only find Man
stamped in an indelible impress his own mind on
every page. In describing his God, he delineated
his own character: the picture he drew represents
in living and ineffaceable -colors the epoch of his
existence—the period he lived in.
�6
A DEFENCE OF /THEISM.
It was a great mistake to say that God made
man in his image. Man, in all ages, made his
God in his own image; and we find that just in
accordance with his civilization, his knowledge,
his experience, his taste, his refinement, his sense
of right, of justice, of freedom, and humanity,—so
has he made his God. But whether coarse or re
fined ; cruel and vindictive, or kind and generous;
an implacable tyrant, or a gentle and loving fa
ther ;—it still was the emanation of his own mind
—the picture of himself.
But, you ask, how came it that man thought or
wrote about God at all? The answer is very sim
ple. Ignorance is the mother of Superstition. In
proportion to man’s ignorance is he superstitious—
does he believe in the mysterious. The very name
has a charm for him. Being unacquainted with
the nature and laws of things around him, with
the true causes of the effects he witnessed, he as
cribed them to false ones—to supernatural agen
cies. The savage, ignorant of the mechanism of
a watch, attributes the ticking to a spirit. The
so-called civilized man, equally ignorant of the
mechanism of the Universe, and the laws which
govern it, ascribes it to the same erroneous cause.
Before electricity was discovered, a thunder-storm
was said to come from the wrath of an offended
Deity. To this fiction of man’s uncultivated mind,
has been attributed all of good and of evil, of wis
dom and of folly. Man has talked about him,
written about-him, disputed about him, fought
about him,—sacrificed himself, and extirpated his
fellow man. Rivers of blood and oceans of tears
have been shed to please him, yet no one has ever
been able to demonstrate his existence.
But the Bible, we are told, reveals this great
mystery. Where Nature is dumb, and Man igno
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
7
rant, Revelation speaks in the authoritative voice
of prophecy. Then let us see whether that Reve
lation can stand the test of reason and of truth.—
God, we are told, is omnipotent, omniscient, om
nipresent,—all wise, all just, and all good; that
he is perfect. So far, so well; for less than per
fection were unworthy of a God. The first act
recorded of him is, that he created the world out
of nothing; but unfortunately the revelation of
Science—Chemistry—which is based not on writ
ten words, but demonstrable facts, says that Noth
ing has no existence, and therefore out of Nothing,
Nothing could be made. Revelation tells us that
the world was created in six days. Here Geolo
gy steps in and says, that it requires thousands of
ages to form the various strata of the earth. The
Bible tells us that the earth was flat and station
ary, and the sun moves around the earth. Co
pernicus and Galileo flatly deny this 7^ assertion,
and demonstrate by Astronomy that the earth is
spherical, and revolves around the sun. Revela
tion tells us that on the fourth day God created
the sun, moon, and stars. This, Astronomy calls
a moo» story, and says that the first three days,
before the great torchlight was manufactured and
suspended in the great lantern above, must have
been rather dark.
The division of the waters above trom the wa
ters below, and the creation of the minor objects,
I pass by, and come at once to the sixth day.
Having finished, in five days, this stupendous
production, with its mighty mountains, its vast
seas, its fields and woods; supplied the waters
with fishes—from the whale that Jonah swal
lowed to the little Dutch herring; peopled the
woods with inhabitants—from the tiger, the lion,
the bear, tire elephant with his trunk, the drome
�8
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
dary with his hump, the deer with his antlers
the nightingale with her melodies, down to the
serpent which tempted mother Eve ; covered the
fields with vegetation, decorated the gardens with
flowers, hung the trees with fruits; and survey
ing this glorious world as it lay spread out like a
map before him, the question naturally suggested
itself. What is it all for, unless there were beings
capable of admiring, of appreciating, and of en
joying the delights this beautiful world could af
ford ? And suiting the action to the impulse, he
said,
Let us make man.” “ So God created
man in his own image; in the image of God cre
ated he him, male and female created he them.”
I presume by the Term “image,” we are not to
understand a near resemblance of face or form,
but in the image or likeness of his knowledge, his
power, his wisdom, and perfection. Having thus
made man, he placed him (them) in the garden
of Eden the loveliest and most enchanting spot
at the very head of creation, and bade them (with
the single restriction not to eat of the tree of
knowledge,) to live, to love, and to be happy.
What a delightful picture, could we only rest
here ! But did these beings, fresh from the hand
of omnipotent wisdom, in whose image they were
made, answer the great object of their creation?
Alas ! no. No sooner were they installed in their
Paradisean home, than they violated the first, the
only injunction given them, and fell from their
high estate; and not only they, but by a singular
justice of that very merciful Creator, their inno
cent posterity to all coming generations, fell with
them ! Does that bespeak wisdom and perfec
tion in the Creator, or in the creature ? But what
was the cause of this tremendous fall, which frus
trated the whole design of the creation ? The
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
9
serpent tempted mother Eve, and she, like a good
wife, tempted her husband. But did God not
know when he created the serpent, that it would
tempt the woman, and that she was made out of
such frail materials, (the rib of Adam,) as not to
be able to resist the temptation? If he did not
know, then his knowledge was at fault; if he
did, but could not prevent that calamity, then his
power was at fault; if he knew and could, but
would not, then his goodness was at fault. Choose
which you please, and it remains alike fatal to the
rest.
Revelation tells us that God made man perfect,
and found him imperfect; then he pronounced all
things good, and found them most desperately
bad. “ And God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every imagina
tion of the thought of his heart was evil continu
ally. And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
ct And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom
I have created, from the face of the earth ; both
man and beasts, and the creeping things, and the
fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have
made them.” So he destroyed everything, except
Noah with his family, and a few household pets.
Why he saved them is hard to say, unless it was
to reserve materials as stock in hand to commence
a new world with; but really, judging of the
character of those he saved, by their descendants,
it strikes me it would have been much better, and
given him far less trouble, to have let them slip
also, and with his improved experience made a
new world out of fresh and superior materials.
As it was, this wholesale destruction even, was
a failure. The world was not. one jot better after
the flood than before. His chosen children were
�10
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
just as bad as ever, and he had to send his proph
ets, again and again, to threaten, to frighten, to
coax, to cajole, and to flatter them into good be
haviour. But all to no effect. They grew worse
and worse: and having made a covenant with
Noah after he had sacrificed of “ every clean
beast and of every clean fowl,”—“ The Lord
smelt the sweet savour; ai\d the Lord said in his
heart, I will not again curse the ground any more
for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s
heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again
smite any more everything living, as I have done.”
And so he was forced to resort to the last sad al
ternative of sending “his only begotten son,” his
second self, to save them. But alas! “ his own
received him not,” and so he was obliged to
adopt the Gentiles, and die to save the world.
Did he succeed, even then ? Is the world saved ?
Saved I From what? From ignorance ? It is all
around us. From poverty, vice, crime, sin, mis
ery, and shame ? It abounds everywhere. Look
into your poor-houses, your prisons, your lunatic
asylums; contemplate the whip, the instruments
of torture, and of death ; ask the murderer, or his
victim ; listen to the ravings of the maniac, the
sirieks of distress, the groans of despair; mark
the cruel deeds of the tyrant, the crimes of slave
ry, and the suffering of the oppressed; count the
millions of lives lost by fire, by water, and by the
sword; measure the blood spilled, the tears shed,
the sighs of agony'- drawn from the expiring vic
tims on the altar of fanaticism;—and tell me from
what the world was saved? And why was it not
saved? Why does God still permit these horrors
to afflict the race? Does omniscience not know
it? Could omnipotence not do it? Would infi
nite wisdom, power, and goodness allow his chil
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
11
dren thus to live, to suffer, and to die? No!
Humanity revolts against such a supposition.
Ah ! not now, not here, says the believer. Here
after will he save them. Save them hereafter!
From what? From the apple eaten by our mo
ther Eve? What a mockery! If a rich parent
were to let his children live in ignorance, poverty,
and wretchedness, all their lives, and hold out to
them the promise of a fortune at some time here
after, he would justly be considered a criminal, or
a madman. The parent is responsible to his off
spring—the Creator to the creature.
The testimony of Revelation has failed. Its
account of the creation of the material world is
disproved by science. Its account of the creation
of man in the image of perfection is disproved by
its own internal evidence. To test the Bible God
by justice and benevolence, he could not be good ;
to test him by reason and knowledge, he could
not be wise; to test him by the light of truth, the
rule of consistency, we must come to the inevita
ble conclusion that, like the Universe of matter
and of mind, this pretended Revelation has also
failed to demonstrate the existence of a God.
Methinks I hear the believer say, you are un
reasonable ; you demand an impossibility; we
are finite, and therefore cannot understand, much
less define and demonstrate the infinite. Just so !
But if I am unreasonable in asking you to demon
strate the existence of the being you wish me to
believe in, are you not infinitely more unreason
able to expect me to believe—blame, persecute,
and punish me for not believing—in what you
have to acknowledge you cannot understand ?
But, says the Christian, the world exists, and
therefore there must have been a God to create it.
That does not follow. The mere fact of its exist
�12
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
ence does not prove a Creator. Then how came
the Universe into existence? We do not know ;
but the ignorance of man is certainly no proof of
the existence of a God. Yet upon that very igno
rance has it been predicated, and is maintained.
From the little knowledge we have, we are justi
fied in the assertion that the Universe never was
created, from the simple fact that not one atom of
it can ever be annihilated. To suppose a Uni
verse created, is to suppose a time when it did not
exist, and that is a self-evident absurdity. Be
sides, where was the Creator before it was creat
ed ? Nay, where is he now? Outside of that
Universe, which means the all in all, above, be
low, and around? That is another absurdity. Is
he contained within? Then he can be only a
part, for the whole includes all the parts. If only
a part., then he could not be its Creator, for a part
cannot create the whole. But the world could not
have made itself. True; nor could God have
made himself; and if you must have a God to
make the world, you will be under the same ne
cessity to have another to make him, and others
still to make them, and so on until reason and
common sense are at a stand-still.
The same argument applies to a First Cause.
We can no more admit of a first than a last cause.
What is a first cause ? The one immediately pre
ceding the last effect, which was an effect to a
cause in its turn—an effect to causes, themselves
effects. All we know is an eternal chain of cause
and effect, without beginning as without end.
But is there no evidence of intelligence, of de
sign, and consequently of a designer? I see no
evidence of either. What is intelligence? It is
not a thing, a substance, an existence in itself, but
simply a property of matter, manifesting itself
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
13
through organizations. We have no knowledge
of, nor can we conceive of, intelligence apart from
organized matter: and we find that from the small
est and simplest insect, through all the links and
gradations in Nature’s great chain, up to Man—
just in accordance with the organism, the amount,
and quality of brain, so are the capacities to re
ceive impressions, the power to retain them, and
the abilities to manifest and impart them to others,
namely, to have its peculiar nature cultivated and
developed, so as to bear mental fruits, just as the
cultivated earth bears vegetation—physical fruits.
Not being able to recognize an independent intelli
gence, I can perceive no design or designer except
in the works of man.
But, says Paley, does the watch not prove u
watchmaker—a design, and therefore a designer ?
How much more then does the Universe? Yes;
the watch shows design, and the watchmaker did
not leave us in the dark on the subject, but clearly
and distinctly stamped his design on the face of the
watch. Is it as clearly stamped on the Universe?
Where is the design, in the oak to grow to its ma
jestic height ? or in the thunderbolt that rent it
asunder? In the formation of the wing of the
bird, to enable it to fly, in accordance with the
promptings of its nature ? or in the sportsman to
shoot it down while flying? In the butterfly to
dance in the sunshine? or its being crushed in the
tiny fingers of a child ? Design in man’s capacity
for the acquisition of knowledge, or in his groping
in ignorance? In the necessity to obey the laws
of health, or .in the violation of them, which pro
duces disease ? In the desire to be happy, or in
the causes that prevent it, and make him live in
toil, misery, and suffering ?
The watchmaker not only stamped his design
�14
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
on the face of the watch, but he teaches how to
wind it up when run down; how to repair the
machinery when out of order; and how to put a
new spring in when the old one is broken, and
leave the watch as good as ever. Does the great
Watchmaker, as he is called, show the same in
telligence and power in keeping, or teaching oth
ers to keep, this contemplated mechanism—Man
-—always in good order? and when the life-spring
is broken replace it with another, and leave him
just the same? If an Infinite Intelligence designed
man to possess knowledge, he could not be igno
rant; to be healthy, he could not be diseased; to
be virtuous, he could not be vicious ; to be wise,
he could not act so foolish as to trouble himself
about the Gods, and neglect his own best interests.
But, says the believer, here is a wonderful adapt
ation of means to ends; the eye to see, the ear to
hear,. &c. Yes, this is very wonderful; but not
one jot more so, than if the eye were made to
hear, and the ear to see. The supporters of De
sign use sometimes very strange arguments. A
friend of mine, a very intelligent man, with quite
a scientific taste, endeavored once to convince me
of a Providential design, from the fact that a fish,
which had always lived in the Mammoth Cave of
Kentucky, was entirely blind. Here, said he, is
strong evidence; in that dark cave, where noth
ing was to be seen, the fish needed no eyes, and
therefore it has none. He forgot the demonstrable
fact that the element of light is indispensable in
the formation of the organ of sight, without which
it could not be formed, and no Providence, or
Gods, could enable the fish to see. That fish
story reminds me of the Methodist preacher who
proved the wisdom and benevolence of Providence
in always placing the rivers near large cities, and
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
15
death at the end of life ; for Oh 1 my dear hearers,
said he, what would have become of us had he
placed it at the beginning?
Everything is wonderful, and wonderful just in
proportion as we are ignorant; but that proves no
“design” or “designer.” But did things come by
chance ? I am asked. Oh ! no. There is no such
thing as chance. It exists only in the perverted,
mind of the believer, who, while insisting that
God was the cause of everything, leaves Him
without any cause. The Atheist believes as little
in the one as in the other. He knows that no ef
fect could exist without an adequate cause ; that
everything in the Universe is governed by laws.
The Universe is one vast chemical laboratory,
in constant operation, by her internal forces. The
laws or principles of attraction, cohesion, and re
pulsion, produce in never-ending succession the
phenomena of composition, decomposition, and
recomposition. The how, we are too ignorant to
understand, too modest to presume, and too hon
est to profess. Had man been a patient and im
partial inquirer, and not with childish presump
tion attributed everything he could not under
stand, to supernatural causes, given names to hide
his ignorance, but observed the operations of Na
ture, he would undoubtedly have known more,
been wiser, and happier.
As it is, Superstition has ever been the great
impediment to the acquisition of knowledge. Ev
ery progressive step of man clashed against the
two-edged sword of Religion, to whose narrow re
strictions he had but too often to succumb, or
march onward at the expense of interest, reputa
tion, and even life itself.
But, we are told, that Religion is natural; the
belief in a God universal. Were it natural, then
�16
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
it would indeed be universal; but it is not. We
have ample evidence to the contrary. According
to Dr. Livingstone, there are whole tribes or na
tions, civilized, moral, and virtuous; yes, so hon
est that they expose their goods for sale without
guard or value set upon them, trusting to the
honor of the purchaser to pay its proper price.—
Yet these people have not the remotest idea of a
God, and he found it impossible to impart it to
them. And in all ages of the world, some of the
most civilized, the wisest, and the best, were en
tire unbelievers, only they dared not openly avow
it, except at the risk of their lives. Proscription,
the torture, and the stake, were found most effi
cient means to seal the lips of heretics ; and though
the march of progress has broken the infernal ma
chines, and extinguished the fires of\the Inquisi
tion, the proscription, and more refined but not
less cruel and bitter persecutions of an intolerant
and bigoted public opinion, in Protestant coun
tries, as well as in Catholic, on account of belief,
are quite enough to prevent men from honestly
avowing their true sentiments upon the subject.—
Hence there are few possessed of the moral cour
age of a Humboldt.
If the belief in a God were natural, there would
be no need to teach it. Children would possess it
as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the
heathen as much as the missionary. We don’t
have to teach the general elements of human na
ture,—the five senses, seeing, hearing, smelling,
tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so
would religion be were it natural, but it is not.
On the contrary, it is an interesting and demon
strable fact, that all children are Atheists, and
were religion not inculcated into their minds they
would remain so. Even as it’is, they are great
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
17
sceptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon
by which religion has ever beyn propagated, name
ly, fear—fear of the lash of public opinion here,
and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No •
there is no religion in human nature, nor human
nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the re
sult of education. while Atheism is natural, and,
were the human mind not perverted and bewil
dered by the mysteries and follies of superstition,
would be universal.
But the people have been made to believe that
were it not for religion, the world would be de
stroyed-;—man would become a monster, chaos
and confusion would reign supreme. These erro
neous notions conceived in ignorance, propagated
by superstition, and kept alive by an interested
and corrupt priesthood who fatten on the credulity
of the public, are very difficult to be eradicated.
But sweep all the belief in the supernatural
from the face of the earth, and the world would
remain just the same. The seasons would follow
each other in their regular succession ; the stars
would shine in the firmament; the sun would
shed his benign and vivifying influence of light
and heat upon us; the clouds would discharge
their burden in gentle and refreshing showers;
the cultivated fields would bring forth vegetation ;
summer would ripen the golden grain, ready for
harvest; the trees would bear fruits; the birds
would sing in accordance with their happy in
stinct, and all Nature would smile as joyously
around us as ever. Nor would man degenerate.
Oh ! no. His nature, too, would remain the same.
He would have to be obedient to the physical,
mental, and moral laws of his being, or suffer
the natural penalty for their violation; observe
the mandates of society, or receive the punish
�18
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
ment. His affections would be just as warm,
the love of self-preservation as strong, the desire
for happiness and the fear of pain as great. He
would love freedom, justice, and truth, and hate
oppression, fraud, and falsehood, as much as ever.
Sweep all belief in the supernatural from the
globe, and you would chase away the whole fra
ternity of spectres, ghosts, and hobgoblins, which
have so befogged and bewildered the human
mind, that hardly a clear ray of the light of Rea
son can penetrate it. You would cleanse and puri
fy the heart of the noxious, poisonous weeds of
superstition, with its bitter, deadly fruits—hypoc
risy, bigotry, and intolerance, and fill it with
charity and forbearance towards erring humanity.
You would give man courage to sustain him in
trials and misfortune, sweeten his temper, give
him a new zest for the duties, the virtues, and the
pleasures of life.
Morality does not depend on the belief inany
religion. History gives ample evidence that the
more belief the less virtue and goodness. Nor
need we go back to ancient times to see the crimes
and atrocities perpetrated under .its sanction. We
have enough in our own times. Look at the
present crisis—at the South with 4,000,000 of
human beings in slavery, bought and sold like
brute chattels under the sanction of religion and
of God, which the Reverends Van Dykes and the
Raphalls of the North fully endorse, and the
South complains that the reforms in the North are
owing to Infidelity. Morality depends on an accu
rate knowledge of the nature of man, of the laws
that govern his being, the principles of right, of
justice, and humanity, and the conditions requi
site to make him healthy, rational, virtuous, and
happy.
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
19
The belief in a God has failed to produce this
desirable end. On the contrary, while it could
not make man better, it has made him worse ; for
in preferring blind faith in things unseen and un
known to virtue and morality, in directing his at
tention from the known to the unknown, from the
real to the imaginary, from the certain here to a
fancied hereafter, from the fear of himself, of the
natural result of vice and crime, to some whimsi
cal despot, it perverted his judgment, degraded
him in his own estimation, corrupted his feelings,
destroyed his sense of right, of justice, and of
truth, and made him a moral coward and a hypo
crite. The lash of a hereafter is no guide for us
here. Distant fear cannot control present passion.
It is much easier to confess your sins in the dark,
than to acknowledge them in the light: to make
it up with a God you don’t see, than with a man
whom you do. Besides, religion has always left
a back door open for sinners to creep out of at the
eleventh hour. But teach man to do right, to
love justice, to revere truth, to be virtuous, not be
cause a God would reward or punish him here
after, but because it is right; and as every act
brings its own reward or its own punishment, it
wouid best promote his interest by promoting the
welfare of society. Let him feel the great truth
that our highest happiness consists in making all
around us happy ; and it would be an infinitely
truer and safer guide for man to a life of useful
ness, virtue, and morality, than all the beliefs in
all the Gods ever imagined.
The more refined and transcendental religionists
have often said to me, if you do away with re
ligion, you would destroy the most beautiful ele
ment in human nature—the feeling of devotion
and reverence, ideality, and sublimity. This, too,
�20
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
is an error. These sentiments would be cultivat
ed just the same, only we would transfer the de
votion from the unknown to the known ; from the
Gods, who, if they existed, could not need it, to
man who does. Instead of reverencing an imagi
nary existence, man would learn to revere justice
and truth. Ideality and sublimity would reline
his feelings, and enable him to admire and enjoy
the ever-changing beauties of Nature; the vari
ous and almost unlimited powers and capacities of
the human mind ; the exquisite and indescribable
charms of a well cultivated, highly refined, virtu
ous, noble man.
But not only have the priests tried to make the
very term Atheism odious, as if it would destroy
all of good and beautiful in Nature, but some of
the reformers, not having the moral courage to
avow their own sentiments, wishing to be popular,
fearing lest their reforms would be considered
Infidel, (as all reforms assuredly are,) shield them
selves from the stigma, by joining in the tirade
against Atheism, and associate it with everything
that is vile, with the crime of slavery, the corrup
tions of the Church, and all the vices imaginable.
This is false, and they know it; Atheism protests
against this injustice. No one has a right to give
the term a false, a forced interpretation, to suit his
own purposes, (this applies also to some of the
Infidels who stretch and force the term Atheist out
of its legitimate significance.) As well might we
use the terms Episcopalian, Unitarian, Universalist, to signify vice and corruption, as the term
Atheist, which means simply a disbelief in a God,
because finding no demonstration of his existence,
man’s reason will not allow him to believe, nor his
conviction to play the hypocrite, and profess what
he does not believe. Give it its true significance,
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
*
21
and he will abide the consequence; but don’t
fasten upon it the vices belonging to yourselves.
Hypocrisy is the prolific mother of a large family !
In conclusion, the AtheistJ says to the honest,
conscientious believer, Though I cannot believe in
your God whom you have failed to demonstrate, I
believe in man ; if I have no faith in your religion,
I have faith, unbounded, unshaken faith in the
principles of right, of justice, and humanity.
Whatever good you are willing to co for the sake
of your God, I am full as willing to do for the
sake of man. But the monstrous crimes the be
liever perpetrated in persecuting and exterminat
ing his fellow man on account of difference of be
lief, the Atheist, knowing that belief is not volun
tary, but depends on evidence, and therefore there
can be no merit inathe belief of any religions, nor
demerit in a disbelief in all of them, could never
be guilty of. Whatever good you would do out
of fear of punishment, or hope of reward here
after, the Atheist would do simply because it is
good • and being so, he would receive the far
surer and more certain reward, springing from
well-doing, which would constitute his pleasure,
and promote his happiness.
�
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
A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 21, [3] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Copy CT92 presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July Nineteen hundred & eight. Ernestine Louise Rose was a freethinker, a feminist, and an abolitionist.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.P Mendum
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N555
N556
CT92
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 style="border-style:none;" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> <br />This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Conway Tracts
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5b999671d2233aa6ed8398b565dfc2dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Z%7ECDrdnlZO8LFZAjxDlOvSu-wiFW3gciE2Tul4IS7sU2wJAfvzAI7Gbapup4m6Gf90-WX7qE18x6gM1FBrsZpj7oJ7vXo%7E2Irkdc65c6TsHEdbr9960f5HIIpr1WvaiFYypy7oAPLI-6Kkp1blxe60TtpSfxokwsjlR3NA9R3pKyRPbZTMxna2RRTywfBIW%7EFHxBTvv1tViXn2CI6U8RwNSco2P5pNCviQTFcJavS%7E4QL1HjmtygUxmkLBPWoC1bvtQNzE9ff6EPj5EhTAQw9EYQZYSIkG4VNWUrhhDeNhm1kXPdHMaAjfxQcOX5zrQ8%7EF02MiiTQJk3icNtw2XycQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
10064613ce716a85386cccaafef39d71
PDF Text
Text
W88
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
TWO ADDRESSES
DELIVERED BY
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose,
AT THE
BIBLE CONVENTION,
HELD IN HARTFORD, (CONN.,) IN JUNE, 1854.
Being Her Replies to tiie Rev. Mr. Turner
Accompanied with Comments on the Un
reasonable Character of the Bible.
[Published by request.]
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1888.
��MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE
ON
THE BIBLE.
FIRST ADDRESS.
J/y Friends:—I rise under peculiar disadvan
tages : one is, that it is so late, and another that
the ground has been most ably, eloquently, and
masterly occupied by the various speakers who
preceded me. Under these circumstances I would
prefer not to speak at all, were it not for the fact
that this movement seems to be one of the highest
and greatest importance that has taken place in
our age — (Applause)—of more importance even
than the one that has so long lain at my heart,
the rights of woman—(Applause)—for it is closely
connected with it; and as woman has not been
represented here, I feel it my duty to raise my
voice and protest against the Bible, or, as it is
called, the Word of God; for if a line of demarkation could be drawn of the injurious effects pro
duced by the errors of that book on man or wo
man, I would say most emphatically, that on
account of the inferior education and experience of
�4
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
woman, the errors of the Bible which have been
palmed off upon society as emanations from some
superior wisdom and power, have had a far more
pernicious effect on the mind of woman than of
man, for knowledge and experience are the only
safeguards against superstition ; and as woman has
received less of the light of knowledge, supersti
tion has had a stronger hold on her mind, and has
enslaved her far more than man. (Applause,
hisses, and cries of “ Shame! shame! ”)
Mrs. Rose, on looking around at the confusion,
said—My conviction is, that man always acts as
well as he can; and if I see my poor unfortunate
fellow-being act as it appears to me inconsistent
and irrational, I can but pity him for it. (Ap
plause.)
The question under consideration, I believe, is
the origin, influence, and authority of the Bible, or,
Ts the Bible an emanation from, or inspiration of,
God ? It seems to me that it would have been
more in order had we commenced by inquiring
what is meant by the term God, or Divine; but
here again a difficulty presents itself, Where shall
we commence to make the inquiry? If we go
back to past ages, to the very infancy of the race,
and from thence come up to the present time and
hour, and ask the definition of God, the answer
would be that, just what any age or people con
sidered their beau-ideal of greatness, of wisdom, of
virtue, and of perfection, they embodied in one
grand idea, and called it God. (Renewed and
long-continued disturbance in the gallery.) I will
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
5
wait till I can be heard. (Renewed confusion.)
This confusion is an evidence of the influence of
the Bible. (Hissing.) The Bible tells them that
woman “ should not speak in public.” Oh! no, she
must not raise her voice in behalf of truth and
humanity, and if she does, she is met with con
fusion and riot by the believers in that doctrine;
but after all, that is the best argument that can be
brought m support of the Bible. With the sword
it has been promulgated, with riot and confusion it
must be supported. (Applause and hisses.) Yes !
if we go back to the past, we find that men in all
ages, all countries, conditions, and states, have
always embodied what to them appeared the acme
of perfection, and worshipped it. In those ages
wherein the warrior, the conqueror, the hunter has
been considered the most perfect and noble beings
m the conception of men, they have cut out images
of stone, wood, silver, and gold, to embody the
various attributes, and knelt down and worshipped
them; and as we came up from the long past,
through all ages, without mentioning the various
gradations, for time is short, to the present time,
we still behold the same. The opinions only as to
what constitutes greatness, goodness, and perfec
tion, have changed; the tastes have become more
refined, the feelings more humanized, the minds
more enlightened and consistent.
Man, in fact, lias become more civilized; there
fore the beau-ideal of his conception, or the idol of
his imagination, is so too. Thus, instead of cutting
out an image of the grosser materials, or painting
�6
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
it on the canvas, ancl then kneeling clown to wor
ship it, he shuts his eyes and beholds the embodi
ment of what appears to him to be the greatest,
best, and noblest of human attributes, on the
retina of his imagination, and bows down his head
and pays homage to it; but however gross or re
fined, it is ever a likeness of himself, or what he
would wish to be. It has been a great mistake to
say that God has made man in his image, for man
in all ages and times has made his God in his
image, and hence we have as great a variety of
religions and gods as we have stages and grada
tions of man’s perception of the true, the beautiful,
and the noble, from the darkest ignorance and
barbarity to the present comparative state of know
ledge and civilization. (Prolonged applause, hiss
ing, and hooting.) Hiss on, if it does you any
good. I give utterance to these convictions to aid
in man’s emancipation from the superstition and
ignorance from which he has so long suffered. I
know but too well what it is to go against the
long-cherished and time-honored prejudices and
superstitions. It is no pleasant task to go against
the current, but there is a sense of duty that
balances all unpleasantness, even hissing and hoot
ing, and all, that is more potent than all persecu
tions, that brings a peace of mind, content, and
happiness that none can feel but the mentally free.
(Applause.) But to the subject. The Rev. Mr.
Turner denied the objections brought against the
Bible, saying that objections were not arguments ;
but I would respectfully remind him, that denials
�MRS. E. L. IiOSE ON THE BIBLE.
/
are no arguments, and it would have been better to
confute the arguments that were brought against
the Bible, than to do nothing but constantly deny
them. (Applause.)
To judge of the inspiration of the Bible we
must examine the Bible itself, and as its contents
will appear consistent or inconsistent, so we must
pronounce it based upon truth or error, for truth is
always consistent with itself, and with every other
truth, while error is always inconsistent. Now,
when we examine the Bible hi its commencement,
we find its account of creation is perfectly incon
sistent with, and contrary to, the sciences of ge
ology, astronomy, physiology, and all well-ascer
tained facts based upon science and truth; and
therefore we are justified in saying that whosoever
wrote or inspired that part of the book must have
been utterly ignorant of all these sciences; and as
we proceed, we find so many inconsistencies, vices,
and cruelties, that it is impossible to ascribe them
to a wise or kind and benevolent power or being.
(Hissing, stamping of feet, and whistling in the
gallery, and cries of “ Go on, go on.”) My friends,
there was once a time when I had a voice strong
enough to speak against all opposition, and be
heard, but that time is past. My constitution has
been somewhat broken, and mainly broken in the
great conflict against error. I had hoped that
whatever our opponents might think of my opin
ions, they would behave like gentlemen, though
believers and defenders of the Bible. (Cries of
■x‘ Hear, hear.”) [A lady said—“ If you have a
�8
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
heart to speak, speak on.”] (Great applause.) I
thank my sister for saying so. I have a heart to
speak, and I will speak. (Tremendous applause.)
My friends, you who do not know how long and
how ardently I have wished for such a movement,
can have no idea how I rejoice in this Convention,
even hissing and all. (Applause.) The time was,
some twenty-five years ago, when I stood alone on
a platform—(Voice, “Where?”)—for precisely the
same noble cause, to defend the rights of humanity
against the assumptions, superstitions, and errors
of the Bible, without knowing that there was
another human being in the wide world who
thought as I did, and there and then I bore testi
mony against the same errors that I do now.
(Applause and hissing.)
[The Rev. Mr. Turner expressed his hopes that
Mrs. Rose would not be interrupted.]
As we proceed in our investigation of the Bible
we find it inculcates war, slavery, incest, rapine,
murder, and all the vices and crimes that blind
selfishness and corruption could suggest; many
have been enumerated here to-day, but it is utterly
impossible to enumerate all. That book has been
a two-edged sword to men; it has united them in
nothing but persecution; to woman it has been
like a millstone tied to her neck to keep her down;
it has subjected her to the entire control and arbi
trary will of man. It has libelled human nature,
and libelled the very God of whom it speaks—it
represents him as having created man in utter
ignorance of consequences, as having created one-
�AIRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
9
sex, ancl pronounced it all to be very good, but
foiuid out that “it was not good for man to be
alone,” therefore he created woman—not for the
same aims and objects of life that he created man
—Oh! no; but because he found, contrary to his
expectation, that it was not well for him to be
alone. So, after he had finished his work, and
rested, he had to go to work again and make
woman. This might be sublime if it were not
ridiculous. And yet, do you know, my sisters, that
most of the subjugation of woman, the tyranny
and insult heaped upon her, sprung directly or in
directly from that absurd and false assumption. It
is an insult to the suposed Creator to say he
created one-half of the race for the mere purpose
of subjectmg it to the other, as well as a libel on
the nature and powers of woman, to say that there
is no other aim nor destiny in her existence except
to be a mere plaything or a drudge to man, as the
circumstances may require. The writers of all
such parts of the Bible, where it libels her nature
and powers, and therefore restricts her rights more
than man’s, were alike devoid of a knowledge of
her nature and destiny, as of wisdom, justice, and
humanity.
Yes, in reading that book understandingly, and
judging it by its own contents, it tells us in lan
guage not to be misunderstood, that instead of
being an emanation from some exalted wisdom and
goodness, it is simply the work of different minds,
existing in different ages, possessing different de
grees of knowledge and principle; and in accord
�10
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
ance with their state of progress, their knowledge,
and feelings, so did they write—they could do no
better. I have charity and forbearance for the
writers of the Bible. Had they had loftier concep
tions, juster ideas, kinder feelings, and a more
accurate knowledge of Nature in general, and
human nature in particular, they would have writ
ten quite a different Bible. As it is, it seems to
me to be a concoction of incongruities, absurdities,
and falsehoods almost impossible to conceive. It
is true we find some excellent sentiments in it,
such as “ love thy neighbor as thyself,” “ do unto
others as you would others should do unto you,”
and some others equally good; and though they
are not original with the Bible, they are still beau
tiful sentiments; but as arbitrary commands they
never can be carried out, for man is a being that
requires a reason and a motive for his actions.
Give him the reason and motive to love his neigh
bor as himself, in the knowledge of human nature
and the relation he sustains to his fellow-man;
convince him that he can find happiness only in
proportion as he endeavors to promote the happi
ness of others—not only of those immediately con
nected with him, but of the race, for the race is
but the great family of man, of which every indi
vidual is a member; and depend upon it, there will
be no necessity for arbitrary commands with prom
ised bribes and artificial rewards for the observ
ance, and threats of penalties and artificial punish
ments for the non-observance of the great moral
law Nature has implanted in man for his rule of
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
11
action, but which ignorance and error, called re
ligion, has stifled by making mere belief of more
consequence than works. A blind faith in things
unseen and unknown is upheld as the greatest
virtue in man.
The idea that “ he that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” has
caused more mischief to man than all the rest of
the Bible could ever have benefited him, for it has
produced all the persecution and ill-will on account
of belief; and it is evident to my mind that the
writer of this passage was utterly ignorant of the
nature and formation of belief, or he would have
known that there can be no merit in belief, nor de
merit in disbelief, for it is not in our power to
believe or disbelieve by a mere effort of the will.
In childhood, belief is given to us the same as our
food; we can make a child believe that what we
call black is white; and if we tell it that it is of
the highest importance, that its happiness here and
hereafter depends upon its being called white in
stead of black, and any one who dares to call it by
any other name is a bad man, an enemy to the
power who wished it to be called white, and an
enemy to man, whose safety here and hereafter
depends upon its being called white, that child, if
grown up, and possessed of an ardent, sincere, and
conscientious temperament, would lay down his
life, or sacrifice the lives of others, in support of
black being white; and yet it would be black for
all that. Thus we can make a child believe error
to be truth, and it may die or sacrifice the lives of
�12
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
others in maintenance of it, ancl yet the error is
not truth, but error.
[Here Mrs. Rose was interrupted by hissing,
hooting, and stamping. Some gentleman asked if
such disturbances were the kind of arguments by
which they expected to sustain the Bible? He
hoped not. Mr. Barker said, “ As we cannot do
the Bible justice without their assistance, they, the
disturbers, are willing to assist us.” At this point,
some one having gained access to the gas-meter,
turned off the gas, and for some minutes a con
tinual hissing, shrieking, stamping, drumming of
canes, and whistling was kept up by the rioters,
mainly occupying the gallery, the body of the
church having been occupied almost entirely during
the Convention by peaceable and well-disposed
auditors, who during the enactment of this scene
mostly sat in silence. The utter confusion made it
impossible to hear any voice that might have ap
pealed to any sense of decency and propriety per
haps yet existing in the minds of the rioters. The
lights being restored, Mrs. Rose proceeded with her
remarks, and said :]—
When the lights were extinguished, it reminded
me of one of the true things we find in the Bible,
that some there are “who love darkness better
than light.” (Laughter and applause.) Just before
that demonstration I endeavored to impress upon
your minds how easily a child may be made to
believe a falsehood and die hr support of it, and
therefore there can be no merit in a belief. We
find in the various sects in Christendom, among the
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
13
Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in fact, throughout
the entire world, that children are made to believe
m the creed in which they are brought up. The
children of the sect called the Thugs are made
to believe in their creed, their Bible—for they,
too, have a Bible, and priests to interpret it,
and Bibles are always written so obscure as to
require priestly interpreters—which tells them they
are governed by a goddess ; they seem to favor the
rights of woman. (Applause.) Their means of
salvation is to strangle every one they come in con
tact with who does not believe as they do; and the
more Infidels and heretics they strangle the surer
their reward in heaven, and the most pious and
conscientious among them try to bring the most
human sacrifices; and as humanity is not quite
dead even among them, so they have quite a re
fined way to dispatch their victims: they have a
silken cord made into a lasso, and when they come
in contact with an unbeliever, they throw it adroit
ly over his head, and by a quick pull strangle him
without the shedding of blood, and almost without
a struggle. So strongly is humanity engrafted in
man, that in spite of all the errors and supersti
tions called religion, it has not entirely been de
stroyed. (Applause.)
Referring to some loafer in the gallery, with his
boots hanging over the railing, Mrs. Rose said:
—I do not know but exhibiting the boots over the
railing may be a part of the defence of the Bible,
but whether it is so or not, we live in an enlight
ened age, in the free United States of America,
�14
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
where every one may do as he pleases, so long as
he does not interfere with the rights of others,
even to exhibit his boots or discourse in favor of
the Bible. (Applause and hissing.)
Thus we see that children acquire their belief as
they acquire any other habit. In after life, when
we are more capable of reasoning, comparing, and
reflecting, belief depends on the amount of evi
dence. If the evidence is strong enough to con
vince the mind,an assent is elicited; if the evidence
is not strong enough to convince the mind, we can
not believe; and the amount of evidence sufficient
to convince one mind may not be enough to con
vince another; but whether the evidence is con
vincing or not, there can be no particle of merit in
belief, or demerit in disbelief. No one within the
reach of my voice can persuade himself that he
hears me not, nor any one out of it that he hears
me, any more than he can believe that two and
two make five, after he has been made to know that
they make four. Yet in spite of this truth in con
nection with the formation of belief, all religions
have been based on the false supposition that we
can believe as we please, or as the priest wishes
us to, and therefore we were promised rewards for
believing, and punishment for disbelieving, the
fashionable superstitions called religion.
Christianity is based on this error, my friends. I
say it not in anger, but in sadness of heart, that
all cruelties, persecutions, and uncharitableness,
from the time of the Inquisition to the present
hissing, have been in consequence of that irrational
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
15
ancl pernicious sentence, “ He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned.” (Hissing.) That is perfectly consistent
with your belief. But convinced as I am of the
truth of the formation of human character, and of
the inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods of the
Bible, in teaching a doctrine contrary to truth and
to Nature, I must come to the conclusion, that no
very good, wise, exalted power or being could have
been the author of it.
Now a few words as to its influence. As the
Bible is based on error, what can its influence be
but pernicious ? For as truth is always beneficial,
so is error always injurious. If we examine the
history of Christianity, we will find that every
step of its progress has been made in blood, and
every atrocity committed has found authority in
the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia and his
despotic coadjutor of Austria subjugated poor,
bleeding Hungary, they brought authority from
the Bible. They told them that all power was of
God—kings, priests, and emperors reign by the
grace of God. “ Oppose not those in authority;
submit to the powers that be, for they are of God,”
has been the motto of every tyrant and every
usurper; and when the burden has become too
heavy to bear, the yoke too severe, and man could
bear the oppression no longer, and tried to cast it
off, he has ever been met with the cry of Babel to
God’s authority, which must be enforced with the
point of the bayonet. The Pope has oppressed
and all but destroyed poor Italy with the authority
�16
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
of the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia held his
iron heel on the neck of my own poor, prostrate
native land, Poland, he brought the same authority.
When with the iron rod, that terrible thing called
a sceptre, said to have been given from heaven, the
usurper sways the liberties and lives of millions, he
brings good authority from the Bible. (Loud hiss
ing.) Do you hiss the Bible, or Russia? (Ap
plause.) My friends, a most terrible outrage has
been perpetrated on poor humanity; there never
has been a heart broken, a tear drawn from the
eye, a drop of blood from the human heart, nor a
sigli of agony from the expiring victim, but the
perpetrators of these horrid inhumanities have
found authorities for it in the Bible. It is a sad
reflection on man, that he could be so enslaved by
the authority of a book. No one knows its origin,
in itself the most unintelligible, unreasonable, and
inconsistent that could ever have been concocted
by the mind of man. (Disturbance.)
It is to be regretted that disorder takes the place
of order; but this confusion of acts proceeds from
the confusion of mind, in consequence of the con
fusion of ideas taught by the Bible; here is its
source and its influence. The disorder of this
book has filled man’s mind with disorder, and when
the mind is a chaos, how can his actions be order ?
What do we claim in this Protestant republic ?
Why, only what it professes to guarantee to every
one, namely, freedom of speech; and look at the
conduct of the believers and defenders of the
Bible ; but their disorder and riot is the best argu
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
17
ment they can bring in support of it. Martin
Luther once received the same argument from the
Church of Rome. (Hisses.) Do you hiss Luther,
or the Pope ? (Applause.) Luther protested agamst
the Church of Rome and her Bible; he called her
a harlot, a falsehood, a libel upon human nature,
religion, and God; he claimed the right of con
science and of private judgment; we, too, claim it
here. Since his time, Protestantism has gone on
constantly protesting; we, too, protest against the
right to shackle the mind and prevent private
judgment and freedom of speech; our protest here
is in consequence of the protest of Luther; do you
dislike it ? Throw your minds back to that time
and hiss him to your hearts’ content. (Applause
and hissing, and drumming of feet and canes.)
According to the Bible in the hands of the Pope,
there is no freedom of opinion, no variety of sects,
no private judgment; his Bible tells him only to
subject human rights, reason, and judgment to his
despotic rule. (Applause and hisses.) Protestant
ism professes to give freedom of conscience and of
speech. Make your choice between the Church of
Rome and Protestantism, and abide by it. (Tre
mendous applause and hissing.) And yet the
Bible, as a history of the past—as reminiscences
of other times and people—would be interesting
enough, provided it was not palmed upon us as a
guide for our age and time; as well might you
force a man, at forty, to wear his swaddling clothes,
because they were once fit for him. The time I
trust will come—is already at hand—when the
�.18
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Bible, like any other book, will be subjected to the
test of reason, the light of knowledge and of truth,
and by that test either stand or fall, and every man
will adopt what appears to him good, and reject
what appears to him bad and inconsistent. But on
account of its having been forced on man as an in
fallible rule of life, it has been more instrumental
to keep him in ignorance, degradation, and vice, to
prevent his elevation and development, to produce
war, slavery, intemperance, and all the evils that
afflict the race, than any and all the books that
have ever been concocted by man. (Renewed his
sing, indecent expressions, and disturbance.) All
this does not disturb me nor ruffle my temper; it is
only an additional evidence to me of the pernicious
influence of the Bible. This is a practical illustra
tion of it. I have stood more than this in opposing
error, and I can stand this. It inspires me with no
other feeling than pity and commiseration for such
irrationality; but it is late, and I had better save
my voice; it may be wanted to be raised hi the
same holy cause at some other time. (Applause
and hissing in the gallery.) To you, my sisters, I
would but say, that the defenders of the Bible have
given you a most practical evidence of the rights
and liberties Christianity has conferred upon you.
The Bible has enslaved you, the churches have
been built upon your subjugated necks; do you
wish to be free ? Then you must trample the Bible,
the church, and the priests under your feet.
Mrs. Rose took her place amidst deafening ap
plause, hisses, and confusion.
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
19
SECOND ADDRESS.
It seems to me to be a pitiable condition in the
way of argument, when, instead of testing a sub
ject on its own intrinsic value, by its own worth
and its own truth, we have to resort to a compari
son of it with something else that may be quite as
bad. Now to this process our friends, the sup
porters of the Bible, have to resort. The first
speaker, Mr. Storrs, this afternoon, instead of try
ing to defend the origin, authority, and influence of
the Bible by its own intrinsic value and merits,
went to comparing it, or the God of the Bible, with
what he imagines to be the God of Nature; and
therefore, thus comparing the two, they exclaim,
“You will say that the God of the Bible is cruel
and inhuman,—the God of Nature is as cruel; you
will say the God of the Bible allowed many evils to
exist—,we retaliate and say the God of Nature did
the same.” But what does all that amount to ? To
any defence of the God of the Bible? Not in the
least. It simply amounts to this, that if there is
any such thing as a God behind Nature who sends
earthquakes, whirlwinds, tempests, and destruc
tion for the purpose of destroying men, he is quite
as inconsistent as the God of the Bible. It means
no more. But it did not prove it right, nor dis
�20
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prove any of tlie charges I made against the Bible
or the Bible God. (Cries of hear, hear, and ap
plause.) Mr. Turner, after he had thus compared
the charges laid to the God of the Bible with the
charges he laid against the God of Nature, went to
some of my remarks of last evening. He thought
it was a most outrageous thing to lay the evils that
woman suffers to the Bible. It may appear out
rageous to him, I do not doubt; it appears far more
outrageous to me to find that such is the case; and
as owing to the confusion last evening he may not
have been able to hear what I said on the subject,
I will repeat some of it.
I mentioned last evening the passage of Scrip
ture, that after God had created man, and pro
nounced all to be very good, he found out his mis
take, namely, “It was not good for man to be
alone,” and therefore he created woman. I said,
and do say, that it is a libel alike to the power they
call God, or Creator, as well as to the nature of wo
man, to say that he created one half of his children—
one-half of the whole human race—not for the same
great aim and end in life as man, but because it
was not well for man to be alone; so he was under
the painful necessity to create her as a pastime, a
plaything, or a drudge, as the circumstances and
the position may require. Upon this irrational
foundation has the subjugation of woman in Chris
tendom been based. (Applause.) But Mr. Turner
asked, is it such a hardship to obey a husband?
and brought Sarabias an example, that she, too,
obeyed her husband. I asked him whether, if
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
21
there was no hardship in obeying, he would
like to have been in the position of Sarah, and
obey his wife as she had to obey her husband ? His
answer was, that he was not a woman, and there
fore could not say how he would have felt hi her
position. Yes, so say I, that as he is not a woman, he
is utterly incapaple of judging for her. How incon
sistent then—what an assumption and a farce—for
him to stand here and talk about woman’s position
and woman’s sphere, when he is incapable of plac
ing himself for one moment in her position, to judge
how she would feel under certain circumstances!
The Bible writers were not women, hence they so
cruelly libelled her nature; and as they were men
as utterly ignorant of her nature and feelings as he
is, how could they know what was her proper
sphere ? and how does Mr. Turner know that the
sphere the Bible prescribes to woman is the right
and proper sphere for her, when he cannot give the
simplest answer to the simplest question, how he
would feel were he a woman ? (Applause.) Con
sistency is a jewel which I fear can not be found in
his possession. (Applause.)
How can she ever be in her proper position and
her proper sphere when man prescribes both for
her ? How can she ever be understood when man
defines and interprets for her ? How can she ever
be rightly governed when man enacts the laws to
govern the being whose nature he can not under
stand, whose feelings he can not realize, whose mo
tives he can not appreciate ? How can justice be
done to her when he most ignorantly judges and con
�22
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
demns her? Never! No! woman must speak for
herself, she must help to enact the laws by which
she shall be governed, she must plead her cause,
she must judge for woman. (Pointing to Mr. T.,
Mrs. Rose said, with much feeling and vehemence :)
Yonder sits a man who bears testimony that man
is incapable of judging for woman. (Great ap
plause.) But we are told Christianity has done a
great deal for woman, “for the Bible commands the
husband to love his wife.” Indeed! Husbands
before me, can you love your wives by an arbitrary
command ? [A Voice—Yes, hi some cases.] Wives,
can you love your husbands because somebody,
somewhere, commanded you to do it? No. [A
Voice—As true as eternity.] ■ (Laughter.) If we
are not able to love by an arbitrary command, how
irrational then—.what a wonderful ignorance in the
writers of that command—I care not whether they
were from above or below, that gave it! Husbands,
love your wives from a painful sense of duty, be
cause the Bible commands you to do so. (Laugh
ter.) Painful, indeed, must such a duty be, both to
the giver and receiver. (Applause.) What a pros
titution of the very term love, by affixing a com
mand to it! But suppose it could be done, but
some husbands will not do it,—at any rate we find
not all husbands do it—then would the commander
force him to love his wife ? For if it is true that
husbands can love their wives by an arbitrary com
mand, then they ought to be made to obey. When
any of our laws are violated, the person is held to
account for it, unless a law is so bad and incon
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
23
sistent that no one can or ought to obey it; then
we call that law or lawgiver to account to abolish it.
Let the supporters of the Bible command force
husbands to do their duty, or abolish all such ir
rational laws, or at any rate, whatever the laws are
—good, bad, or indifferent—let them be alike for
both, or not at all. I wish we had fair laws, and
we would be much better, wiser, and happier. We
have far too much legislation here, and I am sure
we require no Bible legislation in addition. (Ap
plause.)
Mr. Turner spoke about the happy condition wo
man was hi. Yes, we have a very gratifying pic
ture before us—to my mind more gratifying than
any other in Nature—to see an assembly of human
beings met with a desire to inquire into the nature
of a book forced upon mankind as a truth; and the
condition of my sisters before me, if compared, as
Mr. Turner compares the God of the Bible, with
something worse, I doubt not is very flattering and
happy; but if we compare her present position
with what she ought, what she might, and would
be, had she her full rights, as a human being, to
education and position, then we find a difference
almost too great to realize it, but of which Mr.
Turner, not being a woman, can know nothing
whatever. (Laughter.) But it is asked, what does
woman want ? Our friend there (pointing to Mr.
Turner) insinuated that we wanted to become ipen.
Do you, my sisters, wish to become men? [A
Voice—“No.”] (Laughter.) In the general sense
of the term, as applying to human beings, we are
�24
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
men. (Hear, hear.) As applying to sex, it requires
no answer, and I will give it none. (Applause.)
But whether man or woman, are we not entitled to
the rights of humanity because we are your mothers
instead of your fathers? We claim our rights
irrespective of sex. We claim them, not only in
accordance with the laws of humanity, but also in
accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
Are we not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness ? (Hear, hear.) And what is life
without liberty ? (Applause.) Who of you would
desire to preserve it an hour without it ? and what
is liberty without equality of rights ? A mockery.
And what can be our pursuit of happiness when
man has prescribed our sphere of thought and
action within the narrowest possible limits—when
the needle and the wash-tub are nearly the only
avocations he has assigned her for her independence,
except getting married.
(Hear, hear, and ap
plause.)
Tell me we complain, and that we ought to be
thankful to Christianity for our condition! Yes,
we owe to Christianity our degraded, enslaved
position, and let all be thankful for it who can. I
ask for woman what you ask for man—the same
rights, privileges, and opportunities to educate and
develop our beings physically, mentally, and moral
ly, to the fullest extent of her being; throw open to
her all the avenues of emolument of honor, and
greatness, and she will find her true sphere, for
who can find it for her ? “Why do I ask for it ?”
Because it is our right, and because the withholding
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
25
of our rights has produced incalcuable evil and suf
fering. I suffer, not only individually, but as belong
ing to niy sex—as belonging to the race—for man
suffers as grievously by it as woman does. We ask
to give woman her inalienable rights, and to enable
her to become a real and true woman, and not a
man ; but if by the term, man, is meant the capacity
to think and reason more, reflect deeper, judge
wiser, and act better, then the sooner all of us are
men, Mr. Turner included, the better. (Applause.)
We ask for knowledge, for knowledge is power.
After mother Eve partook of and gave her husband
of the tree of knowledge, the gods even became
afraid of them, so it must be worth something, and
it is worth to woman just as much as to man. The
great misfortune was, that poor mother Eve did not
eat enough of the tree of knowledge, for we have
been hungry after it ever since. She did not know
that
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or touch not the Pierian spring.”
(Applause.) The slave ought to be in utter ignor
ance ; the moment you give him any knowledge he
will cast off his slavery. We know now too much
to be satisfied with our condition; we want more,
we want all that can be given; for as knowledge is
power, it promotes independence, and we want to
be independent, for dependence is degrading, for
woman ought to be as independent of man as he is
of her. The dependence ought to be mutual and
reciprocal—not as master and slave — joined by
unjust and mercenary ties, but the dependence on
�26
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
each other’s kindness and services ; affection ought
to be the only bond between man and woman.
(Applause.)
And would she be any less woman if capable of
insuring, if necessary, her own independence?
Some wiseacres may tell you so. They will tell
you that if she has her rights she will cease to be
a woman, forsake her children, and turn recreant
to her nature. Common sense will tell you that
only then will she be a woman, capable, if needs
be, to take care of herself, her children, aye, and
her husband too. And why should she not. If it
gives you pleasure, and, I doubt not, elevates you
and fills your minds with unspeakable gratification
when you strive for and succeed in promoting the
happiness of those you love, it would be as gratifying
to her; the same generous emotions would fill the
mind of woman, were she able, if necessity called
for it, to show her affection to her husband, not
only in letting him maintain her, but when she had
to maintain him, by her knowledge and well-directed
industry; and there would be just as little degrada
tion in the one case as in the other. (Applause.)
Mr. Turner proclaims himself a friend to woman’s
rights. I don’t doubt, according to his understand
ing of human rights, and according to his knowl
edge of the nature of woman, he goes for her rights;
but as he derives his knowledge from the Bible,
ought we to wonder that it falls so deplorably
short? Not in the least. I should wonder if, with
his belief in the Bible, he went for woman’s perfect
equality with man, or for human rights, without
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
27
distinction of sex, country or color. Oh! but he told
us that in comparison to other countries and ages,
woman is treated very kindly! The Mohammedan
has been instanced; and we were told that woman
was found there holding the plow. Dreadful! I
can point you to Christian countries where the hus
band smokes his pipe while the wife plows the
land.
[Mr. Turner said, in Mohammedan countries the
woman has to draw the plow, not hold it.]
Well, I can point you to Christian countries for
the same. Go to Christian Germany, and you will
find many a wife plow the ground; and where they
have no horses she has to do it without, and reap
the harvest, and carry it home on her broken back,
while her husband sits and smokes his pipe. But
where he is not too lazy to work, I don’t see any
great hardship that the wife should help him, even
at the plow, if she can do it, only he ought to be
with her if he can. I should prefer to have my
husband with me. (Laughter.) But if a husband
is not able to do his work, or attend to his business,
Oh! what delight it would give a true woman,
how it would rouse her generous feelings, and fill
her with tender emotions, were she able to do the
work for him, or to attend to their busmess, and
take the corroding care and anxiety about the busi
ness going to wreck and rum off his mind, and by
her own exertion provide the necessaries and com
forts for him she loved! Yes, loved, not by arbitrary
command, but by the force of the law of attraction
and affinity. (Great applause.) Love her husband!
�28
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
I don’t think that the wife has any right or any
business to love her husband. The Bible does not
command the wife to love her husband at all; this
command was only given to the husband to love his
wife; the wife has only to obey, that is all. Well,
though we cannot be made to love by force, it is
quite clear we may be made to obey by force; any
slave can tell you that, and so can a wife, according
to the Bible—Sarah for instance. (Laughter.
The Bible husbands Mr. Turner spoke of framed
the laws for woman; hence she is so well protected.
Blackstone tells us—and he must have taken his
ideas of right from the Bible—that the husband
and the wife are one, and that one is the husband.
(Laughter.) That is according to the common law
of England, and common enough it is, mercy
knows ; but from these common laws we have our
laws regulating marriage; and yet it must be right,
for it is according to the Bible; the husband and
wife become one, and that one is the husband, and,
therefore, whatever the wife possesses becomes the
husband’s, for they are one, says the Bible and
Blackstone, except when the wife violates a law of
the land, then they become two again, for instead
of hanging the husband, they hang the wife.
(Laughter.) But Mr. Turner will tell us that even
that is better than something worse. (Laughter.) Is
it not so? (Laughter.) Well, I suppose it is. (Ap
plause.) That in more barbarous ages and countries
woman was treated more barbarously; and who lias
a desire to deuy it ? Not I. But what does it prove ?
Anything ? Oh! yes, it proves that man is always a
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
29
child before he is grown to be a man; not only is that
true with the individual man, but with the race; that
the race was not born civilized any more than indi
vidual man is ever born in the full maturity of
strength and mind, and that in more barbarous
ages we acted more barbarously than in more civil
ized ages (applause), which proves the truth of my
position, that man always acts according to the
knowledge and civilization he possesses. Last
evening we had a full illustration of it (laughter
and applause) ; for it is an unmistakable fact, that
just according as man is civilized does he treat wo
man. (Applause.)
And would you know the
amount of civilization in a country, look at the
position woman occupies, and you will find that in
proportion as she has her rights equal with man, so
is the nation civilized, and in proportion as they are
denied her, so are they yet in a state of barbarity,
no matter by what name they may exist. The
position of woman is a living index of the state of
civilization; they go hand in hand. And as man
becomes more civilized, through the cultivation of
the art and sciences, and has his taste more refined,
his sentiments more elevated, is more capable to
appreciate the beautiful, better to understand the
nature and laws that govern man, the relation he
sustains to his fellow-man, human rights and happi
ness, the aim and end of human existence, so does
he act more rational and more consistent, and wo
man, of course, occupies a more rational and consist
ent position in the scale of society.
But what have we to thank for it ? Christianity
�30
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
or the Bible’? Then let us see how much Christi
anity has done to promote civilization, how much it
has done for the arts and sciences. Go to the Bible,
and you will find it opposed to all the arts, sciences,
happiness, and life itself. Worldly wisdom, knowl
edge, and happiness are called, in Bible language,
“ the enemies of man.” “ Life is only a vale of
tears,” only a gloomy passage to stumble through,
fight with the devil, die, and go up to sing halle
lujah, or down to roast, for the gratification of
those in heaven. What need, then, for arts and
sciences’? They would not be required there.
(Cries of hear, hear.) That is the whole Bible esti
mate of human life, and hence Christianity has ever
opposed every art and science, as the light of knowl
edge and progress forced it upon society. (Cries of
hear, hear.) These facts are too well known to
require any illustration to confirm the truth of
the statement. Astronomy, geology, physiology,
chemistry, the art of printing, education, even, all
has been opposed by the priests, and they found
their authority in the Bible to warn the people
against innovations, against worldly wisdom, to
attach them to this life, and lead them away from
heaven, as emanations from the devil. (Cries of
hear, hear, and applause.) Reason is held up by the
Bible as An enemy to man, a false guide, that will
lead him to perdition; human virtues are called
“filthy ragsfaith, only faith in things unseen and
unknown will save him. Yet we have to thank the
Bible and Christianity for the little civilization,
rights, and happiness we enjoy, when every step
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
31
we have taken, every inch of ground we have
gained, was hi direct opposition to it. My very
standing here is in opposition to it. (Applause.)
But I will leave this subject, though my heart and
head are full with it, and go to some other evi
dence that the Bible must be by divine inspiration;
and, as a proof we are told in the Bible that after
God created the world and had pronounced it to be
good, he found out he had made a mistake, for not
only was it not good, but he found it so bad that it
repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart, and he swore
he would destroy it again.
“ And God saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu
ally,” and, consequently, he brought the flood to
destroy all flesh; but as if afraid lest he might not
succeed hi making the animal portion over again, he
adopted the very prudent plan of preserving a pair
of each kind as stock in hand to commence the
world anew with. I think the construction of the
ark, with its numberless compartments to accomo
date the vast number and variety of animals that
have existed, from the polar bear, the giraffe, the
elephant, through all gradations, down to the musquito, the flea, and the fly, must be a proof of
divine inspiration! As for how they were all
brought together, I can see no other way than the
angel Gabriel must have called them together with
his trumpet. (Laughter.) However, after the
flood was all over, and Father Noah built an altar,
�32
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
and brought a nice fat little lamb as a sacrifice,
then the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and it
repented him that he destroyed the world, and
he said in his heart that he would not curse the
ground any more for man’s sake, “ for the imagina
tion of his heart is evil from his youth.” Thus the
same reason that made him repent that he had
made man, and induced him to destroy the world,
namely, that the “ imagination of the thoughts of
the heart of man being evil continually,” induced
him, after the flood, to promise Noah that he would
never destroy it again, namely, “for the imagination
of his heart is evil from his youth.” But we must
remember that the sweet savor of the freshlyburned offerings of the fowls, and the beasts, and
the creeping things was so irresistible to God’s
nostrils, that it put him in such a good humor, that
in spite of the wickedness of man’s heart, he resolved
not to destroy him agam.
(Laughter and ap
plause.)
Let no one say that we ridicule the Bible, for it
is utterly impossible to ridicule a thing so sublimely
ridiculous as the whole account of the flood in the
Bible. Just see the position the Bible places its
God in. He created man, pronounced him good,
found him bad, repented for having created him,
resolved to destroy, not only him, but the whole
animal and vegetable creation, then repented again
of having done it, and resolved never to do it again.
Would any of you like to be placed hi so ridiculous
a position? (Cries of no, and laughter.) Yet this
God, the same book tells us, possesses all wisdom,
�MRS. E. L. BOSE ON THE BIBLE.
33
all knowledge, and all goodness. It is almost an in
sult to common sense to talk about believing in such
stuff and nonsense. (Applause.) The head and
the heart, or reason and affection, have always been
libelled by the Bible; for the writers and priestly
interpreters knew but too well if reason and affec
tion were consulted, the Bible would be left alone,
for in it there is food neither for head nor heart;
it has nearly famished and destroyed both. The
wars, the slavery, the intolerance, the vices and
crimes it inculcated, are so many plague-spots on
human society, and will never be entirely effaced
as long as that book is consulted as authority and
guide for man. But Mr. Turner said, it was not at
all inconsistent that the Lord commanded war, for
have not we, as a nation, had war? Yes, we had
war, and all the more shame for it; but does our
having war make it right ? But suppose it were
right for one nation to make war upon another
nation, can that be an excuse for God to make war
upon his children ? For are not all men his chil
dren? We are told he created all men ; if so, all
must be his children. Oh! yes ; but then the impar
tial Father had chosen a few as his favorites, and
commanded them to extirpate all other nations—the
Midianites, Canaanites, and all the other ites that
existed around them, and take their lands as their
possessions. Were these ites, then, not his children ? Had not the Lord created the Midianites,
Canaanites, and all the rest of the ites the Bible tells
us of? And yet the Bible says, “Thus saith the
Lord; go and slay and extirpate, and spare not
�34
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
man or woman, old or young,” except such as they
could make useful to gratify their brutal passions
and appetites. This is said to be the word of God!
Well, I care not whose word it is; most em
phatically do I protest against it as an outrage on
humanity, for my whole heart, mind, and soul
revolts against such barbarity. (Applause.) [A
Voice — Amen.]
[Another Voice — When the
Egyptian power became corrupt, and oppressed the
Israelites, did not God command them to refuse
obedience ?] Oh! yes ; he told his chosen children
to refuse obedience to Pharaoh, another child of his.
And what did this kind and impartial Father (for
God, we are told, is impartial) do to induce his dis
obedient child Pharaoh to set his favorites free ?
Why, he sent Moses to tell him to let them go, and
at the same time he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so
that he might not send them out, so that he might
have the pleasure to punish him, and send him the
plagues for not doing what he would not allow
him to do. And yet Pharaoh, I believe, was made
of flesh, bone, and muscles, the same as all other
men, and therefore the Lord must have made him,
for we are told that he created all flesh. Yes, the
Father hardened the heart of one child to enslave
some of his other children, and they again in turn,
to massacre and extirpate some others again.
(Laughter.) Is this not a beautiful characteristic
of the God of the Bible ? He created all men as
his children, but could not manage them, so he
chose a few as his favorites—I am sure no one can
tell for what particular merits—and set them at
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
85
loggerheads, to fight and destroy each other. I
should be sorry if an earthly parent could not man
age his children better than that. Again, the Bible
says God created man and woman, and placed them
m the garden of Eden, in the midst of which he
placed a tree with tempting fruit on it, of which he
forbade the man to eat; and he also created a ser
pent, which he permitted to go and tempt the
woman to partake of this very forbidden fruit.
Well, did he not know when he placed them there,
and placed the tree there, and sent the serpent to
tempt them—for the Bible tells us that nothing is
done without his permission—that poor mother Eve
would partake of it, and as a faithful wife, finding
the fruit was so good, that she would induce her
husband to partake of it too ? If he knew all this
—and he must have known, for the Bible tells us
that God is omniscient—and he did not wish them
to eat of the tree of knowledge, then why did he
place it there? or placing it there, why did he
allow the serpent to tempt them?
Or why
create them so weak, and with such a taste for fruit,
or rather for knowledge, so as to be unable to with
stand the temptation? If the Bible could only
speak, it might give some satisfactory answer to all
these important questions, for I am sure no one
else can. (Applause.) [A Voice—Woman is so
weak now as to be tempted.]
Mrs. Rose—Very likely; I am sorry he made her
so weak, and created a tempter to tempt her.
(Laughter.) Yes, she is weak enough, or she
would not be so deluded by the Bible and its inter
�36
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prefers the priests. (Applause.) Well, then, poor
Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit, as they
could do no otherwise under the circumstances.
What then ? Did their heavenly Father correct
them for their first disobedience, the same as any
earthly parent would, and induce them to do better
after that ? Oh! no! curses and heavy penalties
were pronounced against them, and not only against
them for life, but on the whole unborn race to come
after them. (Cries of hear, hear.) This is Bible
justice and Bible mercy. [A Voice from the gallery
—Hear, blasphemy.] Blasphemy! Oh! yes, blas
phemy has ever been the cry against progress, and
opposition to superstition. This was the cry of the
old Pope against the ancient Luther, and this is the
cry of the modern Popes against the modern
Luthers. (Applause.) But it has lost its power
now, and has become harmless. (Applause.) Yes,
only the God of the Bible, mercy and justice, could
have pronounced an eternal curse on an unborn race
for the first fault committed by the first two chil
dren. Is there an imagination black enough to
conceive of a more inhuman and atrocious spirit
than that *? If there were any meaning in the term
blasphemy, then it would be the greatest blasphemy
to ascribe such revolting deeds to any power or
being deserving the name of the most ordinary
goodness. (Applause.) But what was the nature
of the curse ? Why, Adam should have to plow
the ground and cultivate the earth. Well, I don’t
know how it might have been had they remained
in their blissful paradisaic ignorance, but I doubt
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
37
very much if corn, potatoes, and all the other good
things, would have grown without cultivation.
(Laughter.) But perhaps the two inhabitants of
Eden might not have required such gross, material
food. But it always puzzled me to know, that if
Adam and Eve had not sinned by tasting that nnfortunate apple, what would have become of the
rest of creation ? We are told that every thing was
created for man; God gave man dominion over
every thing; but if they had not tasted of knowl
edge they could not have had dominion over any
thing, nor made use of any thing; they were too
ignorant even to use a fig-leaf, (laughter), so that
the whole object of creation would have been lost,
were it not for mother Eve’s desire for knowledge.
(Applause.) For knowledge is power, of which
even God seemed to be afraid; for as soon as he
found that they had tasted of the tree of knowledge,
he drove them out of the garden, lest they should
partake of the tree of life, too, “ and become like
one of us”—us, who?
Why, Gods! So there must have been more
than one of them. And so jealous was he even of
the little knowledge they possessed—knowing that
after man once tastes of knowledge he will not be
satisfied till he has more—so he placed angels with
fiery swords at all the gates to fight poor man off
from the tree of knowledge and of life. Thus poor
man has ever since had to fight, step by step, and
inch by inch, for the little knowledge, happiness,
and life he enjoyed; for everywhere he encountered
the sworn enemy of knowledge and of life—the God
�38
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Of the Bible—with his fiery swords. (Applause.)
Some of those heavenly guardians must have been
here last evening, hence I had to fight pretty hard
for my right to utter my convictions; for by free
dom of speech only do we arrive at knowledge and
truth. (Applause.) Yet Mr. Turner told us that
we have to thank the Bible for the rights and
privileges we enjoy. Indeed! Had your fathers,
before they cast off the British yoke, consulted the
Bible on the subject, they would never have revolted
at all. The Bible does not allow revolt. Revolu
tionists have always been considered as unbelievers
and Infidels by Bible interpreters, whose interest it
is to keep man in subjection and ignorance; for the
Bible injunction is, “Oppose not those in author
ity,” “ Submit to the powers that be, for they are of
God.” Had the people of Boston, when they con
verted their harbor into a tea-pot, because the tax
ation imposed on them was too heavy, gone to the
Bible for advice, they would have paid on and
groaned on to all eternity, for the Bible would have
told them, “ Give unto Caesar the things that be
long to Caesar.”
What a fallacy, then, to talk about the freedom
that comes from the Bible! The little knowledge
and freedom we possess we have in opposition to
and in spite of the Bible, and particularly we, my
sisters.
The Bible and the priests have done
enough to keep us down; it is high time to rise
above both of them. My very appearing here to
raise my voice in behalf of freedom and humanity
is contrary to the Bible; but the desire Nature has
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
39
implanted in me for knowledge and freedom is mor e
powerful than the injunctions of a superstitious
book. Humanity is older than the Bible, and
human rights are as old as humanity. (Applause.)
And therefore I claim for woman equal rights with
man. I claim them, not as a grant, or charity, bu
as our birthright. (Applause.) Humanity has
not come into existence with chains and shackles
but free as the breath of heaven (applause), to
develop human nature as it ought to be—free to
think, feel, and act, always keeping in mind not to
interfere with the same rights in others. Human
rights in elude the rights of all, not only man, bu
woman, not only white, but black; wherever there
is a being called human, his rights are as full and
expansive as his existence, and ought to be without
limits or distinction of sex, country, or color. (Ap
plause.) And only ignorance, superstition, and
tyranny—both the basis and influence of the Bible
—deprive him of it. Mr. Turner, in alluding to my
remark of belief, said I found fault with the Bible
because it said, “ He that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” and
that I said the writer of that sentiment was utterly
ignorant of the nature of man and the formation of
belief. Yes, I did; and I illustrated my position
by showing how easy it is to make a child believe
that what we call black is white, or any other false
hood as truth, and that he could die in support of
it; and black would not be white, nor falsehood truth.
“ But” said Mr. Turner, “ you could not make a
child believe that black was white, if you had told
�40
MRS, E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
him first that it was black?’ No, certainly not,
because you have already made him believe it is
black, which just proves my position. The child
being ignorant of it, will believe whatever you call it
first, and if you teach it a falsehood before it had a
chance to know any thing about the truth, it will
call that falsehood truth. Thus Mohammedans do
not teach their children Christianity before Moham
medanism, nor do Christians teach their children
Mohammedanism, or any other ism, before Christi
anity, so as to give them a chance to judge for
themselves. Oh! no! each of them teaches his
children to believe in his ism only, as truth, and in
every other other ism only, as truth, and in every
other ism as false; and if they never have a chance
to examine, compare notes, and judge for them
selves, each may die in support of the truth of his
ism. And yet one of these isms must be false, or
both may be false, and both sincerely defended as
truth. And therefore there can be no merit in a
belief, nor demerit in disbelief; and he who wrote
that irrational sentence, “He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned,” was utterly ignorant of the formation of
the human mind. Mr. Turner agreed with me that
in after-life, when we are able to compare and
judge, belief depends on evidence. “ But,” said he,
“evidence of Christianity was given to every one,
for Christ told his disciples to go and preach the
gospel to every creature.” But suppose Moses, Mo
hammed, Christ, and the nine thousand nine hun
dred and ninety-nine other Christs that have existed,
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
41
each had said the same to his disciples, Go and preach
my gospel, and he that believeth in it shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned, and yet
the evidence can at best be in favor only of one, and
most probably of none. What, then, must they
damn each other all around?
(Laughter.) As
rational beings they ought to say, If the evidence
brought to bear on any subject is strong enough to
convince the mind, it elicits an assent or belief; if it
is not strong enough to convince the mind, it elicits
no assent, and we cannot believe; and the evidence
that is strong enough to convince one mind may not
be strong enough to convince another, and every
one has a right to judge for himself whether an
evidence is strong enough or not, and no one has
a right to judge for him. (Cries of hear, hear.)
How irrational and unjust it is to punish for
belief at all, and still more so to punish eternally for
a fault of a moment! For what is life to eternity ?
Who of you, for the disobedience of a child, who
would not believe in something you told him, even
if you thought he could believe, but would not,
would have the inhumanity to punish it, not only
for life, but (had you the power) for all eternity ?
No, not the lowest and the meanest in the scale of
humanity. (Applause.) Yet this is the Bible ac
count of the justice and mercy of its God. (Cries
of hear, hear.)
In Revelation we have some glorious accounts
of the happiness the saints will enjoy in singing
hymns of praise while the smoke of those in hell
will rise up to their nostrils. (A little disturbance in
�42
MBS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
the gallery and—A Voice—That is correct.) Mak
ing some little mistake in pronouncing a word, Mrs.
Rose, in correcting herself, said—I hope you will
have charity for any little mistake I may make in
the language, remembering that I am speaking in a
foreign language. (Hissing, and a Voice called out,
“I hope Mrs. Rose will assume the name of Man,
for she will be an honor to our sex.”)
My friends, no one can fathom the depths of the
pernicious effect, the incalculable mischief of this
false, this horrid doctrine, that man can be happy
while he sees another man in misery. Nature has
indelibly written it on the heart of man, in language
not to be misunderstood, “that no man can be
happy while he sees another man in misery.”
(Applause.) This is a truism that changes not
with age, climate, or condition; the idea that man
could be happy in heaven while he would be con
scious of the torments and miseries his fellow-man
was suffering, is a libel on human nature, for man
cannot be happy while he sees another in misery.
The little comparative happiness we enjoy is owing
to the fact that we can, hi a great measure, shut
out the miseries of others by shutting our doors
and sitting down by our own comfortable firesides,
and for the time being forget every thing connected
with others. But place man in a condition here or
hereafter where he shall not be able to close his
doors and shut misery out—where he shall have
constant consciousness of every thing that exists,
and see his brother man—Ah! “ the flesh of his
flesh, and the bone of his bone”—suffering unspeak
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
43
able torments, and he, with his human feelings and
sympathies, unable to help him, and think you he
could enjoy happiness ? Would he feel like sing
ing hymns of praise ? No! it is as false as it is
obnoxious to every better feeling—(applause)—and
the writer of this sentence, I care not who he was,
from above or below, was utterly ignorant of the
nature of man, and the principles of humanity. (A
V oice—“ True.”)
Upon such a principle is based the system of iso
lation, and all the evils that man has inflicted on
man, and he will have to come back from that false
idea—for if happiness is ever to be enjoyed by man,
he must endeavor to form a state of society where
misery, sin, and suffering shall be done away,
where all shall enjoy happiness or none will; for it
is the nature of man, that as long as misery comes
within his sight or his hearing so long must he feel
it. (Applause.) Could you listen to the recital of
the sufferings in Rome and in Hungary—the in
justice, and cruelties, and tyranny perpetrated on
your fellow-man, in far distant lands, without feel
ing every nerve stirred within you with indigna
tion against the perpetrators, and a strong desire to
assist the poor sufferers ? And,for the time being
could you be happy ? No! for the sympathy that
unites man to man would not permit it. (Ap
plause.) It did not last long, it is true, for in our
isolated state we can shut all these things out,
because they are painful to us, and this very fact
proves my assertion. But if we had the miseries
and sufferings of others ever before our eyes, life
�44
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
would become a burden, and we would not wish to
live. And yet the Bible doctrine is, that the spirit
of man—the refined, the purified, the divine part of
his nature—can enjoy happiness, while those near
est and dearest to him in life, perhaps his friend,
brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife, or
child, will suffer endless torments, and he know it
and unable to help them, and yet enjoy happiness.
Every principle of humanity proclaims it a false
hood. In such a position he would be a thousand
times more miserable than he is here, unless his
nature should be changed, and then he would no
longer be man. (Great applause.)
There is that horrible parable of Lazarus and
Dives.
I don’t know any particular fault of
Dives, for we are told he had not committed any
great sin; it is true, he was rich, but all riches, we
are told, come from God. (Laughter.) Nor are we
told of any great virtues in Lazarus, except that he
was poor and sick, and I am sure he would not
have been so, if he could have helped it. (Laugh
ter.) Yet Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom—what
a bosom Abraham must have, to accommodate all the
poor and sick!—while poor Dives was in torments
and agony, and when he asked for one drop of
water to cool his parched tongue, it was refused
him. Nay, he begged to send a message to his
brother to induce him to be a better man, so as to
avoid a similar fate; but this, too, was refused to
him. Oh! what glad tidings the Bible doctrine is
to man ! (Applause.)
To a sensitive human
nature such a heaven would be worse than any hell
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
45
that has ever been described—(applause)-and as long
as man is deluded into the belief of such a heaven,
will we be prevented from forming a real heaven
here, for it has all but stifled every kindly feeling
and sensation within us.
It has cramped and
crippled us, mentally and morally; it has prevented
us from inquiring into the laws best adapted for the
well-training and well-governing of man. The
eternal law of kindness should be the only law,
sympathy the only bond, the great seal of humanity
the only compact, between man and man. No
other gospel is required to bind man to his brother.
This simple law is deduced directly from the in
herent laws of human nature, which some call God.
The Friends call it the light within; I call it the
principle, or law of humanity, which, if man were
not perverted by false creeds and doctrines, would
teach every man that natural golden rule, Do unto
others as you would they should do unto you.
(Applause.) This is my faith! Is that not broad
enough ? Give me a broader, and I will accept it.
(Applause.) Humanity! Oh! that I had words to
express my feelings at the contemplation of it! I
feel a gushing of love within me beyond the power
of utterance, not only for mankind, but for all that
are capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Human
ity’s laws only can ever make man a high and noble
being—higher, more elevated, and nobler far than we
have ever yet conceived the gods to be. (Great
applause.)
The President moved a vote of thanks to Mrs.
Rose for her address, when she said,
I thank you for the attention you have paid to
�46
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
my views and feelings, and without a vote of
thanks I deem myself richly paid for my coining
here, and my efforts in the cause of humanity. In
the pleasure I received in being able to speak the
thoughts that have pressed upon me for utterance,
I am richly paid in being able to do what I deem
my highest duty to do. (Applause.)
The President repeated the motion, and a vote of
thanks was given to Mrs. Rose.
�THE INVESTIGATOR.
THE OLDEST OF THE REFORM JOURNALS.
The “Investigator” is devoted to Universal Mental
Liberty. Independent in all its discussions, discarding
superstitious theories of what never can be known, it
devotes its columns to things of this world alone, and
leaves the next, if there be one, to those who have entered
its unknown shores. Believing it is the duty of mortals
to work for the interests of f/n's tcorZd, it confines itself to
things of this life entirely.
PRICE, $3.00 PER YEAR.
THOMAS PAINE’S WRITINGS.
For sale at the Office of the Boston Investigator, Paine Memorial
Building, Appleton Street, Boston, Mass.
Sent free of postage on receipt of price.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, Secre
tary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the
American Revolution. Three volumes, consisting
of his Political, Theological, and Miscella
neous Writings. To which is added a Sketch of
his Life.
Price, $7.00
THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE,
with a Brief Sketch of the Author’s Life. A new
edition with additions. 2 vols.
Price, $5.00
THEOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS
OF THOMAS PAINE. The most complete edition
ever published, — containing his Age of Reason,
and all his writings on Theology, with many Mis
cellaneous and Political Pieces, and his Letters to
Washington.
Price, $2.50
COMMON SENSE, a Revolutionary Pamphlet, ad
dressed to the inhabitants of America, 1776, by
Thomas Paine.
Price, paper, .20
RIGHTS OF MAN: being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s
Attack on the French Revolution, By Thomas
Paine.
Price, $1.00
�STANDARD LIBERAL WORKS.
THE LETTERS TO EUGENIA; or, A Preservative against
Religious Prejudice. By Baron D’Holbacii, author of
the “System of Nature,” etc. Translated from the
French by Anthony C. Middleton, M.D. Price,
$1.00; postage, 16 cts.
GOOD SENSE. By Baron D’Holbach. A new edition
of this truly valuable book has just been issued, and is
now ready for purchasers. Friends who want “Good
Sense’’ (and who does not?) can have a supply sent
by mail and by forwarding their orders. Priced post
paid, $1.00.
A LEGACY TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE DISCUSSION;
being a Review of the Principles, Historical Facts, and
Personages of the Books known as the Old and New
Testaments; with remarks on the Morality of Nature.
By Benjamin Offen, formerly Lecturer of the Society
of Moral Philanthropists, at Tammany Hall, New York.
Price, 75 cts. ; postage, 16 cts.
LETTERS TO THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BOSTON.
Proving that the Roman Catholic Religion is opposed
to a Republican form of Government. By an Indepen
dent Irishman. Price, 15 cts.
INTEMPERATE DRINKING ; An Expose of the Crimes of
this Vice, and the means by which it may be obviated.
By Thomas Herttell, of New York City. Published
by order of the New York Society for the Promotion of
Internal Improvement, 1819. Republished by order
of the will of Mrs. Barbara Amelia Herttell, 1867.
Price, 15 cts.
ANTIQUITY AND DURATION OF THE WORLD. By the
learned Dr. G. Toulmin. Price, 25 cts.
EQUALITY ; or, a History of Lithconia. Price, 15 cts.
ELEGANT EXTRACTS from the Holy Bible. Price, 10 cts.
�
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
Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 46, [2] p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Running title: Mrs E.L. Rose on the Bible. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.P Mendum
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N558
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Bible-Criticism
NSS