1 10 120 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/38563ac4d42bf1fe55cef04b927dfb9c.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=Tfl8RnX8F%7E4a5wcqwZht-ODUMC7S39sLRcxe0NxKezBN2ocjxQnx-x39nyavPzhsRIQnKAF%7EXpoQMAh%7EBeYDg50%7E8kMLfoc7HY1jIP53Ah-6W0IGgjp7AdiSOW9OeIPPcK47On30RNUJNrL%7EP7gGqN6oGHkoqhnXmoyVtxQLDDy6PckVl%7Efrx35UA%7EZexWjSukVPbL9uiNTdgBf35ELqZTcSVJQb2fym%7Em86uFhyqmBiIwjuYAN4pOq9voV9ku33gxcmB6st%7ECW9ic4SkbESoNO3PXiMqtkDjdMGr5zgdVwsSq9AFco76Fs6X1cT3qeNLOwIaZc7qas6JJ74z71IlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 34f97f0df00dbc7e16a6cf61bdf56dd5 PDF Text Text REASON v. RATIONALISM PREFACE TO THE SERIES We propose in this series of papers to consider and answer various objections to religion and the super­ natural which one hears expressed at the club, the “pub./’ the workshop, the debating society, and the street corner, and which underlie much of the writing in the secular press—objections that are neither subtle nor profound, but which have a certain surface plau­ sibility that i ecommends them. Many are gratuitous assertions, dictated, perhaps unwittingly, by a desire to escape the consequences which a conscientious faith entails ; others spring from mere ignorance, or mental confusion, or inability to follow abstract reasoning ; others, again, from misreading of history. Trivial as they commonly are, they need an explicit refutation, for they impress unthinking minds and by constant repetition acquire a sort of prescriptive claim to be accepted. The Bellman’s dictum—“What I tell you three times is true ”—suggests a style of argument very frequently met with in anti-religious propaganda. �No. -2,. WHAT IS THE GOOD OF GOD? “Earth’s crammed with heaven, And every common bush afire with God ; But only he who sees takes off his shoes.” E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh. “ Our thoughts come nearer to God’s reality than our speech does, and He is yet more real than we can think.”—St. Augustine, Ou the Trinity, vii 6. CONTENTS PAGE There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe ... 3 The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken inference . 3 Creation is an impossible concept........................................ 4 Chance may account for the Universe, thus making the notion of Design in Creation gratuitous ... 6 5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the order ascribed to Creation......................................................... ? 6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life.... 9 7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “Unknown Causes ” ? 10 8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing . . .11 9. Creation cannot at any rate be proved from Causality . 13 10. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear .... 14 11. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance . . 12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation . .' I7 13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation remains a hypothesis 14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a system now discredited 20 15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest course . 22 Appendix .... 1. 2. 3. 4. -24 �What is the Good of God ? 3 1. There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe. Science in these latter days has progressed wonderfully : the properties of nature have been thoroughly in­ vestigated : even invisible forces have been detected and controlled: but nowhere, on earth or in the skies, has man come across God. Therefore we are justified in denying what is in no way perceptible. Even the Apostle agrees with us, for he admits—“ No one hath seen God at any time” (i John iv 12). A puerile objection this, which supposes all know­ ledge to consist of sense-perception. A thing may be known directly or by inference. Robinson Crusoe knew that his solitude was broken by seeing, not a human being, but a human footprint, and the objector may examine his watch for a long time without de­ tecting its maker’s presence. Yet he knows that the maker exists. And, in like manner, we know of God’s existence from His handiwork. Design, or adaptation of means to end, implies a Designer. 2. The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken inference. God, ex hypothesi, in a unique conception. Therefore His existence cannot be inferred from common physical relations of effect and cause. Show me a real Creator at work on earth, and I shall be more ready to admit a heavenly one. Because matter may be arranged by man in different forms, it does not follow that it can be brought into existence. The analogy between the watch and its maker and the universe and its Creator is simply an application of the general law on which the argument is really based, viz., that every effect is due to a proportionate cause. If the various products of human activity point to adequate causes in the minds and manual skill that achieved them, so, we conclude, must the wonderful haimony and order of the visible universe. It is the expression of the Mind of God, and, as Kepler, the great astronomer, said : “ All science is the reading of God’s thought after Him.” The question of actual �4 What is the Good of God? creation in the strict sense does not enter into the argument here, which simply proves that, there being manifest purpose displayed throughout the Universe, such purpose must be due to an adequate Cause, sc. an intelligent Designer. 3. Creation is an impossible concept. (1) From nothing only nothing can come—“Ex nihilo nihil fit.” But creation supposes nothing to turn into something! We grant that self-creation is an impossible idea : the axiom quoted merely means that nothing can cause itself to exist, not that a thing existing in the Divine Mind cannot be given actual existence by the Divine Power. God does not take nothing as if it were a thing actually in being and give it another shape, &c. When finite creatures try to produce anything, they can only succeed in effecting certain changes and combinations in already existing matter. But an infinite Power can do infinitely more than we can ; it can produce existence where pre­ viously there was none. If it could merely change and not create, it would differ from our power in decree only, and not in kind. As things are, the divine power of creation is not only infinitely greater than ours, but so peculiar to God that it cannot be communicated to creatures. We do not profess to say how creation is effected: that is still a mystery, but it is much less mysterious than self-creation, or an effect without a cause, would be. (2) Spencer declares that the creation of matter “out of nothing” is incomprehensible,for sue)i a notion involves the production of a relation in thorn%ht between something (the Creator) and nothing (1 'he object-not-yet­ created); of a relation, therefore ;in which the one wemfor is non-existent; consequently , of an impossible relation. y aSnosticiS„i!ilgOOd>.SPeCimen °£ the mis«‘«ss of the agnostic philosopher, who prided himself on the ong>nahty and independence of his mentd processes' �What is the Good of God? 5 A child can see that the same “ impossibility ” arises whenever an idea is translated into fact. If Spencer’s reasoning were sound, Tennyson could not have written his poems. Before they were composed and written they did not exist. Therefore the poet in composing them produced a relation between himself and some­ thing non-existent ! The fact is, of course, that the materials of the poems existed z/z the mind- of the poet before they were actually composed, and, in the same way, the universe, before creation, existed in the mind of God. (3) Eternal evolution is at least as simple and rational a concept as creation out of nothing. Therefore, the latter hypothesis cannot be said to hold- the field. We postulate, then, eternal matter and force acting from eternity according to immutable laws. By the inter­ action of this matter and force the universe is gradually evolved, until at a certain point of evolution equilibrium is disturbed, the whole cosmos dissolves into chaos and the process starts afresh. So that instead of a continuous evolution, which, starting from eternity, must long ago have reached its term, we have a series of alternate cycles of construction and ruin. Thus the line of cause and effect is unbroken and unending, and the impos­ sible conception of a self-existing cause is done away with. This argument, excogitated by the Germans, Strauss and Buchner, is no sounder than Spencer’s. For this eternal matter-and-force either had in itself sufficient reason for its existence from eternity, or had not. If it existed of itself, then it is the First Cause, and a per­ sonal one, for intelligence, which undoubtedly exists in the world, cannot be accounted for by an unintelligent First Cause. If it did not exist of itself, and there was nothing to give it existence, it is an effect without a cause—a contradiction in terms. Again, this matter-and-force substance must originally have been either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If homogeneous, the existing diversity of species is un­ accounted for ; if heterogeneous, then there were �6 What is the Good of God? originally a multitude of self-existing things, whereas only one such thing can be conceived. Finally, from mere matter and force there cannot arise life, still less the rational soul of man. It will be noticed that these materialists who deride philosophy and plume themselves on scientific fact, yet build up their systems on pure metaphysical notions such as the Absolute and Relative, the nature of Causality, the idea of the Infinite. A little acquaintance with the Aristo­ telian philosophy which they sneer at would have saved them from many childish misconceptions, a thousand times explained in the past. 4. Chance may account for the Universe, thus making the notion of Design in Creation gratuitous. You are rather too hasty in postulating Design in the Universe. There may be another cause. What is there Chance cannot bring about ? Very often a man’s course of life is quite altered by chance. Great discovene the spread of disease, 'devastating fires are often due entirely to Chance. *J ' " ch’ance hi“nd 7‘her Si”ilar ar«umen‘s ‘he word hance is used incorrectly. Scientifically speaking ' ere is no such thing as chance, if the te™ ft °CC~ °f e«;CtS -hhoS ad loosely tl X( tmetlmeS the word is employed mechanics! i"gulsh what is due to causes merely iron what ’iXZ “fX With°Ut °Ur faow'edgel Everything hat iX u kn°™ intellig“‘ Purpose “-■7inggX 1 eo SNat:TiaaU3e £ animal instinct or Jut laws> the action ‘he Creator. Bu ”XelT V ’ “V”6 '"'“vention of dentally combiX maf o ”e,?hanicaI fo'ces acci- which simulates design as X y Pr°dUCe an effect host mould a iuttilg ’ 1 r ^'n Snd wind al’d human face. This result n 1° * 'C sembi™ce of a peaking relatively, not absoXlXXX? ‘X6' ty' To ascribe action �What is the Good of God? j to “ chance,” meaning the absence of an efficient cause, is to speak quite unscientifically, not to say foolishly; a reproach which soi-disant scientists frequently incur/ 5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the order ascribed to Creation. There are acknowledged “ freaks of Nature ”—chance products of natural forces which exactly reproduce the works of intelligence. Why should not the whole harmony of the Universe be the result of the blind working of the laws and properties oj matter, through endless ages ? Given time enough, and the wonderful facts of chemical affinity and repulsion, order and harmony might evolve gradually out of initial chaos. First premising that this hypothesis does not do away with the necessity of a First Cause, to which matter and its properties are due, we reply that the order of the Universe emphatically requires Intelligence to account for it. A strictly fortuitous concourse of atoms, even endowed with invariable properties, will not do. All the laws of mathematical probability are against it. Let us examine this a little more closely. Instead of taking' a quasi-infinite number of atoms, let us take seven little stones which, arranged in especial order, may represent the colours of the rainbow. How many other different positions are possible ? Let the little stones be designated as a, b, c, &c. The first two have only two possible positions :— ab, ba. The first three only 3 x 2—• abc, bac, cab. acb, bca, cba. 1 No one has pointed out more eloquently the universal reign of causation than the agnostic, Huxley. After describing the sea­ shore in a storm as a group of phenomena which the thoughtless would ascribe to “chance,” he savs :— “ The man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect order is manifested ; that there is not a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a rainbow glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary consequence of the ascertained laws of nature ; and that with a sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict, every one of those ‘ chance ’ events.” �What is the Good of God ? The first seven have 7x6x5x4x3x2=5040 possible positions. With twelve little stones the number would amount to 479,001,600; with thirteen, to more than six thousand millions ; with fifteen, to over a billion ; with twenty, to more than two trillions. The probability, therefore, in this latter case, against hitting on one special position is as two trillions to 1. Here we have only twenty little stones, yet the number of atoms in the whole world are innumerable. The earth alone contains more than 2,700 cubic miles. How many atoms would that make ? The sun is 333,000 times lai ger than the earth, Again, how many atoms ? Our solar system is only a little part of the Universe Celestial photography has already discovered a hundred million fixed stars. It is altogether beyond earthly arithmetic to calculate the odds against this definite arrangement of matter, which we call the Universe resulting from the interaction of the material atoms composing it.1 On the hypothesis, therefore, that the original masses of atoms were like an immense and chaotic sandstorm rnming along the illimitable inane,” without any law 01 purpose impressed on them from without, who with ny common sense could possibly imagine that they °U S0 arranSe tbemselves as to form the majestic and beautiful design of the Universe, so wonderful as1 a whole and in its smallest detail. It would bea less silly to assert that a child, if it hammered on the piano Liszt’s"" ft ’ ""g114 “1(lmately Produce, note by note Liszts Hungarian Rhapsody.” As a result tt,„ ’ come Sth^nS “ ‘o intelhgence. Even the free^K " with two°£ andlwo^pS 35?“ “ Ka die are 5 to r ; if for a million years a mill;™? nd'veKronig has reckoned fhaf attained the ag’ Tten X™ e bo,rn ^ly, each of whijm cast thirty dice twenty times it is nnf'S| a?^each minute of his life ever obtain ™ �What is the Good, of God ? 9 a watch implies a watchmaker, and a palace an architect, how can it be that the Universe does not imply a Supreme Intelligence ? ” We are all of us, atheists and agnostics included, constantly judging of causes from their effects, and ascribing to intelligence whatever shows marks of in­ telligence. A page of intelligible print is a certain in­ dication that a mind originated it. But the Book of Nature is read by many who deny Intellect to its Author! Nowhere is the fixed desire to escape from a Personal Cause more evident than this appeal to blind laws working through indefinite time. This conception is so little “scientific” that a smattering- of arithmetic is enough to dispose of it. 6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life. The j>roof of God's existence which is drawn from the necessity of an efficient cause to produce life is worth­ less ffior it has been maintained by modern scientists that life may originate from non-living matter. Herbert Spencer says : “ At a remote period in the past when the temperature of the surface of the earth was much higher than at present, and other physical con­ ditions were unlike those we know, inorganic matter through successive complications gave rise to organic matter.1 And Huxley asserts that if it were given him “ to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time ” he might “ expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”2 Weismann, the great biologist, declares that spontaneous generation, in spite of all vain efforts to demonstrate it, “ remains for me a logical necessity ” ; 3 and finally Virchow, speaking before the Science Congress at Munich in 1877, said: “ There is indeed no positive fact to prove spontaneous generation ever took place . . . nevertheless the acceptance of this theory is the only possible way of explaining the first living being.” These various dicta are good types of the abandon­ ment of scientific methods to which even eminent 1 Nineteenth Century, May, 1886. 2 Critiques and Addresses, p. 239. ' 3 £osrr)-s, p. 3^. �IO What is the Good of God ? scientists resort when they leave their special domain. Huxley, although owning that in the controversy between bio-genesists and abio-genesists the former were “ victorious all along the line,” 1 is content to state his opinions unsupported by a single fact. Spencer, with more solemn show of argument, states his personal impression. The Germans imply, honestly enough, that their determination not to admit the supernatural forces them to maintain spontaneous generation. Yet the whole negative force of scientific testimony is against them. All the resources of science have been employed to no purpose in the endeavour to produce life, and Virchow himself proclaims : “ Never has a living being, or even a living element—let us say, a living cell—been found of which it could be predicated that it was the first of its species.” 2 Finally, Professor B. Moore, the celebrated bio-chemist, states positively : “ The mode of production of living matter is character­ istic, and cannot be brought about by the actions solely of inorganic forms of energy.” 3 7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “ Un­ known Causes”? But why should I admit God ? He is not a fact of exfieiience, with which alone Science deals. His exist­ ence is merely inferred. And if I choose to “stick to �What is the Good of God ? 11 my last” and concern myself with the material Universe alone, saying of its origin—I know nothing: I ascribe it to unknown causes, to energies of matter which may well have existed under earlier and different conditions —who can complain of my attitude ? Speculation is not science. The objection to such an attitude is that it is a deliberate narrowing or blinding of the human intellect. It is like the proverbial conduct of the ostrich in presence of danger. Man’s mind is compelled by its constitution to search for truth and ultimate truth. To'refuse to draw logical inferences from ascertained facts, lest the knowledge thus obtained should be in­ convenient, should humble pride or rebuke sensuality, is a cowardly crippling of man’s highest faculty. The position, once more, is an illegitimate claim on the part of physical science to the whole sphere of knowledge. There are many truths which are not within the pur­ view of physical science. It is mock modesty to say we cannot go farther than she leads us. That were to limit all knowledge to the records of our senses. Our senses tell us the world exists ; our minds tell us with at least equal certainty that it had a cause. An un­ known cause, in one sense, because it cannot be fully comprehended ; but known at least as completely as the force of gravitation is known, through its effects. Finally, to appeal to material forces and energies, as possibly existing in the beginning and capable of pro­ ducing the Universe, yet of which matter has now no trace, and which, moreover, contradict all we know of matter, is surely to fly in the very face of scientific method, which is solely concerned with the observation of facts and logical deductions from them. 8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing. At best, it is one hypothesis against the other : material­ ists ascribe the Universe to the potentialities of eternal matter; theists to the creative act of a personal God. The proofs the latter advance do not as a matter of �12 What is the Good of God ? fad carry conviction to many reasonable minds, as experimental or mathematical proofs do. There are other forms of evidence no less valid than mathematical or experimental proofs ; for instance, the proof we call deductive or inferential. The proofs of God's existence are of this nature, not such as exclude all possibility of doubt, but such as make doubt or denial unreasonable.1 And their cogency, as we have already implied, depends much on the moral and intellectual prepossessions of those to whom they are addressed. Some of these arguments are philosophical, some are scientific. We may take one of the former, referring the reader for further information to books quoted in the appendix. The Principle of Causality which, rightly understood, is an axiom, asserts that nothing can come into existence except through the action of some adequate cause, independent of itself. Now the physical universe has had a beginning. Therefore it must have had an external cause, capable of giving it existence and inde­ pendent of itself. This conclusion is irresistible once the premisses are granted. The first premiss is, as we have implied, self-evident, i.e., it is seen to be true on analysis of its meaning. To say that a thing has had a beginning is to say that it once did not exist. There­ fore, it must have been given existence by some other thing, as existence is a necessary preliminary to action. • ?^Td Premiss~that the Universe is not eternalis admitted by most competent scientists, both believers nrfiv^atena uDU ThUS HUX1Cy Speal<S Of the visible aS ' henomena, the very nature of which , theZmus^al had a be§inning and that y must also have had an end.”3 And Lord Kelvin opinions, the° Empero^fdSessed^^1!8 T"®, utterinS hifidel “You believe in my genius but the following effect: know of its existence by my victories ” A^h have,s,een k ? You inference, yet, if one wzsfe/oneSt crtdkW7 *’ea?°nable to chance or good luck. Napoleon s victories 3 Lay Sermons, p, 13, �What is the Good of God ? 13 says: “ Regarding the Universe as a candle that has been lit, we become absolutely certain that it has not been burning from eternity, and that a time must come when it will cease to burn.” The scientific law of the Dissipation of Energy makes it clear that if the forces of Nature had started working in eternity they would long have been exhausted.1 The same argument may be suggested with equal cogency as regards a single aspect of the Universe, sc. the presence of life. Science teaches that in the first stages of the existence of the Universe the temperature was such as to preclude the possibility, even in germ, of life as we know it, />., the power of self-motion. Whence then did life originate ? Not from anything lifeless, for “ you cannot get more out of a sack than there is in it.” And therefore from some living Being outside the Universe—viz., the First Cause—God. 9. Creation cannot at any rate be Proved from Causality. David Strauss denies the validity of all proofs of God’s existence, because it is impossible to get beyond the series of natural proofs. If every single thing has its cause in another, this is a universal law which must hold good always and everywhere, thus making it im­ possible to reach an exterior cause. An objection which denies the validity of rational inference! A train passes before my window. It is so long that I cannot see eithei- the beginning or the end. I can only see that every carriage is drawn by another and that evidently there must be some motive power, and I naturally conclude that there is an engine in front of the train. My conclusion goes beyond what I can see. Strauss would say that my conclusion is wrong 1 Once we grant a First Cause, self-existent from eternity, the eternity of the created universe becomes conceivable, for the" First Cause may have been eternally creative. It is not easy to arrive at a clear conclusion on such matters as these, for by a necessity of our minds we cannot think of eternity except as infinite time whereas it does not involve succession, as time does, ’ �14 What is the Good of God ? for that very reason. He would admit that each carriage was pulled by another, but would deny the necessity of a locomotive. Is it credible ? Others, again, affect a childish precocity, and assert that as we seek the cause of all things, so we should go further back and seek the cause even of God Himself. But this is absurd. The law of causality only says : “ Every effect must have a cause,” or, in other words : “ That which is not self-existing must have the cause of its existence in something else.” Does it not clearly follow that a First Cause must exist, One whose essence includes His existence ? This Being—God—exists necessarily of Himself and of no other; to demand a further cause for the self-existent is nonsense. io. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear. The only scientific way to investigate this question is to go back to origins and study development—the positive, historical method. According to ethnographists, religion took its start from the fears of primitive man, excited by the terrible phenomena of nature. As Horace says even of the Romans of his time: “ When ffove thunders in the sky we believe in the fad of his sovereignty.” 1 As usual, we are met by an unverified assumption. There is no evidence in history for a continuous evolution of man from a lower to a higher moral and intellectual level. Indeed, what evidence we have tends to prove that the human race started in a “ Golden Age of some sort, from which it afterwards degeneiated. The Biblical narrative, containing the first revela­ tion, is confirmed by the oldest literature in the world. 1 he only inference to be drawn from the fact that savages attribute natural phenomena to their gods, is that they relieve those deities to be immensely superior to men. We cannot “scientifically” conclude that belief in the existence of the gods actually arose from the pheno­ mena, whether formidable or beneficent. It is mucl| 1 Odes, iii 5. �What is the Good of God ? 1 I i5 truer to say that fear (fear, that is, of an omnipotent judge) causes disbelief in God. “ No one denies God’s existence unless he has an interest in doing so,” says Bacon. “ There is no God ” might often be para­ phrased “ I wish there were no God, for I have reason to fear Him.” ii. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance. The riddles of Nature gave rise to a belief in God. It seemed simpler to seek their solution in a personal agent than to account for them otherwise. But the growth of science has explained things fully, and experience has banished mere speculation. As a general rule such credulity disappears with the advance of learning. It was but natural in the savage, of whom Pope writes: “ Lo, the poor Indian whose untutored mind Sees God in clouds or hears Him in the wind,'' &c. Essay on Man. This argument is characteristic of the methods of certain modern scientists who hope by repeated unsup­ ported assertions to give currency to their own peculiar views. It also illustrates the inspired saying of St. Paul : “ Scientia inflat ”—“ Knowledge puffeth up.” It is full of an arrogance which is quite alien to the spirit of true learning. The real wise man is too conscious of the narrow limits of his own knowledge to despise the ignorance of others. To these self-sufficient sciolists may fitly be addressed the words of Job : “ Are ye, then, the only men that there are, and shall wisdom die with you ? ”1 As a matter of fact, whether we count names or weigh merits, the witness to God’s existence among men of science is overwhelmingly great. Let us mention but a few of the more prominent modern English-speaking scientific men, who, in spite of their great learning, have retained their religious beliefs. Amongst Physicists, Chemists, &c., we find Lord Kelvin, Lord Rayleigh, Sir William Ramsay, Sir Henry Roscoe, §ir William Crookes, Professor Balfour Stewart, 1 fob xii 2. �i6 What is the Good of God ? Professor P. G. Tait, Sir William Abney. Amongst Mathematicians, Professors H. Lamb, A. C. Dixon, George Chrystal, M. W. Crofton, G. M. Minchin, Sir Oliver Lodge. Amongst Geologists and Palaeontologists, Professors J. Geikie, W. Boyd Dawkins, H. G. Seeley, Sir Joseph Prestwich, E. Hull, W. J. Sollas, Sir Archibald Geikie. Amongst Biologists, Physiologists, &c., Professors G. J. Romanes, Augustus Waller, W. Stirling, L. S. Beale, Sir Douglas Galton, Sir Jas. Crichton-Browne, Sir Victor Horsley, J. Butler Burke, Gerald Leighton, B. Windle. Amongst Astronomers, Sir David Gill, Dr. E. W. Maunder, Professor H. H. Turner, Dr. A. C. Crommelin, Professor Ellard Gore, Sir Robert Ball, Professor S. Newcomb. In the Medical Profession, Lord Lister, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Patrick Manson, Sir James Y. Simpson, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir Samuel Wilks. Amongst Zoologists, Professor A. Sedg­ wick, Sir Richard Owen, Professor G. H. Carpenter, Dr. S. O. Harmer, Professor H. Macintosh. Amongst Psychologists, Professor James Ward, Dr. J. C. Schiller, Professor J. C. Murray, Professor H. L. Orchard. We have not given all possible names ; we have not included all the branches of Science ; we have not men­ tioned men of past generations or of other countries, or clergymen eminent in scientific research ; there are enough and to spare here to give the lie to the constantly repeated assertion that real learning is incompatible with belief in God.1 One believer of commanding eminence in Science would sufficiently disprove it, and there are hundreds. In strong contrast to the dogmatism of many pseudoscientists is the caution of the genuine pioneers and discoverers With few exceptions these realize the units of their subject and the inadequacy of their A. HRel,^io1^ Beliefs of Scientists, by by J. J. wLlsh ’ C? Sciencc' Ist and 2lld series; K. A. Kneller, S.J, translated by f M l^ttlf m'p'T Sfe'lC%f} ^graphical dictionary. y -Kettle, M,P„ and any full �What is the Good of God? *7 methods. Romanes declares (Nineteenth Century, June, 1888), the theory of evolution has done nothing but “throw back the question of design from the facts immediately observed to the causes subsequently dis­ covered. And there the questions must be left by science, to be taken up by philosophy”—for which latter pursuit most “ popular scientists ” are singularly ill-equipped. Speaking merely as a scientific man, Du Bois-Reymond, who is an avowed materialist, has the honesty to confess that, after all that science has done, its verdict as to ultimate truths must be, “ We do not know and we never shall.” Still more explicit is the testimony of the late Lord Kelvin, one of the most eminent physicists of the 19th century. He, if any one, had penetrated into the deepest secrets of nature, yet this is how he sums up his life-work, even within the domain of science itself :— “ One word characterises the most strenuous efforts I have made perseveringly during fifty-five years : that word is failure. I know no more of electric and magnetic force, or of the relation between ether, electricity, and of ponderable matter, or of chemical affinity than I knew and tried to teach to my students fifty years ago in my first session as Professor.” 1 In the light of such testimonies, the absolute dicta of Haeckel and his English vulgarisateurs, Clodd, McCabe, Hird and the rest, may be rated at their true worth. So far from belief in God resting on ignorance, it is more imperatively demanded by every advance in human knowledge. 12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation. No doubt many learned men have been believers, but there are, and have been, many who are atheists. If knowledge leads to belief in God, why do not they believe ? No one can dispute the profound knowledge of a Darwin, a Spencer, a Huxley, a Haeckel—yet their great intellects and eminent talents left them, perhaps even made them, creedless. As we have just seen, the pursuit of Science, even when attended by the greatest success, so far from 1 Speech on the occasion of his Jubilee, 1896. See Life, vol. ii,p,984. �18 Whad is the Good of God ? leading away from God, is quite compatible with full acceptance of the supernatural. So the atheism and agnosticism of many scientific men must be ascribed to some other cause or causes. Some of these are un­ doubtedly moral—belief in God implies recognition of His claims, acknowledgement of certain limitations to human liberty, and due responsibility for human action. Some, again, are intellectual—every one has some philo­ sophy, practical or speculative, and if his philosophy is false, if it denies, for instance, the existence of absolute truths, or the invariability of metaphysical laws, it may easily blind him to the cogency of the proofs for God’s existence. Add to this, that God has designedly left those proofs such that, unlike mathematical truths, they can be denied without obvious self-stultification ; in other words, that good-will must enter into the act of faith—and we have enough to account for the un­ doubtedly disquieting phenomena of many powerful intellects arrayed against the truth. If the boasted methods of science were applied rigorously all round and its due weight given to every form of evidence, reason alone would lead to God. As Lord Kelvin said to some University students in 1903 1 : “Do not be afraid of being free-thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religions. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.” Long ago Bacon expressed the same thought: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism • but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to leigion. But to start, as many sceptics do, with assuming as an axiom that there is nothing beyond nature, is to close one’s mind to all possible evidence The sclT'f3tUral_SUrely "Ot 3 scientific proceeding ! ™ eXlP SCle",Ce Pr°Pe‘-Physical science—is the SS'X*’ are applicable “d PP ’^>1099. all leasoning processes on what* Essays: Of Atheism. �If'hat is the Good of God? 19 ever subject. A sincere acceptance of the inexorable and self-evident law of causality—“ Nothing can begin to be without a cause independent of itself ”—would go far to upset all the theories of the materialists. 13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation remains a hypothesis. After all, “ seeing is believing.” As a matter of fact the man of Science, as Huxley says, “ has learnt to believe in justification, not by faith but by verifica­ tion” lize believe vchat has been experimentally proved. All the rest is the creation and, perhaps, the mere figment of the brain. This is the common talk of half-educated scientific smatterers. Such men do not realize that a great deal more than fact verified by experiment enters into their knowledge. They talk glibly of the laws of nature— which of them has ever seen such a law ? These “ laws ” are, to quote Huxley again, “ the product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind than colour has.”1 They discourse learnedly, once more, about atoms, molecules, etherwaves of light, but all these things are mere postulates of the reason. None of them has been seen or measured. Disciples of Haeckel should remember, though he himself frequently forgets, their master’s descriptions of “purely scientific investigation,” viz. “firstly, experience; secondly, inference.”* We must insist again upon the reality of our purely inferential knowledge. Philosophy is as truly a part of “ science ” as is the study of natural forces, &c.: they differ only in the fact that the former deals with ultimate causes of phenomena, and the latter with proximate causes and the phenomena themselves. The logical process that determines the existence of the electric fluid is exactly the same as that which demonstrates the existence of God. To question the validity of our mental operations 1 Pseudo-Scientific Realism, p. 77. • Riddle oj the Universe, p. 6. �20 What is the Good of God ? or the power of our mind to acquire certain knowledge is to destroy the possibility of Science itself. 14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a system now discredited. At one time Philosophy was all in all, and Science was hardly thought of. Bid since the time of Bacon these positions have been gradually reversed, until in most scientific circles Philosophy is only mentioned to be laughed at. But without Philosophy there can be no real proof of God's existence. In order to criticize this statement properly we must determine what is meant by philosophy. It is the application of mind to the facts of experience with a view to discovering their ultimate nature. Just as Mathematics has its axioms, so Philosophy must have its principles, certain assumptions, for instance, about the power of the intellect to ascertain absolute truth, or about the laws which govern the right use of the mental processes. One system of Philosophy differs from another according to the principles it starts with or the piocesses it sanctions. If any philosophical system has been disci edited, it is important to discover which it is. The only systems which are known or studied nowadays in scientific circles ” are those which arose after the general abandonment of Catholic philosophy by those who left the Church at the Reformation. These, there­ fore, being the only ones they know, are the only systems scientific men have a right to laugh at, and we may well grant them that right. Since Descartes and Kant the so-called modern philosophy has let the �What is the Good of God? 1 1 our sense-experience, and our deductions therefrom have no correspondence with reality. There are two orders, of thought and of thing, but there is no means of uniting them. On this assumption he undertakes to investigate our knowledge and intellectual powers ; but with what instrument ? With his own intellect, of course, which, according to him, is completely unre­ liable. What result can we expect from such an inves­ tigation ? Kant tells us that we have certain mind-forms, a priori cognitions, such as those of space and time, by which our sense-experience is necessarily modified. But those “ forms ” have no existence outside the mind, so that we have no knowledge of things as they are. How, then, can he expect us to accept his opinions as true ? Must he not admit that he too is the victim of illusions, and that he cannot know whether he tells the truth or not, whether he explains human knowledge rightly or wrongly ? Kantian Dualism is weighed and found wanting. Fichte (1762-1814) went still further, and denied the reality of sense-perceptions, explaining them as crea­ tures of the Ego which alone possesses any reality. So that the world does not exist outside consciousness. This is idealistic Monism, and is equally unsatisfactory. We need not further examine the later philosophy of Hegel (1770-1831), which is more purely arbitrary than its predecessors. Everything is an expression of Abso­ lute Thought ; we are aH part of God, &c. This is Pantheistic Idealism. That such philosophical systems should fall into discredit even in the land of their origin is not surprising, but rather quite natural. What foun­ dations remain if this huge visible world of matter and force, of light, colour, and sound, is nothing more than a mere projection of my inward sense, or, if the whole world of thoughts and ideas is nothing but a phantom of the “ Ego,” a creation of the mind without any true objective equivalent ? The reaction from such spinning of cobwebs has �22 /F/W is the Good of God ? naturally taken amongst unbelievers the form of Materialism. In this system, which is also monistic, instead of everything being Mind, everything is Matter. Comte (1798-1857), the inventor of Positivism, or the Religion of Humanity,1 was a Materialist, in that he limited all valid knowledge to sense-perception, for the senses can only tell us of the existence of matter. The chief modern exponent of Materialism is Haeckel, who, while professing to keep within the limits of pure Science, is as speculative as the veriest Idealist of them all. If this form of Philosophy is not also derided by men of Science it is because it masquerades under another name, and thus conceals its non-scientific character. We need say no more of it here. To such depths has modern philosophy sunk. But it would be a great mistake and a sign of a very limited knowledge indeed if one confounded these vague and arbitrary systems with the true, sound, always valuable “ philosophia perennis ” which was founded by Aris­ totle, adopted by Christianity, and marvellously developed by the Scholastics, especially by St. Thomas Aquinas, and which even nowadays is in full harmony with the results of the natural sciences, and gives us the only consistent explanation of the world. But it needs the humble repentance of the Prodigal Son and a “ Pater, peccavi,” to find God, and this the poor, hungry, and naked so-called modern philosophy has not got the courage to say. 15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest course. Aflei hearing of all these different opinions and systems of the philosophers, one is finally driven to the opinion: Nobody knows anything for certain; one person denies what another asserts.” Therefore, the only thing left for the man who has not the time or the a 11 y for pei sonal investigation, is to remain in an tht'e^peiaX Gid' °‘ “S adtarents-t0 “nsisl °f �What is the Good of God? 23 altitude “ of honest doubt.” Scepticism becomes the only rational policy. Scepticism, in its full sense, holding nothing as cer­ tain, is not only not rational, but is also not possible. For as soon as a sceptic makes an assertion, he contra­ dicts himself and admits at least something as true. He either maintains the incertitude of all cognition, and claims that assertion and the arguments which support it to be true ; or, he doubts that assertion, in which case he still holds several things as true ; for instance—that, true and false are not the same, that certitude and doubt differ from each other, that one cannot acquire certitude, that he himself has that opinion, and that he himself is existing. “ But I doubt even that.” “ Do you doubt the difference between true and false ?” “Yes.” “ Why, then, do you contra­ dict me ? For it does not matter to you whether it is so or not ! Do you also doubt the difference between your opinion and mine ? ” “ Yes.” “ Then you have no reason whatever to say anything. Moreover, you have just now asserted two things, and even if you were to say again, 11 do not know,’ you would at least affirm your ignorance. In short, if you wish not to contradict yourself you must never express yourself.” It is clear, then, that as long as a man uses his reason at all he cannot doubt everything. By its very con­ stitution the mind is bound to admit facts which are based on evidence, just as a healthy eye must see, if the necessary conditions are at hand. And there are a number of truths which are self-evident. Thus he must admit the fact of his own existence, for if he doubt it, his doubt supposes it already. The same with the principle of contradiction, z.e., that the same thing under the same aspect cannot exist and not exist at the same time ; for every denial and every doubt pre­ supposes the principle. Even in mathematics the first general and fundamental propositions, that the part is less than the whole, for example, are taken as self- �24 What is the Good of God ? evident. They may be explained but not proved, for they are self-evident and fundamental truths. From the existence of unchangeable truths like these, moreover, the existence of a real primitive truth—that is, the existence of God—follows as a logical sequence. Accordingly, although “ doctors disagree” very fre­ quently and fundamentally in this modern world, the business of the learner is to discover some logical system which makes no arbitrary demands, which acknowledges the soundness and, at the same time, the limitations of natural faculty, which gives an answer to all the puzzles of life, or at least gives reasons why the answer is not yet possible, which, logically pursued, does not issue in immorality or inhumanity. There is only one system that does all that, the system which is based on the fact of a Personal Creator to whom the Universe belongs and to whom man is accountable. APPENDIX BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS FURTHER DEVELOPING THE PRECEDING ARGUMENTS Pamphlets— The Existence of God, by Mgr. Canon Moyes. Sands, 6d. net. Science and Faith, by Rev. Dr. Aveling. Sands, 6d. net. The Church versus Science, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net Modern Free Thought, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net. • Why I Believe tn God, by A. E. Proctor. C T S id Agnosticism, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. C.T.S. id’’ Modern Science and Ancient Faith, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. c. 1 .o., id. Science and Sczendsfc; Science or Romance?; Evolutionary Philosophy and Common Sense, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Three volumes. C.T.S., is. each. Books— by Rev- Bernard Boedder, S.J. Longmans, •, By ,Pre,sident Windle. Sands, 3s. 6d. net. Se Old Dr< AvelinS- Sands, 3s. 6d. net. ^ Re^J Ger”ald <Criticism of Haeckel), The Reign if Law, by the Duke^rgyU 5 Pap6r’ 6d< Agnosticism, by Prof. Robert Flint. Blackwood. printed and pcbushedby THE CATHOLIC truth SOCIETY, LONDON. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What is the good of God? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Catholic Truth Society Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm. Series: Reason Versus Rationalism, no.2 Notes: Includes bibliography (p.24). Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Catholic Truth Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA1522 Subject The topic of the resource God-Attributes 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 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (What is the good of God?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> God-Proof Religion and science https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/145e0a161b3e592b150a446f43da0ce3.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=GdR8VEQ1ihyuqAbMPsvhMq%7ERvaZkS8iR9xvCXi%7Edz-cVSRPDkAqK8emYcCw%7EAA5xjg8GkS%7EP9I%7EgwaTBin3OMCHveKA5ixWmg6SeJOfw8z%7Ee1qG8w3iR1zwuRPIimTjLKSk72zZ2U4J5gHoyny1aqL5zfX0v6u6y0P4KZHVPVOi-MVWQF10P72pxOHbYM-6ZlBclXD4uAW29Gyrr-T1zJy1fPFvYD7zZXtUVvKh2YFDn%7EAWKRdFE8Js6Q92KM9BDY2dulH4mxws4GckW6KJqJZ4dLKgRPljI2%7EWv2FbA2Cr2WppnZ64LwTLFN4mtqOur27Dt-5owPPc1-rGdtmh7hA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 67d8ba17f2a21b4b1797ad22288e0219 PDF Text Text ��������������������������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Life of "Chinese" Gordon Description An account of the resource Edition: New and rev. ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 28, [4] p. : ill. (ports.) ; 21 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Please note that this pamphlet contains language and ideas that may be upsetting to readers. These reflect the time in which the pamphlet was written and the ideologies of the author. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Allen, Charles Harris Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Abraham Kingdon & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT47 Subject The topic of the resource Slavery Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Life of "Chinese" Gordon), 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 Charles George Gordon China Conway Tracts Slavery https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41fa78c743611bcef99ebed2b35d3fc8.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=tb0QvDgGoZRyTHoMym-NJUh7Cw%7EeJR6zd%7E61cnExkMM3zyIFm55dUwxSQCPjy3YulEH-B3c1Ac75RinDHwINReJaf5qzYIEmuD3JEnnzysvAMDadJzvBFI89kr59SVOAbJlT5k3igzvA-TLo0cSGOKa98tXvJ4nMxUy3u0CWuFZnS%7EFNW7OOO%7EGHBdvPfwvePEaYTctmnrjCLrCQtoGe2UFZK3ZuDC43GbHVSGc6pHRGLm4I99VXcCBr4Xt79BpTNQbOA3IfryeoUX1xITFdXCpgaJrbDF0lBsI%7EmCvnNITXVSH-QC7cwjyO3FwI8JCPxeYu0%7EBIyEekgTkSsF2M1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 15f83dad9d64cf22ec8b34b55326b43d PDF Text Text B3l7° KT62.8 NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY No. 1] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE, [i«. BY JOSEPH SYMES. ---------------------------------- ----------------------- - -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- >. ♦ THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Who was its author, when and where it was delivered, before what audience, I do not care; the value of the discourse is no greater though a great man uttered it; is no less, though the production of a booby. If it descended or ascended from heaven, it is no better or worse for that; if it sprung from earth, or Purgatory, or Hell, that makes it no worse. If God preached it, it is just as it is ; and you must admit no more nor less, if the preacher was the Devil. If a Holy Ghost inspired it, that does not enhance its value ; if a foul or filthy spirit instigated its utterance, the sermon is no fouler or cleaner for that. We may estimate the qualities' of' the Author by those of the sermon ; but not those of the sermon by those of the author. Blessed are the poor in spirit (Matt, v., 3.) Poverty of purse is bad enough; poverty of spirit is the condition of fools, slaves, lunatics and idiots.—For theirs is the kingclo^ of heaven. What a blessed set, therefore, constitutes tm kingdom of heaven! Wise men are excluded—by their own choice, of course. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted (v. 4). Common Sense says, Blessed are they who do not need to be comforted, word translated “blessed” all through these “ beatitudes,” as they were piously and lacka­ daisically denominated, should be rendered “ happy.’* The *-Devised Version,” however, from which I quote, keeps the old translation. Perhaps the revisionists did not like to expose their good book to ridicule. “ Happy are they that mourn! ” To which I reply, Tall are they that are short ! 7- at are they that are lean I Amen. It requires much grace and divine enlightenment to understand a sermon, my Brethren, and Sisters, specially when, like this on the Mount �2 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. it abounds in absurdities. Not one of those who heard it asked any questions ; discussion was not invited. And if they had demanded an explanation, no doubt the good-natured Jesus (if he was the preacher) would have mercifully damned them for their impertinence. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (v. 5), History abounds with proofs of this truth. The meek Israelites expelled and murdered all the Canaanites they could, and took possession of all their victims had owned. The meek Romans conquered the world, or a great part of it; and the exceedingly meek Danes, Jutes, Saxons, and others con­ quered and peopled England. The meek English stole India and other countries, as the meek Spaniards stole South and Central America. Jesus did not understand history. Gentleness is the characteristic of a strong man who has strength enough to be self-controlled and goodness sufficient to direct his power to worthy ends ; but meekness is mental and moral paralysis. Gentleness is a virtue, meekness a vice. • The former is independence, the latter absolute slavery to the priesthood. Blessed^re they that hunger and thirst after righteousness (v. 6). Nonsense! Blessed are the righteous is the proper thing to say. People who hunger and thirst after righteous­ ness usually do nothing else, poor things ; their double appe­ tite feeds upon themselves, and they are weak and miserable as children.with worms. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7). It is so sometimes, though very often the contrary happens. After all, the just are better than the merciful, though both are good. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (v. 8). The pure in heart are good, though not always happy. They will never see God, though. 1. If God is infinite, he can never be seen, for there is no place where we could stand to see him. 2. If . seen, he is not infinite. The pure in heart have their own reward, and no more need a sight of God than I do a sight of the Queen. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God (v. 9), This is a joke equal to another I will perpe­ trate : Blessed are the members of the Peace Society: for they shall be called the sons of Alexander the Great, Juljps Casar, Napoleon, Bismarck, Beaconsfield, or Bartie Frty. When �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 3 did God ever make peace or prevent war ? When was there ever a war his servants did not ascribe to him ? Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (v. 10). Then perse­ cution also is a good thing ? If so, the persecutors ought to be blessed too. To be persecuted is a nuisance, a great evil, a shame, a disgrace to civilisation. And if the persecuted have no compensation except the kingdom of heaven, their case is more hopeless than that of the followers of Don Carlos or of Jefferson Davis. As for people now-a-days being persecuted and slandered for the sake of Jesus, the conception is too grotesque for dis­ cussion. It is his pretended and pretentious followers who do all the persecution; and the kingdom of heaven consists, not of victims, but of stupid and brutal persecutors. If the “persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are to obtain a great reward for their endurance, Hurrah 1 I mean, Hallelujah ! we shall get the prize, and our Christian persecutors will go------ . I do not know what will become of them. Jesus says, “They so persecuted the prophets” (v. 11). What prophets ? This preacher must have referred to a different Old Testament from ours. The old Israelitish pro­ phets were bitter persecutors when opportunity occurred; but none of them suffered persecution, strictly so named. To encourage persecution itself is not much worse than to encourage its endurance by calling the persecuted happy. The good teacher does his best to inculcate manliness and justice, which will, in time, render persecution impossible. , Matt. v.— Ye are the salt of the earth (v. 13). If Christians ever were the salt of the earth, they must soon have lost "their savor : as far as we can trace them back they have been the world’s “ bitters,” witjtOut being anywise its tonics. Or ■—let me see ! Salt of the earth ! In large quantities salt renders soil absolutely barren. And wherever Christianity has reigned in unchecked sway, there has been a general dearth of all good things. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid(y. 14). This was no doubt intended to produce modesty, Those poor illiterate disciples of an equally ignorant master were the light of the world! Look at the Science, Philosophy and Art of the world, and ask how much of it all is due to Jesus and his followers. �4 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. Christianity never shed a ray of light upon anything. Its lantern is a dark one, having neither wick nor oil. No let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven (v. 16). Let your rushlights shine, that men may honor the sun. Amen. What nonsense, to call upon twelve boobies to confer honor upon an infinite being! If the Father in heaven knew the rubbish his only begotten son was spouting on earth, he would have shown his good sense to have corrected him. It says little for that parent’s fatherly qualities that his children behave so badly as they do. Worse behaved beings than sons and daughters of God there never were—ignorance, insolence and brutality are their usual characteristics; and they are just like their father. Think not that I came to destroy the law or theprophets(v. 17).—No, no, Jesus, youhadnot the power, your countrymen still cling to them and leave your doctrines and religion alone.—I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. How fulfil ? To keep, do you mean ? To obey ? If so, the Christian Church sorely misunderstands you. What Jesus says about heaven and earth passing away is nonsense; but what he says about those who disobey Moses and the prophets shows him to be a Jew, not a Christian, and puts all Christians in the wrong—if he was right. Jesus knew no other law than that of Moses, no other inspired book than the Jewish Scriptures, he never hinted that any other was needed or would be written ; yet his professed followers have almost superseded the Old Testament by the New, as they supersede the New Testament by their creeds, confessions, catechisms, and theological writings. Jesus next proceeds to improve upon Moses, though he above said he came only to fulfil. “ Thou shalt not kill,” said Moses—though he was frightfully fond himself of killing. Thou shalt nof be angry with thy brother, says Jesus; to be so, thou shalt be in danger of the Judgment, or local petty court. 2/ thou say, Haca to thy brother, thou shalt be in danger of the Council, the Sanhedrim, or the highest Jewish court; and to call thy brother a fool, shall expose thee to hell fire ! (v. 21, 22). Thus, it is bad to be angry, worse to say Baca, but a damnable thing to call a brother a fool. Yet Jesus and Paul did not hesitate to call people fools. I hope they are not damned. If your brother is a fool, and gives you good reason to tell him so, do it. It may open his eyes and lead to �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. a improvement. The clergy usually try to give the word “fool ” here some deep and mysterious and dreadful meaning, in order to justify Jesus in his absurd denunciation of it; but it means nothing worse than fool. It may be an impropriety to call a foolish brother, or even a neighbor, a fool, but it is not a crime. As to offering gifts at the altar (v. 23, 24), had Jesus been wise, he would not have sanctioned but condemned the miserable superstition. Gifts are offered at the altar which ought frequently to be paid as just debts to debtors ; in every case it is disgraceful to waste upon gods what men, women and children so much need for their life. Agree with thine adversary quickly, etc. (v. 25). Surely this ought to depend upon the justice of the case. If men can honestly avoid law and lawyers, they are great fools to have any connexion with them ; but there are many cases when a man must be a coward and a fool to agree with his adversary. Though if Jesus had agreed with his adversaries, or even had made any rational defence before Pilate, he pro­ bably would not have gone to the cross. The 27th and 28th verses are simply atrocious, for they condemn every healthy man that ever lived, and would, if they could be obeyed, depopulate the earth. Licentiousness is bad ; asceticism is a thousand times worse. Verses 29 and 31 are most brutal, and their moral tendency debasing in the extreme. To fear hell at all is barbaric, to fear it to the extent of mutilating oneself or its equivalent is brutalising. Had Jesus been a married man he might have spoken (v. 32) with some authority on the subject of divorce. None of his utterances on the sexual relationships are at all edifying. There are just causes of divorce ; a divorce which is not a perfect divorce ought never to be effected ; when once effected, the parties ought to be as free to marry again as bachelors and spinsters. What Jesus says respecting perjury and swearing (v. 33— 37) I entirely endorse, except that about the Evil One. To swear is folly. A man that cannot be bound by a promise, cannot be bound by an oath. But it is amusing to note how Christians send Jesus to Coventry when it suits them. Their conduct and teaching on oaths are the most perfect hypocrisy that could be conceived. In most respects they are to-day, as the result of purely secular influences, immeasurably superior �6 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. to their Master ; in respect to the oath business they are as far behind him. In that respect they are false, hypocritical and brutal. If they had their way, they would depopulate the world for the sake of their superstitions. Resist not evil (Matt. v. 39). What must we resist then ? Must we resist good ? Jesus seems to have been unable to run from one extreme without rushing to the opppsite. Re­ taliation, in most cases, may be foolish and wrong ; no general rule can cover all cases. But non-resistance of evil is the best way to encourage it. There is “a law in our members,” much older and much more potent, which tells us to resist evil with all our might—viz., the law of self-preservation. And Jesus was as much under the force of that law as other people. He nevei' turned the other cheek (v. 39), but gave cheek for cheek whenever opportunity occurred. So did his disciples. And his followers have always been more ready to smite than be smitten. Let him have thy cloak also (v. 40). Jesus was too poor to know the value of clothes, hence this stupid rule of life. Here, too, we have a most direct and thorough encouragement to dishonesty. People are too fond of law as it is ; what would be the state of society if every rogue who stole a coat could get the owner’s cloak too by simply suing him ? Verses 39—42 of this Sermon on the Mount are amply sufficient, if put into practice, to destroy civilisation and reduce mankind to a state of anarchy and violence. For­ tunately, professing Christians have always, with an exception or two, been more ready to steal than to throw away their property, more ready to compel others to walk the “miles ” than do it themselves. Bad as this is, it is better than what Jesus taught. Love your enemies (v. 44)—that you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven (v. 45). No man can love his enemy. The father in heaven cannot do it, or he would long since have hugged and caressed the Devil. Jesus did not do it, or he would have turned those stones into bread, as the Devil requested him when they met in the wilderness. “' Do good to them that hate you ! ” By what law ? It is con­ trary to reason and nature both. Someone asked Confucius what he had to say “ Concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness ? ”—It was a very old superstition, evidently—Confucius replied, “With what then �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. will you recompense kindness ? Recompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.” That is good philo­ sophy ; the language of Jesus is babyish. He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (v. 45). He does nothing of the sort. The sun doesn’t rise ; it is the earth that spins round in front of him, like a leg of mutton before the fire. And if God did this work, he also makes his sun scorch good and bad alike, and sends rains or drought indis­ criminately. If we followed the heavenly father’s example, no day would pass without our doing much mischief and murdering more or fewer persons. Better leave him alone. What reward have ge ? (v. 46—47). Just so. Jesus was enslaved to the barbarous philosophy of rewards and punish­ ments, and his followers have never grown out of it. The Christian is taught to expect a reward for everything. If he gives away money in charity, it is to get riches in heaven ; if he spends his money upon church and chapel building, it is to get an endless annuity in the New Jerusalem, or to be insured against the unquenchable fire ; and those who hangfire at parting with their cash are gravely assured that they will be “ recom­ pensed at the resurrection of the just ”—the date of which will be about the time the sky falls. Take heed that ye do not your alms before men (Matt, vi., 1). Christians read this the other way, viz. : Take heed to do your alms before men, to be seen of them. They boast of what they give out of their abundance and taunt us with not giving what we do not possess. They accept challenges to debate at times, on condition that the proceeds shall go to some charity, not at all caring if we should be compelled to apply for charity as a consequence of having to work for nothing. If Christians were half as good as they pretend, they would be too good to pretend at all; and if Christians would leave off wasting, and robbing, and swindling, all would have enough, and charity would no longer be needed. When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites (Note, Hypocrites meant originally an actor) ; for they love to pray, standing in churches and chapels and in the corners of the sti eets, that they may be seen of men (v. o). Here I improve both the translation and the original. How many cf the parsons would ever pray if no man or woman were by to hear ? J �BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward. True! True! ranging from £50 per aunum to £15,000 and per­ quisites. Not bad renumeration for actors in religious theatres. But when ye pray, do not jabber like foreigners, etc. (v. 7). I make the orthodox commentators a present of this rendering ; it exactly gives the sense. A paraphrase is:—Don’t jabber away like foreigners landed on a strange coast, who utter a multitude of words in the hope of being able to make the natives understand them. All the orthodox commentators have missed the point of the advice. And most parsons have a sort of regulation time for prayer, hoping that their God will answer a long prayer, though he won’t a short one. In fact, they treat their deity exactly like dishonest beggars do their victims—they try the virtues of unlimited blarney. Were I a god, I would much more readily relieve the Atheist who never asks for anything than those who make a trade of prayer—that is, begging. There are laws against begging, but none against praying; which shows that Christian states respect the public more than their God. Your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him (v. 8). He is a poor father, then, to wait to be prayed to before doing his duty. It is a father’s duty to see that his children have their wants supplied whether they ask or not. The great father in heaven should spend a fortnight at some well-conducted house to learn the ways of civilised people. If he did this, he would burn the Bible and order a new one, this time not written by his amanuenses, but by men who could teach him more than all eternity has been able to do. The prayer that follows as a model, the Lord’s prayer, has about all the faults a prayer can have, probably, except length. There the pious pray for a kingdom to come. All just government grows. We don’t want foreign rule, though we can have no objection to God’s will being done on earth as in heaven, because it is not done there at all. Men should work for their daily bread, not pray for it. Forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors. If Christians believed in “ a prayer­ answering god,” they would be afraid to pray thus : for they do not forgive, and so, in effect, they ask not to be forgiven. They are the most unforgiving of all people, being inspired perhaps by the great father who will burn his enemies with unquenchable fire. To pray not to be led into temptation, is �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 9 wise, if the Bible be true; for God tempted Abram to murder his son, David to number Israel, etc. But to ask to be de­ livered from the Evil One, is like a frightened child begging his father to keep away the black man the nurse has been speaking of. Your father will forgive you, if you forgive others ; he won’t if you don’t. Good example. Sublime morality! You are to be perfect as your father (chap, v., 48), and he threatens to be imperfect if you are so ! That is, you can make him just what you will, forgiving or malicious, good or bad; for his conduct is regulated by yours This is the very highest point in New Testament morality!. The directions Jesus gives (Matt, vi., 16—18) for fasting are good enough, supposing fasting were itself of any conceivable use. The only parties who ought to fast are they who have eaten too much or whose health may probably be improved by a short period of abstinence. Fasting as now practised in Christendom is sheer hypocrisy. And as Christians do not now honestly practise it, no more need be said, but that •Christians would get far greater good by a little healthy honesty than by all “the means of grace ” they employ. The rest of Matthew vi., 19—34, is so openly antagonistic both to civilisation and to clerical conduct, that the wonder is modern Christians have not long since repudiated it as •contrary to their religion :— 1. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth (v. 19). The best of Christians obey this by laying up all they can upon earth. 2. But lay up............. treasures in heaven (v. 20). Many Christians would do this too, but they know not where heaven is. They would not object to treasures here and hereafter both ; but having no prospect of heaven, and being wedded as closely to the earth as any misers, they make sure of earthly treasures, and trust in providence for the others. 3. For where your treasure is there will your heart be also (v. 21). No people love the world more fully than Christians ; and the “ love of the father,” of course, “ is not in them.” What Jesus says of the single eye and the light of the body (v. 22—23) may be ignored : he understood neither physiology nor optics, nor was he any better instructed in moral rights and obligations. He uttered rules, proverbs and commands, which his followers are ever praising and ever �10 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. deliberately breaking, and must break, or renounce civilisa­ tion. No man can serve two masters............. God and Mammon, for example (v. 24). Another blunder. The clergy can serve God and Mammon first rate. The first step is, perhaps, Hie most difficult. You renounce the world in your baptism, that is, your godfathers and godmothers do it for you, as theirs did for them. This is all you need to do. Henceforth you are safe ; your baptism regenerates you, and the “ new man ” serves Mammon and God with the most perfect assiduity for all the rest of life. If in any case God should grumble at the rivalry of Mr. Mammon, he is politely kicked out of doors, and Mammon reigns supreme. Jesus was not half so clever as his followers ; the parsons could put him up to many a dodge were he now on earth. Take no thought for your life—neither for food nor raiment (v. 25). This is the language of a pure barbarian or maniac. The commentators say, “anxious thought,” “undue thought,” etc. There is nothing in the gospels to authorise them. Jesus never inculcates the duty of industry ; but here he enjoins an absolute indifference for all worldly pursuits. The fowls (26) are to be your model as regards providing food— and they neither sow nor reap nor garner: but your heavenly father feedeth them and will much more feed you, for you are much better. And why care about clothes ? The lilies are clothed by providence ; how much more will he clothe you ? To all except perverse divines this language is so plain that one wonders even at their temerity in trying to reconcile it with common sense. But Jesus points it still more :—Can you, by taking thought, add a cubit to your height? The answer is obvious. Neither can you get food or clothes by “ taking thought.” “ Therefore take no thoughtetc. (v. 31). The Gentiles take thought; they seek food and clothes. But you have a heavenly father who knows all about what you need ; and if you only seek his kingdom and righteousness, he will see to it that all your wants are supplied. Good father!—How is it nobody trusts him ? I should like to see a community founded on the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. The bishops might take the lead in such an undertaking. They have the best security. They have a father who is all-good and almighty. He says he will supply all their needs if they will seek first his kingdom, etc. �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 11 Their is neither bishop nor pastor who believes it. In that they show their scepticism and good sense. They are infidels—that is, unfaithful to their own professed principles; we are infidels in a better sense—viz., we.no more believe the truth and wisdom of Jesus’s teaching than they do, and we say so'much. For our honesty we shall be damned, while they will be saved for their hypocrisy. So be it. Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself (v. 34). Confucius said : “ If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.” If Jesus had taken thought for the morrow he would have had a place “to lay his head he would not have been poorer than foxes, as he admitted, nor would he have gone hunger-bitten to the fig-tree and cursed it for bearing no figs out of season. Still there is in the world to-day something much worse than even the fanaticism of Jesus or his poor insanity, and that is the miserable cant, found even amongst Unitarians and a few Freethinkers, which affects to admire and eulogise the character and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus ! If those panegyrists are honest they do not understand what they do; if they understand, they xare veritable hypocrites. Every enlightened man does habitually, and as a consequence of his enlightenment, the very things Jesus condemned. He never more plainly condemned adultery or murder than he did social prudence and industry. The early Christians understood their master as I now do, and it was only the stern reality of life which showed them how false and pernicious his doctrines are. Cave, in • his “ Primitive Christianity,” p. 230, says : “ They never met with opportunities to have advanced and enriched themselves, but they declined and turned them off with a noble scorn.” Origen, he says, obeyed the precept not to have two coats, to wear shoes, nor to be (anxiously) careful for the morrow ” (p. 242). Cave invents “anxiously ” here. “Nay,” says he, “ so little kindness had they for this world, that they cared not how little they stayed in it; and, therefore, readily offered themselves for martyrdom at every turn ” (p. 246-7). This agrees with Tertullian : Calamities, etc., “ injure us not; ing the first place, because we have no further concern with th? world than how we may most quickly depart from it ’ (“Apology,” c. xii.) �12 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. When modem Christians exchange cant and hypocrisy for truth and honesty they will either follow and obey Jesus in reality or else openly renounce him. Which will they do ? Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment 7 e judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye J mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt, vii., 1).__ Harsh judgments and censorious comments ought to be avoided ; but honest judgment is one of the best means of moral education, and moral education cannot be obtained without it. Besides, no one ever violated this rule more than Jesus himself. He judged and condemned in many cases ; nor did he ever. make it appear that he understood the im­ portance or the justice of a fair and open trial. Had he been wise and good, he would have given some hint, at least, respecting the forms and administration of justice. The codes of civilised nations owe nothing to Jesus or to his religion. His conceptions of justice and law were those of any petty Oriental despot. The mote and the shaft—spear-shaft—in the eyes consti­ tute a figure of speech grotesquely overdone, and ridiculous into the bargain. Who with a mote in his eye would wait for some one to ask to extract or remove it ?—while a spear­ shaft in the eye means the destruction of the organ and the death of the owner. It was not charity, but bitter and coarse satire, which inspired what he says about giving holy things to dogs and casting pearls before swine (v. 6, 7). If men are dogs and swine, it must be because God made them so, that is Jesus, if he was God. Why sneer at his own handiwork ? Why not make them better ? Ask and it shall be given you (v. 7, 8). If this were true, how rich and prosperous and powerful the Church would be 1 How soon the world would be converted! How quickly they would hear and see the last of the Freethinker and its wicked crew. All the prayers in the world—I mean the Church— cannot stop these Atheistic sermons, nor confound the preacher. Let them try. Ask and receive ! The parson prays to God and receives from men. Their prayers, indeed, are mostly intended for human ears; and those that do not reach human ears are never answered. The Church has never been ashamed to beg, and it has got a million-fold more than it has deserved. When the orthodox confess themselves un �SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 13 worthy, we agree with them, and when most of them confess themselves “miserable offenders,” we cannot but admit the justice of the plea. The contrast (v. 9—12) between earthly fathers and the heavenly one is all in favor of the former. Most earthly parents do something for their children ; the heavenly father does nothing. By the way, how can a man have two fathers, unless one is merely grandfather or father in a merely legal or social sense ? If, then, we have earthly fathers, we have no heavenly one. Beware offalse prophets (v. 15). Amen. Amen. All pro­ phets are false prophets. Truth is found only by experience, not revelation. All pretenders to revelation are false prophets: beware of them and their sermons and gospels and predictions. All those who follow them only repeat the original lies. And revelation lies have filled the world with confusion, bitterness and blood. They come in sheep’s clothing—good broad-cloth made of wool; but they dress in many ways. Ye shall know them bu their fruits (v. 16). Yes, yes ! What has revelation, what have its prophets, done for man ? All the world’s science, government, philosophy, sanitation, medicine, are due to the prophet’s enemies. No prophet ever revealed a pregnant truth that enriched or enlightened the world. To prophets we owe persecution and darkness ; to secular workers and thinkers we owe all the knowledge and all the wealth of the world. By their fruits ye shall know them—if they bear any. The bishops are barren, the Church is a desert, and the parsons ever cry, “ Give, give !” We hope Jesus’ prophecy is correct, that the useless trees shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. Then the churches are doomed. They bear no good fruit; they cumber the ground and produce poison. If none but those who do the will of the father (v. 21—-24) enter into the kingdom of heaven, there are few destined to enter. There is no parson or priest now existing that con­ forms his life to the Bible, and that is generally called the will oi’ word of God. Who, then, will people the kingdom of heaven ? I fancy the standard will have to be altered or the kingdom will never be anything but a kingdom on paper. And those who don’t go to that kingdom must, if popular theology is correct, people the Devil’s kingdom. I have no respect for the Devil, or his empire ; but he is going to beat �14 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. the other gentleman. Not only most people belong to him, bnt all the best are his. The parsons cannot question this, for they belong to the Devil as much as I do, and they serve him as heartily too. In face of existing facts, the kingdom of heaven must be pronounced a complete failure, and its effects are not worthy of a sale by auction. You, Jesus, need not make the gate so narrow. Nobody will enter even if you make a large gap in the fence. The peroration (v. 24—29) of the Sermon on the Mount is a splendid one. It fairly rises to the height of true oratory. But it is awfully selfish and egoistic, besides being maliciously unjust and severe. Who can do those sayings of thine, Jesus ? Who can love his enemies ? Who can follow the example of fowls and lilies ? Who can turn the other cheek, or give his cloak to the thief who steals his coat ? If thine own rule is to be the law, thou thyself art hopelessly condemned. There.' is nought but destruction and ruin in store for thyself and thy hearers and readers, if thy sermon is the standard of judg­ ment. That sermon would damn all men, women and chil­ dren ; all angels, archangels, seraphs, and cherubs ; and God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will be damned with the rest; for there is not a being in the world who does or ever did obey what it enjoins. And yet the orthodox belaud what must damn them and all. I wonder if they’ll boast of that sermon when it has damned them ? THE LORD’S MERCIES. “ The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works.”—Psalm cxlv., 9. This, be it remembered, is not an empty boast. The Psalmist understood the matter well, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. He did not, as sceptical and profane persons would have done, look at the world and carnally survey the deeds and vicissi­ tudes of life ; he piously closed his eyes, and thus saw plainly that the Lord was “ good to all, and that his tender mercies were over all his works.” The pious king—when have kings not been pious?—adopted the only possible method of dis­ covering that the Lord was good to all, etc., he saw it by faith, as any one may who has faith enough. �THE LORD’S MERCIES. 15 But this sdfelime and salutary and universally comforting truth may be .proved to a demonstration. I. The Lord is almighty, and can do whatsoever he will. He can make two and two to be seven, or turn a summer­ sault, or turn himself inside out, if you give him time enough to do it in—that is, all time. He made all things in six days the very first time he ever tried, and could no doubt do it in six minutes now, were he so inclined. I mention these facts to show that the Lord is quite able to do everything. II. He is all-knowing too ; and so, in point of knowledge, as well as power, perfectly competent to execute goodness and extend his tender mercies to all. III. Historical proofs may now be given of the above truth ; and these are so numerous that we can merely select a few out of an almost infinite miscellany. 1. He made a man and woman and put them into a garden, where there was a^iree they were not to eat of on pain of death. He also made a “ subtil ” serpent who tempted the two to eat, and they did eat.” For this the Lord cursed the pair, the serpent, and the very earth. All the posterity of this couple were involved in their parents’ fate, and are to this day doomed to pain, toil, want, sickness, misery, and death for that old crime of eating forbidden fruit! This is the first proof of divine goodness and tender mercies. 2. Less than 2,000 years later, when men were numerous and not over good in their conduct, the Lord resolved to show how far he could excel them all in criminality and cruelty. There was not a man then living who would, if he could, have drowned the whole world. But the Lord showed his goodness by pouring down 1,000,000,000 (one thousand million) cubic miles of water upon the earth, or two thirds of a cubic mile for every man, woman, and child now in the world ! So abundantly plentiful was the supply that each man might have truly said with the grateful Psalmist, My cup runneth over ”—if he could have spoken after being drowned. It is true, the story says that eight persons were saved in this universal deluge ; but they might just as well have been drowned for any good we know of them. The water, by the way, was so plentiful that it seems to have dis­ gusted Mr. Noah, who broke the pledge and went out on the spree as soon as he could get anything to tipple upon. 3. Not to confine his exhibition of tender mercies to a �No. 5 ] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. ; BY JOSEPH SYMES, . . [W. _■ 3 /' V?' JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS, And Noah . . . drank of the wine and was drunken (Gen. lx., 20-21).—(1) Teetotallers pretend that some Bible wines were not intoxicating ; but most were, or people might have drunk them with impunity. The Bible was not written by abstainers, nor was total abstinence ever contemplated by God, except for a few peculiar people. (2) Noah was a saint, and so it was no disgrace for him to get drunk and expose himself as he did. (8) The verses of this chapter numbered twentytwo—twenty-seven are a curiosity. Ham, Noah’s youngest son, saw the beastly conduct of the old man ; and Noah, when he found it out, vented his curses upon Canaan, Ham’s son ! This was written by some unscrupulous Israelite to justify his countrymen in exterminating the Canaanites. The roguery is too transparent to be misunderstood—it is the assassin endeavoring to stand well before those who know of his crime. Suppose Noah had cursed Canaan for what Ham did! That would stamp him an idiot. Besides, when did this happen ? There were only eight human beings in the ark (1 Peter iii-,, 20). Canaajn was Ham’s fourth son, and could not have been . old enough to have mocked or insulted his grandfather till many years after the flood, though the story implies that it . was not long after that event. What an ill-tempered old grandfather Noah must have been to vent his spleen upon his grandson, if he really did thus; and how much more illtempered and diobolical God must have been to execute Noah’s curse upon Canaan’s innocent posterity so many hundreds of years after the death of Noah ! No gods were ever much to boast of; but the Jewish-Christian idol is worse than all the others rolled into one. Besides, how stupid of him to save �66 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE such a paltry lot as Noah, and his family when drowning the world! Any sensible god would have made a clean sweep both, of animals and men, if he had proceeded as far as Genesis describes, and then have started de novo with better races, fashioned on an improved plan and made of better materials. But this God is par excellence the God of blunders and blunderers. Still, the Bible is anything but “ a comedy of errors it is a tragedy in which few but mad gods, mad pro­ phets, mad angels, fools and helpless wretches bear their parts. Homer’s Iliad turns upon the wrath of Achilles, and the Bible upon the fury, the very fermented wine or expressed juice of, the wrath of God. Genesis x. and its pretended pedigrees of the nations may be jumped over, for no doubt the writer, some very late scribe, invented the names. Anybody could invent pedigrees, I presume. Noah, I just this moment learn by inspiration, had other sons in the ark with him. One of them ate a man for his dinner, and they called him Man Chew. Was he not the father of all those who dwell in Manchuria unto this day ? A nd the whole earth was of one language and of one speech (Genesis xi., 1). Just so. This is a precious fragment of the word of God. “ Read, mark, learn,” my reader, -‘and digest.” .Men would build a tower—(why not?)—whose top should reach to heaven—(well, Jacob’s ladder did)—so that should there be another flood, they might climb the tower and escape drowning ! Very sensible project I should say ; but God viewed it in a totally different light. What! not allow him to drown them when he felt disposed to have a little sport that way ! Imagine, my reader, the feelings of an angler, if all fishes united to wear wire respirator-things or mouth screens, to defend them against hooks ! Fancy the feelings of butchers, were sheep and oxen to adopt invulner­ able armor that no weapon could pierce! Conceive the chagrin of fowlers and sportsmen, were all birds to use shot­ proof dresses! Then you may comprehend in some faint degree the chagrin, the fury of God when his creature man, whom he had made for his own private and exclusive sport, proved daring enough to unite to defeat his ends by building a tower whose top should reach to heaven ! If the earth had exploded like a modern bombshell, it would not have startled and amazed him half as much! �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 67 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower (Genesis xi., 5).—In those days the Lord had no angels to go and come for him, and so he went on his own errands. Later he made angels; and then he hit upon a better expedient still—he expanded himself until he filled all space. The Christians still entreat him to come down into their temples and dwellings, but he never heeds them. On this occasion he went to see the wonderful city and tower, just as you might go to the Fisheries Exhibition. But the sight alarmed him 1 And he exclaimed, when he saw the works, “Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do 1” In plain words, that means that Jehovah was really afraid that men would raise the tower to heaven, and so secure themselves against another flood! How extremely childish this is must be apparent to all. The Lord is and always has been in his dotage. Therefore all must be children who would go and dwell with him, “ for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Strong-minded men and women are not wanted there. The Lord having no engines by which to destroy the tower —thunderbolts and earthquakes not having been invented— undertook to confound the language of men, so that they should not understand each other. The results were awful. “Mortar!” shouted a bricklayer; and up came a hod of bricks. “Bricks!” cried another, and up went a hod of mortar. “Bring up that plank!” shouted a third; and up went a can of tea. A mason dubbed his man a blockhead, and the man felt delighted at the compliment, and fully expected higher wages on Saturday. The architect gave orders to push on as fast as possible with the building, for the sky seemed threatening rain. Therefore, the master mason gave instructions to his men to pull down the left wing and rebuild it better. The men misunderstood him, and walled up several of the windows. No two men spoke alike. If a man said “Good morning,” to his fellow, his fellow thought he called him names. Then they fought to assist their mutual understanding. Things went on like this for two days, when the whole world dissolved partnership, and supposing the tower and its vicinity bewitched, all spontaneously left it, rushing away to every point of the compass, some of them never stopping till they met on the opposite side of the world. The Lord and his party went back to heaven, climbing the �68 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. unfinished tower, and stepping from its walls into paradise, where they laughed till the universe shook again, at the wonderful success of their joke. And the Lord played a worse joke still some 1,800 to 1,900 years ago. He gave the world a revelation of his supreme will, throwing together scraps of his autobiography, history, romance, poetry, mythology, statistics, ritual, law, agriculture, cosmogony, ethics, politics, criminal jurisprudence, lies,nonsense, pointless jokes, puns, platitudes, false philosophy. This he put together in a book called the Bible, and would have printed if he had known how. And the result ? The churches have been fighting about the meaning of this book ever since—“ they rest not day and night ” praising the book and quarrelling about its teachings. In this contest reason is never allowed to intrude. Theological language is always at sixes and sevens. Millions upon millions of human lives have been destroyed to prove how divine and precious is the Bible ; it has perverted the best and noblest sentiments of human nature and social life ; it has confounded all those who have endeavored to follow its lead ; it is a will-o’-the-wisp, an ignis fatuus—a maze, a labyrinth, a whirlpool, in the midst of which men neither understand themselves nor their neighbors. Another leap, and we find ourselves in the company of Abram or Abraham, son of Terah and friend of God. The very best parts of Abram’s biography are not in the Bible. I beg to suggest that the gentlemen who meet in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, to improve the Bible, should insert the Rabbinical stories of Abram and other saints, for such additions, even if much that is now in the book should be omitted to make room for them, will enhance the value of the word of God a hundredfold. Abram’s father was Terah and also Azer or the planet Mars ; likewise Zarah and Athar. It is not every man who can boast of five or six fathers. Abram’s father—(I relate the story from memory)—lived in high honor at the court of Nimrod ; and a prophecy went forth that a son of Terah should dethrone the king. Therefore his wife, reflecting that Nimrod would destroy their new child, should it be a boy, removed out of the town and took up her residence for safety in a cave. There Abram was born. To make doubly sure, his mother did not mention the event even to her hus­ �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS 6fl band ; and she spent as little time in the cave as possible, to avoid suspicion. Abram was a remarkable boy for his age, and grew wonderfully fast. At fifteen months old he was as big as an ordinary boy of fifteen years. And “ on what meats did this our Abram feed, that he was grown so great ?” There lies the point of the whole case. He merely sucked— his thumbs or his fingers ! Don’t be sceptical; the Lord was in those digits of Abram, just as he was in the burning bush of Moses, as he is in a salvation drum, or the hallelujah beer sold at the Eagle.” Things turning out so unexpectedly, Mrs. Terah thought it time to tell her husband ; and one evening she conducted him to the cave on a visit to their extremely interesting son. Lest any should doubt the divine truth I am relating, I will mention an incident that took place a few months back at Euston Station. I was in the waiting-room waiting for the midnight train to Birmingham, my companions being a young lady, and a gentleman with a little boy, apparently of four or five years. He was running about the room. And his father remarked to the young lady, “ That’s a wonderful child. How old do you think he is ?” She said, “ Four years, per­ haps.” “ He is only four months old,” replied the father ; I am just come from Canada with him. Don’t you think he is a wonderful child ?” I asked him if he had not made a mistake ; and he solemnly assured me that the child was only four months old. I gave in, thinking this child, like some in Palestine in former days, might have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his birth. Besides I reflected that I had no means of proving that he was more than four months old ; and if he had said four weeks, I should have been equally silenced. Your fathers dwelt on the other side oj the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor : and they served other gods (Joshua xxiv., 2).—It is a long jump from Genesis xi. to Joshua xxiv., no doubt, but the subject is the same. The child Abraham, as previously reported, grew at a marvellous rate ; and his mother took his father to see the prodigy. Terah was a courtier, a class of men often enough very cunning, but rarely remarkable for knowledge or wisdom. Now when Terah saw his son he deemed it best to present him at court, for although he knew there was some danger in that step, he thought there would be much more �BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. should Nimrod discover that he was hiding such a child from him. So he and his wife resolved to take him home at once. Terah soon found that his son was intellectually no less wonderful than he was physically. On the road home the precocious youth bored his father about the nature of the gods, and which was the right and the true one. Terah’s answers were anything but satisfactory, for Abraham seemed determined to probe matters to the utmost. How he had learnt to talk and reason the story does not say ; perhaps the Holy Ghost could tell you if he would. However, he spoke with such good effect that his poor father was thrown into quite a perspiration, and foresaw trouble at the court of Nimrod. Abraham was no courtier, and had no modesty to check his impertinence; and Terah plainly foresaw that he would as soon dispute with Nimrod as a chimney-sweep. Arti­ ficial distinctions were unknown to this overgrown child, and he was no more abashed in the presence of Nimrod than a sensible man would be before the shadow of monarchy remain­ ing in this country. Nimrod was as much confounded Abraham as the Jewish rabbis were at a later date by the twelve-year-old Jesus. And, of course, the king resolved on vengeance, especially as Abraham scouted his gods. But here I am met by a difficulty. There is no sort of doubt at all that Nimrod did his uttermost to win the crown of martyrdom for Abraham, and would have succeeded, had not a miracle most inopportunely sprung up to rob him of that eternal honor. But for that untoward miracle, Abraham would have had the honor of figuring in the calendar as the young martyr of only fifteen months old, who was put to death by Nimrod because he could not withstand the wisdom with which he spake. But it is not very clear why Abraham was to be martyred; whether it was for confounding the king before his whole court, or for another reason, does not clearly appear. The better account of the two is this, substantially. Terah was either a manufacturer of idols oi’ else he had charge of Nimrod’s pantheon, where all the principal idols were kept and taken care of. One day, some great national feast day. all the city went out to the Ninevite Champ de Mars to enjoy themselves. Abraham scorning to take any part in the heathen festival, stayed away, and explored the city. In the course o-f his investigations he stumbled into the chief temple (some say it was his father’s workshop or warehouse), �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 71 and looked with not a spark of reverence upon the idols great and small there set up. No more abashed before gods than he had been before the court, he took an axe, and with most sacrilegious hands proceeded to demolish the gods whose wor­ shippers were too far away to defend them. He had destroyed them all except the largest in the place, when a most happy thought arrested the blow he was about to deal him. Instead of demolishing that one he put it to a remarkably good pur­ pose. He took a piece of cord and tied the axe around the neck of the only surviving god, and then calmly awaited the return of the people from the festival. The first to arrive in the temple was his own father, who for several seconds failed to realise where he was ; the chips and rubbish about rather puzzled him. When he had fairly taken in the situation he was horror-struck, and demanded who had been guilty of this sacrilege. In almost the same breath he accused his incomprehensible son, who, however, pretended to be innocent. “ The fact is, my revered parent,” said he, “ a woman came to the temple with an offering of fine flour; and the gods all scrambled for it in so rude a manner that it came to a deadly fight; and at last that big one there took his axe and destroyed all the rest, as you see. In proof of my veracity, behold the very axe still suspended round the neck of the murderous god1” This story only made Terah more furious. It was absurd, he said, to suppose that idols, gods of wood, could quarrel about an offering, or that one of them should destroy the rest. Abraham did not forget the sarcastic and obvious remark that it must be exceedingly absurd to worship gods that could not do as he averred. But Terah was in no mood to argue; his blood was up ; his piety—like that of Judge North—was boiling over; and he resolved to bring his wicked son to con­ dign punishment. So he dragged him before Nimrod and told the mighty hunter how his son had treated the national gods. Nimrod and his whole court were almost speechless with horror and indignation. The fury of Jehovah himself when his breath was hot enough to kindle coals (see Psalm xviii., 8), scarcely exceeded it. So Nimrod ordered immediate preparations to be set on foot for the execution of the culprit. A large meadow was filled up with wood to a great height, and, at the suggestion of the Devil, they constructed a large engine, a kind of lithobolus or balista, or catapult, sufficient to �72 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. hurl a man to a great distance. This was needed for special reasons. The fire was to be so tremendous in size, and they wished to light it and let it blaze up a little before flinging the victim into it; and how, without' an engine of this sort,, were they to get him into the midst of the fire ? When the fire was just hot enough and the court and people were expect­ ing eagerly the grand holiday sight of a heretic roasting, they fastened poor Abraham to the engine and fired him off ! And now, behold a wonder! The aim was correctly enough taken, and the victim flew along the parabolic projectile-curve right into the midst of—not the fire, not the pile of wood. The whole pile, fire and all, disappeared in a twinkling. A flash of lightning nevei’ came and went faster. And the young saint fell upon a bed of flowers in the very midst of a beauti­ ful meadow! I do not know how Nimrod endured the disappointment ;• though no doubt he learnt the lesson never to hunt saints again or try to kill them. What became of Abraham imme­ diately after I cannot say ; though I doubt not he thoroughly enjoyed the day’s sport and fun, as much as some of us enjoy the smashing of gods in these degenerate tunes. Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father s house, unto a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed (G-en. xii., 1-3).—Having delivered Abram from the fell designs of Nimrod and the Devil, we may now resume his history in the Bible. The pious reader will not fail to note (1) the unsocial nature of the Lord’s religion, which begins by sending Abram from home, (2) the low and vulgar promises held out to his ambi­ tion, (3) the vengeful spirit of the Lord, who threatens to curse the man that curses his favorite. This is a very appropriate start for the Jewish-Ohristian religion—the Lord seems never yet to have won a single follower except by means of bribery or intimidation. He never will; and now those old weapons are almost out of date. This story of Abram’s leaving home is a good specimen of Bible history. In chapter xi., 31, we are told it was Terah who left his native place, Ur of the Chaldees, taking Abram �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 73 and Lot with him ; and they went forth to go to Canaan. There is nothing here about leaving “ his father’s house that house went with him. But the text quoted above from chapter xii. says God told Abram to go out from his kindred and his father’s house. Where Ur was, or Haran of Oharran, cannot be ascertained—somewhere near New Jerusalem perhaps. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran (Gen. xii., 4).—Is it possible the Lord would send a poor old fellow of that age on a long journey into an un­ known land ? And did he talk to an old fogey of that age about leaving lens, father s house, etc. ? If his poor old father was still living, Abram should at least have stayed and buried him before setting out. And if Terah was dead when God told this youth to quit, as the last verse of chapter xi. says, what sense was there in God talking to him about “his father’s house ?” And there was a famine in the land (Gen. xii., 10).—Ah I if the Lord had only told the saint how to prevent famines, and the saint had imparted the secret to the world, then he would have made him a blessing to mankind; as it is, the world does not owe anything good to Abram yet, and I fear it never will. Abram’s example is instructive. In consequence of the famine he went to Egypt. His wife, only ten years younger than himself, is so fair that he fears the Egyptians will kill him for her sake ; so he bids her tell a lie and pass as his sister. This was a most ungodly saint, for. he had no faith in the Lord to protect him in Egypt. What wonder if so many saints to-day follow the example of this ancient infidel, the father of the faithful, and trust in anything rather than Jehovah ? The Egyptians must have had a plague, we sup­ pose, just previous to this visit, in which nearly all the women had been swept off. It is impossible otherwise to account for Pharaoh’s selecting so old a woman for his harem. Is this a story that Sarah herself told, when she returned from Egypt, to some of her gossips over a cup of tea with a little reviving spirit in it ? Anyhow, why did the Holy Ghost pen or dictate so stupid and indecent a tale ? And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in yold (Gen. xiii., 2).—He does not appear to have had anything when he went to Egypt: he returned a very rich man. Sarah is said to have been beautiful; and Abram, friend of the �74 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. most high God, enriched himself in the most unmanly and immoral fashion to be conceived. Why had not the Holy Ghost the decency to throw a veil over this part of the saint’s life ? Yea, why did he ever mention such a man at all ? Abram’s treatment of Lot is described by an Israelite so as to redound to the glory of the former ; had one of Lot’s descendants written Genesis xiii., no doubt Abram would have been exhibited as the more selfish man. I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that ifa man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered (xiii., 16).—This is a good specimen of Bible pro­ mises, preposterously impossible of fulfilment. The dust caught up by one gust of wind, in what the Scotch call a “ stoury day,” contains more particles than all the people that have ever lived, most likely. Abram’s descendants, if he has any at all, are not even among the most numerous of mankind. Both Abram and his God are mere names, no doubt of beings that never existed, except as Jupiter and Juno existed. And Melchizcdek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine : and he was the priest of the most high God (Gen. xiv., 18).—Here is a delightful source of theological speculation! Who was Melchizedek ? The Jews said he was Shem, son of Noah. Some of the fathers'said he was an angel; some heretics (that is, unfashionable Christians) held that he was a Power, a Virtue, or Influence of God; others regarded him as being the Holy Ghost. Some Christians thought he was the son of God ; and some Jews their Messiah. The Epistle to the Hebrews (v. and vii.) clears up the whole difficulty in a style which leaves nothing to be desired: Melchizedek, according to this, was not Shem, not on angel, not the Holy Ghost, not the son of God, not the Messiah ; he was “ without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life !” Here all difficulties vanish in an outburst of faith ; and I have no doubt the sceptical commentators who attempt to explain things beyond this will be damned for their pains. For my part, I cannot prove that he had parents ; they are not necessary for gods and high priests. Those beings have the powei’ to create themselves, and their ancestors also, when they care to indulge in such luxuries. And he gave him tithes of all (xiv., 20). Mobal and Practical Reflexions.—(1) How wonderfully �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 75 kind was our heavenly father thus to invent this lying story for the sake of his servants the priests, who always take tithes when they cannot get more ! (2) How marvellous are the ways of God, to inspire one of the priests themselves to write this story in his blessed book! (3) Note the marvellous success that has followed this divine fraud. Had it originated with a mere man it must have failed : but it has robbed the dupes of the Bible of untold millions ; and this grand success is a standing miracle calculated to show to all, except unde­ ceivable sceptics, that the Bible is the word of God. There are only two or three fatal points in the story, which we must note:— 1. Salem is an unknown place, and divines don’t know where to locate it. I may tell them from my own knowledge that it is in the very middle of Utopia, and within a few miles of the Garden of Paradise on the one side, and New Jerusalem on the other. To the north is the mountain, from the top of which the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Other interesting topo­ graphical points might be mentioned; but these are amply sufficient to lead any explorers to the very spot where Mel­ chizedek still reigns and deals in bread and wine. 2. The god for whom Melchizedek was priest creates some difficulty. It was Eliun, an old Phoenician god, who knew nothing more of Jehovah than Jehovah did of him. They are both with Melchizedek to this day, though he does not recognise the difference between them. 3. .Abram swore by Eliun (v. 22) along with Jehovah ; showing that he, too, was a polytheist, though Christians absurdly claim him as a monotheist and a champion of that cause. I should note, further, that in the third century there arose a sect of Melchizedekians, who held that he was the Holy Ghost, and thus superior to Jesus Christ; for, said they, Mel­ chizedek. was the intercessor and mediator for angels, Jesus being only such for man. The priesthood of the latter, they add, was a mere copy of the former. The latter point, I must say, is purely scriptural. See the passages in Hebrews above referred to. The Cocceians (disciples of Cocceius, a Dutchman of the seventeenth century) and the Hutchinsonians generally still believe that Jesus and Melchizedek were one and the same. So do I. Jack-o’-the-Lantem, Will-o’-the- �76 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. Wisp, Apollo, Baldur and Prester John are only other names of the same individual. He is rarely seen now, and the reason is, that the churches have neither faith nor grace enough to induce him to visit them. He has retired in dis­ gust, carrying his lantern and his bread and wine with him ; and will never return until the churches renounce the world, and parsons live upon charity begged from door to door. Problem.—What will be the date of his reappearance ? Abraham is called the Friend of God (2 Ohron. xx., 7 ; Isaiah xli., 8; James ii., 23.) There is not much in the Bible to warrant or suggest the relationship ; besides it is ridiculous, if God be infinite. The Mahommedans have a very good story on the subject, much better than any in the Bible. In a time of dearth, say they, Abram sent to a- friend in Egypt for meal. The friend refused, for he knew that Abram would give it away instead of keeping it for his own family. His servants being ashamed to be seen returning with empty sacks filled them, for appearance sake, with a very fine sand, closely resembling flour. They told Abram, but not Sarah, of their failure to get meal, and the old man was so overcome that he soon fell asleep. Sarah, finding the sacks full of flour, as she supposed, set to make some cakes; and the smell of the new bread awoke her husband, who demanded whetever she had obtained the meal. “ Why, your friend in Egypt sent it,” replied she. “Nay,” said he, “it is not my friend in Egypt who sent itj but my friend God Almighty.” Now such’a story is far more to Abram’s credit as a believer than almost any in the Bible; and if it were inserted to the exclusion of several others, the Bible would gain by it— though the new editors might be damned for improving God’s word. I sometimes think I will bring out a Bible of my own, retaining all the good in the old one (not very much), and improving it by a few genuine new revelations. I am quite qualified, having as much Holy Ghost as any man that ever lived. And when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon Abraham; andlo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. (Genesis xv., 12).—Bead the context. Abram killed a heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, and divided them all in pieces, except the birds. And when it was dark he saw a fiery furnace, and a lamp that went �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 77 between the pieces. The cresset was, I presume, God the father; the lamp, the son—the Holy Ghost not then being born, perhaps. The Mahommedan account of this transaction has the merit of making a complete story of it, which the Bible does not. They say Abram was in doubt or perplexity respecting the mode in which God would raise the dead. Abram, at the command of God, took an eagle (some say, dove), a peacock, a raven and a cock, cut them up and pounded their flesh, bones and feathers all up together in one mass, merely keep­ ing their heads intact. Then he called them all by their names, and the parts came together again, and the birds resumed life as if nothing had happened. That is as true as any miracle you ever heard or read of; and I do not for a moment doubt that a sausage maker could obtain like results any day, if he only had faith enough. For fear of revelations of too startling a nature, however, it may be as well not to suggest that to the fraternity. Genesis xvi. and xvii. have not much quotable matter in them. Verse 17 of the later tells us how Abram (in this chapter his name grows one syllable longer) laughed when God told him he and Sarah should have a son when their respective ages were 100 and 90. In this matter all the world now joins with the saint to laugh at God’s amusing promises! And God went up from Abraham (Genesis xvii., 22). This must have been a very small god. The infinite one cannot move ; he fills all spac’e, and has no room to move in. He is an absolute solid, and that is the only quality he has—a per­ fect block, but he does not know it. If Christians only read and studied the Bible, instead of wilfully perverting some of its words to fit them into others, and all its teachings to fit them to their own views, how soon they would discover how ridiculous the old book is, and how opposed to their creeds. I suppose their God has given them the spirit of slumber to prevent their understanding the defects of his word. And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground, etc. (Genesis xviii., 2).—This story of Abraham' feeding God with veal and bread (mustard, peper, salt and other condiments not men­ tioned) is a puzzle to the orthodox. They believe their God �78 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. to be almighty, and yet cannot understand how he could make himself so very small; nor do they quite understand how he managed to eat and digest Abraham's calf. It is a bit puzzling, even to me, though I have the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide me into all truth. However, let us hope God’s teeth were sound, that his liver was in good order; though I fear me, that badly-cooked veal sadly disagreed with him, for immediately after his hasty dinner he went and destroyed bodom and Gomorrah with fire ! No man could do that—no god could—whose digestion was good. Good diges­ tion when it waits on appetite, brings us into harmony with all around, and we almost love our enemies—at least those that are too weak to be able to harm us. If God had enjoyed his dinner and readily digested it, Sodom and Gomorrah would not have been so ruthlessly destroyed. Modal.—When you invite God Almighty to dine with you,, be sure to get good meat, well killed, well cooked, and well' served; for if he does not digest it well and readily, he may, under the influence of the internal burden and torment, go and burn up a few more cities. Better never invite him than produce such frightful results. My own view of the story is this, that three young fellows, good looking and well dressed, who knew that poor old Abraham was near-sighted and immensely credulous, played pranks with him, one of them pretending to be God the father, and the other two the son and the Holy Ghost. When they appeared before him and audaciously began to play their role, Abraham, too conceited to doubt if God would visit him, too delighted at the honor to be at all suspicious, assisted the young fellows to gammon him. They found the old man dying for an heir, and promised him one, at which Sarah laughed till her aged sides shook again. (It was the custom with saints in those days to laugh at God; familiarity bred contempt. For fear of like treatment from saints, he never appears now-a-days.) Those young fellows by bribes and flattery, enlisted Sarah in the plot and instructed her in the part she was to play. At the time appointed they secretly sent a new-born babe, which Sarah, to content the poor old man, told him was her own. Thus the divine pro­ mise of Isaac was fulfilled; thus prophets and apostles were sold : and thus the Jewish and the Christian communities became the victims of a practical joke, and the world’s laugh­ �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 70 ing-stock unto this day! This view of the case makes every­ thing plain ; the orthodox opinion leads only to a cluster of absurdities. The story of Sodom reflects little credit upon any of the parties concerned in it. The Sodomites were bad enough; Lot was worse ; and God worst of all. To commit wholesale and indiscriminate murdei' is certainly the worst of crimes. And stories of brutal punishment only brutalise those who read and approve them. When I believed the Bible I was barbarian enough to approve of capital punishment and even hell torments; in growing out of superstition I grew more humane. But his ivife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt (Gen. xix., 26).—Some people, alas! treat this story as a myth. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” But if anybody doubts the transformation of Lot’s wife, let him read some Classical Dictionary or Ovid’s Metamorphoses. There he will find Daphne was turned into a laurel and Io into a heifer; Actaeon was turned to a stag, and tom to pieces by his own dogs; and Atlas was transformed, not into a paltry pillar of salt, but into a mountain. If the Bible had only said that this unfortunate lady had been turned into mount Lebanon, of course all the world would have aagarded the story as of divine origin; but, a pillar of salt! W hat God would work a whole miracle for such a trifle ? And# came to pass that God did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii., 1),__ This is fully confirmed by James, who assures us that God tempteth no man (James i., 13). “Lead us not into temptation” is a very appropriate prayer for Christians. Had Abraham known the character of his God he might have used the prayer and so have escaped the temptation. Can anyone distinguish this temptation from a practical joke played by one man upon another on April 1? I cannot—except it be that here the fun is entirely absent, though that redeeming feature is sometimes quite evident in a joke perpetrated by man. I believe, however, that this transaction really did occur on April 1, a time when deity considered himself at liberty to unbend, to resolve the monarch into the clown. So he sent Abraham to Moriah to murder his son; and when there, and about to do it, he cried, “ Stop! it is a ram you have to kill, not Isaac!” Thereupon his courts rang with the laughter of his flatterers, while Abraham felt himself deceived. �80 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. And Abraham gave up the ghost (Genesis xxv., 8).—He had lived 175 years, so the Bible says, and all the good recorded of him might have been easily performed in 175 minutes. There is nothing said about immortality in connexion with the old patriarchs. Indeed, there can be no doubt the writer made them live so long because he never expected, sensible man that he was, that they would ever live a second time. Had he expected his heroes to live again, he never would have stretched them so long “upon the rack of this rude world.” And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat his venison; but Rebekah loved Jacob (Genesis xxv., 28).—“All scripture is profitable,” says an apostle—chiefly, I should say, in teaching you how you ought not to act. This family was a saintly one. The husband and wife, equally pious, are at sixes and sevens; the old father prefers one son before the other for the sake of his venison, which he was ’too old to catch for him­ self ; and his wife loved the other son only, it appears, because his father made a favorite of his brother. Between the brothers the most deadly hatred existed. Esau was a “'muff;” Jacob was a swindler, a coward, a cheat—a very picture of his God. and his special favorite. He robbed his brother of his birth­ right, though nobody can exactly define how much or little that meant. Jacob, of course,'was too clever a swindler to plot and scheme for a trifle ; and no doubt he got at least a million per cent, for his “mess of pottage,” bread Sind lentils (verse 34). The twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis may be skipped at a bound, for it is false from end to end, a mere repetition of the story .of Abraham’s sojourn in Gerar. (To fee conclutZecJ in No. 6). Printed and Published by Bamsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. �NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY ¥o. 4.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. [id. BY JOSEPH SYMES. JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. In verse 14, Cain is made to complain that he is driven from the face of the Lord! Where did he wander ? And from, thy face, says he, I shall be hid! And the Lord does not correct him, therefore he must, I suppose, have been right. The Lord was confined to some spot in those days ; to-day he is nowhere. Cain also feared he should be murdered ; and the Lord set a mark upon him to prevent that, and threatened seven-fold vengeance on whoever should slay him! This is curious. The writer of this was evidently an Arab, a son of the desert, where the kinsmen of a murdered man were bound to slay the murderer. He has, in this romantic tale, supposed that this method of punishing murcer was in vogue in the first family. If the Holy Ghost inspired this, he too fell into the same inno­ cent blunder. But of whom was Cain afraid ? This question had better not be pressed, if you wish to believe that Adam and Eve were the first of living men and women. The story of Cain implies that the earth was pretty well stocked with people ; and that shows how fabulous is the tale of Adam and Eve. The fact is, we are here dealing with nursery tales, which the orthodox blasphemously ascribe to the inspiration of an almighty and all-wise God. And the tales are so miserably edited or compiled that all the learning of 1600 years has been expended upon them in vain—they are as confused and irrational as ever. It may not be amiss to put the question here : How could the murderer of Cain be punished seven-fold? Was it intended to kill him seven times over, or what ? Besides, �52 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (vi., 6).—The Lord is unchangeable ; here is one of the scripture proofs. He is the first to repent; the conclusion is that he must have been the first sinner. His repentance, however, did not do much good to anybody. Instead of laying the blame where it all honestly fell, upon himself, he blamed his creatures for being just what he made them. So God resolved to commit indiscriminate murder because his creatures did not please him—a grand example for all kings, rulers, parents, slaveholders and cattle-owners for all time ! Any civilised deity would have made a distinction between the good and the bad, and punished only the latter. Any rational ruler, god or otherwise, would never have per­ mitted his kingdom to become corrupt. In this case “ all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth —from man down to the microscopic monad; there were only a handful of saints left—viz., Noah and his family, and such other sacred things as they had about their dwellings and persons. Those shall be saved in the ark, along with others yet to be named. So Noah, being warned in time, set to building his ark. By the way, they have just found the timbers, half-buried in the snow, on Mount Ararat. No doubt they will discover the stalls and cabinets, all labelled and numbered, in which Noah kept the menagerie during the flood. Pity we can t bring mountain and all to Great Britain; then sceptics must become saints in no time at all. The dimensions of the ark were as follows :—300 cubits iong, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Altogether the area was 15,000 square cubits, and the solid content 450,000 cubical cubits. A cubit originally was the length of the fore­ arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and it varied at different times and places. The Jewish cubit was sometimes 18 inches, at others 21. Suppose we take the larger value. Then the ark measured 525ft. long. 87tt. bin. wide and 52ft. 6in. high. This ship was the largest ever built— except the “ Great Eastern.” Of course Noah found no difficulty in its construction. He merely had to get the wood, cut it into shape, fasten it together in the desired fashion, pitch it within and without, and lo ! it was prepared for the storm. Anyone who questions the patriarch’s ability in so trifling a patter had better lay down this book never to read it again. Of ail �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS 53 people in the world, sceptics and unbelievers are my dread. You believe in the “Great Eastern,” why not believe in the ark ? Must we bring its remains from Mount Ararat to con­ vince you ? Must we resurrect Noah and his family, and repeat the experiment of the flood to excite your faith ? Into this ark Noah was ordered to collect two and two of all animals in the world (vi., 19, 20). Some priest or Levite added to the story later, and gave Noah orders to take clean animals by sevens (vii., 2). “ If you have faith prepare to use it now !” To build the ark would have been no trifle to a man not inspired; but to collect pairs of all the animals in the world ! and no natural history book, no collection of specimens to guide him ! Ah, Noah! much better had it been for thee hadst thou but died prematurely at the age of 599 years, instead of lingering on to 600 and having a task like this imposed upon thee ! Prythee, good Patriarch, how many fly­ catchers, bird-catchers, hunters, microscopists, animal tamers, and others didst thou employ ? And how long did they take to finish their work? And how didst thou knew when all the animals were in ? Art sure that no species was omitted ? How didst thou feed them when in ? Art perfectly sure the pail’s were all rightly adjusted ? Art perfectly sure, good Noah that, thou wast sober when thou toldest this tale of the flood ? Couldst thou do the like again, thinkest thou ? For my part, let me be set to drain the ocean with a sieve, rather than have thy task to do! There are said to be 400,000 different species of insects now in the museums of civilised nations ; those have been collected and classified by the labor of over a century, by people who know their way about the world, and who have means of transit such as modem times only can boast of. They are not impeded by forests and marshes and the total want of roads, as man must have been in the days of Noah. There can harly be more species now than in ancient times, if orthodoxy and not Darwinism be true, though there may be fewer. And into the ark, if the story is true, all insects must have found their way, except such as spend their whole time in water. A few details will now be given which will doubtless tend to raise admiration for the divine wisdom and goodness, and to show how totally God’s ways and thoughts differ from ours. �54 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark (Gen. vi., 19).—My readers! I am puzzled and bewildered, for I do not see how Noah did what he was commanded. Some blasphemous parsons will tell you that the flood was not universal; but such men are “ clouds without water, cariied about of winds ; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of dark­ ness for ever,” because they contradict the Bible, which says plainly that the flood should “ destroy all flesh from under heaven ; and everything that is in the earth shall die ” (Gen. vi., 17); “ and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth ” (vii., 4). Read the whole of the seventh chapter, and you will find it stated that this threat was executed to the letter—no living thing remaining except those in the ark! By-the-bye, it seems rather unfair that all land animals should have been drowned, while those in the sea were not hurt, as verse 22 implies. Perhaps the “ finny monsters of the deep ” had not sinned, though, and corrupted their way. That is an interesting point for orthodox com­ mentators to clear up. They have the holy ghost to guide them into all truth ; he never assists me. Noah took into the ark two and two of all flesh, and suit­ able food for them all; a stock of provisions for a year or more. (1) Butterflies.—For the cabbage butterflies (Pieridi) he must have planted a kitchen-garden in the ark ; nettles would be needed for the vanessoe ; the white admiral lives on honey­ suckles when a caterpillar; the poplar butterfly must have horse-droppings ; the purple emperor would require an oak tree or a gooseberry bush ; the satyridi live upon grasses, elms and hawthorns. Noah must have embarked a whole country for butterflies alone. I have mentioned only a few. (2) Moths would be equally difficult to manage. The bee­ shaped sesia lays its eggs on the bark of poplars, and the catterpillars eat into the tree. They remain catterpillars for two years, by the way ; others must have flowers, the honey of which they sip while on the wing ; another moth needs the euphorbia to feed upon; others, oleanders, though fuchsias are not refused on occasion ; the squeaking death’s-head moth needs the potatoe plant or the jasmine, though it does not �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 55 object to a hive of honey ; to satisfy another moth, Noah must have brought in a Banksia bush from Australia; the lasiocampa is said to live on heather ; the lockey moth is fond of apple-tree leaves ; the goat moth needs old trunks of elms or willows to excavate into galleries ; the catterpillars of the acronycta are fond of the mosses and lichens which grow on trees, walls, etc. ; one kind of tortridna feeds on green peas in the pods ; another gets into apples and pears; another into plums; others into acorns and beech-nuts, chestnuts, etc.; some of the tineidce moths are the pests that destroy garments. (3) Among hymenopterci. some of the saw-flies want rosetrees for their eggs, etc. ; others turnips ; others firs and pines ; the gall-flies (Cynipsidas) need trees to puncture in order that galls may grow and protect their eggs and larv®. Ants are among the most interesting beings in the world. It would probably be of little or no use to take two of them into the ark. You need at least three to carry on the affairs of an ant-nest. The male and female of the common ants have wings, the workers none. The latter do all the work, con­ struct the nest and keep it in repair, take special care of the eggs, removing them from spot to spot to keep them at the right temperature, rip them open to let the larvae out at the right time, and nurse the young ones till able to do for them­ selves. Two of them could not construct a nest. Moses and the Holy Ghost did not know that. The mason ants and the miner ants would be as helpless in pairs as the little red ones. The formica fuliginosa lives in old trunks of trees, which it tunnels in a most marvellous manner. Others get into the beams of houses and hollow them out. What Noah would have done with a few of those in his ark it is easy to imagine: he and his whole menagerie would have gone to the bottom, for they would have riddled his ship for him till it was no stronger than a bandbox. The polyergus rufens is a warrior ant. They are only males and females and do no work. They make war upon the nests of the black ants, steal their larvae, and carry them off to their nests, where the prisoners are reared as slaves and compelled to work for their masters. Certain American ants, also, are said to follow this trade. Noah might have been at his wit’s end with the Driver ants of West Africa. They range about in large armies �56 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. having, like the ancient saints, no certain dwelling place. They march by night. The army is divided into three groups, soldiers to attack and disable the prey, assistants to divide the prey into portable portions, and the laborers. They are terrible things, and few animals can resist them. They have been known to kill the python, the largest serpent in the country. When they enter a dwelling, rats, mice, lizards, and cockroaches get out as fast as possible. They visit all dirty houses and towns where scavengering is needed. A few of those would have emptied the ark in a short timn. The excavating insects would have given Noah no little trouble. When adult they are strict vegetarians, and yet they have to provide for flesh-eating offspring. There are four species of them, which differ somewhat amongst them­ selves. The mother digs a hole in the earth, a tree, or wall. Having prepared the nest, she attacks caterpillars, spiders, etc.. These she stings, so as to disable and paralyse, but not to kill. The prey is placed in the nest and the eggs deposited. The young larvae find ready for them living food as soon as they are ready to eat it, and the victim, though stung and half eaten, still lives till his enemy has had enough of bim. Such is one of the ways of divine providence, though the writer of Genesis did not know of it. The scolia goes to even less trouble, for it finds a larva of a beetle in the ground, digs down to it, stings it so as to render it helpless and torpid without killing it; and then deposits its eggs under the skin of its victim, which is by and by devoured by the young scolia. How did Noah manage for all these ? Neither he nor his God knew anything of these matters. If they had they would never have undertaken to save the twos and twos of all flesh! Need I mention the fact that bees also could not have been preserved without more than a pair of each species ? I must pass over beetles, spiders, and other insects, and merely men­ tion the fact that most insects have parasites, as well as many larger animals. Besides, why were some of them preserved at all ? Fleas and bugs, the itch-insect, mosquitoes, pediculi capitis, locusts, ticks, phylloxera, the tsetses, etc. ? And why were the tapeworm and the trichina preserved ? Trichina usually enters the human system in underdone pork ; I pre­ sume it entered the ark in Ham. �JUMPING- COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 57 More than half of the insects taken into the ark might well have been excluded, and many of them would have been if there had been an enlightened superintendent appointed to oversee the embarkation. As it was, they were all taken in, and Noah must have provided them with sufficient food for a whole year and more. Those who know anything of natural history can well enough perceive that he must have carried in a slice of every country in the world, and must have had some means of reproducing all the world’s various climates to keep his freight alive and well. This must have been a heavy task, for we must remember that during the whole year the ark was floating five miles above the old sea-level, for the flood was more than five miles deep, as we shall see later on ; and though the rigors of this arctic temperature may have been slightly modified by the general rise of what then was the earth’s surface, yet the cold must have been intense ; and the wonder is that the whole concern did not get crushed amongst the myriads of icebergs which must have abounded. Of course, nothing is too hard for the Lord—except to do a sensible thing. If Noah felt difficulty with the insects, what must he have felt respecting the largest of the beasts ? There were giants on the earth in those days, and giantesses too, and they had to be got into the ark some way or other. Horses, cows, camels and elephants were not easily disposed of. Some of the giant birds might have exercised his skill—the moa, for example, or other extinct monsters. Besides, the celebrated phoenix—in whom the fathers believed as devoutly as they did in the holy pigeon, alias Holy Ghost—could have been embarked only as a unit, for a pair of them never existed. The dinotherium is estimated to have been eighteen feet long. He was probably fond of marshy ground, or may have spent his time much in the way the hippopotamus does. A pair of these, standing end to end, would reach thirty-six feet—about half-way across the ark. Themselves and their food and accommodation would require no trifling portion of the space available for the whole menagerie. Perhaps, however, like Milton’s devils in Pandemonium, the animals in those days were not so rigid and exacting as now, and may have accommodated themselves to the space allotted them— �58 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. “ . . . the signal given, Behold a wonder! they but now who seemed In bigness to surpa-s earth’s giant sons, Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room, Throng numberless like that Pygmean race Bejonu the Indian mount.” There is, at any rate, nothing in the world so handy as a miracle to help one out of a fix ; and as Noah must have sorely needed a few of those accommodating events, of course piety suggests that we suppose them, though we cannot prove them. Anything is better than common sense in expounding the Bible. No truly devout man ever tries that as a key to unlock its secrets and mysteries. God forbid ! The megatherium was an animal from 12 to 18 feet long, 8 or 9 feet high, and 5 to 6 feet wide behind. His tail, stout and strong in proportion as a kangaroo’s, was six feet long, and his foot about a yard from heel to toe. It is supposed that he lived upon roots which he dug out of ground, or else upon twigs of trees. I should like to know how Noah found him employment for claws and jaws during the voyage. It would have been nothing to him to have scratched a few holes through the bottom of the ark. The mylodon (11 feet long) and the glyptodon (9 feet long) must also have been preserved. The mammoth, which makes the elephant look like a good-sized calf in comparison, must have taken a large space ; and he did not live upon nothing. A pair of these must have devoured many tons of vegetables during the year. How did the patriarch manage the megalosaurus, a land lizard about 40 feet long, which very likely fed upon such smaller lizards as crocodiles ? Authorities differ as to the length of the iguanodon. Mantell thought it must have been 70 feet long ; Professor Owen brings it down to 30 feet. But its thigh-bone is 4 feet 8 inches long. Fancy four of those tremendous lizards (mega­ losaurus and iguanodon), beasts 15 to 20 feet high, and more than double that length, and broad in proportion—fancy them, I say, having a fight in the ark, or running about to catch such prey as crocodiles and alligators—scores of tons of flesh and bones bouncing about on the floor of Noah’s box 1 And how would elephants, tigers, lions, behave when such a row was forward ? �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. .59 It is all very well, of course, for divines to assume that the giants above named were extinct before Noah’s day. They may say so if they will; but what extinguished them ? I will give my own inspired opinion ; and whoever shall receive it shall save his soul alive. My own view is this : That when Noah undertook to get pairs of all the animals into his ark he assumed obligations he never contemplated. When he blew his whistle as a signal for them all to appear, away they came, each pair bringing a full year’s provisions with them—the elephants had theirs packed in then’ trunks, of course, and the kangaroos came with their pouches full ; the rest brought their stock upon then’ backs. But when Noah saw the number of animals approaching, the hundreds—where he had bargained, as he thought, for twos—when he beheld the enormous sizes of those above named he cried out: “ 0 Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived (Jeremiah xx., 7). I will back out of the bargain. It would take fifty arks to stow away all this rabble ; and who, I should like to know, would risk his life in a box for a year—for ten minutes even—with all these ferocious beasts ?” And it came to pass that the Lord answered and said unto Noah : “ I also am greatly amazed at the multitude of living things and at the greatness of them. Go to, therefore, shut the giants out and let them drown, for it repenteth me that I made mammoth, and megalonyx, and mastodon, and megalosaurus, and iguanodon upon the earth. Lo, I will even put my hook in their nose and my bridle in their jaws if I can, and lead them back by the way they came, and thou shalt see them no more for ever.” So Noah was comforted. Is it not written in the book of Jasher and in the visions of Iddo the seer ? And thus those enormous animals became extinct, and their carcases were buried in the strata of the earth as a warning to all beasts, lest they also should eat and drink and grow too large, and thus provoke the Lord to cut them off from the face of the ground. “ He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” I have no wish, my reader, like commentators in general, to bore you with further remarks tending to expose the abso­ lute absurdity of the flood; though the subject might be pursued to a very great length, and every step would only tend to show how totally false or mythological is the narrative. Even Christians themselves are beginning to throw ridicule upon �60 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. it. Just recently they have spread reports of the finding of the ark on Ararat; and one American journal has discovered that it was insured in a New York office as a vessel to convey pas­ sengers and animals, owned by Noah and Sons. Whether the menagerie was insured has not yet been ascertained. When sacred subjects such as this can be so treated in common newspapers, honest men may rejoice to think that malice and stupidity will not much longer send men to gaol for doing what their Christian neighbors do,—viz., ridiculing the holy and ever-blessed revelation God gave to the world to enlighten and save mankind. Pray don’t forget that the flood was universal; the earth was encased in a shell of water, like an orange With its rind, like the fruit with paste in an apple-dumpling. This shell of water covered all the mountains, and they are over five miles in perpendicular height. We will now inquire into the quantity of water required to drown the world, and speculate a little on the wisdom of so expensive and clumsy a method of gratifying vengeance. The earth is a globe (nearly so) 25,000 miles in circum­ ference ; and the area of its whole surface equals about 200,000,000 square miles. Its highest mountains rise more than 5 miles above the level of the sea ; the flood rose about 26 feet above the top of the highest of them. Therefore, the earth must have been encased in a shell of extra water about 5-|- to 6 miles deep, the highest peak in the world being over 28,000 feet high. This equals an ocean 25,000 miles long, by 8,000 wide, and 5^ to 6 miles deep, measuring down to the ordinary sea-level. The solid content of this new and universal ocean could not be less than about 1,000,000,000 cubic miles of water, or about l-80th of the solid contents of the whole earth as it now is. If this water could be formed into a river 1 mile wide and 10 yards in depth, it would stretch out to the enormous length of 176,000,000,000 miles, almost 2,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun ! If the water of that river flowed by at 7 miles per hour, it would take 2,878,188 years to run away ! Whence did all this water come ? From heaven, and down through its windows ? It must have been very many millions of years on the road. And when it is remembered that the earth is totally invisible from heaven, we must conclude that he who fired or squirted all that water from his syringe must �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 61 have been a most excellent marksman indeed, not to have hit the sun instead of so tiny a mark as the earth, and so abso­ lutely invisible as it must have been. We cannot, I am sorry to confess, sufficiently admire the goodness and wisdom of God in this transaction, especially when we consider that he must have shot the water from his syringe many millions of years before either earth or sun was created! Now this shows divine skill in its most transcendant phase. Imagine, my reader, a marksman who could fire his rifle, and while the shot was flying could go and create the target and then coolly wait for the flying bullet to hit the bull’s-eye! Jehovah, the war-God, was the very best marksman evei’ yet known. How carefully he calculated the time and the posi­ tion of the moving target! Remember, this earth is flying through space at the rate of about 65,000 miles an hour! How clever of him to hit the mark under such conditions ! Then, how kind of him to arrange for drowning the world so many millions of years before it was created! What an exhibition of foresight and providence ! Who would not worship thee, 0 Jehovah! after this display of thy goodness and wisdom? What became of the water aftei’ it had done all the drown­ ing, I am not able to say. Nor can I explain how it was that so large a mass of water, falling from heaven with a velocity some hundreds of times greater than a cannon ball has, did not bear the earth before it as a falling drop of rain does an invisible grain of dust. These are mysteries we had better leave alone. Divine wisdom has thrown a veil over them. Who shall dare to lift it now ? There are many other incidents connected with the flood that prudence bids us not to meddle with, if we would retain our faith. Therefore, let them remain buried in the divine oblivion which shrouds them. When Noah escaped from his box he murdered one or more of all the clean beasts and fowls he had with him, and burnt them for Jehovah’s dinner. The Lord had kept Lent for over a year, poor fellow ; and never had been so delighted in all his days as he was with this sacrifice. He smelled but does not seemed to have eaten it. So delighted was he, that he promised never to drown the world again. Perhaps he feared he might lose all the animals in another flood, and so get no more smoke of burning flesh as long as he lived. How extremely �62 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. condescending, my friend, it was of the infinite God, who fills all space, to stoop so low as to bring his nose near enough to sniff up the reek of Noah’s sacrifice ! One might have thought that he would have been above such conduct. But no ; the Bible reveals God as having nothing better to do just then than to enjoy himself smelling the burning animals. Of course he has been wonderfully civilised since. The bishops have taken him to task over a good many things, and you wouldn’t know it was the same god now, so great a transfor­ mation has there been in him. Indeed, the incident of Noah’s sacrifice is now never mentioned in his presence. The slightest allusion to it would produce an earthquake. And surely your blood of your lives will 1 require; at the hand of every beast, will I require it. and at the hand of every man . . . whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. ix., >5-6).—The Bible has been translated into many languages, but not into all. Why are the poor beasts forgotten ? They shed men’s blood, some of them ; and God will require it at their hands. To this clay the beasts have never been warned. How shocking ! Lions and tigers, mad bulls and wolves have shed many a man’s blood because they did not know the risk they ran. Why does not some pious divine go and tell them that they will be damned if they shed human gore ? Alas! to think of the many serpents and ravenous beasts that might be tamed and converted by this Bible text if they only knew it! And how hard-hearted are the worshippers of God, that they don’t go and tell them. Put up this text in all places where men and beasts meet, in the languages of all the animal species of a dangerous nature ; let them know the real price of human blood ; and neither beast of prey, nor flea, nor bug will ever shed another drop as long as the world shall last. The latter part of the text is the stronghold of the public executioner. But for the Bible the death-penalty would pro­ bably disappear. In obedience to divine commands men have burnt witches and heretics, and still hang murderers to glut their taste for vengeance. What good is done to anybody by hanging a man ? Does it restore his victim to life ? Does it deter from crime ? Not at all. It is the result'of superstition, and merely multiplies murder. Behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you ; and with every living creature that is with you, ofthe �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 63 fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you (Gen. ix., 9-10).—Here Jehovah enters into a covenant with Noah and all the beasts of the earth, pledging himself never to drown the whole earth again for the term of his natural life. What better evidence could we have that the writer was demented ? The flood seems to have affected what little brain he had ; and so he invents a treaty between the animals and the extraordinary deity who first makes, then destroys, and then makes a covenant with the animals ! I wonder if he took them in the lump or canvassed them one by one ! And what could the animals think of him ? He who had gone to such pains to destroy their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and playfellows—with what delight they must have welcomed his advances ! How readily they must have fallen in with his proposals ! No prudent animal or man could enter into covenant with such a God as Jehovah, so soon, too, after his general massacre. They may not have uttered all they felt when he was canvassing them ; but we can realise it all notwithstanding their silence. Enter into covenant with the universal destroyer ! The Bible writers had no conception of a joke—unless the whole .book is to be regarded as a grim and ghastly jest at the expense of the Jewish-Ohristian religion. Certainly, whether the writer meant it or not, few jokes ever equalled this story of the covenant; and the few stories that do rival it are found in the Bible. He would not drown the whole world again, so he would not! How kind of him ! Does he think we can’t see through it ? The fact is, all the water was gone, and he had no means of drowning the world any more. At least, it would take him several millions of years to do it, and he was not pre­ pared to undertake the task a second time. So he made a virtue of necessity ; pretended to Noah and the beasts that he could if he would drown the world just as often as he pleased, but he would not do so because the smoke of the sacrifice had so delighted him. And then he proceeds to indicate the sign, token, or proof of the covenant. No deed was drawn up; neither God nor Noah could write their names; they and the rest of the animals could only make their marks. The rainbow, therefore, is made the sign, the signature of the covenant; but only one of the parties signifies adhesion to it—viz., God. And his signature turns out to be a sham. The rainbow is as old as �€4 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. rain and sunshine in unison. Ever since rain fell and sunbeams flashed upon the falling drops, there the rainbow has lighted up and beautified the scene. It not only skirts the rain-cloud; it dances (or its sisters do) upon the spray of fountains and of dashing breakers. And how could Noah be so hoodwinked ? He had lived 600 years and more : could you persuade him that he had never seen a rainbow before the flood ? Well, the bow had been no guarantee" that God would behave himself before the flood, and how could it be after ( For well nigh 600 years he had seen the bow crossing the cloud when he happened to be between the sun and the shower ; and yet in his 601st year there was the universal deluge! How, then, was it possible for Noah, or his sons, or his daughters, or his wife, or his cattle, or anything that was with him in the ark, to put any dependence on this covenant, ratified by a well-known natural pheenomenon as old as the nature which produced it ? Who would take the rainbow as a receipt to a bill ? And I will remember my covenant (Gen. ix„ 15).—Yes, God will remember! He will look upon the bow to refresh his memory, as he adds in the following verse. He who remembers and refreshes his memory with a sign, may and does forget. Other texts of scripture show this beyond doubt. “ Forget not the humble ” (Psalm x., 12)—the very parties most likely to be forgotten. “ How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord ?” (Psalm xiii., 1). “Forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever ” (Psalm lxxiv,, 19). “ Forget not the voice of thine enemies ” (lxxiv., 23). Manifestly the Bible maligns God, or he is liable to forget. I prefer the latter alternative. Of course he can’t remember everything—the strongest-minded man needs to keep a diary, how much more a God ! (To be conbimraed in No. 5). Printed arid Published by Ramsey and Eoote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. �NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY No. 8.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. [W BY JOSEPH SYMES. _________ . __ . .. Mi HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED. Thebe once lived many ages ago a fairy king, named Mihole. He dwelt in a far-away land, and was ruler over a very large kingdom. Mihole was skilled in magic, and could work the most astonishing wonders ; out of nothing he made worlds, and living beings like men and women out of clay. But this great king was wayward, cruel, jealous, headstrong; and de­ lighted in nothing so much as shedding blood and inflicting misery. So cruel was he that he even exerted his magic to create living things for the sole purpose of tormenting them. At one time he made a world of pretty large size, just like the earth. Then he made all sorts of plants and animals grow in it : and even made a pair in his own likeness, who could talk and reason like men. This pair he put into a palace where there was a room locked, which they were commanded not to open on pain of death. He then gave them the key and departed. On leaving he chuckled with glee at the thought that they would disobey him, as he knew perfectly well they would. To be sure, they were mere babies, without experience to guide them. Now Mihole, in order to make sure that Madab and Biba (for those were the names of the unfortunate pair) should unlock the fatal door, sent a sort of monkey, named Jocko, to them, who amused them exceedingly by his antics. This monkey could talk, and was a clever, gay, sprightly fellow, of endless fun and frolic. He was at once a favorite with Madab and Biba, and they could not bear him to be out of their com­ pany. One day Jocko snatched away the key from Madab and began to examine it with pretended surprise ; and after a time he fitted it into the lock of the room they were forbidden to enter. Both Madab and Biba ran to him in alarm and tried to persuade and coax him not to open the door, telling • �34 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. him that Mihole would kill them if they did. At this Jocko laughed till the Palace rung again, saying, “Are you such babies as to believe that Mihole was in earnest when he bade you not to enter this room. Booh! He was only joking. Come on ; we will see what is inside.” He opened the door and entered, Madab aud Biba reluc­ tantly and timidly following. When they were in they were delighted beyond measure. Here were all things rich and rare that Fairyland could ever produce, in the greatest pro­ fusion too. In this room the three friends enjoyed themselves the whole afternoon, and paid no heed to the waning of the day. Before thev knew how late it was, they heard a loud fierce voice, shouting. “ Madab! where the ------ are you ? Here, I have been running all over the Palace looking for you the last half-hour. What! ” he continned, seeing the door of his secret room open, “ What! have you broken into my treasury ? You shall pay for this, I promise you! ” Madab and Biba, in dire confusion, and blank with terror, excused themselves by throwing the blame upon poor Jocko. And Mihole at once made a great dark pit full of fire and brimstone, and there he shut up Jocko for ever. He would have died, of course, from the fire and the stifling vapors, but the cruel king magically kept him alive for the purpose of inflicting pain and misery upon him. When he had dis­ posed of Jocko, he turned to Madab and Biba, and told them they would have to die. But here, too, he tortured before killing. You shall die,” said he, “ but not just yet. You shall live and people this world with your miserable brood, who shall suffer want, cold, hunger, cancers, coughs, rheu­ matics, and a thousand horrible tortures. They shall die of famine, flood, pestilence, earthquake, war, murder: and after they have died once they shall live again, and be cast with Jocko into the unquenchable fire, where they shall gnash their teeth and yell with anguish and despair for ever and ever.” Then he drove them out of the Palace to the open field, fastened the door, put the key in his pocket, and went away in a mighty rage. All the evils he had threatened to Madab and Biba, and their poor children, came trooping one after another, or alto­ gether at times, so that their life was dreadfully bitter ; and they cursed the day that Mihole had made them, as well they might; for he meant them nothing but mischief from the first, �HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED. 35 and had even planned and incited their disobedience for the sake of gratifying his own malignity in seeing them and their children suffer every variety of torture. Now fairies are not like men and women, for they live for millions of years. Madab and Biba, after their disgrace, lived on to old age, and then died, leaving their country to their children, and they to theirs for thousands of years. In the meantime poor Jocko was burning in his hell, with now and then a holiday granted him by Mihole, who let him out for nothing in the world but sheer mischief ; so that he might have an excuse for punishing him yet more, and also have the gratification of seeing multitudes of the children of Madab and Biba enticed into his own lake of fire. Indeed the wickedness of Mihole knew no bounds, and the older he became the more and more malignant he grew, as the following will show. He had an only begotten son, whose mother was unknown even to his best friends. There was a mystery about this son ; though, being the only one, he was made much of. Now a grand and awful scheme entered into the head of Mihole. He bethought himself thus :—“ Those beings I made, Madab and Biba, have deeply offended me, and I will never forgive them. Of course, I planned it all; but I shall not forego the gratification of punishing them on that account. I can do what I will with my own. Still, I will not send the whole race of their children into that fire; I will select a few and bring them to my Palace to live with me. They will make good sport fox’ me no doubt; and the craven-spirited wretches will sing my praises and honor me, though they are well aware that I am roasting their own flesh and blood in the lake of fire. Yes! I will do it. But I must have satisfaction. I am not going to save them from the fire for nothing. I must and will have some equivalent. If I forego the pleasure of damning them, I must and will have an equivalent of pleasure in • another way. “Now this is what I will do. I will take my only son Jessah, and will transform him by magic into one of the de­ scendants of Madab and Biba; and then I will get him crucified ; and on the cross he shall suffer the most excrucia­ ting tortures that even a fairy can endure. Bah !—never mind the pain. I shall not feel it. I shall glory in it. And t �ss BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. thus I will redeem to myself a few of the doomed race. This is my will, and it shall be, it must be done.” “ Jessah ! ” shouted he to his son. His son came and paid him his respects. “ My son, you know I love you tenderly, do you not ? ’ said Mihole. “ Yes, sire,” replied the son, with no great enthusiasm. “ Well, my boy, I have some work for you to do. You remember how Madab and Biba disobeyed me about 4,000 years ago, and how I have had no good will towards the race of them from that time till now. You know how I have punished them, and how I have merely made a favourite now and again of one or other of them whose crimes or stupidity served to amuse me. Now I intend to save a few of them from entering that fiery pit below there, and bring them hither to live in this palace. But I must have an equivalent »f suffering in another direction for the pain I am going to remit to them. Do you understand me, my son ?” l-1 believe I do, sire,” replied Jessah. •'•' And I am glad you are going to show them mercy ; though I wish you would forgive the whole race and Jocko, too, and not trouble about any equivalent of pain.” ••Ah’, ah! Just like the child you are. You do not understand business, my boy,” replied the old fairy. ••' Give up a privilege without compensation ! No! No! I have spent many a year of pleasure in hearing their groans, and do you suppose I am going to forgive them and stop their yelling ! I had rather give up all I have and die myself than put out hell-fire or release a prisoner without compensation! So no more on that point, my son ! No more ! Now listen to me. You go at once to the world where the race of Madab live, and by a trick I will show you you can transform yourself into a baby and be bom of one of the the same race. I may tell you beforehand that I am going to make you a sin-offering for that cursed race : and you willX be crucified and die in awful agony to gratify mj fierce wrath and justice. Then I will raise you up to life again, you will return to the palace none the worse for your journey, and be followed by a select number of the children of Madab.” Poor Jessah was wild with amazement, and begged and prayed his cruel father to forego his design. But in vain. �, HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED. 37 You will do as I bid you, boy,” said be, “ or—do you see yonder lake of fire ?—I’ll hurl you into that and roast you there as long as I live. Take your choice. It is all one io me.” So the son yielded to the mad father’s whim, and became incarnate ; lived a miserable life; was crucified by enemies instigated thereto by his awful father, who heaped upon hint all the agony in his power while dying. Three days after death he restored his son to life and took him home. And there was an end of the farce. Mihole was no more satisfied than before. He resolved next to send his son again to the world of Madab to call all its inhabitants to judgment; then to bum up the world with fire, and to shut up most of the unfortunate race in Jocko’s hell for- ever. But the son, sick and disgusted, fled from his father’s den for ever, to escape the misery and humiliation of executing his father’s mad schemes and infernal wishes. ****** ‘■ Which things are an allegory.” My Fahy Tale is the Christian Scheme of Redemption, stript of its pious trappings, writ as it ought to be writ, and exhibited in its gory features • and its diabolic qualities. I hope it may help to throw comtempt upon the pious tomfooleries of Christmas-tide, and expose to ridicule the farce of the incarnation of the Son of God. �38 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. No matter, for my present purpose, who wrote the Biblenor how old it may be. My jumping, skipping comments relate only to the contents of the book, and will be just what the title indicates, for I shall jump from one text to another, instead of wasting time in noticing the intervening passages. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.— Genesis i., 1. Beginning of what ? Time? Time never had a beginning. Of the world ? It could not have been made in its beginning, for it existed exactly the same moment it began to be. Then what does it mean ? The beginning of God’s work ? \ If so, he must have been a lazy fellow to idle away in doing nothing at all the inmeasurable time or eternity which pre­ ceded the moment he began to work. And what made him begin just then, I wonder ? Had he been all his life before making up his mind whether to create or not ? . I think it is a pity that it should have taken him so long and not a little longer. Surely a god who could do without a plaything dur­ ing his early life might have done without one for ever. The world seems to be his shuttlecock, created for this own amuse­ ment ; and his sport involves the misery and death of his creatures. It is no credit to a god to have made a world like this. It is not the work of a good god! The heaven!—That is a purely fictitious place. The firmament or heaven is only an optical illusion, the mere boundary of vision, larger or smaller in proportion to the power of the eyes of the world. Modern astronomy shows beyond the possibility of doubt that the heaven, or heavens, do not exist, and never did. So the Bible opens with a blunder which shows that the writer, instead of being inspired by a being who knew everything, drew his inspiration from his own narrow experience, and egregiously blundered in the first sentence he wrote. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.—i., 2. More nonsense. The earth always had a form, pretty much the one it has now, too. As �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 39 for the darkness on the face of the deep, we will comment upon that when we know what deep is meant. Does any one know ? The spirit of god or of the gods—if it means anything, it is the wind. That need not have been mentioned, surely. Let there be light—i., 3. Did God say that ? In what language ? To whom ? Why did he say it ? If he had his tinder-box by him, he need not have said anything about it ; for flint and steel work no better for being spoken to. And God divided the light from the darkness—i., 4. I am sure he never did, for light and darkness never were mingled. Light is the positive state ; darkness the negative. Darkness is but the absence of light. How absurd, to talk of dividing light from darkness ! You need inspiration to commit folly like that. And God made the firmament or heaven—i., 7. Why, he made that in the beginning, and here the next day he makes it again ! Did the first not please him ? Did he pull it down and build it up again the next day ? Poor architect! Oh ! I forgot, he had no one to guide him, had no experience in world-building. Were he to try now with all the advantages human science could give him, perhaps he would make a much better job of the whole affair. He could scarcely do worse. And the earth brought forth grass—i., 12. In the next chapter (ii., 3-8) we are told that he made every plant and herb before they grew and then “ planted ” them—no doubt using a dibble and watering-pot, after digging the soil with a fork or spade, as a regular ordained gardener would do to-day. The reader had better believe both accounts. He is not bound to understand either—better not try. The less you know about God and his ways the better you like him. Lights in the firmament—i., 14. There is no firmament. Therefore no lights were placed in it. Two great lights—i., 16. The sun is a light, the moon is no more a light than the earth. It merely reflects the sun­ light. The author of Genesis did not know that. To him sun and moon seem to have been about equal; in reality the sun is about 60,000,000 times larger than the moon. Besides, for about one-half of its time the moon is next to useless for lighting purposes, without reckoning wet and cloudy weather. He made the stars also—i., 16. A mere fleabite, the �40 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. making of the stars, evidently. They are so small. No doubt god made them of the sparks struck out by his flint when lighting the sun. Why, the nearest of them all is so distant that light takes three years and seven months to travel from it to the earth: while others seen in the telescope are so far away that light spends many thousands of years upon the journey. And some of them must be at least hun­ dreds of times larger than the sun! Had the author of Genesis understood astronomy, he would not have written this nonsense about the creation. A nd god made the beasts of the earth .... and everything that creepeth upon the earth—i., 25. He might have found better employment than making serpents and snakes, hyaenas, wolves, tigers, etc. And what was he thinking about when he made parasites, such as trichina and tape-worms ? But Darwinism shows that the vegetables and animals, good or bad, were not manufactured in this sudden manner ; but were gradually evolved or developed from older forms of life—a subject too large to entei- upon here. So god created man in his own image . . . . male and female created he them—i., 27. In the Hebrew it is “gods ” not god—the Elohim—that made man. They were evidently male and female themselves, as all respectable deities were. And Adam and Eve were made in their image ; in fact if you had seen the creators and the created together you could not tell which was which—stature and build, color, hair, and everything were just alike. The only difficulty one meets with is this; how could Adam and Eve be the parents of snch diversified tribes and families of men as now people the earth ? Black and white, of various shades ; short and tall; fat and lean; round heads and long heads; Caucasians and Negroes ; and all the endless variety existing to-day ? Which of all these descendants are most like the first pair ? I should say that most likely the lowest, ugliest and most degraded couple to be found are just the very image of the first pair, and they were exactly like their creator’s. Tut! tut! I don’t wish you to worship such a pair of deities. Everyone to his taste. But if you can worship the creator of a world like this, you need not pretend to be squeamish. Every seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing tree ... to you shall it be for meat (Gen. i., 29).—All herbs and trees bear seed, and therefore all herbs and trees were for human food. �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 41 according to this. Poor first pair! Look through some “Family Herald,” my reader, and see what those poor things had set before them for food! There is no discrimination exercised by the nurse ; but those two full-blown babies, who had never sucked nor had pap given them, are just left to themselves to select their food as best they may from a universal Botanical Garden, teeming to excess with every plant and weed that ever grew! The trees are included in the stock. And no cookery yet invented! How .sickly they must have been the first week or two! The marvel is they did not get poisoned before the first sunset. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (i., 31).—The man who wrote that had never been chased by lion or tiger, nor bitten by a snake or serpent; white ants had never destroyed his dwelling, nor moths spoilt his wardrobe ; fleas and bugs had never teased him, nor mosquitoes driven him mad ; thorns and thistles had never pricked and-lacerated his flesh, nor miasma laid him down with yellow fever ; tropical heat had never roasted him, nor Arctic cold frozen his extremities. The world he describes is not the one we live in ; he but echoes the dreams of the golden age of poets and mythologists, and tells a tale of the past that never was present. Geology tells the blunt truth about it, and shows that this world has always been the scene of strife, pain, misery and death almost ever since life itself existed in it. If this world is a manufactured article, then he who made it must have been the essence of folly and bar­ barity. As we never hear anything of him now, I presume he has had what the Scotch call “ a cast of grace ”—has committed suicide to escape the wretched sight of his own infernal handiwork. Pity he did not commit suicide before creating the world! Genesis ii.—The first three verses of this chapter belong neither to the first nor the second properly. They were added to the ancient story by some priest who wished to impose the Sabbath upon the people beneath his charge, and who knew that that could not be done without a good round lie. He says :— The heaven and the earth icere finished (ii., 1).—The heavens, of course, neverjfexisted, any more than the Greek Olympus or the Scandinavian Valhalla. But the earth never has been finished yet. Geology teaches that the earth is just �42 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. as much in course of creation now as ever it was. Coral zoophytes, globigerinse, many plants ; all waves, streams, rain-showers, frosts and snows, volcanoes and earthquakes, are engaged in reconstructing and re-arranging the strata of the earth. The process never was finished and never can be. The earth, like every other material thing, except probably ether and atoms, is a growth, not a manufactured thing, as the Bible falsely teaches. And he rested on the seventh dag, etc. (ii., 2).—‘‘ Behold I show you a mystery!” An almighty god spent a whole eternity in doing absolutely nothing ; five or six thousand years ago he built the world, at which he worked six days ; the putting of these few atoms together so exhausted him that he rested the whole of the seventh day !—and has done next to nothing since. To doubt this is blasphemy; to believe it is piety ! If you ridicule it, the bishops and their creatures will send you into solitary confinement for at least nine months, and allow you nothing to read but this stupidest of books! These are the generations of the heavens and oj the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens (ii., 4).—Here beginneth an entirely new account of the creation by a writer who worshipped Jehovah not the Elohim. It was the Elohim who created all things in six days according to Genesis i. This chapter says Jehovah Elohim did the work in one day—“ in the day that the lord god made,” etc. Each of the stories is true ; divinely so, though they so flatly contradict each other, and both equally contradict known facts. Never mind. Believe both. Con­ tradictions and lies constitute nine-tenths of the whole stock of revealed truth. What then ? It is the fashion to pretend at least to believe it all, and if you find a flaw, “ mum ” is the word. To mention it might have the effect of damaging the interests of spiritual policemen and tyrants “ set over you in the lord ” and elsewhere, who rob the poor and the starving to build temples and palaces for their own glory and amusement. The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ii., 7).—This, my reader, is very sublime language, praise the lord! Man’s body consists, then, of dust of the ground ; and his soul is nothing but a mixture of atmospheric air, carbonic acid and �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 43 water-vapor, breathed out of the lungs of his maker into his own I A man’s first breath would expel most of what the lord breathed into him, and a few subsequent acts of respira­ tion would get rid of it all. He was soon without any soul, except the constant inrush and outrush of air, etc., to and from his lung. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, etc. (ii., 17).—As divines long since gave up as hopeless the task of trying to find where the Garden of Eden was, I shall not notice it, except to remark that in the first chapter man had all trees given him without exception; here he is forbidden the tree of knowledge—almost the only one worth eating of; and, by implication, he was forbidden to eat of the tree of life also (iii.. 22). The first man was exceedingly wise, however, without eating of the tree of knowledge, for he gave names to all cattle and fowls and beasts of the field ; and he seems to have been no time about it either. A very precocious youth, cer­ tainly ! The Lord could no faster make animals than Adam gave them appropriate names. What language he used is not said. Some contend it was Welsh, and I shall not dispute it. Adam’s wife was made of one of his own ribs; and yet he calls her “ bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (ii., 21—23). But she was only bone of his bone. Besides, if he was asleep when that surgical operation was performed upon him, how did he know that his rib had been extracted and used in this way ? He preferred Eve to all the animals he had seen and labelled, as any fool might have done ; but how did he know that she was like himself, never having seen his own shape in a mirror ? Oh1 I forgot! God was just like him, and no doubt told Adam so, and thus he knew his own shape from his maker’s ! I may say that that bold, bad, blasphemous man, Bishop Ellicott, in a new commentary on the Bible, has the audacity to. affirm, in flat contradiction to God’s blessed and most holy word, that Eve was not made out of a rib of Adam 1 He is too respectable to send to Holloway Gaol; but wait till he is dead; then he will go down to Dante’s Inferno, where so many blaspheming bishops and popes are already “ suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The second chapter of Genesis closes with the confession �44 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. that the Elohim or Jahveh had not the decency to clothe the pair they had made. We need not be surprised. Gods and goddesses have never been civilised enough to clothe them­ selves. All the garments they have ever worn have been woven and made by mythologists, painters and sculptors. Not being clad themselves, the Elohim, including gods and goddesses, never once thought that the human beings they had made, just like themselves, had any need of garments. Dr. Watts, in a hymn many of us learnt in childhood, seems to regret that civilisation should have effected what God had left undone. The hymn is both pious and edifying__ “ The art of dress did ne’er begin Till Eve, our mother, learnt to sin ; When first she put the covering on Her robe of innocence was gone; And yet her children vainly boast Of those sad marks of glory lost!” John Milton also, in "Paradise Lost," has something to say upon the subject. That magnificent Zoroastrian or Mani­ chaean poem should be read by all worshippers of orthodoxy. Milton e real hero is Satan; his God is a pitiable thing. Genesis iii.—The serpent was more subtle (sly) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made (iii., 1).— Yes, the serpent was always an emblem or symbol of wisdom ; though it required very little of that quality to out-wit the Lord God and the first pair. Of course the story is a " mystery ” in the old-fashioned sense of that word. The language is emblematical, and intended to show that all gin and evil, misery and death, spring from the union of the sexes. It was written by some vile ascetic. By the way, how is it all clothiers and manufacturers of textile fabrics do not adopt the serpent as their symbol or as their arms or trade mark ? The whole of their art is due to the action of the serpent. Had he not been wiser than the gods, clothes had never been adopted. Lest anyone should be bold enough to question if the serpent ever held the reported conversation with the woman, let it be remembered that in " ASsop’s Fables ” nothing is more common than for animals to talk; and nursery tales and folklore abound with similar incidents. "Be not faith­ less, but believing.” " Ye believe in AEsop, believe also in Genesis.'5 If you doubt the speaking of the serpent, re­ �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 45 member Balaam’s donkey ; if you are tempted to doubt the donkey-tale, remember that of the serpent. By thus com­ paring scripture with scripture you may assure yourself of the truth of one absurdity by reflecting upon another equally bad. If you should still be tempted to doubt, remember that all doubters will be damned; reflect upon the flames of hell until the conception drives you half mad. You will be able to believe anything then. And Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden (iii., 8).—You need not wonder now how the serpent dodged the Lord God and got into the garden unknown to its owner ! They were out of his presence ! He could not see them ; and had to call them to find out where they were! If I wrote here that I hid from the Lord God, and got out of his presence, I might go to Holloway Gaol for blasphemy ; and if I pretended it was revelation I was writing, and raised the late Archbishop of Canterbury from the dead to prove my mission, Dr. Benson and his party would give me an extra twelvemonths’ of soli­ tary confinement for disturbing existing arrangements, while the resurrected defunct would have to be disposed of or " removed ” as fast as possible. God could not see far in those early days, evidently ; and his presence was no more extensive than Adam’s. In process of time he grew in bulk till he became infinite—that is, ruptured and destroyed him­ self like jEsop’s ambitious frog; and now men can no more find God than God could find Adam and Eve. He is dis­ sipated, like the gas of a ruptured balloon, or, rather, like the vital spirit of the torn and tattered creeds. With a kangaroo bound I leap over the other incidents of the story, and alight plump upon the upshot of the first sin. “ Behold the man (literally the Adam—that is, both the man and the woman) is became as one of us, to know good and evil (iii., 22).—I told you the creators were more than one. They speak in the plural—one of us. The volumes of learned rubbish written to explain this would surprise one, if he did not reflect that twenty useless books are written for every good one, and that for every great book you might find a waggon-load of literary rubbish. This mystery is usually explained by means of the trinity in unity—a mystery that will clear up almost everything in theology. One of the three is spoken to by the Elohim 1 That is, the unity speaks �46 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. to one of the trinity, or to all three. That is, one of them at least talks to himself—a sign of weak intellect generally. That is, they all three speak with one voice, so lodged that all can use it at once, or one of them alone. Where the said voice was placed, or how it was managed I know not; I was not there. As this communistic or socialistic voice uttered what all three equally thought, each of the three heard with his own pair of ears what he himself and his two companions uttered; and thus each of the triad came to understand for himself what all three knew equally well before all three combined in this co-operative manner to pronounce it for the benefit of himself and two companions. Ah, me! My last sentence, I fear, is a bit mixed; so am I. It is that trinity that has done it. I feel as poor Captain Webb did. probably, in the Niagara whirlpools, so I’ll make for the shore. So he drove out the man (literally, the Adam) iii., 24.__ This was an act of vengeance blind and cruel. It was an act of jealousy. For the three, that is the one, felt afraid of Adam and Eve. They knew too much. So they persecuted them, just as the bigots persecute now. The gods and bigots have always claimed a monopoly of knowledge: being densely stupid themselves, they have always done their worst to pre­ vent other people growing wise. To claim a monopoly of knowledge is merely to wall up your windows with the object of shutting in all the sunlight, and to find yourself in absolute darkness as the result of such folly. Had gods and bigots (they are both of the same species) been successful, the world would never have emerged from brutal savagery. The act of expulsion from Eden was one of mere spite—“ test he put, forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever.v These wicked gods begrudgpd man knowledge. The serpent assisted him, and he won it in spite of them * Then they deprived him of immortality. Here, too, the monopoly proved fruitless. Men die; but the race of man still subsists. The gods die, and leave no successors. Most of them are dead. The Bible gods are as dead as the dead languages that record their deeds. When the horse was gone God shut the stable-door, and set cherubs with a flaming sword to guard it! That is a specimen of divine wisdom. Had he but set that guard at first the serpent might never have got in ; had he not made the serpent he could never have tempted Eve. Inexperience �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 47 and folly mark the whole of this story of the creation and fall. Nothing to equal it in these particulars can be found elsewhere. Most other nursery tales have some sense and some humanity in them ; this is destitute of both, And yet this silliest of stories is taught still as divine truth even in Board schools, at the expense of the ratepayers. And those who laugh at it are sent to prison, for the gratification of bishops and other humbugs who fatten upon falsehoods and grow rich out of the credulity of the poor. Genesis IV.—This chapter gives an account of Cain and Abel. The former seems to have been a vegetarian and a sort of Buddhist, who refused to kill animals, lienee he offered the lord the fruits of the ground, which were scorn­ fully refused. Abel offered him some fine fat rams, which delighted him. I presume the story was invented' to throw discredit upon agriculture, inasmuch as ploughing or digging the soil disarranges the order of divine providence f while the mere cattle-breeder was supposed to be living in a state of friendship with the deities, only because he lived in a state of nature. The writer or inventor of the story was in favor of the nomad life of the desert, and so represented his god to be of the same sentiments. Cain, the farmer, should have had nothing to do with the shepard’s god; he should have invented an agricultural god for his own particular ■ benefit. And so to-day, Atheists and heretics can never please the gods that now exist; if they ever please any at all, they must make gods for themselves, as others have done. By the way, it is easier to invent a whole pantheon of gods than even one priest. A priest must be a man of some kind ; a mere name or epithet will do for a god. The writer of Hebrews (xi., 2) says that faith was the element that made Abel’s sacrifice acceptable to the Lord • while the want of it led to the rejection of Cain’s. That is sheer nonsense. The Lord wanted his breakfast, and a few good fat lambs were just what his appetite required. Besides, the way this writer puts it would lead to the conclusion that Cain, the man of no faith, persecuted to the death Abel, who had plenty of it! That is absurd. If Cain really did kill Abel in this religious quarrel, he must have been the more fanatical—that is, the better believer; and Abel the worse. It never has been otherwise ; the man of no faith could not persecute a believer. He might punish any other fault, bu �* 4 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. not his religion, unless the religion led to open or secret acts of violence, and then not the religion, but the acts of violence would be punished. Beloved reader, the lesson we learn from the story of those ancient brothers is one of deep significance. It will be observed that they quarrelled merely about religion, a thing neither of them understood. Before this we may suppose they had lived as became brothers. Now in their full manhood they fell out. Up to this time they seem to have had no religion; consequently all went merry as a marriage-bell with them. No sooner did they betake themselves to religion than they differed, grew warm, because the thing intoxicated them. They fought, and the stronger killed the, weaker! It is a significant fact that the first time religion is introduced in the Bible it leads to fractricide. From that day till now the history of the Jewish-Christian religion is a history of quarrels, lies and blood. Therefore, have nothing to do with it. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother ? —iv., 9. Ah! If the Lord had only been present at the quarrel, he might have prevented the murder ! But provi­ dence and policemen are generally out of the way when most needed. They are always at hand when sacrifices, offerings, and rewards are to be presented. The sentence pronounced upon Cain is full of nonsense. The earth was cursing him (verse 11) ; would refuse to yield him her strength when tilled! Why, land saturated with blood, animal or human, is enriched thereby, and produces better crops for being so manured! Nor does it know the difference between a brother’s blood and that of a dog. Scarcely can you take a step in the Bible without stumbling upon some gross superstition. So far is the earth from cursing those who saturate it with blood, that it yields better crops, for the murderer and anyone else for it. (To be continued in No. 4). Printed and Published bv Ramsey and Eootei, at 2S-Stonecutter Street, E.C< V YTVR&’T"UllXl Ill AA'iiU'XA IRK �NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY No. 2 ] blows AT THE BIBLE, [id BY JOSEPH SYMES. •«'. t This gentleman was the first that ever lived ; his father’s -name was God (Luke iii., 38), and his mother was the earth or the ground (Genesis ii., 7). Adam was made, or begotten, or manufactured, or born, or produced twice at least. In the first instance he was made the saline day with his wife, viz., on the first Saturday that ever dawned ; and after this gigantic effort the creator dropped work, “ rested and was refreshed” (Exodus xxxi., 17) during • the first of Sundays, and has, we belUye, done no work to speak of since. his first creation Adam found the world prepared for him. As Hood, one of his late descendants sung, he came ----------- “ tenderly ushered in ' To a prospect all bright and burnished * No tenant he for life s back slums----He comes to the world as a gentleman comes To a lodging ready furnished.” -5 y ; r There was the earth, in all its vastness of glory, furnished with a crystalline roof (time, alas! has destroyed it long since), in which were fixed the sun, moon, and stars—now, sad to say, left to wander through space as best they can, with no firmament to hold them fast 1 What would the astronomer of to-day give to gaze upon the world as our first fathei’ saw it 1 Overhead that beautiful sapphire vault, roof at once of the lower world and floor of the musicians of the gods ! What a pity it was ever permitted to decay I Had it been kept in proper repair the theologian might confound his sceptical foes by merely pointing upwards, and dramatically crying, “Behold!” �18 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. When Adam first opened his eyes upon the vegetable world no parasites were found anywhere, and a fungus had never a chance to grow. The leaves of the tree grew, but never de­ cayed ; the blossoms consolidated into fruit, the fruit ripened, but it never fell. The animals, too, were in a most extra­ ordinary state. The lion played with the lamb, and the cat with the mouse; if the hawk chased the sparrow it was merely in fun ; and the veriest cormorant to be found would as soon have dreamt of swallowing a crow-bar as a fish. In those days all beasts of prey browsed in the meadows ; and the whales and sharks grew fat upon nought but sea-weeds. Then it was that tigers had neither fangs nor claws, the wasps no stings, the serpents no poison ; mosquitoes had not vet left their eggs, the locusts had never begun to devour, and phylloxera and the Colorado beetle had never cast mur­ derous eyes upon vine, grape or potato. These were delightful times when our first parents sunned hemselves in “Eden’s bonny yard,” untroubled by the nought of debt or danger, untrammelled with skirts or pan­ taloons, big romping babies that they were, the very image of their father I But Adam’s second Advent was different. In the first in­ stance he was made, but of what material we know not: when he was made the second time it was of dust (Genesis ii., 7). Whether the dust was moistened and worked up with water, like plaster of Paris, is not said. A modem man consists chiefly of water ?• Adam’s one element was dust. Whether it was stone dust, or clay dust, or saw dust, or gold dust, or diamond dust, or brick dust, or coal dust, or a mingling of them, we cannot say. Divine wisdom has not seen fit to en­ lighten us further than to condescend to inform us that our first father was made of the dust of the ground ; and as the dust of the ground differs so in different regions, we must leave the solution of this interesting problem till the Great Day, when the whole of his descendants will, no doubt, rush to him simultaneously and exclaim, “ Oh 1 Reverend sire, of what dust did thy creator form thee ?” Adam s reply must, I am sorry to add, be postponed sine die. As Adam consisted of dust, and as sons and fathers are usually of the same material. I presume it is but logical to infer that Adam’s father—or God—was also of the dust. One thing is certain, he has been turned to dust or something �THE LIFE OF ADAM. 19 less substantial for many ages ; and his worshippers can no more find a relic of his than they can one of Eve’s hair­ pins. When Adam was made on this second occasion, and the dust was worked up into its required form, proportions, sym­ metry, and consistency, his maker “ breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man (Adam) became a living soul.” The result must be pronounced wonderful and altogether different from what might have been expected. It must be re­ membered that he breathed into Adam, that is, the creator breathed out of himself or expired his own breath ; and that breath would have poisoned Adam if he had been previously alive, for it must have been highly charged with carbonic acid. So it appears that what would kill a live man will make a dead man live. Of course, we should not believe this story if we found it in Homer—unless we had been coaxed to believe it by a promise of heaven, or frightened to it by a threat of hell ; but seeing it is in the Bible, and reflecting that we must be damned if we doubt it, it seems safest to believe it. When God the second time created Adam, he certainly did not improve upon his work ; for this time Adam found the earth bare ; he himself was the very first living thing created. When he awoke to life there was nothing to eat, no one to speak to. A little later he saw a garden rise suddenly around him, and then beasts, and birds, and insects crowded into life. But none of them suited him, though the creator seems to have tempted him to amalgamate with beasts. The Lord God thought it not good for Adam to be alone, and so gave him a sleeping draught of extra power, and while he lay in deep repose, proceeded to vivisect him. Opening the side of the sleeper, the surgeon-creator extracted a rib, and then stitched up the wound, leaving Adam a lighter if not a wiser man. Of the extracted rib the creator now made a woman. When Adam’s skeleton is dug up it may easily be identified by being a rib short. Here we face a decided difficulty. If Adam was an ordinary man, a rib of his would make but a very small woman, and merely a bone woman after all. A woman so small must have been a very poor “ help meet ” for Adam, even if con­ sisting of bones and flesh and all things human; and a woman of bone, whatever hpr size or shape, must have been �20 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. of far less value than one of ivory, not to mention marble or the precious metals. This, however, is merely a sceptical difficulty, and decidedly dangerous. We prefer sticking to God’s holy word, though we cannot tell how a rib, no more than a pound or so in weight, could become a woman, weighing 140 lbs. For if the rest of the material was taken from some other place, then manifestly only one hundred-and-fortieth part of Eve was due to that rib; and, therefore, the Lord God did not make that extracted rib a woman, as the story avers. It would have required all Adam’s ribs and nearly all the rest of him to make a woman of respectable proportions as compared with himself. Still it is better to believe than be damned. After his second creation, as just related, Adam—in com­ pany with Eve and the animals which he had named (if not baptised) before he lost his rib—lived very pleasantly in Paradise. This was a garden, as every Sunday scholar knows, “planted ” in Eden, where grew the tree of life, of which if one ate he would never die (Genesis iii., 22), and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which the happy couple were forbidden to eat on pain of death. Thus says holy writ. But the sceptic will be sure to ask what sort of a tree it was ? 'Why they were forbidden to eat of it ? and how they could be awed by a threat they could not understand ? These deep questions are far too profound for finite minds to solve, and we must leave them beneath the dark veil divine revelation has seen fit to shroud them in. Alas! “ The best laid schemes o’ mice and gods Gang aft agley.” In stocking the world with animals the creator or creators had manufactured the serpent, and the “ serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field,” so much so that he began to talk; and soon he showed himself a more powerful and successful orator, reasoner and commander than all the creators together. The creator told Adam and Eve not to eat the tree or touch it, lest they should die. The serpent said, “Pooh! pooh. It’s the best tree in all the garden—is good for food, is pleasant and agreeable; and, besides, it possesses the most astonishing educational properties ; for you no sooner eat this fruit than you open your eyes, and know �THE LIFE OF ADAM. 21 good and evil; in a word, Sir, Madam, yon no sooner swallow a little of this delicious fruit than you become like the gods themselves, who, out of jealousy, have forbidden you to touch it.” No pedlar ever succeeded better, no quack doctor ever gained an easier victory. Before this, Eve would not have touched that tree for the world; now she felt that she could eat every apple it bore. The serpent’s eloquence and subtlety prevailed ; Eve ate two apples on the spot, and ran off with one in each hand to her husband, whom she speedily induced to follow her example and eat of this marvellous fruit. The serpent now chuckled with delight at the success of his exploit; and Adam and Eve felt no worse, nor very much better for the new food. Their deity, however, who had probably seen the serpent enter Paradise, suspected something wrong. He descended in haste, and began to look about among the trees and bushes for the disobedient pair. Adam heard him rustling through the long grass, and hid himself among the bushes, rightly judging that his maker was not in the sweetest of tempers. At length in desperation he cried, “ Adam, where art thou ? Hast thou eaten of that tree ?” Not daring to hide longer, Adam now slowly crawled out of his hiding-place, begging his majesty not to be so angry with him, as in truth, the woman had pressed him to eat the fruit in question. Still, the deity was not pacified, and he pronounced a curse upon Adam and his descendants, upon the ground, upon the pool’ woman, and upon the serpent that had deceived them ; and then went back again to his mansion, his wrath still burning as it will do for ever and ever. This story, gentle reader, is extremely instructive. You know that there are thorns in the world ; they are the results of the above crime. Mothers, as you know, bear their off­ springs in pain and sorrow; it is because Eve ate an apple or two. All serpents go upon their belly; that is because the first serpent, who, no doubt, crawled upon his back, temptec. Eve to sin. Before that date pain and death were known only by name ; since then there has been little else. Hell, at that date, was peopled only by devils, and even they were not regular denizens, but merely occasional visitors; ever since about that date, men and women, and children have been dropping into it in ever increasing numbers, whereas, not �22 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. a human being would ever have sniffed so much as a whiff of its sulphur, if Eve and Adam had not sinned. All which shows what sort of a thing divine justice is, and demonstrates that, of all beings known, none need so much to be civilised as the gods. Adam and Eve were next driven out of Paradise to prevent their becoming gods, the older gods being afraid of the possible consequences. They knew that the serpent was too subtle for the best of them, and they, no doubt, feared that under his tuition Adam and Eve, should they eat of the Tree of Life, would be more than a match for them. Therefore, driving the unfortunate couple out, they guarded the gate of Paradise by cherubs with a flaming sword. Whether this was a Damascus blade or Toledo, I cannot say; antiquaries having never yet lighted upon ii. Perhaps Dr. Schliemann, when he has finished Troy, Mycene, and other classical sites, may take a trip to Paradise to explore that region. Some little time before this expulsion, the guilty pair took to vestments. They had been created naked ; nor did their maker see the necessity of clothing them. Taking the hint, no doubt, from the “ aprons ” he saw them wearing on the day he cursed them, the creator next turned butcher, and killed two beasts and flayed them (we hope he did not flay them alive); then becoming a tailor, he made the skins into two coats d la mode, no doubt, for the man and woman. Clothes had not yet become “ differentiated,” and both sexes dressed alike; coats, then, were all-sufficient; it was a later civilisation that first demanded skirts and pantaloons. After leaving Paradise, this interesting pair were blessed with a family of sons and daughters, who intermarried with each other, and came to but little good. The eldest son murdered the second, and then became a vagabond. Of the rest we know nothing; though to judge from their descendants, they were little to boast of. Adam himself lived no more than 930 years and then died. If any should fancy that he lived too long, let them reflect upon the misery he might have inflicted upon the world if he had never eaten the apple! In that case he would have lived for ever and have been an endless nuisance to mankind. Eve, I presume, never did die, for the Bible does not record any such event in �---- 5,--t——*--------------------- L~------ THE LIFE OF ADAM. 23 her history ; and I should not like to incur the “ plagues ” that will fall on those who “ add to ” the Word of God. Such gentle reader, is a summary of the life of Adam (and Eve in part) as given in the Bible. It is very interesting and instructive, is it not ? The lessons we learn are : never to listen to a talking, garrulous serpent; never to eat forbidden fruit, nor too much of what is lawful; and if we should ever have a chance to eat the fruit of the “ Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” and also of the “ Tree of life,” the fate of Adam and Eve suggests that we should eat of the latter first, for that, it seems, will ensure our immortality, eat of the other while we may. LOVE NOT THE WORLD. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him.”—1 John ii., 15. The apostle John, or indeed, all the apostles together, might utter this cry on any Exchange in the world, from morning to night, and from January to December, but he would make no impression. The assembled merchants, traders, stock­ brokers, and what-not would vote him a nuisance, laugh at his fanaticism, chaff him and quiz him, or send for a policeman to take him in charge. The most pious present as well as the profane would all concur that the apostle was out of place ; that he should keep his sermon for Sunday, a day specially set apart in Protestant lands for hearing denunciations of the week’s transactions and for forming resolutions and pious resolves—to be—more worldly during the week to come. And if our Exchanges and emporia are not the appropriate places for such sermons, where shall they be preached. In the churches, of course : where, no doubt, the preacher would be listened to with profound and prayerful attention; his words would sink deep into the hearts of the clergy, who would confess their sins, bewail their worldly-mindedness, acknowledge themselves “ miserable sinners,” as they really are, and declare that they desired only to hold the world with a slack hand, that they really valued nothing so little as the �24 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. dung and dross which constituted the world’s wealth, that they cared only for the wealth that did not fade, the riches of the kingdom of heaven ; and would pour out volumes of twaddle and heartless excuses, and resolutions never to be kept. Tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he will be shut out of heaven or be cl apt into hell, and you hardly impress him. Tell him his palace is on fire, or his bank broken, his railway and other shares rendered useless through some com­ mercial disaster, and he would turn white as a sheet and be ready to give up the ghost. Of course his grace does not really love the world and the things in it; but then it looks so much as if he did that neither you nor I, the Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost, nor all together, with the Archbishop to assist us, could tell the difference between real worldly love and his grace’s counterfeit. If you and I, having none of the grace of God, had a splendid palace to live in, and £15,000 per annum to live upon, and great titles and huge honors into the bargain, we should almost certainly love them. But an archbishop has divine grace sufficient for his very trying 'position, and his strength is just sufficient to his day, and so exactly balances his income, perquisites and privileges, that- this! Bight g,ev. Father in God can love the world and the Father (?.e., himself) both at once and about equally. And besides God the Father is not quite so particular now-a-days. In olden time, when he, like the Pope, ruled mtteh of the world, he -insisted upon all his rights and monopolies; bow he has to beg a favor where he could formerly command ; and, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, he accepts what he can get—just as all his followers do. In dwelling profoundly upon this text, andhwith the assist­ ance of the Holy Ghost who or which inspired it, I note that it is entirely out of harmony with, I won^ say the world, but the churches of to-day; and, therefore, either the text or the churches must be faulty. The question is, Which? It cannot be supposed that so many churches are at fault ; they would enlighten each other, and naturally criticise each other to so great an extent that - any serious deviation from the truth amongst Christians is next to impossible, especially on so plain a subject as loving the world or the Father. �LOVE NOT THE WORLD. 25 I presume it would be next to impossible for a person to have a strong liking for anything and yet not know it. If the Christians love the world, its wealth and pleasures, its pomps and vanities, they can hardly be ignorant of the fact. And if they love the Father to any great extent, they must know it, whether lie does or not. It is also very unlikely that Christians could hide their preferences from their neighbors. If they love the Father and despise the world, people must know it; if they loved the world and despised the Father, they could not hide it. A tree is known by its fruits ; and people’s likes and dislikes are ascertained by their conduct. Well, I know of no church that does not love the world most intensely ; I know of no people who love it more than those who pretend to renounce it. And the text says the love of the father is not in such people. No doubt the text is a blunder. The Holy Ghost and John were but babies compared with the Christians of to-day. They thought that religion was to be distinguished from the world ; the moderns have discovered that God and the world are both one, and that to love the Father is to love the world, and to renounce the world would amount to renouncing the Father, so they stick jb both. Bravo ! this is a grand discovery. And the Church was not long in making it when once those stupid apostles, who crucified the flesh, were dead and out of the way. Christians to-day crucify the flesh of others and spare their own—another great modern improvement. To be sure, profane and illogical persons will say that if Christian conduct is right, the Bible must be wrong. Not at all. You must not understand either'party seriously. When the Bible bids you not to love the world, it means the other world, not this ; and when Christians to-day profess to think lightly of the world, they mean “ the world to come.” Christianity is a huge, grim, practical joke. The Church started by renouncing the world, and culminated in •the possession of most of it; then the civil power had forcibly to wring from her her ill-gotten gains. Churchmen still roll in riches and bedeck themselves with honors, though they profess to be followers of that Jesus who for their sakes became poor, and to be the spiritual descendants of men who voluntarily went about in sheep-skins and goat­ skins. In their baptism, by godfathers and godmothers, they �26 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. renounce the world with its pomps and vanities, the flesh and the devil. This serves them for life. It is a wholesale con­ fession, followed by plenary absolution for all the sins they will ever commit. Having thus hoodwinked the blessed Trinity, they ever after love the world with all their heart, and with all their mind, and with all their soul, and with all their strength, and their neighbor, the flesh, as themselves. I feel no doubt that Christianity and the churches’ hypocrisy will some day stand exposed before all men, and become the world’s laughing-stock. But the people are so blind and priest-ridden that it must take long to accomplish the work. In the meantime our duty is plain—to expose, to ridicule this greatest of shams with all our might. THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION. •• Ye worship ge know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."—John iv., 22. Here is a text of three clauses, two false and one true. Salvation is of the Jews !” This is absolutely contrary to fact. The Jews are a lost race themselves, and never afforded salvation to anybody. For well nigh 1,500 years they lived, if their chronology can be trusted, in Palestine. But during that long period they produced no philosopher, no great general, no architect, no discoverer, no scientist, no statesman, an indifferent poet or two, no inventor. From what, then, have the Jews contributed to save the world ? The ancient Jews are remembered for almost nothing else than sundry superstitions ; and superstitions are the curse, not the salvation of man. Had the Jews never existed, the Bible never been written, what would the world miss ? That Jews in modern times have distinguished themselves I readily admit; but never except in the midst of Gentilism and under its inspiration. Thus the last third of the text is disposed of as an empty boast. ‘•We know what we worship.” This also is absolutely untrue. No Jew then, no Jew nor Christian since, ever �THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION. 27 knew what he worshipped. The only persons who really do know their god or gods are those that worship tangible or visible objects. The worshippers of the golden calf, sun .and fire worshippers, the devotees of stocks and blocks, of trees and running streams, knew something of their deities, though not much ; for had they known the truth they would not, could not have worshipped. This, too, is purely an empty boast, though quite worthy of the man who told people he lived before Abraham (Jolrn viii., 58), that he “ came down from heaven ” (John vi., 38), that “ all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth” (Matt, xxviii., 18), and that he could raise the dead again to life (John xi., 25—27). His was just the spirit of every fanatic : “ I am right, you are wrong. I am divine, you are stupid. I shall be saved, you will be damned—unless you submit to me and adopt my creed.” It is a thousand pities there was no Freethinker present when Jesus and the woman of Samaria were conversing ; for he could very soon have confounded both parties, and have exposed the pretended knowledge of deity which Mary’s son was boasting of. Though probably the world might have had one more martyr to enroll in the “ noble army ;” for Jesus and his disciples (as soon as they arrived) would no doubt have flung the sceptic into “Jacob’s well.” Finding no shred of truth in the second and third clauses, let us turn to the first. Every Christian will inform you that he worships “God,” and all the sects of Christendom would have you believe that they all in common worship one and the same God ; but of this they can have no proof whatso­ ever, and facts are against them, I. Jews, Mahommedans, and Unitarians have a God who is one and indivisible. But that is only one section of the orthodox God. This God is the father of all, be it remem­ bered—The Father. He is the father of the earth and heavens, the sun, planets, comets, stars ; the father of sun­ shine and storm, of flood and fire, of earthquake, volcano, epidemic and famine ; the father of health and of all diseases; the father of vampires, serpents, snakes, fleas, bugs, mosquitos, Colorado beetles, locusts, sharks, lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas, trichina, and tape-worms; the father of murderers, robbers, pirates, popes, persecutors, and devils! What a family! And every one of them all is the very image of his dad. �r ” ■! ! » iW.rw-'-5 i 28 i --------------- .1. lW— < K BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. What a father! What a God ! What an object of worship ! Verily I do not wonder that persons who can worship such a deity call Atheists fools—it is the very highest compliment they could pay us. No doubt the inmates of Bedlam, in like manner, regard all outsiders as idiots. And we cannot help it. We need never wonder that this God’s worshippers behaved so idiotically and cruelly while in power. II. Most Christians add two or more extra wings or sections to their deity, and increase him, at least by about two-thirds. They have the father, of course, and the Catholics very logically supply a fourth wing or section called the “ Mother,” while Protestants half acknowledge and half repudiate this addition. All, however, agree, except Unitarians, to accept the Son and Holy Ghost. The fathei’ is, they say, such from all eternity. But the son is of exactly the same age as his father, and of the same size, and never was any smaller. He was begotten, though never bom, from all eternity. These two never began to be, yet one of them is father of the other; and, as far as a profane Atheist can perceive, either of them might equally well be the father or the son of the other. One wonders if the divine two ever get confused over the matter themselves! Possibly: they are both alike, both of an age, height, complexion, and it is not known how the one dis­ tinguishes himself from the other. They have never seen themselves, for certain, for they are both infinite, both occupy exactly the same space, they cannot move an inch out of each other’s way, and no looking-glass could be large enough to reflect them, either singly or together. That is to be regretted. It is a pity they cannot see themselves. Then, in addition to the two just named, there is the Holy Ghost. He, she, or it, is also infinite and eternal, and also occupies the same same space exactly that the Father and Son fill so absolutely. The three are most unfortunate. They are each infinite, and there is but one infinite room for them to occupy. Three infinite persons in one infinite room must be awfully uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I suspect they suffocated each other long ago, or died of unen­ durable pressure. To make things themselves a little more pleasant in their infi­ nitely overcrowded one-roomed house, about 2,000 years ago it was decided that the Son should “ be born again,” and this time become a baby of 17 lbs. or so. It was done. This time he L,! �THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION. 29 had a different father, too. Tired of his old dad, he chose the Holy Ghost as his father this time, and the Holy Ghost chose a mother for him. The reader will not ask me to ex­ plain—I cannot. And all Christian divines, commentators, and gods are as helpless as I am in the matter. However, here we are, face to face, and at the same time back to back, with the Christian God ! How beautifully simple the Gospel is ! “A wayfaring man, though a fool (provided he is a fool, that is), need not err therein.” “ He that runneth may read ”—the posters are so large. 1st. A Father infinite and eternal; 2nd, a Son, ditto ; 3rd, a Holy Ghost ditto; 4th, a woman finite and rather young ; 5th, the Son of this woman and the Holy Ghost, formerly the infinite and eternal son of the father only, begotten but not bom. These five or six persons are the two God the Fathers, the two God the Sons, and the Holy Ghost and Mary. Here we have a double Trinity in Unity ; and thus the Christians are twice as well off in gods as they have ever directly let the world know. Verily “great is the mystery of godliness ! ” “Who can know it?” The Christian God is the most unmitigated sham ever palmed off upon a credulous world. In fact, when they do not pay their devotions to Mammon, to sensuous pleasures, or other physical deities, all their worship is directed to they “ know not what.” I would offer them a reward of £1,000,000 sterling, if I had it, on condition that they told me what their God is. They much need the money, but could never get it, for they “ worship they know not what.” And if men were wise enough to see how they are duped, they would pay not a farthing more for or to the Gospel until its priests in­ formed the public who or what it is they worship. In that case Christianity would be starved out in a few weeks. That fate awaits it. ANANIAS AND S A P P H I R A. “And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.”—Acts v., 11. No doubt! No doubt! Peter was now in power : the Church was at his feet. Peter, who always had a keen eye for the main chance; who gave up nothing himself for or to his �30 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. master except under promise of one hundredfold more in the time that then was, and in the world to come life ever­ lasting (Matt, xix., 28, 29). The most unconscionable money­ lender or bill-discounter in the world never excelled that. Peter was determined to do his best, while the new converts were at the white heat of their “first love” and religious excitement, to realise the promise of Jesus and secure the one-hundredfold here, at any rate, whatever might be his fate in the “ life to come! ” In this respect, the followers of St. Peter, whether at Rome or elsewhere, have closely copied his meritorious example, and done their utmost to win the one-hundredfold, or the millionfold, if that were possible. Of course Peter soon saw that it would be highly impolitic to allow these two, Ananias and his wife Sapphira, to give in just what they pleased to the exchequer of the Church— others might follow the example, and thus much wealth be diverted from the proper channel. Besides, something bold and terrible needed to be done to impress the rabble, inside and outside the Church, with the power of this new movement, and especially the power of the leaders. It was not legitimate power they were con­ tent to wield, but the power of superstition. The Church started life without a single grain of objective truth; and to support itself was compelled to have constant recourse tothe supernatural—that is, to fraud, to tricks, and to jugglery. Now, if Peter could only make away with Ananias and Sapphira, and give it out that the Holy Ghost had done it, what a deep and horrible impression it would create ! and how effectually it would prevent anyone follow­ ing the example of these two! So the deed was done. I now proceed to give definite reasons for holding the opinion that the Holy Ghost did not kill these two, nor any other person of the Trinity :— 1. Those divine persons never hated lying—most of what they themselves are reported to have said is of that stamp. 2. They not only indulged in this weakness themselves, but had friends who did the same. Abraham told lies about Sarah ; Jacob deceived his poor old blind father; Jesus said he came down from heaven—a manifest falsehood; Peter swore he did not know Jesus! Now, if the Holy Ghost wanted to make an example of any person why not of one �of those ? ’Tis tree, Jesus and Peter, if reports are to be credited, did die violent deaths. Is that to be regarded as proof that the Holy Ghost killed them for lying ? 3. It has never been the practice of the Holy Ghost, Father, or Son to kill people for lying. If it had been, in what age of the church would there have been half-a-dozen saints left alive ? Why, there never could have been a church without wholesale lying. The worst thing that could happen to any Church is the dissemination of truth. Lying! In it the Trinity, the church, and all other shams * live and move, and have their being.” What! let the Holy Ghost go through the church to-day and slay all that preach false doctrine, and that do little else than teach conscious and un­ conscious lies, and. the churches would be in the condition of Sennacherib’s army—they would waken up next morning to ‘■'find that they were all dead corpses !” (Isaiah xxxvii., 36). No, my brethren, the Holy Ghost never did kill liars ; they are his very best friends. But if the Holy Ghost did not kill Ananias and Sapphira, ' who did ? That is the question. There can be only one answer, and that is—Peter was their murderer. Look at the facts. They had offended Peter. He was furious with them. Both these persons died suddenly in a place where Peter and the officials of the Church were assembled. There were certain “ young men ” who at once disposed of the bodies. And that was the end of it. 1. Are Christians satisfied with the story and the cOTiduct of reter ? 2. Could Peter possibly stand forth in a worse light ? 3. How was it he did not challenge investigation ? Why were the corpses so suddenly, and without the least examina­ tion, buried ? 4. Would not an honest man or church have done some­ thing to clear themselves of suspicion in such a case ? 5. What would a few able detectives and an honest coroner’s jury have brought to light, had they investigated the Petro-Ananias and Sapphira case ? It is a fortunate event for Christianity that it rose in an age and time when coroner’s inquests were unknown, for in modern London the killing of these two would have resulted in the sudden death of the Church as well. And this double murder will even­ tually help to kill the Church. Murder will out; and the �-r * r BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. blood of those two cries, not to heaven, but to common sense, for vengeance, and vengeance it will have. There is nothing in the character of Peter to warrant or even suggest his innocence; and fanaticism and crime Jjave generally gone hand in hand. Witness the bloodthirsty temper of Moses, of Joshua, of Abraham, of Jephtha, of the Jews who murdered Jesus, and of Jesus who threatened worse than murder against all who disbelieved and opposed * him ; witness the wholesale and horrible persecutions of they- * Ghurch in all ages. Let any candid man weigh the matter, as if he were on a jury trying the case, and say whether,b.. having regard to the whole circumstances and the. almost invariable character of apostles, prophets, and religious leaders in all countries and ages, the chances are not a thousand to one that ■ Peter, the first of Popes, did what Popes have rarely hesitated to do—committed murder for the sake of the Church’s peace, and covered his crime by a dread- o ful falsehood in the interest of truth? 1 yLastly. I care not much who murdered Ananias and Sapphira—they were murdered, whether Peter or the Holy Ghost did it: the one had as a good right to kill as the other. And even if either had possessed that right, the two -I offenders should, in common justice, have had a fail’ and open trial. Instead of which, they were murdered, without the least chance of self-defence. We $eed not wonder that Christians to-day keep Mr. Brad­ laugh from his seat by brute force ; they have never been friends of justice—except for themselves. Their divine book i gives no example of an honest criminal trial ; the highest judicial proceedings known to the Bible and the blessed » Trinity are just those of the barbarians or of the “ unspeak- \ able Turk,” when he exhibits himself in his worst possible fashion. Reader, instead of “ remembering Lot’s wife,” Remember Ananias and Sapphira, who, whatever their character, were murdered for the good of the infant Church, as millions of innocent people have been for the same institution and prin­ ciples in later centuries. Printed and PublisE& by jfctasey-and Foote, at 2S Stonecutter Street, E.C. �No. 6.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. [11. BT JOSEPH SYMES. JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. '^v.1 And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born (Genesis xxvii., 19).—Ananias and his wife were struck dead for lying; Jacob was protected and favored by the Lord im­ mediately after this atrocious lie. As Jacob bamboozled his earthly father, so most Christians to-day treat their father who is in heaven. He is too blind to detect the fraud, or he would soon make short work of the bishops, who rob the poor Esaus of their birthright. Every priesthood lives by imitating Jacob. That is why the patriarch is so popular with them. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it (Genesis xxviii., 12).—This must have been a divine dream, or it would not have been recorded. A ladder reaching to heaven ! How preposterous 1 Angels running up and down! This was probably before they were fledged, or, as someone has suggested, it may have been at the season when they were moulting, their wings then being too tattered for a lengthy flight. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place ; and I knew it not (Genesis xxviii., 16). —The saint did not know that his God was where he slept! He had evidently not said his prayers before going to sleep. He had left home without taking his God with him, and was startled to find him going on the same journey. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (verse 17). Ay ! ay ! it is always so. There is no place, except one, that saints find so dreadful as the gate of heaven, and that is the gate of its antipodes. If a saint ever needs comfort it is when in sight of the heavenly city. Then he sends for the doctor �82 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. —or two or three doctors, if he is rich enough—to kill the messenger, the disease, God has sent to call him home. If the doctors succeed, there is rejoicing; if they fail, the poor saint shuffles off his mortal coil as reluctantly as he would strip off his clothes in the Arctic regions; and he enters heaven (that is, exits from life) with a face as long as he would wear were he going to prison or the workhouse ! Ah! yes—the gate of heaven is a dreadful spot, and I should not be surprised to find it worse inside than out. And he took the stone that he had put for the pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it (verse 18).— Here we land in absolute and widespread idolatry. Jacob was a phallic worshipper, and he consecrated this stone in the usual manner, his God, of course, being quite delighted with the act. He anointed it, and so made a Christ of it, that is, an anointed, greased, or smeared one. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep (that is, protect) me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father s house in peace ; then shall the Lord be my God: and this stone, ivhich I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house ; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee (verses 20-22),—This text is full of the mar­ row of divinity. 1. Jacob enters into a bargain with God and puts him to the test. He will have nothing to do with a God that will do nothing for him. In that he was right. Neither will I. 2. The vow shows that Jacob had not yet received Jehovah into his pantheon, and was resolved to experiment upon him before he did. Eight again. 3. If the God did his duty, he should have that stone for his house 1 Very kind of Jacob; and the God did not object. Perhaps the stone had a hole in it. 4. He will pay God ten per cent, of all that God gives him ! That must have been very tempt­ ing to Jehovah; and we must suppose he at once fell in with the proposal and accepted the bargain. Note.—We are often told of the disinterested love of God and his saints. But the article cannot be found in anything except words. The Bible exhibits no love but what expects a reward. We shall see in the sequel that, whatever the Lord did, Jacob never performed his part of this vow. It was the off­ spring of panic, as most vows are, never meant to be kept, but �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 83 only to appease the present wrath of the deity and ward off a supposed or real danger. Religion, when dissected, is found to be selfishness consecrated. The story of Jacob and his married life had better be left where it is—in the Bible, one of the few places really fit for it. Comment is both unnecessary and impossible. The way in which Jacob contrived to grow rich at Laban’s expense was clever, ay, miraculous—which shows that God was with the rogue all the way through. Honest men never get nor need his assistance. To judge from what the Bible teaches, especially in connexion with Jacob, Moses, Joshua and Elijah, Jehovah was the patron God of cut-throats, swindlers and thieves. And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian (Genesis xxxi., 20).—Exactly so. Moses did the same from Egypt; and delivered the Israelites from slavery under pre­ tence of going out for a holiday—that is, to worship. But God was with them. Jaco& was Ze/ii a/one; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day (Genesis xxxii., 24).—The context shows that the man was a god, whom Jacob saw “face to face.” The struggle between the almighty and his servant Jacob, at that time nearly one hundred years old, if Bible chronology can be trusted, was a very severe and protracted one ; and for a long period it was doubtful which would win. If I knew the language of the ring I would describe the scene; but I fear me that would prove as great a task for me as God found it to defend himself against Jacob. After several throws on each side—angels, no doubt, being seconds and bottle-holders—God gave in and acknowledged that Jacob was too many for him. He thereupon surrendered the belt, and begged Jacob to permit him to retire. When he got back to heaven, I have been told, nobody knew him. His wig, like John Gilpin’s, was “upon the road,” and his person was all bespattered and covered with dust and per­ spiration. However, a hot bath and a week s rest put him all right again. It may be remarked that Jehovah rested only one day after the week he spent in creating all things. If I am rightly informed, he needed seven times the repose after this wrestling bout. True, he was 2,000 years older at the time he entered the ring with Jacob, though even then he had not reached the years of discretion. t �84 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. Genesis xxxiv. must be passed over with the remark that Jacob’s sons were chips of the old block in cunning, as may­ be seen in their murders and plunder of Hamor and his son. Jacob chid them, it is true, but only because he feared the revenge of his neighbors. Saints usually love the Lord their God, alias themselves, with all their heart, and so have no love left for other people. And Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem (Genesis xxxv., 4).—Jacob had been in Canaan now for a long period, and yet had not paid his vow to God; and the latter reminded him that the debt was still standing, and ordered him to the place where he had seen the ladder reaching up into heaven. Though Jacob had conquered Jehovah in the ring, he still deemed it best to be on good terms with him. So he packed up to go to Bethel to worship, and he told his house­ hold to put away the other gods they had. Those were handed over to Jacob, and he merely buried them along with certain jewels and trinkets under the tree. This was merely a com­ promise ; the other gods were merely put out of the way while Jehovah was being attended to—just as people to-day go to churches and chapels, where they pretend to worship God; though they are merely enduring the “ service ” until they can rush back again to the pleasures and riches they left behind them. Jacob built his altar to God and offered sacrifice ; but he did not give the tenth of all he had, as he had promised when he had nothing at all to give. Of course not. Whoever thinks of keeping his word with Jehovah ? With whom does Jehovah keep his pledges ? And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel (Genesis xxxvi. 31 .—This is genuine revelation, and shows us that Moses did not write Genesis. It must have been written after Saul and David, for kings of Israel are mentioned as having reigned at the time the writer lived. We know not who did write Genesis. We know Moses did not; unless his book has been largely interpolated and < orrupted. Though it matters not the least who wrote it; one man is as likely to be inspired as any other. How Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Genesis xxxvii., 3).—Gods and saints usually have favorites; and nothing better exhibits their weakness. Jacob loved Joseph, �JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS. 85 made a regular guy of him with a harlequin’s coat; he became a spy upon his brothers, and reported what he saw to his father. His brothers hated him, and sold him ; and that was as good as he deserved. Joseph in Egypt turned out a full­ blown professor of dreams, as his brothers had sneeringly called him (xxxvii., 19) ; married the daughter of a priest of On, or Heliopolis, a heathen; became grand vizier of Pharaoh (a purely fabulous title, by the way), gathered up the corn during the years of plenty, sold it out during the famine for the people’s money, cattle, land, and themselves, thus making all the people absolute slaves to the king. No doubt the writer thought he was sketching a splendid and saintly character; in truth he has presented us with one of the very worst tools of despotism. He never interfered with the lands of the priesthood (a priest wrote the story); their organisation was too prwerful, and Joseph was too closely allied to that guild to interfere with their possessions. And Joseph fell upon his father s face, and wept upon him, and kissed him (Genesis 1., 1).—Joseph was very affectionate. For many years he enjoyed himself in Egypt without ever inquiring for his friends, and would probably never have sought them again if the famine had not thrown them in his way; yet he makes an awful fuss now when he finds them and afterwards when his father was dead ! My jumping, capering comments have now run quite through the book of Genesis. I may just remark that many people will regard my comments as altogether inadequate, and even positively faulty in all respects. Well! I have written as I thought best under the circumstances, and for the end I had in view; as I have consulted my own whims and fancies in writing, I should be sorry not to allow the reader the same liberty. My comments, faulty as they may be, are quite worthy of the Bible, regarded as a divine revelation; considered as an antiquity, no comment can be too good for it. My object is not to damage the Bible, but to render it impossible for men to damage themselves by worshipping it or its wornout God. Still I must say, my comment is more honest and straightforward than any orthodox one ever written upon the Bible; for I have not perverted a single text to support fore­ gone conclusions; while orthodox commentaries consist of little else than perversions of that nature. �THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST. The following true and faithful history of Jesus has just been handed to me by the Holy Ghost for publication. This is true, as true as the Bible. If any wicked sceptic disbelieves it, I will not send him to hell—I would scorn to do such a mean trick—but I will prove by a miracle that “ my record is true.” I will even do this—Let a bishop or Tyler drink enough strychnine to kill him; and when he is dead, I will restore him to life. If Christians will not submit to so simple and safe a test, let them doubt as they will; I will not waste time in arguing with such idiotic people. The story I have to relate is so evidently penned by the Holy Ghost—its morals are so pure, its tone so serious and grand, its revelations so far beyond the reach of mere reason, so immensely transcending all that science or even romance ever wrote—that any person with the least pretence to spiritual insight must at once acknowledge that it could not have been written by a mere man. Therefore, let all who value their credit for intelligence, and who do not wish to be regarded as lunatics, acknowledge at once that the following history is of divine inspiration. The Holy Ghost told me, as he handed over the manuscript, that he supposed few would believe it. He had never been very successful since intelligence and science got abroad; but still he thought it his duty to do what he could. “ At all events,” said he, “ publish it. I give you carte, blanche as to what you shall give to the world and what omit. You under­ stand the ways of the world better than I, and I am bound to say I am delighted to have secured you as my editor and literary executor. This is my last work ; and I wish you to render it as attractive as you can. A little embellishment, I presume, will not be amiss ; and, of course, you are at liberty to expand the miracles a little if you do not think them striking enough for popular taste. I am told that sensation is now the order of the day, especially with the churches ; so do not be over-scrupulous.” I promised to do my best, and the Holy Ghost left. All . this, reader, is teue !—as true, I am bound to say, as that �THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST. 87 , Moses saw the western side of God; as true as that the walls of Jericho fell at the blast of rains’ horns ; as true as that Jesus came down from heaven ; as true as that Paul was caught up to the third heaven ; as true as that Tyler is honest or sensible. And thou knowest, thou sceptical reader, thou! that nothing can be truer than these. If the wicked infidel wants further proof still that this gospel is true, be it known unto him that I once went up to the sixty-fifth heaven, and saw Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob there, carrying on their old tricks as upon earth. There I saw the beasts full of eyes before and behind; and one of them calved while I was there. In fact, there is a whole menagerie of curious beasts there now; and they are getting so numerous that they wished me to buy up a number for exportation. But it was not in my line. I was told that they made Jacob the head overseer of all the animals, with all the young beasts of a certain color that might be born as his wages. Jacob, true to his character, increased his own share artificially as he did when under Laban (Gen. xxx., 37). When caught he denied it, but truthful Peter gave evidence against him ; and “immediately the cock crew.” Then they sent Jacob for twenty years to hell; but the Lord was with him. Thou foolish sceptic, dost thou now believe ? If thou, believest not me who have been to the sixty-fifth heaven, how canst thou believe Paul, who rose no higher than the third ? Wilt thou compel me to boast yet further ? Be it so. I will conquer thy unbelief. Once on a time, about three thousand years before I was born (John viii., 58), I was on tramp ; and coming to a mountain that stood in my way I bade it be gone, and it skipped away like a sky-rocket, and I saw it no more. Where the mountain stood there remained a hole of immense size. Into that hole ran the river Jordan; and that hole is the Dead Sea ! Dost thou now believe that I am inspired by the Holy Ghost ? If not, I leave thee to thy hardness of heart. Go thy way. Read this new gospel. And may it open thine eyes! Amen. The Gospel. Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise : His mother Mary had been a nun, and her cousin Elizabeth had been one also. Now Elizabeth was gay, and her husband Zacharias was old and well-stricken in years. And, behold, an angel of the , , . . �88 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. Lord, about twenty-five, who served the Lord day and night as a monk in a convent near her dwelling, came unto her by night, and prophesied that she should have a son. * And in process of time his prophecy was fulfilled. Now it came to pass that for many days the husband of Elizabeth, even the aged Zacharias, who was not ignorant of the ways of the Lord’s angels, was dumb, and spake not unto his wife either good or bad, for he perceived that she was too subtil for him. Nor yet did he open his mouth when her cousin Mary came to commune with her. Now Mary, being young and well-favored, was betrothed unto a man named Joseph, by trade a carpenter. And lo, he was good-natured and gentle, one that feared God and his espoused wife, believing all things, hoping all things. But when he perceived that Mary was as became her not, he was perplexed. Although he was aware that Gabriel, another angel of the Lord, who was also a monk, had visited her, saying, All hail, beau ideal of women! The Lord hath chosen thee to be his friend1” Mary not comprehending the salutation, the angel explained, and went his way. Now it came to pass as Joseph was sore perplexed and in desperation, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him by night and pleasantly greeted him, and bade him be of good cheer f .... And the angel said, moreover, forasmuch as thou art poor, behold, the Lord hath sent thee one hundred pieces of silver to cheer thy heart withal. And Joseph was content, and took his espoused wife unto himself. Now when Jesus was born, there came twenty-five venerable handmaidens of the Lord to commune with the young child and his mother, for he was filled with marvellous wisdom even before he was born, and could even speak “ as never man spake ” before he could suck ; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet—“ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.” Now the first words that Jesus uttered were these : “ Bring hither those mine enemies, and slay them before me !” And Joseph, being astonished at the miracle, even took his axe, and slew fifty thousand and three-score and ten of the old women, as * Using my discretion, I omit a few sentences here from the Holy Ghost’s narrative, which are scarcely fit for ears polite. f Here again I am compelled to omit a few sentences from the Holy Ghost’s narrative. �THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST. 89 it is written in the book of Samuel the prophet concering the men of Beth-shemesh. * And all that heard thereof were amazed, and gave glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will towards men. But when the king heard thereof he was wrath, and sought to kill Joseph and Mary and the young child. But Gabriel came to Joseph by night, saying, “ Up ! Why tarriest thou ? Take the baby and his mother, and get thee into the land of Egypt, and dwell there till I send thee word; for the king seeks the young child’s life.” Then Joseph arose and took the young child and Mary his mother, and fled to the land of Egypt; and there they remained until the death of the king, which was accelerated by Gabriel, who was even the king’s confessor ; and he gave unto him the sacrament, and the king was sick, and lay down upon his bed, and gave up the ghost. Then did Gabriel send to Joseph, saying, “Up, return to thine own land, and bring the young child and his mother with thee, for thine enemy is dead. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” But, behold, or ever the message came Joseph was ready, knowing that the king was dead. For it came to pass that as the king gave up the ghost, even in that self-same moment, Jesus rose in his cradle and cried, “Return to thy own land, for thine enemy is dead!” And immediately he turned his ■cradle into an ass, ready saddled for the journey ! And all that heard it did marvel beyond measure, saying, “ Why should a child of so great power and wisdom flee .from his enemies ?” But all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, “ Behold, I will confound the wisdom of the wise ; and fools and folly shall be exalted !” And when Jesus was about fifteen months old he went into the temple, even into the place where the scribes and elders and bishops and all the Levites were diligently reading the word of the Lord, and religiously quarrelling about the meaning and interpretation thereof. And one said on this wise, and another on that; and there was no wisdom nor agreement amongst them, for the Lord had confounded them giving a revelation which no man in heaven or earth could * 1 Samuel vi., 19. �90 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. understand. And behold, they did chide, and foam at the mouth, and gnash with their teeth, and curse every man. his fellow because of the multitude of opinions that prevailed. Then Jesus stood in the midst of them and asked them ques­ tions, and gave them answers which astounded all those that heard him. And his fame spread abroad throughout, the whole region and to every nation which is under heaven, inso­ much that the newspapers reported nothing else but the sayings of Jesus for weeks thereafter. Then did Mary and her husband suddenly rush into the temple, and when they found the child they took him away to their home ; and Mary said, “ Why hast thou done thus unto us ?” Then answered Jesus and said unto her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee ? I’ll tell the old man of Gabriel’s visits, if you don’t mind.” And Mary kept that saying, and treasured it up in her heart. After these things Jesus went out to the river Jordan, wh ere his cousin John was conducting Salvation Army work and dipping the people into the river to wash away their sins. And Jesus, feeling his need of cleansing, prevailed upon John to dip him. He stayed in the water too long, and caught a violent chill. This brought on a fever and delirium, during which he raved about a spirit (t was not I, certainly) driving i * him into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. And, behold, Jesus, as he lay in his fever, . did rave exceedingly, and said that the Devil had come to him in the wilderness, where he had fasted forty days and forty nights, and was very hungry. The Devil brought unto him a. pig and tempted him to eat it; but he repelled the temptation, with horror. Then the Devil caught him up and flew with him to a battlement of the temple and hurled him over ; but an angel caught him before he fell to the earth. Then the Devil took him away to a mountain exceedingly high, and showed him all the cities and kingdoms of the world, even in both hemispheres at one view ; and promised to make him the ruler of them all, if he would only worship him. This he refused to do. And the Devil left him there upon the mountain, cold . and hungry, and not knowing which way to turn to road home. Then an army of angels, as soon as the Devil was out of sight, and they were no longer afraid of him, took * Parenthesis by the Holy Ghost. �THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST. 91 Jesus up and bore him home to his bed in a moment of time. And behold, he awoke and told his vision to his Mother Mary ; and she perceived thereby that hei’ son would be great, and that divine wisdom dwelt in him more than in all the prophets that were before him. And Jesus, when the fever had left him chose twelve disciples, and their names were these : Simon alias Peter; Andrew (Peter’s brother); James and John Zebedee (also brothers) ; Philip ; Bartholomew ; Thomas alias Didymus ; Matthew alias Levi; James Alphseus; Lebbaeus alias Thaddaeus ; Simon the Canaanite ; and Judas Iscariot. These he sent out to preach his Gospel. They were bidden not to meddle with Gentiles, but only Jews; and to cry as they went, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” They were commanded to heal the sick and to cast out devils : for Jesus would never forgive the king of the devils for tempting him to eat pork. Therefore, would he have wai’ with him and his angels for ever. And he commanded them, moreover, to raise the dead to life. They were forbidden to take any gold, silver, or brass with them he commanded them not to have two coats ; and to wear sandals instead of shoes. Then the disciples went everywhere shouting their cry “The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” and healing the sick and raising the dead in multitudes ; insomuch that the doctors and undertakers and the parsons were deprived of their occu­ pation and their burial fees ; and they cried out against the disciples with an exceeding bitter cry. And all as many as held property under their fathers’ wills, when they found their parents and ancestors rising up to life again, did gnash their teeth with rage against the disciples of Jesus. And it came to pass that all the devils whom they had cast out did unite with the physicians, and the undertakers, and those whom their fathers had disturbed and dispossessed, and the parsons who had lost their fees : and they set upon the disciples, and drove them out of their cities. And all men wondered at that which they beheld, and said, “ Why could not those men who raised the dead defend themselves against the living?” After these things Jesus and his disciples and his mother went to a wedding, so that the wine ran short. But Jesus turned a large cistern full of water into prime old port; and then “ the fun grew fast and furious and many good toasts were drunk and good songs were sung. And they all sang a �92 BLOWS AT THB BIBLE. new song, even the song of Moses and of the lamb, in honor of Jesus, saying, “For he’s a jolly good fellow! For he’s a jolly good fellow! For he’s a jolly good fellow ! Which nobody can deny,” etc. And passing on from thence Jesus met one thousand old women, very decrepid, withered and toothless. And when they asked alms of him, he said, “ What will ye that I should do unto you ?” And they say unto him, “ Lord, that we may be restored to our youth and beauty.” And he healed them all, insomuch that they became the most beautiful women upon earth. Some of them remain even unto this day “ to witness if I lie.” And when this was noised abroad, behold, all that had old and decrepid wives and sisters besought him to heal them also. But he passed by and hid himself in a desert place. And his disciples went into a ship to cross over the sea; and lo, a great wind arose, and the ship was in danger of being overwhelmed in the midst of the sea. And the disciples, as becometh good Christians, were sore afraid, saying, “ Alas! must we enter into the New Jerusalem before our time ?” And Jesus breathed upon the sea and it dried up; and he turned the ship into a chariot, and six sharks into horses, and thus rode, he and his disciples to their own home. And all men, as many as heard it, did marvel greatly at those things that were done. And going on from thence he met a man who had fifty million devils in him. And he cast them all out, and the man was empty. < And the devils he sent into a herd of swine ; and behold, the pigs began to fly like eagles, until they were over the sea. And then did they all tumble into the water, and were drowned, they and the devils also. And when the owners of the pigs heard thereof, they ran out, they and their neighbors, and chased Jesus out of that region. And when he came to a fig-tree, he went to see if there were any figs thereupon ; for he was very hungry, But the •season for figs was not yet come, and he found nothing on it but leaves. Then he began to curse and to swear, and the fig­ tree turned as pale as death with fright, and entreated Jesus not to curse it so, fori was unreasonable to expect figs out �THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST. 93 of season. But Jesus gave no heed to its entreaty, but he answered and said, ‘ ‘ Because thou hast not borne figs to feed me when I am in need, henceforth let no figs grow on thee for ever! Selah!” And it came to pass that the fig-tree, being condemned in his own conscience, suddenly fell down and gave up the ghost, and became a pillar of salt, as it is written in the book of Moses concerning Lot’s wife. And behold the man whose fig-tree it was did weep and lament exceeding sore, both he and his -wife and family, for that which had befallen their tree. And going on from thence, there encountered them certain of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And it came to pass that as they chid him and mocked him, behold he performed a miracle and turned them all into cabbages; and when the sun shone hot upon them, having no root, they withered away. And all men wondered at that which had come to pass. Then began Jesus to say unto his disciples and to the multitude, “Behold, I came down from heaven.” And they said unto him, “' When didst thou descend from heaven ? Lo, wast thou not born in Bethlehem ? Didst thou come from heaven before thou wast born ? Or hast thou been up to heaven and returned therefrom ? Tell us, we pray thee, what explanation thou canst give.” And Jesus was wrath, and 3aid, “ He that believeth not shall be damned. It shall be worse for you that doubt my words than for Sodom and Gomorrah.” And he shook off the dust of his feet against them, and went his way. And in those days when work was disagreeable and alms were hard to get, Jesus and his disciples went a-fishing ; but Jesus himself remained upon the shore. And, behold., as they rowed and toiled the fish would not enter into their net, and the disciples knew not what to do, being sore perplexed. Then Jesus, who was skilled in magic, waved his hands over the sea, and the spirit of God descended upon the fishes like a mighty rushing wind ; and the disciples caught three thousand of them in the twinkling of an eye. And when they drew the net to land the fishes fell down before him and worshipped him, saying, “Verily, thou art the Son of God.”* Then Jesus began to say unto the twelve, “Whosoever he * One version reads, “ Verily, thou art a son of a gun.” But this is most probably spurious; for guns were unknown in those ctays. �96 BLOWS AT THE BIBLE. third part of the sea became bloodand a third of all fishes and ships were destroyed. Then he smote the sun, moon, and stars, and darkened one third of them. And he opened the door of the bottomless pit, and let out the fiery locusts which were shut up there; and they destroyed one-third of mankind. Then he mounted a white horse which came from heaven, and called himself King of. Kings and Lord of Lords; and he led his armies to war, all riding upon white horses, and there was an exceedingly great slaughter, so that the blood rose even unto the horse-bridles for the space of 200 miles ! Then did he invite the beasts and birds of prey to come and feast them­ selves upon the flesh of the millions who had fallen in battle, for he refused them decent burial because of his hatred of them. It came to pass after these things that Judas, one of his disciples, betrayed him into the hands of his enemies. He did it on this wise. Finding his master asleep, he took awav his magic wand, and cut off his hair, wherein resided his great power. .Then he became powerless and like another man. Then did Judas conduct his enemies to him, and they caught him and bound him, and led him away captive, and they carried him to Egypt and there crucified him (Rev. xi., 8). Then one of his followers, Mary by name, whose character was not the best, and out of whom Jesus had cast seven devils, pretended to have seen him after his death. But even his disciples treated the tale as a ghost story. They, howe\ er, believed that, like Hercules and Adonis and Osiris, he had been raised to heaven ; and some there are who believe it even unto this day. He that testifieth these things saith true. And if he had written all that Jesus said and did. the world itself would be too small to hold the books that would be written. He that BELIEVETH SHALL BE TAKEN INTO THE HEAVENLY ASYLUM, New Jerusalem ; he that believeth not shall be condemned to wander with the wise ones of the earth, and be at large and at liberty all the days of his life. Amen! even the Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Blows at the Bible Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Symes, Joseph [1841-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 6 v. (96 p.) ; 19 cm. Notes: Contents: No. 1: The sermon on the mount.--No. 2: The life of Adam. Love not the world. The mystery of salvation.--No. 3: How a fairy was transformed. Jumping comments on Genesis.-- Nos. 4, 5: Jumping comments on Genesis.--No. 6: Jumping comments on Genesis. The gospel of the Holy Ghost. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Ramsey and Foote] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N628 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 (Blows at 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 Authority Bible-Criticism Bible-Evidences NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/96c6e5f5baa756d0c40b64a963a173a5.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=p-JZ%7EjLyUzdBMiRKAVPN2FbMqtzJAZb9myOVy34ZQ-ijc%7EDbDHeXkHbPvEFvYUpHIukPVEWCWbwdi-blL7xaCNGhFJfcoThpcML9nMsoJZ30CSKUY4O9kg-6Pjrojen20rExFl6U3M493aYVHcaYH80pYxoV7Braff1cVNNwXwG-5aJ3S9Tv-LUUq1vdYN8psEUGC1URuz23e1expL%7EfQIjWQDU2HW7MpJRLAa%7E9ouHRjGU-y6DVw0IkywBPqan-wj0BK6NWx4a1cxWGQUbXClWeKsbc7biMu6fY-jUhNd0c3LDy%7EHX-Ht-A1JK75yeiWfIokCEePBj7lfmuP2sgsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c0c010422398d527a22f0049b5c109c0 PDF Text Text CIVIL & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. WITH SOME HINTS TAKEN FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. BY ANNIE BESANT, (Second Edition). LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C, PBICE THREEPENCE. �LONDON FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BP.ADLAUGHZ 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E. C. �g CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. « O Liberty ! how many crimes are committed in thy name1” So exclaimed Madame Roland, one of the most heroic and most beautiful spirits of the great French Revo­ lution, when above her glittered the keen knife of the guillotine, and below her glared the fierce faces of the maddened crowd, who were howling for her death. But Madame Roland, even as she spoke, bowed her fair head to the statue of Liberty which—pure, serene, majestic— rose beside the scaffold, and stood white and undefiled in the sunlight, while the mob seethed and tossed round its base. Madame Roland bent her brow before Liberty, even as the sad complaint passed her lips; for well that noblehearted woman knew that the guillotine, by which she was to die, had not been raised in a night with the broken chains of Liberty, but had been slowly building up, during long centuries of tyranny, out of the mouldering skeletons <of the thousands of victims of despotism and misrule. The taunt has been re-echoed ever since, and lovers of repression have changed its words and its meaning, and they have said what noble Madame Roland would never have said: “ O Liberty, how many crimes are committed by thee, and because of thee 1” They have never said, they have never cared to ask, how many crimes have been committed against Liberty in the past; how many crimes are daily committed against her in the England which we boast as free. They have never said, they have never cared to ask, whether th© excesses which have, alas ! disgraced revolutions, whether the bloodshed which has ofttimes stained crimson-red the fair, white, banner of Liberty, are not the natural and the necessary fruits, not of the freedom which is won, bu'c of the tyranny which is crushed. Society keeps a number of its members uneducated and degraded; it houses them worse than brutes; it pays them so little that, if a man would not starve, he must toil all day, without time for �4 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. relaxation or for self-culture; it withdraws from them all softening influences ; it shuts them out from all intellectual amusements; it leaves them no pleasures except the purely animal ones ; it bars against them the gates of the museums and the art galleries, and opens to them only the doors of the beer-shop and the gin-palace; it sneers at their folly, but never seeks to teach them wisdom; it disdains their “ lowness,” but never tries to help them to be higher; and then, when suddenly the masses of the people rise, maddened by long oppression, intoxicated with a freedom for which they are not prepared, arrogant with the newly-won consciousness of their resistless strength, then Society, which has kept them brutal, is appalled at their brutality; Society, which has kept them degraded, shrieks out at the inevitable results of that degradation. I have often heard wealthy men and women talk about the discontent and the restlessness of the poor; I have heard them prattle about the necessity of “keeping the people down;” I have heard polite and refined sneers at the folly and the tiresome enthusiasm of the political agitator, and half-jesting wishes that “the whole tribe of agitators ” would become extinct. And as I have listened, and have seen the luxury around the speakers; as I have noted the smooth current of their lives, and marked the irritation displayed at some petty mischance which for a moment ruffled its even flow; as I have seen all this, and then remembered the miserable homes that I have known, the squalor and the hideous poverty, the hunger and the pain, I have thought to myself that if I could take the speakers, and could plunge them down into the life which the despised “ masses ” live, that the braver-hearted of them would turn into turbulent demagogues, while the weaker-spirited would sink down into hopeless drunkenness and pauperism. These rich ones do not mean to be cruel when they sneer at the complaints of the poor, and they are unconscious of the misery which underlies and gives force to the agitation which disturbs their serenity; they do not understand how the subjects which seem to them so dry are thrilling with living interest to the poor who listen to the “ demagogue,” or how 'his keenest thrusts are pointed in the smithy of human pain. They are only thoughtless, only careless, only indifferent; and meanwhile the smothered murmuring going on around them, and grim Want and Pain and Despair are the phantom forms which are undermining their palaces; and “ they eat, they drink, they marry, and are �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 5 given in marriage,” heedless of the gathering river which is beginning to overflow its banks, and which, if it be not drained off in time, will “ sweep them all away.” If they knew their best friends, they would bless the popular leaders, who are striving to win social and political reforms, and so to avert a revolution. The French Revolution is so often flung, by ignorant people, in the teeth of those who are endeavouring to extend and to consolidate the reign of Freedom, that it can scarcely be deemed out of place to linger for a moment on the threshold of the subject, in order to draw from past experience the lesson, that bloodshed and civil war do not spring from wise and large measures of reform, but from the hopelessness of winning relief except by force, from over­ taxation, from unjust social inequality, from the’grinding of poverty, from the despair and from the misery of the people. It shows extremest folly to decline to study the causes of great catastrophes, to reject the experience won by the misfortunes and by the mistakes of others, and to refuse to profit by the lessons of the past. Of course I do not mean to say, and I should be very sorry to persuade any one to think, that our state to-day in England is as bad as that from which France was only delivered through the frightful agony of the Revolution. But we have in England, as we shall see as we go on, many of the abuses left of that feudal system which the Revolution destroyed for ever in France. The feudal system was spread all over Europe in the Middle Ages, those Dark Ages when all sense of equal justice and of liberty was dead. It con­ centrated all power in the hands of the few; it took no account of the masses of the people; it handed over the poor, bound hand and foot, to the power of the feudal superior, and it cultivated that haughty spirit of disdainful contempt for labour, which is still, unfortunately, only too widely spread throughout our middle and upper classes in England. This system gradually lost its harsher features among ourselves ; but in France it endured up to the time of the Revolution; and in this system, added to the fearful weight of taxation under which the people were absolutely crushed and starved to death, lies the secret of the blood­ shed of the Revolution. Therefore, before passing on to the parallel between our state and that of ante-revolutionary France, I would fain put into the mouths of our friends an answer to those who say �6 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. that the excesses of the French Revolution are the necessary outcome of free thought in religion and of free action in politics. It is perfectly true that the determination to shake off a cruel and unjust yoke was implanted in the bosoms of the French people by the writings of those who are commonly called the Encyclopaedists. These men were Freethinkers; some of them—as Holbach and Diderot— might fairly be called Atheists ; some were nothing of the kind. These men taught the French people to think; they nurtured in their breasts a spirit of self-reliance; they roused a spirit of defiance. These /men rang the tocsin which awoke France, and so far it is true that Freethought pro­ duced the Revolution, and so far Freethought may well be proud of her work. But not to Freethought, not to Liberty, must be ascribed the excesses which stained a revolution that was in its beginning, that might have been throughout, so purely glorious. For do you know what French Feudal­ ism was ? Do you know what those terrible rights were, which have branded so deeply into the French peasant’s heart the hatred of the old nobility, that even to the present day he will hiss out between clenched teeth the word “ aristocrat,” with a passionate hatred which one hundred years of freedom have not ’quenched ? In the reign of Louis XIV. there was a Count, the Comte de Charolois, who used to shoot down, for his amusement, the peasants who had climbed into trees,-and the tilers who were mending roofs. The chasse aux paysans, as it was pleasantly termed, the “ hunt of peasants,” was remembered by an old man who was in Paris during the Revolution as one of the amusements of the nobility in his youth. True, these acts were but the acts of a few; but they were done, and the people dared not strike back Then there was another right, a right which outraged ’ all humanity, and which gave to the lord the first claim to the serf’s bride. The terrible story in Charles Dickens’s “Tale of Two Cities ” is no fiction, except in details, if we may judge from some of the chronicles of the time. (Dufaure gives many interesting details on French feudalism.) Then they might harness the serfs, like cattle, to their carts; they might keep them awake all night beating the trenches round their castles, lest noble slumbers should be disturbed by the croaking of the frogs. When any one throws in*lhe Radical’s teeth the excesses of the French Revolution, let the Radical answer him back with these rights, and ask if it is to be �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 7 'wondered at that men struck hard, when the outrages and the oppressions of centuries were revenged in a few wild months ? Marvel not at the short madness that broke out at. last; marvel rather at the cowardice which bore in ■silence for so long. I pass from these hideous rights of feudalism to its milder ■features, as they existed in France before the Revolution, and as they exist among us to-day in England. The laws by which land is held and transmitted, the rights of the first-born son, the laying-on of taxation by those who do not represent the tax-payer, a standing army in which birth helps promotion, the Game Laws—all these are relics of ■feudalism, relics which need to be swept away. It is on the existence of these that I ground my plea for wider freedom ; it is on these that I rely to prove that Civil and Religious Liberty are still very imperfect among ourselves. In France, before the revolution, people in general, king, queen, lords, clergy, thought that things were going on very ■nicely, and very comfortably. True, keener-sighted men saw in the misery of the masses the threatened ruin of the throne. True, even Royalty itself, in the haggard faces and gaunt forms that pressed cheering round its carriages, ■read traces of grinding poverty, of insufficient food. True, some faint rumour even reached the court, amid its luxury, that the houses of the people were not all they should be, nay, that many of them were wretched huts, not fit for cattle. But what of that ? There was no open rebellion; there was no open disloyalty. What disloyalty there was, was confined to the lower orders, and showed itself by a fancy of the people to gather into Republican clubs, and other such societies, where loyalty to the Crown was not the lesson which they learned from the speakers’ lips. But such dis­ loyalty could of course be crushed out at any moment, and the court went gaily on its way, careless of the low, dull growling in the distance which told of the coming storm. We, in England, to-day, are quite at ease. True, some of our labourers are paid starvation-wages of ios., iis., 12s., a week, but again I ask, what of that? Has not Mr. Fraser Grove, late M.P., told the South Wiltshire farmers that they had a right to reduce the labourer’s wage to ns. a week, if he could livp upon it; and, if he did not like it, he could take his labour to other markets ? Why should the labourer complain, so long as he is allowed to live? Then the houses of our people are scarcely all that they should be. I have �8 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. been into some so-called homes, composed of two smalF rooms, in one of which father and mother, boys and girls growing up into manhood and womanhood, were obliged to sleep in the one room, even in the one bed. I have seen a room in which slept four generations, the great-grandfather and his wife, the grandmother (unmarried), the mother (un­ married), and the little child of the latter, and in addition to these relatives, the room also afforded sleeping accommoda­ tion to three men lodgers. Yet people talk about the “im­ morality of the agricultural poor,” as though people could be anything except immoral, when the lads and lasses have. to grow up without any possibility of being even decent, much less with any possibility of retaining the smallest shred of natural modesty. The only marvel is how, among our poor, there do grow up now and then fair and pure blossoms, worthy of the most carefully-guarded homes. But avery short time since there were worse hovels even than those I have mentioned. Down at Woolwich there were “homes” composed of one small room, 12 feet by 12, and 8J feet high in the middle of the sloping roof, and the huts were built of bad brick, the damp of which sweated slowly through the whitewash, and the floor was made of beaten earth, lower in level than the ground outside, and in front of the fire they kept a plank all day baking warm and dry, in order that at night they might put it into the bed, tokeep the sleeper next the wall from being wet through by the drippings as he slept. And in other such huts as* these four families lived together, with no partition put up between them, save such poor rags as some lingering feeling of de­ cency might lead them to hang up for themselves—and these huts, these miserable huts, were the property of Government, and in them were housed her Majesty’s married soldiers, housed in such abodes as her Majesty would not allow her cattle to occupy near Windsor or near Balmoral. Yet among us there is no open rebellion; there is no open disloyalty. Among us, too, what disloyalty there is, is chiefly confined to the lower orders, and that, as every­ one knows, can be snuffed out at a moment’s notice. Among us, it also shows itself in that fancy of the people to gather into Republican clubs and other such societies, where loyalty to the Crown is not the lesson most enforced by the speakers. The quiet, slow alienation of the people from the Throne is going on unobserved ; a people who are loyal to a monarchy will not form themselves into Repub­ �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. • 9 lican Clubs; yet our rulers never dream that the people'are •discontented, and. that these clubs are signs of the times. They fancy that the agitation is only the work of the few, and that there is no widely-spread disaffection behind the Republican teachers; only the leaders of popular move­ ments know the vast force which they can wield in case of need, but the Government will never listen to these men, any more than in France they would listen to Mirabeau, until it was too late. Yet do sensible people think that a • soUjpd and a healthy society can rest upon the misery of the masses? and do our rulers think that palaces stand firm when they are built up upon such hovels-as those which I have described? It appears they do ; for our Queen and our Princes seem to believe in the lip-loyalty of the crowds which cheer them when they make us happy by driving through our streets, loyalty that springs from the thougl^essness of custom, and not from true and manly reverence for real worth. For I would not be thought to ' disparage the sentiment of loyalty; I hold it to be one of the fairest blossoms' which flower •on the emotional side of the nature of man. Loyalty to principle, loyalty to a great cause, loyalty to some true leader, crowned king of men by reason of his virtue, of his » genius, of his strength—such loyalty as this it is no shame ■for a freeman to yield, such loyalty as this has, in all ages of the world, inspired men to the noblest self-devotion, nerved men to the most heroic self-sacrifice. But just as •only those things which are valuable in themselves are -thought worthy of imitation in baser metal, so is this irue,golden loyalty imitated by the pinchbeck loyalty, which shouts in our streets. For what true loyalty is possible from us towards the House of Brunswick ? Loyalty to virtue ? as enshrined in a Prince of Wales ? loyalty to liberality, and to delicacy of sentiment ? as exemplified by a Duke of Edinburgh ? loyalty to any great cause, whose success in this generation is bound up with the life oi any member of our Royal House ? «The very questions send a ripple of , laughter through any assemblage of Englishmen, and they •Sare beginning to feel, at last, that true loyalty can only be paid to some man who stands head and shoulders above his fellows, and not to some poor dwarf, whom we can only see over the heads of the crowd, because he stands on the artificial elevation of a throne. The court in France was very extravagant: it spent �10 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. ^34,000,000 in eight years, while the people were starving;our princes do not spend so much ; they dare not; but that, the spirit is the same is clearly seen when a wealthy queen sends to Parliament to dower her sons and her daughters r. when the scions of a family so rich as are the Brunswicks, become beggars to the nation, and pensioners on the pockets of the poor. However, courts are expensive things, and if. we want them we must be content to pay for them. Now, in France, the nobles, the clergy, the great landed proprie­ tors, paid next to nothing: the heavy burden of taxation fell upon the poor. But the poor had not much money1 which they could pay out to the State, and it is not easy toempty already empty pockets with any satisfactory results so, in France, they hit upon the ingenious system called indirect taxation; they imposed taxes upon the necessaries of life; they squeezed money out of the food which the people were obliged to buy. Also, those^who imposed the taxes were not those who paid them : tney laid on heavy burdens, which they themselves did not touch with one of their fingers. We, in England, also think that it conducesto the cheerful paying of taxes that they should be laid chiefly upon those who have no voice wherewith to com­ plain of their incidence in Parliament. If you want to knock a man down, it is very wise to choose a dumb man, who cannot raise a cry for help. A large portion of the working, classes, and all women, have no votes in the election of members of Parliament, and have therefore no voice in the imposition of the taxes which they are, nevertheless, obliged to pay. It is a long time since Pitt told us that “ taxation without representation is robberyit is a yet longer time since John Hampden taught us how toresist the payment of an unjust tax, and yet we are still such cravens, or else so indifferent, that we pay millions a year in taxation, without determining that we will have a. voice in the control of our own income. We are crushed under a heavy and a yearly increasing national expenditure, partly because of our extravagant administration, partly because the burden falls unequally, weighing on the poor more than upon the rich, and wholly because we have not brotherhood enough to combine together, nor manhood enough to say that these things shall not be. Our system of taxation is radically vicious in principle, because it must of necessity fall unequally. Those who impose the burdens know perfectly well that it is impossible for the poor to �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 11 refuse to pay indirect taxes, however onerous those taxes may be : they must buy the necessary articles of food, whether those articles be taxed or no; a refusal to pay is impracticable, and no combination to abstain from buying is possible, because the things taxed are the necessaries of life. Yet as long as indirect taxation is permitted—and the major part of our annual revenue is drawn from Customs and from Excise—so long must taxation crush the poor, while it falls lightly on the rich. On this point I direct your attention to the following ex­ tract* taken from the Liverpool Financial Reformer, and quoted by Mr. Charles Watts in his “ Government and the People — “ A recent writer in the Liverpool Financial Reformer, divided the community into three divisions—first, the aristo­ cratic, represented by those who have an annual income of ^1,000 and upwards ; the middle classes were represented by those who had incofties from ^ioo to /’i,ooo; and the artisan or working classes were those who were supposed to have in­ comes under ,£ioo per year. He then assessed their incomes respectively at ^£208,385,000 ; ^£174,579,000; and ^149,745,000. Towards the taxation, each division paid as follows. The aristocratic portion contributed ff ,500,000, the middle classes ^19,513,453, and the working classes ^£32,861,474. The writer remarks : ‘ The burden of the revenue, as it is here shown to fall on the different classes, may not be fractionally accurate, either on the one side or the other, for that is an impossibility in the case, but it is sufficiently so to afford a fair representation in reference to those classes on whom the burden chiefly falls. Passing over the middle classes, who thus probably contribute about their share, the result in regard to the upper and lower classes stands thus :—Amount which should be paid to the reveime by the higher classes (that is, the classes above ^1,000 a year), ^£23,437,688 ; amount which they do pay, ,£8,500,000; leaving a difference of ^£14.937,688, so that the higher classes are paying nearly ^£15,000,000 less than their fair share of taxation. Amount which should be paid by the working classes (or those having incomes below ^£100), ^16,846,312 ; amount which they do pay, ,£32,861.474 ; making a difference of ^16,015,162; so that the working­ classes are paying about ,£16,000.000 more than their fair share. In other words, the respective average rates paid upon the assessable income of the two classes are—by the higher classes, iod. per pound ; the working classes, 4s. 4d. That is to say, the working classes are paying at a rate five times more heavily than the wealthy classes.5 55 The whole system of laying taxes on the necessaries of life �12 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTV. is radically vicious in principle; to tax the necessaries of life is to sap the strength and to shorten the life of those men and those women on whose strength and whose life the prosperity of the country depends; it is to enfeeble the growing generation; it is to make the children pale and stunted; it is, in fact, to undermine the constitution of the wealth-producers. To tax food is to tax life itself, instead of taxing incomes; it is a financial system which is, at once, cruel and suicidal. As a matter of fact, taxes taken off food have not decreased the revenue, and when this policy of taxing food shall have become a thing of the past, then a healthier and more strongly-framed nation will bear with ease all the necessary burdens of the State. Indirect taxa­ tion is also bad, because it implies a number of small taxes (some of which are scarcely worth the cost of collecting), and thus necessitates the employment of a numerous staff of officials, whereas one large direct tax would be more easily gathered in. It is also bad, because, with indirect taxation, it is almost impossible for a man to know what he really does pay towards the support of the State. It is right and just that every citizen in a free country should consciously contribute to the maintenance of the Government which he has himself placed over him; but when he knows exactly what he is paying, he will probably think it worth while to examine into the national expenditure, and to insist on a wise economy in the public service. I do not mean the kind of economy which is so relished by Governments, the economy which dismisses skilled workmen, whose work is needed, while it retains sinecures for personages in high places; but I mean that just and wise economy which gives good pay for honest work, but which refuses to pay dukes, earls, even princes, for doing nothing, This great problem of fair and equal taxation ought to be thoroughly studied and thought over by every citizen ; few infringements on equal liberty are so fraught with harm and misery as arc those which pass almost unnoticed under the head of ■* collection of the revenue few reforms are so urgently needed as a reform of our financial system, and a fair adjust­ ment of the burdens of taxation. In France they had Game Laws. If the season were cold the farmers might not mow their hay at the proper time, lest the birds should lack cover; they might not hoe the com, lest they should break the partridge eggs; the �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 13 birds fed off the crops, and they might not shoot or trap them; if they transgressed the Game Laws they were sent to the galleys; herds of wild boarand red deer roamed over the ■country, and the farmers and the peasants were forbidden to interfere with them. Englishmen! who call yourselves free, do you imagine that these relics of barbarism, swept away by the French Revolution in one memorable night, are nothing but archaeological curiosities, archaic remains, fossil­ ised memorials of a long-past tyranny ? On the contrary, pur Game Laws in England are as harsh as those I have cited to you, and the worst facts I am going to relate you have no parallel in the history of France. These cases are so shameful that they ought to have raised a shout of exe­ cration through the land ; they have been covered up, and hushed up, as far as possible, and I have taken them from a Parliamentary Blue-book; and I have taken them thence • myself, because I would not quote at second-hand deeds so ■disgraceful, that had.I not read them in the dry pages of a Parliamentary Commission I should have fancied that they had been either carelessly or purposely exaggerated in order to point a tirade against the rich. I allude to the deerforests of Scotland. But before dealing with these it is interesting to note the curious points of similarity between our Game Laws and those of the French. In France, they were some­ times forbidden to mow the hay because of the cover it yielded to the birds : in England, you will sometimes find a clause inserted in the lease of a farm, binding the farmer to reap with the sickle instead of with the sbythe, that is, to reap with an instrument that does not cut the corn-stalks off close to the ground, so that cover may be left for'the birds ; thus the farmers’ profits are decreased by the amount of straw which is left to rot in the ground for the landlord’s amusement. In France, the game might not be touched even if the crops were damaged;’ in England, the hares may ruin a young plantation, and the farmer may not snare or shoot them. In France, those who transgressed the Game Laws were sent to the galleys; in England, we send them to prison with hard labour, and we actually pay for the manufacture of 10,000 criminals every year, in order that our Princes of Wales and our landed proprietors may make it the business of their lives “ to shoot poultry.” In France, .. the herds of wild boar and red deer might not be molested; in England we manage these things better; we have, un­ �14 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. fortunately, no wild boar, but we-clear our farmers and our peasants out of the way in order that we may be sure that our deer are not interfered with. As the son of a Highland proprietor said, when planning a new deer-forest: “ the first thing to do, you know, is to clear out the people.” The first thing to do is to clear out the people I Yes ! clear out the people : the people, who have lived on the land for years,, and who have learned to love it as though they had been born landowners ; the people who have tilled and cultivated it, making it laugh out into cornfields which have fed hun­ dreds of the poor ; the people, who have wrought on it, and toiled with plough and spade; turn out the people and make way for the animals; level the homes of the people and make a hunting ground for the rich. “ It is no deerforest if the farmers are all there,” said a witness before the Commission; and so you see the farmers must go, for of course it is necessary that we should have deer-forests. No less than forty families, owning seven thousand sheep, seven thousand goats, and two hundred head of cattle, were turned out from their homes in the time of the present Marquis of Huntly’s grandfather, their houses were pulled down, and their land was planted with fir-trees ; some of the leases were bought up; in cases where they had expired the people were bidden go. And thus it comes to pass, according to the evidence of one witness—a witness whom members of the Commission tried hard to browbeat, but whose evidence they utterly failed to shake—thus it comes to pass that “ you see in, the deer-forests the ruins, of numerous hamlets, with the grass growing over them.” A pathetic picture of homes laid desolate, of the fair course of peaceful lives roughly broken into; of helpless and oppressed people, of selfish and greedy wealth. “ From Glentanar, thirty miles from Aberdeen, you can walk in forests until you come to the Atlantic.” And this evil is growing rapidly; in 1812 there were only five deer-forests in Scotland: in 1873 there were seventy. In 1870, 1,320,000 acres of land were forest; in 1S73, there were 2,000,000 acres thus rendered useless. Under these cir­ cumstances, it is scarcely to be wondered at that the popu­ lation is decreasing; the population of Argyleshire in 1831 was 103,330 ; in 1871, forty years later, when it ought to have largely increased, it had, on the contrary, decreased to 755635 > in Inverness it was 94,983 ; during the same time? it has gone down to 87,480. �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 15- But this is not all. While some farmers and peasants are “ cleared out ” altogether, those who are allowed to remain suffer much from the depredations of the deer and other game. In Aberdeenshire alone no less than 291 farmers complained of the enormous damage that was done to their crops by the deer. The deer-forest is not generally fenced in ; and as deer are very partial to turnips, it naturally follows that the herds come out of the forest and feed off the farmers’ crops. One proprietor graciously states that he does his best to keep the deer away from the farms, but— judging by the complaints of the farmers—these laudable efforts scarcely appear to be crowned with the success that they deserve. Not only, however, do the deer stray out of the forests, but the farmers’ sheep stray in, and as sheep are not game he is not permitted to follow them to fetch them out. When such evidence as this comes out, and we know the pressure that is put upon tenants by their landlords, and the danger they run by giving offence to their powerful masters, we can judge how much more remains behind of which we know nothing. And, in the name of' common justice; what is all this for? Why should a farmer be compelled to keep his landlord’s game for him ? Why should the farmer’s crops suffer to amuse a man who does nothing except inherit land ? This wide-spread loss, these desolated homes, these ruined lives, what mighty national benefit have these miseries bought for England ? They all, occur in order that a few rich men may occasionally—whenother pleasures pall on the jaded taste, and ennui becomes insupportable—have the novel excitement of shooting at a stag. Verily we have a right to boast of our freedom when thousands of citizens suffer for the sake of the amuse­ ment of the few. • But these deer-forests do not only injure the unfortunatepeople who are turned out to make room for the deer, and the farmers who lose the full profit of their labour; to turn cultivable land into deer-forests is to decrease the food-suffly of the country.. Some people say that only worthless land isused for this purpose; but this is not true, for pasture-ground has been turned into forests. In one place, 800 head of' cattle and 500 sheep were fed upon one quarter of the land which now supports 750 red deer. That is to say, that 1,300. animals good for food were nourished by the land which is. now devoted to the maintenance of 187^ useless deer. Judge then of the decrease of the food supply of the country �1.6 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. which is implied in the fact that one-tenth part of Scotland is now moor and forest. A baillie of Aberdeen calculates the loss to the country at no less than 20 millions of pounds of meat annually. In England things are not so bad; but in England, also, the cultivation of the land wasted in game­ preserving would increase to an almost incalculable extent the food supply of the country. There is the vast estate of Chillingworth, kept for a few wild cattle, in order that a Prince of Wales may now and then drive about it, and from the safe eminence of a cart may have the pleasure of shoot­ ing at a bull. But at this point the question of the Game Laws melts insensibly into that of the Land Laws, for under a just system of Land Tenure such deeds as these would be impossible; then, men could not, for their own selfish amusement, turn sheep-walks into forests, and farms into moors. With our great and increasing population it is abso­ lutely necessary that all cultivable land should be under cultivation. To hold uncultivated, land which is capable of producing bread and meat is a crime against the State. It is well known to be one of the points of the “ extreme ” Radical programme that it should be rendered penal to hold large quantities of cultivable land uncultivated. Then, instead of sending the cream of our peasantry abroad, to seek in foreign countries the land which is fenced in from them at home; instead of driving them to seek from the stranger the work which is denied to them in the country of their birth; we should keep Englishmen in England to make England strong and rich, and give land to the labour which is starving for work, and labour to the land which is barren for the lack of it. “ Land to labour, and labour to land ” ought to be our battle-cry, and should be the motto engraven on our shield. But it is impossible to throw land open to labour so long as the laws render its transmission from seller to buyer so expensive and so cumbersome a proceeding. It is impossible also to effect any radical improvement so long as the land is tied up in the hands of the few fortunate individuals who are now permitted to monopolise it. Half the land of England, and four-fifths of the land of Scotland, is owned by 360 families. These few own the land which ought to be '■devoted to the good of the nation. Land, like air, and like -all other natural gifts, cannot rightly be held as private .property. The only property which can justly be claimed �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. ' 17 in land is the improvement wrought in the soil. When a man has put labour or money into the land he farms, then he has a right to the advantages which accrue from his toil and from his invested capital. But this principle is the very contrary of that which is embodied in our Land Laws. The great landowners do nothing for the land they own; they spend nothing on the soil which maintains them in such luxury. It is the farmers and the labourers who have a right to life-tenancy in the soil, or, more exactly, to a tenancy, lasting as long as they continue to improve it. The farmer, whose money is put. into the land— the labourer, whose strength enriches the soil—these are the men who ought to be the landowners of England. As it is, the farmer takes a farm; he invests capital in it; he rises early to superintend his labourers ; the land rewards him with her riches, she gives him fuller crops and fatter cattle, and then the landlord steps in, and raises the rent, and thus absolutely punishes the farmer for his energy and his thrift. The idle man stands by with his hands in his pockets, and then claims a share of the profits which accrue from the busy man’s labour. Meanwhile the labourer—he whose strong arms have guided the plough, and wielded the spade, he who has made the harvest and tended the cattle —what do our just Land Laws give to him ? They give him a wretched home, a pittance sufficient—generally at least—to “ keep body and soul together,” parish pay when he is ill, the workhouse in his old age, and he sleeps at last in a pauper’s grave. O ! just and beneficent English Law I To the idle man, the lion’s share of the profits; to the man who does much, a small share; to the man who does most of all, just enough to enable him to work for his masters. But if this gross injustice be pointed out, if we protest against this crying evil, and declare that these crimes shall cease in England, then these landowners arise and complain that we are tampering with the “sacred rights of property.” Sacred rights of property ! But what of the more sacred rights of human life ? The life of the poor is more holy than the property of the rich, and famished men and women, more worthy of care than the acres of the nobleman. If these vast estates are fenced in from us by parchment fences, so that we cannot throw them open to labour, so that we cannot make the desert places golden with corn, and rich with sheep and oxen; if these vast estates are fenced in from us by parchment fences, then I �is CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. say that the plough must go through the parchment, in order that the people may have bread. The maintenance of a standing army, in which birth helps promotion, is another blot upon our shield. A Duke of ■Cambridge, General Commanding-in-Chief, and Colonel of four regiments, who holds these offices by virtue of his “ hi^h” -birth, and in spite of the most palpable incapacity, is°an absurdity which ought not to be tolerated in a country which pretends to be free. A Prince of Wales, who has never seen war, made a Field-Marshal; a Duke of Edinburgh, •created a Post-Captain; such appointments as these are a disgrace to the country, and a bitter satire on our army and ■our navy. Carpet-soldiers are useless in time of war, and they are a burden in time of peace; and to squander England’s money on such officers as these, simply because they chance to be born Princes, is a distinct breach of equal Civil Liberty. The need of Electoral Reform is well-known to all students •of politics. No country is free in which all adult citizens have not a voice in the government. A representation which is based upon a property qualification is radically vicious in principle. But not only is our civil liberty cramped by the fact that the majority of citizens are not represented at all, but even the poor representation we have is unequally and unjustly distributed. In one place 136 men return a member to Parliament; in another, 18,000 fail t(jreturn their candidate. In Parliament no members represent 83,000 voters. The next no represent 1,080,000. A group of 70,000 voters return 4 members ; another group ■of 70,000 return 80. In one instance, 30,000 voters out­ weigh 546,000 in Parliament by a majority of 9. Hence it follows that a minority of electors rule England, and, however desirable it may be that minorities should be re­ presented, it is surely not desirable that they should rule. Our present system throws overwhelming power into the hands of the titled and landowning classes, who, by means of small and manageable boroughs, are able to outvote the masses of the people congregated in the large towns. As long as this is the case, as long as every citizen does not possess a vote, as long as the few can, by means of unequal dis­ tribution of electoral power, control the actions of the many, so long England is not free, and civil liberty is not won. To strike at the House of Lords is to strike at a dying �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 19 institution; but dying men sometimes live long, and dying institutions may last for centuries if only they are nursed and tended with sufficient care. A. House in the election -of whose members the people have no voice ; a House whose members are born into it, instead of winning their way into it by service to the State ; a House which is built upon cradles and not upon merit; a House whose delibe­ rations may be shared in by fools or by knaves, provided only that the brow be coronetted—such a House is a dis­ grace to a free country, and an outrage on popular liberty. As might be expected from its constitution, this House of Lords has ever stood in the path of every needed reform, until it has been struck out of the way by hidden menace or by stern command. Is there any abuse whose days are numbered? be sure it will be defended in the House of Lords. Is there a monopoly which needs to be abolished? be sure it will be championed in the House of Lords. Is there any popular liberty asked for ? be sure it will be refused in the House of Lords. Is there any fetter struck from off the limbs of progress ? be sure that some cunning smith will be found to weld the fragments together again, under the name of an amendment, in the House of Lords. The only use of the thing is, that it may act as a political barometer by which to prognosticate the coming weather; that which the House of Lords blesses is most certainly doomed, while whatever it frowns upon is -crowned for a speedy triumph. It has not even the merit of courage, this craven assemblage of toy-players at legisla­ tion ; however boldly it roars out its “ No,” a frown from the House of Commons makes it tremble and yield; like a reed, it stands upright enough in the calm weather; like a reed, it bows before the storm-wind of a popular cry. As a -question of practical politics, the House of'Lords should be struck at almost rather than the Crown, because the whole principle of aristocracy is embodied in that House, the whole fatal notion that the accident of birth gives the right to rule. Our puppet kings and queens are less directly injurious to the commonwealth than is this titled House. The gilded figure-head injures the State-vessel less than the presence of hands on her tiller-ropes which know naught of navigation. And with the fall of the House of Lords must crash down the throne, which is but the ornament upon its roof, the completion of its elevation; so that when the toy­ house has fallen at the breath of the people’s lips, and we �20 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. can see over the near prospect which it now hides from our gaze, we shall surely see, with the light of the morning on her face, with her golden head shining in the sun-rays, with the day-star on her brow, and the white garments of peace upon her limbs, with her sceptre wreathed in olive-branches, and her feet shod with plenty, that fair and glorious Republic for which we have yearned and toiled sb long. Having seen the chief blots upon our Civil Liberty, let us turn our attention to the defects in our religious freedom. And here I plead, neither as Freethinker nor as Secularist, but simply as a citizen of a mighty State, and member of a community which pretends to be free. For every shade of Nonconformity I plead, from the Roman Catholic to the Atheist, for all whose consciences do not fit into the mould provided by the Establishment, and whose thought refuses to be fettered by the bands of a State religion. I crave for every man, whatever be his creed, that his freedom of conscience be held sacred. I ask for every man, whatever be his belief, that he shall not suffer, in civil matters,for his faith orfor his want offaith. I demand for every man, whatever be his opinions, that he shall be able to speak out with honest frankness the results of honest thought, without forfeiting his rights as citizen, without destroying his social position, and without troubling his domestic peace. We have not to-day, in England, the scourge and the rack, the gibbet and the stake, by which men’s bodies are tortured to ' improve their souls, but we have the scourge of calumny and the rack of severed friendship, we have the gibbet of public scorn, and the stake of a ruined home, by which we compel conformity to dogma, and teach men to be hypocrites that they may eat a piece of bread. The spirit is the same, though the form of the torture be changed; and many a saddened life,and many a wrecked hope, bear testimony to the fact that religious liberty is still but a name, and freedom of thought is still a ' crime. Public opinion, and social feeling, we can but strive to influence and to improve; what I would lay stress upon here, is the existence of a certain institution, and of certain laws,’ which foster this one-sided feeling, and which are a direct infringement of the rights of the individual conscience. First and foremost, overshadowing the land by her gigantic monopoly, is the Church as by law established. This body —one sect among many sects—is given by law many privi­ leges -which are not accorded to any other religious deno­ mination. Her ministers are the State-officers of religion; �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 21 her highest dignitaries legislate for the whole Empire ; national graveyards are the property of her clergy; and the best parts of national buildings are owned by her rectors. ■So long as the State was Christian and orthodox, so long might the Establishment of the State-religion be defensible, but the moment that the Church ceased to be co-extensive with the nation, that same moment did her Establishment become an injustice to that portion of the nation which did not conform to her creed. Every liberty won by the Non­ conformist has been a blow struck at the reasonableness of the Establishment. ' She is nothing now but a palpable anachronism. Jews, Roman Catholics, even “Infidels” (provided only that they veil their Infidelity), may sit in the House of Parliament. They may alter the Church’s articles, they may define her doctrines, they may change her creed; she is only the mere creature of the State, bought by lands and privileges to serve in a gilded slavery. The truth or the untruth of her doctrines is nothing to the point. I protest in principle against the establish­ ment by the State of any form of religious, or of anti-religious, belief. The State is no judge in such matters; let every­ man follow his own conscience, and worship at what shrine his reason bids him, and let no man be injured because he differs from his neighbour’s creed. The Church Establish­ ment is an insult to every Roman Catholic, to every Protes­ tant dissenter, to every Freethinker, in the Empire. The national property usurped by the Establishment might lighten the national burdens, were it otherwise applied, so that, indirectly, everynon-Churchman is taxed for the support of a creed in which he does not believe, and for the main­ tenance of ministrations by which he does not profit. The Church must be destroyed, as an Establishment, before religious equality can be anything more than an empty name. There are laws upon the Statute Book which grievously outrage the rights of conscience, and which subject an “ apostate ”—that is, a person who has been educated in, or who has professed Christianity, and has subsequently renounced it—to loss of all civil rights, provided that the law be put in force against him. The right of excommunica­ tion, lodged in the Church, is, I think, a perfectly fair right, provided that it carry with it no civil penalties whatsoever. The Church, like any other club, ought to be able to exclude an objectionable member, but she ought not to be able to call in the arm of the law to impose non-spiritual penalties. But �“2 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. * the apostate loses all civil rights. The law, as laid down is as follows : “ Enacted by statute 9 and 10, William III ’ cap 32, that if any person educated in, or having made profes’sion of, the Christian religion, shall by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, assert or maintain there are more Gods than one, or shall deny the Christian religion to be true [this Act adds to these offences, that of “denying any one of the. persons in the Trinity to be God,” but it was repealed quoad hoc, by 53 George III., c. 60] or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority, he shall upon the first offence be rendered in­ capable to hold any ecclesiastical, civil, or military office, or employment, and for the second, be rendered incapable of bringing any action, or to be guardian, executor, legatee, or grantee, and shall suffer three years’ imprisonment without bail. To give room, however, for repentance, if within four months after the first conviction, the delinquent will, in open court, publicly renounce his error, he is discharged for that once from all disabilities.” Some will say that this law is never put in force j true, public opinion would not allow of its general enforcement, but it is turned against those who are poor and weak, while it lets the strong go free. Besides, it hangs over every sceptic’s head like the sword of Damocles, and it serves as a threat and menace in the hand of every cruel and bigoted Churchman, who wants to ■extract any concession from an unbeliever. No law that can be enforced is obsolete; it may lie dormant fora time, but it is a sabre, which can at any moment be drawn from the sheath j the “ obsolete ” law about the Sabbath closed the Brighton Aquarium, and Rosherville Gardens, and is found to be quite easy of enforcementj though people would have laughed, a short time since, at the idea of anyone grumbling at its presence on the Statute Book. Poor, harmless, half-witted, Thomas Pooley, in 1857, found the Blasphemy Laws by no means “a dead letter” in the mouth of Lord Justice Cole­ ridge. And there are plenty of other cases of injustice which have taken, and do take place under these laws, which might be quoted were it worth while to fill up space with them, and but little is needed to fan the smouldering fire of bigotry into a flame, and to put the laws generally in force once more. . Already threats are heard, murmurs of the old wicked spirit of persecution, and it behoves us to see to it that these swords be broken, so that bigots may be unable to wield them again among us. , �CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 23 I do not, as I have said, protest now against these laws as a Secularist; I challenge them only as unjust disabilities im­ posed on men’s consciences, and I appeal to all lovers of liberty to agitate against them, because they impose civil disabilities on some forms of religious opinion. And to you, O Chris­ tians 1 I would say : fight Freethought, if you will; oppose Atheism, if you deem it false and injurious to humanity: strike at us with all your strength on the religious platform ; it is your right, nay, it is even your duty; but do not seek to answer our questions by blows from the statute book, nor to check our search after truth by the arm of the law. I im­ peach these laws against “ infidels,” at the bar of public, opinion, as an infraction of the just liberty of the individual, as an insult to the dignity of the citizen, as an outrage on the sacred rights of conscience. I do not pretend, in the short pages of such a paper as this, to have done more than to sketch, very briefly and very imperfectly, the chief defects of our civil and religious liberty. I have only laid before you a rough draft of a programme of Reform. Each blot on English liberty which I have pointed to might well form the sole subject of an essay ; but I have hoped that, by thus gathering up into one some few of the many injustices under which we suffer, I might, perchance, lend definiteness to the aspirations after Liberty which swell in the breasts of many, and might point, out to the attacking army some of the most assailable points of the fortress of bigotry and caste-prejudice, which the soldiers of Freedom are vowed to assail. I have taken, as it were, a bird’s-eye view of the battle-ground of the near future, of that battle-ground on which soon will clash together the army which fights under the banner of privileges, and the army which marches under the standard of Liberty. The issue of that conflict is not doubtful, for Liberty is immortal and eternal, and her triumph is sure, however it may be delayed. The beautiful goddess before whom we bow is ever young with a youth which cannot fade, and radiant with a glory which nought can dim. Hers is the promise of the future; hers the fair days that shall dawn hereafter on a liberated earth; and hers is also the triumph of to-morrow, if only we, who adore her, if only we can be true to ourselves and to each other. But they who love her must work for her, as well as worship her, for labour is the only prayer to Liberty, and devotion the only praise. To her we must consecrate our brain-power and our influence �24 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. among our fellows ; to her we must sacrifice our time, and,, if need be, our comfort and our happiness; to her we must, devote our efforts, and to her the fruits of our toil. And at last, in the fair, bright future—at last, in the glad to­ morrow—amid the shouts of a liberated nation, and the joy of men and women who see their children free, we shall see the shining goddess descending from afar, where we have worshipped her so long, to be the sunshine and the glory of every British home. And then, O men and women of England, then, when you have once clasped the knees of Liberty, and rested your tired brows on her gentle breast, then cherish and guard her evermore, as you cherish the bride you have won to your arms, as you guard the wife whose love is the glory of your manhood, and whose smile is the sunshine of your home. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, 28, Stone­ cutter Street, London, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Civil & religious liberty : with some hints taken from the French Revolution; a lecture Description An account of the resource Edition: 2nd ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N062 Subject The topic of the resource Freedom of religion Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Civil &amp; religious liberty : with some hints taken from the French Revolution; a lecture), 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 Civil Rights Freedom of Religion French Revolution Liberty NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/31f59752e012f26c56d8c2a702bcdb55.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=Pz2dcZTxoPS7ZlL2STp1PL27YP-eLfSignpDnwfBIOVKc22LGoG36KUigAuJCQZ9gdpVDaBRpSh5BqrQdDoS6ieeJmKd-HfxicQxULFIEx1xbHGO5hZDylcOktMBgJLA-CjfRQUgLmyhXkvui1VgDuE3UnT-iRx%7EZmKpFjFYwsCup%7Eaj0hj4NERRwC8-ptA4vmZ3AdigygfigAOnqlX8hdhukM-CVuFSi5qoHfRDprdiDe7WBcbFLiffxLwh4BcM%7Eku2mzvhT6cyoreZrU-cs5QyRLyz4amJMy-vBEYessm2Nt7q6GDjIHtyoe8U-jmJz2hhwPRRiTNP6yDALcsERQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a836120c8a68d53e93569fb6d07fe1a0 PDF Text Text THE PROVINCE OE PRAYER. BY W. E. B. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Price Sixpence. ��THE PROVINCE OF PRAYER. HE important controversy upon the efficacy of prayer that has recently occupied the attention of some of our most thoughtful writers and readers has not re­ sulted in any approach towards a settlement of the vexed question. Nor could any definite verdict easily be given by the most impartial of judges who should undertake to sum up the arguments on either side as they have been placed before us. The discussion is like a battle, of which the sphere of operations is too large to allow a spectator to ascertain the effect of the various move­ ments. An attempt was indeed made at the outset to narrow the basis of the controversy, but it was unsuc­ cessful. The proposition of a practical test of the value of one particular kind of prayer, i.e., prayer for the sick, was at once rejected with horror and indignation by the so-called religious world. If the challenge had been accepted by the advocates of prayer for the sick, and one ward of a hospital had been selected for the special supplications of believers, with a view to prove statisti­ cally that prayer is answered, it is extremely improbable that the result would have been acknowledged to be conclusive by either party. Supposing that in the ward selected the recoveries had not been above the average of recoveries in other wards, the orthodox would have declared that the result only showed that God had defeated the infamous attempt of the faithless to gauge His mercies. It would further have been urged that the patients in the other wards had been T �4 The Province of Prayer. prayed for with equal earnestness, and perhaps with special earnestness, by those who could not bear the thought that any sick people should sutler from the lack of prayers for their recovery. If, on the other . hand, the result had been a larger per centage of re­ coveries in the selected ward, those who deny the efficacy of prayer for the sick would either have de­ clared that such a result was accidental, or-that it was owing, not to any supernatural influences, but entirely to the extraordinary attention and exertions of doctors and nurses, stimulated by a superstitious belief that their efforts, thus specially assisted by prayer, were sure to be successful. Now, as hardly any one denies this last-mentioned indirect effect of prayer upon peojole who believe in its efficacy, no victory could have been claimed. A result at least as conclusive might be shown in favour of the blindest fatalism, as it is well known that soldiers whose religion teaches them to be­ lieve that whatever danger they may be in, they cannot be killed before their appointed time, fight with a des­ perate courage that often ensures them the victory, ' when without so unreasonable a ' belief they would have been defeated. It is further to be observed, that this indirect efficacy of prayer for the sick is in inverse proportion to the practical belief of the doctors and nurses in God’s unaided action upon the patient, and in direct proportion to their practical faith in their own exertions. Thus the Peculiar' People, the only con­ sistent believers in the supernatural efficacy of prayer for the sick, trust entirely to the Divine action; and many lives are lost that human care and skill would have saved. Strange to say, these devout people are almost universally condemned by the orthodox, and are even punished by the law of the land for having too strong a faith in the efficacy of prayer. Those who, less consistently, but more reasonably, adopt the prin­ ciple of trusting in Providence and keeping their powder dry, admit that God answers prayer for the �The Province of Prayer. 5 sick only by blessing the “ means ” employed. It is, of course, for them to prove that He would not equally bless the means if they had not prayed at all. There does not exist a tittle of evidence to show that it would not be so ; and the opponents of prayer for the sick have reasonable ground for maintaining that, other things being equal, such prayer does not produce the slightest effect. That is to say, if doctors and nurses, who neither pray themselves nor trust in the prayers of others, make equal efforts for the recovery of their patients with doctors and nurses who both pray them­ selves and trust in the prayers of others, the results will be equal. The only difference is, that the faith of the former is exercised in favour of the scientific remedies and 'careful attention that are known to promote the recovery of the sick, whilst the faith of the latter is ostensibly, if not practically, directed towards some occult influence, of which we know absolutely nothing. Simi­ larly with the patients themselves: if their hopes are raised by faith in the efficacy of prayer, their chance of recovery is improved; but if their hopes were equally raised by faith in the efficacy of medicinal remedies and careful nursing, their chance of recovery would be improved to an equal extent. Those who only maintain the indirect effects of prayer for the sick must, if they are honest and logical, admit the correctness of the above argument. They may, in­ deed, urge that it will be a long time before people generally are sufficiently educated to admit of the sub­ stitution of scientific faith for faith in the supernatural —an argument closely resembling the very common protest against disturbing a religious faith, although demonstrably false, because its defenders believe it to be edifying. By such side issues inquirers are con­ stantly being diverted from the consideration of simple questions of truth or falsity. In the present instance, * no one desires to destroy the faith that gives hope to the patient and stimulates the energies of the doctors B �6 * The Province of Prayer. and nurses, without giving an ample equivalent; and it is surely better that faith should rest directly upon the actual aids to recovery than upon a delusion that acts only through them. But there is more to be said upon this alleged indi­ rectly beneficial effect of prayer for the sick. It is admitted that in some instances faith in the efficacy of prayer may, in the way indicated, promote the recovery of the patients; but it is doubtful whether, on the whole, it is not more mischievous than useful. It is obvious that the persons whose energies are supposed to be stimulated by the faith have not the indirect theory in view, but believe in some heavenly influence that.works in a way distinct from the natural action of medicines and attentions. To whatever extent, then, they trust in that external influence, is it not probable that to a corresponding extent they lack reliance upon the real means of cure ? May not a nurse, for instance, worn out by constant watching, be inclined to persuade herself that prayer will take the place of unremitting attention to some extent, and to relax her watchfulness accordingly? 'Would she not, at any rate, more cer­ tainly be stimulated to do her utmost if she felt convinced that the patient’s life depended entirely upon her unremitting attention, than if she trusted partially to the influence of prayer ? When the members of the deputation that waited upon Lord Palmerston, to ask for a day to he set apart for national prayer for the removal of the cholera, were told that, they had better mind their drains, the advice was considered by most religious people to be impious. And, doubtless, even from the standpoint of those who only trust to the indirect effects of prayer, the advice was bad;, for what could better stimulate the exertions of physicians and nurses, and the hopes of patients, than a special day of national prayer ? Yet on the same ground as is above taken, it is fairly to be argued that a national prayer, and the faith in its efficacy, �The Province of Prayer. 7 • would to some extent divert the attention of the people from the real means of assuaging the ravages of cholera, and preventing its outbreak in fresh places. But those who protest against disturbing the faith in the efficacy of prayer for the sick, on the ground of its indirect influence, compose but a very small minority of the defenders of such prayers. A large majority of religious people in this country believe, with the Archbishop of York, that in the case of the recovery of the Prince of Wales a miracle was worked by God in answer to the prayers of the nation. It is needless- to waste time in pointing out in detail the mischievous effects of such a super­ stition. They are sufficiently indicated in the case of the Peculiar People, who rely entirely upon a faith which others profess, but only partially trust to. Unfortunately a certain amount of encouragement has been given to the superstition by one who has done much to dissipate it. Professor Tyndall, in the Contemporary Review for October, has made the fol­ lowing strange admission :—“ The theory that the system of nature is under the control of a Being who changes phenomena in compliance with the prayers of men, is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. It may, of course, be rendered futile by being associated with conceptions which contradict it; bub such con­ ceptions form no necessary part of the theory. It is a matter of experience that an earthly father, who is at the same time both wise and tender, listens to the. requests of his children, and, if they do not ask amiss, takes pleasure in granting their requests. We know also that this compliance extends to the alteration, within certain limits, of the current of events upon earth. With this suggestion offered by our experience, it is no departure from scientific method to place behind natural phenomena a universal Father, who, in answer to the prayers of his children, alters the currents of those phenomena.” A strange admission, truly, for �8 The Province of Prayer. Professor Tyndall to make, affirming, as it does in effect, the a priori reasonableness of the theory of the Peculiar People themselves ! For what is an altera­ tion in the currents of phenomena but a miracle ? And if we are told by one of the highest of pur scientific authorities that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in the belief that the Divine Being will work miracles in answer to prayer, is it to be wondered at that the unscientific world should firmly believe in the theory ? It is true that Professor Tyndall goes on to explain that, “ without verification, a theoretic con­ ception is a mere figment of the intellect;” and that “the region of theory, both in science and theology, lies behind the world of the senses ; but the veri­ fication of theory lies in the sensible world. To check the theory, we have simply to compare the deductions from it with the facts of observation. If the deduc­ tions be in accordance with the facts, we accept the theory : if in opposition, the theory is given up.” But this is just what the religious world will not do— compare their deductions with the facts of observation. These deductions are to them a sacred faith based on supernatural revelation, to put which to the test of scientific inquiry would, in their opinion, be a mani­ festation of impious doubt; and when they are told by one of the most distinguished of our men of science that there is nothing unreasonable in the theory that the grand order of the universe is liable to disturbance at the instigation of ignorant, foolish, shortsighted mortals, they cannot fail to feel strengthened in their faith. Science owes no allegiance to Religion ; and it is time that the old rule of fashion, which has so long induced scientific explorers to preface their revelations with a deferential bow and a “By your leave, ma’am,” to the reigning Theology of the period, should be broken through. With the greatest respect for Pro­ fessor Tyndall, I all the more regret that he has made an admission which I cannot help regarding as an amiable little offering in the Temple of Rim mon. �The Province oj Prayer. 9 The admirable article from the proposer of the hospital test, that also appeared in the Contemporary Review for October, amply sustains the dignity of Science. The following fine passage well represents the true devoutness of the scientific mind :—“ There is no influence so soothing, none so reconciling to the chequered conditions of life, as consciousness of the absolute stability of the rock on which the physicist takes his stand; who, knowing the intelligent order that pervades the universe, believes in it, and, with true filial piety, would never suggest a petition for a change in the Great Will as touching any childish whim of his own. I cannot express my repugnance at the 'notion that supreme intelligence and wisdom can be influenced by the suggestion of any human mind, however great. It is thus that we may breathe the true spirit of communion with the Unseen, here realise a sense of dependence upon that which is too great to be moved, and gladly cherish submission to the only mastership found to be unchanging and sufficing. Here the physicist fears no catastrophe—regards calmly all that happens, whatever it may be, as the outcome of the forces that exist. His work, and the work of all men-—the only work that satisfies and endures—is the finding and maintaining of truth so far as he knows it, freely giving equal licence to every other man to do the same. Comparing, as we do at this moment, our observations and experience, and in the clash of thought evoking truth, victory for which­ ever side matters not to him, since it surely will in the end be for the side of truth. For the future he has no anxiety : the supreme order in which he has a place and work cannot fail to provide, and he submits, with­ out suggesting limits or a definition to the plan he never could have devised and cannot compass—too glad to believe that all such order is not to be influenced by human interference.” The same writer ably enlarges upon the recognised �ro The Province of Prayer. fact that the province of prayer has contracted with the advance of knowledge. He places the phenomena of the universe in two classes : class 1 consisting of those for which, or for the alteration of which, prayer would he considered useless, and class 2 of those concerning which prayer is considered to be availing, and he points out how, since the early ages of human existence, class 1 has become larger as knowledge has advanced, and class 2 has lost what class 1 has gained. As uncertain­ ties are changed by investigation into certainties, men by general consent cease to pray about them. Thus we see that the phenomena with which the exact sciences have to do, are generally held to be out of the province of prayer, whilst events of the sequence of which our ignorance renders us less certain are held to be within that province. ' For instance, no rational and educated person would think of praying that the sun should always be visible in England, whilst, on the other hand, we have recently had prayers for fine weather offered up in our churches for several Sundays. If we knew as much about meteorology as we know about astronomy, no educated man would be guilty of such absurdity. Similarly it is to be observed that if the laws which govern the progress of disease under given conditions were, as perhaps they never will be, as well known as the laws of chemistry, we should not see men of learning and intelligence coming forward to defend by elaborate arguments the offering of prayers for the sick. Perhaps the most plausible argument put forward by the defenders of the direct effects of prayer, is that prayer has its place in the natural order of phenomena. This view has been ably stated by Dr M‘Cosh in the “ Contemporary Eeview ” for October 1872. Dr M'Cosh does not believe “that God usually answers prayer by violating or even changing His own laws,” but that “ He commonly answers prayer by natural means appointed for this purpose from the very begin­ �'The Province of Prayer. 11 ning, when He gave to mind and matter their laws, and arranged the objects with these laws for the accom­ plishment of His wise and beneficent ends, for the en­ couragement of virtue and the discouragement of vice, and among others to provide an answer to the accepta­ ble petitions of His people.” In illustration of this argument, Dr M‘Cosh proceeds to urge,—“ God, in answer to prayer, may restore the patient by an origi­ nal strength of constitution, or by the well-timed appli­ cation of a remedy. The two, the prayer and its answer, were in the very counsel of God, and if there had not been the one there would not have been the other.” Here the recovery of the patient is in effect represented as a predestined event dependent upon a prayer also predestined, and prompted by God, as Dr M‘Cosh afterwards states. This theory certainly avoids the objections commonly made to the idea that Divine benefits, even those of the greatest importance to humanity, are dependent upon the caprice of mortals, but it only does so by virtually denying the spon­ taneity of prayer. I question whether the majority of Dr M‘Cosh;s co-believers will be inclined to accept this issue. But in any case the theory is a pure assumption without a tittle of real evidence to sustain it. Dr M‘Cosh does not distinctly tell us in what way men are prompted to offer these predestined prayers. He does indeed say,—“ The believer is in need of a blessing, and he asks it, and he finds that the God who created the need and prompted the prayer has provided the means of granting what he needs.” But it seems obvious that this sense of need is not the Divine prompting referred to, because every one admits that many prayers offered by believers for supposed bles­ sings that they feel the need of, are not answered, and I cannot suppose that Dr M‘Cosh would maintain that God prompts men to offer prayers which He does not intend to answer. As far as we are acquainted with the natural order of mundane arrangements, a special �12 The Province of Prayer. prompting of particular individuals to pray for certain benefits that the Supreme Being had determined to bestow, would be as miraculous as the suspension of the law of gravitation or any other physical law, simply because we know of no direct communication between the Divine and the human mind. We know so little of the laws of mind that it is impossible to prove that no such communication exists, nor can we fairly be called upon to prove the negative : it is for Dr M‘Cosh and those who agree with him to prove the affirmative proposition. But if on the one hand it is impossible to prove that any specified inducement to pray is not a Divine prompting, on the other hand, it is equally im­ possible to prove that it is. No man can know that any prompting which he is conscious of is a Divine prompt­ ing : he can only believe it to be so, and he is at least as likely as not to be deceiving himself. If it be asked why I should take pains to throw doubt upon the theory advanced by Dr M‘Cosh amongst others, I reply because I am convinced that belief in it tends to reduce the strength of human effort, which I believe to be the only divinely ordained prayer (in the sense of “ laborare est orare.”') Those who completely believe that they are prompted by God to pray for any benefit which will therefore certainly be granted, cannot help relaxing their efforts to obtain it in a degree exactly proportionate to their faith in the Divine action. The Bev. William Knight in an admirable paper entitled, “The Function of prayer in the Economy of the Universe,” published in the Contemporary Beview for January 1873, presents us with an eloquent defence of prayer, in some respects similar to that of Dr M£Cosh, but by no means identical with it. After admitting that—“No one, even slightly acquainted with scientific methods and results, can for a moment brook the idea of any interference with the laws of external nature, produced by prayer; ” that—“ This conception of the absolute fixity of physical law is one which the �The Province of Prayer. 13 progress of science has made axiomatic; ” and that—“It is vain to reply that we are continually interfering with the seemingly fixed laws of the universe, and altering their destination by our voluntary activities,” &c.; for “ We are ourselves a part of the physical cosmos, and in accordance with its laws, we exert a power which changes external nature”—Mr Knight proceeds to refer to the common idea that the weather is • a proper sub­ ject for prayer, because apparently capricious. This idea he clearly shows to be illogical. He declares that it is just as unreasonable to pray for rain, &c., as against the regular return of the seasons, or to-morrow’s sunrise, which people never pray against, because they know such prayers would be contrary to God’s will as revealed in the laws of external nature. But although Mr Knight denies the usefulness of prayers for the abrogation or suspension of any of the physical laws, however little they may be known, he agrees with Dr M‘Cosh and other writers, who like Mr M‘Grigor Allan in the Examiner, have taken part in the recent controversy, that prayer for the Divine influence upon and instruction to the mind or spiritual nature of man, is reasonable and effectual. In reference to prayer for the removal of a calamity, Mr Knight says :—“ Now, so far as it can be obviated or lessened by human action, prudence, foresight, and conformity to the laws of nature, man may validly pray to be enabled to put forth that foresight and sagacity, and to conform to those laws.” But that—In so far as the disaster is due to causes with which he (man) cannot interfere, it is illegitimate in him to pray for their removal. His obvious duty then is to acquiesce in the will of the Supreme. If he prays, as he should, it must be simply for the spirit of submission.” “Even in the former case,” Mr Knight continues, “it is only indirectly that he may pray, for the removal of a pestilence. He may ask for wisdom to cope with it, for a knowledge of the laws of health, and for ability to conform to these : in­ �T4 The Province of Prayer. asmuch as unconscious aid is often vouchsafed to the will of the agent who is striving to observe them.”, I quote thus at length from Mr Knight, and shall pro­ bably quote from him again, because he has written the best defence of prayer that influences, not the man praying only, but the Being prayed to, that I have ever read. I differ from him in this respect, that whilst he evidently believes that prayer influences God to give some special moral incentive, and even intellectual instruction to man, and that the act of praying itself exercises a useful influence upon the man who prays (and perhaps upon others who hear, even if they do not also join in the prayer), I admit only the latter result. We have seen that Mr Knight thinks it un­ reasonable in people to believe that because the weather is apparently capricious—that is because we know so little of meteorology—therefore prayer for rain or fine weather is rational, whereas prayer for the inversion of the order of the seasons, would be accounted by the same people to be absurd, and even impious, as being obviously contrary to the will of God as declared in the laws of nature. Now to me it seems equally ill­ ogical to argue as Mr Knight virtually does, that because the laws of mind are apparently capricious—that is, because we know so little of psychology—therefore it is reasonable to pray that God will specially instruct the intellectual faculties, or influence the moral sentiments of a man, whereas (Mr Knight admits) it would be un­ reasonable to pray for Divine interference with physical -sequences. But we will hear Mr Knight again upon this point:— “ We pray for a friend’s life that seems endangered. Such prayer can never be an influential element in arresting the physical course of disease by one iota. But it may bring a fresh suggestion to the mind of a physician, or other attendant, to adopt a remedy which by natural means ‘ turns the tide ’ of ebbing life, and determines the recovery of the patient. Or we pray �The Province of Prayer. ’ ■ 15 for the removal of a pestilence, and the answer is given within the minds and hearts of those who take means to check it or uproot it.” Now we have no more evidence in support of the idea that suggestions” are conveyed to the minds of physicians in answer to prayer, than we have that medicines certain to cure the patients are. placed in their hands by superhuman agency. As far as we know, theories of treatment are just as much dependent upon unaided human thought, as medicines are upon unaided human manufacture. It seems to me as reasonable to suppose that an Englishman going out to China as a missionary, would obtain Divine instruction in the Chinese language in answer to prayer, as that a physician should from the same source and through the same agency receive suggestions as to the cure of disease. It is true that a sudden thought often flashes a great discovery upon the mind, and from the suddenness, men are apt to regard it as an inspiration or intuition; but sudden discoveries occur in relation to the acquisi­ tion of languages as well as in medical science; and it is an unwarrantable deduction to assume that because we cannot always distinctly trace the parentage of a sudden idea, it is therefore any more an exception to the ordinary regularity of the physical laws, than the simplest perception common to humanity or the lower animals. That I have not mistaken Mr Knight’s meaning when he speaks of the “ suggestions” above referred to is obvious from the following quotation from his paper. If he had only contended that by means of prayer, the physician’s mind may be concentrated and his energies strengthened in an unusual degree, so that he will be more likely to think and act effectively in endeavour­ ing to cure his patient, I should have agreed with him entirely. This is what is meant by the “reflex action ” of prayer, a result—and the only result of prayer which has been conclusively proved by common experience. �16 The Province of Prayer. But Mr Knight means something quite different when he says :—“ Had we no free spiritual power within us differen­ tiating us from surrounding existence, we could not ‘ come into ’ God’s presence in the act of devotion ; for surely in that presence man, as well as unconscious nature, always stands. But endowed with intelligence and spiritual freedom, he may, by an act either of the will, or by simple aspiration, present his spirit to the Divine, withdrawing it from the sphere of the sensuous, and subjecting it to the influence of the super-sensible. And the Divine nature may then act upon the human, to quicken and melt, directly ‘enduing it with power from on high.’ ” Mr Knight gives us a more complete key to his belief in the following eloquent passage :—“ In the conscious freedom of our own wills we recognise a power, irreducible by analysis, which proclaims our superiority to the links of physical causation, while it acts in unbroken harmony with these. It testifies that in our inmost essence we are not the mere products of organising force, but that we have (to use the Kantian terms) natures noumenally free, and therefore, noumenally related to God. The sphere of prayer is, therefore, the life of the creature endowed with moral freedom and the capacities of spiritual growth. Its value to the individual consists in the impulse it conveys to the inmost energies of the soul in their ascent and progress. By a direct divine afflatus it tends, when it is, in Pauline phrase, ‘ prayer with the spirit and with the understanding also,’ to clarify the intellect, and to elevate the heart, to rectify the bias of the passions, to strengthen the conscience, and disci­ pline the will, and to foster all the virtues. Are these results to be .slighted because the power which effects them is inoperative in external nature? In that outer region all is orderly and fair. But in the region of the spiritual, there is conscious disorder, moral chaos, �The Province of Prayer. 17 which is at once an evidence of the need, and a vindi­ cation of the reasonableness of an interference with it.” In this passage we have another illustration of the fact that the realm of prayer is coterminous with the realm of ignorance : or, in the words of a writer before quoted from—“ that what a man will pray for depends pre­ cisely on the extent of his intelligent acquaintance with the phenomena around and within him.” We know a great deal about the region of external nature, and there Mr Knight admits that prayer is not directly operative. We know little of the “ region of the spiritual,” and that therefore is the proper sphere of prayer. In the former region Mr Knight sees that “ all is orderly and fair,” and he thinks that prayer for in­ terference in it is irrational; in the latter, he does not see that all is orderly and fair, but believes that he sees “ conscious disorder ” and “ moral chaos,” from which he concludes that interference is both reasonable and necessary. Professor F. W. Newman, in his recently published pamphlet, “ The Controversy about Prayer ” (Thos. Scott) 'supports views almost identical with those of Mr Knight. He deprecates “ stereotype prayer,” and prayer made to order. He also protests against the vain repetitions so common in our churches, and often uttered in a hurried and unthinking manner. Like Mr Knight, he renounces the idea that prayer can alter the arrangements of the material universe. He says, “ Undoubtedly, the received belief of old was that God’s providence ruled the world by agencies from without. A pious saint in danger from enemies was imagined to pray for (perhaps) ‘ twelve legions of angels/ as a military aid. A prophet’s eyes were opened to see chariots and horses, invisible to other mortals, fighting on the side of his people. To such a mental condition the prayer of those days adjusted itself. But now all thoughtful persons, educated in England, are aware that the Divine rule is carried on �i 18 The Province of Prayer. by the laws of the material universe, and by the agencies of the human mind; and as it is no longer admissible to entreat that [the Most High will tamper with his own laws, prayer tends to concentrate itself upon the human mind,-—that is, invokes influence from the Divine Spirit on the mind either of him who prays, or of some others.” Professor Newman believes that the will as well as the mind can be influenced by prayer, and I agree with him; but I do not believe, as he does, if I mistake not, that the influence is externa] to the mind and will, or, in other words, a direct action of the Divine upon the human spirit. To reply to Mr Strange’s pamphlet, “ Communion with God,” (Thos. Scott) and other publications upon this controversy, would involve a recapitulation of many of the above objections, which appear to me to be sufficient. I will therefore conclude with a few remarks upon the reflex action of prayer, which, as I have before stated, I believe to be its only effect. No one denies that earnest prayer exercises an influ­ ence upon the person who prays, and, in the -case of public prayer, of those also who listen to, even if they do not sensibly join in, the prayer. At least, no one who has ever prayed in earnest for a worthy purpose, can have failed to feel that influence. Dr Littledale has declared that prayer offered with no other end in view than that which is now indicated, is little better than “ a fit of voluntary hysterics ; ” but the sarcasm is unjust. A man who devoutly believes in the existence of a Lather of the Universe, whose arrangements are so perfect that they cannot be altered in accordance with the foolish whims of His children, is certainly no ' more denied the right of communion with Him, than is one who ostensibly prays for the sake of what he can get. The noblest type of prayer is not the beggar’s petition : it is rather the child’s embrace. The fable of the digging of ASsop’s orchard for a treasure supposed to be hidden there has been more than once referred to �The Province of Prayer. 19 in the present controversy. The treasure was found, but it was not that which was sought. It was a treasure of a more permanent kind than a bag of gold ; it was the treasure of an invaluable lesson of industry learned, and rewarded by the fertility of the soil as the natural result. Just so I believe that prayer is answered, not by an external and temporary Divine impetus to good intention, earnest will, or noble effort,but by an internal and permanent strengthening and ennobling of the soul, that comes naturally from the exercise of our highest mental efforts and moral aspira­ tions. It may be truly said that this view contracts the province of prayer within the narrowest boundaries, but they are boundaries which include what the deepest religious feeling recognizes as its highest function ; boundaries, too, that are defensible, and, indeed, on a Theistic basis, impregnable. To the anti-tlieist, of course, there is no province of prayer. He may object that such results of prayer as are above referred to as actual, would be just as likely to be brought about by earnest self-communion and reflection, or by sympa­ thetic converse with a friend, as if the confessions and aspirations were addressed in the form of a prayer to an unseen being. I admit the full force' of this objec­ tion, which I have often felt; but I think that to any one who believes, however vaguely, in the exist­ ence of a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness, an obvious reply will suggest itself. Even if it be ad­ mitted, for the sake of argument, that there is no such thing as a religious instinct, there is at least a natural craving for perfect sympathy. Now, there is never perfect sympathy between two human beings. To no human friend, however dear, can we talk as unre­ servedly as we can think and feel—“ For if one soul in perfect sympathy Beat with another, answering love for love, Weak mortals all entranced on earth would be.” �20 The Province of Prayer. But we can pray, at least silently, with a freedom as unrestrained as the thoughts and desires of our minds. The Divine Being is to us the infinite per­ sonification of our purest ideal. We may believe in an indefinite way that He is also infinitely more than this, but it is as this that we pray to Him. Prayer, then, in its highest, purest, and, as I think, its only useful form, consists in a yearning after the loftiest ideal. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The province of prayer Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bear, William Edwin Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Signed 'W.E.B.' Attribution fro Dr Williams's Library Catalogue. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT98 Subject The topic of the resource Religious practice Prayer Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The province of prayer), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Conway Tracts Prayer https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1826f24fe7f5af625994ef558ade7392.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=bH-dJvFpV87YKVnOPRnNmgLdFR6VkQtW9z5wfvq8tzP0cF5KOaNc5qddcsKZsaqC8BQYsAd%7EuLAdFO3Ew9AOUWvvtGMzyQPs2AuDJeC2nPALaKYyw6S-MFEaFUXuz5sSueYWoEDRrLfjextRp3ti7vTEqbRfswXWFZVMEmh-vVeiQy0fcMy1M34RYMoTY3YiICMIHMlhqufaqpO0dC6szVPSjTAos68outatasTqTrghlI7MuqKyGb%7EKoL1HMbtkNPZZIO8DCA8RqkjrMidO-asQMyDZ5g0gV5qX6owXqtqRKgXxfs4wWI80ziQ6fQTSySTc6Qz%7EyhzsVjVdzZD5ug__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 361c044b83ccf85a3e8dbef19496e1be PDF Text Text THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS,” AND THE HARP OF HELL. BY SALADIN, AUTHOR OF “ GOD AND HIS BOOK,” ETC. London: W. STEWART & CO., 41 FARRINGDON ST., E.C- �New Edition, price is., by post is. id. THE CONFESSIONAL: ROMISH AND ANGLICAN. An Exposure. By SALADIN. Contents:—Introduction — Licentiousness of the Pre-Reformation Church—Lechery of the ConfessionalRitualism : “The Priest in Absolution”—The Anglican Confessional—Ineffectual Efforts to Suppress Reforming Tendencies in the Anglican Church—Confessions of an Escaped Nun—Extracts from Dens and Liguori—Ex­ amination of the Church’s Claim to have Fostered Learning : Pier Attempts at Continency even more Ruinous than her Self-indulgence—The Relative Crimi­ nal Statistics of Catholicism and Protestantism—Ap­ pendix. London: W. Stewart & Co., 41 Farringdon Street, E.C. �Q(,cThe "Beauty of Holiness.” “ Bible Extracts and Assertions in Proof of its Origin ” is the title of a brochure which I have received by post. Like all works which feel their position before the law rather shaky, no printer’s or publisher’s address is given ; and thus, to escape the possibility of prosecution, by doubtful means this work has leapt into the greater evil of making successful prosecution certain, should any one feel it to be his mission to set the law in motion. The compiler’s name is not given; but the author from whom the compilation is made is well known; he is none other than the Christian deity, and, as he is the author of one literary production only, and every babe in this country knows the name of his book, and as my forte is not supererogation, I need not name it here. When I was a boy I read a work entitled “ Dodd’s Beauties of Shakespeare,” this anonymous brochure should be entitled “Somebody’s Beauties of Deity.” I confess I do not know much of Deity; but, from the extracts from his writings which are before me, he must be a very plain-spoken sort of person, who certainly calls a spade a spade, and that with a vengeance too. Judging from modern standards of etiquette, he must evidently have spent a good deal of his life among costermongers and the rest of it as bully in a maison-de-joie. Should any of his own well-paid priests resent this as an asper­ sion upon the culture and gentlemanly bearing of “ the Lord,” I have the pleasure to refer them to what “Rabshakeh said unto them,” * and to the pleasing little anecdote anent Judah and his daughter-in-law.f “The * 2 Kings xviii. 27. f Genesis xxxviii., passim. �THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. 4 Lord,” judging from the extracts from his book, maybe a decent enough body in his way; but he can hardly be described as a cultured writer, and he would certainly be very questionable company at a young lady’s tea-party. He has not had the advantage of having James Boswell for a biographer; but he has got along remarkably well without him ; and I make bold to say that Dr Johnson and Jehovah-jireth are the most minutely-biographed persons in the temple of Fame, and Jehovah has the advantage of Johnson in this—he himself is the recorder of his own life and achievements. It must be admitted that these achievements evince a remarkable versatility of talent. In his autobiography I find that he “ created the heavens and the earth,” but that all that he did sub­ sequently was not on so magnificent a scale. After creating the heavens and the earth he did not “ live up to it,” for I read that, condescendingly, he spued and sent scabs and winked, and chatted with the devil, and was troubled with his bowels, and took no pleasure in men’s legs—neither do gentlemen who go to the Alhambra to see the ballet; they have no pleasure in men's legs, and in this they resemble “ the Lord.” I should be inclined to think that talents that range from world-making to spueing and winking are of an order to which the Admirable Crichton could not have held a candle. The compiler of the “Bible Extracts” has arranged, with loving care, a list of the feats of the “ Almighty Maker of heaven and earth.” With a pious hand, I transcribe them here for the refutation and dis­ comfiture of such as allege that of Deity nothing can be known. I transcribe chapter and verse, which proves to demonstration that a great deal can be known about him:— God God God God God God God God walks—Gen. iii. 8. talks—Deut. v. 24. smells—Gen. viii. 21. works—Gen. ii. 2. rests—Gen. ii. 2. repents—Gen. vi. 6. flies—2 Sam. xxii. xi. sits—Psalm xcix. 1. �THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. 5 God stands on a wall with a plumb-line—Amos vii. 7. God spues—Rev. iii. 16. God laughs—Psalm xxxvii. 13. God runs like a giant—Job xvi. 14. God roars like a lion—Hosea xi. 10. God curses—Gen. viii. 21. God changes his mind—Exodus xxxii. 14. God sends lice—Exodus viii. 16. God sends scabs—Deut. xxviii. 27. God wrestles with Jacob—Gen. xxxii. 24, 26, 30. God a tailor and clothier—Gen. iii. 21. God writes on stone—Deut. iv. 13. God afraid of man—Gen. iii. 22, 23. God is a husband—Isa. liv. 5. God shows his back parts—Exodus xxxiii. 23. God shaves with a razor that is hired—Isa. vii. 20. God winks—Acts xvii. 30. God chats with the devil—Job. i. 7, 8. God hardens men’s hearts—Exodus xiv. 4. God takes no pleasure in men’s legs—Psalm cxlvii. 10. God argues—Job xxiii. 4. God graves on his palms—Isa. xlix. 16. God delivers men into the devil’s power—Job ii. 6. God charges his angels with folly—Job iv. 18. God distrusts his saints—Job xv. 15. God causes adultery—2 Sam. xii. xi. God causes suicide—Jer. viii. 3. God causes cannibalism—Jer. xix. 9. God causes desecration of the dead—Jer. viii. 1, 2. God causes indecency—Isa. xx. 4. God orders the slaughter of men, women, and chil­ dren—1 Sam. xv. 3. God causes lying—1 Sam. xvi. 1, 2. God punishes the guiltless—1 Sam. xv. 3. God uses low language—Jer. xxv. 27. God is said to possess foolishness—1 Cor. i. 25. God makes Moses a god—Exodus vii. 1. God sanctions borrowing without repaying—Exodus xi. 2 ; xii. 36. God creates evil—Isa. xlv. 7. God is a merchant—Hosea xii. 7. God loves to oppress—Hosea xii. 7. �6 THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. God is troubled in his bowels—Jer. iv. 19. God smites his hands together—Ezek. xxi. 17. God speaks to fishes—Jonah ii. 10. God breathes—Gen. ii. 7. God’s breath causes frost—Jobxxxvii. 10. God asks questions—Gen. iii. 9. God is a baker—Exodus xvi. 4. God works with his fingers—Psalm viii. 3. God swears—Deut. xxxiv. 4. God bares his arm—Isa. lii. 10. God is in hell—Psalm cxxxix. 8. God considers some men as a smoke in his nose— Isa. lxv. 5. God gives bad laws—Ezek. xx. 25. God finds rest refreshing—Exodus xxxi. 17. God rewards transgressors—Prov. xxvi. 10. God creates the wicked for the day of evil—Prov. xvi. 4. God is a man—Exodus xv. 3. God rewards fools—Prov. xxvi. 10. God is a consuming fire—Deut. iv. 24. God orders men to drink, be drunken, and spue— Jer. xxv. 27. God blasts through his nostrils—Exodus xv. 8. God requests Moses to “let him alone”—Exodus xxxii. 9, 10. God came down to earth in form of a bird—Luke iii. 22. God is like soap—Mai. iii. 2. God takes away nose jewels, etc.—Isa. iii. 21. God hisses—Zechariah x. 8. God visits the earth to inspect buildings—Gen. xi. 5. God was born—Colos. i. 15. God is weary with repenting—Jer. xv. 1. God spreads dung on men’s faces—Mai. ii. 3. And His Son Jesus orders us to hate our parents and all belongings —Luke xiv. 26. Jesus ordered swords—Luke xxii. 36. Jesus tells us to be improvident—Luke xii. 24. Jesus sent devils into pigs—Mark v. 13. �THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. 7 Jesus says he came to cause war, not peace—Matt, x. 34. Jesus rode upon two animals at once—Matt. xxi. 7. Jesus supped after resurrection on broiled fish and honeycomb—Luke xxiv. 42. Jesus says all who disbelieve him shall be damned— Mark xvi. 16. Jesus says all who ever came before him were as thieves and robbers—John x. 8. If the work before us had been a chemical, instead of a literary, production, it might have been put into a phial and labelled “ Pure Essence of Dunghills.’’ Only a stern sense of duty could have induced the compiler to engage in such a labour of disgust. I have gone through the Greek and Roman classics, Boccacio, and “ The Merry Muses,’’ as well as the pages of “ Thomas Little,” and Tobias Smollett; but “the Lord” beats all of them at writing clean dirt. The worst of “ the Lord ” is, he has few traits to redeem liis coarseness. We find in Psalm xxxvii. 13 that he laughs : but it certainly cannot be at his own jokes. Wit will redeem much; but pure coarseness is irredeemable. However, let me say it to his credit (I have always tried to give the very devil his due), he never seems, to me, to indulge in a libidinous tale just for the mere love of the thing. At a moment's notice he will go off from his dirt into a rigmarole about breeches and candle­ sticks and fringes, which shows that he does not deal in dirt for dirt's dear sake, but that he is such an unsophisti­ cated old innocent that he does not know dirt when he sees it. In this age and country we have come to be aesthetic and fastidious ; and, as for “the Lord,” “his ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts,” and, for this same fact, those who glance at the “ Bible Extracts’’ will be devoutly thankful. Again, in the interests of “the Lord,” I willingly admit that there is no absolutely fixed standard of taste, more than there is an absolutely fixed standard of morals. The England that accepted the English Bible of 1611 was leagues away from the England of to-day. Its English is that of the Shakspearian era, and, upon the whole, �THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. Shakspeare is just about as indecent as “his maker.” The tastes of England and Heaven were, at that time, about on a par ; and, with the then standard of taste, the Bible did not strike any one as indecent. The Black­ friar’s theatre, in which Shakespeare himself had a share, has been described, and, from the description, we can gauge the state of public taste and morals. There was no chalet to which the playgoers could retire; but, as substitute, a big tub stood on the floor, serving an ex­ ceedingly useful, if not over-ornamental, purpose. Plain old Jah, in i Kings xvi. ii, and elsewhere, refers to a “wall,” and the English playgoers, who used their tub and cracked their now unspeakable jokes, did not see anything improper in Jehovah-jireth and his “wall.” So much for the manners of England about the time when the country was first made acquainted with the manners of Heaven. Gadzooks and marry-come-up, Jehovah could get along well with Queen Elizabeth ; but he is out of all harmony with Queen Victoria. Elizabeth could have read these “ Bible Extracts,” and had a good guffaw over them with Cecil or Raleigh ; but the sight of the very first page would drive Victoria into the hands of Sir William Gull. The truth is, modern intellect has not done so much as modern sentiment to knock a hole in the drum of Holy Writ. The flames of hell still roar and sputter away at Spurgeon’s Tabernacle, and at one or two Bethels of the vulgarian order; but nowhere that culti­ vated nineteenth-century men and women do congregate is the doctrine of hell now preached. Hell has not been reasoned out of the Christian creed; it has simply been rejected because it is revolting to the moral sentiment of modern times. When you reason Hell away, you will reason away Heaven also; for, in theology, they are correlated, and stand or fall together. Heaven still stands, not because it is more reasonable than Hell, but simply because it is not so repugnant to the moral senti­ ment of this latter quarter of the nineteenth century. zEstheticism has not reached a very high level even yet. It can stand wing-flapping and “holy, holy!” but it draws the line at chain-clanking and yelling and brim­ stone. �THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. 9 The “ Bible Extracts ” is far from commendable reading; but the disagreeable task of noticing it, and what must have been the still more disagreeable task of compiling it, will be served if it, to some extent, help to rend away the veil of pseudo-sanctity which hangs around the book which is the Protestant fetish. It cannot be urged that it is a small matter that the Bible offends against the canons of taste; for, had I space, I could show that this is only another way of saying that it offends against the canons of morals. True, the standard of morals differs in different ages ; but the standard of morals which obtains in any particular epoch is, practic­ ally, fixed and immutable for that epoch, and to attempt to roughly and hastily upset that standard is more than a venial offence against Mrs Grundy and Mrs Gamp—it is treason against the best interests of mankind. Such treason Holy Writ is perpetrating in Europe to-day wher­ ever it is read; but the saving clause is, it is not read by one in a thousand even of those who pretend to regard it as infallible and associated with the highest solemnities of their career in life, and their destiny when life is over. The principal part of the Bible with the ordinary Protestant John Smith is the fly leaf in front of it, on which are inscribed the date of his marriage with Janet, and the dates of the births of all the young Smiths which were the result of the union of John and Janet. If the book be big enough and gilt enough, it is also useful for laying on the window-sill with a small anti­ macassar over it, the whole surmounted with a little vase of flowers. The ordinary chapel-goer is as ignorant of the Bible as he is of the Koran or the Zend-Avesta. And it is through this very ignorance of it that it has been possible for him to rise to an elevation of purity and delicacy of word and deed which leaves “ the Lord ” and his crude and plain-spoken book far behind—a land­ mark nearly out of sight, away back in the wilderness through which the human race has marched to the comparatively green pastures and relatively still waters that are now theirs to enjoy. �The Harp of Hell. Robert Burns wished, in the interest of the deil him­ self, as well as in the interest of others concerned, that he (the deil) might— “ Aiblins tak’ a thocht and men’.” The deil has certainly followed the suggestion. He is not the malefic fiend he once was; and, as I have said, he is the most interesting character in the Christian drama, and he has the most “go ” in him. His personal friend, Burns, wrote an address to him, distinguished by great candour, and John Lapraik responded on behalf of the deil; but I should say the deil had not authorised him to do so, as the “answer” is but poor, and has nothing devilish in the ring of it. As I am more of a heretic than “ blithe Lapraik ” was, and, in consequence, presumably more of a personal friend of the deil, I will take the liberty of replying to Burns on the deil’s behalf. My reply is based upon an anonymous and fugitive performance which fell into my hands some years ago. THE DEIL’S ADDRESS TO ROBERT BURNS. Oh, wae’s me, Rab 1 hae ye gane gyte ? What is’t that gar’s ye tak’ delight To jeer at me, and ban, and flyte, In Scottish rhyme, And falsely gie me a’ the wyte O’ ilka crime ? �THE HARP OF HELL. “Auld Hangie’s” no a bonnie name, But just the warst word in your wame, But I forgie ye a’ the same ; I’ll let ye see Quite plain what’s what, when ye come hame, And live wi’ me. An’, Rab, fu’ frankly let me tell, Ilk ane o’ mettle like yoursel’ Had far, far better mop and mell Wi’ rattlin’ chiels Sic as ye’ll fin’ down deep in hell Amang the deils Than ye had lie in Abram’s lap, Or hingin’ on by Sara’s pap, Giein’ yer wings an extra flap, A heevenly hen, And leavin’ aff the milky drap To scraich “ Amen/” O’ auld nicknames ye hae a fouth, O’ sharp, sarcastic rhymes a routh, And as you’re bent to gie them scouth, ’Twere just as weel For ye to tell the honest truth, Just like the deil. Rab, far mair lees are tauld in kirk By every bletherin’, preachin’ stirk Wi’ whinin’ theologic quirk Than deils daur tell Down in the blackest brumstane mirk O’ lowest hell. I dinna mean to note the whole O’ your unfounded rigmarole ; I’d rather haud my tongue, and thole Your clishmaclavers, Than try to plod through sic a scroll O’ senseless havers. O’ warlocks and o’ witches a’, O’ spunkies, kelpies, great or sma’, There isna’ ony truth ava’ In what you say ; For siccan frichts I never saw, Up to this day. 11 �12 THE HARP OF HELL. The truth is, Rab, that wicked men, When caught in crimes that are their ain, To find a help, are unco’ fain To share the shame ; And so they shout, wi’ micht and main, The deil’s to blame. Thus I am blamed for Adam’s fa’ ; You say that I maist ruined a’ ; I’ll tell you ae thing, that’s no twa, It’s just a lee ; I fasht nae wi’ the pair ava’, But loot them be. I’d nae mair haun in that transgression, Ye deem the source o’ a’ oppression, And wae, and daith, and man’s damnation, Than you yoursel’; I filled a decent situation When Adam fell. I was a god o’ the first water, An’ wad tae Heeven’s auldest daughter ; But, by my sooth, the dad that gat her Trod on my taes— I took my sword an’ tae the slaughter, Amang his faes. For I could neither thole nor dree Or god or deil to tramp on me ; An’, Rab, in this I’m like to thee, Fu’ croose and bauld, Wha car’d na no a single flea For Daddy Auld. Nae doot I hae o’ sins enoo, But lees, an’ neither sma’ nor few, A tail like dragon, foot like coo, Hae gien to me, As, Rabbin, mony an evil mou’ Has spak’ o’ thee. And, Rab, gin ye’ll just read your Bible Instead o’ blin’ Jock Milton’s fable, I’ll plank a croon on ony table Against a groat, Tae fin’ my name ye’ll no be able In a’ the plot. �THE HARP OF HELL. Your mither, Eve, I kent her b rawly ; A dainty quean she was, and wally, But destitute o’ prudence haly, The witeless hissie ; Aye bent on fun, and whiles on folly And mischief busy. But, by my saul, she was a limmer At ever kittled heart o’ kimmer ; Nane were bonnier, some were primmer, For, gif ye please, She jinked about, through a’ the simmer, Without chemise. The loesome lassie wadna bin’, Just whaur forbidden she wad rin, A’ Natur’ sought her smile to win, An’ deil may care, Up tae her bonnie waist in sin, She jumpit fair. An’, Rantin Rab, I tell ye true There’s much o’ mither Eve in you ; So rein ye up, or ye sail rue, I rede ye weel, An’ tak’ a word o’ warnin’ noo, Though frae the deil. Eve had a leg like Bonnie Jean ; She was a wily, winsome quean, Wi’ rosy mou’ an’ pawky een, Airms warm an’ saft, She needit only to be seen To drive ane daft. Had Jah himsel’ been in that yaird An’ tae that witchin’ lassie pair’d, As sure as daith he’d kissed the swaird E’en Jah himsel’; E’en he wad no hae better fared Whaur Adam fell. An’, Rab, my birkie, gie’s yer haun’, Now whether ye be deil or man, If she says Na ye winna stan’ Her wiles ava, But like a tree by wind up-blawn Ye feckless fa’. 13 �14 THE HARP OE HELL. As for that famous serpent story, Tae lee’ I’d baith be shamed and sorry ; It’s just a clever allegory, An’ weel writ doon ; The wark o’ an Egyptian Tory— I ken’t the loon. Your tale o’ Job, the man o’ Uz, Wi’ reekit claes, and reested guiz, My hornie hooves and brocket phiz, Wi’ ither clatter, Is maistly, after a’ the bizz, A moonshine matter. Auld Job, I ken’t the carl richt weel; An honest, decent, kintra chiel, Wi’ heid to plan and heart to feel And haun tae gie— He wadna wrang’d the verra deil, A broon bawbee. The man was gey and weel tae do, Had horse, and kye, and ousen too, And sheep, and stots. and stirks enoo, Tae fill a byre ; O’ meat and claes, a’ maistly new, His heart’s desire. Foreby, he had within his dwallins Three winsome queans, and five braw callans, Ye wadna, in the hale braid Lallans, Hae fund theii' marrow, Were ye to search frae auld Tantallans Tae Braes o’ Yarrow. It happened that three breekless bands O’ caterans cam frae distant lands, And took what fell amang their hands, O’ sheep and duddies, Just like your reivin’ Hielan’ clans, Or Border bodies. I tell thee, Rab, I had nae share In a’ the tulzie, here or there ; I lookit on, I do declare, A mere spectator, Nor said, nor acted, less or mair About the matter. �THE HARP OF HELL. Job had a minstrel o’ his ain, A genius rare, and somewhat vain O’ rhyme and leir ; but then, again, Just like yersel’, O’ drink and lasses unco fain, The ne’er-do-well. So wi’ intention fully bent, My doin’ to misrepresent, That book o’ Job he did invent, And then his rhymes Got published in Arabic prent, Tae suit the times. You poets, Rab, are a’ the same, O’ ilka kintra, age and name ; Nae matter what may be your aim, Or your intentions, Maist o’ your characters o’ fame Are pure inventions. Your dogs are baith debaters, rare, Wi’ sense galore and some to spare, While e’en the verra brigs o’ Ayr Ye gar them quarrel— Tak’ Coila ben tae deck your hair Wi’ Scottish laurel. Haith ! Michael ne’er laid haun’s on me ; Your tale, Jock Milton’s, a’ a lee, Tak’ tent, puir crater though ye be, Puir Roundhead loon, Had ye had but had een to see, I’d crack ye’re croon. I like Rab’s deevil mair than Jock’s, A hamely deil for hamely folks ; He swirls his tail, his bonnet cocks, An’ aff he goes To sup among the preachers’ “ flocks,” His Scottish brose. Yet, Rabin, lad, for a’ your spite, And taunts, and jeers, and wrangfu’ wyte, I find, before you end your flyte, And win your pirn Ye’re nae sae cankered in the bite As in the girn. ]5 �THE HARP OF HELL. For when ye think he’s doomed to dwell The lang for ever mair in hell, Ye come and bid a kind farewell, And guid be here, E’en for the verra deil himsel’ Let fa’ a tear. I own it, Rab I like it weel To be auld Scotian’s ain auld deil, An’ 1’11 stan’ by her staunch and leal, Whate’er may be, An’ ne’er a son o’ hers sail “ squeal ” That comes to me. An’ I hae brimstone for their yeuk, An’ down in hell I’ll hae your buik, An’ aqua vita in the neuk In kegs galore, An’ never parson, plague, or spook Shall vex them more. When e’er I hear the Scottish tongue I’ll frae the barrel knock the bung, Sing “ Scots Wha Hae ” wi’ lusty lung, An’ by the urns O’ a’ the great wha Scotian’ sung The deil an’ Burns Sall stan’ the rough burr thistle by, An’ haud the drinking quaich on high Wi’ heather wreathed frae Ayr or Skye, Frae Clyde or Dee.— “ Lo, Dogma perish, Priestcraft die ; Scotian’ !—Tae thee ! ” � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The "Beauty of holiness, and The harp of hell, by Saladin Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ross, William Stewart [1844-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: The Harp of Hell is a poem by Ross in the style of Robert Burns. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available W. Stewart & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N575 Subject The topic of the resource Poetry Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The "Beauty of holiness, and The harp of hell, by Saladin), 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-Evidences NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/76059d73f90036ceccb7376834df2c1d.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=gHrBtWYdISTug7yNEJrMBsX81oPDFC-CpuhQUsyjogiWR1pHSvPQW3c1bVdybhY65b14NBHu86VmxN2DxjyWdEMhM9e3QhnkeNH6jVIOSggD0L9GUZbIGElLWFP1oq-R2ZzMg-wxtarVzo-A-y6JN3MwdfDX20QMLr1Tshk0wSmhmcQ8Ipe46Ov0M5f9uycnxXekgJdgX8%7E6zZ5EJLCTrWb9Rbx5UiEjhuhoG9Ta%7EWa0UYAZvz294W63ZO5L0xOeviFjiqjeWXzw%7EnxgPqbwImaH52IQugoyyUjpfOKbMzuO1%7EFrMkB28iBn-a1WJ%7EoJ093ggBWBKZNfA2CgD5a1fA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9845ede9feba52d3e7672f58f89ee4ab PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY COL. INGERSOLL AT HOME Biographical Notes, Occasional Utterances, Characteristics. {Trade supplied bp JOHN HEYWOOD RIDGEFIELD, JOHN DALTON STREET, MANCHESTER ii PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, LONDON ONE PENNY �DISCOURSES BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. MISTAKES OF MOSES, • GREAT INFIDELS, • • • . ’ HOW GODS GROW, GODS : PAST AND PRESENT. SALVATION : HERE AND HEREAFTER, ’ ' . Id. ' ld- • ld- SPIRIT OF THE AGE; OR, MODERN THINKERS, Id- - COLONEL INGERSOLL AT HOME—a Biography, Id. 2d. HELL, .-•••■ PROSE POEMS : Spoken on Memorable Occasions, . 2d. REPLY TO MR TALMAGE ON BLASPHEMY, &C., • 2d. GHOSTS ■ • • (handsome edition) This is not a reprint, and Publisher reserves right. 6d. �V3n?3 ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. Robert G. Ingersoll, who is known throughout the length and breadth of the United States as a freethinker of the boldest type, as a public speaker of fine intellectual endow­ ment, possessing in a rare degree the gifts of eloquence and wit, and above all, as a man of high character, is the son of a New-School Presbyterian Minister. He was born in Western New York, but his father moved, when his son was very young, into Ohio, and thence into Illinois, both of these States not being “ howling ” wildernesses at the time, because American forests are oppressively silent—but regions almost wholly uninhabited. Robert’s early years were thus passed face to face with the unsubdued forests and prairies, and this life doubtless helped to form his habit of independent thought and utterance, and to give him a physical constitution that can endure extreme and continuous toil when he chooses to test it. Col. Ingersoll has been a freethinker from his earliest boy­ hood. He says, “ I can’t remember when I believed the Bible doctrine of eternal punishment. I have a dim recollec­ tion of hating Jehovah when I was exceedingly small.” Be­ fore he was 10 years old he had repeated discussions with his father, in which he argued against his father’s creed. The conditions that make one man a freethinker and another a chief among believers are not easily traced. Somewhere in the physical organisation they lie ; it may be a mere difference of weight of brain. The freethinker will spring from the most unlikely stock, and more than one stout Calvinist tree has borne infidel fruit. It certainly cannot be said that �4 Col. Ingersoll at Home. Robert’s scepticism was the result of a stern upbringing, al­ though the austerity of an old-style Presbyterian household, especially on Sundays, undoubtedly intensified his natural unbelief in any form of faith that causes a man to seek any­ where but in his own heart or in nature for truth, scientific, religious, or ethical. An early recollection bearing on this period is attributed to Robert’s brother. The old clergyman once got a little angry at his son’s inborn infidelity, but when the boy said, “ Well, father, if you want me to lie, you may make me pretend to believe like you, but if you want me to be honest, I must talk as I do,” the wise father preferred to have a sincere child rather than a hypocrite. Before his death, the father gave up the idea that this life is a period of probation, abandoning the doctrine of eternal punishment. When still a mere boy, Robert left home, wandering in the west, and working at various places, until he contrived to educate himself for the legal profession. He soon bp.ca.rne famous in his district—that of Southern Illinois—as a lawyer of unmatched eloquence and influence with juries. Probably he is without an equal as a jury-lawyer in the country to-day. Certainly he has no equal in the West. Stories are told in Illinois of his power over juries that rival the strongest illus­ trations of the influence of eloquence in the annals of the English or American bar. His marvellous power of drawing poetical pictures of domestic life, and of arousing sympathy on behalf of his client, enabled him to carry the toughest cases. The jury were emotionalised, and consequently im­ pervious to the most skilfully put legal arguments from the opposite side. He abandoned criminal practice, because “ it wore on him so much.” When he had an uncertain murder case on hand it absorbed him; all his sympathies were enlisted; he could not sleep or take up any other work until his client was safe. This absorption is almost suicidal to an emotional nature, especially if it is a large nature. Of Col. Ingersoll’s war record very little has been made known. When the war broke out, his constitutional detesta­ tion of slavery in every form found outlet in the active work of raising a regiment of cavalry, of which he was placed in command, and assigned to the Western Department. He �Col. Ingersoll at Home. 5 was in the battle of Shiloh and other engagements. The following narrative should be taken as showing the popular estimate of his character, as a man of ready wit, and of in­ finite good-fellowship, rather than as being literally accurate. On one occasion he was ordered to guard a ford, with in­ structions to delay an advancing army of Rebels as long as possible, in order that the army of the North might make certain counter movements. He held his position for some time, but the enemy came up in such overwhelming force, that he had no course left but to order a retreat—every man as best he could to save himself. It was devil take the hind? most. As Col. Ingersoll was galloping away with his men as fast as their horses could get over the ground, his horse stumbled in a lane and threw him. Just as he fell several balls struck the logs, near him, and on looking up he saw some Rebels raising their carbines at him. With character­ istic quickness and presence of mind, he shouted at the top of his voice; “ Hold on there ! Don’t make blank fools of yourselves. I’ve been doing nothing else for the last five minutes, but wishing for a good chance to recognise your blank Confederacy.” A southern officer ordered the men to stop, and laughing at the unknown Yankee’s impudence they took him prisoner. At that time he was little known outside Illinois and Indiana. As he is one of the wittiest and best talkers in America, in private as well as on the platform, he was soon a great favour­ ite, and Forrest, whose command captured him, treated him with the greatest consideration, once telling him that he would get him exchanged the first chance that offered, because he was getting so popular with the Rebels that he began to doubt the fidelity of his own men. The following remark touching Ingersoll’s military career is, without doubt, a true utterance of the tender great-hearted gentleman. He says—“ I was not fit to be a soldier ; I never saw our men fire but I thought of the widows and orphans they would make, and wished that they would miss.” As a lecturer Col. Ingersoll’s career has been an unqualified success. By his anti-Christian themes, and his reputation as an infidel, he necessarily drove from him a very large part of �6 Col. Ingersoll at Home. the ordinary lecture-goers, because the majority of these are church-going people. But, on the other hand, he called around him a new class everywhere,—mostly men, and chiefly young men or old ones; not so much middle-aged men. The young men wanted to hear him, the old ones were the con­ firmed free-thinkers. The ordinary lecture audience, every­ where in the east, is composed of about equal numbers of the sexes, generally more women than men; but Ingersoll’s audiences showed something like five men to every woman, and sometimes the disproportion was even greater. The women in America, as in Great Britain, are the chief sup­ porters of the church, and tend to Conservatism in every­ thing. But when women did go to hear his lecture on “ The Liberty of Man, Woman, and Child,” they were the most delighted and enthusiastic listeners ever seen in any audience. They forgave his poor opinion of the church for his good opinion of the women. No more popular lecture has perhaps ever been delivered than this magnificent plea for human liberty. The same lecture has been delivered under the titles of “Intellectual Development ” and “ Skulls,” and the substance of it has been reprinted in England with still another title ; but everywhere, whether spoken or read, it has commanded admiration. To his more recent lectures, notably to the powerful discourse, “ What shall I do to be saved?” delivered in Chicago, women have been attracted in large numbers, and have evinced the liveliest interest. The generous passion, the tremulous sympathy, the truth and poetry of feeling which mark Col. Ingersoll’s addresses, remove from Ereethought the reproach of being a synonym for intellectual baldness. He has elevated womanhood; and in winning the heart and arousing the active emotions of women he is preparing the final victory of Freethought. The business side of Col. Ingersoll’s lecturing career has been thought worthy of special notice by his numerous critics. It is believed that some of his audiences have yielded more money than Jias ever before been recorded, even in a country of phenomenal lecturing successes. Accordingly he has been taunted with aiming merely at popularity, and of roystering around as the popular advocate of Atheism at 25,000 dollars �Col. Ingersoll at Home. 7 a year. To this Col. Ingersoll has made the following pun­ gent reply:—“ Is it honest in Dr Collyer to assail my motive ? Let him answer my argument. Is it honest and fair in him to say I am doing a certain thing because it is popular ? Has it got to this, that in this Christian country where they have preached every day hundreds and thousands of sermons,—has it got to this, that infidelity is so popular in the United States ? If it has, I take courage. And I not only see the dawn of a brighter day, but the day is here. Think of it! A minister tells me in this year of grace, 1879, that a man is an infidel simply that he may be popular. I am glad of it. Simply that he may make money. Is it possible that we can make more money tearing down churches than in building them up 1 Is it possible that we can make more money denouncing the God of slavery than we can praising the God that took liberty from man 1 If so, I am glad.” If JFreethought advocacy brings Colonel Ingersoll a hand­ some income, it is no more than a fitting reward of his splendid gifts and services. It is not surprising that this should be grudged by clergymen, who envy him his liberty as well as his power and success ; just as ineffably dull and stupid critics are chagrined at the popular response to his swift and incisive wit. But if common report be true, Colonel Ingersoll spends as handsomely as hepiarns. He has a theory that the moment a man starts out to save, he becomes selfish, and begins to petrify. He says, “ I despise a stingy man. I have known men who would trust their wives with their hearts and their honour, but not with their pocket-book ; not with a dollar. When I see a man of that kind, I always think he knows which of these articles is the most valuable. Think of making your wife a beggar ! Think of her having to ask you every day for a dollar, or for two dollars, or fifty cents ! ‘ What did you do with that dollar I gave you last week ? ’ Think of having a wife that is afraid of you ! Oh, I tell you, if you have but a dollar in the world, and you have got to spend it, spend it like a king, spend it as though it were a dry leaf, and you the owner of unbounded forests ! ” This is a philosophy, however, by no means incompatible with a very shrewd outlook upon the outgoings and incomings of the dollars. �8 Col. Ingersoll at Home. In the conversational art Colonel Ingersoll is said to be as striking as he is in oratory. Indeed, except in his great passages, his private talk excels in pathos, in rare insight, in poetic imagery, and in delicate fancies. He has often an oriental style of rhetoric in his most familiar conver­ sations. He employs such phrases as abound in Hafiz, and Saadi, and in many of the sacred books of the East, phrases that blend mental states with the memory of familiar things. For example, if an ultra conservative had to be described, an ordinary speaker might say that he is a man of stubborn prejudices who refuses to listen to argument, and then says that because he never makes any progress, the world stands still. The oriental singer would, however, say something like this : “ He stretches himself on the couch of contentment, and draws the cap of prejudice over the eyes of reason, and swears that the car of progress is shackled by the gods in the streets of eternal repose.” Of course, this illustration is absurdly exaggerated, but it suggests the oriental imagery, of which Ingersoll’s talk is full. In his lectures this rhetorical artifice is generally most effective, although by repetition it becomes transparent, and tends to degenerate into mere use of stock metaphors. On the other hand, his humour is western, and wholly American. He is swift as lightning in repartee, keen and also kind in his wit, unless he is talking of religious dogmas, and then his sar­ casm is merciless, and meant to wound, and no woman is quicker to respond to the gentlest breath of pathos. Often after his lecture of two hours, delivered after travelling a long distance in the cars, he has sat up talking with friends until past midnight; and his talks on such occasions are remembered as being better on the average than his best public orations, though possibly friendship has helped this opinion by kindly exaggeration. His conversation is full of phrases that would be conceded gems in a great writer. Speaking of a sanguine man, he said, “ Show him an egg, and instantly the air is full of feathers.” He has remarkable power of concrete illustration, and ripples with bright sayings. Then, again, his conversation has a breadth that pertains rather to the men of old, and the listener constantly wonders whether �Col. Ingersoll at Home. 9 Burns, Rabelais, Voltaire, or Shakspeare has had. the greatest effect in forming his spoken style. It needs no special art to divine that in his family life, Col. Ingersoll is blessed among men. An unfriendly reader might charge him with being unable to keep women out of his lectures. Every freethought speech he has delivered contains some splendid pleadings for the full freedom and equality of woman. When he speaks on this subject, or of fireside joys,, his words have a deep and homely eloquence, that reveals the heart firmly resting on tried affection. He is remarkable among Americans in having preserved his family life sacred from the eye of vulgar curiosity, and only in so far as he has himself permitted the public to cross the threshold shall any reference be made here to a side of his life which should be free from the intrusion either of praise or blame. His residence in Peoria, Illinois, and latterly in Washington, is dedicated by gracious presences to a simple and cordial hospitality, to the charms of friendship, and the freedom of an abounding comradeship. With intellectual and untram­ melled life, a generous, wise, and genial host, whoever enters finds a welcome, seasoned with kindly wit and Attic humour,, a poetic insight, and a delicious frankness, which renders .an evening there a veritable symposium. The 'wayfarer who passes is charmed, and he who comes frequently goes always away with delighted memories. What matters it that opinions differ; such as he and his make common life the sweeter. An hour or two spent in the attractive parlours of the In­ gersoll homestead, amid that rare group, lends a new meaning to the idea of home, and a more secure beauty to the fact of family life. It is not amiss to say that a man’s conduct in his home is the true test of his character. To his family, to his immediate relatives, and the friends who are his daily companions, Col. Ingersoll is as nearly perfect as any man can be. His home is his heaven, and he wants no other heaven. There, is probably no happier family group to be found anywhere, and had he been a Christian his home would have been held up as a model Christian household. He has himself made public reference to his daughters. Neither of the two young ladies �IO Col. Ingersoll at Home. has ever been inside a church. The Colonel said that one night when the children—they were quite young at the time —were in bed, and he supposed them to be asleep, he was reading a sermon about the torments of hell to his wife. Suddenly one of the girls rose up in bed and asked, “ Who said such things about God ? ” He told her it was a sermon, and that the doctrine was taught in the church. “ Then,” said the young girl, “ I’ll never go inside of one.” And she has never been within a church, although, when in Europe, her father advised her to visit some of the old cathedrals. In the world of politics Colonel Ingersoll fills a unique position. Holding no office, he nevertheless, by his mastery of the public ear, wields a power hardly inferior to that of politicians of the first rank. He enjoys the friendship of Secretary Blaine and other members of the Government, and in the stir of the presidential elections the principles and men of the Republican party have no more eloquent advocate and defender. In free America as well as in England to avow free thought is to place a barrier in the path to political honours. Col. Ingersoll has already had a taste of martyrdom. It will be remembered that some years ago he was appointed American Ambassador to the Court of Berlin, but had to forego the preferment on account of the active bigotry of the orthodox. An incident is told which further illustrates this: A gentleman went to see Colonel Ingersoll when he lived in Peoria, and finding a fine copy of Voltaire in his library, said, “ Pray, sir, what did this cost you ? ” “I believe it cost me the governorship of the State of Illinois,” was the swift and pregnant answer. On that evil day when Garfield was shot, Colonel Ingersoll was in the Station-house at Washington, and is reported to have sprang forward to interpose between the assassin and his victim. The exciting three weeks that followed found him a busy man. It was well that amid the first fierce fury of anger and excitement, and the subsequent more bitter, if not as noble outpouring of faction’s suspicions, and inuendoes, so manly a man, so sagacious a counsellor, was enabled to hold so positive a balance. Cabinet officers, legal �Col. Ingersoll at Home. JI functionaries, detectives, citizens—all felt his wise humane instincts and capacious hrain, influencing for fair equipoise nnd calmer judgment. In 1876 Colonel Ingersoll in a short, but finely conceived, ? oration, proposed Mr Blaine as the nominee of Illinois for the Presidency. In this, speech, as well as those delivered in the contest in 1880, which resulted in the return of Garfield, an English reader will perceive a certain extrava­ gance of eulogy as well as a subordination of close argument to rhetoric. But America’s problems are not ours, and Colonel Ingersoll’s mode of political persuasion is manifestly well suited to the temper of his audiences, and nicely calculated to win votes. His political meetings in the fall of 1880 elicited a quite unprecedented enthusiasm. At a great meeting in Brooklyn he was introduced by the Rev. H. Ward Beecher as “the most brilliant speaker of the English tongue of all men on this globe,” and a great wave of emotion Seems to have swept over the vast audience at the spectacle of freethinker and clergyman occupying a common platform in a spirit of liberty and fraternity. As a politician, Colonel Ingersoll grounds his faith on ■certain broad principles, to the enunciation of which, and ignoring small party shifts, he bends his oratorical art. He is a Republican because that party crushed the infamy of slavery; because it is in favour of free speech, and honest ballot'; because it is honestly redeeming the public debt; because it everywhere fosters humanising influences ; because it secures the equal rights of all under the great Republic. Flashes of humour, familiar references, flights of imagination are in turn at the command of the orator to drive these principles home to the minds and hearts of his hearers. His skill in putting his points reminds one of the best models of ancient times. He is supporting the candidature of Garfield;— “I belong to a party that is prosperous when the country is pros­ perous. I belong to the party that believes in good crops ; that is glad when a fellow finds a gold mine; that rejoices when there are forty bushels of wheat to the acre; that laughs when every railroad declares its dividend; that claps both its hands when every investment pays; when the rain falls for �I2 Col. Ingersoll at Home. the farmer; when the dew lies lovingly upon the grass. I belong to the party that is happy when the people are happy • when the labouring man gets three dollars a day; when he has roast beef on his table; when he has a carpet on th®' floor ; when he has a picture of Garfield on the wall.” Hardly less neatly planted is this blow at the Democrats and their candidate A man is a Republican because he loves something. A man is a Democrat mostly because he hates something. A Republican takes a man, as it were, by the collar, and says, 6 You must do your best, you must climb the infinite hill of human progress as long as you live? Now and then one gets tired, lets go all hold, and rolls down to the very bottom of the hill, and as he strikes the mud, he springs upon his feet transfigured, and says, ‘Hurrah for Hancock.’ ” His fertility of illustration is remarkable. In the inter­ minable discussion of the currency question, there has not yet been placed upon record a wittier, truer, or more luminous passage than the following:—“ The greenback, unless you have the gold behind it, is no more a dollar than a bill of fare is a dinner. You cannot make a paper dollar without taking a dollar’s worth of paper. We must have paper that repre­ sents money. I want it issued by the Government, and I want behind it either a gold or silver dollar, so that every greenback under the flag can lift up its hand and swear, 11 know that my redeemer liveth.’ ” Of the alertness of a memory, richly furnished with capital stories, and the irresistible way in which they are used as apt illustration of a position or principle, every discourse of Colonel Ingersoll furnishes proof. Speaking of the Demo­ cratic party in connection with the collection of the revenue, he recounts :—“ Two ministers were holding a revival meet­ ing in a certain place. After the services one of them passed around the hat. When it was returned, he found in it pieces of slate pencils and nails and buttons, but not a solitary cent, and his brother got up and looked at the contribution and said, ‘Let us thank God!’ ‘What for?’ said the other. ‘ Because we’ve got the hat back.’” The moral was obvious. He has moreover a power of lucid, pithy, and quaint �»__ OL- Col. Ingersoll at Home. 13 phrasing that fixes a truth on the memory. “ The Republican party lives on hope ; the Democratic on memory ; the Demo­ crat keeps his back to the sun, and imagines himself a great man because he casts a great shadow; ” this is a definition which combines literary charm and argumentative force. Or take this utterance on money, which is not un­ worthy to stand with the epigrammatic endeavours of Emer­ son and Ruskin on the same subject: “ Money is the most social thing in this world. If a man has a dollar in his pocket, and meets another with two, the solitary dollar is absolutely homesick until it joins the other two.” The weapons which Col. Ingersoll draws from his intel­ lectual armoury to smite the giant orthodoxy are generally common sense and wit. He evidently cares little about the results of Biblical criticism, or refinements in theological belief. He pins the Christian down to the Bible and says : “ Do you believe this book inspired by God ? Answer yes or no. Don’t tell me it is a poem, or that it is to be taken in spirit, and not in fact. It is the word of God, or it is not the word of God, If it is the former you must accept the burden of its falsities, and immoralities. If the latter, be honest, acknowledge that the world has been mistaken, and let us unite in driving the cloud of superstition from the heart of man.” This is the answer he furnishes to critics of every hue—Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Moodyite. It is a matter not of theology, but of plain honesty. His oommon-sense, sledge-hammer-like logic would, how­ ever, not be the unique thing it is were it not allied to a keen sense of drollery, and a swift wit. He has subjected socalled sacred themes to a breadth and boldness of treatment that startles readers out of their conventional propriety. Christians who find nothing shocking in the idea of a hell, profess to be horrified by a non-theological use of the name. You may speak of flames, but you must not mention brim­ stone. Even freethinkers have a gingerly way of touching Bible themes ; some from an affectation of superiority ; others out of supposed respect to dominant opinion. No Bible personage, or subject has immunity from Col. Ingersoll’s onset. The lightnings of his wit play around the once �]4 Col. Ingersoll at Home. august figure of Moses. Deity itself is made to enact the comic role. In the words of one of his critics, Col. Ingersoll seems to say to orthodoxy, “ I will dethrone your God to­ day amid pleas of laughter ; blow his being down the wind on the wings of my epigrams.’' The sting of all this lies in the fact that the wit tells, that the laughter becomes con­ tagious. Clergymen in the States have confessed that they are ashamed longer to preach the doctrine of hell. Theology may resist grave argument, it may even bear up under elo­ quent denunciation, but when it becomes a subject for a people’s laughter its days are numbered. This humoristic method is not less effective when dealing with church rites, as the following quotation may show:— “ Roger Williams was a Baptist, but how he, or any one not destitute of good sense, could be one, passes my comprehen­ sion. Let me illustrate : “ Suppose it was the Day of Judgment to-night and we were all assembled, as the ghosts say we will be, to be judged, and God should ask a man : “ ‘ Have you been a good man ? ’ “ 1 Yes.’ ££ £ Have you loved your wife and children ? ’ “ £ Yes.’ “ £ Have you taken good care of them and made them happy?’ ££ £ Yes.’ “ £ Have you tried to do right by your neighbours ? ’ ££ £ Yes.’ “ ‘ Paid all your debts 1 ’ “ £ Yes.’ And then cap the climax by asking : ‘ “ Were you ever baptised ? ’ ££ Could a solitary being hear that question without laugh­ ing? I think not. I once happened to be in the company of six or seven Baptist elders (I never have been able to under­ stand since how I got into such bad company), and they wanted to know what I thought of baptism. I answered that I had not given the matter any attention, in fact, I had no special opinion upon the subject. But they pressed me, and �Col. Ingersoll at Home. 15 finally I told them that I thought, with soap, baptism was a g°Ofbourne Col. Ingersoll has been decried as a mere iconoclast. ' ?TtaSveh1uXubShe:<ra little book, entitled ‘Some Mis, v 1 Mo^es ’ hi which I have endeavoured to give most takes of M - , m-o-ed against the Pentateuch in a a+ rebuilding simply because he exposes a sham, 01 and not rebuilding py obligation to build detests a lie. I do not feel unae y „ j something in the place of a‘ Hn the p“ e of a detected lie is "taS to see them live and etheir livesto the defence of delusions the people shouldI ta hear nm; saythrt^o^ 17 adlhaHs good, Ind tender, and holy in human nature ; ?Lk that I wish to tear down the churches, destroy all sheep that thy ? the ^00p No doubt most of willing to give e they consid.er £ d”TXl"’may, they feel the ^slipping estimation , are not absolutely necessary for the protecXTsooiety. They know that the intellectual world ' �i6 Col. Ingersoll at Home. cares little for• whaT'theT'sav^anTT^ ~" human progress flows on Lellss ofH^ u great tide of The Church long enioveddi\ ht 7^Ip Or hi^ance.» tual freeman as infidel, unbelievef But tT"1 have brought a sweeping revenue Who * rodlng years believers ■ Bruno Galileo i Wbo are now deemed the that to-day has a different -charge laid nnnn V ? freethlnker is not enough, he is told X ? ?P? ^integration Perceiving the -^ising’tHathXiXtedS „r?leS ' ‘he is « his own ? . “ Libertv ” T desire to raise fabrics of I worship, and will over worshinat which V p bJtitutes intellectual freedom • foMh^loT^ f d°gma of God he substitutes faith in man and wnrW Service narrower creed contents him d k f°r man- Ko tan^T’1 * “ and bears out what his disennr i eBe^tuality and feeling, Ws is a roundeIX™„l!rZ “PV6Aaiready tinctly an original His stvff ’ r /^-s a sPeaker he is disthe qualities of' statelVsiSl c ? Mr BrWin OUS passion. He lacks Mr t^M?mely,.patbos’ aild Se’nerhtaour is too active ft t“ susSenT^ ffis some amount of outward passivitv Tn th V ™ lmP]Png human sense, invective fnd wiZ’hJh blendl“g of sound word-paintings, the sustained flio-ht r*® no.nval5 and the march of the rhetoric in his grea&t na^ lmaglnafclon> and the the use of the English tonguf. P g6S are a delation in 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Col. Ingersoll at home : biographical notes, occasional utterances, characteristics Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Manchester; London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 'Discourses by Robert G. Ingersoll' inside front cover. No. A3 in Stein checklist, but with different (earlier?) imprint. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available John Heywood Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N415 Subject The topic of the resource Free thought 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 (Col. Ingersoll at home : biographical notes, occasional utterances, characteristics), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Free Thought NSS Robert Green Ingersoll https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13f9c10df44c59ff8057c6971276d06a.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=GXMdcQWpF5wF7njKs6AARBttIsPb85a1eWJs4jW4Hlu1V%7ETR4TJL%7EDI2lkucRQeblEouwYxhsQ8GPuL3vQufBy5FeA4EeLXhDK1cZ9vKi4iODAULxlRUFHvhyltq2qfffpmD7o6A7%7E57smC3ziX83REw4RLq%7EQiZbbEvnqaaV0qwrm8iPqTcDuCqmlZtu1Ffse9jc30C1UlKjTVGwtUgAVdRIlrfnYRp5og5hip2Ha9uIJfgG313bjPSVndTczKgy3KNOcXGSxROdSXqbp7SqRUoQqpAgTiEHJiMxy1oAi2ykQfTcW5P6ICrMtnVIAPefO-9nBeSmAbQjFn0j1hfbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f0bf5629051e7a851f564a46172d8269 PDF Text Text HE praise of Venus has been often sung, but never in any existing verse of high order with the unhesitating frankness and untempered fervor which distinguish Mr. Swinburne’s last volume of poems* Disdaining apol­ ogy or subterfuge, he lifts up his voice, and with unfaltering tongue and un­ ambiguous phrase he tells in the rich music of his verse the joys of Aphrodite. Of his capacity and his inclination to treat this theme in this manner every attentive reader of his last two poems “ Atalanta in Calydon ” and “ Chastelard ” must be well aware. Both those poems were distinguished by a large simplicity and directness of utterance which showed that the poet had risen far above the plane of timid conventionality ; and the latter showed a ten­ dency toward an open recognition of the power of sexual love and an intense, if not an ideal, expression of its working. The promise of those two dramatic poems in this regard has been amply, but somewhat hastily fulfilled in the present volume, which, as Mr. Swinburne of course expected, is loudly con­ demned by all that class of critics who are content to “ dwell in decencies for­ ever.” We have heard of editors who have refused to notice the book even by way of condemnation, lest they should thus contribute to its notoriety. A weak, unwise, shortsighted policy. Poets of Mr. Swinburne’s grade are not to be crushed by condemnation or extinguished by neglect; least of all when they find their inspiration in a passion which has stirred and swayed the world ever since it became the habitation of two sexes. If they do wrong, if they soil their plumes by too close a contact with unmitigated human nature, let them be convicted and condemned; but let us not fondly sup­ pose, when one of them gives voice to the delight of men in the beauty of . women and of women in the manliness of men that we can stop the world’s ears by pretending that we don’t hear him. No, Mr. Swinburne’s book, like all books that, whether good or bad, are bold and able and high-toned, must be taken up and discussed and its place in literature decided by the general judgment of men, aided through, not controlled by, the decisions of criticism. The very fact that a Jftrge edition of the book was bought up here in three or four days, and that it is the subject of conversation among cultivated and thoughtful people should of itself show critics that it is not to be ignored. We have called these poems high-toned; and this epithet against which some of Mr. Swinburne's censors would most loudly protest, is the one of all at our command which we regard as most particularly expressive of their dis­ tinctive character. Their subject we have stated in plain terms ; and they present that subject unveiled, simply, without mitigation, as bare of conceal­ ment as a naked, un-fig-leaved statue. Yet, in the very essence of their thought they are high-toned. They are filled full of the utterance of that joy T * “Laus Veneris, and other Poems and Ballads.” By Algernon Charles Swinburne. Author’s Edition. New York: Carleton. London : Moxon & Co. �666 MR. SWINBURNE’S POEMS. which to gross souls is gross, but which to all others is mysteriously no les3 imaginative than Bensuous; but there is in them not one .passage that is vulgar, or coarse, or even immodest. There is in Pope’s “ Rape of the Lock,” a poem which is within the reach of any girl who desires to read it, a line of more immodesty than could be made of all Charles Swinburne’s poems concen­ trated within the same compass. And by calling Mr. Swinburne’s lyrics high-toned we do not mean merely that they are the product of genius. They are that indeed ; but so is “ Don Juan,” a poem open to objection of the same kind as those which are urged against “ Laus Veneris; ” but “ Don Juan,” work of genius although it be, is as low in tone, as light and as frivo­ lous as “ Laus Veneris” is high and impressive and serious. “ Don Juan ” was written to furnish amusement by the prurient treatment of forbidden subjects; “ Laus Veneris ” is the presentation in the naked ideal of an over­ powering passion. It is not immodest but, like other things that are also not immodest, under certain circumstances it is indecent. The line above alluded to in the “ Rape of the Lock ” is immodest and under all circumstances inde­ cent, because it belittles, and degrades, and treats with gross familiarity, and sets up for jeers and laughter one of the most masterful of human passions, and one which more than any other sways, through soul and sense, the whole being of every perfect human creature. Mr. Swinburne writes with no such motive. He shows us the figure of Love stripped bare, but never grovelling. Yet, as we have said, his book is, or rather it becomes indecent under certain circumstances. The man who would read in mixed society, at this day, or read to a young woman, or, for that matter, to an old one, such a poem as Mr. Swinburne’s sonnet, rf Love and Sleep ” would commit an act so indecent as to merit the immediate ejection from the house, which he would, probably re­ ceive. But so would he be indecent if he offered the woman a caress, which, under other circumstances, she would both desire and expect. So would he be if he read many passages in the “ Song of Solomon,” which are in every respect as plain-spoken and as fervid as anything that Mr. Swinburne has written, and certain others in the fourth and the eighth books of “ Paradise Lost.” And yet, the woman who cannot read any of these herself without harm, is already long past mental contamination. The question is plainly this, Is sexual love in itself impure ? or is it in itself entirely without moral charac­ ter, and under certain circumstances as rightful as it is joyful, and under others criminal, and in the end full of bitterness ? Will men who have wives and mothers, and women who hope to be wives and mothers decide for the former ? And if it is not impure, filling, as it does, so large a place and hav­ ing so important a function in man’s life, shall it be excluded from the domain of art, of high art ? No, but let it be draped, is th^ reply that will come from some quarters. Surely, let it be draped, except he comes who shows that he has the right to lift its veil. He will show his right by the way in which he exercises it. We do not go about unclothed. We do not put any undraped picture upon our walls, because there are few painters who have the right to paint nude figures for pure-minded people. But when one of those who have the right paints such a picture, then it hangs before our eyes and we see that it is naked, and are not ashamed. What genius and high mental tone are in art love as well as in real life—so our poet says ; Behold my Venus, my soul’s body, lies With my love laid upon her garment-wise. This is the key note of his song. To a woman who loves, the love of the �MR. SWINBURNE’S POEMS. 667 man she loves is as a garment. A modest woman never lays aside her mod­ esty ; but as to shame, one of the greatest of moralists tells us that that may be < taken off and put on like her petticoat. It is from this moral plane, and through this moral medium that Mr. Swinburne contemplates his subject. We have said that his lyrics, under certain circumstances, would be indecent: more, to many people, they will be blasphemous. Take this passage as an example curiously framed to elicit both those epithets : Lo she was thus when her clear limbs enticed All lips that now grow sad with kissing Christ, Stained with the blood fallen from the feet of God, The feet and hands where at our souls were priced. Alas, Lord, surely thoH art great and fair. But lo her wonderfully woven hair ! And thou didst heal us with thy piteous kiss; But see now, Lord ; her mouth is lovelier. She is right fair; what hath she done to thee ? Nay, fair Lord Christ, lift up thine eyes and see; Had now thy mother such a lip—like this ? Thou knowest how sweet a thing it is to me. Could the ingenuity of genius, taxed for the sole purpose, contrive to bring together within twelve lines anything more shocking to the ascetic religionist than this ? Let every man who can see in this passage only blasphemy and impurity, let every man who measures a woman’s innocence by her physio­ logical ignorance and her bodily torpidity, exclude this book from his house and the houses of all those in whom he takes an interest, as he would keep poison from his table; for it swells to bursting with such venom. There will be others who, perceiving at once the dramatic spirit through the lyric form of these poems, will find in them neither blasphemy nor the intention of blasphemy, and who, breathing the same moral atmosphere as the poet, will find in his song impurity neither of word nor thought. To all such readers they will not only be harmless, but full of deep and strong delight. Their beauty, and the joy they give, is heroic, and will consume small souls It is like the beauty of the poet's “ Dolores,” to whom he says • Thou wert fair in the fearless old fashion, And thy limbs are as melodies yet. His whole book is an expression of beauty and of passion in this fearless old fashion: naked, free and strong. Naked not for the sake of nakedness, but for the sake of freedom, strength and beauty. In this as in the dramatic motive of these lyrics, and also in his way of not beginning at the beginning, but, as it were, in the middle, and implying what has gone before, Mr. Swin­ burne is very like the greatest dramatic poet the world has seen for two cen­ turies—Robert Browning. A failure to perceive the purely dramatic charac­ ter of almost all the erotic poems in this volume must lead to a very errone­ ous and unjust judgment of the poet. Thus, in “Before Dawn" the sup­ posed speaker says, that amid the fierce joys to which he has abandoned him­ self, he is ready, **’’. • To say of shame—what is it ? Of virtue—we can miss it; Of sin—we can but kiss it And it’s no longer sin. �668 MR. SWINBURNE’S POEMS. And of a beautiful woman it is said elsewhere, All her body was more virtuous Than souls of women fashioned otherwise. These passages cause sentence to be pronounced upon him in various quarters for the crime of asserting that delight purges sin of wrong and that beauty makes vice virtue. But the poet is not preaching, he is painting. And the spirit, if not the very thought of both these passages is expressed by Brown­ ing in one of his finest poems, “ Pippa Passes.” Lucca’s wife Ottima is with her paramour Sebald, to whom she says, Sebald, as we lay Rising and falling only with our pants Who said, Let death come now—'tis right to die ! Right to be punished—naught completes such bliss But woe ? . . . Bind it [her hair] thrice about my brow Crown me your queen, your spirit’s arbitress, Magnificent in sin. True, Browning makes the voice of Pippa singing “ God is in his heaven ” rouse Sebald from his guilty trance, to loathe his paramour. But so Swin­ burne closes his poem thus : Lest all who love and choose him See Love and so refuse him ; For all who find him lose him, But all have found him fair. Whoever will read this scene of Browning’s—poet without reproach—will find in it an expression of delight in physical beauty and of abandonment to pas­ sion which it would almost seem that Mr. Swinburne had imitated and not surpassed. And in Browning’s “ Dramatic Lyrics ” and in his “ Men and Women” are other passages that glow with all the amorous fire that burns in Mr. Swinburne’s pages. There is this great difference, however, among others, between the poets, that Browning has not published a volume devoted to the celebration of sexual love and fleshly beauty. But that Mr. Swinburne fias done so is at once his sin and his salvation, as a poet writing for the general public. Whoever takes up this volume knows beforehand exactly the en­ tertainment to which he is bidden; no reader finds himself 'betrayed into reading erotic poetry. For one of the poems in this book we can, however, find no excuse, even in its marvellous beauty, because its subject is without the pale of nature. True, it is purely dramatic ; but why the poet should choose such a subject as that incomprehensible, monstrous passion known as “ Sapphic love,” and name his poem by the Greek word “ Anactoria,” i. e., sovereignty, we cannot conjecture. Had he exhausted nature and the love of man and woman for each other? Yet, in this poem, as we have already intimated, are some of the finest passages that he has written, some of the very finest in all modern poetry. We do not refer only or chiefly to such ex­ quisite expressions of love as, The fervent under lid, and that above Lifted with laughter or abashed with love, Thine amorous girdle, full of thee and fair, And leavings of the lilies in thine hair. The poem passes beyond these limits, and deals not reverentially with sub- �MR. SWINBURNE’S POEMS. 669 jeets higher and vaster than mere human passion. In a passage of this kind are the following lines, of strange power and awful beauty : For who shall change with prayers and thanksgivings The mystery of the cruelty of things ? Or say what God above all gods and years With offering and blood and sacrifice of tears, With lamentation from strange lands, from graves Where the snake pastures, from scarred mouths of slaves, From prison, and from plunging prows of ships Through flame-like foam of the sea’s closing lips— With thwarting of strange signs, and wind-blown hair Of comets, desolating the dim air, When darkness is made fast with seals and bars And fierce reluctance of disastrous stars, Eclipse, and sound of shaken hills, and wings Darkening, and blind inexplicable things— With sorrow of laboring moons, and altering light And travail of the planets of the night, And weeping of the weary Pleiad’s seven, Feeds the mute, melancholy lust of heaven This may be frightfully impious, even when put into the mouth of the heathen Sappho ; but it is not, therefore, one whit less grand. Has there lived more than one other poet who could think such thoughts and use lan­ guage with such supreme mastery ? We do not remember in all poetical literature a passage which expresses with such sustained power the vague terror and mysterious woe of the whole universe. It is in his daring use of language and his ability to justify his daring that half Mr. Swinburne’s power resides. In the above passage this power is very striking. The very phrase “ disastrous stars,” against which the etymological criticism might be brought that it is tautological—“ disastrous ” having come to mean fraught with calamity because it first meant ill-starred—is yet evidence of the poet’s right­ ful consciousness of a power which places him above all such pedagogic con­ siderations in his choice of words. A scholar himself, he can yet leave his scholarship out of sight and out of mind, while yet with the trained skill of an intellectual athlete he does feats of language which to mere scholars would be impossible. He is the master, not the servant of words, and uses them for the service that they can do to-day, not for that which they could do in days gone by. Yet that he can use them thus, as if he had been born four hun­ dred years ago, he shows in “ The Masque of Queen Bersabe ” and “ St. Dorothy.” And the name of the latter poem reminds us to mention it as one that for its spirit might have been written by a saintly nun. It is a poetic exaltation of the legend of the Christian virgin who died in Rome by the axe rather than enter the service of Venus, as that service was in the decadence of the Empire. There are other poems of like spirit in the volume. Such are “Itylus,” one of the sweetest and tenderest, as well as most musical lyric poems in the language, “ A Lamentation ” and “ Amina Ancepsand although such as these are rare, those are frequent which tell terribly of the woes that wrongful love may bring. There is not a sadder, more remorseful poem to be read than “ The Triumph of Time.” But magazines have limits, and we must stay our hand. Mr. Swinburne’s poems are not without faults, but these are trifling indeed compared with the strange, fresh beauty of the pages that they spot. One blemish of frequent occur­ �670 MR. SWINBURNE’S POEMS. rence we have noticed—the more because it should not have appeared in the work of a poet who is so fertile .of fancy, so rich in language, and who has such a remarkable gift of rhyme. The kisses that, whether implied or named must needs be plentifully scattered over the pages of an erotic poet, are too often used for sound as well as sense by Mr. Swinburne—who ought to be above making "kiss” rhyme to “bliss”—and, moreover, are incessantly repre­ sented as stings or wounds. The lips that give and take them are described as flecked with blood and very often with salt foam ; so often, indeed, that it provokes the thought that Mr. Swinburne gets his lovers into a very sad pickle. This blemish is one symptom of the general evil of these poems— that they are overwrought and have too little of the repose which is a neces­ sary condition of all high art. The turbulence is grand, the passion is real as well as fervid; but we do not li_a to live in a tempest. We cannot refrain from remarking that Mr. Swinburne has the high distinction of being the first poet since Shakespeare who has written lines that Shakespeare might have written. We do not mean to liken him to Shakespeare; and we refer not to his thoughts but to his turn of phrase, which is sometimes like Shakespeare’s in his sonnets. We can only quote as example these lines from the beautiful poem upon the myth of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis : Where between sleep and life some brief space is With love like gold bound round about the head, Sex to sweet sex with lips and limbs is wed, Turning the fruitful feud of hers and his To the waste wedlock of a sterile kiss. That last line Mr. Swinburne might have recovered from some lost sonnet of Shakespeare’s; so might he this whole passage. To what strange end hath some strange god made fair The double blossom of two fruitless flowers? Hid love in all the folds of all thy hair Fed thee on Summers, watered thee with showers Given all the gold that all the seasons wear To thee that art a thing of barren hours ? But wide as are the bounds of our admiration, our expression of it must be compressed within narrow limits. Let no one misunderstand us. These poems are of the flesh fleshly. They are not of the kind that “ will not bring a blush to the cheek of innocence,” and they should be shunned and execrated by all people who believe that a blush of awakened consciousness is the first warning of the flight of purity. Nor would those who do not so believe, and who think that these dramatic lyrics have their place in poetry, and that no mean one, be pleased to see any friend, young or old, male or female, choose them for frequent perusal. They are not written virginibus puerisque. Yet the spirit that animates them is not that of Aretino ; the pictures that they present do not bring up those that Giulio Romano drew. The men and women who speak through them are such as Raphael painted -after he had touched the lips of the Fornarina. Let every man avert his eyes who be­ lieves that there is sin in passion or pollution in beauty. Richard Grant White. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mr Swinburne's poems Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource White, Richard Grant [1832-1907.] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: [665]-670 p. ; 23 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Review of 'Laus Veneris, and other Poems and Ballads' by Swinburne. Author's edition. New York: Carleton; London: Moxon & Co. From Galaxy 2. Attribution: Virginia Clark catalogue. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5315 Subject The topic of the resource Poetry 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 (Mr Swinburne's poems), 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 Algernon Charles Swinburne Conway Tracts English Poetry Poetry in English https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/70f192ddc5818b9b281d48e6188edfeb.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=oRUnUh06QTnA0Hx3kFrrng6G8p5LesTqPvievYSzP3Ly2KkBtZ2rZ6S%7EhzJp1e2MJwkmHEdp%7EiNKIxaa4ZPbMp-Eoq4-TaXHsF-hCTS3huJI5N5uEV7HpdoHs5gfPHRZvaQCWtS2jiCxHLvkag9Y9Bayf7Z5pPR9M9UGnM1%7Eej2QmD6YZf2YFfvsG4jETxqXJiBFWbDr-%7EtMsz3lTeVeRBZYgAq0FVNHFK68OfQPM4T-Sol5Z943Vj2tdVZTrXtBbNOcGVPn3K4RvwR23fbb2sr4XB3R3054f7nXmjfvEzfZM0oxX2%7EyLmc%7E-JiakQeZMstl7APoDcl7aJlBKpfsdw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 430990f6f657a707d9dada087111eaeb PDF Text Text B3H nj 6 e>7 NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY INDEX TO THOMAS SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS. ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED. The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farguhar Road, Upper Norwood, London, S.B. Price. Post-free. ABBOT, FRANCIS El, Editor of ‘Index,’ Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A. The Impeachment of Christianity. With Letters from Miss Frances P. Cobbe and Professor F. W. Newman, giving their Reasons for not calling themselves Christians - 0 3 Truths for the Times - 0 3 AN EX-CLERGYMAN. What is the Church of England ? A Question for the Age - 0 6 ANONYMOUS. A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part ------ 1 6 A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible 1 0 An Address on the Necessity of Free Inquiry and Plain Speaking, at the Inauguration of the Liberal Social Union, Saturday, February 28, 1874 ------ 0 3 A Plain Statement ------ 0 3 Christianity in a New Light . 0 4 Clerical “ Pooh, Pooh 1 ” Rhetoric 0 3 Euthanasia ------- 0 3 Euthanasia : An Abstract of the Argument for and against it 0 3 Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism 0 6 Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of Necessity” ------- 0 6 Natural Religion versus Revealed Religion ... 0 4 Nine Years a Curate ------ 0 3 On Inspiration ------- 0 6 On the Mediation and Salvation of Ecclesiastical Chris­ tianity -------On the Nature and the Existence of God On Eternal Torture -----On Public Worship -----On the Atonement ----__ On the Deity of Jesus. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part Our First Century - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 6 6 3 6 0 6 �ii Index to Thomas Scott’s Publications. Price. Post-free. s. ANONYMOUS—continued. Primitive Church History - 0 9 - - 101 Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers. Per dozen Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I.—Its Influence on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the Development of the Conscience. 6d. each Part The Church and its Reform. A Reprint . The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss TnE Twelve Apostles , ‘ Via Catholica ; or, Passages, from the Autobiography of a Country Parson. Complete in III. Parts, is. 3d. each Part BARRISTER, A. Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ Orthodox Theories of Prayer - - - - BENEFIOED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation The Evangelist and the Divine The Gospel of the Kingdom of Origin of the Legends Critically Examined - of Abraham, 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 9 0 6 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 6 1 0 England Catechism Examined. A Reprint BERNSTEIN, A. 1 0 - 0 3 BENTHAM, JEREMY. The Church d. Isaac, and Jacob 1 0 BRAY, CHARLES. 0 6 Parts I. and II. 6d. eacli B<irt ~ ** — — ~ ~ 1 0 Toleration : With Some Remarks on Prof. Tyndall’s Address at Belfast 0 9 BROOK, W. 0. CARR. Reason versus Authority ------ 0 3 Illusion and Delusion The Reign of Law in Mind as in Matter. BROWN, GAMALIEL. An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds - 0 3 The New Doxology ------ 0 3 CANTAB, A. Jesus versus Christianity 0 6 - CT-ARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge., , A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church 0 of England CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 0 An Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures 0 Dr Farrar’s “ Life of Christ.” A Letter to Thos. Scott 0 Letter and Spirit Rational Piety and Prayers for Fine Weather - 0 Spiritual Gambling; or, The Calculation of Probabilities Religion ™ The Question of Method, as affecting Religious Thought CLODD, EDWARD, F.R.A.S. The Birth and Growth of Myth, Lore, Legend, and Dogma _ and its - in 6 6 6 6 3 0 6 0 3 Survival in Folk- 0 3 �Index to Thomas Scotfs Publications » CONWAY, MONCURE D. Consequences - - - The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait The Voysey Case - - in Price. Post-free, s. d. -03 - 0 6 -06 COUNTRY PARSON, A. The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part - 1 6 COUNTRY VICAR, A. Criticism the Restoration of Christianity, being a Review of a - 0 6 Paper by Dr Lang CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES. - 0 3 God’s Method of Government - 0 3 Human Depravity On Responsibility On the Existence of Evil On the Formation of Religious Opinions On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology Positive Religion. Four Lectures. Each The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought • DEAN, Rev. PETER, Minister of Olerkenwell Unitarian Church. The Impossibility of Knowing what is Christianity DENYS, Sir GEORGE WILLIAM, Bart. Disestablishment or Reform - - 0 3 i. - DR CARPENTER AT SION COLLEGE; or, The View of Miracles taken by Christianity and its Evidences. No. I. 0 ■6 - DUPUIS, from the French of. 0 9 Christianity a Form of the great Solar Myth - F. H. I. Spiritual Pantheism 0 4 0 6 Men of Science DUBLIN DIVINITY STUDENT. 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 • - 0 6 FINCH, A. ELLEY. Erasmus : his Life, Works, and Influence the Reformation - upon the Spirit OF 0 3 FOREIGN CHAPLAIN. Everlasting Punishment. A Letter to Thomas Scott The Efficacy of Prayer. A Letter to Thomas Scott - • 0 6 0 3 FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH. On Religion 0 6 - FROM “ THE INDEX,” published at Boston, U.S.A. Talk Kindly, but Avoid Argument 0 3 GELDART, Rev. E. M. The Living God 0 3 - GRAHAM, ALLEN D„ M.A. Cruelty and Christianity. A Lecture - - 0 6 GRAHAM, A. D,, and F. H. On Faith ...... 0 3 �Index to Thomas Scott's Publications. IV Price. Post-free. s. d. HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia. Science and Theology . 0 4 HARE, The Right Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures -06 HENNELL, SARA S. On the Need of Dogmas in Religion. A Letter to Thomas Scott - 0 6 HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich. A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revela­ tion, WHAT IS THE PROSPECT OF MAN’S LIVING AFTER DEATH 1 ” 0 6 A Reply to the Question, “Shall I Seek Ordination in the Church of England?” - " - o 6 The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend - 0 6 HOPPS, Rev. J. PAGE. Thirty-Nine Questions on the Thirty-Nine Articles. With Portrait -03 HUTCHINSON, THOMAS DANCER. The Free-Will Controversy - 0 6 JEVONS, WILLIAM. The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part - 1 0 The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation Considered - 0 6 The Prayer Book adapted to the Age - o 3 KALISCH, M., Ph.D. Reprinted from Part I. of his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait -10 KIRKMAN, The Rev. THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington. Church Cursing and Atheism -10 On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part 1 0 On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part - 1 6 Orthodoxy from the Hebrew Point of View. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part -10 LAKE, Rev. J. W. Plato, Philo, and Paul; or, the Pagan conception of a “Divine Logos,” shown to have been the basis of the Christian Dogma of the Deity of Christ -10 LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Theology of the Past and the Future. The Judgment of Mr Voysey the Committee of Council LAYMAN, A, and M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin. Law and the Creeds Thoughts on Religion LEWIS, Mrs. and the in the - Case of - Bible Cremation * M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I., II., Ill, and IV. 6d. each Part -03 - 0 6 - 0 6 -03 - 2 0 �V Price. Post-free. s. cl. Index tp Thomas Scott's Publications MACFIE, MATT. 0 The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism Traced to their Origin The Religious Faculty: Its Relation to the other Faculties, and its Perils ------MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D. The Souls of the Children - 6 0 6 - MACKAY, R. W. 0 6 The Adversaries of St Paul in 2nd Corinthians MACLEOD, JOHN. 0 3 Recent Theological Addresses. A Lecture MAITLAND, EDWARD. Jewish Literature and Modern Education ; or, the Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Schoolroom How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait The Utilisation of the Church Establishment M.P., Letter by. The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation - I 6 0 G 0 6 0 6 MUIR, J., D.O.L. Additional Moral and Religious Passages from the Sanscrit - 0 6 Religious and Moral Sentiments, freely Translated from Indian Writers -------- 0 6 0 6 the Dutch of Dr A. Kuenen. - Three Notices of “ The Speaker’s Commentary,” Translated from NEALE, EDWARD VANSITTART. Does Morality depend on Longevity ? - 0 6 Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Intro­ ductory Remarks ------- 1 1 - 1 0 NEWMAN, Professor F. W. 0 Against Hero-Making in Religion 0 Ancient Sacrifices James and Paul ------- 0 Letter on Name Christian. (See Abbot) ... 0 On the Causes of Atheism. With Portrait 0 On the Historical Depravation of Christianity On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism; and On the Galla Religion ....... 0 . . . 0 On this World and the other World 0 The Controversy about Prayer The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines 0 The Religious Weakness of Protestantism 0 The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait 0 The Two Theisms 0 Thoughts on the Existence of Evil 0 OLD GRADUATE. Remarks on Paley’s Evidences 0 OXLEE, the Rev. JOHN. A Confutation of the Diabolakchy 0 Reason, Religion, and Revelation The Mythical Element in Christianity The New Bible Commentary and the Ten Commandments 0 0 0 3 6 3 G 6 3 6 6 3 3 7 6 3 3 6 6 �vi Index to Thomas Scott’s Publications. Price. Post-free. s. d. PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. The Unity of the Faith among all Nations PARENT AND TEACHER, A. Is Death the end of all things for Man ? - - - 0 6 - - - 0 6 A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and Philosophical. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part -10 Introduction to the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua - 0 6 The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of our Age. Part I.—Genesis Part II.—Exodus. Two Sections. 6d. each Section Part III.—Leviticus Part IV.—Numbers Part V.—Deuteronomy Part VI.—Book of Joshua - - 1 6 -10 -10 -10 -10 - 0 6 PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS. Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of England - 0 6 The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education 0 6 ROBERTSON, JOHN, Ooupar-Angus. Intellectual Liberty The Finding of the Book ... ROGERS, WALTER LACY. A Review of a Paper called “ The Fallacies of - Unbelief.” -06 20 - 0 4 SCOTT, THOMAS. Basis of a New Reformation -..-09 Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators. In Two Parts. 6d. each Part - - - 1 0 Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer” - 0 6 The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in its Bearing on the Truth of Christianity - 0 6 The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition -44 The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society - 0 6 SHAEN, Miss. “ Prayer ” and “ Love to God." Per dozen - • -10 - - - - 0 3 STONE, WILLIAM. The Story of the Garden of Eden STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras. A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and • Defended by T. L. Strange An Address to all Earnest Christians • Clerical Integrity • * Communion with God The Bennett Judgment The Bible: Is it “The Word of God?” The Christian Evidence Society The Exercise of Prayer The Pauline Epistles The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed • » • * • • * * - 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 6 3 3 ■6 6 �Index to Thomas Scott's Publications. . - Price. Post free. d' - 0 3 -03 - 0 6 . -06 SUFFIELD, the Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH. Five Letters on a Roman Catholic ConversionThe Resurrection . The Vatican Decrees and the “Expostulation” VOYSEY, The Rev. CHARLES. On Moral Evil W. E. B. - . - An Examination of Some Recent Writings about Immortality - 0 6 The Province of Prayer . . . -06 WHEELWRIGHT, the Rev. GEORGE. The Edinburgh Review and Dr Strauss - 0 3 Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures - o 6 WORTHINGTON, The Rev. W. R. On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion - - 0 6 _ - - 0 3 - 0 6 ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D. Dreams and Ghosts ■ . Immanuel Kant. In his Relation to Modem History - Since printing the preceding List the following Pamphlets have been published. Price. Post-free. s. A. F. B., Miss. Convent Experiences - DIDEROT, Translated from the French of, by E. N. A Philosophical Conversation NEWMAN, Professor F. W. The Service of God The Presence of God - • d. - 0 9 - 0 6 - 0 3 - 0 3 ANONYMOUS. On Prayer . . . ‘‘Which things are an Allegory ” Our Insincerity The Mystery of Evil ... -03 - 0 3 - 0 3 - 0 9 �SCOTT’S 'ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS.’ In One. Volume, 8vo, bound in cloth, post free, 4s. 4<Z., SECOND EDITION OF THE ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS. RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, THOMAS SCOTT, 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Notice.—Post Office Orders to be made payable to Thomas Scott, Westow Hill Office, Upper Norwood, S.N. C. W. REYNELL, PRINTER, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, LONDON, W. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Index to Thomas Scott's publications, alphabetically arranged Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thomas Scott Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Upper Norwood Collation: vii p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisement for Scott's Life of Jesus on back cover. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N607 Subject The topic of the resource Free thought 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 (Index to Thomas Scott's publications, alphabetically arranged), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Free Thought-Bibliography NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/35ef2f3070d130d3d2dadf7a711e4084.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=mMqgbJt2Y8zB%7ERIML8t2fcqMby2PstamBSZ77WxasVY3oyFEfvbmAhkiJRpV7dr9mag9M5cpov3mExK3eMJDulVraU5ymYlC3uMiVXQC6287u14h8Djp6ka8Szp3AJ1dqOth8E7N40VIGFFAWG0tqmniCpaD4AE1slbg6JkagQsvm8BZ-O7lhvTuHfT%7E9Vqye-k%7E46w0cCeSMlJmBuS9wiO%7EMLiVGYwYm7tSK5NyEc9GL-wZRG3ny7PDyZ%7E5GnQTiFlP1%7EOYMjYhy4zr0twB%7E3J9NKKiUZHOvdiSOFNAt8HIe8OOD1PoM2moVwMuszmB27KzbsW2LpjGYPIK2P5R9g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7bd3950c249561b66962e3050f18d79c PDF Text Text COLLEGE OF LECTURERS. Vice - Presidents. Sir Henry M. Vavasour, Manor House, Beaminster. Sir John Stuart Forbes, Lawrence Kirk, Kincardineshire. Sir John Page Wood, Bart, Bivenhall Place, Essex. Edwabd Baines, Esq., M.P., Leeds. (With power to add to their number.) Chairman. The Rev. Henby Christmas, M.A., F.B.S., &c., &c., Danes Inn, Strand. Council. Bebbidge, F. Esq., F.R.S.L., St. John’s Wood. Blake, Babnett, Esq., Agent to the Yorkshire Union of Mechanics’ Institutes. Cobbet, D., Esq., M.D., Orsett Institute. Cowen, J. Jun.. Esq., Chairman of the Northern Union of Institutes, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. De Meschin, Dr., F.S.A, Chancery Lane. Hast, Rev. Henby Mabtyn, M.A., Blackheath. Hitchens, Rev. J. Hiles, F.R.S.L., Peckham Rye. Jones, J., Esq., Secretary of the South Staffordshire Union of Institutes, Dudley. Monk, F. W., Esq., Secretary of the Kent Association of Institutes, FavershamPlumptre, C. J., Esq., Russell Place, Fitzroy Square. Rooke, Rev. Thomas, M.A., Secretary of the Berks and Bucks Union of Institutes, Windsor. Smith, W. Seymour, Esq. Mill Street, Hanover Square. Wright, Anderson, Esq., F.B.G.S., F.Z.S., Queen’s Road, Dalston. (With power to add to their number.) Honorary Secretary. Rev, W. Hickman Smith, Penge. Secretary. Mr. Joseph Simpson, Edgware, London, N.W., (To whom all Communications are to he addressed.) �^onsfitution af ihq ———♦----- of Objects.—-The objects of the College of Lecturers shall be to establish an Union of Lecturers for professional purposes. To publish yearly (in June) a List of Lecturers, with their Subj’ects, Terms, and other particulars, and to forward such List to the Institutes; to inform Secretaries the dates when Lecturers will visit certain localities; and to make arrangements for the Season (if desired), on both sides. Plan.—For effecting the foregoing obj’ects, the College proposes to complete the division of the country into districts, and to correspond with the Secretaries of such districts. To obtain information for Lecturers as to the character of audiences, hotel accommodation, modes of conveyance, and on all subj'ects likely to be of interest to a Lecturer. To communicate with Colleges and Schools, to furnish them with informationas to Lecturers, and Lecturers with Lists of Schools, and to give general information on both sides. To negociate, when desired, as to Terms. To secure the influence of the Press, and, as far as possible, to correspond with Editors, and to secure Reporters. To raise the character and social position of Lecturers, as a body, by such means as may seem most advisable to the Members of the College. Officers.—The entire management and superintendence of all the affairs of the College shall be entrusted to a Patron and Vice-Patrons, a President and Vice-Presidents, a Council, a Chairman of Council, an Honorary Secretary and an Acting Secretary, a Treasurer and Bankers. Laws.—General Meetings.—-An Annual Meeting of the Fellows and Members of the College shall be held in the Spring, when the report of the Council shall be read ; the Council and Officers for the ensuing year elected; and any other business discussed and decided upon. �3 ) Tn the Election of Council and Officers, the personswh o shall have the greatest number of votes shall be declared duly elected; and if any doubt or difficulty shall happen in relation thereto, or to the particular manner of voting, the same shall be determined by the President and majority of the Council for the preceeding year then present. All vacancies among the Officers of the College, occur­ ring between the Annual Meetings, shall be provisionally supplied by the Council. The President and Council shall have power to summon at any time an Extraordinary General Meeting, the same notice being given as for a General Annual Meeting. Council,—The Council shall meet once a quarter, if necessary, for the election of Fellows and Members of the College, and for the dispatch of general business. Upon a requisition, in writing, of any three Members of the Council, directed to either of the Secretaries, a Special Meeting of the Council shall be summoned. Four Members of the Council shall constitute a quorum. All the Members of the Council shall be summoned by by notice, signed by one of the Secretaries, to attend each and every Meeting thereof. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a majority of votes, and the Chairman for the time being shall, in addition to his own vote, have, in case of an equality of numbers, a second or casting vote. Admission of Fellows and Tl/mSers.-—Candidates for union with the College shall be divided into two classes—-Fellows and Members. Fellows shall be such as hold a degree in any faculty of any University, Members of the Chartered Societies, Scientific or Literary, or of any one of the learned professions. All candidates not so distinguished shall be Members. Every candidate, in order to be elected Fellow or Mem­ ber, shall be proposed and recommended by three Fellows or Mem­ bers of the College, who shall deliver to one of the Secretaries a paper signed by themselves recommending the candidate; the paper thus attested shall be read at the next Meeting of the Council, and the election shall at once take place by ballot; and such Candidates as shall have full two thirds of the votes of the Members of the Council present in their favour, shall be duly elected. �The Annual Subscription of every Fellow and Member shall not be less than £1 Is. Od., to be paid in advance, and shall become due on January 1st in every year ; each Subscriber to be entitled to The Institute and Lecturers’ Gazette, monthly, free. It shall be lawful for any five Fellows or Members of the College to move the Council to call a General Meeting for the expulsion of any Fellow or Member on showing sufficient cause, but no Fellow or Member shall be expelled unless due notice of such motion shall have been given to every Fellow and Member of the College two months at least before the General Meeting to be specially summoned for that purpose, and unless full two-thirds of such Meeting shall concur in voting for his expulsion. �%* For Terms, see page 15. Artis, Gt. L., 92, Eastern Road, Kemp Town, Brighton. 1.—Lectures on Elocution, with Illustrations, Serious and Comic. 2.—A Night with the Poets. 3.—Popular Lecture on Singing. 4.—Personification of Fifteen Shakspearian Characters in Fifteen Minutes. 5.—Recital of Hamlet. 6.—Recital of The Merchant of Venice. 7.—Lecture on The Power of Conscience, with Selections from Macbeth. 8.—-A Night with Shakspeare. 9.—Recital of Shakspeare’s Play, King John. 10.—-Lecture on Tragedy, with Selections from Dramatic Poets. 11.—Lecture on Comedy, with Selections from Dramatic Poets. 12.—Recital of Shakspeare’s Play, The Tempest. 13.—-Recital of Marston’s Tragedy, The Patrician’s Daughter. 14.—Recital of The Gamester (Moore). 15.—Entertainment; Passion, Poetry, Life, and. Character, with Popular Illustrations. 16.—Fortune’s Buffets (Artis). 17.—Recital of The World, and How it was Made (Drew). 18. Lecture on Lady Macbeth. 19.—Recital of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 20.—-Recital of Othello. 21.—Re­ cital of Romeo and Juliet. 22.—Recital of As You Like It. 23.—Lecture on Milton’s Paradise Lost, with Recitals. 24.—Lec­ ture on the Life, Times, Genius, &c., of Milton. 25.—Recital of J. S. Knowles’ Hunchback. 26.—Recital of Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton’s Lady of Lyons. 27.—Lecture on Addison, with Selec­ tions from his Works. 28. Recital of Lillo’s Fatal Curiosity. 29.—Comic Entertainment, Mr. Snipe’s Evening Party; or. Speech Making, introducing 16 amusing Characters (Artis). Berridge, Fred., F.R.S.L., F.C.L., M.C.P., Winchester House, Winchester Road, Adelaide Road, St. John’s Wood, N.W. Readings.—1.—The Plays of Shakespeare. 2.—The Poets ; Selections, Grave and Gay. 3.—The English Wits and Humour­ ists. 4.—Prose Readings from Dickens, Thackeray, Goldsmith, Addison, &c. 5.—The Poets and Poetry of America, with selections. 6.—The Art of Reading Poetry, with selections. 7. —The Lady of Lyons. 8.—Mary Barton, in four chapters. Lectures.—9.—Two sides of a Picture. 10.—Some Friends of Mine (a new Entertainment). 11.—Literary Imposters. 12.— �( 6 ) Frederick the Great at Home. 13.—Men who have Risen. 14. —Popular Hallucinations. 15.—The Pilgrim Fathers. 16.— Travelling; Past, Present, and Future. 17.—China and China­ men. (The three preceding Illustrated). 18.—Life Portraits, drawn by Charles Dickens. 19.—Sheridan ; Dramatist, Orator, Statesman, and Wit. 20.—The Life of Chatterton. Illustrated with Dissolving Views.—21.—The Orbs of Heaven. 22.—The Crust of the Earth. 23.—Historical Sites. 24.—Some more Friends of mine, part 2. 25.—Loose Pictures from the Book of Nature. 26.—A Few Words about Many Places. 27.— The Land of Promise. Christmas, Rev. Henry, M.A., F.R.S., Late Professor of British History and Archaeology in the Royal Society of Literature, Member of the Royal Academy of Archoeology of Madrid, Member of the Imperial Society of Antiquaries of the Morini, §c., §c., §c., 3, Danes Inn, Strand, W.C. 1.—The Moorish Cities of Spain (2 lectures). 2.—Turkey and the Turks f2 lectures). 3.—Venice, Florence, and North Italy. 4.—Greece and her Islands. 5.—Portugal and the Portuguese. 6.—The Balearic Islands. 7.—Piedmont and the Piedmontese. 8.—The Dutch and their Doings. 9.—A Visit to the Seven Churches in Asia. (The above-named Lectures contain the results of personal observation, and narratives of personal adventure.^ 10.—Popular Superstitions (2 lectures). 11.—Phren­ ology (3 lectures). 12.—The Philosophy of Wit and Humour. 13. — Wellington. 14. — Napoleon I. 15. — Napoleon III. 16.—Nicholas I. of Russia. 17.—The Inquisition. 18.—A Lecture on “ Half-a-Crown.” 19.—Popular Superstitions, illus­ trated by the Poets (2 lectures). 20.—The Literature of Greece, Rome, Italy, and Spain (4 lectures). 21.—The Ocean and its Phenomena. 22.—Life among the Patriarchs. 23.—Life among the Assyrians. 24.—Life among the Egyptians. 25.—Progress of the Fine Arts. The following 53 Lectures have been delivered before the Royal Society of Literature:—26.—Historic and Philosophic Romance (8 lectures). 27.—Archaeology (15 lec­ tures). 28.—Historical Lectures on the period from 1640-1660 (8 lectures). 29.—Pioneers, of the English Mind (8 lectures). 30.—The Dramatic Histories of Shakespeare (14 lectures). These last-named Lectures are illustrated by copious Readings from the above Plays, their object being to exhibit the Great Bard as also the Great Historian ; to note the mode in which he developes the character and policy of those Sovereigns whose lives he has made the subjects of his wondrous dramas, and to observe how, while occasionally varying from the letter, he keeps ever true to the spirit of the reign. �( ? ) Lectures on the Elements of Science, illustrated by Diagrams. -—31.—Mechanics (2 lectures). 32.—Optics (2 lectures). 33.— Astronomy (4 lectures). 34.—Geology (5 lectures). 35.—Physio­ logy (3 lectures). 36.—Hydrostatics (2 lectures). 37.—Pneumatics and Acoustics (2 lectures). 38.—Electricity and Magnetism (4 lectures). 39.—Chemistry (4 lectures). Crawford, Robert, 46, Sloane Square, Chelsea, S.W. Lectures upon Historical and Biographical subjects. Readings of 1.—Lord Byron’s Drama of Manfred. 2.—The History of Little Nell (from Dickens’ Curiosity Shop). 3.—Macbeth. 4.—Othello. 5.—Selections from the best Poets and Prose writers, including Shakspeare, Milton, Byron, Scott, Macaulay, Hood, Poe, Ingoldsby, Tennyson, Jerrold, Dickens, Thackeray,&c. Denman, T. J., formerly Lecturer in Chemistry and Physical Science in the National Society's College of School-Masters, Battersea, St. Mark's College, Chelsea, §c., §c., Hortulan House, Upper Church Street, Chelsea, S.W. Chemistry.-— Courses of 3, 5, or 10 Lectures on 1.—The NonMetallic Elements. 2.—The Chemistry of the Metals. 3.— Organic Chemistry, chiefly in relation to Common Life. 4.— Agricultural Chemistry and Theory of Manures. Single Lectures on the following subjects5.—The Study of Chemistry. 6.—Chemistry, Botany, and the Microscope. 7.— The Chemical History of the Gaseous food of Animals and Plants. 8.—Explosive Compounds. 9.—Combustion. 10.—Respiration. Electricity and Magnetism.—3 or 5 Lectures on 11.—Electri­ city. 12.—Galvanic Electricity. 13.—Magnetism. 14.—Elec­ tricity. . Botany.—15.—Economic Botany ; its importance in Common life ; Means of acquiring a practical Knowledge of Plants. Geology.—16.—Elements of Geology and Mineralogy, and applications in the Arts, Sciences, and Manufactures. Physiology.—17.—Physiology and Physiological Chemistry. (The whole of the Lectures will be fully illustrated; those on Chemistry and Electricity by numerous brilliant experiments on a large scale, and by diagrams. The Physiological and Bota­ nical Lectures by life-size drawings, Specimens, and microscopic demonstrations of the circulation of blood, sap, &c., &c. Those on Geology and Mineralogy by specimens, diagrams, and experi­ ments on the properties of minerals). �( 8 ) Dexter, Thomas E., Member of the Society of Arts, Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, S.W. Illustrated Lectures.—1.—The Crusades and the Crusaders; showing the Rise, Progress, and Results of these Remarkable Events. 2.—The Castles and Abbeys of the United Kingdom; with various Cathedrals, Halls, Manor Houses, and other places of interest, with appropriate Illustrations of the most Remarkable Scenes and Events connected with them in English History. 3.—Scenes in Many Lands; or, All Round the World: a Series of Photographic and other Views of Various Places rich in historic interest. 4.—Japan and the Japanese; illustrating, by means of a Series of first-class Pictures, the Physical Features, Natural Productions, Manufactures, Form of Government, Reli­ gion, Public and Domestic Life, Mode of Dress, Amusements, and many of the most important Cities of this remarkablyinteresting nation. 5.—The Progress of Arctic Discovery, part I.; an Account of the Efforts made to discover the North-west Passage, during the Voyages of Davis, Hudson, Bylot, Baffin, Parry and Ross, Dease and Simpson, with interesting Dioramic Effects illustrative of the peculiar Phenomena of those Regions. 6.—Footprints of Franklin, part II.; or, the History and Fate of the Franklin Expedition, with interesting Episodes connected with the Discoveries of Austin, Collinson, Pim, M‘Clure, M‘Clintock, and others. (The two preceding Lectures can be given with Maps and Diagrams, or with Dissolving Views.) 7.—The British Soldier; a Descriptive Account of Scenes and Incidents of distinguished and conspicuous gallantry, of dashing intrepidity, and heroic self-devotion, performed by the British Soldier in the presence of the Enemy in various parts of the World. 8.—Geo­ graphical Discoveries in Africa, from the earliest period to the present time, including those of Dr. Livingstone, and Captains Burton, Speke, and Grant. 9.—Natural Phenomena; or, a Description of various Wonders in Nature. 10.—Astronomy; illustrated by a series of Movable and other Diagrams, descriptive of Celestial Phenomena. (These Lectures will be illustrated by magnificent Dissolving Views, executed in the highest style of art, and combining beauty of design and accuracy of detail, brilliantly illuminated by the Oxy-hydrogen Light, and each Scene beauti­ fully displayed with Stereoscopic reality on a large surface of Canvas.) Natural History.—11.—Economic Botany; or, Plants and their Uses, showing some of the ways in which Plants are useful to Man for Food, Medicine, Manufactures, and Articles of Luxury. Copiously illustrated by a series of Diagrams, explanatory of Vegetable Physiology, and also by a collection of Natural Sub­ �stances (without the Lantern). 12.—On the Application of Animal Substances to Industrial Life. Part I.—The Invertebrate Animals. 13.—Part II.—The Vertebrate Animals. Each Lec­ ture, complete in itself, will be illustrated by a series of beautiful Diagrams, showing at one view a general Classification of the Animal Kingdom, and also by a large collection of actual Specimens derived from its various divisions and classes. Syllabus of each Lecture forwarded on application. Fairbairn, Angus, and The Misses Bennett, 29, Guildford Road, Greenwich, S.E. Scottish Musical Entertainments, given in Highland costume. Pianist, Miss E. Bennett. 1.—A Nicht wi’ Burns, introducing the best known and most admired of his Songs, with a Biographical Sketch. 2.—A Second Nicht wi’ Burns. 3.—Bonnie Prince Charlie; or, The Hero of ’45, with Selections from the heart­ stirring Jacobite Melodies. 4.—The Songs o’ A.uld Lang Syne, Humourous, Domestic, and Heroic. 5.-—Musical Comparisons, comprising Selections from the works of the popular Song Poets of Great Britain and Ireland. 6.—Whistle Binkie; or, The Piper of the Party. 7.—In preparation, a New Character Enter­ tainment, entitled, The Amateurs. Fearn, Joseph, Lecturer to the Crystal Palace, $c., Phoenix Fire Office, Lombard Street, E.C., and 3, Albion Square, Dalston, N.E. 1.—The History of British Poetry from the earliest Times to the present (a Course). 2.—The Romance of History (2 lectures). 3.—An Evening with Washington Irving. 4.—Sir Walter Scott. 5,—Coleridge. 6.—Oliver Goldsmith. 7.—Longfellow, the Poet. 8.—Longfellow, the Novelist. 9.—Two Evenings with Charles Mackay, the Poet of Progress. 10.—An Evening with Eliza Cook, the People’s Poet. 11.—Two Evenings with Cowper. 12.—Uncle Tom’s Cabin (2 lectures). 13.—The Courtship of Miles Standish and the Pilgrim Fathers (2 lectures). 14.—The Poets of America. 15.—The Novelists of America. 16.—Popular Blunders. 18.—Readings from Enoch Arden, &c., &c. Harrison, Rev. Charles, 9, St. Ann’s Gardens, Haver­ stock Hill, N.W. 1.—Ancient Wardour and its Siege; a Wiltshire Tale of the Olden Time. 2.—Beckford of Fonthill; a Biographical Sketch, with Notices of Fonthill Abbey and its Fate. 3.—Longleat and its Associations. 4.—The Hungerford Family; or, Greatness in Desolation. (A.11 the preceding specially adapted to Wiltshire.) �( 10 ) 5.—The Druidical System of Ancient Britain, in its Secular and Religious aspects. 6.—Relic Worship. 7.^-Prince Albert; his Personal Character, his Home Relationships, and his Public Influence. 8.—■•■The Oracles of God; their Inspiration, Authen­ ticity, &c. 9.—The Power of Knowledge. 10.—The Moral and Spiritual. Improvement of Young Men, the Claim of the Times. IL—India, in its Peoples, Religion, and Morals. 12.—St. Columba, and the Culdees of Iona. Hitchens, Rev. J. Hiles, F.R.S.L., F.C.L., and Member of the Council; Author of “ Words from the Watchtower,” $c., $c.; Minister of Peckham Rye Church; 1, Albion Villas, Linden Grove, Peckham Rye, S.E. 1.—The Tower of London. 2.—A Stroll in the Strand. 3. —A . Sail, on the Thames. 4.—The Human Face. (The preceding with pictorial illustrations.) 5.—Our Merry Men (with amusing quotations). 6.—The Merry Monarch; his Life and Times. 7.—Oratory and Orators. 8.—Hymns and Hymn­ writers. 9.—Readings from Eminent Poets. Inglis, Mrs. Bessie, 395, City Road, E.C. 1.—The Influence of Woman. 2.—The Life of Mrs. Elizabeth Fry. 3.—Isabella of Castile. 4,—Mothers of Famous Men. 5.—Wives of Famous Men. 6.—Self-Cultivation. 7.—The Law of Kindness. 8.—An Evening with the Women Poets. 9.— Readings from the Modern English Poets. 10.—An Evening with Elizabeth Barrett Browning. 11.—An Evening with American Poets. 12.—-Readings from the Older English Poets. Jones, Charles Theodore, of the Chamber of London, Guildhall, formerly Secretary of the Working Mens Educational Union, 23, Brunswick Crescent. Cold Harbour Lane, Camber­ well, S. Illustrated Lectures.—1.—-Homes and Firesides. 2. Travel­ ling in the “ Good Old Times.” 3.—Life in Australia (2 lectures). 4. —London in the Days of Old (2 lectures). 5.—Nineveh, the Buried City. 6.—The Wonderful Book. 7.—Harmony of Science with Revelation. 8.—The Air we Breathe. 9.—The Clothes we Wear. 10.—Sleep and Dreams. 11.—Thoughts not Thought of. 12.—Sights and Sounds. 13.—Light and Colours. 14.—Marvels of the Microscope. 15.—Wonders of the Telescope. 16.—Language of the Skies (4 lectures). 17.—The War in America. 18.—The Pilgrim’s Progress. 19.—The Reformation in England. 20.—The Pilgrim Fathers, 21,--The Sources of England’s Greatness, �( n ) Mr. Jones can undertake distant tours (i.e. beyond 70 miles from London) only in Christmas week, Easter week, Whitsun week, and the month of September. Lectures at any places within 70 miles from London at all periods of the year. Kinkel, Gottfried, Ph. D., F.R.G.S., Examiner of German to the University of London,23, Blomfield Road, Maida Hill, W. Literature.—1.—On the method of studying German Language and Literature. 2.—German Literature of the past century (3 lectures, separable). 3.—German Literature during the last fifty years (4 lectures, separable). 2.—History and Geography.—-4.—On the method of teaching Geography in Ladies’ Schools. 5.—On the History of Germany since the year 1848 (3 lectures). 6.—Physical and Political Geography of Italy. 7.—The United States (3 or 4 lectures). 8.—Australia (2 or 3 lectures). History of the Fine Arts.—9.—How much of Art School Chil­ dren should be taught. 10.—On the Origin of Art. 11.—On the Difference and Relation of the seven Sister Arts. 12.—On Sculpture, with reference to the Collections in the British Museum and the Crystal Palace (3 lectures). 13.—Ancient Art (8 lectures, separable). 14.—Mediaeval and Modern Art (8 lectures, separa­ ble). All the Lectures on Art are illustrated by numerous Diagrams, Drawings, and Engravings. Lisle, the Misses, Taunton. Readings from Shakespeare and other Plays, and Miscellaneous Pieces. Long, Alfred, from the Royal Polytechnic Institution, 3, Ayles­ bury Terrace, Walworth, S. 1.—His New Invention, the Patent Metabolical Machine and its Uses, with regard to the New System for the acquisition of Languages without the use of books; for the Composition of Music; for the attainment of the art of Shorthand Writing, Arithmetic, Evening Amusements, &c. &c. Music composed by the Machine during the Lecture will be performed by Dr. Bennett Gilbert. Plumptre, Charees J., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature at the Crystal Palace School of Art, and Lecturer on Elocution, Oxford and London, §c., 19, Rus­ sell Place, Fitzroy Square,W., and Essex Court, Temple, E.C. Poetical Lectures.—1.—Life andWritings of Chaucer. 2.—Spen­ ser, 3,—-Shakespeare, 3.—-Milton, 5,-—Dryden, 6.—Pope, �( 12 ) Literary and Biographical Lectures.—7.—The Theory and Practice of Elocution in reference to Professional and Public Life (6 lectures). 8.—The Life and Character of Edmund Burke. 9-—The Oratory of Edmund Burke. 10.—The Life and Writings of Talfourd. 11.—The Life and Times of Washington. 12.—Cardinal Richelieu. 13.—Cardinal Wolsey. 14.—The Poetry of the Hebrews and other Eastern nations. 15.—The Doubtful Plays of Shakespeare (2 lectures). 16.—The Oratory of the Pulpit, the Senate, and the Bar (3 lectures). 17.—Daniel Webster and his Speeches at the American Bar. 18.—Nature and her Marvels; the Heavens, the Earth, the Sea, the Air (4 lectures). 19.—Readings from the Great Dramatists, Poets and Humourists of England and America. Musical Lectures.—The Great Composers.—20.—The Life and Compositions of Matthew Locke. 21.—Handel. 22.—Beet­ hoven. 23.—Haydn. 24.—Mozart. 25.—Weber. 26.—Mey­ erbeer. 27.—Mendelsohn. (In the foregoing Lectures Mr. Plumptre is assisted in the Musical Illustrations by Frederic Kingsbury, Esq., P. E. Van Noorden, Esq., Madlle. Van Noorden, and other eminent artists). Simpson, Joseph, Secretary of the College of Lecture^ and Editor of “ The Institute and Lecturers’ Gazette,” ec Institute” Office, Edgware, N.W. 1.—Mechanics* Institutes and similar Associations; their Origin,. History, and Objects. 2.—Lectures, as Means of Acquiring Knowledge. (Especially adapted for the commence­ ment of a Course of Lectures in connection with a Mechanics’ or Working Men’s Institution). 3.—Science and Religion, their Connection and Mutual Influence. (Especially adapted for Young Men’s Christian Associations). 4.—Popular Superstitions ; their Nature, Causes, and Remedies. 5.—Ghosts and Appari­ tions ; are they Real or Imaginary ? 6.—Instinct and Reason. 7.—Christmas; its Customs, Legends, Pastimes, and Superstitions. (A Holiday Lecture for Scholastic Establishments). 8.—Alfred the Great; his Life, Character, and Times. 9.—Henry the Eighth and his Six Wives. (Photographs of each, from original Paintings by Holbein, in Windsor Castle, will be exhibited.) Cardinal Wolsey; his Life, Character, and Times. 10.—The Reformation. (Especially adapted for Young Men’s Christian or Protestant Associations.) 11.—John Howard; his Life and Labours. 12.—Old English Sports and Pastimes; or, The Amusements of our Forefathers. 13.—“ The Good Old Times;” or, Glimpses of our Ancestors. 14.—“ The Times we Live in;” or, a Glance at Ourselves. 15.—Money; its Antecedents, History, Uses, and Abuses. �( 13 Illustrated Lectures.—16.—London and London Life in Olden Times. 17.—The Habitations of Mankind. 18.—-Travelling in our Forefathers’ Style and Our Own. 19.—The Bible under many Phases. (Especially adapted for Young Men’s Christian Associations.) 20.—The History of Printing. 21.—The News­ paper Press. Syllabus of each Lecture, with Testimonials and Opinions of the Press, upon application. Smith, Rev. W. Hickman, 3, Grove Villas, Penge, S.E. Lectures, Orations, Readings, and Recitals. I. —Literary Subjects.—1.—The Creations of Charles Dickens. 2.—A Saunter in the By-ways of Literature. 3.—Verbal Curi­ osities ; or, Pictures of Men and Things laid up in Words. 4.—An Hour with eminent American Writers. 5.—Characteristics of English Oratory. II. —Biographical Subjects.—6.—Daniel Defoe. 7.—Thomas Carlyle. 8.—Shakspere; Poet, Humorist, Philosopher, Teacher. 9.—The Apostle Paul. 10.—Living British Statesmen. 11.— Napoleon the Third. 12.—Charles Lamb ; Poet and Essayist. 13,—Douglas Jerrold. III.—Historical Subjects.—14.—Hogarth’s Pictures, as illus­ trating his Times, 15.—Some Chapters of Domestic Romance from the Records of Great Pamilies. 16.—English Social Life at three Epochs, 1565, 1665, and 1765; or, How and Where our Fathers lived. IV. —Social Subjects.—17.—People I have Met; or, Verbal Sketches of Modern Society. 18.—Popular Errors and Supersti­ tions. 19.—Life Portraits, drawn by Popular Writers. 20.— Sketches of Life and Character, by Modern Authors. 21.—Traits of American Life and Humour. V. —Poetical Subjects.'—22.—Living British Poets, with Critical Notices and Specimens. 23.—The Poets of America. 24.—Poets of the Day; English, Colonial, American. 25.—Modern British Ballads and Lyrics. 26.—Poets of the People. VI. —Humorous.—27.—An Evening with Charles Dickens. 28.—English Wits, Humorists, and Satirists. 29.—Representative Men and Women, sketched by Modern Humorists. 30.—Types of Character, drawn by Modern Humorists. 31.—Modern Portraitures by Eminent Humorists. 32.—Manners and Customs of ye Englyshe, described by the Humorists. 33.—An Evening with some less-known Wits and Humorists. VII. —Readings.-—34.—Poetical, Descriptive, and Humorous Readings, 35.—Readings for Christmas-tide, �Smith, W. Seymour, 4, Mill Street, Conduit Street, Hanover Square, W. J.—New Monologue, Thoughts of the Past, Grave and Gay, Lively and Severe, with Vocal and Instrumental Illustrations, by Mr. Seymour Smith. 2.—Popular Entertainment, Music, Past and Present, ditto, by Mr. and Mrs. Seymour Smith. 3.—Inter­ esting Lecture, The Influence of Music on the Human Mind, ditto, ditto. Tyler, Moses Coit, M.A., F.C.L., M.C.P., care of W. Tweedie, Publisher, 337, Sfrand, W.C. 1.—The Orators and Oratory of America. 2.—American Wit and Humour. 3.—The Pilgrim Fathers of New England. 4.— Richard Brinsley Sheridan. 5. — Gymnastics, Ancient and Modern. 6.—Muscular Ethics. 7.—The Empire of Popular Song. 8,—Abraham Lincoln, the Martyr President. White, W. H., M.B.S., F.C.L., &c., care of Mr. Joseph Simpson, Secretary to the College of Lecturers, Edgware, N.W. 1.—Astronomy. 2.—Physical Geography. 3.—The Atmos­ phere, and other popular branches of Physical Science. Illustrated by a unique series of brilliantly-illuminated pictorial and other diagrams, experiments, &c. (courses of 4 elementary lectures each). 4.—Volcanoes and Earthquakes (2 or 3 lectures), illustrated by a Model Volcano in action. 5.—The Beauties of the Heavens. 6.—The Wonders of the Earth. 7.—Atmospheric Electricity. 8.—A tour among the Stars. 9.—An hour with the Astronomers, and other popular Scientific subjects. �) 15 WI4 of Name. London provinces provinces provinces Scotland Scotland & Ireland & Ireland and page within 3 nights, 5 nights, 10 nights 4 nights, 8 nights, each each each each each 20 miles Artis, G. L........... 5 £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s, d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 5 5 0 6 6 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 Berridge, Fred... 5 3 Christmas, Rev. H. 6 Crawford, R......... 7 3 0 0 3 Denman, T. J. .. 7 5 5 Dexter, T. E........ 8 Forward ed upon applicati on Fairbairn, Angus 9 Accord ing to cir cumstan ces Fearn, Joseph .. 9 2 Harrison, Rev. C. 9 3 0 5 5 0 3 3 0 Accord ing to ag reement 2 0 0 0 2 12 Special 0 3 6 2 6 0 3 3 0 2 12 6 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 5 0 4 4 0 arrange ments 3 0 Subject to mutu al arrang ement Hitchens, RevJ.H. 10 3 3 0 4 4 0 3 13 Inglis, Mrs. Bessie 10 3 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 5 Jones, 0. T........... 10 2' 2 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 3 Kinkel, Dr........... 11 11 0 2 2 Subject to arran gement Lisle, the Misses 6 3 Open to arrange ment Long, Alfred .... 11 7 7 0 Plumptre, 0. J... 11 5 5 0 5 5 0 4 12 3 3 0 4 4 Smith, Rev. W.H. 13 3 3 0 4 Smith, Seymour.. 14 4 4 0 3 (with Mrs. Smith) Tyler, Moses Coit 14 3 3 0 4 Simpson, Joseph White, W. H......... 14 2 2 0 3 0 3 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 0 3 13 6 3 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 4 0 3 13 6 3 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 3 0 3 0 7 7 0 6 6 0 4 0 3 13 6 3 0 5 5 0 4 4 3 0 2 10 0 2 2 4 3 0 3 3 3 0 0 *** This Scale refers, not necessarily to a Series of Lectures in the same place, but to one in the same district; it being understood that the charges to each Institute for a single Lecture are as stated. Each Lecturer reserves the option of declining, or of naming a higher Fee, if there be not a sufficient number of applications from the same locality. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource College of Lecturers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource College of Lecturers Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5685 Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London} Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [College of Lecturers] Subject The topic of the resource Education Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (College of Lecturers), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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 Conway Tracts Education