1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a5c2c1d763358e75bf4f2708e78b425.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZCCgTftgN7wplkxkphxfzW3UhKhwhP6NrKiVbN5quVD9vhZXIPkzQicvPcZ4QYjnaAG8KN6Z-IBMNRAjIT2JoyI%7ENds2IEY19wirs089oO62U0FgzGpKWMArbLRYUqLPfjSP6AgIx83YoHFts%7E30jt%7E7gKZhjF4Z2GCTfb53WOzp%7EhUTaefaT%7EG8jy8VIWCzNlt5t-8mbs-vqeDUGr7n51bAO2cYBgt-QXV8tbDlRHXHcoiusxZm8yK48LX%7EFP%7EgCRo37M9KBQJlqLrfgeckbWG2drE33PSNGuMpe6d3CjmziKxcmzSpLmflIhuKTK3pkO66m%7E4Ydbf3ZjByfYG%7EEA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bbff829c2311147a5e0de1add0fdfd4e
PDF Text
Text
HAS MAN A SOUL?
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
[This lecture was originally delivered to the Sheffield
Secular Society, and was printed from the reporter’s notes
without efficient correction from myself, I, at that time,
suffering under a severe attack of acute rheumatism. The
lecture has since been often re-delivered; and three editions
having been exhausted, I have again corrected and revised
the present edition. It is not intended as an answer to the
question which forms the title, but it is intended to provoke
thought upon this important subject.]
What do you mean by soul? What is the soul ? Is it I ?
Is it the body? Is it apart from the body ? Is it an attri
bute of the body ? Has it a separate and distinct existence
from the body ? What is the soul ? If I ask one of those
who claim to be considered orthodox men, they will tell me
that the soul is a spirit—that the soul lives after the body
is dead. They will tell me that the soul is immortal, and
that the body is mortal; that the soul has nothing what
ever in common with the body ; that it has an existence
entirely independent of the body. They will tell me that
after the body has decayed—after the body has become
re-absorbed in the universe, of which it is but a part, that
the soul still exists. Is there any proof of the existence ol
the same individual soul apart from all material conditions ?
I have endeavoured to examine this subject, and, up to the
present time, I have not found one iota of proof in support
of the positions thus put forward. I have no idea of any
existence except that of which I am part. I am. Of my
own existence I am certain. I think. I am. But what is
it that thinks ? Is it my soul ? Is it “me,” and yet distinct
�'fl.'
2
HAS MAN A* SOUL?
from me? Iam but a mode of existence. I am only part
of the great universe. The elements of which I am com
posed are indissolubly connected with that great existence
which is around me and within me, and which I help to
make up. If men tell me I am a compound, and not a com
pound—a mixture,and not a mixture—a joining together, and
not a joining together—of two entirely different existences,
which they call “ matter” and “ spirit,” I am compelled
to doubt those men. The ability to think is but an attri
bute of a certain modification of existence. Intelligence is
a word by which we express the sum of certain abilities,
always attending a certain mode of existence. I find intelligence
manifested so far as organisation is developed. I never
find intelligence without animal organisation. I find intelli
gence manifested in degree, only so far as I find a higher or
lower type of organisation—that is, I find man's intellectual
faculties limited by his organisation But the orthodox tell.
me that my soul has an immaterial existence, independent
of all organisation—independent of all climatic conditions—
independent of all education. Is that so ? When does the
soul come into man ? When does it go out of man ? If the
soul is immortal, why is it that standing here, in the prime
of health and strength, if part of that roof should fall frac
turing my skull, and pressing upon my brain—how is it,
if my soul is not subject to material conditions, that it
then ceases to act ? Is the plaster roof more powerful than
my immortal soul ? Or is it that intelligence is the neces
sary result of a certain condition of existence, and that the
moment you destroy that condition—the moment you des
troy the organisation—the result ceases to be realisable ?
By the course of reasoning you adopt (says the orthodoi
objector) you reduce man to the same level as the beasts*
And why not ? I stand on the river’s bank, I see there a
man full grown, possessed of the physical figure of man, but
an idiot—an idiot from his birth upward—one who could
not, even if he would, think and act as other men. A little
child is there playing on the bank, and the idiot, having
large destructive propensities, has thrust the child into the
water, and he stands there jabbering and gesticulating while
the little child is drowning in the river. And see how halfvacantly, half-triumphantly, he points to the helpless child.
A. Newfoundland dog has come to the bank; it jumps in and
brings the little child out and saves its life. Yet theologians
veil me that the idiot has a soul, and that the Newfoundland
�HAS MAN A SOUL ?
3
dog has not one. I cannot understand these nice distinc
tions, which make the man so superior to the beast in mat
ters in which he is positively inferior. Man has doubtless
an organisation on the whole far superior intellectually to
that of any other animal, but he is only superior by virtue
of his superior organisation and its consequent susceptibility
for development or education. Many brutes can see more
clearly than man; but they possess not the capability for
the manufacture of telescopes to aid their vision. Many
brutes can run more swiftly, but they manifest no capacity
for the subjugation of a steam power which far outstrips
their speed. But man himself, a well-organised, thoughtful,
intelligent, well-educated man, by a fall from a horse, by a tile
from a roof, may receive an injury to his nervous encephalic
apparatus, and may be, even while a man in shape, as low as
the brute in the imbecility of his reason, and inferior to the
brute in physical strength. There is as much difference
between different races of men, there is, in fact, more
difference between a pure Caucasian and a Sahara negro,
than between the Sahara negro and the infant chimpanzee.
When did the soul come into the body ? Has it been
waiting from all eternity to occupy each body the moment
of birth ? Is this the theory that is put forward to man—■
that there are many millions of •souls still waiting, perhaps,
in mid air, ’twixt heaven and earth, to occupy the still un
born babes ? Is that the theory ? Or do you allege that
God specially creates souls for each little child at the moment
it is born or conceived ? Which is the theory put forward ?
Ts it that the soul being immortal—being destined to exist
for ever, has existed from all eternity ? If not, how do you
know that the soul is to exist for ever, when it only comes into
existence with the child ? May not that which has recently
begun to be, soon cease to be ? In what manner does the
soul come into the child ? Is it a baby’s soul, and does it
grow with the child ? or, does it possess its full power the
moment the child is born ? When does it come into the
child ? Does it come in the moment the child begins to
form, or is it the moment the child is born into the world ?
Whence is it this soul comes? Dr. Cooper, quoting
Lawrence on the “ Functions of the Brain,” says :—“ Sir
Everard Home, with the assistance of Mr. Bauer and his
microscope, has shown us a man eight days old from the
time of conception, about as broad and a little longer than a
pin’s head. He satisfied himself that the brain of this
�HAS MAN A SOUL?
homunculus was discernible. Could the immaterial mind
have been connected with it at this time ? Or was the tene
ment too small even for so etherial a lodger ? Even at the
full period of uterogestation, it is still difficult to trace any
vestiges of mind; and the believers in its separate existence
have left us quite in the dark on the precise time when they
suppose this union of soul and body to take place.” Many
of those who tell me that man has a soul, and that it is im
mortal—that man has a soul, and that the beast has not one
—forget or ignore that at a very early stage in the first
month of the formation of the brain, of the state of
the brain, corresponds to that of the avertebrated
animal, or animal that is without vertebra. If the brain
had stopped in its first month’s course of formation,
would the child have had a soul? If it would have
had a soul, then have avertebrated animals souls also ? if
you tell me it would not have had a soul, then I ask—How
do you know it ? and I ask you what ground you have for
assuming that the soul did not begin to form with the for
mation of the brain ? I ask you whether it was pre-existing,
or at what stage it came? In the second month this brain
corresponds then to the brain of an osseous fish. Supposing
the development of the child had been then stopped, had it
a soul at that time ? If so, have fishes souls ? Again, if
you tell me that the child has not a soul, then, I ask, why
not ? How do you know it had not? What ground have
you for alleging that the soul did not exist in the child ?
We go on still further, and in the third month we find that
brain corresponds then to that of a turtle, and in the fourth
to that of a bird; and in the fifth month, to an order termed
rodentia ; sixth, to that of the ruminantia; seventh, to that
of" the digitigrada ; eighth, to that of the quadrumana ; and
not till the ninth month does the brain of the child attain a
full human character. I, of course, here mean to allege no
more than Dr. Eletcher, who says, in his “ Rudiments of
Physiology,” quoted by the author of the “Vestiges of
Creation”—“ This is only an approximation to the truth;
since neither is the brain of all osseous fishes, of all turtles,
of’ all birds, nor of all the species of any of the above order
of mammals, by any means precisely the same; nor does the
brain of the human foetus at any time precisely resemble,
perhaps, that of any individual whatever among the lower
animals. Nevertheless it may be said to represent, at each
of the above-named periods, the aggregate, as it were, of the
�/TL^q"'
q-
(J-
< '■■
HAS MAN A SOUL?
5
brains of each of the tribes stated.” Now, should a birth
have taken place at any of the eight stages, would the child
thus prematurely born have had a soul ? That is the ques
tion 1 propose to you. You who affirm that man has a
soul, it lies upon you, here, without charging me with
blasphemy—without charging me With ’ignorance—without
charging me with presumption—it lies upon you who affirm,
to state the grounds for your belief. At which stage, if at
any, did the soul come into the child ? At the moment of
the birth ? Why when a child is born into the world it can
scarcely see—it cannot speak—it cannot think—but after a
short time I jingle my keys, and it begins to give faint
smiles ; and after a few weeks, it is pleased with the jingling
of my keys. Is it the soul which is learning to appreciate
the sound of the jingling keys, and pleased with them? Is
it the immaterial and immortal soul amused and pleased
with my bundle of keys ? Where is the soul ? How is it
that the soul cannot speak the moment the child is born—
cannot even think ? How is it, that if I keep that child
without telling it any thing of its soul until it become
fourteen or fifteen years of age, it would then speak and
think as I had taught it to speak and think ; and if I kept
it without the knowledge of a soul, it would have no know
ledge of a soul at that age ? How is that ? Rajah Brooke,
at a missionary meeting at Liverpool, told his hearers there,
that the Dyaks, a people u ith whom he was connected, had
no knowledge of a God, of a soul, or of any future state.
How is it that the Dvaks have got this soul and yet live
knowing nothing whatever about it ? And the Dyaks are
by no means the only people who live and die knowing
nothing of any immortal and immaterial soul. Again you
tell me that this soul is immortal. Do you mean that it
has eternally existed—has never been created ? If so, you
deny a God who is the creator of all things. If the soul
began at some time to exist, where is the evidence that it
will not also at some time cease to exist ? If it came into
existence with the body’s birth, why not cease with the
body’s death ? You say the soul is immaterial, do you mean
that it is susceptible to material conditions, or do you not?
If susceptible to material conditions, what do you mean by its
being immortal and immaterial ? If not susceptible to mate
rial conditions, then explain to me how it is that under good
conditions it prospers and advances, and under bad con
ditions deteriorates and recedes. If a child is born in some
�> I'Miy
6
i
•
•,.> •»••' - -,- ^'---- -—- - .'
rwStW^BTmi . i :
■<
HAS MAN A SOUL*
of the back streets of our city, and lives on bad food in a
wretched cellar, it grows up a weak and puny pale-faced
child. If allowed to crawl into existence on the edge of a
gutter, imperfectly educated, in fact mis-educated, it steals—
steals, perhaps, to live—and it becomes an outcast from
society. Is this immortal soul affected by the bodily con
ditions ? or is the soul originally naturally depraved ? And
if the soul is primarily naturally depraved, why is God so
unjust as to give a naturally depraved soul to anybody ? If
not, how is it that this immortal soul, when the body is kept
without food, permits the man without money to buy food,
to steal to satisfy his hunger ? You allege that the soul
moves my body. You assert that matter is inert, unintelli
gent ; that it is my active, intelligent soul that moves and
impels my inert and non-intelligent body. Is my immortal
soul hindered and controlled by the state of my body’s
general health? Does my soul feel hungry and compel my
body to steal ? Some theologians declare that my soul is
immaterial—that there is no means by which I can take any
cognisance whatever of it. What does that mean, except
that they know nothing whatever about it ? Sir W.
Hamilton admits that we are entirely ignorant as to the
connection between soul and body. Yet many who in so
many words admit that they have no knowledge, but only
faith in the soul’s existence, are most presumptuous in
affirming it, and in denouncing those who dispute their
affirmation. It is an easy method to hide ignorance, by
denouncing your opponent as an ignorant blasphemer.
Joseph Priestley in his book upon matterand spirit, quotes
from Hallet’s discourses, as follows:—“ I see a man move
and hear him speak for some years. Prom his speech I cer
tainly infer that he thinks as I do. I then see that man is
a being, who thinks and acts. After some time the man
fells down in my sight, grows cold and stiff, and speaks and
acts no more. Is it not then natural to conclude that he
thinks no more; as the only reason I had to believe that he
did think was his motion and his speech ? And now that
his motion and speech have ceased, I have lost the only way
of proving that he had the power of thought. Upon this
sudden death, one visible thing, the one man, has greatly
changed. Whence could I infer also, the same being con
sisted of two parts, and that the inward part continues to
live and think, and flies away from the body? When the
outward part ceases to live and move, it looks as if the whole
•*'**
�HAS MAN A SOUL?
7
man was gone, and that he, with all his powers, ceases at
the same time. His motion and thought both die together,
as far as I can diseern. The powers of thought, of speech
and motion, equally depend upon the body, and run the
same fate in case of declining old age. When a man dies
through old age, I perceive his powers of speech, motion,
and thought decay and die together, and by the same degrees.
That moment he ceases to move and 'breathe, he appears to
cease to think, too. When I am left to my reason, it
seems to me that my power of thought depends as much
upon the body as my sight and hearing. I could not think
in infancy; my power of thought, of sight, and of feeling
are equally liable to be obstructed by the body. A blow on
the head has deprived a man of thought, who could yet see,
and feel, and move ; so naturally the power of thinking
seems as much to belong to the body as any power of man
whatsoever. Naturally there appears no more reason to
suppose that a man can think out of the body than he can
hear sounds and feel cold out of the body.”
What do those mean who say that man is made up of two
parts—matter and mind ? I know of only one existence.
I find that existence manifested variously, each mode having
certain variations of attributes by which it is cognised. One
of these attributes, or a collection of certain attributes, I
find in, or with, certain modifications of that existence, that
is, in or with animal life—this attribute, or these attributes,
we call intelligence. In the same way that I find upon the
blade of a knife brightness, consequent upon a certain state
of the metal, so do I find in man, in the beast, different
degrees, not of brightness, but of intelligence, according to
their different states of organisation. I am told that the
mind and the body are separate from one another. Are the
brightness and steel of the knife separate ? Is not bright
ness the quality attaching to a certain modification of exis
tence—steel? Is not intelligence a quality attaching to a
certain modification of existence—man? The word bright
ness has no meaning, except relating to some bright thing.
The word intelligence, no meaning, except as relating to
some intelligent thing. I take some water and drop it upon
the steel, in due course the process of oxidation takes place
and the brightness is gone. I drop into man’s brain a bullet,
the process of destruction of life takes place, and his intelli
gence is gone. By changing the state of the steel we des
troy its brightness, and by disorganising the man destroy
�8
HAS MAN A SOUL?
his intelligence. Is mind an entity or a resul. ? ai existence
or a condition? Surely it is but the result of organic
activity a phenomenon of animal life.
Dr. Engledue
says:—“ In the same way as organism generally has the
power of manifesting, when the necessary stimuli are
applied, the phenomena which are designated life; so
one individual portion—brain, having peculiar and dis
tinct properties, manifests on the application of its appro
priate stimuli a peculiar and distinct species of action.
If the sum of all bodily function—life, be not an entity,
how can the product of the action of one portion of
the body—'brain, be an entity 1 Feeling and intelligence are
but fractional portions of life.” I ask those who are here to
prove that man has a soul, to do so apart from revelation.
If the soul is a part of ourselves, we require no supernatural
revelation to demonstrate its existence to us. D’Holbach
says : —“ The doctrine of spirituality, such as it now exists,
affords nothing but vague ideas ; it is rather a poisoner of
all ideas. Let me draw your attention to this:—The advo
cates of spirituality do not tell you anything, but in fact
prevent you from knowing anything.
They say that
spirit and matter have nothing in common, and that mortal
man cannot take cognisance of immortality. An ignorant
man may set himself up as an orator upon such a matter.
He says you have a soul—an immortal soul. Take care you
don’t lose your soul. When you ask him what is my soul,
he says he does not know—nobody knows—nobody can tell
you This is really that which they do. What is this doc
trine of spirituality ? What does it present to the mind ?
A substance unsubstantial that possesses nothing of which
our senses enable us to take cognisance.” Theologians urge
that each of us has a soul superior to all material conditions,
and yet a man who speaks cannot communicate by his speak
ing soul so freely with that man who is deaf and dumb; the
conditions cramp that which is said to be uncontrolled by
any conditions. If you cut out a man’s tongue, the soul no
longer speaks. If you put a gag in his mouth, and tie it
with a handkerchief, so that he cannot get it out, his soul
ceases to speak. The immaterial soul is conquered by a gag,
it cannot utter itself, the gag is in the way. The orthodox
say that the soul is made by Gfod ; and what do you know
about G-od ? Why just as much as we know about the soul.
And what do you know about the soul ? Nothing whatever.
How is it that if the soul is immaterial, having nothing in
�HAS MAN A SOUL ?
9
common with matter, that it only is manifest by material
means ? and how is it that it is encased and enclosed in my
material frame ? They affirm that my soul is a spirit—that
I received the same spirit from God. How is it that my
spirit is now by myself, and by my mortal body, denying its
own existence ? Is my mortal soul acting the hypocrite, or
is it ignorant of its own existence, and cannot help itself to
better knowledge ? And if it cannot help itself, why not,
if it is superior to the body ? and if you think it a hypocrite,
tell me why. What is meant by the declaration that man is
a compound of matter and spirit?—things which the ortho
dox assert have nothing in common with one another. Of
the existence of what you call matter you are certain, because
you and I, material beings, are here. Are you equally cer
tain of the existence of mind, as an existence independent
and separate from matter ? and if you are, tell me why.
Have you ever found it apart from matter ? If so, when and
where ? Have you found that the mind has a separate and
distinct existence ? if so, under what circumstances ? and tell
me—you who define matter as unintelligent, passive, inert,
and motionless—who talk of the vis inertice of matter—tell
me what you mean when you give these definitions to it?
You find the universe, and this small portion of it on which
we are, ceaselessly active. Why do you call it passive,
except it be that you want courage to search tor true know
ledge, as to the vast capabilities of existence, and, therefore,
invent such names as God and Soul to account for all
difficulties, and to hide your ignorance? What do you mean
by passive and inert matter ? You tell me of this world—
part of a system—that system part of another—that of
another—and point out to me the innumerable planets, the
countless millions of w'orlds, in the universe. You, who tell
me of the vast forces of the universe; what do you mean by
telling me that that is motionless ? What do you mean by yet
pointing to the unmeasurable universe and its incalculably
mighty forces, and affirming that they are incapable of every
perceptible effect? You, without one fact on which to base
your theory, strive to call into existence another existence
which must be more vast, and which you allege produces this
existence and gives its powers to it. Sir Isaac Newton
says“ We are to admit no more causes of things than are
sufficient to explain appearances.” What effect is there
which the forces of existence are incapable of producing?
Why do you come to the conclusion tnat the forces of the
�10
HAS MAN A SOUL?
universe are incapable of producing every effect of which I
take cognisance ? Why do you come to the conclusion that
intelligence is not an attribute—why ? What is there which
enables you to convert it into a separate and distinct exis
tence ? Is there anything ? Is it spirit ? What is spirit ?
That of which the mortal man can know nothing, you tell
me—that it is nothing which his senses can grasp—that is,
no man, but one who disregards his senses, can believe in it,
and that it is that which no man’s senses can take cognisance
of. If a man who uses his senses can never by their aid
take cognisance of spirit, then as it is through the senses
alone man knows that which is around him, you can know
nothing about spirit until you go out of your senses. When
I speak of the senses, I do not limit myself to what are
ordinarily termed man’s five senses—I include all man’s
sensitive faculties, and admit that I do not know the extent
of, and am not prepared to set a limit to, the sensitive capa
bilities of man. I have had personal experience in connec
tion with psycho-magnetic phenon ena of faculties in man
and woman not ordinarily recognist d, and am inclined to the
opinion that many men have been made converts to the
theories of spiritualism, because their previous education
had induced them to set certain arbitrary limits to the
domains of the natural. When they have been startled by
phenomena outside these conventional limitations, they at
once ascribed them to supernatural influences, rather than
reverse their previous rules of thinking.
Some urge that the soul is life. What is life ? Is it not
the word by which we express the aggregate normal func
tional activity of vegetable and animal organisms, necessa
rily differing, in degree, if not in kind, with each different
organisation ? To talk of immortal life and yet to admit the
decay and destruction of the organisation, is much the same
as to talk of a square circle. You link together two words
which contradict each other. The solution of the soul pro
blem is not so difficult as many imagine. The greatest diffi
culty is, that we have been trained to use certain words as
“ God,” “ matter,” “ mind,” “ spirit,” “ soul,” “ intelli
gence,” and we have been further trained to take these
words as representatives of realities, which, in fact, they do
not represent. We have to unlearn much of our school lore.
We have specially to carefully examine the meaning of each
word we use. The question lies in a small compass. Is there
one existence or more ? Qf one existence I am conscious,
�yj
HAS MAN A SOTO
11
because I am a mode of it. I know of no other existence.
*. know of no existence but that existence of which I am a
mode. I hold it to be capable of producing every effect. It
is for the man who alleges that there is another, to prove it.
I know of one existence. I do not endeavour to demonstrate
to you my existence, it needs no demonstration—I am. My
existence is undeniable. I am speaking to you. You are
conscious of my existence. You and I are not separate
entities, but modes of the same existence. We take cogni
sance of the existence which is around us and in us, and
which is the existence of which we are modes. Of the one
existence we are certain. It is for those who affirm that the
universe is “ matter,” and who affirm that there also exists
“ spirit,” to reinember that they admit the one existence I
seek to prove, and that the onus lies on them to demonstrate
a second existence—in fact, to prove there is the other exis
tence which they term spiritual. There cannot exist two
different substances or existences having the same attributes
or qualities. There cannot be two existences of the same
essence, having different attributes, because it is by the
attributes alone that we can distinguish the existences. We
can only judge of the substance by its modes. We may find
a variety of modes of the same substance, and we shall find
points of union which help to identify them, the one with
the other—the link which connects them with the great
whole. We can only judge of the existence of which we are
a part (in consequence of our peculiar organisation), under
the form of a continuous chain of causes and effects—each
effect a cause to the effect it precedes, each cause an effect
of the causative influence which heralded its advent. The
remote links of that line are concealed by the darkness of the
far-off past. Nay, more than this, the mightiest effort of
mind can never say—This is the first cause. Weakness and
ignorance have said it - but why ? To cloak their weakness,
to hide their ignorance. Knaves have said it—but why ? Tb
give scope to their cunning, and to enable them to say to the
credulous, “ Thus far shalt thou go and no farther.” The
termination is in the as yet unknowable future; and I ask
you, presumptuous men, who dare to tell me of God and
soul, of matter and creation—when possessed you the power
to sunder links of that great chain and write, “In the
beginning ?” I deny that by the mightiest effort of the
strongest intellect man can ever say of any period, at this
point substance began to be—before this existence was not.
�12
HAS MAN A
soul?
Has man a soul ? You who tell me he has a soul, a soul
independent of material conditions, I ask you how it is that
these immortal souls strive with one another to get mortal
benefits ? Has man a soul ? If man’s soul is not subject
to material conditions, why do I find knavish souls ?—Why
slavish souls ?—tyrannous souls ? Your doctrine that man
has a soul prevents him from rising. When you tell him
that his soul is not improvable by material conditions, you
prevent him from making himself better than he is. Man’s
intelligence is a consequence of his organisation. Organisa
tion is improvable, the intelligence becomes more powerful
as the organisation is fully developed, and the conditions
which surround man are made more pure. And the man
will become higher, truer, and better when he knows that
his intelligence is an attribute, like other attributes, capable
of development, susceptible of deterioration, he will strive
to effect the first and to guard against the latter.
Look at a number of people putting power into the hands
of one man, because he is a lord—surely they have no souls.
See the mass cringing to a wretched idol—surely these have
no souls. See men forming a pyramid of which the base is
a crushed and worn-out people, and the apex a church, a
throne, a priest, a king, and the frippery of a creed;—have
those men souls? Society should not be such a pyramid, it
should be one brotherly circle, in which men should be
linked together by a consciousness that they are only happy
so linked, conscious that when the chain is broken, then the
society and her peace is destroyed. What we teach is not
that man has a soul apart and independent of the body, but
that he has an ability, an intelligence, an attribute of his
body, capable of development, improvable, more useful,
according as he elevates himself and his fellows. Give up
blind adhesion to creeds and priests, strive to think ana
follow out in action the result of your thoughts. Each
mental struggle is an enlargement of your mind, an addition
to your brain power, an increase of your soul—the only soul
you have.
Printed by Austin & Co., 17, J jhnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Has man a soul?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: [4th ed.?]
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Pages 3-11 bound in the wrong order (have been corrected in the PDF). "This lecture was originally delivered to the Sheffield Secular Society, and was printed from the reporter's notes without efficient correction from myself ...The lecture has been often re-delivered; and three editions having been exhausted, I have again corrected and revised the present edition." Tentative date of publication from KVK. Includes biblical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861?}
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4949
N094
Subject
The topic of the resource
Soul
Rationalism
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 (Has man a soul?), 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
Soul