1
10
12
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a7d1113954710ea6a9e958b408a23704.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dEAcRGG-Zc6941YntEgHxVVLtqn3q2ASmw2cV8%7EsEWxqi6qrV9wN5QCl-z08LkOuuoXvzn3qteNikpVb9df5MH0OFSU1Kow2RmQw%7ERaYSI68iyTftoI9ubGv6A5UjPpfQErcHNDo1Yh2bqtUHKL3pm7fiQ3MoYHI2i5KB3Jx8jursPOcuS8NtQBiQ%7EYhmRqDCFTzO5t2-QjdC%7EM4CABtnYYH7cnpsrRwOccpacptxzlxR-68bW9ALF2G5O4uFqgut68cs9rn5WdDDwkQrqJXdhKHtoxXqIsogW-kc6uf9OLM1y29EkR21So2fvDPXiPSF%7EzcLZqgInIOo4f2kmYtaA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cb2bda39faeef2c0ff2a22e21391697a
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b0a509398cd178fa0efdf6a74fe27ffd.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=obfyIxOQI%7EfilKcvhfn-iRqheXgJk2iPH0lHOfAwcXVTn3ySPd61ADC343CVfwGAHD6t8m3ZlPKmCHxyZybD1ZSoBMG4-ECgqMKl7JNm-WXGYtrlYRJg62oilSfPnQlgu0acVAMqX%7ERsj%7ENnwKBMCfGfEz2eH60NTMy8Q9fyknapWC0-JQTwiQaTiFNMQig5WO43y56pDHfIiiP1j7JOvCiupjxWKCzt7hm90MgPNuN2UG1vowEp5Ml8sxPBXV1DD5QEdoeSU4WaU-IY9407cEIVDvYcvzVaeAoTQSpz2IIM7gyikRCtcnjjJwOZlK5wHFpZwSMAwhSt9vMqDXAWuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
79b66b78f880a36a71aa31e23bdce8a3
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/619c9c76ab8f87ae23b559857684fb88.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Pjrlz4klOnrKvDYBwXK4g0dMSf4iNMnhH-nKRAKPTDvyZi5DjSBzvSCvwFvLILu40IuDW2I6KSgRpY1W1JIoDawIr66gcIna8lH-Sg8H2RNNHae7YpOiZOc-xl7lVnTDGoLykuiFfpTTgyr3E7kCjx6pEK2S8HwXIq8pMvEu7Y-cq1ohlXsPoWeXoDK%7EbBiXiRTShyEnyE-gp-RF8xQ1vb35N%7Er76SY2oskrA4u-H0hL7yO3GgqfxNXV6jjU06ZgHM4E7sFzg8wlgf36rpXidMlIOqmNhT8nALYAGZQNrPE1jb3uwIPYC4Tv%7ELZnqkA-huPEK41iyiP52SkJEdnyJw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0a8febab326fc1f1e328e8dc58947a69
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a8bc5ad4c91e1edd787e8a3d0e92ea30.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=trIuLAiq-yaXRpmf5oFUBiy2GEEGiNIjEtMsHtpPIy27tBCRiNHAm9CbIf%7EVzzIFerfF1FSC3aE%7EHcy86U6ojAoDv16WC7V%7EN51sIUFQQhHRNmStw47J5LMVVCRnB2n%7Egoguo1W8IhbUyTqdFdZTSHNUCdnIbZB1LWg37l0jVGA1tTXeQzr4IFqW6Fidf%7El4tvYV-a0kVEtfKuYuZdCFsia7utETVqibK0XnXKBG3cX849dmUVbwFNb90gAqFHMflBacKPV5qRx3eFQXWj8Iuh6-yfCJxOPD7%7EV9xjEoczY9sYFqxmDuVbKXI-wpcg7u7KsBhAyZQu9RbmVPqfRyIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
34b5ef50c11c8721f8fbed4d8a791b45
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8660736577b5e9bb7b01ba4fa05f57c8.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AuWwJ2Ce%7EeFq5DSpqVDGaj2%7EW%7EoSH368B8q7xguOlxVPYSxUyJI-MJ7SPKtMW%7EnNzoEQVQxKNz0m5W40wK%7EOitbDinXZ--q9bba3Uqn-AvmqxWCKmDD%7Ej6PigDgdDqB3EVw4WCUnqcNiAoUL5cd5fSAL3PmBNHeK98AzUz3YxzqQnZWEMd%7ETfktu9cFl2f6DemkQjR%7EIiSS0ANyS0yPHsh3ytBnjH2Jv5gwYiULCihibgp00QooZQtq0DS3zKdP2vuSasioi9zebEzzRh9vxy%7EtTYLS7W7FHdLqjbjHd36whxcnb9oZu8GmxEdNq8dBgD%7E8TCPrh5QEhrKmGY%7EiNQA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a043739110390dc5d3d2de79a6ff44b5
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
Architecture and Place
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Humanist Library and Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2016
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised items from the Humanist Library and Archives telling the story of buildings and spaces occupied by the Conway Hall Ethical Society (formerly the South Place Ethical Society). Also includes several born digital items.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Architecture
Conway Hall (London, England)
South Place Chapel, Finsbury
Mansford, Frederick Herbert (1871-1946)
Language
A language of the resource
English
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
Parchment
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
Counterpart lease of 14, 15 and 16 Lambs Conduit Passage, 22 January 1882
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Counterpart lease of 14,15,16 Lambs Conduit Passage, (22 January 1882.)</p>
<ul><li>(1) John Henry Strickland of Wye House, Buxton, Derbs, esq, a person of unsound mind, by the committees of his estate, ie: Frances Strickland of Apperley Court, Glos, spinster, Algernon Augustus de Lisle Strickland of Eccleston Square, Middx, and 37 Fleet St, City of London, banker, and Walter Cecil Strickland of Beckenham, Kent, esq</li>
<li>(2) James Smith of Allerton House, Green Lanes South, Hornsey, Middx, gent</li>
</ul><p>Pursuant to order of Masters in Lunacy, and in consideration of costs of (2) in repairs, additions, improvements etc, (1)-(2) 3 messuages in Lambs Conduit Passage numbered 14, 15 and 16, in occupation of (2).</p>
<p>Term: 21 years</p>
<p>Rent: £90 (£30 per house) pa</p>
<p>(2) covenants to insure premises for minimum of £1500.</p>
<p>Includes floor plan of premises showing internal details and detailed schedule of landlord's fixtures and furniture.</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Unknown
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Subject
The topic of the resource
Leases
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
SPES/3/1/1/19
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
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
<p>Licenced for digitisation by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works" target="_blank">Intellectual Property Office</a> under Orphan Works Licence <a href="https://www.orphanworkslicensing.service.gov.uk/view-register/details?owlsNumber=OWLS000075-7" target="_blank">OWLS000075-7</a>.</p>
Lamb's Conduit Passage, Holborn
Strickland, Algernon Augustus de Lille
Strickland, Frances
Strickland, John Henry
Strickland, Walter Cecil
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7ba4efd0290c5b0c63060b47b8e3379.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GdjS9VZanzrjygAvTzdJyccD1JPHY%7E3dZlb4XnYxPvc7lrjDoBZ5%7E8oEm4v-GEbNQCvDn0m8ZIpPzo7cmsou0lMIkrCn78GiaE2B-wfolmKUJPK1ajPhFXq1F4zDViPnq7YXef8Dq0nXQl0QvjjYjf5ngIot-D86zdymKHjjh9k2rDWuKmJc-sM1pOUezlkrH7MBV1rQxqJWn4IxW740MWExnBix%7EsQEZwzYGIJY%7EWX%7EuZWyo-vQMkbSZ8wlN93ZGQHRDkNRq%7EV7x1gGTYpEWulVC5bTnqhzD9G9EcwDsPckbh7H5sb%7EmjTuOXfwApoA2q7QeAsBYYok8SMctBR4ww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
932b5aea481fae51c78919ade92a5c45
PDF Text
Text
RE-OPENING SERVICES
OF THE
Unitarian Chapel and Schools, Preston,
7th MAY, 1882,
CONDUCTED BY
Of South Peace Chapel, Finsbury, London.
HYMN I.
All are architects of Fate,
Working in these walls of Time;
Some with massive deed and great,
Some with ornaments of rhyme.
Nothing useless is or low,
Each thing in its place is best;
And what seems but idle show,
Strengthens and supports the rest.
For the structure that we raise
Time is with materials fdled ;
Our to-days and yesterdays
Are the blocks with which we build.
Build to-day then strong and sure,
With a firm and ample base ;
And ascending and secure
Shall to-morrow find its place.
Longfellow.
Reading.
HYMN II.
Go mark the rill, the new-born,
Trickling from mossy bed ;
The heatli-clad hill just streaking
With a bright emerald thread.
Can’st thou her course foreshadow,—
What rocks o’crleap or rend,
How far in swell of ocean
Her freshening billows send ?
E’en so a truth e’er springeth
In silence, where it will,
Springs out of sight, and floweth.
At first a lonely rill.
But by and by streams meet it,
From sympathetic hearts,
Thousands together swelling
Their chant of many parts.
.
From Keble.
�MEDITATION.
HYMN III.
Be true to every inmost thought;
Be as thy thought, thy speech •
What thou hast not by suffering bought,
Presume thou not to teach.
Woe, woe to him, on safety bent,
Who creeps to age from youth
Failing to grasp his life’s intent,
Because he fears the truth.
Show forth Thy light 1 If conscience gleam,
Cherish the rising glow :
The smallest spark may shed its beam
O’er thousand hearts below.
Guard thou the fact! Though clouds of night
Down on Thy watch tower stoop;
Though Thou should’st see Thine hearts’ delight
Borne from Thee by their swoop.
Face thou the wind 1 Though safer seem
In shelter to abide ;
We were not made to sit and dream ;
The true must first be tried.
Discourse.—“Individual & Species.”
OFFERTORY.
HYMN IIII.
There’s a strife we all must wage,
From life’s entrance to its close;
Blest the bold who dare engage,
Woe for him who seeks repose.
Honoured they who firmly stand,
While the conflict presses round ;
God’s own banner in their hand,
In his service faithful found.
What our foes ? each thought impure ;
Passions fierce that tear the soul;
Every ill that we can cure;
Every crime we can control.
Every suffering which our hand
Can -with soothing care assuage ;
Every evil of our land ;
Every error of our age,
BtTLFINCH.
Benediction.
�EVENING SERVICE.
HYMN I.
Fair lilies of Jerusalem,
Ye wear the same array
As when imperial Judah’s stem
Maintained its regal sway ;
By sacred Jordan’s desert tide
As bright ye blossom on
As when your simple charms outvied
The pride of Solomon.
Ye flourished when the captive band,
By prophets warned in vain,
Were led to far Euphrates’ strand
From Jordan’s pleasant plain ;
In hostile lands to weep and dream
Of things that still were free,
And sigh to see your golden gleam,
Sweet flowers of Galilee 1
Ye have survived Judea’s throne,
Her temple’s overthrow,
And seen proud Salem sitting ’lone,
A widow in her woe :
But, lilies of Jerusalem,
Through every change ye shine ;
Your golden urns, unfading gem
The fields of Palestine I
Strickland.
Meditation.
HYMN II.
Thanks, ever thanks, for all this common life
Can give of rest and joy amidst its strife ;
For earth and trees and sea and clouds and springs ;
For work, and all the lessons that it brings.
For Pisgah gleams of ever fairer truth,
Which ever ripening still renews our youth ;
For fellowship with uoble souls and wise,
Whose hearts beat time to music of the skies.
For each achievement human toil can reach ;
For all that patriots win, and poets teach ;
For the old light that gleams on history’s page,
For the new hope that shines on each new age.
May we to these our lights be ever true,
Find hope and strength and joy for ever new,
To heavenly visions still obedient prove,
The Eternal Law, writ by the Almighty Love 1
F, M. White.
�Reading.
ANTHEM.
Up, sad heart! a Friend is near thee. Love greets
thee, and on thy joyless way joy is thy companion.
Through love shall my heart rise pure, an offering to the
great Heart. Sing then, as thou journeyest, and abide
evermore beneath the protecting shade of love.
Kassim-ol-Enwar.
Discourse.—“The Wounded Christ.’"
OFFERTORY.
HYMN III.
Do not crouch to-day, and worship
The old Past whose life is tied;
Hush your voice to tender reverence,
Crowned he lies, but cold and dead
?
For the Present reigns our monarch,
With an added weight of hours ;
Honour her, for she is mighty !
Honour her, for she is ours !
See the shadows of his heroes
Girt about her cloudy throne,
Every day her ranks are strengthened
By great hearts to him unknown ;
Noble things the great Past promised,
Holy dreams both strange and new ;
But the Present shall fulfil them,
What he promised, she shall do.
She inherits all his treasures,
She is heir to all his fame,
And the light that lightens round her
Is the lustre of his name;
She is wise with all his wisdom,
Living, on bis grave she stands,
On her brow she wears his laurels,
And his harvest in her hands.
Coward ! Can she reign and conquer
If we thus her glory dim ?
Let us fight for her as nobly
As our fathers fought for him !
God, who crowns the dying ages,
Bids her rule, and us obey ;
Bids xis cast our lives before her ;
Bids u.s serve the Great,to-day.
Adelaide Proctor.
Benediction.
Printed
at the
Chronicle Office, 21, Cannon Street, Preston.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Re-opening services of the Unitarian Chapel and Schools, Preston
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Unitarian Chapel and Schools, Preston
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 4 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5704
Subject
The topic of the resource
Unitarianism
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 (Re-opening services of the Unitarian Chapel and Schools, Preston), 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
Church Services
Conway Tracts
Moncure Conway
Unitarianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ff0e60aa3ed06141f0b1963d6ee71ea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=plFUYmpnkP--JMjlgm5ILoQq9BOX1nSfkgGg2fbIySTPx%7EqTgdws6NRl0brpvjUuD6TXbFbQBrvoNnYop7Py0D6xsDLOBAu2AYtZSYR1qs9JnGUPknJgBnsTOiTOPru-QDODz4KFWLf1tWllE0b6e8QKTQYoQlBePYC1fttIwjQhIegWjxlRBAnI3NTVNA3jwhv7se04CwyWNwK1KWAff7tLEk13npuVZ1AR-e3hSSc4%7EFoM6rcMx22gP9dFcJ0MmeKl%7EYiNqg-r-hPyzChC3muVAxwjmraRojN6x4efL7Zr-XXnukP%7Eo%7EvZs9ZCc60zvBn8tXHGc1UDQZse%7Et1hnA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0fdcce0891f3525bb3f522965cc95358
PDF Text
Text
cm
RECOLLECTIONS
OF
DAWSON
GEORGE
AND
HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER
in
1846-7.
BY
ALEXANDER IRELAND.
mgPRINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, FROM THE “ M.
��RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON
AND
HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER IN 1846-7.
BY ALEXANDER IRELAND.
AVING been requested by Mrs. Dawson, not long
after her husband’s death in 1876, to contribute
some recollections of him, in his earlier years, to a memoir
then about to be undertaken by his intimate friend, Mr.
Timmins, I willingly put together the following pages.
For many years I had the privilege of knowing him in
timately, and of being thrown into the closest relations with
him; so that a warm friendship resulted,—a friendship which
remained unbroken for thirty years, and was only severed
by his untimely death. The memoir has not yet appeared,
having been delayed by unforeseen circumstances ; but it is
now, I am told, in a forward state for publication. I have lately
had an opportunity of revising and considerably extending
what I wrote in 1877, and of adding a few sentences which
I would have hesitated to print while Mrs. Dawson was
living. From this reticence I am absolved by her death,
which took place about two years after that of her husband.
She left, with those who knew her, rich remembrances of a
tender and gentle, yet firm spirit; of warm sympathies, and
H
�4
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
the performance of active and never-ceasing charities. In
her a nobility of nature was joined with high intellectual
gifts, which made her conspicuous amongst women, and
attracted towards her the admiration and regard of the best
persons who came within the sphere of her influence.
In the last week of 1845, while on a Christmas visit to rela
tions in Birmingham, I went to hear George Dawson preach
in a dissenting chapel, of which he was then the minister.
I now remember little of the subject of his discourse, but
I was struck by the simple earnestness of his manner, and
the directness with which he went straight to the heart
of the subject he had in hand. But what surprised me
most was the quaint, vigorous, and singularly appropriate
language in which he conveyed his thoughts to his hearers.
It was Saxon, terse and sinewy; and there was a fluency
and ease and perfect self-possession in his delivery which
surpassed anything I had ever met with before. He
had no notes or memoranda before him, and throughout his
whole discourse there was not a word which was not in its
right place. The attention of his audience was riveted
from beginning to end, and what he said evidently produced
a powerful effect on their minds. After the service, I was
introduced to him, and invited to spend a few hours in his
company, in the house of a common friend. Having heard
that he had been delivering lectures on social, historical,
and literary topics in Birmingham and some of the neigh
bouring towns, I asked him if he would accept an invitation
to lecture to the members of the Manchester Athenaeum, if
I should be able to offer him one; and to this he assented.
I was then one of the Directors of that Institution, and at
the next meeting of the Board I proposed that he should be
engaged to deliver a course of lectures. This was agreed
to, and the selection of the subject, and the other necessary
arrangements, were left in my hands. He then came to
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
5
Manchester to confer with me on the subject to be lectured
upon. Many topics were discussed—literary, social, political,
and historical—and at last it was decided that “ The Genius
and Writings of Thomas Carlyle” would be the most fitting
topic for the proposed course.
The first lecture was delivered on Tuesday evening, 13th
January, 1846, and was mainly of an introductory character.
It was listened to throughout with rapt attention. His
thorough appreciation of the spirit, and keen insight into the
tendencies and bearings of Carlyle’s philosophy, his remark
able power of summing up its cardinal features, and of
applying it to the practical purposes of life, made him
just such an interpreter as the apostle of “ The Gospel
of Work ” himself might have desired. It abounded with
homely illustrations and frequent appeals to common
sense; and these were combined with a most effective
elocution, and a singular raciness of language. Absence
of affectation, and a directness and simplicity of manner
pervaded the discourse. It was altogether one of the
most interesting extemporaneous addresses I ever heard—
not so much for its eloquence, though replete with that
quality, of a glowing yet subdued character ; nor for
its illustrations and imagery, which were numerous, varied,
and striking ; but for its deep thought, wide and compre
hensive views, and earnest sincerity, its elevated tone and
disregard of petty conventionalities, its noble estimate of
man’s nature and worth, and solemn regard for the great
verities of life. His fearless outspokenness, even when his
auditors could not wholly assent to his propositions (often
startling enough), gave a freshness and charm to his address
not often enjoyed in a lecture-room. And this was greatly
increased by the vigorous seventeenth-century diction that
flowed with such marvellous ease from his lips. It was not a
mere lecture on Carlyle—a reading of selected passages with
�6
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
comments thereon, but an embodiment of his spirit in a
simpler form, and the application of his sentiments to the ele
ments of our daily experience. It was a comprehensive sur
vey of the spirit of the eighteenth century, and of that which
dawned on the nineteenth; and comprised a vigorous exami
nation of the faults and merits of the literature and morality
of the period ; as well as an inquiry into the circumstances
and the men that have effected a change in that spirit. He
boldly swept away much of the meaningless talk about
Carlyle’s style; and glanced at what he had done to make
us acquainted with the greatest minds of Germany. In the
course of his lecture, many prevailing fallacies, prejudices,
and weaknesses were commented on and exposed with
unsparing keenness—many popular idols dethroned. The
key-note throughout was of the highest.
His second lecture embraced an analysis of Sartor
Resartns—that inimitable “mosaic” of meditations, tender
recollections and confessions, passionate invectives, and
romantic episodes—every page stamped with genius of the
highest order, and from which has flowed all that its author
afterwards wrote on life, duty, society, growth, work, culture,
and the great and inscrutable problem of Being. The work
must be regarded as an exposition of Carlyle’s philosophy, a
grand prose-poem, a veiled autobiographical account of the
changes of thought and opinion through which he had
passed—changes through which every thoughtful man must
pass on his way to settled convictions on the great questions
of Life, Duty, and God.
The third lecture was devoted to Heroes and Hero Worship,
Chartism, and Past and Present. With regard to the first
of these productions, he said its chief object was to show
that all long-lived systems of religion and philosophy must
possess some portion of truth; that shams never live
long; and that truth-speaking and truth-acting are ever
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
1
accompanied by a certain kingly energy, as in the case
of Mahomet and Cromwell; the latter of whom, after
being gibbeted for two centuries, was now beginning to
be appreciated. The great aim of Chartism -was, to bring
prominently forward a subject which had been drowned
amid the war-voices of party—“ The condition of England
question.” It reproved the miserable policy of those Govern
ments, which treat rebellion as the disease, instead of the
symptom. Another feature of the book was its doctrine that,
in all struggles for progress, the reformer should rather seek to
create or diffuse the spirit, than busy himself with construct
ing the precise form in which it should be embodied. In
his remarks on Past and Present he adverted to the vivid
artist-power with which Carlyle had thrown light and life
into a musty old chronicle,—not by any added figments of
fancy, but by a strict induction from the recorded facts;
just as Cuvier, from the last bone or joint of a bone, would
reconstruct the type of an antediluvian species.
The fourth and last lecture was devoted to The French
Revolution and Cromwell's Life and Letters. Speaking of
the style of the former, he said that cavillers must surely
in this case be silent; for never certainly was style better
adopted to a subject than this. It was not unbefitting that
the language in which a revolution was recorded should itself
be almost revolutionary. It was of little use to read this
marvellously-vivid book, if the historical facts were not pre
viously known to the reader. He denounced as senti
mental twaddle the perpetual harping upon the darker
features of the struggle. Legitimists should remember
that in the reign of our Henry VIII. there was more
martyr-blood shed than during the whole French Revolution.
The Revolution was an inevitable national and natural pro
test against a corrupt and mechanical Church, and a sensual
and insolent aristocracy, which for centuries had oppressed
�8
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
the people. An infidel philosophy could never have stimu
lated a nation to rebellion, had there been no oppression to
rebel against. The Revolution was not to be considered a
thing of the past. It was yet progressing. The present
history of Europe was a part of its products. The reviving
faith and earnestness of France, Germany, and England
were the result of the Revolution. The book was not to be
considered a philosophical history of that kind which details
the events, and then tells us what to think of them; but a
wonderful dramatic narrative, delineating, with matchless
power of painting, particular scenes, and leaving the reader
to deduce for himself the moral contained in the story.
In his remarks upon Cromwell's Life and Letters, he praised
the author for his modesty and reticence in keeping his own
opinions comparatively in the background, and in allowing
Cromwell to speak for himself. This was but showing a
proper respect for Cromwell. He had been charged with pre
senting only the virtues of the Protector;—the reason might
be that the shadows in the picture had been made black
enough already. Never had mankind been so duped as in
allowing themselves to be taught to disparage Cromwell.
The secret was that the corrupt courtiers of the succeeding
age lived too close to the time of Cromwell to be comfort
able. They felt dwarfed and chilled in the shadow of that
great rock ; so they sought to bring it down—at least in
public opinion—to their own stature. In a strain of rich
humour and incisive sarcasm, he vindicated Cromwell from
the oft-repeated charges of lying, hypocrisy, levity, and in
difference to law ; and proved, by his treatment of Catholics,
Episcopalians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Jews, that he was
greatly in advance even of a later age in an enlightened
respect for the rights of conscience.
During these lectures the audiences increased in number
from night to night, and many persons were unable to obtain
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
9
admittance. The delivery of this course was a noteworthy
event in Manchester; not only did it stimulate earnest
thought amongst us, but it also revealed to many searching
spirits a series of writings, abounding in “ riches fineless,”
hitherto known only to a small number of students. An
impulse was given to free thought and to a spirit of free
inquiry, and many young men and women were stimulated,
by this and subsequent courses of his lectures, to higher
aims, and encouraged, by their purifying and elevating tone,
to aspire to a nobler daily life. The great success of the first
course led to other engagements, not only in Manchester and
Liverpool, but in other towns of Lancashire, and also in
Yorkshire. Among the subjects treated by him were “ The
Characteristics and Tendencies of the Present Age
“The
Influence of German Thought on English Literature; ”
“ Historical Characters Re-considered ; ” “ The Poetry of
Wordsworth ; ” “ Faustus, Faust, and Festus,” &c.
There was one memorable appearance which Mr. Dawson
made in Manchester to which I must refer before passing on
to other matters. It was an oration on Shakspeare, de
livered at the Athenaeum on the poet’s birthday, and in the
afternoon. It was only thought of on the previous day, and
notice could only be given to the public on the morning
of the day upon which the address was to be delivered.
Nevertheless, the hall was crowded to overflowing, and
hundreds were unable to gain admission. The subject
stimulated him to the exercise of his highest powers, and a
more noble and worthy tribute to the genius of Shakspeare
could hardly be imagined. It was certainly a remarkable
proof of the lecturer’s powers, that he was able in our
busy town, engrossed in commercial pursuits, to induce a
thousand men to leave their ordinary callings at an hour in
which they are generally absorbed in business, and listen with
breathless attention to what he had to say about the genius
�IO
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
of the greatest of poets, and the influence he has exercised
on humanity. Towards the conclusion of the address, he
said :—•“ We thank God for victories gained in warfare, but
none seemed to thank God for genius, and for its victories
gained over bigotry and superstition. Poets, painters,
sculptors, and musicians were all teachers of the Kingdom of
Heaven under different parables—each teaching in his own
language righteousness and peace, love to God and man, the
worship of the holy, the noble, the beautiful, and the true.”
“ How gratifying to me,” to quote his concluding words, “to
have been able, for a short time, to segregate a number of busy
men from their ordinary pursuits, and induce them to think,
during an hour of academic quietness, of one whose name
would live, when even this great commercial town might be
buried in the ruins and the decays of time, and whose genius
had offered a true holocaust of peace-offerings and sinofferings and burnt-offerings upon the altars of Humanity,
the incense from which might ascend for ever unto the
Holiest of the Holy.”
These and subsequent courses of lectures by Mr. Dawson
were admirably reported by his intimate friend, the late
Mr. John Harland, of the Manchester Guardian, who was
one of the most accomplished stenographers of his day.
The rapidity of Mr. Dawson’s utterance, and the novelty
and unexpectedness of his turns of expression were sufficient
to tax the powers of the swiftest reporter. Mr. Henry Sutton,
of Nottingham, also a shorthand writer of the highest
class, possessing rare skill and finish, became, a few
years later, the head of the reporting staff of the Manchester
Examiner, and was in the habit of frequently reporting
Mr. Dawson. In recalling his experiences of that time, Mr.
Sutton says :—
“ I do not believe he had any notes before him when I
heard him lecture ; everything seemed to come freely out of
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
ii
a richly-stored mind, which, if it happened to forget for the
moment what it had planned to say, was well able to extem
porize equally-good material to fill any vacancy. This is
how it seemed to me at the time, and was probably not
incorrect. He was always more difficult to report than most
speakers are; his matter was produced so freely and evenly,
and had in it so little of verbiage or repetition, besides being
so incalculable from its originality, that the reporter, straining
hard to keep up with him, could neither afford, as with most
speakers, to condense whilst going on, nor to omit in the
hope of supplying what was missing. Thus, if part of a
sentence was lost, the whole sentence was useless, and, in its
absence, the thought-connection of the paragraph to which
it belonged was broken, and the result was sheer disaster.”
During Mr. Dawson’s frequent visits to Manchester and
the neighbouring towns in the years that followed, I
had many opportunities of becoming intimately acquainted
with him, and of profiting by his society; and a very
close friendship sprang up between us. Of his noble
character and admirable qualities of heart and mind, I
shall ever retain a grateful recollection, and I feel richer for
having known him. I always found him one of the most
genial and companionable of men. He had a tender, gentle,
and most compassionate nature, and in him the elements of
humour and pathos were delightfully blended. In his society
the better part of my own nature was stimulated, my
sympathies widened and enlarged, the inner as well as
the outer world made brighter by contact with him. I
have reason to know that this was the experience of
other intimate friends besides myself. There was ever
conspicuous in him an inherent natural courtesy towards,
and thoughtful consideration for others, which attracted an
amount of personal regard that does not always fall to the
lot of men of intellectual power. In his friendships he was
�12
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
steadfast as the rock, and to be relied upon under all circum
stances and difficulties. With women and children he had
the most winning ways, and for honest, simple, earnest,
unpretending people—however wanting they might be in
intellectual culture or refinement of manner—he entertained
a sincere regard. He inspired immediate confidence and
trust in those with whom he came into close contact. Here,
they felt, was a straightforward, plain-speaking, sincere man,
who meant truly what he said—sometimes a little rough and
blunt, and peremptory withal—but at the core, kind, genuine,
and generous. He never disputed or argued about creeds or
dogmas of any kind, nor spoke disparagingly of those who
thought differently from himself on religious subjects. He
was naturally of a devout and reverent disposition, and the
essential spirit of practical religion pervaded all he said or
did. And yet this was the man beside whom Samuel Wil
berforce, Bishop of Oxford (himself no ordinary man, and of
whom one might have expected better things), refused to sit
on the same platform, on the occasion of a celebrated Soiree
held in the Manchester Athenaeum in 1846, for promoting
the cause of intellectual culture, and at which celebrities of
all shades in religion and politics were present;—because,
to use the Bishop’s own words: “ I understand that Mr.
Dawson is re-engaged to lecture at your institution, and I
have met with sentiments in these lectures of his, which, as
far as I understand them, seem to me to be at variance with
Christianity; and therefore I cannot give even an accidental
or apparent countenance to their further circulation.”
There are few left who can recall the pleasant hours
occasionally spent with Dawson, after his lectures, in the
homes of some of his hospitable friends. Freed from the
restraints of the platform, and surrounded by a few con
genial spirits, he would revel in the luxury of perfect freedom,
and, stretched on an inviting couch, enjoy to the full his
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
13
well-earned repose. During these hours, which were
humorously spoken of as the sacred period for further
elucidating the subject of the lecture—the “ after-math ” as
it were—all manner of topics were discussed—often the
political or social, or literary event of the day—amidst
curling wreaths of soothing tobacco smoke, which somewhat
veiled the features of the interlocutors, and gave a kind of
courage to the younger ones. At such times, his wit and
humour, free from the slightest taint of malignity or cynicism,
had full play, and sparkled forth in endless sallies, evoking
the best there was in others. He would sometimes give
humorous descriptions of persons he had met in his lecturing
tours, making vivid their peculiarities by his happy imitations.
Often, too, he would descant on his favourite authors, and his
cherished heroes and heroines in history and fiction, until the
ominous sound of the clock gave warning that the symposium
must break up, and respectable persons return home.
George Dawson constantly advocated the exercise of free
thought in its highest and noblest sense, as well as the
assiduous cultivation of a spirit of free inquiry. “ Give me,”
he used to say, using Milton’s own words, “the liberty to
know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience,
above all liberties.” “ Let us forego this prelatical tradition
of crowding free consciences and Christian liberties into the
precepts and canons of men.” “To be still searching after
what we know not, by what we know, still closing up truth
to truth, as we find it (for all her body is homogeneous and
proportional), this is the golden rule for making the best
harmony, not the forced and outward union of cold, and
neutral, and inwardly-divided minds.” He had a passionate
love of fairness and fair-play. Everything mean, unworthy,
self-seeking, and underhand was abhorrent to him. He
detested cant in every form and shape; but what he exposed
with the keenest satire, and denounced with the most wither
�14
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
ing scorn, was that self-sufficient and arrogant intolerance
which disparages and would deliberately inflict injury upon
those who have the courage to think for themselves, and the
independence to hold and avow honestly-formed opinions—
however unpalatable these might be to the powerful and
fashionable—however much in opposition to interests for the
time predominant and in the world’s sunshine. I remember
his once saying to me—“ Verily, in this country, known vice
breaks fellowship less than suspected heresy, or difference
of religious creed.” He looked upon any man—no matter
what his creed or social position might be—who spoke of
liberty of opinion as a favour conceded, and who treated that
liberty with an air of condescending tolerance, as morally
pestilent and detestable—whom self-respecting men should
endeavour to get rid of by some legitimate but swift method
of social extinction.
During one of his visits to Manchester, I showed him a
collection of passages I had made from the works of our
greatest thinkers, bearing on the subjects of Free Inquiry and
Free Thought, Liberty of Discussion, Intolerance, Religious
Liberty, the Right of Private Judgment, the Unfettered
Publication of Opinion, &c. Some of these he asked me
to transcribe for him, wishing to introduce them on suit
able occasions in his lectures. To readers of the present
generation they would not perhaps appear so significant as
they did to those who were young thirty or forty years
ago—so remarkable has been the progress of opinion on
these subjects within the last quarter of a century. They
were from Lord Bacon’s Proficience and Advancement of
Learning, John Locke’s Works, the Areopagitica, and other
prose works (or rather stately prose-poems) of Milton, Jeremy
Taylor’s Liberty ofProphesying, the writings of Bishop Butler,
and Bishop Berkeley, and, among more modern writers,
Samuel Bailey of Sheffield, and others. A few of these
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
15
extracts I have gathered together, and given at the end of
this paper in the shape of an appendix. They were especial
favourites with him, and represent the essence and outcome
of his opinions on the subjects above named.
Concerning the last-named writer, whose works are scarcely
known to the present generation, I should like to say a few
words. I had the pleasure of making known Bailey’s works
to Mr. Dawson, who was previously unaware of their exis
tence, and from the perusal of some of which he derived
real pleasure and profit. No author of this century has
written with greater force and clearness, or with more power
ful reasoning, on the right and duty of free inquiry in every
department of human thought, on the imperative necessity
of candid, temperate, and free discussion, and on that much
neglected part of morality—the conscientious formation and
free publication of all opinions affecting human welfare.
We have never had a more earnest and strenuous advocate
of intellectual liberty and free discussion than Samuel
Bailey. His style is truly admirable; its characteristics
being lucidity, accuracy, and precision—not a word out of
its place, not a word that could be spared—his meaning
impossible to be misunderstood. All his works were
carefully prepared, and long thought over, and subjected to
frequent revisions, before publication. He was one of the
most perspicuous of English thinkers, and no one can study
his writings, especially his first Essays on the Formation and
Publication of Opinions, and its successor, Essays on the
Pursuit of Truth, on the Progress of Knowledge, and on the
Fundamental Principle of all Evidence and Expectation,
withQut having his intellectual horizon extended. To the
thoughtful and earnest, who care for and can appreciate
something higher than the ephemeral and vapid literature
with which the press floods our modern circulating libraries,
these two bracing volumes would be invaluable companions.
�16
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
They act upon the mind like an intellectual and moral tonic.
The most fitting monument to the memory of Bailey would
be a carefully-edited edition of his works, most of which
are scarce, and entirely out of print Colonel Perronet
Thompson, an accomplished economist and philosophic
thinker, and well known as the author of The Catechism of
the Corn Laws, thus spoke of Bailey in an article in the
Westminster Review:—
“If a man could be offered the paternity of any com
paratively modern books that he chose, he would not hazard
much by deciding that, next after Adam Smith’s Wealth
of Nations, he would request to be honoured with a relation
ship to the Essays on the Formation and Publication of
Opinions. ... It would have been a pleasant and an
honourable memory to have written a book so totus teres
atque rotundus, so finished in its parts, and so perfect in
their union as the Essays on the Formation of Opinions.
Like one of the great statues of antiquity, it might have
been broken into fragments, and each separate limb would
have pointed to the existence of some interesting whole, of
which the value might be surmised from the beauty of the
specimen.”*
One of George. Dawson’s most striking and prominent
characteristics was his robust common-sense; and to this
may be added a shrewd observation of character. He also
possessed a fine sense of humour, and the widest sympathies,
moral and intellectual. His sarcastic power was of the most
delicate and subtle kind; and when he had occasion to ex
press scorn, ridicule, or contempt, no one could launch it
forth with more effectiveness. In addition to these qualities
he had, as I have already had occasion to remark, the rare
* In Notes and Queries, 5th Series, Vol. IX., p. 182, will be found a
bibliographical list of Samuel Bailey’s writings, contributed by me to that
periodical in 1878.
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
<7
gift of being able to clothe his thoughts in the most terse
and appropriate words, and to give utterance to them with
an ease and mastery of the resources of our language that
surprised his hearers. Sentence followed sentence, faultless
in construction and symmetry. A lecture of an hour and a
half’s duration might have been printed from his ipsissima
verba, without a single alteration. While on the platform he
rarely used notes or memoranda. With such endowments, it
was not wonderful that he made the lecture-platform an edu
cational agency. To his lectures and expositions (for he was
a born expositor) numbers have been indebted.for their first
real knowledge of some of our greatest countrymen, his
torical as well as literary. The sympathetic, genial, yet
finely discriminative manner in which he discoursed con
cerning some of the great thinkers and men of action of the
past, as well as of our own day, inspired many of his hearers
with an earnest desire to become acquainted with their
works ; and thus his lectures were the means of introducing
no small number of thoughtful minds to the rich treasures
of our literature and history.
The admirers of George Dawson have never claimed for
him the merit of originating new thoughts. But he had a
wonderful faculty of seizing and appreciating the original
thoughts, however abstruse or complex, of the highest order
of minds; of perceiving at a glance their practical bearings; of
making them attractive to, and understood by the thousands
in all ranks and conditions of life, who so eagerly listened to
him; and of adapting them to every range of comprehen
sion. He agreed with Emerson in thinking that next to the
originator of a good thought is the first apt quoter of it. If
we are fired and guided by a good thought, the presenter of
it—whoever the author may be does not matter—becomes to
us a benefactor, claiming from us a gratitude almost equal
to that we render to the originator of the thought itself.
�i8
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
It may be of interest to those who have followed my
remarks on Mr. Dawson as a lecturer, to know something
of him in connection with his life and labours in Birming
ham. For upwards of thirty years he was the most pro
minent preacher in that town, and one of its most active
and energetic citizens. As a preacher he was essentially
eclectic. Well acquainted with the history of Christianity in
its successive phases, he believed that even the greatest
perversions of its purest form had some raison d'etre.
He never accepted even the cardinal doctrines in the
literal sense in which they were understood by the several
sects. It would be presumptuous in me, and out of place
here, to attempt to give any explanation of his views
regarding these doctrines. Suffice it to say that his
teaching influenced deeply both Trinitarians and Unitarians,
and appeared less dogmatic and more reasonable to the
many who stood entirely outside the pale of the sects.
Some of the extreme sectarians on both sides complained
that his teaching was unsound, because he stopped short
of their dogmas, but he looked on all such doctrinal matters
as not literally binding, but as “ views ” to be interpreted by
the light of reason, the good of humanity, and the practical
action which such beliefs could and should produce in every
day life and work. He was never tired of teaching that
real religion should unite, and not divide; that doctrinal
views necessarily differed so greatly, that they should not,
and could not be a bond of union. He held that, in the
words of the great prayer in the Church Service, “ all who
professed and called themselves Christians, should hold the
faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteous
ness of life.” He always took a reasonable view of doctrinal
difficulties, and constantly preached that “ he who does My
work shall know the doctrine, whether it be good or evil.”
Laborare est orare briefly expressed the essence and outcome
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
19
of his religious belief. The basis of all his teaching, the
spirit of all his sermons, the stimulus to all his work, was
the dominant conviction that Religion, the greatest of all
human concerns, should pervade the thoughts and actions
of men in every form, that it should rule in the State, the
Community, and the Family, and even in the smallest concerns
of ordinary life. By religion he always meant Love to
God, and obedience to His divine will, as shewn forth in the
laws of the universe, charity and love to our fellow-men, and
the embodiment of the spirit of Christ’s teachings in our
daily walk and conversation.
How successful this form of teaching proved to be, may
be found in the fact that, from his very earliest preaching, he
attracted and continued to attract and to retain among his
congregation, Trinitarians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Bap
tists, Churchmen, and especially many who did not accept
the Bible as inspired, who did not believe in miracles, and
many who, like Gallio, “ cared for none of those things.” All,
however, heartily united in real service and genuine work.
During the whole of his life the members of his church
united heartily and liberally in establishing schools for the
young and the adult, in kindly and generous care of the
aged and the poor, in the industrial training of young women
for service and for work, and in every kind of social influence
to equalize the lot of all, and to improve the tone and
character of rich and poor alike.
“ The Church of the Saviour,” in which he ministered for
upwards of thirty years, was opened in 1846, in the month
of August, and his sermon, “ The Demands of the Age on
the Church,” was an eloquent and powerful statement of his
position as a teacher, and of the work he had set himself to
do ; and which he accomplished with such marked success.
In his earlier days he visited constantly and kindly the poor
and needy, and I am told that no one who had not seen
�20
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
him in a sick-room, ever saw Dawson at his best. His
tender sympathy with all in trouble, his genuine humanity,
in the best sense of the word, his generous hand and lovingkindness will be remembered by many with grateful heart
and tearful eyes. Later on, his numerous engagements led
to the appointment of a Minister to the Poor ; but whenever
possible he attended all the sick and needy, and gave such
consolation as only he could give. The church would seat
about i,600 persons, and was generally full ; and, in the
evenings especially, was crowded to excess. Many orthodox
people attended their own churches and chapels in the
morning, and came to hear him at night. One of the most
conspicuous preachers in the town, for several years during
his studentship, heard Dawson once every Sunday, and con
fessed himself deeply indebted to his teachings, although
he differed from his doctrinal views. The most remarkable
and touching characteristic of Dawson’s services were his
prayers, about which all agreed. Their thorough devotion,
deep humanity, intense feeling, and passionate love and
tenderness, may be found to some extent in the printed
volume which has been issued since his death ; but only
those who heard his gentle, earnest voice can ever appre
ciate those memorable outpourings. Another of the promi
nent orthodox preachers of the same town regarded these
prayers as the very highest and best of Dawson’s true teach
ing, and beyond all praise—the very spirit of all prayer to
God. I have heard many devout men and women, of creeds
the most opposite, speak of their wonderful beauty, and
gratefully acknowledge the beneficent influence exercised
by them on their own religious feelings. He generally
preached every Sunday, morning and evening. Another of
his notable characteristics was his reading of the Scriptures.
One chapter read by him was better than most sermons.
His simple, natural, earnest, manly style made old familiar
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
21
verses seem full of meaning and new beauty and force. It is
difficult to describe the impressiveness of these readings and
prayers. In his Church services he was especially eclectic. He
was the first to introduce into Birmingham chapels the prac
tice of chanting, of anthems, and of having the best music
possible—at that time an innovation which shocked most .dis
senters, but which nearly all have adopted since. He also
introduced colour and decoration on the walls, where all had
been dingy and drab before. Sometimes, on week-day even
ings, he gave lectures in his church—one series of six on the
Greek Church being most valuable and interesting in the
Crimean War time. Another of his innovations was the
social parties of the members of his congregation. This
example, too, has been followed by all other dissenting con
gregations in Birmingham.
As a citizen, Dawson greatly shocked his brother preachers
at first by appearing in non-clerical attire. From the begin
ning, he took an active part in all public work, and especially
in political and social reforms. He was one of the first to
arouse any interest in the Hungarian struggle. He ear
nestly supported the French Republic after Louis Philippe’s
flight, and was one of the most eloquent speakers during
the Crimean War. He ably and constantly advocated the
claims of Italy, and was placed in the “ black book ” by the
Austrians, as the friend of Mazzini. In all local matters he
took a special interest; and he was really the first public
man in Birmingham who studied and understood foreign
politics, and who aroused any local interest in the affairs of
Hungary, Italy, and France. His frequent absences on his
lecturing tours prevented his taking personally any public
work, except on the Free Libraries Committee; but on
that, and on the Committee of the Subscription Library, he
did excellent work from his coming till his lamented death.
He educated the people by his lectures, and taught them
�22
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DA WSON.
to go to the libraries and use them. He and his accom
plished and devoted friend, Mr. Timmins, established a lite
rature class and delivered a series of lectures on English
o
Literature from Saxon times down to 1800. These lectures
have been continued ever since with great and growing suc
cess. They sensibly raised the tone of the town, and have set
many persons reading and thinking. While he did not take
office personally, he advocated most earnestly and per
sistently the duty of every citizen to take some share of
public work. It is beyond all question that he so educated
and influenced his personal friends and occasional hearers,
that they went forth to work; and he really gave the first
impulse to that public life, high municipal spirit, political
energy, and literary and artistic progress which have so
distinguished Birmingham during the past thirty years. His
constant pressure and personal influence infinitely improved
the quality of the Town Council, which, when he came, was
in but indifferent repute. He used to say : “ Never send a
man into the Council whom you would not like to be Mayor.”
Practically, that advice has been followed, and hence the
very marked improvement in the municipal life of Birming
ham. No one man ever had so large and so evident an
influence in a great town. He came when, after the Reform
Bill, the town was resting from its labours. He evoked a
new spirit, and aroused a new life, and became an important
power. No meeting, no movement, no cause was complete
without him,yi2r or against. This sturdy independence, his
manly courage, his inflexible principle, his passionate love
of liberty, and unflinching fairness all round, made him
respected and also feared. It was felt by all that he was
above party, a man of stern principle, a bold, honest, and
generous advocate of truth and justice.
I must now bring these remarks to a close. Yet, I cannot
do so without recording a most pleasant incident in our
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
23
intercourse, inseparably associated with the memory of my
friend and his charming wife. He was married in the
autumn of 1846 to Miss Susan Fanny Crompton, of Birming
ham, a lady possessing mental gifts of no common order,
and whose grace of form and feature will ever linger in the
memory of those who knew her in the society which she so
much adorned. To her might be applied the lines of
Wordsworth—
The reason firm, the temperate will,
Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill;
A perfect woman, nobly plann’d,
To warn, to comfort, and command.
Instead of making the usual conventional wedding tour,
they wisely preferred a better course. They arranged with
Harriet Martineau (who at that time was leaving England
to visit Palestine), to occupy her pretty cottage near Amble
side for a month. Here their honeymoon was spent amidst
the most picturesque scenery of the Lake district. It was
proposed that I should join them for a week, an invi
tation gladly accepted. Fortunately, the weather was of
the finest; and the hills, fells, lakes, and streams, and the
fading glories of the autumn woods, were seen to perfection,
bathed in the serene September sunshine. On this pleasant
occasion, all the circumstances connected with my visit were
of the most auspicious kind. Included in the invitation was
Dr. W. B. Hodgson, afterwards Professor of Political
Economy in the Edinburgh University, since deceased—a
dear and most intimate friend of us both. His social gifts
were of the rarest kind, and cannot be forgotten by those
who had the privilege of knowing him. His unfailing
memory and inexhaustible stores of wit and wisdom made
him a favourite wherever he went. We had many delightful
rambles by the margin of Rydal Water and Grasmere, and
on the Loughrigg Fells; and the cliffs and woods of Fox-
�24
RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
how often rang with the laughter evoked by our brilliant
friend’s jokes and humorous stories. Alas ! that three
of those merry voices are now for ever silent! The
enjoyment of this delightful week was greatly enhanced
by an unexpected piece of good luck for us. The way
in which this came about was curious, but I need not
enter into details. Suffice it to say that we had the rare
privilege of spending part of a forenoon with the Genius
loci—the venerable poet Wordsworth, then in his seventy
sixth year—about four years before his death. He received
us with a dignified but cordial courtesy, introduced us to
Mrs. Wordsworth, and showed us many books in his library,
taking down from the shelves some precious presentation
volumes from Coleridge, Lamb, Southey, and other friends,
and pointing out to us the inscriptions with which they were
enriched. He walked with us about his grounds, conversing
freely on various topics, and occasionally telling us amusing
anecdotes of his neighbours. Not long before this had
occurred the tragical suicide of Haydon, the painter, and
the subject became matter of conversation. Wordsworth
spoke most feelingly about the sad event, and asked us if
we remembered his sonnet, addressed to Haydon in his
earlier days, long before the clouds had begun to gather
round him. Of course, all readers of Wordsworth know
this, one of his finest sonnets, beginning “High is our calling
friend,” and ending with the lines—
And oh ! when nature sinks, as oft she may,
Through long-lived pressure of obscure distress,
Still to be strenuous for the bright reward,
And in the soul admit of no decay,
Brook no continuance of weak-mindedness :
Great is the glory; for the strife is hard !
Wishing to hear the sonnet from the old man’s lips, and
knowing it would gratify him to be asked to repeat it, we
made the request with a deferential or rather reverential
�RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON.
25
hesitancy, to which, however, he at once acceded, repeating
the lines in a sonorous and rather monotonous voice, but
with evident feeling. On this occasion I was fortunate
enough to have it in my power, by the merest accident of an
accident, to give the venerable poet a trifling pleasure.
While we stood in a little breakfast-room, fronting the
eastern sky, which he called his morning study, he showed
us with pride a set of framed portraits of some of the old
English poets and worthies: Chaucer, Gower, Spenser,
Shakspeare, Sidney, Bacon, Selden, Beaumont, Fletcher, and
others the series known as Houbraken’s. On my observing
that Ben Jonson was not amongst them, although he belonged
to the same series, he said he had never been fortunate enough
to meet with a copy of that portrait Curiously enough, and
by rare good fortune, as far as I was concerned, I happened
then to possess a very fine impression of the identical portrait
wanted to complete his set It instantly flashed into my mind
that here was a supreme opportunity offered me of pleas
ing the aged poet, so I at once made my little speech: “ How
much pleasure it would give me to fill up the gap, &c.” My
offer was, after a little preliminary reluctance, accepted,
accompanied with a friendly shake of the hand, followed
some days afterwards by a cordial letter of thanks, after the
picture had been received by him, and hung in its rightful
place. This little incident was often recalled in after years,
and became a pleasant memory with us.
Inglewood,
Bowdon, Cheshire,
April nt, 7882.
�APPENDIX.
The following are the extracts (referred to at p. 15) from
the writings of Bacon, Milton, Locke, Taylor, Berkeley,
Butler, Brougham, and Samuel Bailey. The quotations
from the latter writer are given at some length, as his works
are comparatively unknown.
Lord Bacon.
1561-1629.
The commandment of knowledge is yet higher than the commandment over
the will ; for it is a commandment over the reason, belief, and understanding
of man, which is the highest part of the mind, and giveth law to the will itself:
for there is no power on earth, which setteth up a throne, orchair of state, in
the spirits and souls of men, and in their cogitations, imaginations, opinions,
and beliefs, but knowledge and learning.
John Milton.
1608-1674.
The light which we have gained was given us, not to be ever staring on, but
by it to discover onward things more remote from our present knowledge.
Well knows he, who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrive by
exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture
to a streaming fountain ; if her waters flow not in perpetual progression, they
sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a
heretic in the truth ; and if he believes things, only because his pastor says so,
or because the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though
his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
BiSHor Jeremy Taylor.
1613-1667.
It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing opinions: unnatural,
for understanding being a thing wholly spiritual, cannot be restrained, and there
fore neither punished by corporal affliction. It is in aliena republica, a matter
of another world ; you may as well cure the colic by brushing a man’s clothes,
or fill a man’s belly with a syllogism. . . . For is an opinion ever the
more true or false for being persecuted ? Force in matters of opinion can do
�APPENDIX.
27
no good, but is very apt to do hurt; for no man can change his opinion when
he will, or be satisfied in his reason that his opinion is false because discoun
tenanced. . . . But if a man cannot change his opinion when he lists, nor
ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise, then to
use force may make him an hypocrite, but never to be a right believer; and so,
instead of erecting a trophy to God and true religion, we build a monument for
the Devil.
John Locke.
1632-1704.
He that examines, and upon a fair examination embraces an error for a
truth, has done his duty more than he who embraces the profession of truth
(for the truths themselves he does not embrace), without having examined
whether it be true or no. And he that has done his duty, according to the best
of his ability, is certainly more praiseworthy, than he who has done nothing of
it. For if it be our duty to search after truth, he certainly that has searched
after it, though he has not found it, in some points has paid a more acceptable
obedience to the will of his Maker, than he who has not searched at all, but
professes to have found truth, when he has neither searched for it, nor found it.
Bishop Berkeley.
1684-1753.
Two sorts of learned men there are ; one, who candidly seek truth by
rational means. These are never averse to have their principles looked into,
and examined by the test of reason. Another sort there is, who learn by rote a
set of principles and a way of thinking which happen to be in vogue. These
betray themselves by their anger and surprise, whenever their principles are
freely canvassed.
Bishop Butler.
1692-1752.
We never, in the moral way, applaud or blame either ourselves or others for
what we enjoy or what we suffer, or for having impressions made upon us which
we consider as altogether out of our power; but only for what we do, or would
have done, had it been in our power; or for what we leave undone which we
might have done, or would have left undone, though we could have done it.
Lord Brougham.
1778-1868.
The great Truth has finally gone forth to all the ends of the earth that man
shall no more render account to man for his belief, over which he himself has
no control. Henceforward, nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame
any one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin,
or the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect those
who conscientiously differ from ourselves ; the only practical effect of the
difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance on one side or the other,
from which it springs—by instructing them, if it be theirs, ourselves, if it
be our own ; to the end, that the only kind of unanimity may be produced,
which is desirable among rational beings—the agreement proceeding from full
conviction after the freest discussion.
�28
APPENDIX.
Samuel Bailey.
1791-1870.
Whether a man has been partial or impartial, in the process by which he has
acquired his opinions, must be determined by extrinsic circumstances and not
by the character of the opinions themselves. Belief, doubt, and disbelief,
therefore, can never, even in the character of indications of antecedent voluntary
acts, be the proper objects of moral reprobation or commendation. Our appro
bation and disapprobation, if they fall anywhere, should be directed to the
conduct of men in their researches, to the use which they make of their oppor
tunities of information, and to the partiality or impartiality visible in’ their
actions. . . . The allurements and the menaces of power are alike inca
pable of establishing opinions in the mind, or eradicating those which are
already there. They may draw hypocritical professions from avarice and ambi
tion, or extort verbal renunciations from fear and feebleness; but this is
all they can accomplish. The way to alter belief is not to address motives to
the will, but arguments to the intellect. To do otherwise, to apply rewards or
punishments or disabilities to opinions, is as absurd as to raise men to the
peerage for their ruddy complexions, to whip them for the gout, and hang them
for the scrofula. . . . All pain, mental or physical, inflicted with a view to
punish a man for his opinion, is nothing less than useless and wanton cruelty,
violating the plain dictates of nature and reason. . .
Although the advanced civilization of the age rejects the palpably absurd
application of torture and death, it is not to be concealed, that, amongst a
numerous class, there is an analagous, though less barbarous persecution, of all
who depart from received doctrines—the persecution of private antipathy and
public odium. They are looked upon as a specie of criminals, and their devia
tions from established opinions; or, if any one prefer the phrase, their specula
tive errors, are regarded by many with as much horror as flagrant violations of
morality. In the ordinary ranks of men, where exploded prejudices often linger
for ages, this is scarcely to be wondered at; but it is painful, and on a first
view unaccountable, to witness the prevalence of the same spirit in the
republic of letters ; to see mistakes in speculation pursued with all the warmth
of moral indignation and reproach. He who believes an opinion on the autho
rity of others, who has taken no pains to investigate its claims to credibility,
nor weighed the objections to the evidence on which it rests, is lauded for his
acquiescence, while obloquy from every side is too often heaped on the man
who has minutely searched into the subject, and been led to an opposite conclu
sion. There are few things more disgusting to an enlightened mind than to see
a number of men, a mob, whether learned or illiterate, who have never scruti
nized the foundation of their opinions, assailing with contumely an individual,
who, after the labour of research and reflection, has adopted different sentiments
from theirs, and pluming themselves on the notion of superior virtue, because
their understandings have been tenacious of prejudice.
The true grounds, the grand principles of toleration, or (to avoid a term which
men ought never to have been under the necessity of employing) of religious
liberty and liberty of conscience, are the principles which it has been the object
�APPENDIX.
29
of my Essay to establish—that opinions are involuntary, and involve no merit
or demerit, and that the free publication of opinions is beneficial to society,
because it is the means of arriving at truth. They are both founded on the
unalterable nature of the human mind, and are sure, sooner or later, to be
universally recognized and applauded. Under the general prevalence of these
truths society would soon present a different aspect. Every species of intoler
ance would vanish ; because, how much soever it might be the interest of men
to suppress opinions contrary to their own, there would be no longer any pretext
for compulsion or oppression.
Difference of sentiment would no longer
engender the same degrees of passion and ill-will. The irritation, virulence,
and invective of controversy would be in a great measure sobered down into cool
argumentation. The intercourse of private life would cease to be embittered by
the odium of heterodoxy, and all the benevolent affections would have more
room for expansion. Men would discover that although their neighbours
differed in opinion from themselves, they might possess equal moral worth, and
equal claims to affection and esteem. A difference in civil privileges and social
estimation—that eternal source of discontent and disorder, that canker in the
happiness of society, which can be cured only by being exterminated, would be
swept away, and in a few years a wonder would arise that rational beings could
have been inveigled into its support. Another important consequence would be,
a more general union of mankind in the pursuit of truth. Since errors would no
longer be regarded as involving moral turpitude, every effort to obtain the grand
object in view, however unsuccessful, would be received with indulgence, if not
applause. There would be more exertion, because there would be more
encouragement. If moral science has already gradually advanced, shackled as
it has been by inveterate prejudices, what would be the rapidity of its march
under a system, which, far from offering obstacles, presented facilities to its
progress ?
Whoever has attentively meditated on the progress of the human race
cannot fail to discern that there is now a spirit of inquiry amongst men which
nothing can stop, or even materially control. Reproach and obloquy, threats
and persecution, social ostracism, will be vain. They may embitter opposition
and engender violence, but they cannot abate the keenness of research. There
is a silent march of thought, which no power can arrest, and which it is not
difficult to foresee will be marked by important events. Mankind were never
before in the situation in which they now stand. The press has been operating
upon them for several centuries, with an influence scarcely perceptible at its
commencement, but daily becoming more palpable, and acquiring accelerated
force. It is rousing the intellect of nations, and happy will it be for them if
there be no rash interference with the natural progress of knowledge; and if, by
a judicious and gradual adaptation of their institutions to the inevitable changes
of opinion, they are saved from those convulsions, which the pride, prejudices,
and obstinacy of a few may occasion to the whole.—Essays on the Formation
and Publication of Opinions, and on other Subjects. 1821.
�30
APPENDIX.
If, instead of encouraging candid and complete examination, I endeavour to
instil my own notions into the mind of another by dogmatical assertion and
inculcation ; if I do all in my power to prevent the evidence on both sides from
coming to his knowledge; if I forcibly or artfully exclude any arguments or
facts from his cognizance ; if I try to coop up his mind in my own views, by
keeping aloof every representation inconsistent with them, and even pervert his
moral feelings by teaching him the guilt of holding any other; if, instill greater
defiance of integrity of conduct, I attempt to work upon his will in the matter ;
if I offer him certain advantages provided he come to a conclusion agreeable to
my wishes, and threaten him with obloquy, and pains, and penalties, should he
decide against me; all these proceedings are surely so many offences, not only
against him, but against the Almighty. What are they all but trying to prevent
the full and free application of his faculties for discerning truth to a question of
the greatest moment between him and the Almighty Ruler of the Universe?
And what are the worst of them, but bribing and terrifying the poor human
creature ; in the first place, not to examine fully and freely, not therefore to
discharge the obligation he is under to his Maker ; and in the second place, to
hide his internal convictions, and to profess what he does not feel. If the prin
ciples of duty to God, which the light of nature clearly exhibits, are to be relied
upon, it is scarcely possible to conceive grosser moral turpitude, or greater mad
ness, than this. My own duty clearly is a full and impartial examination ; and
yet, by the course described, I should be endeavouring, to the utmost of my
power, to prevent in my neighbour that full and impartial examination, which
is as incumbent on him as it is on myself.
It is to be deeply lamented, that nothing is more common among mankind
than this senseless, this immoral, this truly impious proceeding, the only pallia
tion of which is unconsciousness of its real character. Look abroad into the
world, and what is the language on this subject held by man to man, in all ages
and all countries ? It is in effect this : I care nothing for your partiality or im
partiality, for the diligence or negligence of your investigations : here are certain
advantages in my gift: if you are of my opinion, or will say you are, they are
yours; if you differ from me, I will take care you suffer for it.
Figure to yourself, my friend, a young man, who, while he is desirous to
discharge every duty, and ardent in the pursuit of truth, is at the same time
ambitious of power, wealth, and distinction. A career is open to him, in which
these latter desires may be gratified on the single condition of professing and
teaching certain established tenets, and performing certain offices grounded upon
them. Is it to be supposed, that before he accepts the tempting offer, his can
dour and conscientiousness will be sufficiently strong to induce him to institute
a fair and rigid examination of tenets on which his wealth and station are to
depend ? and after he has accepted it, will the inducements to the performance
of that duty be strengthened or increased ? The result is not very doubtful; he
shuns inquiry and accepts the office, and from that moment all probability of any
fair investigation is at an end : he becomes an intellectual slave bound in golden
fetters : he is no more free to pursue truth than the chained eagle is free to soar
�APPENDIX.
3i
into the sky ; or rather he is quite as free to pursue it as the muezzin to throw
*
himself from the minaret, or as the traveller to leap from the summit of the great
pyramid ; that is to say, at the risk of consequences—of utter destruction.
And is it possible not to perceive, that besides putting an end to impartial
examination, this species of bribery is a bounty on hypocritical pretension ? Is
there one man in ten thousand, who, looking forward to the prospect of living
in the enjoyment of worldly advantages from the profession of certain opinions,
will shrink from that profession in the first instance, or subsequently abandon it,
because he finds it impossible to believe in the opinions professed ? Can there
be a more effectual method of creating insincerity, as well as indifference to
truth, and can there be a practice more destructive of moral worth and real
piety ?
You know, Hassan, as well as I can describe, how all this is exemplified
amongst the followers of the Prophet; you are aware not only of their utter
neglect of examination, but of the secret disbelief of thousands of Moslems
(priests as well as laymen) in much of what they profess for the sake of gain, the
scarcely disguised violations of precepts they pretend to revere, the rapacity for
wealth and power which puts on the semblance of holiness and laughs at the
credulity of its dupes.
I shall never, for my own part, lose the recollection of the indifference to
truth and the hypocrisy I witnessed on my pilgrimage to Mekka. Wrapt
myselfin holy thoughts and sincere devotion, I was shocked at the conduct of
those whom sordid rapacity had congregated around the sacred place.
Here, too, we have another main root of intolerance and persecution. When
ever the emolument, power, and distinction of any set of men depend on the
reception of particular doctrines, or are bound up in their maintenance, not only
is all fair examination at an end on the part of their supporters, but the liveliest
zeal is kindled in their defence, and the bitterest hostility is roused against all
who will not fall into the same blind acquiescence. There is an inseparable
connection between the lucrativeness of opinions and persecution.—Letters of
an Egyptian Kafir on a Visit to England, in Search of a Religion, Enforcing
some Neglected Views regarding the Duty of Theological Inquiry, and the
Morality of Human Interference with It. 1839.
* The muezzin is the crier who, from the minarets of the mosque, summons the faithful
to prayer.
A. IRELAND AND CO., PRINTERS, MANCHESTER.
�k
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ireland, Alexander
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 31 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Reprinted, with additions, from the "Manchester Quarterly", No. II. April, 1882. Inscription in black ink: "M. D. Conway Esq, with A. Ireland's kind regards." From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes Appendix with extracts from the writings of several authors including John Milton and John Locke. Printed by A. Ireland anc Co., Manchester. George Dawson (1821- 1876) was an English nonconformist preacher, lecturer and activist. He was an influential voice in the calls for radical political and social reform in Birmingham, a philosophy that became known as the Civic Gospel.
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
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT46
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Social Reform
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 (Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7), 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
Clergy
Conway Tracts
George Dawson
Nonconformism
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41ddba7f8bd061e132faa678909c65a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Blz3hGE12foX%7EvgJrnQ00L0nQPRc%7EAt6JUPvdrvKaX5JCKKCZ4mcZIYFFeOO1NjxlrnB2hdKfa8ZBdnHoyfogAIJlrq5IeqBD31MpT3gy2IRo5R-3jvygMmJgggh84B3bKeiWSQPq%7EbR62EhyFDIJ9nV68XVPx0MWEfsWITZBgUJBBHKxybAQaJBKhGPclR8X-t91MAlS-Aw9%7Ee1Skzleos4ejfhzGcvp6q7DIMKNWGFoMrDNyHpTOqXpJMQnzDUjfVNAElt2M-DHJz0QHAyaj2JB0lBLlRqyZC91JgNDXKuS3aE-HUSvGcn6PKwtJNlUbM5R5S6RgXr594qtYW2HA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fc7f1688aeec4e0f2375401825e4367f
PDF Text
Text
S'txOASié3l
MORE RATIONAL?
DISOtrSSION
I
BETWEEN
4
Mr. JOSEPH SYMES
GEORGE
■ ♦
LONDON :
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET
E.C.
�H
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
... .IS ATHEISM OR THEISM THE MORE
RATIONAL!
LETTER I.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Some weeks ago, Mr. St. Clair delivered a discourse in Bir
mingham on “ The Folly of Atheism.” When informed
thereof, I wrote to that gentleman, respectfully inviting him
to a public oral debate on the question now at the head of
this letter. This he courteously declined, but suggested a
written discussion instead. It now falls to my lot to furnish
the first of. twelve letters,, six by each disputant, to appear
alternately at intervals of not more than a fortnight. Mr.
Bradlaugh deserves our best thanks for'So readily opening
the columns of the National Reformer for this discussion.
Without any “ beating about the bush,” I shall at once
proceed to show why I regard Atheism as being more
rational than Theism. Theism is belief in a God, or deus,
or theos. Atheism is the absence of that belief, with the
general implication, as I apprehend, that the individual
destitute of that belief has done his best to weigh the merits
of conflicting theories, to sift the Theistic evidence, and has
logically concluded that Theism is irrational.
Atheism, requires no direct evidence, nor is it susceptible
of "it. It is arrived at,^n the most logical fashion, by a
course of destructive criticism applied to the God-theorjt.
This theory, when fairly examined, crumbles to dust, and
then evaporates, leaving the investigator without a Godiiand
without belief in one.
As I desire this contest to be definite, earnest, and real,
1 will state my objections to Theism plainly and fairly,
'so jthat my opponent may have the best opportunity of
refuting them. And let it be borne in mind that to state
valid objections to Theism is to put forward equally valid
reasons in favor ofAtheism. Now, as Theistic arguments
usually- take two forms, the intellectual and the moral; as
�4
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Theism is as much an assertion of or belief in God’s moral
attributes as in his natural attributes or in his bare existence,
I cannot be straying from the subject in discussing the
moral aspects of the question. To show that the moral
attributes of God are fictions will go very far indeed towards
refuting Theism and justifying Atheism. The following
questions will covey most of the ground :—
I. Does there «Assist an infinitely good God ?
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness
exceeds his evilness ?
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God ?
IV. Does there exist an infinite God whose wisdom exceeds
his folly ?
V. Does there exist a God of absolutely unlimited power?
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his
weakness ?
VII. Does there exist a God who is in any sense infinite?
VIII. Does there exist any God at all ?
I. The first question, Does there exist an inhnitelugood God?
may be dismissed without any discussion ; for infinite good
ness would render all evil for ever impossible. Infinite
goodness could produce nothing less than infinite good.
Evil, if existent, must limit goodness ; evil does exist; there
fore infinite goodness does not.
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness exceeds
his evilness ? I am sorry to have to use so uncouth a word
as “ evilness,” but I have no other that will so well express
my meaning.
1. It is generally held among Theists that an Infinite God
created all other things. If so, what motive could have
prompted the act ? That motive could not have been an
■exterior one. From the nature of the hypothesisJLit musthave been one confined solely to himself, arising from his
own unrestrained, uninfluenced desires. In a word, he must
ha^made the universe for his own sake, his own ends, his
own pleasure.
Now a being who accomplishes his own pleasure or profit
by or through the pleasure or profit of others, and no ptherwise, must be pronounced just and benevolent. But he who
gains his own ends irrespective of the rights, the profit,
and the pleasure of others, is selfish. He who sends others,
who are helplessly under his sway, on errands for his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
5
personal advantage alone, and knowing they must suffer
excruciating pain and die in the undertaking, is a horrible
^Tr-is said that an infinite God created the universe, and peopled it with sentient beings. Those sen
tient beings, in the nature of the case, could not
be consulted beforehand: their life, organisation, circum
stances of all kinds were decided for Hem and imposed
upon them. And a being more good than evil would have
felt himself in honor and justice bound to provide for the
happiness of those creatures before giving them life while
a being more evil than good would have consulted his own
pleasure chiefly, if not entirely, and have cared little or
nothing for the happiness of his creatures. The last clause
seeems to me to describe, but partially only, the action of the
hypothetical God who is supposed to have created the uni
verse. For pain and misery have been the cruel lot of
his creatures from the remotest epoch to which geology
carries U8 back.
“The whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in pain together until now.” Want, disappoint
ment, bitter warfare, pain, and death are the normal con
dition of the universe as far as it is known. No natural
law has been more fully ascertained than this :—Life is an
endless strife; and each combatant must must kill or be
killed, must eat or be eaten. Another law is, That victor
and vanquished succumb to another foe and die, despite their
struggle for existence. These laws hold good not merely as
regards individuals: races also die out. And if there be
purpose and plan in nature it can only be such purpose and
plan as uses sentient beings for the pleasure of the creator,
who cai®s no more for their welfare than the worst of slave
owners does for his human chattels.
.
2. Nay! more. According to the creation hypothesis,
every pang endured by the creature must have been fore
seen and provided for beforehand. The man who invents
an infernal taachine, say Thomassen of Bremer Haven
notoriety, must be immensely less selfish than the creator
of the world. Thomassen had some want to supply,,^ome
sort of excuse for his awful deed. But an infinite and
eternal being is without excuse; and a being that does
wrong without excuse, knowing what he is doing, must be
actuated by pure malignity ; especially when, as is the case
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of all creatures of this hypothetical God, his victims are
absolutely helpless:—they cannot resist him, cannot out
manoeuvre him, and can get no sort of redress for any wrong
they may suffer.
It may perhaps be safely laid down, that he is extremely
good, who does good according to his knowledge and power.
But he “ who know^th to do good and doeth it not, to him
it is sin.” An infinite God knows everything, and his
power is unlimited. Why does he not do good “ as he hath
opportunity ? ”
The only conceivable reason must be
that he is unwilling. He must therefore be extremely evil.
When to this is added the fact that he does immeasurable
evil to helpless beings, we shall at once perceive that the
Theistic object of worship must be totally evil; for even
the seeming good he does is done merely to please himself.
Even if the world contained as much good as evil, theft
would not prove the creator good, for reasons I have given.
But the existence of only one evil would legitimately raise
the suspicion that he was evil, because a moment’s effort on
his part would remove that evil and replace it by good.
But when we find that evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe; when we find that during all its ascertainable
history, and in every direction, at least as much evil as good
has prevailed, we cannot hesitate, except in deference to
old prejudices, to pronounce judgment to the -effect that the
world’s creator is the embodiment of selfishness and ma.bgnity, and destitute of any discoverable redeeming trait in
his character.
It is at present unnecessary to enlarge upon this subject.
But if the goodness of the hypothetical creator cannot
logically be maintained, and if the extreme contrary can be
p logically'and truthfully propounded, as I contend, the next
i question to be answered is,
I
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God? This, too,
' must be examined and answered by the study of the facts of
Nature ; and it need not delay us longer than did the ques
tion of infinite goodness. If there were infinite wisdom^Mo
such things as fools and folly would exist. These are enor
mously plentiful; whence come they ? Wisdoniicannot
produce folly; a perfectly wise being could not produce a
fool. Some say the great majority of men are fools;
certain it is that large numbers are such. Who made them
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
7
so ? If there be a creator, he makes the philosopher and the
dolt, the mathematician and the idiot. No wise father
would have an idiot son, if he foresaw its possibility and
knew how to prevent it. Yet the great father, as people
call their deity, produces idiots by the score and fools by the ,
million. Infinite wisdom, therefore, is no better than a
myth, nor more accordant with known facts than the infalli
bility of the Pope.
Want of space compels me here to break off my argument abruptly, though I hope to resume it in my next.
LETTER IT.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
As I expect to find in Mr. Symes an honest and fair
opponent, I shall not require a definition of all the terms he
uses, but I may point out that if his definition of Atheism
is correct, we shall want some other word to set forth the
denial of God’s existence. Theism is belief in a God ; and,
according to Mr. Symes, Atheism is simply the absence of
that belief, and valid objections to Theism are equally
valid-reasons in favor of Atheism. I should have thought
this more accurately described Agnosticism than Theism;
but as I am equally opposed to both, perhaps it will not
matter. If the Deity is said by one person to be dead, and
by another to be dumb, I confute them both if I prove that
he speaks. It is only fair I should allow that one sentence
of Mr. Symes’s seems to separate the Atheist from the
Agnostic—the sentence, namely, which says that the Atheist
has logically concluded Theism to be irrational. The
Agnostic does not pretend to do that. At the same time
the question is here begged, or else the language is a little
loose, for, if I am right, no individual can logically conclude
that Theism is irrational, but can only come to such a
conclusion illogically.
I am prepared to prove the existence of an intelligent
Creator of man, and to defend his perfect goodness. I shall
not attempt to defend all the positions which Mr. Symes
sets out to assault. His eight questions, which he says will
cover most of the ground, would no doubt do so, and lead
�8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
us into oceans of talk as well. I have no desire to meddle
much with the unfathomable and the incomprehensible, and
must decline to be drawn into a discussion of the infinite,
which I do not understand. Six questions out of Mr. Symes’s
eight concern the infinite ! They were, perhaps, prompted
by his idea of what I, as a believer in God, would be likely
to assert; for he says, “It is generally held among Theists
that an Infinite God created all other things.” When he
understands that I maintain a humbler thesis, perhaps he
will withdraw or modify some of these questions. I main
tain that there is an intelligent Creator of Man, against
whose perfect goodness nothing can be proved. If man has
a Creator, that Creator must be called God.; and if there
is a God, the evidence of whose action is to be seen in us
and about us, then Atheism is irrational. It is a larger
question whether God is infinite in all his attributes. It is
another question whether God created all things, matter
and its properties included. I am certainly not going to
maintain that every attribute of God is infinite ; for the
clue and the key to the mystery of evil are to be found in
limitation of power. Like John Stuart Mill, I conceive a
limit to Omnipotence, and that enables me to maintain God’s
perfect goodness. Or rather, I define omnipotence to be the
power of effecting all things which are possible, and I show
that some things are impossible to any worker, because they
involve mathematical or physical contradictions. When,
therefore, Mr. Symes advances to show that “ the moral
attributes of God are fictions,” I have an answer for him
which some Theists have not.
The first question of the eight is in the form, “ Does there
exist an infinitely good God ? ” and in the answer to it there
is a semblance of mathematical demonstration. But I
venture to think that the word “ infinite ” leads to a little
unconscious conjuring. I shall be satisfied to defend God’s
perfect goodness against all attacks. I will not say whether
the goodness is infinite, and what ought, to follow then; but
I calmly assert that the bare fact that “ evil does exist” is
no proof that perfect goodness does not. Mr. Symes con
cludes his demonstration with the Q. E. D. that “ therefore
infinite goodness does not.” I should be glad if he would'
come out of the unfathomable and tell me what he has to
show against perfect goodness. I admit that some evil exists
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
9
but limited evil for a limited time is quite consistent with
perfect goodness. It was consistent with goodness in the
case of a father I knew, who submitted his child to the
operation of tracheotomy in order to save its life. Limited
evil for a limited time is forced upon every child who is
kept to his lessons; and it argues no want of goodness
in the parent, but only a certain intractableness in things,
making it impossible to attain desired results except
by means and methods which may sometimes be a little
unpleasant. I feel myself at liberty to use these human
illustrations because I have left out the word “ infinite ” and
am considering the action of a Deity who creates and educates
man. The Iggfiitions of all work are similar, whether the
worker be human or divine.
Space exists, and matter exists. Mr. Symes must allow
that they can exist without having been created, because he
does not believe in a Creator at all. So far I am inclined
to agree with him that space and matter may always have
existed. But whether matter has been created or not is
of little importance in this discussion, if it be allowed
that without matter and space nothing could be made
and no processes could go on—that for instance there
could be no world like this and no human creatures to com
plain of its arrangements. In fact there could be no
arrangements, if there were nothing to arrange and no space
to arrange it in. The Creator is, we may say, bound to have
matter—whether created or uncreated—if he is to accom
plish anything at all. No blame, therefore, can attach to
him on account of the mere existence of matter. All
depends upon what use he will make of it. Now the mere
existence of matter implies certain properties, such as
extension and impenetrability. Further, nothing can be
done with matter without moving it, to bring its parts and
particles into new positions. But the motion of matter in
space is according to the laws of motion, which cannot well
be imagined to be different from what they are. Without
these laws of motion and properties of matter there could
be no universe and no human life, and no printing of this
discussion in the pages of the National, RefdjSffier. At the
same time the Worker, using these mean^and materials,
does his work under conditions which preclude certain results
as physically impossible, as for instance that there should be
�10
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
adjacent mountains without a valley ; and which sometimes
involve concomitant results which may not be wished for,
as when a sculptor chisels out a statue but makes a mess of
chippings ¿ha dust. The end desired is achieved, and more
than compensates for the temporary inconvenience. The
inconvenience is no accident and no surprise, but is foreseen
and deliberately accepted, on account of the good that shall
follow.
Seeing that I regard the matter in this way, many things
which Mr. Symes has said shoot wide of my position. I
am not obliged to consider what motive induced the Deity
to create the universe—whether it was an exterior motive
or one confined solely to himself. I maintain that he
Seated man. I allow that he must have found his own end
in doing it. I do not allow that he has done it regardless
of the good of his creatures: else creatures so logical
ought all to commit suicide at once. Mr. Symes defines
the Creator’s obligations to his creatures in a way which
ought to prevent most men from marrying and becoming
fathers. Because sentient creatures suffer pain and misery,
a good Being, he says—even a Being more good than evil—
would have refrained from creating them without consulting
them. The force or weakness of such an argument depends
very much upon the amount of pain and misery compared
with enjoyment, and very much upon the question whether
pain and misery are to be temporary or permanent. On
both points Mr. Symes holds a view which in my estimation
is not justified by the facts. He dwells on the struggle for
existence—which he describes as a law that each combatant
must either kill or be killed, either eat or be eaten—he
describes the strife as prevailing from the earliest geologic
ages ; and he infers that the Creator cares no more for the
welfare of his creatures than the worst of slave owners does
for his human chattels. But here, in the first place, some
illusion is produced by looking down a long vista of pain
and death. When we look along a grove the trees seem to
touch one another; yet in reality the open spaces are more
than the trees. We may, if we choose, look down that vista
of the ages and see young life and happiness, and mother’s
love and joy at every stage. Nor is it the fact that there are
no deaths but such as are violent. Nor is it the case that
violent deaths occasion much pain and misery. Follow the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
11
life of an individual bird, or dog, or human being, and
inquire whether misery or enjoyment preponderates : that is
the fair way to judge, and not by bringing all the misery of
long ages into a near focus.
And then, as to the permanence of pain, misery, evil, Mr.
Symes declares that “ evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe.” This statement he emphasises, and gives no hint
that he expects evil to work itself out. I should have
thought that, as an Agnostic and an Evolutionist, he would
have followed Herbert Spencer in this as well as in other
things; and Spencer has a chapter to show that evil must be
evanescent. By the law of evolution the human race is
progressive—the purpose of nature (the Creator’s purpose,
as I should say) is being worked out, stage after stage. It
is therefore delusive to judge the present condition of the
world as though it were intended to be final ; it is unfair to
judge the past and present without taking into account the
drift and tendency of things. In a manufactory we don’t
judge in that way of the things which are being made, and
which we chance to see “ in the rough.” If evil is evanes
cent, and the consummation of things is to be glorious, it is
not irrational to believe that present pain is like the tem
porary evil of the sculptor’s chippings, the passing irksome
ness of the school-boy’s discipline, and that “ the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the
glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.”
And here, Mr. Editor, I must break off abruptly, like
Mr. Symes, having come to the end of the space allotted.
Else I could easily double the length of this letter, without
departing from the text Mr. Symes has given me : for he
does at least say something.
LETTER III.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
The first paragraph of Mr. St. Clair’s letter requires no
remark; the second may detain us for a few minutes. The
infinity of deity, it appears, is given up. That being so,
Mr. St. Clair should have clearly defined the term god.
The sense he attaches to the word must be exceedingly
�12
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
different from that which Theists in general attach to it;,
and, as I am totally at a loss to know what his god is, I
can neither aecept nor attack his views until he favors me
with them. I shall feel obliged if in his next he will define,
as clearly as possible, “god,” “ creator,” “created,” “intel
ligent creator.” A further favor will be conferred upon me
if Mr. St. Clair will give his reasons in detail for believing
that man was created by “ an intelligent creator,” and also
his grounds for supposing that creator to possess “ perfect
goodness.” At present he merely declares his belief ; I need
his evidence.
Why does my opponent call limited power Omnipotence ?
Is it not equivalent to limited illimitability ? or finite
infinity ?
Mr. St. Clair is prepared to defend the perfect goodness
of man’s creator. But how can a finite, that is, an imperfect
being, be perfect in any respect? My former objections to
infinite goodness press with equal force against perfect good
ness, for perfect and infinite are here the same. Goodness,
perfect or imperfect, finite or infinite, must from its very
nature prevent or remove evil in the direct ratio of its power
or ability. Mr. St. Clair contends that “ limited evil for a
limited time is quite consistent with perfect goodness.” He
may as rationally contend that “limited darkness for a
limited time is consistent with perfect light.” Darkness,
however limited, is incompatible with perfect light; so evil,
though but for a day, and covering but an area of one square
inch, would prove that perfect goodness did not exist. The
illustrations used—the case of tracheotomy and the unplea
sant processes of education—are both as wide of the mark
as possible. They are not cases of perfect goodness resort
ing to temporary evil, but of imperfect goodness and limited
power choosing the less of two evils where it is impossible to
shun both.
“ The conditions of all work are similar, whether theworker be human or divine.” This may, for aught I know,
be true, for I have no notion of a divine worker. But does
Mr. St. Clair mean to say that his god is compelled to
choose between two or more evils, just as we are? If so,
what necessity urges him ? We are driven to labor by
hunger, cold, storms, and innumerable pains and diseases.
Does god, too, labor for his bread, his clothes, shelter, or
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
13
medicine? If not, how are “ the conditions of all labor
similar, whether the worker be human or divine ? ” Will
Mr. St. Clair explain ?
How does my worthy opponent know that evil is limited
as to time ? Can he assure me that any square foot of the
earth’s surface is or ever was totally free from evil ? How
does he know, or why does he assume, that any square foot
of the earth’s surface ever will be entirely free from evil ?
That many evils will diminish in process of time, through
man’s growing wisdom, I cheerfully believe. But, no
thanks to deity for that. Man is improving on god’s
work, and removing evils that ought never to have been in
it. Here the consumer has to labor and suffer and spend
all his energy rectifying the blunders of the manufacturing
deity, or making improvements he never thought of, or else
was too idle, or too weak, or too evil, to introduce.
But does any man conceive that all evil will ever be
removed ? Will the storms be hushed into eternal calm ?
the earthquake heave its final throb and cease for ever ?
the volcano spout no more its terrible agents of destruction?
disease and death prey no longer upon animals and men ?
If these are ever conquered, man must do it, for they are
god’s agents for destroying men—if god there be. Can
Mr. St. Clair name one evil his god ever removed ?
Mr. St. Clair seems to hold the eternity of matter. Is
god also eternal; and if so, how do you ascertain that ?
I am not just now much concerned to inquire whether the
creator found matter ready to his hand, or first made it; but
I contend that he who arranges matter as we find it in
Nature (not in art) is not good. The tree is known by its
fruit. Matter is so arranged as to give pain, produce
misery, and death universal! And if so arranged by an
intelligent creator, he must therefore be more evil than
good. When Mr. St. Clair speaks of the “ end desired ” in
the “ chippings and dust ” of the sculptor, I can pretty well
understand him; but does he know the aim and end of the
creator ? If not, what is the value of his illustration ?
It is of no use to say that creatures “ ought to commit
suicide,” if my contention is correct—ought not to marry,
&c. Has not the creator rendered that impossible for most
men by passion and an invincible love of life ? And is it
kind to stretch a poor wretch longer upon the rack of this
�14
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
rude world by so forbidding him to die, though his every
breath is on® of pain ? Goodness never arranged it thus.
I am not concerned with striking the balance between evil
and good; I merely contend that goodness cannot originate
evil, except unwittingly; that perfect goodness would render
all evil impossible. I do not yet see any just cause to retract
or soften a single statement in my first letter; and shall
therefore proceed now to deal with my questions as far as
space will permit.
But Does there exist an infinite god whose wisdom
exceeds his folly ? Wisdom conducts its affairs with reason,
prudence, economy, and directs its energies to the attain
ment of some definite and worthy end. Does any man
know the final cause of the universe, the latest and highest
end aimed at by the creator ? It seems only reasonable that
the Theist should know this before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to his deity.
I grant that if the “ works ” of Nature exhibited evidences
of wisdom as far as men can observe them, and no cases of
evident folly were discoverable, the Theist would have the
best of reasons for assuming that all the universe was equally
well arranged and conducted. But if the known parts of
Nature exhibit folly in its worst conceivable forms, then
the only rational view to take is that the universe at large is
a blunder, and its creator a blunderer.
It is frequently assumed that a fool is reprehensible for
his folly, and that if men are fools, it must be their own
fault. But that cannot be the case, for no man makes him
self. The creator must take all the responsibility. He who
made men made most of them fools ; therefore he must be
more foolish than wise. And man, be it remembered, is
according to Theists the most important part of the creation
hereabouts. Man, they say, is the crowning piece of his
creator’s workmanship; and all else in the solar system is
subservient to his welfare. Be it so ! But what folly to
make all this and then to people the world with fools !
Such folly cannot be excelled, even by the lowest of
intelligent creatures. And my objections to the wisdom or
“ intelligence ” of deity are equally forceful, whether god
be finite or infinite; for I contend that he is far more foolish
than wise.
The folly of the hypothetical creator, whatever his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
15
power, is seen everywhere—at least, I know of no spot free
from it. Here grow beautiful grass, and herbs, and trees ;
and human industry turns the region into a paradise, dotted
over with towns and villages. The people increase rapidly,
and their flocks, and herds, and farm produce keep pace
with them. Civilisation in all its branches rises and pro
gresses. There dawns a day when the sun shines in
splendor, the breezes gently blow, birds pour out their
melody, and man is contented and happy in some degree;
but there comes a dismal sound, and a mysterious shaking;
and ashes, and stones, and dust shower down in torrents
burying all life in a burning tomb. If an “ intelligent
creatoiiS makes men, why does he thus destroy them ? If
they need destroying, why did he make them so ? Those
creatures of his are of all ages from the youngest embryo to
the oldest man. Why destroy what is scarcely begun ?
Why begin what is to be so quickly destroyed ?
This “ intelligent creator ” produces blossoms in spring,
and then nips them by senseless frosts ; he makes the grain
to grow, and then destroys it by wet or a summer storm, or
parches it by drought; splendid crops of potatoes to flourish,
and then turns them to corruption by the fungus known as
“ the diseasethe cattle to multiply, only to die by
pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease ; a whole human
population to flourish for years, only to die by famine and
fever. And all this is the constant, every-day conduct of
man’s “ intelligent creator ! ”
I am deeply interested and anxious to see how my re
spected opponent will be able to reconcile divine “ intelli
gence ” or goodness with the phenomena of the earth.
The next question I have set down for discussion is:
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his weak
ness ? This question, to my surprise, has been answered
already by Mr. St. Clair, by implication at least; for he
informs us that, “Like John Stuart Mill, he conceives a
limit to Omnipotence.” That conception, when rendered
into plain English, can only mean that Mr. St. Clair’s god
is of merely finite power ; and as finite power can bear no
comparison with infinite power, we must conclude that Mr.
St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater weakness than
strength.
If I were contending merely with Mr. St. Clair, I could
�16
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
at once pass on to the next question; but I am attacking
Theism in its broadest sense ; and, with all due respect to
my opponent, must decline to narrow the ground to the
dimensions of his peculiar Theism, except by easy and
logical stages.
I hold the doctrine, that force or power can be measured
only by its effects. A force may produce motion in several
phases, or it may be expended in resistance, stress, etc.
But in every case the effect is exactly equivalent to the
cause. An infinite cause could result in nothing short of
infinite effect. But infinite effect does not exist; nor can
any conceivable sum of finite effects amount to one infinite
effect; therefore no infinite cause or infinite power exists.
Now Theists do not pretend to know their god except as
a cause—unless I am mistaken. But if no infinite cause
exists, their god must be finite. But that which is finite
can bear no comparison with the infinite; therefore the power
of a finite being, however great, must be immensely less
than his weakness.
I will close by asking whether it was good, or wise, or
honest for a being of such limited capital, that is, power,
etc., to undertake so great a work as the creation and
direction of the universe ? Though he may be making his
own fortune and ensuring his own pleasure, he is doing it
by the most reckless expenditure of human and animal life,
and by the infliction of unspeakable misery upon helpless
beings. A god of honor and mercy, it seems to me, must
either have stopped the machine in utter disgust, or else
have committed suicide countless ages ago.
LETTER IV.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Space did not permit me to deal with the whole of Mr.
Symes’ first letter ; and now I must let it go, because his
second letter gives me text enough for a second reply. In
this discussion I should be glad if a respectful tone can be
observed in speaking about the Deity. It cannot serve the
purpose of my opponent, nor of the Editor, that Theists who
begin to read our arguments should throw down the paper
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
17
in disgust. Mr. Symes expresses himself “ totally at a loss
-to know what my god Is.” I shall be grateffflF if he will
•oblige me by spelling the word with a capital G, because, for
one thing, my God is not the same as Mumbo Jumbo or
any little imaginary divinity worshipped by an African
tribe. Mr. Symes asks for definitions of “ god,” “ creator,”
“ created,” “intelligent creator;” but probably a dictionary
will supply his want at the present stage. In my previous
letter I told him distinctly enough what I understand the
tgrm God to mean: God is the intelligent Creator of man.
This is sufficient for our present purpose. To believe in a
.Creator of man—not a blind force, not an unguided pro
cess wjkich has resulted in his coming into existence, but in
an intcmigent being who made him—this is to be a Theist.
And since the evidence of God’s operation is to be seen in
man’s own frame, this theistic belief is rational, and the
opposite is irrational. This is what we have to argue about,
-and I should be glad if my opponent would keep to the
subject. If it could be shown that the Creator of man is
an evil Being, it might be reasonably maintained that he
ought to be called a Devil instead of a God ; and therefore
I have undertaken to rebut all attacks upon his perfect
goodness. In my last letter I repelled some objections of
this kind, and was enabled to do so successfully, because I
did not foolishly contend that the Deity possesses infinite
power, adequate to the accomplishment of all manner of
impossibilities.
Mr. Symes exclaims, “ The infinity of Deity, it appears,
is given up.” I never maintained it, and therefore I have
not given up anything. It seems to be inconvenient to my
opponent that I do not maintain it. He declines, he says,
“ to be narrowed to my Theism; he attacks Theism in its
broadest sense.” That is to say, he is confident that he
could confute other Theists, but he cannot easily confute
me. I showed him that his eight propositions about the
Infinite, mostly shoot wide of my position ; but he thinks it
well to return to them, and persists in attacking the impos
sible compound which he has set up as the God of those
who believe in God. No doubt he can do some amount of
iconoclastic work here; but what is that to me? If-he
amuses himself and your readers by wasting half the space
at his disposal, perhaps I ought not to complain ; but I am
�18
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
not bound to follow him into this region, and shall only do
so when I can spare the time. I will pursue him just a little
way now. He considers that a Theist ought to know the
final cause of the universe before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to the Deity 1 But surely I may admire the struc
ture of the eye, and perceive it to be well adapted for
seeing, without waiting to examine the heart or learn the
use of the spleen. I may study and admire the human
frame as a whole, and not feel obliged to be dumb concern
ing it because I have not begun the consideration of the
solar system. My opponent wants me to begin at the cir
cumference of the universe, because it has no boundsg and
he wishes to see me bewildered and floundering^ Yet
immediately he himself ventures to judge of the universe as
a whole, and pronounces it a blunder, and its creator a
blunderer, on the strength of some exhibitions of folly (a£
he counts them) in its known parts.
One exhibition of folly, he considers, is the creation of
fools. Repeating a statement of his former letter, he asserts
that most men are fools, and that he who created them so
must himself be more foolish than wise. My reply is that,
whatever the actual proportion of fools, ignorance comes
before knowledge, folly before wisdom, in the natural order
of things. The crude and unfashioned material must date
earlier than the wrought and finished. The educated man
is a production of a more advanced sort than the ignorant
and uncultured man ; he is the same creature in a later stage
of development. But Mr. Symes—whom nothing will satisfy
save impossibilities—demands the later before the earlier.
My opponent thinks that infinite goodness is incompatible
with the existence of the slightest evil at any time. He
imagines that infinite goodness in the creator would prevent
any evil outside of him. To my mind this is not so, unless
the creator, besides being infinitely good, is also omnipotent,
and omnipotent in a sense which enables him to overcome
physical and mathematical contradictions and accomplish
impossibilities. But, to simplify the discussion, I refrain
from contending for infinite goodness, and contend for per
fect goodness. My opponent does not see the difference,
but conceives that his former objections to infinite goodness
press with equal force against perfect goodness. He con
tinues his unconscious legerdemain with the word infinite.
�; ■ w:./ -’
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
•
w’
19
He asks, “ How can a finite, that is, an imperfect being, be
perfect in any respect ? ” Amazing! We am to suppose
there is no perfect circle conceivable unless it be infinite in
its dimensions, and that no man could be perfectly truthful,
no child perfectly innocent, no flower perfect in its beauty.
The flower must be as large as the universe, it seems, before
its beauty can be perfect. The argument against the per
fect goodness of Jesus Christ would have to run in the form
that his body and soul together were not so big in cubic
measure as all the worlds and spaces which make up the
TCT7rai/, or grtffttall! “ Goodness will prevent or remove evil
to the extent of its ability.” Yes; but since no ability
whatever can be sufficient to surmount impossibilities, limited
^evil nifty exist for a limited time, and be subservient to
greater good (like the inconvenience of scaffolding during
the building of a house). Mr. Symes uses what he supposes
to be a parallel, that limited darkness is not consistent with
perfect light. But this shows some obscurity of thought.
Darkness and light are opposites, and so are good and evil ;
but not goodness and evil. I did not say that limited evil
was consistent with perfect good, as an existing condition
of things everywhere; I said it was consistent with perfect
goodness as an element of character existing in the Deity.
With God, in the higher plane of his operations, as with
man on a lower, it may be wise and good to “ choose the
less of two evils where it is impossible to shun both.”
“ How do I know that evil is limited as to time ? ” How
does Mr. Symes know that it is not ? Let him read Herbert
Spencer’s chapter on the “ Evanescence of Evil.” Let him
ask himself what prospect there is of the eternal duration
of a thing which is continually diminishing in amount. He
admits that evils are diminishing through man’s agency,
man’s growing wisdom. So they ought some day to end.
But he declines to give God the glory. Now the Creator of
man is the author of man’s wisdom. He employs man as
his best instrument to improve the face of the earth and
weed out evils from society. To a Theist this is so, of
course; the creator of man’s body is the author of his spirit
and the guide of his course. But with curious blindness to
the Theistic position, Mr. Symes seeks to infer that man is
wiser than his maker. He reckons disease and all destructive
forces as God’s agents for evil, but does not reckon physi
�20
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cians, philanthropists and reformers as his agents for good.
He fails to see that on the theistic hypothesis the evils which
man remov^God removes.
Mr. Symes contends that “ he who arranged matter as we
find it, is not good,” because it produces pain and other evils.
He would not say this of any human operator. When I
saw him the other day at a public meeting, he complained
of neuralgia and talked of going to a dentist. I am afraid
the dentist would have to arrange matter so as to give tem
porary pain, and yet the dentist might be good and might do
good. It is not the poser which my oppontml thinks it is,
to ask me whether I equally know the end and aim of fhp
Creator. I’m not going to search for it among the infinities.
Looking at the human jaws, and the apparatus of the teeth,
in connexion with food and the digestive organs, I think I
know the aim and end of the Creator in giving us teeth. It
is that we may chew our victuals. And then their occa-wr
sionally aching is an incidental evil, which may have some
bearing on his omnipotence, but does not bear witness against
his goodness. Mr. Symes’ next paragraph is curiously con
tradictory. He considers life a torture, every breath pain,
death preferable ; but does not commit suicide because lie
has an invincible love of life !
I have agreed with Mr. J. S. Mill that physical “ con
ditions ” put some limit to omnipotence as we might other
wise conceive it. Mr. Symes pounces upon this, but does
not seize it well. He says, “ Here is an admission of finite
power, and since finite bears no comparison to infinite we
must conclude that Mr. St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater
weakness than strength.” Does this sound conclusive ? I
may correspondingly argue as follows,—My God can do
something, therefore his weakness is not utter inability, not
infinite weakness ; it is finite, and bears no comparison with
the infinite, therefore he has infinitely greater strength than
weakness. Why does not Mr. Symes give up dabbling in
this ocean of the infinite, which is too deep for both of us,
but where, if I choose to follow him, I can make quite as
great a show as he of letting down a plumb-line ? He wants
me to tell him—“ Is god eternal, and how do I ascertain
it?” What I think on the subject, I’ll tell him another
time : at present I assert that the human frame had a
creator—it is a designed machine, and machines must have
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
21
intelligent makers—and I challenge him to show that this,
my belief, is irrational.
“ Why do I call limited power omnipotence ? ” If power
to do all possible things is not to be called omnipotence we
must drop the term. I found the term in use and I used it:
but it is not essential to my argument. If Mr. Symes can
imagine the ability to do impossible things, he has powers
of imagination which transcend mine. I do not expect the
Deity to cause two and two to be five, and the whole to be
less than one of its quarters; I do not look for him to
make squares without angles, and a succession of days without
intervening nights. I believe in a Deity who can do all
¿lings not Involving contradictions. Can Mr. Symes show
that this belief of mine is irrational ? The kind of world
which my opponent demands—brand-new and straight off—
would involve impossibilities. His cry is for the moon.
He wants blossoms which never suffer from frost; he asks
for anjunbroken succession of good crops; he desires the
absence of all liability to disease in man and beast. Can
he suggest how a fleshly body, or any animal organism
could be made free from all liability to disease ? His
notion of the universe leaves no room for incidental evils,
necessary concomitants, “ partial evil, universal good ”—in
which I find the explanation of many difficulties.
I have only space to assert afresh that the human
frame is a machine, the human eye is an instrument;
machines and instruments have to be made ; the maker of
man is God; therefore Theism is true and it is rational to
believe it.
LETTER V.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
I cannot say if it was my fault or the printer’s that “God”
was spelt with a small g ; but I am not anxious to be read
by those who would throw down the paper in disgust for
such a trifle. I cannot induce Mr. St. Clair to give me a
sight of his deity, and therefore do not know what it is he
worships. It is not Mumbo Jumbo, nor yet an infinite god;
it is “ the intelligent creator of man,” he informs me. But
�22
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
no such being exists, as far as I can ascertain ; and why
should I give a capital G to a myth ? My opponent is
illogical in demanding honor for his god before he has
proved that he has one worthy of honor, especially when all
known facts are so strongly against his position. I respect
Mr. St. Clair, for I know him ; I don’t know his god ; to
give him capital letters might be construed to signify that
I both knew and honored him.
“The intelligent creator of man” is no more a description
of deity than “the tree that bears oranges” is of the orange
tree. I wish to know what the deity is; he merely speaks
of what he does. What was he before creating man ?
What is he apart from that action altogether ? I cannot
believe Mr. St. Clair knows, nor do I believe he has any
god at all. He can confute and confound me by a real
exhibition of his deity in his next letter.
My opponent rather unceremoniously sends me to “a
dictionary ” for definitions of “ God,” etc. I go. “ GOD,
n. [Sax., god; G., gott; D., god; Sw. and Dan., gud;
Goth., goth or guth.~\ 1. The Supreme Being ; Jehovah ;
the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sove
reign of the Universe,” etc. (Webster’s Improved Diet. ;
Glasgow, W. Mackenzie.) What am I to think of Mr. St.
Clair’s consistency ? In both letters he has, almost indig
nantly and with something akin to sneering, repudiated the
“ infinity ” of god ; and yet I find this attribute duly set
out in the only definition of his deity which he has as yet
condescended so much as to indicate ! I must now pi ess
him to be candid : Is the definition to which he directed me
correct? If so, why does he reject the “infinity” or
decline to “maintain” it? If this definition be incorrect,
why did he refer me to it ?
I will next deal with a few of the fallacies and mistakes
of his second letter. 1. Mr. St. Clair is mistaken in as
suming that he “ successfully repelled ” any objections of
mine to god’s goodness. The strength of my objections
lies in the well-known and horrible facts of nature, which
cannot be explained away. Goodness, finite or infinite,
removes or prevents every evil in its power. Does Mr. St.
Clair venture to assert that there is no evil now in the world
which his deity could remove if he would ? If be cannot
remove so much as one of them—say cancer or neuralgia—
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
23
why call such a weakling god ? If he can and will not,
where is his goodness ? I demand no “ impossibilities ” of
deity, unless he is extremely weak. If he is not able to do
immensely more than I require, he should retire from his
post.
2. Mr. St. Clair, in not “ maintaining ” the infinity of !
I his god, “gives it up”—in the only sense I intended. I
j have suffered no sort of “ inconvenience ” from this. Oh
i dear, no! The only inconvenience I feel in this contest '■
lies in the fact that I have nothing but shadows and tinCertainties to contend with, phantoms,
“That flit e’er you can point the place.”
Would Mr. St. Clair kindly furnish me with one or two
stubborn Theistic facts, if he has them ?
3. It is amusing to learn that I waste “ half my space ”
in demolishing the “infinite” god, the very deity my
opponent sent me to the dictionary for! I presume that
must be his own ? 4. “ Ignorance comes before knowledge,
folly before wisdom.” No doubt. And in many millions
of cases the ignorance and the folly are never superseded by
anything better. Does Mr. St. Clair hold that, “whatever
is best ” ? What point has his remark else ? A perfectly
good and wise god would have permitted no folly, nor have
left his creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be
known. I expect Mr. St. Clair to contend in his next that
folly argues the wisdom, and evil the goodness, of his deity,
while inability to remove evils is proof positive of his
omnipotence.
5. My opponent jumbles mathematics, morality, and
botany in the most edifying manner in his allusion to the
circle, the child, and the flower. Geometrical conceptions
are not “ beings;” they are abstractions. Innocence and
beauty may be perfect in a very imperfect and extremely
limited sense ; is that so with god’s goodness ? Mr. St.
Clair is extremely unfortunate in his analogies. All that
he has yet tried are failures. Or else his god is one of
very slender means. He is a surgeon performing “ tracheo
tomy,” a sculptor chipping stones into shape, a parent
“ educating ” his children, a builder employing “ scaffolds,”
etc. Before he has done, I fear he will rouse my sympathy
for this god as the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
�24
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
that ever lived. The orthodox divinity is certainly superior
to this. He never loses his power, and is self-reliant all
throughout his career. But Mr. St. Clair’s deity is so com
pletely under the control of circumstances, mostly adverse
ones, that I expect my opponent to announce next that a
memorial of condolence is to be despatched to him, and a
subscription opened to replenish his exhausted exchequer.
With the old-fashioned Christian god “ all things were
possible ; ” with Mr. St. Clair’s it seems quite the reverse.
No excuse could possibly be urged for any wrong done by
the orthodox deity ; nothing hut excuses have yet been urged
for this new one. I point out his misdeeds and show up his
criminal conduct. But Mr. St. Clair is ever ready with an
apology—“ Well, yes, but he couldn’t help it.” And this
poor thing must have a capital G-! Well, well. He needs
one!
6. Unless Mr. St. Clair knows that his god has removed
one evil, it is irrational to expect him to remove all. If
evil and good are compatible at all, and “ for a limited
time,” why not for ever ? How long must evil last to be
inconsistent with goodness ? “ Darkness and light are
opposites, so are good and evil; but not goodness and evil.”
Is that “ legerdemain ” or theology? It cannot be called
“ confusion of thought,” for thought is absent. We were
informed in Mr. St. Clair’s first that the conditions of all
labor were the same. What now does he mean by in
sinuating that man works on a “ lower plane ” than god ?
How is that assumption to be reconciled with the further
statement that god works by man ? God’s work is man’s
work, and man’s is god’s, if that be so. I shall be delighted
to be assured that all evil will be removed. But what are
its laws ?—laws of origin, progress, and decay ? Will
death and pain go ? Suppose they did go; the crime of
their introduction or creation remains.
7. God employs man to “ improve the face of the earth
and to weed out evils from society.” Assertion without
evidence. If true, what must be thought of a god that
creates evils and nourishes and perpetuates them for indefinite
periods, and ultimately uses man as his catspaw to remove
them ? How horribly they burn their fingers often in the work!
What confusion of thought and of moral perception must
possess a man who can count the author of all evil good,
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
25
and thank him for removing evils by the agency of human
suffering. What a monument that deity would have if all
the bones of his miserable agents could be collected and
reared into one stupendous pyramid—the bones of the
swarming millions who have perished horribly in removing
divine evils, of the poor blind slaves whipped on by the
crudest taskmaster that ever lived to undo the mischiefs
his folly or malice created. What can be the state of mind .
that supposes the “ physician ” who does his best to heal
sickness to be incited thereto by the author of that sick
ness—that the philanthropist who shelters, feeds, and
clothes the orphan is inspired by the being who murders the
parents ? When you “ gather grapes of thorns or figs of
thistles,” then may the author of evil incite to good deeds.
Or must we suppose the deity to be destitute of moral
qualities, and engaged in supernal legerdemain, throwing
in evils with one hand and removing them by the other, using
men as sentient and suffering marionettes in operating his
play ?
8. A dentist would have no calling if deity had not
“ scamped ” his work. If he inflict more than necessary
pain, he is considered cruel. An infinite god, such as I was
sent to the dictionary for, could have been under no
necessity to inflict any pain. Mr. St. Clair’s god seems able
enough for mischief, but almost powerless for good—a being
that needs endless apologies.
9. If my opponent’s deity renders death infinitely desirable
as a refuge from bis tyranny, and yet blocks the path to
it by inspiring an invincible love of life, wherein lies the
“ contradiction ” of my reference to it ?
10. I must leave my opponent for the present floundering
in the hopeless task of proving that his deity must be infi
nitely powerful because he can do “something.” Not I, '
but he, is the one who “ dabbles in the ocean of the infinite.”
11. Mr. St. Clair seems to hold that omnipotence is equiva
lent to the power to do all possible things. Is that new? I
never heard of its being used to signify the power to do
impossible things. I thought from his former letter that
“ omnipotence ” with him designated limited power ; it now
returns to its old condition, and in this letter signifies what
is indicated above. I wish Mr. St. Claii’ would be a little more
definite. He now “ believes in a deity who can do all things
�26
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
not involving contradictions.” Well, I have asked for no
contradictions, the very reverse. This belief of Mr. St.
Clair’s is highly irrational. You cannot possibly know how
many things could be done not involving contradictions ;
nor can you possibly know what power might be necessary
to perform them ; nor is it possible you should have any
reason for believing your deity to possess such power. If
that confession of faith is not a “ dabbling in an infinite
ocean,” what is it ? It is immensely amusing to see how
Theists and semi-Theists talk ! Their knowledge and ex
perience is about on a par with ours; yet they profess
belief in that into which, in the very nature of the case,
they can have no insight. But faith not founded on know
ledge must be irrational. Thus I show Mr. St. Clair’s creed
to be baseless and destitute of reason.
12. Perhaps my opponent will kindly show that a world
such as I desire would involve “ impossibilities,” or that a
God such as he believes in could not have made such a one ?
I do want “ blossoms that never suffer from frost; ” who
does not ? I do desire “ an unbroken succession of good
crops ; ” will Mr. St. Clair say that he does not ? Else why
is he pleased at the thought that all evil will ultimately
cease ? To judge from my opponent’s remarks, one might
suppose that it were a fault to desire good and not evil. Is
it so ? I hope it is no sign of depravity to hate evil and to
protest against evil-doers, even when they are deities. Does
Mr. St. Clair enjoy evil ? Would he not remove it all, if he
could ? He hates evil as I do ; but, like a lawyer with an
utterly indefensible client, he struggles to show a case
where there is none, and tries to defend an incongruous
rabble of half-formed and contradictory conceptions, mostly
remnants and tatters of old superstitions, loosely and unsymmetrically strung together on verbal threads, and col
lectively called God. It is pitiable to see a man of his
intellect and goodness engaged in hot conflict defending
error against truth, and palliating and excusing all evil for
the sake of the fancied author of it all.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
27
LETTER VI.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
I regret that Mr. Symes should persist in speaking con
temptuously of the Deity. The little matter of the little
g ” in the name of God, if it was the printer’s fault, he
now makes his own. He considers he is not called upon to
give a capital G to a myth. No, but until he has proved God
to be a myth, he must allow the possibility of his existence;
and he ought to speak respectfully. In this third letter he
uses language about the Deity which renders it painful for
me to continue this discussion. It is a smaller matter that
he should forget the courtesy due to an opponent, and
insinuate a want of candour, as he does by “ now pressing
me to be candid.”
The question we were to discuss is set forth thus : “ Is
Atheism or Theism the more rational ? ” As Mr. Symes is
a professed Atheist, one would expect him to advance
reasons for believing that Atheism is rational, that there is
Ho God, and that the word ought to be spelt with a small g.
But it would be a difficult task, and as yet he has not at
tempted it. He would have to explain how things came to
be as they are without any intelligence either originating,
guiding, or controlling. His position is, that the eye was
not made to see with, the teeth were not made for mastica
tion, the human frame was not made at all. Like Topsy,
he “ specks it growed !” He knows that steam-engines do
Hot grow, except under the hand and mind of intelligent
engineers, but he thinks that human bodies do. He is
aware that telescopes and opera glasses have to be fashioned,
but he imagines that that'more wonderful instrument, the
human eye, is a sort of accident. Human intelligence has
grown up out of the dust; and there is no other origin for a
mother’s love or a martyr’s self-devotion. There is intelli
gence in every workshop, and at the head of every successful
business in the world, but none presiding over the universe.
Out of the fountain head have come greater things than
ever were in it. These are a few of the things which Mr.
�28
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Symes has to defend and show to be rational. No wonder
that he defers the task !
He has not even fairly set about the alternative task of
showing Theism to be irrational. I have let him know
that I believe in an intelligent creator of man, worthy to be
called God because of the greatness of his power and the
goodness displayed in his operations. I have explained that
by “ creator ” of man I mean former of man out of pre
existing materials, and author of him as man. I have
urged that this belief of mine is rational, because the human
frame is a machine—in fact, much more, for it is a compli
cation of machines and instruments—and all machines and
instruments at all comparable to the bodily parts and organs
have required intelligence to form them. Telescopes are made,
and for a purpose; so must eyes have been: steam-engines
are made, and for a purpose, and so is the machine of the
human body. This is my rational belief. To deny these
things is to deny that similar effects require similar causes
to produce them, and is quite irrational. But instead of
showing my Theism to be irrational my opponent sets forth
a form of Theism which is irrational, and, therefore, easy to
refute, and picks out some inconsistencies in that. His
method may be summarised as follows:—“ Theism is belief
in an infinite God, a God of infinite power can do all things,
a God of infinite goodness would do all good things, but all
conceivable good things have not been done, therefore, a
God does not exist.” But this argument is fallacious : all
that follows is that either the power or the goodness of God
is less than infinite, and 1 have shown that we have no
right to credit the Deity with a power of effecting impossi
bilities. Omnipotence must be limited in that sense and to
that extent, and we must not expect to see contradictions
reconciled. God’s goodness I defend, and undertake to
show the inconclusiveness of anything which may be urged
against it. I do not contend for infinite power in the sense
of power to effect impossibilities. I do not deny almightiness if properly defined; though it is not essential to my
argument to contend for it, since something less than
almightiness may have sufficed for the creation of man.
Mr. Symes does waste ink in trying to commit me to his
absurd definition of Deity. The “infinite God” whom he
considers that he demolishes is only the image which he
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
29
himself had set up and wrongly exhibited as mine. I can
not allow it is mine any the more because he has found one
something like it in “Webster’s Dictionary.” Certainly,
when he demanded definitions, I said that a dictionary
might serve his purpose at that stage ; but I did not say it
would serve or satisfy me at all stages. Mr. Symes also
amuses me by his awkward gymnastics in the ocean of the
infinite. I followed him into the deep just to drive him out ;
so now he tries to get to shore before me, and shouts out
that it is I who am dabbling in the bottomless sea. Seeing
that I am leaving the waters, he tries to entice me back
again. He protests that he will now be reasonable. He
will confess himself confuted and confounded if I will afford
him, in my third letter, a real exhibition of my Deity!
Very likely; but I really cannot allow myself to make the
attempt. Regarding myself as only a creature, inferior to
my Creator, I do not presume to comprehend all his great
ness, so as to be able to give an exact description, or paint
an adequate portrait. I have heard of genii being induced
to go into a bottle, and I can imagine a Goliath taking a
Tom Thumb in his hand; but I for my part do not profess
to have th’s superiority over God. To define God would be
to chalk out his limits. As I decline to contend for a Deity
possessing contradictory infinities, my opponent wishes to pin
me to the equally foolish alternative of a God with no infinity
at all, a very limited marionette figure, such as I might
comprehend all round and put forth upon the stage for
Mr. Symes to laugh at. If God is not infinite in all senses,
I am to describe him ! But I do not feel shut up to any
such dilemma. God is the intelligent Being who consciously
and deliberately gave existence to man.
Mr. Symes complains that “ intelligent Creator of man ”
is no description. I have not promised a description, and
my argument does not require it. I judge that man had a
maker, as I judge that Cologne cathedral had an architect.
The architect of that cathedral is not known ; his name has
not come down to us, and no description could be given that
should distinguish him from others ; but the cathedral is
sufficient evidence that he existed. It is more rational to
believe in an architect than to disbelieve. I defend the
rationality of believing in God. I am not bound to give an
exact description of him. The question “ What was he
�30
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
before creating man ? ” I am not obliged to answer. I offer
Mr. Symes the “stubborn Theistic facts” which he asks for.
Human eyes are instruments superior to opera-glasses;
opera-glasses are designed for a purpose, and formed only
under intelligent direction; therefore nothing less than
intelligence will account for the existence of human eyes.
The human frame is a machine, including within itself
several subordinate machines of engines and levers ; repeat "
the above argument. A mother’s affection is intended for !
the good of her offspring, for the preservation of its life, for
securing the succession of generations ; and yet this affection
is not accounted for by saying it is of human origination ;
it owes its origin to the author of life, who planned the
succession of generations. These are Theistic facts, so
stubborn that no Atheist can satisfactorily dispose of them,
if I may judge from such attempts as I have seen As I
gave my opponent two out of these three facts before, he
had no ground for crying out that he has nothing but
shadows to contend with.
I define omnipotence to be the power of doing all things
not involving contradiction and impossibility. Mr. Symes
questions whether this view is new. I am not much con
cerned about that: it is the view I hold and I challenge
him to prove it irrational. He says he never heard of
“ omnipotence ” being used to signify the power to do im
possible things. If, then, my view is the only one he has
ever heard of, why does he ridicule it and allude to it as
semi-theistic? why does he say the orthodox divinity is
superior to mine ? why does he complain that I give him no
sight of the deity I worship ? But in truth my opponent
himself assumes that omnipotent goodness ought to do im
possible things—ought to give us the full-blown flower of
creation before the bud, and accomplish grand results
without processes involving incidental evil. He wishes me
to explain to him how it is that a God, such as I believe in,
cannot make such a world as is asked for. I have only to
say that no God could do it, because all operations must
have a beginning, a process and an end, and no conceivable
power, out of Hibernia, can make the end come before the
beginning. Will my opponent show me how it is to be
done ? Will he state a method by which the earth and
moon may be allowed to keep their present orbits, and light
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
o1
01
remain subject to its present laws, and yet eclipses be
rendered impossible ? Can he devise a human body that
can live and move and yet not be at all composed of flesh
subject to wounds ? Does he not see that a great and good
result may carry some minor undesirable concomitants along
with it ? Does he think he could show that any of the
evils he complains of are not of this sort ?
He seems to have great difficulty in grasping the thought
that all operations imply a process, take up time, and
involve incidental results which are not directly bargained
for. They may not be desired, yet may be foreseen and
accepted, because they lie in the path by which greater good
is to be attained. Mr. Symes says that he points out the
misdeeds and shows up the criminal conduct of God, and that
when he does so I reply, “ Yes, but he couldn’t help it.”
This is my opponent’s way of admitting that when he
charges the sufferings of mortals upon the Deity, as a Being
who could prevent them but will not, I have a reply for
him. I show that instead of limiting God’s good intent and
beneficent action, it is equally a solution of the difficulty if
we suppose a limitation of power. Then I show that limita
tions actually exist, in the ever-present conditions under
which operations are performed and ends wrought out. This
view of mine, which I reverently maintain, the language
of my opponent grossly misrepresents as equivalent to
making God “ the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
that ever lived.” It makes him and it leaves him almighty.
The alternative would have been to maintain that the power
of deity is without limits of any sort—that he can make
squares without angles, or diffuse a limited quantity of
material through a greater space without spreading it thinner.
This might have pleased Mr. Symes, who now parades
“the orthodox divinity who never loses his power, the oldfashioned Christian God with whom all things were pos
sible.” He never heard of any view of omnipotence different
from that which I maintain ; but he has heard of this oldfashioned Christian God so different from mine, and thinks
such a conception of God preferable. Naturally so, because
it is the conception which he feels able to demolish, as it is
composed of inconsistent parts.
Mr. Symes, unable to comprehend the temporary use of
scaffolding, except for human builders, inquires how long
�32
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
evil must last to be inconsistent with goodness ? Probably
as long as the good process which necessitates it as a con
comitant is still proceeding, and has not got beyond the
stage which requires it. I am surprised it should appear1
to Mr. Symes’s intelligence that the evil which is compatible
with goodness for a limited time, may as well be so for ever.
A stormy voyage may be endured because of the desirability
of migrating to a better country; but surely the storms
must be differently regarded if it is known that they are to
be perpetual and there is no port to be reached. Mr. Symes
forms his impression of the storms while he is sea-sick,
and refuses beforehand to find any compensation in reaching
the haven of rest. Suppose the storms go, he maintains
that the crime of their introduction or creation remains.”
He persists in charging all evils upon the Deity as crimes, as
though he knew enough of the ultimate issues of things to
justify him in saying there has been the least departure
from wise and good arrangements. If impossibilities could
be effected we might have the fruit before the bud, and ripe
apples before sour ones. If Mr. Symes is going to be
reasonable he must not ask for such things. He does ask
for them when he demands wisdom before ignorance and
declares that a good and wise God would not have left his
creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be known. And
he does ask for them, in my opinion, when he complains
against God on account of any evil whatever. He cannot
show that whatever is is not best, in the sense of being the
best possible at the present stage of the general progress.
As usual I leave much unsaid for want of space.
LETTER VII.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair’s third is no stronger in facts or arguments
than his two former letters. It would, however, be unkind
to grumble, as he cannot present a strong case for Theism,
for the very sufficient reason that no such case exists.
He complains of my “ language about the deity.” Well,
in that he shows himself as unreasonable, though not so
cruel, as Nebuchadnezzar when he sent the three Hebrews
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
33
to the fiery furnace for refusing to worship his image. Mr.
St. Clair thinks I should “ advance reasons for believing
Atheism to be rational.” Each of my letters has teemed
with such reasons, not one of which has been yet refuted.
Has my opponent read what I have written ? I have also
shown how irrational it is to believe in a good and omni
potent god. The facts of nature proclaim aloud that no
good god exists; and there does not exist one fact, or one
aggregation of facts, to warrant the belief that an omni
potent god lives. Therefore Mr. St. Clair’s belief is
irrational. The believers in Mumbo Jumbo, the infalli
bility of the Pope, transubstantiation, or witchcraft, are not
more irrational than a Theist. They all believe, no doubt,
sincerely enough, but without any adequate reason.
In my last I expressed the anticipation that my opponent
would in his next argue the omnipotence of his deity from
his “ inability to remove evils.” Mr. St. Clair, in the
penultimate paragraph of his third letter, obligingly fulfils
my prediction by affirming that “ a limitation of power ”
, . . “ makes and leaves god almighty.”
Mr. St. Clair takes umbrage at my request that he would
be “ candid.” The request arose from that reference to the
dictionary and its necessary connexions. I do not yet know
whether the dictionary contains a definition he approves.
It seems to me—I may be in error—but it seems to me that
candor would have set me at rest on that before now.
At length Mr. St. Clair plunges into the Design Argu
ment—the most fallacious and ill founded of all the argu
ments for divine existence.
1. Adaptation argues an adapter, and an intelligent one.
Does it? Water is as well adapted for drowning land
animals as it is for marine animals to live in. Fire is
beautifully adapted to burn men; falling stones, trees, etc.,
storms, floods, explosions, fevers, famines, wild beasts, earth
quakes, and a thousand other evils are delightfully fitted to
kill them. Old age, too, will do it equally well. It cannot
be denied that the processes of decay and destruction show
as much regularity of action and as perfect adaptation of
means to ends as the processes which result in life. Perhaps
Mr. St. Clair regards an earthquake, a cantier, or any other
destructive agency as a “ sort of accident;” he fails to see,
probably, how beautifully, cunningly, and maliciously
�34
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
they are fitted for their work of destruction and misery 1
Certain skin diseases, tic-doloreux, sciatica, cramps, the
stone—how beautifully they are all adapted to the work of
inflicting pain ! Racks, wheels, stakes, gyves, “ boots,”
thumbscrews, bastinadoes, swords, guns, etc., are all made,
and argue or imply makers ; but earthquakes, plagues, frost
and snow, floods, famines, wild beasts, fevers, small-pox,
cancer, and what not, are immensely superior as agents of
pain and death, and yet Mr. St. Clair seems to see no design
in them, and fails to recognise the existence of a perfectly
malignant god, who made them all for his own pleasure !
Can perversity of intellect proceed farther? My worthy
opponent can readily enough perceive the design and the
malice of an infernal machine, and yet fails to recognise
the design and the malice of diseases and famines! He
recognises the folly or the malice of warriors, murderers,
and tyrants who kill or torture a few; and yet cannot admit
that there must be an omnipotent god, who cunningly con
trives and maliciously sets in motion the grand and perfect
machinery of nature to destroy all living things 1 He admits
the existence of folly and malice amongst mankind, and yet
refuses to admit that far greater folly and malice “ preside
over the universe ! ”
Of course, it cannot rationally be contended that god is
infinitely foolish and malicious, though he is “ perfectly” so.
He cannot do “ impossibilities,” nor things involving “ con
tradiction.” He found matter to his hand, and had to work
under the “ same condition of labor ” that men work under ;
and so, though the universe is not absolutely and infinitely
bad, yet it is as bad as the deity could possibly make it.
And, further, we are not to argue that because some scraps
of good, or seeming good, really do exist, that therefore the
good is eternal; for “ limited good for a limited time ” may
be consistent with perfect evil, and the deity is working by
various agencies to remove all good from his universe; and
then nought but evil will remain for ever!
There is Mr. St. Clair’s argument simply reversed.
2. But I must notice in detail the very few natural pheno
mena my opponent condescends to mention. The eye he
instances as a proof of design and beneficent divine work
manship. He says it is superior to opera-glasses. The best
eyes, no doubt, are better than opera-glasses. But our best
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
35
telescopes and microscopes far transcend the eye as optical
instruments. Its qualities are coarse and rudimentary com
pared with theirs. Eyes ! They are beautiful and ugly,
of good color and of disagreeable ; there are blear eyes,
goggle eyes, squint eyes, wall eyes ; color-blindness is a
defect observed in many thousands. Millions upon millions
of eyes never see at all. Were they made to see with ?
Had a beneficent creator made eyes, he would have
ensured their good performance. Had he meant them
for human advantage, he would have turned out
respectable workmanship. I wonder he did not do that
for his own credit. What optician could follow his example ?
All over the civilised world are ophthalmic institutions,
where men are constantly engaged patching up, or actually
improving, the work of Mr. St. Clair’s divine manufacturer,
who made eyes of water, jelly and soft fibres, whereas they
should have been made of hard and tough material, so that
disarrangement and destruction were next to impossible.
And these eyes, good, bad, useless, are palmed off upon us
by the maker, whether we like them or not. He gives no
guarantee for their performance either, as a respectable
jnanufacturei’ would, nor does he ever repair them when
dace out of order. There is no sense of honesty, decency or
shame in this deity. If he bestows eyes as a duty, they
ought all to be good ; if out of charity, it is a mockery to
give a poor wretch the eyes we often see !
If the eye is a divinely-manufactured article, as Mr. St.
Clair says (without attempting to prove it), then the worker
knew less of optics than I do, or else carelessly did his
work. The eye is not achromatic, and it has too many
lenses, the many surfaces of which waste light. It has the
defect of astigmatism, which shows that its maker did not
know much of mathematical optics. This grand instru
ment, the crowning work of an almighty god, has two
odd curves in the front—that is, in the cornea.
Everyone knows that the common run of spectacles
have a longer curve horizontally than perpendicularly,
and so has the eye !
Our best lenses are ground to
mathematical correctness, and the same curve prevails all
over the same side ; but the eye is herein defective. Hence
we cannot see, at the distance of clear vision, a horizontal
and perpendicular line distinctly at once : one of them is in
�36
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
focus when the other is out. Had there been a wise and
beneficent creator, he would long since have corrected this
defect, for opticians pointed it out generations ¡fince in
their critiques upon the eye. The eye, therefore, if made at
all, must be considered as the work of a mere amateur, and
-of one who worked more for his own amusement than for
human welfare.
3. The teeth! First of all, we are born without any;
later we “cut” them in misery, convulsions, often at the
expense of life.' The teeth thus cut are not permanent,
after all; in a few years they drop out, or are pushed out
by the so-called permanent teeth. And these!—in many
cases they begin to decay in a very few years ; henceforth
the victim of this dishonest tooth-maker is subject to tooth
ache, neuralgia, and dyspepsia. He also has to go to the
expense of new teeth, stuffing, etc., if he can afford them.
And may I ask my opponent what he would think of a
dentist who furnished him with teeth that ached, and
and decayed, and tumbled out ? What would he say if any
dentist treated him half so badly as his deity treats thousands?
If eyes and teeth are really manufactured by deity, Mr. St.
Clair must refute my criticisms, or admit that his deity is a
clumsy or careless worker, and also very dishonest and cr^jel.
These facts must be met and explained before Theism can
be shown to be rational.
4. But Mr. St. Clair seems to me virtually to give up all
possible right to use the Design Argument by admitting, as
he does, the independent existence of matter. If there be a
mystery in nature, then the existence of matter is that
mystery. And, further, there must be, from the nature of the
case, as much, at least, as much, if not more, design and
adaptation in the very elements of matter as in any living
thing. And, further still, I am not aware that anyone has
yet drawn the line between living matter and non-living
matter, nor have I any reason to suppose such a line
possible. All matter is probably alive, and always was
so, and ever will be so, though in far different degrees.
I affirm, too, that the adaptation between the molecules,
or atoms, or whatever the ultimate elements of matter may
be called, must be more perfect than between the parts of a
man. No man is perfect; nor is his best organ beyond the
range of adverse criticism. No man is perfectly adapted to
�ATHEISM Oli THEISM ?
37
his environment—at best his adaptation is but a makeshift,
a “ roughing it,” a period of unstable equilibrium, a tight
rope dance for dear life, with absolute certainty in every
case of a fatal fall by way of finale.
Turning from man, look at the ocean. Its waves swell
and roar and break a million million times ; but its water
changes not. Its atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are in
perfect equilibrium, in perfect mutual adaptation. So was
it when the first water flowed ; so will it be for ever. And
could that adaptation, so perfect, so absolute, so time-defy
ing, be the result of an accident, or natural result of merely
natural forces, as Mr. St. Clair implies ? And will he con
tend that the most perfect adaptations require no adapter,
while asserting that the imperfect, evanescent, and miserable
adaptations seen in man required for their production
an almighty and intelligent god ? To do so may be
prime theology, but it is not philosophy, nor science, nor
reason.
Mr. St. Clair now admits that he cannot define deity. I
suspected as much—he has no deity to define. Then why
does he contend for what he does not understand ? Like
the woman of Samaria, he “ worships he knows not what.”
“A mother’s affection is intended for the good of her off
spring,” my opponent informs me. It is impossible that he
can know that it is “ intended” for anything; that it does
effect the good of her offspring, though not invariably, is at
once conceded. What more does Mr. St. Clair know about
it ? And what is a mother’s hate “ intended ” for ? And
this hate “ owes its origin to the author of life.” Rabbits
frequently eat their young; is that also at the instigation
of deity ? Such arguments as my opponent deals in are
not “ Theistic facts,” as he supposes; they are merely
superstitious fictions unworthy the respect of a man
like Mr. St. Clair. To talk about deity caring for a
mother’s offspring is to me simply shocking. Who is
it' kills children in millions by measles, whooping cough,
convulsions, fever, small-pox, by earthquake, flood and
famine ? If there really does exist a deity, he kills millions of
children every century by famine. Has Mr. St. Clair ever
reflected on that fact ? Why, if a mother’s love has any
“ intention ” at all, it is to defend her child as long as
possible against the murderous attacks of this very deity,
�88
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
who meets us at every turn and “ seeks to kill us ” at every
stage of life.
Will Mr. St. Clair give me one proved Theistic fact in
his next ?
LETTER VIII.
From Mr. Gr. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Robinson Crusoe was puzzled as to his whereabouts in the
great ocean, but he was able to explore his little island;
and he might have made canoe voyages and gradually
extended the area of his knowledge, though hopeless of
including all the world. Mankind, in like manner, have
mapped the solar system, and delved down to the Silurian
rocks with their fossils, and they find their knowledge real
and useful, though it brings them no nearer to the beginning
of time or the boundaries of space. Our inability to com
prehend the Infinite is not a reason for undervaluing the
things within our reach. It is foolish to say we explain
nothing, because we cannot fully understand the first origin.
Things are explained, in a degree which gives the mind
some satisfaction, when we trace them back to their causes.
The trade winds, for instance, are accounted for by the
sun’s heat and the earth’s rotation : and this explanation is
not rendered inaccurate by pointing out that the cause of
the earth’s rotation is not known, and that the sun’s heat
itself requires accounting for. I, in my Crusoe fashion,
explore, and am obliged to be content with something less
than infinite knowledge. I trace some things to man’s intel
ligent action as their cause, and am convinced that certain
steam-engines, pumps, microscopes, &c., would not have
existed but for his operation. I find other things which I
can only explain by ascribing them to an intelligence which
is not man’s. The worker is not seen, but the work is seen;
and I know there must have been an architect of the human
frame, as I know there must have been a designer of
Cologne cathedral.
The human eye would be enough evidence if I had no
other. “ Was the eye constructed without skill in optics ? ”
asks that great mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton—“ or the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
S9
ear without knowledge of sounds ? ” The argument is a
thousand-fold stronger for regarding the human frame as a
designed structure taking it as a whole ; for the eye stands
to the body only as the east window to the cathedral. The
teeth are a beautiful apparatus, surpassing human inven
tions, when we consider their growth, their enamelled pro
tective covering, their office, and their position at the
entrance of the alimentary canal, in proximity to the
tongue and the sources of saliva. The valves in the blood- vessels are so manifestly placed there with a view of securing
the circulation of the blood that Harvey inferred the Crea
tor’s intention, and so was guided to his discovery. It is a
question which all great investigators ask—“ What is the
creative intention in this arrangement ?■ ” for they find it a
clue to discovery. I must not linger over the human body:
let Atheists read Paley, Brougham, and Bell, and some of
them will give up their Atheism and take to refuting Mr.
Symes’s worn-out objections. Every creature is admirably
adapted to its mode of life and to the element in which
it lives. If we desired to give the body of a fish the best
form for moving through the water we should have to
fashion it as a solid of least resistance. “ A very difficult
chain of mathematical reasoning, by means of the highest
branches of algebra, leads to a knowledge of the curve which,
by revolving on its axis, makes a solid of this shape ....
and the curve resembles closely the face or head part of a
fish.” Let the young reader, perplexed by Mr. Symes’s
objections, read more of this in Lord Brougham’s “ Objects,
Advantages and Pleasures of Science.” The feathers of the
wings of birds are found to be placed at the best possible
angle for assisting progress by their action on the air. In
the Duke of Argyll’s “ Reign of Law ” there is a chapter
concerning the admirable mechanism of the bird’s wing. A
bird is heavier than the air in which it is sustained, and it
has to make headway against a resisting atmosphere. Man’s
poor attempts to make wings usually result in the disaster
of Imlac in Dr. Johnson’s “ Rasselas ” ; man’s attempts to
navigate the air by balloons are so poor that the Customs
Officers have no fear of being eluded. If we wish to see
how material laws can be so bent as to effect a designed
purpose we must study the problem of a bird’s flight.
Leaving birds for insects, how marvellous it is that the
�40
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cabbage butterfly should always lay its eggs on the cabbage,
the leaves of which are so suited for the nourishment of the
young grubs, and will be so much relished! That butter
fly has no taste for cabbage leaves itself, and it will not live
to see its offspring, yet its instinct—which is not of its own
creation—guides it aright. These are samples of Theistic
facts, in one department. When Mr. Symes has dealt with
them I can furnish more.
In my Crusoe fashion, I discern an intelligence at work
which is not my own, nor that of my brother man, which
immensely transcends mine and his, though, with my Crusoe
limitations, I have not the means of deciding the measure
of its greatness. I discern a worker, whether infinite or
not—a worker operating under conditions, whether the con
ditions be self-imposed or not. He accomplishes many
things which I can appreciate ; He seems to be working
out greater purposes which I do but dimly grasp.
As an evolutionist I discern something of a purpose
running through the ages, independent of the will of kings
and legislators. I perceive a gradual advance to higher
platforms of life, at present culminating in man. Man did
not come until the earth had been prepared for him, and
stores of coal and iron laid up for his use. Apparently he
could not come without lower creatures preceding him ;
because he had to be born from them. As a race, we have
had to go through our schooling, for in no other way could
we become educated; our struggle with difficulty makes
men of us, unless we neutralise it by taking the discipline
sulkily. Had the Creator been perpetually at our elbow to
do our lessons for us, to work for us while we slept, and to
help us over all stiles, we should never have attained intel
lectual manhood and moral strength. Man is progressing
still, and therefore will be a nobler creature by and bye.
His surroundings are subject to an evolution and improve
ment, which advances pari passu with himself. He himself
is the Creator’s latest-fashioned and best-adapted instru
ment for effecting these desirable adaptations, commissioned
to carry on and carry out some of the highest purposes of
God. It is a great thing to be conscious of this ; and I am
bold to say that thousands of good people are conscious of
communion with a Higher Soul, of inspirations received
from him, and of tasks assigned by him, the act omplish*
4
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
41
meut of which is another phrase for co-operation with him
and doing his will on earth.
This Divine Worker seems to be limited by “the con
ditions of all work.” rAs regards ourselves and our own
work, we candlbt conceive how we could live at all in a
dreamy, shifting, chance world, not subject to fixed con
ditions. We are finite and conditioned, and cannot realise
an utterly different kind of existence. It would follow from
this alone that anything which the Creater may do with us
or for us must be conformable to the conditions of the
world we live in if it is to be comprehensible to us. Although,
therefore, He be great beyond all assignable limits, he must
necessarily look limited to us. Where we see him operating
we see him making use of natural forces, moulding and
directing them. The natural forces in themselves are neither
moral nor immoral—steam, electricity, and strychnine have
no conscience, and are not to be blamed or praised for their
effects. They may be turned to good uses or to bad uses—
strychnine to poison or to relieve, steam to work a locomo
tive or propel a murderous bullet. We infer a worker and
his moral character from the use made of natural forces.
Mr. Symes does not distinguish between forces working
blindly and forces working under intelligent direction, but
insists on ascribing all results to God, or else none. This
is not what I discern, for I perceive that some things have
been contrived by some Intelligence, and of other things I
do not perceive it.
An enlightened evolutionist ought to know that “ Evil ”
is “ Good in the making.” It has been so in the past,
again and again. Perfect goodness is producing more and
more good constantly (evil, as Spencer shows, is evanes
cent) and may probably produce infinite good in the course
of time. But Mr. Symes is not content to have it produced,
he wants his bread before the cake is baked.
Mr. Symes finishes his last by asking “Will I give him one
proved Theistic fact?” Well, something depends upon
what is allowed to be “ proof,” and that again depends upon
whether you have to convince a man of common sense or a
man of uncommon obstinacy. If folk possess eyes it is no
guarantee that light will reach their minds, if they choose
to live in a camera obscura. My opponent closes the shutters
and then complains that things are dark. What can I do
�42
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
with a man who does not believe that eyes are given him
to see with ? On the same principle his faculties are not
given him to enable him either to reason correctly or to
understand arguments. Perhaps I ought not to be surprised
that my proofs are thrown away upon him.
1 have noticed in going through a cut-glass manufactory
that although the workmen are skilful and the processes are
ingenious by which the crude “ metal” is blown, annealed,
ground on wheels of iron for the pattern, and on wheels of
stone and wood for smoothing and polishing—I have noticed
that accidents are liable to occur at every stage, and some
few cruets, wine-glasses, decanters, etc., get broken and
thrown into the waste tub. But if I want to see what is
being produced, and was designed before it was manufac
tured, I go not to the waste-tub, but to the show-room.
Certainly even a fractured salt-cellar in the waste-tub
would show design—a formative design accidently baulked,
not a design to produce fracture and waste—but a wise man
will rather go to the show-room. Mr. Symes, I imagine,
would go to the waste-tub and refuse to see anything out
side of it. He invites us to contemplate blind eyes, rotten
teeth and people suffering from cancer. He assures us that
had a beneficent Creator made our eyes He would have
ensured their good performance. I should reply that He
does so. “ Not in all cases,” says my querulous friend,
“ why I find squinting eyes and blind eyes, and here are
ophthalmic institutions ! ” True, man’s heart of pity leads
him to heal. Man’s intelligence enables him to understand
something of optics. In both respects he is growing up in
the ways of his Heavenly Father. The modest Newton
admired the Divine skill in optics: but Mr. Symes claims
to “ know more of optics himself,” and to be able to teach
the Creator his business. The eye “ought to have been made
not of water, jelly, and soft fibres, but of hard and tough
material.” Surely Alphonso of Castile has come back again.
That monarch said that had he been of the privy council of
the Deity he could have advised the formation of the solar
system on a better plan ! Had he said this concerning the
actual solar system instead of against the false system of
Ptolemy, it would have been irreverent, not to say blasphe
mous. I count it rather inconsistent in Mr. Symes to want
any uyes at all, as he thinks they were not made to see with
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
43
and are an endlass bother. Perhaps the hard and tough one£
which he would substitute would be faulty in their re
fraction (for all work is conditioned by the material).
Can my opponent assure me that it would not be so ? Has
he got any of these eyes ready-made, and do they answer
perfectly ? or is this an empty boast of his about improving
upon the Creator’s work ? I doubt not that there is a good
reason for employing soft humors and delicate fibres in the
eye, and then I admire the care and wisdom which have
provided so well for the protection of such a delicate organ,
by the position given to it, in a bony socket defended by lids
and lashes and ramparts. “ But the eye lacks achromatism,
and has the defect of astigmatism, and follows the pattern
of inferior spectacle-glasses in having two curves in the
cornea.” Rather random assertions these : take for instance
the first. Chromatism is color-ism; a double convex lens
or magnifying glass causes objects to appear with rainbow
colored fringes. This was a defect for a long time in
telescopes, and telescopes free from the defect are called
achromatic. Well, are we troubled and inconvenienced by
seeing these colored fringes when we use the naked eye ?
Is any reader conscious of it ? Now what is the fact ? All
telescopes were defective in this particular, and Sir I.
Newton had said that there could be no remedy, until it
occurred to an ingenious optician that the difficulty must
have been overcome by the Maker of the eye. So he
examined the eye till he discovered how it was overcome,
and then by imitation of the Creator’s method invented the
first achromatic telescope. I would call my opponent’s
attention to this, but I suppose it is of no use ; he will
persist in regarding the eyes as clumsy workmanship and in
complaining that they are palmed off upon us whether we
like it or not. The traveller Vambery mentions that in
Bokhara they punish slaves by gouging out their eyes. Mr.
Symes, to be consistent, ought not to protest against the
■cruelty, since in his estimation it involves no loss, and the
Chief cruelty is in having the eyes thrust upon us. But in
answer to his astounding assertion that the eye is not
respectable workmanship and that the best telescopes far
transcend it as optical instruments, it is sufficient to say
that we can see with our eyes, unaided by telescopes, whereas
we cannot see with telescopes unaided by eyes.
�44
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
My opponent not only damns his eyes, but curses his
Jreth. First because he is born without them! On his
theory this ought to be an advantage, so far as it goes. But,
considering that other beautiful provision of the beneficent
Creator, which supplies a fountain of milk for the infant
lips to draw from, teeth are not only not required for a milk
diet, but would be inconvenient to the mother. Then Mr.
Symes cries out, “ We cut them in misery! ” He is always
afraid of a little pain. “The first set are not permanent.”
No, becau-e the child will grow, the jaws will lengthen, and
there will be room enough for larger teeth, and for thirtytwo instead of twenty. Mr. Symes, as a child, had less
jaw; which reminds me, however, of a pun made by John
Hunter, the famous surgeon. While he was once lecturing,
and pointing out that in the higher animals the jaw is
shorter, while the intelligence, of course, is greater, his
pupils were chattering nonsense to one another. “ Gentle
men,” said Hunter, “let us have more intellect and less
jaw!” I don’t know whether those young men had attained
their wisdom-teeth. Mr. Symes is annoyed that even the
second set of teeth are subject to neuralgia and decay.
This he considers a great Atheistic fact. The evil appa
ratus of the teeth is thrust upon us in the same cruel
manner as our clumsily-made eyes, and we may any day
have an attack of neuralgia. At length, however, the
teeth decay and leave us, and then what do we do ? Why,
it appears, we have to go to the expense of a new set, so
essential are they, and this is made an additional subject of
complaint! By the bye, I suppose I must not pass over the
question put—what should I say if a dentist supplied me
with teeth that ached ? I should say that he was cleverer
than any other dentist I had met with, for the aching was
proof that he had connected the teeth with nerves, and made
them live. I should say I was glad to have living teeth in.
my mouth, instead of dead ivory, and that I was satisfied
the teeth were contrived for me to eat with, while their very
occasional aching was only an unpleasant incident, and per
haps brought on by my own folly. Careful people will not
often catch cold in the face, and good, moral people will not
so devote themselves to Venus and mercury that their teeth
fall out.
Let us come to adaptations. Of course I am not going.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
45
to be pinned to any definition which makes adaptation the
same thing as design. Some adaptations may not be
designed. There’s a distinction to be drawn between mere
fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness which intends
to secure the result. But Mr. Symes as usual does not
perceive distinctions which make all the difference. He
says that water is adapted for drowning and fire for burning.
Granted: but are they purposely adapted, deliberately
designed and fitted ? This is the very essence of the question.
When the jeweller’s boy drops a watch, gravity and “ the
law of falling bodies” are adapted to smash it; but that is
an accidental adaptation, not to be compared with the
adaptation of part to part in the construction of the watch
—not to be compared with it, but rather contrasted.
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall, and the egg thus smashed
could not say that gravity was unadapted to produce the
result ; but compare this with the purposive adaptation of
an egg, as I will now epitomise it from Professor Owen’s
lecture on “ Design.” An egg is made convex and dome
like, to bear the weight of the sitting bird. It contains a
whitish spot, which is the germ, in which the development
of the chick begins. The germ is on one side of the yolk,
quite near to the shell, for it is necessary that it should be
brought as close as possible to the hot brooding skin of the
sitting hen. Now it is a fact that though you take as many
eggs as you please, and turn them about as often as you
like, you will always find this opaque white spot at the
middle of the uppermost surface of the yolk. Hunter com
pared this phasnomenon to the movements of the needle to
the pole. Of course there is an apparatus -which secures
this result; but it is an apparatus, a piece of machinery.
“ As the vital fire burns up, organic material is reduced to
carbon ; a membrane, over which the blood spreads in a
net-work of minute vessels, like a gill or lung, then extends
from the embryo to the inner side of the shell, between it
and the white; the shell is made porous to allow the air
access to this temporary respiratory organ ; and the oxygen
combining with the carbon, it exhales as carbonic acid. As
the chick approaches the period of its extrication, it is able
to breathe by its proper lungs, and in the vesica aeris, or
collection of air at the great end of the egg, it finds the
wherewithal to begin its feeble inspirations, and to utter the
�46
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Jow chirp which may be heard just before it chips the shell.
And how does it effect this ? By means of a hard knob
specially formed upon the end of the upper beak, and which,
after it has done its work, disappears.” All this appears to
me something very different from the adaptedness of the
hard ground to break the egg if it falls; but Mr. Symes
would have us believe that the adaptation is of the same
sort! His words are, “ It cannot be denied that the pro
cesses of decay and destruction show as perfect adaptation i
of means to ends as processes which result in life.”
He argues that if anything is designed, earthquakes,
plagues, cancer, etc., are designed to cause pain, and must
be regarded as proving a malignant God. But can he show
that the fitness or adaptation in these agencies is purposive ?
I can see design in an infernal machine ; oh yes ! but I am
not convinced that earthquakes are an infernal arrangement,
much less that teeth are a diabolical invention because
they sometimes ache. The adaptedness of the teeth for
mastication bears the appearance of a good purpose; the
adaptedness of an earthquake to rock down houses is
not clearly purposive at all. There are influences of
destruction and of decay, I admit; but the constructive
operations are what I see design in. If I don’t attribute
the former to God, my opponent must not object, since he
does not either.
I have a word to say which must be fatal to this idea
that the forces of decay and destruction are purposive, if
any are, and prove a malignant deity. A malignant deity
finding pleasure in destruction, would soon destroy every
thing. But, in fact, the agencies which build up are
stronger than the agencies which destroy; construction
gains upon decay, good gains upon evil. For evil is evanes
cent as Herbert Spencer shows, in a chapter which Mr.
Symes will not deal with. Even if destruction had to be
ascribed to a destroying deity, construction would have to be
ascribed to a deity engaged in building up. Then, as the
same being would hardly build up with one hand and destroy
with the other, Mr. Symes would be landed in Dualism, or
the old Persian belief in two Gods. The further fact that
construction is gaining upon decay, good gaining upon evil,
would force him to admit that the good deity was the
stronger. The way out of this difficulty is only to be found
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
47
fai Theism as I advocate it—one God, operating under con|
ditions. One proof and test of this Theism consists in the
fact that evil and decay do not carry purpose on the face of
them, while organised adaptations do.
If the reader grasps this fact he will see through my
opponent’s curious attempt to turn my argument round and
make it appear equally good for proving the existence of a
malignant deity. He suggests such a being, “ laboring
under conditions ” which prevent infinite evil from being
effected at once, but “ working by various agencies to remove
all good from his universe.” He does not seem to see
that this implies a universe of “ good ” to begin with, and
that this is another form of his irrational demand that the
finished thing should exist before the crude and unwrought,
the perfect v^ork before there has been time for its elabora
tion. He wants his cake before it is baked, before the flour
is kneaded, before the wheat is grown.
LETTER IX.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair says he “ knows ” there must have been
an “ architect of the human frame,” as he knows there
must have been “ a designer of Cologne Cathedral.” Well,
then, the human frame must be an architectural production,
or building. Of what Order, of what Style is it ? I never
saw it described in any book on Architecture : how is that ?
So baseless is my opponent’s Theism that he confounds
language in order to support it. If he will prove that
man’s frame is an architectural structure, I will prove
Cologne Cathedral to be a mushroom, of an edible sort, too.
Mr. St. Clair having no case, no real god, no facts to
support his superstition, cherishing a blind belief in an
impossibility, resorts to the unconscious legerdemain of
deceiving himself and his readers by the use of poetical and
mythical language, in which the distinction between natural
objects and human manufactures is ignored, and a potato
is dubbed a building and a building designated a turnip.
This is what the “Design argument” resolves itself into;
and under its witchery, men, not otherwise unfair or
�4 <8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
^logical, run through fantastic mazes of bewilderment,
vainly persuading themselves that they are reasoning, when
they arc only floundering in “ Serbonian bogs,” following
the Theistic will-o’-the-wisp, manifestly benighted and lost,
and yet assuring you with the utmost gravity that they and
they alone are perfectly self-possessed and well know their
whereabouts, and whither they are tending.
With Mr. St. Clair, teeth are yet a beautiful apparatus
designed and intended for mastication. Has he never
reflected that nutrition is totally independent of mastication
and teeth in countless millions of beings ? The child lives
without teeth, so does many an old man ; sheep and cows
have no front teeth in the upper jaw; the whale, the
dugong, the ornithorhynchus, ant-eaters, and all birds are
destitute of teeth. If presence of teeth argues design, what
does their absence argue ? If ^od gives a man teeth to eat
with, I presume he means him to cease eating when he
destroys them. Instead of that, my opponent and other
irreverent and disobedient Theists, either misunderstanding
or disregarding the divine intimation, rush away to the
dentist and get other teeth wherewith to obstruct the divinf
intentions ! Will he explain his conduct?
Of course, I admit that nature can in some departments
immensely exceed man, but that does not prove any exis
tence ctbopc nature. The valves of the blood-vessels are
manifestly placed there to secure the circulation of the
blood, says my opponent. He might as well affirm that a
river-bed is manifestly placed where it is to secure the flow
of the river that way. Which existed first, rivers or river
beds? Which existed first, valves or blood-circulation?
There is in the animal world abundant circulation without
valves or veins. The cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises,
&c.) have no valves in their veins; and yet, I presume,
their blood circulates as well as ours. Circulation goes on
in a speck of protoplasm where there is no structure at all.
Even in organisms, the heart may be very diverse, and yet
serve the owner as well as we are served. In frogs, toads,
&c., there is but one ventricle; in most fish there is but one
auricle and one ventricle; in the lancelet there is but a
single tube. But their blood circulates as well as ours.
Had Mr. St. Clair’s deity felt any deep concern for
human welfare, he would have placed, had it occurred to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
49
him, valves in the deep arteries, so that the poor wretcH
who ruptures one of them should not bleed to death.
I grew out of Paley, Brougham, and Bell’s theology years
ago. What naturalist or physiologist to-day shows any
respect to their crude Design argument ? Besides, Mr. St.
Clair has no right to refer to them; his god is not theirs—
theirs was almighty and infinitely wise; his a poor puny
thing for whom his single high priest is ever making
apologies.
If every creature were adapted, !< admirably ” or not, “to
the element in which it lives,” it wmuld never die. Geological
strata furnish absolute proofs that no creatures, no race of
creatures, were ever yet “ admirably adapted to their con
ditions.” Whole races have died out. Will my opponent
kindly explain ? Has he ever read of famines, coal-pit
disasters, earthquakes? What sort of a world does he live in?
Has he never passed a shambles or a cemetery ? Do the
creatures of his marvellously concocted god die of excessive
adaptation to their environments, or what ?
The fish is of just the right shape—the solid of hast
resistance fits it for its element. This looks learned and
imposing. But are all inhabitants of the water of one shape?
How is the solid of least resistance realized in the spermaceti
whale, with its big, blunt, square-fronted head ? In the
hammer-head? In the “ Portuguese man-of-war ? ” In
those slow ones that fall a prey to the swift ? Mr. St. Clair
reminds me of that venerable lady who could not sufficiently
admi re the ■wisdom of god in making rivers run down hill
and along the valleys. That, certainly, is a very strong
proof of divine existence; for rivers would run the other
way if there were no god, just as surely as fishes would be
of divers shapes, instead of being all of one pattern as they
now are, if there were not a god to make them all in his own
image.
The feathers of a bird’s wings are placed, I am informed,
at the “ best possible angle for assisting progress,” etc.
And cold is found in the best possible conditions for freezing
the early buds and blossoms and for killing men and children
exposed to it. Heat is well adapted to warming purposes.
Had there been no god, heat would probably freeze things,
and frost would roast, boil, or burn them. There is as much
design in the one case as in the other. Mr. St. Clair may
�50
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
next tell us the design in the wings of a penguin, a moa, or
an apteryx.
The cabbage butterfly deposits its eggs by instinct, says my
opponent. How does he know that sight or smell does not
guide it ? Has he consulted the insect ? What is instinct ?
And what right has Mr. St. Clair’s god to destroy my cabbages
by the disgusting caterpillars which spring from those eggs ?
Gardeners kill those caterpillars by myriads every year; but
the real destroyer of our gardens is Mr. St. Clair’s god.
Whose instinct or instigation leads the ichneumon to deposit
its eggs right in the body of a caterpillar, so that its
murderous brood should eat up their living host ? Whose
instinct guides the tapeworm to a human body ? Whose
instinct guides the locusts to lay waste a country and produce
a famine ?
My opponent says that butterflies and other objects men
tioned in his second paragraph are “ samples of theisti®'
facts.” So much the worse for deity and Theism, if true. I
had supposed, however, that Mr. St. Clair knew the differ
ence between Theology and Natural Science 1 Must I
enlighten him ? The eye and the circulation of the blood
are anatomical and physiological facts, not Theistic; birds
and fishes are subjects in zoology, and insects belong to the
sub-science of entomology. Cannibalism is as much, possibly
more, a Theistic fact as any yet named. Though if my
opponent will claim for his god the credit of creating all
noxious and destructive pests, including fleas, bugs, tape
worms, etc., I suppose an Atheist need not complain.
What my opponent says of “ discerning an intelligence
at work,” a “ worker .... whether infinite or not,” a
“ purpose running through the ages,” etc., is no doubt
borrowed from one of his discourses; and sure I am it
edified all the devout who listened to it. But discussion is
not a devotional exercise exactly, and I must beg him to
translate those liturgical scraps into plain language,
specially that about the “purpose running through the
ages.” The language is good ; I wonder if the purpose is.
I am in a fever-heat of anxiety to hear what it is my
opponent discerns, whether anyone else may get a glimpse
of it—at not too great a cost. The man that can “ discern
a purpose running through the ages ” of human history
must be either very much clearer sighted or immensely
�ATHEISM OB THEISM ?
51
more superstitious than anyone that I know. Indeed, I
must, till evidence be forthcoming, regard the boast as
nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. Is Mr. St. Clair a
clairvoyant, I wonder, or subject to second sight ?
“Man,” we are gravely told, “did not come until the earth
had been prepared for him.” Neither did the tapeworm, till
man had been prepared for him. It is worthy of note, too, that
pickpockets, forgers, swindlers, fortunetellers, inquisitors,
aristocrats, and vermin generally “ did not come till the
«
earth had been prepared for them.” And, who would credit
it ? there never was a chimney sweep till chimneys existed !
In that fact “ I discern ” a profound “ purpose ” of a two
fold nature:—1st. Chimneys were intended and designed to
be swept, and to this end divine Providence made coals
black and sooty, else sweeps would never have had any
work; 2nd. He made the sweeps in order to clear the flues
of their foulness. Mr. St. Clair may close his eyes to these
facts as long as he pleases ; they are Theistic facts—if any
and are a most remarkable proof of design and
intelligence. It was just as impossible for man to antedate
his necessary epoch, or to postpone it, as for sweeps to precede chimneys. Man’s coming was the natural and inevitable Outcome or result of all the phænomena that preceded
him io-flis own line of development. You have no better
proof that water is a natural product than that man is such.
He had nbJntelligent creator, nor was one required. Man
is a natural, not supernatural, phænomenon. His so-called
creator is Really his creation, a fancy, a bugbear, and
nothing more. It is high time for Atheists, I think, to
cease beating about the bush, and tell the Theist bluntly
that his gods are figments neither useful nor ornamental,
th® offspring of ignorance, fear, and slavery—to-day mere
grim and curious survivals of the epochs when superstition
was unchecked in its growth and sway.
Mr. St. Clair at length takes refuge in inspiration and
. infallibility. “ I am bold to say,” says he, “ that thousands
of good people are conscious of communion with a higher
soul, of inspirations received from him, and of tasks assigned
by him.” Here my opponent chooses for his comrades the
phrenzied prophets and priestesses of ancient superstitions ;
the hysterical nuns who converse with Mary at Lourdes and
where not; Johanna Southcott, Joseph Smith Edward
�52
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Irving, Brigham Young, Mother Girling, et hoc genus
omne, whose name is legion, whose “ inspirations ” and god
given “ tasks ” have been “ thick as autumnal leaves in
Vallombrosa,” and have included every absurdity and every
crime known to history. What has god not “inspired?”
What has he not imposed as a task? “I could a tale
unfold,” but space forbids.
Will my opponent name one syllable of truth or an original
idea that either he or any other person ever derived from
“inspiration” or in “communion” with this higher soul?
Ah, me! This world is very wonderful. Socrat^ had a
deemon, Prospero was served by Ariel, Faust had his Mephistopheles, and Mr. St. Clair has his “ higher soul,” spelt with
initial capitals ! This higher soul of his—I may speak
with some authority—is but himself, in dim, shadowy, and
magnified outline, a very Brocken Spectre, projected on the
soft clouds of his superstition. I once had the diswg^
badly, but recovered long since. Do not despair, good sir;
the rising sun of common-sense and healthy Atheistic
thought will soon fling his powerful beams on the very spot
where your magnified and ghostly shadow now sits, and the
mists which form the throne of your deity will rarify and
vanish along with the occupant!
But to claim inspiration is to claim infallibility. If you
are sure you have communion with some one, to discuss the
question of his existence, to ask if belief in it is rational, are
highly improper—you have settled the matter by fact, and
there is an end of it. There is no arguing with an inspired
man ; nor should he himself attempt reason, it is unneces
sary. An inspired man should merely dogmatise—as Mr.
St. Clair does. He never argues, he merely states. I under
stand him now; he is weak in logic, but invincible in
faith. Men who hold communion with higher souls rarely
argue well. The reason is obvious:—no man that can
reason well and has a good case ever thinks of rushing into
inspiration. Inspiration is the despair of logic; it is the
refuge of those who are bankrupt of reason. Mr. St. Clair
must no more grumble with the Pope and his infallibility ;
he claims it too, and for exactly the same reasons. Had
the Pope been able to prove his other claims, he would have
had no excuse for claiming infallibility and “ communion
with the higher souls.” Just so, if Mr. St. Clair had been
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
53
able to make out even a passable, lame, blind, and limping
case in this discussion, we should have heard nothing about
inspiration and “ consciousness ” of deity. Any devout
worshipper can extort just as much real inspiration from
old clouts and mouldy bones as my opponent derives from
his god. Of course there is no arguing with this new
Moses—he is up among the crags of Sinai contemplating his
god, speaking to him face to face, reflecting on his feet, or
viewing other “ parts ” of his splendid person. I hope he
will publish his inspirations when he descends.
I should not show any respect to Mr. St. Clair were I to
notice some few sentences in his letter, one close to the end
for example. No man not near his wit’s end could permit
himself deliberately to publish that about gouging out
eyes, &c.
Lastly, Mr. St. Clair has written four out of his six
betters, and yet no shadow of a Theistic fact. Assertions
—-bold enough many of them—we have had in abundance,
but no sound reasoning, no evidence of a divine existence
yet. Is he reserving his arguments and facts for his last
letter, and does he intend to overwhelm me then without
leaving me the possibility of reply? I should like to know
what his god is. Has he not yet made up his mind about
him ?
____
Postscriptum.—I have now, Friday evening, seen the
conclusion of Mr. St. Clair’s long letter. I understood
we were to confine ourselves to two columns and a-half each
letter; but here is one from my opponent of nearly five
columns. If his logic were equal to the length of his
epistles, I should soon be hors de combat, but the logic is in
the inverse ratio of the cubes of the lengths, and so I have
but little to do.
The first sentence of his supplement seems very much like
swearing. I do not “ damn eyes ” or “ curse teeth ; ” I
point out their faults and thus damn their maker, if there be
one. All I have done is to employ fair and honest criticism
respecting the manufactures of this new deity manufactured
by Mr. St. Clair. The really good things of Nature I no
more ignore nor despise than my opponent; I merely show
what sort of a god he has, if he has one. The excuses and
apologies he makes for his most unfortunate deity sufficiently
�54
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
show that Mr. St. Clair feels what I say and cannot refute
my criticisms. This is all I desire of him. He cannot deny
my facts, nor can he successfully defend his poor god upon
one single point, except by representing him as being weak
to contempt. Why contend for such a god ?
Considering how much Mr. St. Clair can write without
saying anything to the point, how long are his letters, how
weak his arguments, how many his words, how few his facts,
and how pointless even those are which he produces, it seems
to me that Hunter’s joke about the “ Jaw ” should have
been reserved for his own behoof. I have nothing at all to
do with the size of the jaw. If the deity made the jaw toe
small for its purpose, my opponent will need to make another
apology for him. I beg to ask : could Mr. St. Clair’s deity
have made the jaw and teeth so that they could grow at an
equal rate, or could he not? Could he have given every
person a good set of teeth that would do their work without
aching, or could he not ? Does he know when producing a
set of teeth that they will begin to decay almost as soon as
completed ? Does he intend them to do so ? Does he intend
them to give pain, or not ? I ask the same about the eyes.
Does this poor deity know when making a pair of blind eyes
that they will never see? Does he intend them to see, or
not? Mr. St. Clair will not answer these questions; his
false position will not allow him.
He would like a dentist who could give him an aching set
of teeth! I have long suspected him of joking, now I am
sure of it. If two of his new teeth pinched his gum, he
would return to the dentist to have them rectified. It is
only when Quixotically defending his poor god that he
pretends to despise pain. It seems to me very heartless to
speak of “ Venus and Mercury ” as he does when he must
know that many people, children for example, who devote
themselves to neither, suffer horrible pain both in connexion
with teeth and eyes—ay, every organ of the body. Is
human suffering a thing to be joked with? Evidently
“ communion with that higher soul ” whom he supposes to
have made this dreadful world, has produced its natural
effects and rendered my opponent callous to the sufferings
around him. Of course, it is only when the spirit of the
lord is upon him and he rises in wrath to do battle for his
deity that he feels no sympathy for human pain. It was
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
i
1
5S
converse with fancied deities that led to all the atrocit’js
of the middle ages. Once believe in a god that inflicts pain,
that makes people deformed, sickly, that afflicts them with
all the horrible diseases that flesh is heir to, and you make
, light of all pain but your own, out of sympathy for your
god and in acquiescence with his supposed intentions. This,
1 I fear, is my opponent’s condition. During this discussion
' he has persevered in ignoring suffering, and has spoken of
all evils as if they were flea-bites. It is, I am sure, his
irrational Theism that makes him do so.
The egg is descanted upon by my opponent. Well, did it
never occur to him that, here, as in every other case he can
mention, the creator, if such there be, must have made the
necessity for his design and adaptation before meeting that
necessity by contrivances? Young are produced in a great
variety of ways. Was it necessary that eggs should be
laid and then brooded over for weeks by the bird ? If so,
whence came that necessity? And does the deity know
whe# he is so carefully constructing an egg that it will
never be laid ? that fowl and egg will both die and rot
together? Or does he know that Mr. St. Clair will eat
g it for breakfast ? What a silly deity to manufacture such
countless millions of eggs, eggs of fishes, and eggs of fowls,
for the purpose of developing them into animals, when he
knows all the while that only a very few of them can
possibly reach their destination ! If he does not know their
destiny, he must be equally contemptible.
Mr. St. Clair tries to establish a distinction between
a mere fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness
which intends to secure the result. This is a bold flight.
He won’t be “ pinned to definitions,” but he will assume
ability to distinguish between accidents and purposed events
in Nature. I presume his “ communion with the higher
soul ” must have been exceedingly close to authorise him to
speak thus. Is he the grand vizier of his deity, or who ?
Does he suppose his god would overdo his adaptation?
The destructive forces and processes of nature are just as
much organised and arranged for the set purpose of destroy
ing as anything that can be named. To the point: Does
Mr. St. Clair argue or hold that all pain is accidental?
That death is not intended, not designed ? Will he venture
to give a direct answer to these questions ? Are the teeth
�56
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of cats, tigers, lions, etc., less evidently adapted to their
work of killing than the egg for its supposed intention ? Is
an earthquake less adapted to the destruction of life than
warmth and eggs are to produce or extend it ? Is a famine
less adapted to destroy than a harvest to sustain ? Is the
Spring more fit to produce blossoms than the frost is to nip
them ?
No; a malignant deity would not at once destroy every
thing, for two reasons : 1st. He might be too weak, as Mr. St.
Clair’s is ; 2nd. He would lose most of his horrible pleasure.
Malignancy would do just what my opponent’s god is doing,
raise up generation after generation, as long as he is able,
for the gratification of torturing and destroying them. No .
doubt, if Theism be at all rational, Dualism is the only '
logical form it can take. I am neither Monotheist nor
Duotheist: the whole belief appears to me so irrational and
absurd that I cannot think that civilised men of to-day
would be swayed by it, were their minds not perverted in
that direction in early life.
Indeed, it vastly surprises me to find a partial sceptic,
like my opponent, resuscitating the Design Argument,
which the “ Bridgewater Treatises ” so long ago elaborated
to death. I wish he would say a word or two on the tape
worm, the trichina, and other pests. It is so delightfully
amusing to me to hear a Theist expatiating on the goodness
of deity as displayed in the evils of life 1 “Evil and decay
do not carry purpose on the face of them, while organised
adaptations do.” Indeed 1 What would become of all new
organisms if the old were not cleared off by decay and
death? Beasts, birds, and fishes of prey, are not then
organised to destroy ? The wings of the hawk, the legs of
the tiger, the shape and tail of the dolphin were not
organised to enable them to destroy their prey ? The smut,
a fungus that destroys wheat, the dry rot, barnacles that
eat ships to destruction, locusts, caterpillars, phylloxera,
the empusa muscoo, a fungus that kills flies, the botrytis
bassiana, a fungus which attacks the silkworms, and reduced
the annual production of cocoons in France between the
years 1853 and 1865 from 65,000,000 to 10,000,000; thepotato disease, which caused such suffering and misery in
Ireland—these fungi are not organised, Mr. St. Clair, by im
plication, affirms! What will not Theism lead a man to say?
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
57
He quotes Professor Owen—Does he not know that Owen
and other great Naturalists can tell by the examination of
a tooth whether an unknown animal was a carnivore or a
vegetarian, etc. ? Were the teeth, muscles, viscera, etc.,
of a carnivore “purposively” adapted for killing, tearing,
, and digesting other animals, or not ? Yes, or no ? pray.
!■
My opponent must try again—I wish to encourage him.
He has not yet laid the first stone of rational Theism. No
Theistic fact has he given us yet, no argument or criticism
of mine has he upset so far. I don’t blame him. He has
undertaken an impossible work. All material, all force,
all arrangements (except those of art), all causes, all effects,
all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but a dream.
LETTER X.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes, in his postscript, again tilts at somebody who
believes in the supernatural. When I spoke of conscious
jbommunion with a Higher Soul, and inspirations received
from Him, I knew 1 was saying something the seeming
refutation of- which was easy; sol prefaced it with—“I
am bold to say.” No doubt all sorts of fanatics have
claimed inspiration. But I do not contend for the divine
ness of phrensies, nor argue for the special inspiration of the
Hebrew prophets. I hold reasonably that all new light of
knowledge and all new impulse to duty is inspiration. Tracing
effects back to causes, I come at last to One Divine Fount.
To Him I ascribe all life, all faculty in man, all insight
into truth, and all the development, improvement and refine
ment which are synonymous with progressive civilisation.
So, when I am requested to name one syllable of truth or a
single original idea derived from inspiration, I name all, for
there is not one which has had any othei’ ultimate source.
I may be referred to secondary or proximate sources, but
that would be like referring me to the printer’s types and
the compositor’s muscular exertions as an explanation of
Tennyson’s poem on “ Despair ” in the November number
of the Nineteenth Century. I am told that the Higher Soul
of which I speak is but myself projected in magnified form
�58
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
on a cloud, and there is just that modicum of truth in as
sertions of this sort which serves to lead some persons into
Atheism. Mr. Symes need not address me as though I were
ignorant of all that has been urged in the way of proving
that “ man makes God in his own image.” I believe man
has often done so, and I employ myself sometimes in destroy
ing such images. But just as there is true astronomy,
notwithstanding early and still-lingering superstitions of
astrology, so there is a true theology. I have shown that
there are evidences of purpose in nature—proofs of a Mind
at work—and there is a mind in man which reads and
understands the realised thoughts in nature and the designs
in progress. Hence it is true to say there is a God, and
that man, intellectually, is made after his likeness.
The closing paragraph of the postscript shows again how
Mr. Symes mistakes the issue. He says: “ All material,
all force, all arrangements (except those of art), all causes,
all effects, all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but
a dream.” Is this supposed to be good against me? I might
almost claim it as my own. My opponent denies the dis
tinction between the natural and the supernatural. So do I,
unless you define “ supernatural” to be the action of mind,
whether human or divine. He maintains a distinction be
tween the natural and the artificial. So do I. I perceive
for myself, and I point out to him, that all “ arrangements ”
made by man, and therefore called artificial, are effected by
the use of “ material ” and “ forces ” and “ causes ” ; so
that to judge whether they be artificial or not we have to
look for evidences of mind, purpose, design. Then I point
out that, judged in this way, the human eye is an artificial
production ; yet not a production of man’s art, and therefore
must be the work of some other Artificer. For similar
reasons, I am forced to the same conclusion regarding many
other things, and in a general way regarding the evolution
of the human race and the progress of the world,
“ I see in part
That all, as in some piece of art,
Is toil co-operant to an end.”
I don’t call these works supernatural; but seeing that they
are superhuman I reckon them as divine art. But Mr.
Symes, because it is po-sible to distinguish between divine
art and human, denies all resemblance; as though that
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
59
followed ! In his first paragraph, flippant and foolish, be
cause he does not find the human frame classed with orders
of architecture, he objects to my saying it has been built
up. He ought to have read a little book called “ The
House I live in”—a work on the human body. But he
would like, if he could, to laugh my legitimate analogies out
of court.
Paley, Brougham, and Bell—my God is not theirs. If
he means that my theology is not quite the same as theirs,
I assent, for I take into account Evolution, which they, in
their day, could not do. The arguments of Paley only
want restating in terms of the Evolution theory. The
machinery, and arrangements, and adaptations which Paley
ascribed to the Creator, some Atheists now ascribe to Evo
lution, as though Evolution were an intelligent creative
entity. Mr. Symes has been slow in launching this
boomerang, probably being little familiar with it, or know
ing it to be ineffective against Theism as I defend Theism ;
but now, for lack of better missiles he hurls it, though
timidly, as one who fears it will come back upon himself.
He disputes my argument that the valves in the blood
vessels are intended to secure the circulation of the blood,
OD the ground that a river makes its own channel. A few
zoological facts are adduced to support the inference, I
imagine, that the blood has constructed the blood-vessels
and given them a gradually increasing complication as we
advance from protoplasm through animals of low organisa
tion, up to man. This is an argument from Evolution.
So there is a gradual advance, is there? with increasing
Complication in the apparatus, and with the noble frame of
man as the result, and yet no design in any of it! Topsy
’spects it comes of itself! natural causes account for it!
Topsy does not comprehend that in divine art, as well as
in human, what is designed by the mind has to be accom
plished by the aid of ‘‘natural” instruments. All that the
eye can see is the instrument and the process; for the
existence of the originating mind has to be mentally
inferred, the guiding and governing spirit is only spiritually
discerned.
Alphonso suggests an improvement in the circulating
apparatus ; he would “ place valves in the deep arteries, so
that the poor wretch who ruptures one of them should not
�60
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
bleed to death.” It seems that valves in the blood-vessels'
might be placed there for a purpose if Alphonso were taken
into counsel! Now there are valves in the arteries, which
allow the blood to flow out from the heart, through the
system, and prevent its regurgitating. If this is the very
thing which Alphonso considers a wise arrangement, why
does he object to it when I call it wise? Or would he make
them to open the reverse way ? Then certainly the heart’s
blood would not pour through an accidental rupture, but
neither would it flow through the system at all, and there
fore we could not live. The arrangement suggested for the
arteries is that which does prevail in the veins; and there
fore there is much less danger from a ruptured vein than
from a ruptured artery. But how could you have circula
tion, if both sets of valves were adapted for sending blood
to the heart, and neither set would allow it to come away ?
Alphonso here shows himself very wise indeed. He is
again asking for contradictory arrangements; he again
fails to see that the Creator is working under conditions.
Mr. Symes, who has not a syllable to say in the way of
proving his Atheism to be rational, can only find material
for his letters by drawing out his opponent—“ Could God
make jaws and teeth in a certain way?” .“What isinstinct?” “Will I make plainer the purpose running
through the ages ? ” etc. Though aware of the trick, I will
say as much as my space allows, about Evolution. Briefly,.
Evolution explains the introduction of new species on to
this planet, in the following way. Taking some alreadyexisting species, the offspring inherit the parental likeness
with variations ; afterwards, in their individual life, they
may undergo modifications, which in turn they transmit to
their offspring. The particular varieties best suited to
external conditions, survive, and leave offspring equally
well suited, or even better suited. Variation upon variation,
in successive generations, causes the difference from the
original to become great, and the creatures are then classed
as a distinct species. In this way one species is born from
another, as truly as an individual is born of its parents.
This inheritance with modifications, is creation by birth.
If external conditions change, the modification takes a
direction which adapts the creature to them. If the crea
ture changes its habits, or migrates and comes under new
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
61
conditions, the modification takes the form of increased
growth in the organs and parts now especially called into
use, and diminished growth of the parts disused. It is no
poser for Mr. Symes to ask me the design of the wings of
the penguin, the moa and the apteryx: their wingshave
become reduced to remnants too small to fly with, because
they changed their habits, because they found a paradise
and preferred not to fly away from it. The wings of their
progenitors served their purpose well; inheritance repro
duced them as long as they were wanted; and when new
conditions or changed habits demanded the greater growth
of other organs, the forces of development were turned in
that direction. Could any self-acting arrangement be more
beautiful ? This is creation from age to age. This is part
of the method by which the purpose of the ages is being
elected. I am not contending for the supernatural instan
taneous creation of elephants with tusks full grown, but for
creation by natural means ; and here we see it going on.
Does Mr. Symes know anything at all about Evolution ?
Has he even read Darwin and Herbert Spencer? His
notion of creation seems to exclude evolution, and his
notion of evolution to exclude creation : but there are two
things he cannot do.: (1) explain any possible process of
creation without evolution, (2) explain how Evolution got
itself into geai’ without a Creator—I mean into such gear
as we find, when its machinery produces organised creatures
of higher and higher sort, culminating in man ; yes, in man,
with his marvellous frame and flesh, blood and brain, reason
and conscience, heart and hopes.
God created man; that is to say, the human race
has been born in fulfilment of the divine purpose. The
i idividual, tracing his parentage backwards, must pass
beyond “Adam” to some creature who was the common
progenitor of men and apes. Of course, man could no
more antedate his necessary epoch and come before his
time than sweeps could precede chimneys, to' use Mr.
Symes’s sooty illustration. I will grant Mr. Symes that; I
will grant him that man could not be born before his parents.
With equal readiness I assent to the proposition that, just as
with the individual infant, the human race was the necessary
result of the phenomena which preceded it in its own line of
development. That is to say, man is a product of natural
�62
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
causes, “ a natural and not a supernatural phenomenon.”
But if this is supposed to exclude a creative Mind, which
designed and fashioned man, I need only ask whether the
statue of Priestley, in Mr. Symes’s town of Birmingham, is
not at once the production of the sculptor’s design and the
inevitable result of particular movements of chisels upon a /'■
block of marble. There is no human production except by
the agency of natural causes ; there are no marks of inten
tion stamped upon such productions without a mind to give 5
them origin and authorship.
Mr. Symes, because I twitted him for crying so much
about his toothache, wrongfully represents me as being
callous to human sufferings. I think, if he had studied
Evolution, he would hardly speak of “ a God that inflicts
pain .... and afflicts people with all the horrible diseases
that flesh is heir to.” He wishes to know, “ Do I hold that
all pain is accidental ? and will I venture to give a direct
answer ? ” Of course I will. As I understand this discus
sion, Mr. Symes does hold that all pain is accidental.
Topsy ’spects that all pain comes of its own self. I, for my
part, have no hesitation in saying that the capacity to suffer
pain is deliberately designed, is manifestly for the gcod of
the individual, and a necessary factor in the evolution of
the higher animals. It may seem a paradox to say that
pain, when it occurs, is a good thing, and yet that it should
be removed as quickly as possible. Nevertheless I say it,
and can show it to be true. If you rest your hand on a
heated iron plate, it will disorganise the flesh. That is un
desirable, because it deprives you of a handy servant. The
pain which tells you that you are running this risk is no
evil, but a sentinel’s warning, a red-light danger signal, a
telegraphic intimation to use caution. We should be badly
off without the capacity for pain, while we should be want
ing in sense not to try and get rid of it by removing its
cause. Returning to “ the purpose runuing through the ,
ages,” it will be found that the animals with the most highly
developed nervous system and greatest capacity for pain
have become the higher animals in other respects, and are
classed high by the naturalist. Sensibility to pain has saved
theii’ progenitors from many dangers, has given them an
advantage in the “ struggle for existence,” and has promoted
their upward evolution in proportion to its acuteness.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
63
Mr. Symes, who, two or three letters back, thought life
not worth living, has a great objection to death. I thought
so, because when I showed that he ought logically to commit
suicide it was not agreeable to him. When he passes a
cemetery, or reflects that whole races of creatures have died
out, he is much concerned, and marvels that I can retain
my Theism. As with pain, so with death, he demands to
know, “ Do I hold that death is not intended or designed ? ”
and how about beasts of prey—“Yes or no, pray ”? This
peremptory attitude, when used on a platform, might cow a
timid man, and at all events helps to produce an impression
that he is shirking a difficulty. To shirk difficulties is not
my custom. But when Mr. Symes adduces the earthquake
as apparently designed to destroy men, I cannot accept the
instance, because I cannot see that earthquakes are pur
posely adapted to rock down cities. Having some idea of
geological facts, I believe that earthquakes were before
cities in the order of time, and men in their ignorance have
built their cities on the earthquake lines. But the tiger’s
claws and fangs I accept as being plainly designed to fit the
animal for catching and tearing prey. I have before asserted-—and my opponent cannot disprove it—that every
organ is for the good of its possessor. If any exceptions
can be brought forward, I will show that they literally
prove the rule. The tiger’s organs are for the tiger’s
advantage ; so far there is design, and even beneficence.
It is equally true, of course, that the tiger’s claws are a dis
advantage to the tiger’s prey—to the individuals which fall
victims. This has been a great difficulty to the minds of
many good people who have not ransacked nature to find
atheistic arguments. I have only space to say that the
weeding-out of inferior and ill-adapted animals, with the
survival of the fittest, who leave offspring “fit” as them
selves, is a necessary part of the machinery for the evolu
tion of the higher animals. Without this arrangement
there never would have been a race of mankind. It ill
becomes us to quarrel with the process which gave us birth.
The death of those weak individuals is for the good of the
species, and the entire arrangement adds to the sum of
animal enjoyment. Death, in the form in which it comes
to the lower animals, is generally unexpected and seldom
painful; death, as it comes to man, is no evil if it be the
�64
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
portal to higher life. But Atheists, of course, are without
hope. The moral difficulties of the “ struggle for life ” are
dealt with in a volume which may be seen in the British
Museum and in the Birmingham Free Library—a volume
called “ Darwinism and Design,” written by George St.
Clair.
LETTER XI.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair entered upon this discussion with the
ostensible object of showing that Theism is rational and
more rational than Atheism. But either he has never
seriously engaged in the work or else has wofully failed in
spite of honest and earnest effort. • What a iheos, deus, or
god is has yet to be learned—my opponent has no settled
opinions upon the subject. If he has, why does he not
straightforwardly state the proposition he intends to main
tain, and then allege only such facts and employ only such
reasoning as may tend to establish his theory ?
His Theism has evidently never been thought out ; he has
adopted it as he adopted the fashion of his coat, and has
never investigated the one or the other critically. If he has
investigated his Theism and really does understand its
nature, ramifications, and bearings, he most scrupulously
keeps it all secret, as Herodotus did much of what he was
told about the gods in Egypt—the most secret mysteries he
refused, from the most pious motives, to reveal. This is to
be regretted, especially as my opponent has so much to
reveal, if he could be induced to do it, being imbued with
plenary inspiration. Though, like most modest men, now
that I ask him to let us know what his god has told him, I
find his bashfulness so overpowers him that he cannot
summon up sufficient courage to give the world a single
syllable of what he heard or saw on Horeb or in the third
heaven. It is a pity the deity did not select a more appro
priate prophet ; but the ways of divine providence are
notoriously odd, capricious, uncertain, contradictory, and
insane.
Mr. St. Clair asks if I know anything of evolution. No
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
65
doubt that is intended to be a tit for some tat of
mine,
I may say that I understand Darwin and the
resMf the evolutionists sufficiently to know that evolution
is purely Atheistic, that nature is all-sufficient for all her
operations; that no god is wanted, needed, or desirable for
‘ any of her processes. I am obliged to Mr. St. Clair for
calling attention to his own book on the subject, though fir
the purposes of this discussion it was unnecessary ; and, if
Mr. St. Clair does not understand Darwin far better than
he does his poor deity, the book cannot be worth reading.
A man who can write five long letters on Theism without
naming one Theistic fact, or attempting a logical or rational
argument in support of his position—five letters full of
irrelevancies, side-issues, platitudes, uncertainties apologies
for deity, misrepresentation of natural facts, pompous
boasts of divine inspiration, and ability to “ discern the
purpose” of god “running through the ages,” and the dis
tinction between accidents and “purposive” events in
nature—whatever knowledge such a man may have, his
temper and disposition, his total want of ballast and critical
acumen must unfit him entirely for writing a work on
-evolution or any other philosophical subject.
If nature operates her own changes, evolution is a
beautiful theory ; but admit a god who works by means of
evolution, and the whole aspect of the subject is changed;
evolution becomes the most perfect system of red-tapism
that can be conceived. If evolution results in good, all
that good was as much needed millions of years back as
now; but red-tape decided that whole generations must
perish, that evils and abuses could not be removed, except
by an interminable and bewildering and murderous process,
complex beyond expression or thought—whereas an honest
■ and able god would have done the work out of hand and
i shown as much respect for the first of his children as for
later ones. But Mr. St. Clair’s murders generation after
J generation of his family for the sake of working out some
change, the evolution of a new organ, the gradual atrophy
or decay of old ones, the rise of a new species or the
destruction of aboriginal races.
I shall not further follow up Mr. St. Clair’s remarks.
They are not to the point, even approximately. He con
founds language and mingles art and nature, and thus
�66
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
bewilders his unwary reader instead of informing him. Long
since I should have ignored what my opponent says, only
my action would have been misunderstood. To prove
Theism rational one must prove that there is a god. This
has not been done. Then you must connect god and nature.
This has not been done; in fact, Mr. St. Clair is reduced to
the necessity of admitting that his god is weak and even a
part of nature—a big, stupid giant, most probably living in
that region to which the celebrated Jack climbed up by a
bean-stalk.
Here follow some positive evidences that there is no god
existing, except the mere idols and fictions of worshippers,
etc.—
1. No trace of one has been observed, no footstep, copro
lite, or what not. The only life of which mankind has any
knowledge is animal life and vegetable life; and it is in
conceivable that there should be any other.
2. The world was never made, nor any natural product
in it ; and therefore a maker is impossible.
3. The universe, so far as it is known, is not conducted
or governed, nor is any department of it, except those de
partments under the influence of living beings. Nature’s
processes consist in the interaction, attraction, repulsion,
union and disunion of its parts and forces, and of nothing
else.
4. All known substances and materials have definite and
unalterable quantities and attributes or qualities. Their
only changes are approximation, recession, combination, and
disunion; and all the phenomena of nature are the sole re
sults of these, one class of phenomena being no more
accidental or designed than another. Design is nowhere
found beyond the regions of animal action, and animal
action is nothing more nor anything less than the outcome
or the result, however complex, of the total forces and
materials which alternately combine and segregate in all
animals. An animal is what he is by virtue of his ante
cedents, his physical combinations and disunions, and his
environments.
All known facts lead logically to the above conclusions,
and it is naught but superstition or irrational belief that
assumes or predicates the contrary. Nor is any honest result
ever gained by assuming the existence of a god: it explains
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
67
nothing, it leads to nothing but confusion. More than that,
it is an attempt to explain nature’s mystery by creating a
still ^eater mystery, which is unphilosophical. Further
still, it is an attempt to expound nature by (1) that which
is not nature, or (2) by a natural phenomenon or set of
phenomena; for your god must be either natural, super1 natural, or artificial. Mr. St. Clair’s is not supernatural,
but natural. Very well; if it be natural, as he says, it is
an unknown phenomenon, or substance, or force ; and there
fore cannot be utilised in any way by reason. A false
philosophy or imposture may appeal to the unknown to
explain difficulties ; the whole round of religion consists of
nothing else than examples of it. But true philosophy
never attempts to explain the known by the unknown.
5. Mr. St. Clair believes in evolution, and yet holds the
dogma of a former creation. That is to play fast and loose
with reason; for why do you ascribe any power to physical
causes, if you refuse to regard them as sufficiently power
ful to originate, as well as to develope the phsenomena of
Nature ? Mr. St. Clair ascribes all the evils of life to
second causes, all its goods to deity. That is good Theology,
but the worst Philosophy. If life is physically sustained,
developed, and modified, it must be physically originated.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from Theistic pre
misses is that each event, each phenomenon, each change is
the work of a separate god, or fairy, or devil—beings of
whom nothing is known beyond the fact that everyone of
them was created by man for the express purpose of creating
and governing the world or parts of it. But the philosopher
will never think of using them in any way till their real
existence and action have been placed beyond a doubt.
6. If the world was really made, it was not intelligently
made,, for it is chiefly a scene of confusion, strife, folly,
insanity, madness, brutality, and death. No intelligent
creator could endure the sight of it after making it:—be
would put his foot on it and crush it, or else commit suicide
in disgust. In geology the world is but a heap of ruins ; in
astronomy an unfortunate planet, so placed as regards the
sun that one part roasts while another freezes.
7. Men talk of the wisdom and goodness seen in God’s
creation ! He made man, and left him naked and houseless,
ignorant of nearly all he needed to know, a mere brute. He
�68
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
showed neither goodness nor wisdom here. It is only by a
painful process “ running through the ages,” a prqgtes of
blood, murder, starvation, and the death of millions %pon
millions that our civilisation has been achieved; and what
is it even now ? A civilisation of fraud, brutality slightly
veiled, hypocrisy wholesale, superstitions the most costly
and profound, a civilisation that houses the dead better than
the living, that pauperises survivors to bestow costly tombs
upon the dead, that builds splendid temples for gods and
priests to sport in, and leaves men and women to rot physi
cally, mentally and morally, in dens !
8. But this god never interferes for human good. This
governor of men never governs. He might prevent all
crime ; he prevents none. What is the use of a god who
could not or would not prevent the murder of Lincoln, Gar
field, and thousands of others ? If he could, and was by,
he is an accessory or worse ; if he couldn’t, he has in man
a creature he cannot control, and is therefore contemptible.
9. I am aware that some Theists urge that god could not
interfere, as I suggest, without violating man’s free-agency.
Whether Mr. St. Clair holds that opinion I cannot just now
say; but all along I have aimed at a much wider Theism
than that of Mr. St. Clair, and shall therefore make a remark
or two on this subject.
(1.) All government interferes with free-agency. And no
one complains that a government should try to prevent
crime. Indeed, that is one of its main functions. And a
government that does not, to its utmost knowledge and
power, prevent crime, is a bad government. Well, the socalled divine government prevents none ; what is its use?
Not to prevent crime is to encourage its commission. This
the divine government does.
(2) The free-agency plea is silly. Every murderer, every
tyrant destroys the free-agency of his victim. Does god
respect the free-agency of the victim less than that of the
villain ? Does he scrupulously refrain from checking the
latter while he inflicts wrong and death upon the former ?
Human laws are professedly (many of them really) framed
to protect the innocent and weak, and to restrain the strong
and vicious; divine laws must have a contrary intention, if
the free-agency plea is correct.
Finally.
I am well aware that my style of treating thia
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
69
subject must be very offensive to some. But I make no
apoloev for it. I adopt it deliberately and of set purpose.
I regard Theism as immensely stupid, so much so that
serious argument is wasted upon it, just as it would be
waste labor to try to disprove transubstantiation or to
show that Laputa could not fly as Gulliver describes.
Uncompromising ridicule seems to me the best weapon
wherewith to attack this miserable fetishism of my
opponent. I have used it unsparingly and heartily, and hope
my opponent has enjoyed the discussion as much as I
have.
I close without a spark of ill-will towards Mr. St. Clair,
and beg to express the opinion that his failure is not due
to any intellectual defect in him, but to the utterly im
possible proposition he undertook to defend. It is no
disgrace to fail where success is impossible. Nor do I
claim any credit to myself—Atheism is so easy to defend
that I must have been totally excuseless to have failed in it.
LETTER XII.
Fi‘‘om Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes goes off the platform with a laugh, and tells the
audience he has won a victory ; but he must be conscious
all the time that he has not dislodged his antagonist from
his entrenchments. I have been disappointed in my op
ponent. His first letter confirmed the assurance which he
had given to me privately—that this discusssion should be
“ definite, earnest, real ”—but his last contains the con
fession that he has deliberately adopted an offensive style
and dealt in uncompromising ridicule, because he considers
that serious argument would be wasted upon so stupid a
subject as Theism.
All through this discussion I have only used half the
notes made on a first reading of Mr. Symes’s letters, and
now, in order to find room for a general summing up, I
must withhold the detailed reply which I could give to his
last. It is annoying to have to leave so many fallacies
unanswered ; but I think I have replied to most statements
which could claim to be arguments, as far as my space
allowed.
�70
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Mr. Symes opened the discussion, and ought to have
advanced some reasons for considering Atheism rational;
but he confessed at once that he had nothing positive to
urge in favor of his negative, but should confine himself to
picking holes in Theistic arguments. His letters have
abounded with peremptory questions, and every answer I
have given has afforded material to tear to pieces or snarl
at. My opponent began by asking eight questions, six of
which involved a discussion of the infinite, the infinite being
easy to juggle with. The definition of God which he pre
ferred was the vulgar definition, which involves a contradic
tion, and would therefore have given him an opportunity of
dialectical victory. He wished me to say that God is a
Being infinite in power and infinite in goodness, and he
wanted the former part of this definition to mean that the
power of Deity is adequate to accomplish things which are
in their very nature impossible. Then he would have argued
that infinite goodness would desire to free the world at once
from all evil, pain and inconvenience; that infinite power
could accomplish this ; but that it is not done, and there
fore no God exists. I refused to define Deity in the way
dictated to me, but it was all the same to my opponent—
his arguments were only good against the vulgar definition,
and so he attacked that. He set forth at large that there
was a good deal of pain and trouble in the world, which, to
his mind, must be inconsistent with the existence of an
infinite God. Of course, it is not really so unless, besides
possessing infinite goodness of nature, the Creator possesses
unlimited power, and that in a mathematical sense. Now, I
have shown that the Creator cannot possess unlimited power
in this sense, and therefore my opponent’s objection to God’s
existence on the ground that “ evils ” exist is not conclusive.
The analogy of human labor employed in building a
cathedral shows us that a fine pile may be completed in the
course of time. It leads us to compare past phases of the
world with the present, that we may discover the movement
and tendency of things, for
“We doubt not, through the ages one increasing purpose runs.”
We go as deep down into the past as Evolution will enable
us to do, and, beginning at the lowliest forms of life, we
find a gradually ascending series. At length we come to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
71
man, who, even as a savage, is superior to all that went
be£a^. But the savage, as Gerald Massey says in his
“TSe of Eternity,” is only the rough-cast clay model of the
perfect statue. The savage advances into the condition of
a barbarian, and the barbarian, in time, becomes civilised.
But God has not yet finished the work of creating man into
his own image. It is astonishing that any student of Evolu
tion, possessing two eyes, should go to the quarry and fetch
out fossils for the purpose of showing that creatures have
suffered and died, and should fail to get any glimpse of “ a
purpose running through the ages.” But this is the case
with my opponent, to whose eye Evolution “ is purely
atheistic.” He also fails to see that, on this rational view
of creation, evils may be only temporary ; nay, more, that
they are certainly diminishing, and tend to vanish altogether.
I have invited my opponent three times over to find any
flaw in the reasoning of Herbert Spencer, where he main
tains that evil is evanescent; but it would have suited him
better if he could have quoted Spencer in a contrary sense.
The Creator’s power is exerted under conditions and
limitations arising out of the mathematical relations of
space “and time. It is, therefore, not “ in fining’ in the
vulgar sense. The vulgar definition of God wants mending;
and this is about all that Mr. Symes has been able to show.
As I, for my part, never put forth the vulgar definition, he
ought not to have given us a panorama of the evils of the
world, much less have made it revolve ad nauseam. The
rational Theism which I hold is not overturned by the
temporary occurrence of evil. But, when Mr. Symes found
this out, he took to ridiculing my God as a being who is
less than infinite in the vulgar sense, and professed to find
the orthodox God immensely superior.
Besides exposing the fallacy of the chief objections
brought against the existence of a Divine Being, I have
advanced positive proofs, from the marks of design in his
works. I lay stress on the fact that organs such as the
eye, and organisms such as the body, are instruments and
machines comparable to those designed and made by man,
and which never come into existence except when contrived
by intelligence. We never see the human mind going
through the process of designing. We never see the mind
at all. We have to look for marks of design in the work.
�72
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
It is the same with regard to the Divine Spirit. Objection
is made to Design, on the ground that Evolution explains
all things without a Creator; but I have shown that this is
not the case. Mr. Symes has hunted up all the blind eyes
he can find, and the perverted instincts, which do not effect
their asserted purpose, and is daring enough to say that
eyes are not made to see with. The difficulty is fully
explained by what I have said of the analogy between
divine and human work, performed under conditions, and
with concomitants of evil. I have challenged our clever
Alphonso to show us a pair of those superior eyes which he
says he could make, but he does not do so. He had only
made an empty boast.
Connected with Design is Adaptation. Mr. ¡Etames is
irrational enough to say that if anything is designed all
things are designed, and if Adaptation is seen in anything
it is seen iu all things. He sees it as much in the accidental
smashing of an egg as in the wonderful formation of the
egg to be the ark of safety for an embryo chick. This
astounding nonsense is forced upon him by his Atheism,
and must be charged to the irrational theory rather than to
the man4 But in seeking to bolster it up, Mr. Symes made
use of one argument which might seem to possess force un
less I exposed its weakness, and I had no space to do that
in reply to his fourth letter. He said that if there be design
anywhere it must be in the elements of matter especially,
where I do not seem to see it, as I bring forward organised
structures, living things. He says all matter is probably
alive—“ probably ! ” An instance of modesty in Mr. Symes,
though immediately afterwards he becomes positive again,
and says “ I affirm.” He affirms something about invisible
atoms, namely, that there is adaptation between the atoms,
and “ an equilibrium stable, perfect, time-defying,” far
superior to the unstable adaptation of living creatures to
their surroundings. My reply must be brief. An atom is
that which has no parts. It cannot therefore have any
organs, nor be an organism, nor possess life. Out of atoms,
as out of bricks, larger things are built up, and in some of
them I discern a certain architecture which speaks of Design.
Whether the bricks themselves are a manufactured article
does not affect my conclusion. The “ adaptation between
the atoms ” which Mr. Symes discerns and affirms cannot be
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
73 ’
in their interiors, for they are without parts. If he means
an adaptation of atom to atom, as in the chemistry of water,
I ne«d not deny it, though two or three bricks in combina
tion don’t impress me like the cathedral of the human body;
and as to the “ perfect, time-defying equilibrium ” of the
atoms of oxygen and hydrogen which form water, electricity
will unsettle it at once.
Has Mr. Symes proved Atheism to be rational? He
began by declaring that “ Atheism requires no direct evi
dence,” which I must interpret to mean it has none to offer.
What he now pretends to offer in his last comes late, and is
not good. Has he disproved the rationality of Theism ?
No, not as I present Theism to him. He said, very early,
that he “ must decline to narrow the ground ” to Theism as
I preset it, and, accordingly, what he has chiefly attacked
has be$n the vulgar definition of Theism. Now the dictionary
definition may go as far as I am concerned, but God remains.
If there are some difficulties on the theory of Theism,
they are only increased when we fly to Atheism. Atheism
accounts for nothing. Pain and misery, which are so much
complained of, are just as much facts whether there be a
God or no. Atheism does nothing to explain them, to
release us from them, to help us to bear them. An en
lightened Theism shows that sensibility to pain is a gracious
provision, warning us in time to escape greater evils and
contributing to our upward evolution. Evil is accounted
for as “ good in the making” or the necessary accompani
ment of greater good, or the temporary inconvenience lying
in the path to some glorious goal. Whatever is, is the best
possible at the present stage, if only all the relations of
things were known to us. Death enters into the great
scheme, for, by the removal of the aged, room is made for
younger life, and the total amount of enjoyment is increased.
At the same time, this is no hardship to those who pass
away, for the life of the individual soul is continued here
after and carried higher. This belief brightens the whole
of life and gives a very different aspect to pain and trouble and
death, which might fairly cause perplexity if death were the
final end.
The one advantage I derive from Mr. Symes’s letters is
that they seem to show me how men become Atheists.
There are certain questions which cannot be answered, and
�74
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
they are always asking those questions. There are certain
difficulties of belief, and these they cherish in preference to
the stronger reasons for faith and hope. There is sunshine
and shadow in the world, and they prefer to dwell in the
gloom. They search out all the crudities and failures, stinks
and sores, diseases and evils which the world affords, or ever
has afforded, and look at them through a magnifying glass.
Impressed with the magnitude of the loathsome heap, and
oblivious of everything else in creation, they presume to
think they could have advised something better if the
Creator had only consulted them. Had there been a wise
Creator he surely would have done so 1 Henceforth they
shriek out that there is no God; and nevertheless, illogical
as they always are, they whimper at pain instead of bearing
it, and complain of evils as though therewere some God
who was inflicting them. They complain that life is not
worth living, and yet speak of death as though it were
maliciously desigued and the greatest evil of all. They
have got into a world which is “ a fatherless Hell, “ all
massacre, murder and wrong,” and ought logically to commit
suicide, like the couple of Secularists in Mr. Tennyson’s
“ Despair!’ But, alas ! not even death will land them in
any better place. They are
• “ Come from the brute, poor souls—no souls
—and to die with the brute 1 ”
Yet that couple cherished love for one another and pity for
all that breathe, and ought to have inferred thence that
unless a stream can rise higher than its source, there must
be much more pity and love in the Great Fount and Heart
of All Things.
�Three Hundred and. Seventy-second Thousand.
January, 1882.
. "W ORKS
SOLD BY THE
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, FAhRINGDON STREET, E.C.
Orders should be sent to the Manager, Mr. W. J. Ramsey, accompanied
with Post Office Order, payable at Ludgate Circus, or Cheque
crossed “ London anddsouth Western Bank.”
The International Library of Science and Freethought.
Volume I., “ Mind in Animals,” by Professor Ludwig Buchner.
Translated, with the author’s consent, by Annie Besant,
price 5s. Volume II., “The Student’s Darwin,” by Edward B.
Aveling, D.Sc. (Loud.), F.L.S., Fellow of University College
(Lond.), etc., price 5s. Volume III., “Jesus and the Gospels,”
and “ The Religion of Israel,” by Jules Soury, price Is.
The Freethinker’s Text-Book.—Part I. By 0. Bradlaugh.
Section I.—‘ ‘ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible
and by Science.” Section II.— “ What is Religion ? ” “ How has it
Grown ? ” “God and Soul.” Each Section complete in itself, with
copious index. Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Part II., by Annie Besant. ■—“ On Christianity.” Section I.—
“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section II.—“Its Origin
Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.” Section IV.—
“ Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth, 3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution.—By Annie Besant
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—By Charles
Bradlaugh. Eighth edition. Is.
What does Christian Theism Teach P—A verbatim report of
two nights’ Public Debate between the Rev. A. J. Harrison and
C. Bradlaugh. Second edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible.—A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool between the Rev. Dr. Baylee and C.
Bradlaugh.
This is the only debate extant on the purely Socratic method. 6d.
Heresy; its Morality and Utility.—A Plea and a Justification.
By Charles Bradlaugh. 9d.
�2
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor
of the Universe.—A verbatim report of a two nights’Discussion
between Thomas Cooper and C. Bradlaugh.
6d.
When were our Gospels Written?—A Reply to Dr. Tischendorf
and the Religious Tract Society. By Charles Bradlaugh.
6d.
Has Man a Soul ?—A verbatim report of two nights’ debate at
Burnley, between the Rev. W. M. Westerby and C. Bradlaugh. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and
Faith.—-Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with
Special Replies by Charles Bradlaugh.
to fid.
New edition, reduced
Is it Reasonable to Worship God?—A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham between the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
and C. Brad laugh. Is.
National Secular Society’s Tracts.-—1. Address to Christians.
2. Who was Jesus ? 3. Secular Morality. 4. The Bible and
.Woman. 5. Secular Teachings. 6. Secular Work. 7. What is
Secularism ? 8. Who are the Secularists ? 9. Secular Responsi
bility. 11. Creed of an Atheist. 7|d, per 100, post free.
My Path to Atheism.—Collected Essays of Annie Besant.—The
Deity of Jesus—Inspiration—Atonement—Eternal Punishment—
Prayer—Revealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examined
and rejected ; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be.
By
Annie Besant. In limp cloth, Is.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Brad
laugh and Besant.—Neatly bound in cloth, price 5s., post free.
With Portraits and Autographs of the two Defendants.
Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the judgments of
Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
The Biography of Charles Bradlaugh.—Written by Adolphe
S. Headingley. Crown 8vo., cloth, 332 pages, price 7s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Chris
tianity on the World.
Two nights’ Debate between the
Rev. A. Hatchard and Annie Besant.
Is.
PAMPHLETS BY ANNIE BESANT.
s. d.
The Physiology of Home—No. 1, “Digestion” ; No. 2, “ Organs
of Digestion” ; No. 3, “ Circulation”; No. 4, “Respiration”;
Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ...
...
... 0 4
Free Trade v. “Fair” Trade—No. 1, “England before the Repeal
of the Corn Laws” ; No. 2, “The History of the Anti-Corn
Law Struggle ” ; No. 3, “ Labor and Land: their burdens,
duties and rights ” ; No. 4, “ What is Really Free Trade ” ;
No. 5, “ The Landlords’ Attempt to Mislead the Land
less ”; Id. each. In neat wrapper with Appendix
... 0 6
q-
�3
s. d.
God’s Views on Marriage...
....
...
...
... 0 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the Standard
of Morality ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker, with
Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his Sociology.
Being a short and convenient resume of Positivism for the
general reader
...
...
...
...
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth Cen
tury. His Life and Works ...
...
...
...0 1
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights ... 0 2
Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hints taken from the
French Revolution ...
...
...
...
...
0 3
The Gospel of Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Is the Bible Indictable ? ...
...
...
...
... 0 2
England, India, and Afghanistan ...
...
...
... 0 9
The Story of Afghanistan...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The preceding two pamphlets bound together in limp cloth, Is.
The Law of Population : Its consequences, and its Bearing upon
Human Conduct and Morals. Fiftieth thousand...
... 0 6
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity ...
...
...
...0 1
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will, from the German of
Ludwig Buchner
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment
...
...
...
...0 1
Landlords. Tenant Farmers, and Laborers ...
...
...0 1
The God Idea in the Revolution ...
...
..
...0 1
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought
... 0 2
English Marseillaise, with Music ...
...
...
... 0 1
English Republicanism ...
...
...
...
...0 1
Christian Progress
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
The English Land System
...
...
...
...0 1
The Transvaal ...
...
...
...
...
...
Q p
Vivisection
...
...
...
...
...
...
q p
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
...
...
o 2
Or bound in cloth,
Social and Political Essays.—By Annie Besant. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate.—By Annie Besant. 2s. 6d.
PAMPHLETS BY C. BBADLAUG1I.
s. d.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand
...
... p q
Cromwell and Washington : aContrast
...
...
... q y
A Lecture delivered to large audiences throughout the United States.
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of Robert
Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner
and Ledru Rollin
...
...
...
’ q 4.
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population Question 0 2
Life of George, Prince of Wales, with Recent Contrasts and Coin
cidences
...
... ...
...
.
Q g
�Real Representation of the People...
...
...
... o 2
Toryism from 1770 to 1879
...
...
...
... 0 1
Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry
... 0 1
Why do Men Starve?
...
...
...
...
...0 1
Poverty and its effect upon thePeople
...
...
...0 1
Labor’s Prayer ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle
...
... 0 2
Plea for Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 3
Has Man a Soul ? New Edition ...
...
...
... 0 2
Is there a God ? ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 p
Who was Jesus? New Edition ...
...
...
...
0 1
What did Jesus Teach ? ...
...
...
...
...
0 1
The Twelve Apostles
...
_ ...
...
...
... 0 1
The Atonement ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of David ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
Life of Jacob ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 p
Life of Abraham
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Moses ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Jonah ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
A Few Words about the Devil. New edition
...
...
0 1
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
...
...
...
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Thirtieth thousand ...
...
...
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
...
...
0 6
Four Lectures on Anthropology. Id. each. Together in neat
wrapper ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 4
Or to be obtained in volumes.
Political Essays.—By C. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays.—By 0. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Four Debates between C. Bradlaugh and Rev. Dr. Baylee, in
Liverpool; the Rev. Dr. Harrison, in London ; Thomas Cooper,
in London; the Rev. R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham; with
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by
C. Bradlaugh. Bound in one volume, cloth. Price 3s.
• Large Photograph of Mr. Bradlaugh for Framing, 2s. fid.
Large Portrait of Mrs. Besant, fit for Framing, 2s. 6d.
A splendidly executed Steel Engraving of Mrs. Besant, price 2d.
Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Cabinet size, Id. In Letts’s
protecting case, post free 2d.
Splendid Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Large size, 6d.
In Letts’s protecting case, post free 7d.
Cabinet Photographs of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant.—
By the Stereoscopic Company. 2s. each.
Also Cabinets.—By the Van der Weyde Light process, very remark
able. 2s.
Past and Present of the Heresy Laws.—By W. A. Hunter,
M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University
College, London. (The Counsel who so ably defended Mr. Edward
Truelove before the Lord Chief Justice of England, and again
before Mr, Baron Pollock). Price 3d.
�5
Natural Philosophy; or, Elementary Physics.
This subject
is the basis of all scientific work, and should be understood by
those who would study Botany, Zoology, or Biology. Especially
adapted for London University Matriculation. The only work
dealing with all the subjects required for that examination. By
Edward B. Aveling. Price 4s.
Pamphlets by Edward. B. Aveling, D.Sc., F.L.S., Fellow
of University Oollege, London.—“ The Value of this Earthly .Life,”
Is. “ Biological Discoveries and Problems,” Is. “ Science and
Secularism,” 2d. “Science and Religion,” Id. “ The Sermon on
the Mount,” Id. “ Superstition,” Id. “Creed of an Atheist,” Id.
“Wickedness of God,” Id. “ Irreligion of Science,” Id. “ Why I
dare not be a Christian,” Id. “God dies: Nature remains,” Id.
“ Plays of Shakspere,” 4d.
Wealthy and Wise. A lecture introductory to the Study of Poli
tical Economy. By J. Hiam Levy. 6d.
Pamphlets by Geo. Standring.—“Life of C. Bradlaugh,” with
portrait and autograph, 12 pages, Id. “Life of Colonel R. G.
Ingersoll,” with portrait and autograph, and extracts from his
Orations, in wrapper, Id. “Court Flunkevs: their Work and
Wages,” Id.
The Education of Girls.—By Henry R. S. Dalton, B.A., Oxen.
Second Edition. Price 6d.
Ish’s Charge to Women. By H. R. S. Dalton. 4d.
Religion and Priestcraft. By H. R. S. Dalton. 2d.
On the Connection of Christianity with Solar Worship.
By T. E. Partridge.
Is.
(Translated from Dupuis.)
Clericalism in France.—By Prince Napoleon Bonaparte (Jerome).
Translated by Annie Besant. Price fid.
The Cause of Woman.—From the Italian of Louisa To-Sko.
By
Ben W. Elmy. Price 6d.
Studies in Materialism.—By Ben. W. Elmy. Price 4d.
Lectures of Colonel Robert Ingersoll.—“ Oration on the Gods.”
Price fid.—“Oration on Thomas Paine.” Price 4d.—-“Heretics
and Heresies.” Price 4d.—“ Oration on Humboldt.” Price 2d.—
“ Arraignment of the Church.” Price 2d. These can be supplied
in one volume neatly bound in limp cloth. Price Is. 6d. Also, by
same author, “ The Ghosts.” Price 4d.—Religion of the Future.”
Price 2d.—-“Farm Life in America.” Price Id.—“Mistakes of
Moses.” Price 3d.
The Ten Commandments.—By W. P. Ball. Price Id.
Religion in Board Schools.—By W. P. Ball. 2d.
The Devil’s Pulpit, being Astronomico-Theological Dis
courses.—By the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A., of St. John’s
College, Cambridge. (Reprinted verbatim from Richard Carlile’s
original edition). In two vols., neatly bound in cloth, 8s. Or in
forty-six numbers, 2d. each. Also, by same author, “ The
Diegesis,” 3s. fid., cloth, and “The Syntagma,” Is., both dealing
with the origin and evidences of Christianity.
�6
Four Lectures on the “ Chemistry of Home,” by
Hypatia Bradlaugh.—“ Air, I.” “Air, II.,” “Water, I.,”
“ Water, II.”
Id. each, or the whole, in neat wrapper, 4d.
City Missionaries and Pious Frauds.—By W. R. Crofts. Id.
Natural Reason versus Divine Revelation.—An appeal for
Freethought. By Julian. Edited by Robert Lewins, M.D. 6d.
Pamphlets by J. Symes. — “The Methodist Conference and
+
Eternal Punishment: Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine/’3d.
“ Hospitals and Dispensaries, are they of Christian Growth ? ” new
and revised edition, Id. “Man’s Place in Nature, or Man an
Animal amongst Animals,” 4d. “ Philosophic Atheism,” 4d.
“ Christianity and Slavery,” 2d. “ Christianity at the Bar of
Science,” 3d, “Debate on Atheism with Mr. St. Clair,” Is.
Robert Cooper’s Holy Scriptures Analysed, with Sketch of
his Life. By C. Bradlaugh. 6d.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.—With New Introduction. By
Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
New Theory of Poverty.—By H. Aula. Id.
Liberty and Morality. By M. D. Conway. 3d.
Shelley’s Works, reprinted from the original MSS.—The Poet of
Atheism and Democracy.—In four handsome volumes, each com
plete in itself. Vol. .1, Early Poems. Volume 2, Later Poems.
Vol. 3, Posthumous Poems. Vol. 4, Prose Writings. 2s. each.
Pamphlets by C. R. Drysdale, M.D.—“ The Population Ques
tion,” Is. “ Tobacco, and the Diseases it Produces,” 2d. “Alcohol,”
6d.
The History of Clerkenwell. By the late W. J. Pinks, with
additions and Notes by the Editor, Edward J. Wood, complete in
one vol., fully gilt, 800 pp., 15s.
Paine’s Theological Works; including the “Age of Reason,”
and all his Miscellaneous Pieces and Poetical Works ; his last Will
and Testament, and a Steel Portrait. Cloth. 3s.
The Age of Reason. By Thomas Paine. Complete, with Pre
face by C. Bradlaugh. A new edition, the best ever issued,
printed in large type on good paper, Is.; cloth gilt, Is, 6d.
Paine’s Rights of Man. A Reply to Burke on the French Revo
lution. Is.
The Immortality of the Soul Philosophically Considered.
Seven Lectures by Robert Cooper.
Voltaire’s
Philosophical
Is.
Dictionary.
The edition in six,
re-printed in two thick volumes. Two portraits and a memoir. 8s.
Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the
temporal Happiness of Mankind. By Philip Beauchamp (a
pseudonvm adopted by G. Grote, the historian of Greece). Pp.
123. Is.
Shelley’s Song to the Men of England. Set to Music for
four voices. By Herr Trousselle. 2d.
A Manual of Political Questions of the Day, with the
arguments on either side. By Sydney Buxton. 130 pp. 6d.
�7
Fine Large Portrait of John Bright, for framing, size 23| by
17|.
Is.
P. 3d.
The City of Dreadful Night, and other Poems.
Thomson (“ B. V.”)
By James
Cloth 5s.
Pamphlets by G. W. Foote.—“ Secularism the True Philo
sophy of Life,” 4d. “ Futility of Prayer,” 2d. . “ Atheism and
Morality,” 2d. “Death’s Test, or Christian Lies about Dying
Infidels,” 2d. Bible Romances, Id. each : “ Noah’s Flood,” “ Cre
ation Story,” “Eve and the Apple,” “The Bible Devil,”
“Jonah and the Whale,” “The Ten Plagues,” “ The Wandering
Jews,” “ The Tower of Babel,” “Balaam’s Ass,” “ God’s Thieves
in Canaan,” “Cain and Abel,” “Lot’s Wife.” Or the 12, in colored
wrapper, Is.
Fine Steel Engravings of William Ewart Gladstone and
John Bright. 3d. each ; the two sent post free for 6d.
The Life of Jesus. By Ernest Renan. Authorised English
Translation. Crown 8vo, pp. xii.—312, cloth, 2s. fid.; stitched in
wrapper. Is. fid.
The Crisis in Farming; its Radical Causes and then only
Remedies. Twenty-two evils arising from Landlord, thirteen from
Tenant. By the Author of “ Hints to Landlords and Tenants.” 6d.
The First Seven Alleged Persecutions, A.D. 64 to A.D. 235.
By Thos. L’Estrange. fid.
The Eucharist. By the same Author. 6d.
These two pamphlets are highly recommended as able contri
butions to Freethought enquiry.
Chrestos : a Religious Epithet; Its Import and Influence.
By J. B. Mitchell, M.D., Mem. Soc. Bib. Arch.
Is.
Volney’s Ruins of Empires, with Plates of the Ancient Zodiac,
etc., carefully reprinted from the best edition, cloth, lettered, 2s.
The Three Trials of William Hone, for Publishing Three
Parodies ; viz., The late John Wilkes’s Catechism, The Political
Litany, and The Sinecurists’ Creed; on three ex-offleio infor
mations, at Guildhall, London, during three successive days—
December 18tli, 19th, and 20th, 1817—-before three special juries,
and Mr. Justice Abbot, on the first day, and Lord Chief Justice
Ellenborough, on the last two days. 2s.
The House of Lords. How it grew—Fifty years ago—Blueblooded Legislators—Broad-acre Legislators—Professional Legis-'
lators—Against Parliamentary Reform—Against Municipal Reform
—Against Religious Liberty—Against Social Reforms—Its Deal
ings with Ireland—-Its Foreign Policy—Concluding Remarks. By
H. R. Fox Bourne. (Reprinted from the “Weekly Dispatch.”)
80 pp. 3d.
Land Law Reform, and its relation to Work, Wages,
and Population. 2d.
The True Principle of Population, Trade Profits, &c.,
and the Land Laws. By T. R, 2d.
�8
The True Source of Christianity; or, a Voice from the
Ganges. By an Indian Officer. Originally published at 5s.
This work is now republished verbatim, in paper covers, Is. ;
cloth gilt, Is. 6d.
The Roll Call: a Political Record of the years 1775 to
1880. Commencing with the great wars of the last century, and
brought down to the close of 1880, with full Index. In paper
covers, 78 pp., 6d.
Under which Lord? By the author of “Joshua Davidson.”
Originally published in 3 vols. at £1 11s. 6d., now issued complete
in 1 vol., cloth gilt, 2s. 6d.
The Rev. Joseph Cook: A Critical Examination. By Professor
Fiske. Id.
The Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lords. By Pro
fessor Blackie. 2d.
Religion in the Heavens ; or, Mythology Unveiled. In
a Series of Lectures. By Logan Mitchell. Uniform with
International Series. Cloth, gilt, 5s.
LIST B.
Special List of Remainders, in cloth, new and uncut—All
the books in List B are at the lowest price, and no reduction can
be made to the trade, the object being to supply readers of the
National Reformer with literature at specially low rates.
Orders must be accompanied by cost of Postage, which is inserted
after the letter P. Where no postage is mentioned, the books go by
Sutton at cost of purchaser, and 2d. in addition to price must be
sent for booking.
Eminent Radicals in and out of Parliament. By J. Morri
son Davidson, Barrister-at-law. Being sketches of W. E. Glad
stone, John Bright, P. A. Taylor, Sir C. Dilke, J. Cowen, Sir W.
Lawson, H. Fawcett, J. Chamberlain, T. Burt, H. Richards, L. H.
Courtney, A. J. Mundella, John Morley, Robert William Dale,
Joseph Arch. Edward Spencer Beesly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
Charles Bradlaugh, Frederic Augustus Maxse, James Beal, Mon
cure Daniel Conway, James Allanson Picton, The Hon. Auberon
Herbert, Edward Augustus Freeman. Demy 8vo., 262 pp. Pub
lished at 10s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 7d.
The Outcast. — By Winwood Reade.
Handsomely bound,
pp. 262., Is. 6d. P. 3jd.
Ancient Mysteries described, by William Hone. With En
gravings on Copper and Wood. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
The Apocryphal New Testament, bein? all the Gospels,
Epistles, &c., attributed to Christ, his Apostles, and their com
panions in the first four centuries of the Christian Era. By
W. Hone. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Three Essays on Philosophical Subjects — The Infinite;
Arabic Peripateticism; Sir W. Hamilton and J. S. Mill. Crown
8vo, 290 pp., Is. P. 3|d.
�17
Modern Protestantism: a few words on Essays and Reviews. By
G. J. Holyoake. Published at 6d. Post free l|d.
Thomas Cooper’s Celebrated Eight Letters to the Young Men
of the Working Classes. Post free 3d.
Horatio Prater’s Letters to the American People on Christianity
and the Sabbath. (Published by G. J. Holyoake, Fleet Street.)
P. 2^-d. Paper covers 6d. P. 2d.
By Victor Hugo and Garibaldi. 16 pp.,
stitched, Id. P. |d.
The National Inheritance : an Exhaustive Treatise on the Land
Question. By James Walker. 16 pp., demy 8vo, stitched, Id.
Cloth, new, 8d.
Political Poems.
P. ^-d.
Address to Socialists on the Rational System of Society, and
the measures required for the successful operation of the Universal
Community Society. By Robert Owen. Free 1^-d.
“Notre Dame!” A Freethinker’s address to the Hierarchy of
the Church of Rome. By R. H. Dalton, author of “ Education of
Girls,” etc. (Published at Is.) Post free, IJd.
Vol. 1 of “ Health. ’ A Monthly Magazine, edited by G. Drewry,
M.D. Containing the whole issues for 1878, full of interesting
articles on food, dress, diseases, sanitary matters, &c., &c. (Pub. lished at 2s.) Cloth, new, 6d. P. 4d.
Lord Byron’s “Vision of Judgment.” 24 pp., stitched, in wrapper,
free 2d.
An Essay on the Functions of the Brain. In paper wrapper, Id.
P. |d.
The complete Works of Shakspere, with a Memoir. By
Alexander Chalmers. Handsomely bound, richly gilt covers,
708 pp., Diprose’s diamond edition, Is. 6d. P. 5d. Very suitable
for presentation.
Russian and Turk from a Geographical, Ethnological, and His
torical point of view. By R. G. Latham, M.A., M.D. Royal 8vo
435 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Inquiry into the Theories of History, with special refer
ence, to the principles of the Positive Philosophy. By W. Adam.
Dealing with the philosophy of Comte with great care and critical
ability. This work was favorably noticed by J. S. Mill. Demv
8vo, 441 pp., 3s. P. 7d.
Brief Biographies of German Political Leaders, including
Bismarck, Arnim, Camphausen, Lasker, Jacoby, Sonneman, Gueist,
Virchow, etc., etc., in all nineteen principal men in the country.
Crown 8vo, 264 pp., 2s. P. 4d.
Political Pamphlets by Thomas Paine—“ Decline and Fall of
the English System.of Finance;” “Public Good;” “Letters to
the Citizens of America ; ” “ Agrarian Justice opposed to A gra.rian
Law and Agrarian Monopoly, with a plan for creating a National
Fund ; “ Dissertations on the First Principles of Government ”
The five free for 6d.
�18
Pamphlets by R. D. Owen—“A Lecture on Consistency;”
“ Situations—Lawyers, Clergy, Physicians, Men and Women ; ”
" Darby and Susan: a Tale of Old England; ” “ Wealth and
Misery; “ Is eurology : an Account of some Experiments in
Cerebral Physiology; ” “ Sermon on Free Enquiry,” etc. Id. each.
P. |d. Or the whole freQ for 6d.
Letter to the Abbe Raynal, in correction of his Account of the
Revolution in America. By Thomas Paine, with correspondence
between the writer and George Washington. 54 pp., stitched in
wrapper (published at 6d.), free 3d.
Address delivered by Robert Owen on the Opening of the
Institution for the Formation of Character at New Lanark, on
January 1st, 1816, being the first public announcement of ’the
discovery of the Infant School System. Demy 8vo, 32 pp., stitched
in wrapper, free 2d.
An Enquiry into the Nature of Responsibility, as deduced
from Savage Justice, Civil Justice, and Social Justice ; with some
Remarks upon the Doctrine of Irresponsibility as taught by Jesus
Christ and Robert Owen ; also upon the Responsibility of Man to
God. By T. Simmons Macintosh, author of “ The Electrical
Theory of the Universe.” 124 pp., 6d. P. l|d.
The Life and Writings of Joseph Priestley.
Id.
Paper covers,
Personal Narrative of Travels in Eastern Lands, principally
Turkish, in 1833, in a Series of Letters, 67 in all. By Professor F. W.
Newman. The letters are full of most interesting matter concern
ing Eastern Social and Political Life. Crown 8vo, paper covers
120 pages of close print, 6d. P. lj-d.
1
’
Household Words.—Conducted by Charles Dickens.
Strongly
bound. Each volume, 2s.; published at 5s. 6d.
Vol. 9 contains the whole of the essays on Turkey and Greece,
by G. A. SaXa, under the title “ A Roving Englishman,” written
at the close of the Crimean War.
Vol. 14 contains the story of “ The Wreck of the Golden Mary,”
also the famous papers by G. A. Sala, “ A Journey due North,”
and “A Journey to Russia.”
Pamphlets by G. J. Holyoake.—“ Working-class Representa
tion and its Conditions and Consequences ; ” “ Outlaws of Freethought ; ” “ The Limits of Atheism ; or, Why Should Sceptics be
Outlaws ; ” “ The Social Means of Promoting Temperance,” with
remarks on errors in its advocacy; “ A New Defence of the Ballot; ”
“ Life and Last Days of Robert Owen, of New Lanark ; ” “ The
Suppressed Lecture at Cheltenham; ” “ Public Lessons of the
Hangman.” The lot, post free, 8d.
Indian Infanticide : its Origin, Progress and Suppression.
Con
taining a large amount of information respecting the Social Life of
the Hindus. 250 pp., Is. 6d. P. 4d.
�19
The
Scriptural Religions, Histories and Prophecies
Analysed and Examined. By J. W. Willcock, Q.C. A
searching and critical exposure of the Biblical Narratives and
Myths. Vol. I. (all that has been issued), demy 8vo, 526 pp.,
3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Credibility of the Gospel Narratives of the Birth and
Infancy of Christ, with an Introduction on the Acts of the
Apostles. A critical analysis of the contradictions of the Gosiel
Writers. 91 pp. (published at Is. 6d. by Thomas Scott), 6d.
P. Id.
Biographies of John Wilkes and William Cobbett, with
steel engravings. By the Rev. J. S. Watson, M.A. Good inuex,
410 pp., 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Historical Studies and Recreations. By Shosiiee Chunder
Dutt (J. A. G. Barton), author of “ Bengaliana,” etc. Containing
the World’s History retold, in two parts : the Ancient World and
the Modern World. Also Bengal, an account of the Country from
the earliest times, the Great Wars of India, the Ruins of the Old
World, read as Milestones of Civilisation. 2 vols, 8vo, cloth, new,
uncut. Vol. I. pp. 470; vol. II. pp. 600. (Published at 32s.)
os. 6d.
Phraseological Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis.
By Theodore Preston, M.A.
Illustrating the remarkable
peculiarities and anomalies of matter, style, and phrase in the
Book of Genesis, with references to Rashi, Aben Ezre. Gesenius
etc., etc. Crown 8vo, pp. 290, 2s. P. 4^d.
’
THE GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.—Bayard Taylor’s Diver
sions of the Echo Club—The Book of Clerical Anecdotes—Byron’s
Don Juan—Emerson’s Letters and Social Aims—Godwin’s (William)
Lives of the Necromancers—Holmes's Professor at the Breakfast
Table—Hood’s Whims and Oddities, complete, with all the original
illustrations—Irving’s (Washington) Tales of a Traveller—Irving’s
(Washington) Tales of the Alhambra—Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes
and Occupations of Country Life—Leigh Hunt’s Essays, with
portrait and introduction by Edmund Ollier—Mallory’s Sir Thos.
Mort d’Arthur, the Stories of King Arthur and of the Knights of
tlie Round Table; edited by B. Montgomery Ranking—Pascal’s
Provincial Letters ; a new translation, with historical introduction
and notes by T. M’Orie, D.D., LL.D.—Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works Kocflefoucald s Maxims and Moral Reflections, ■with, notes
and introductory essay by Sainte-Beuve—St. Pierre’s Paul and
Virginia, and the Indian Cottage; edited, with Life, by the Rev.
E. Clarke Lamb s Essays of Elia; both series complete in one
volume. Handsomely bound. Reduced to Is. each. If sent bv
Post 3d. each extra.
J
Essays— Scientific, Political, and Speculative. (Second
series.) By Herbert Spencer. (Published at 12s.) Demv 8vo
362 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 6d. A rare opportunity.
’
’
Matter and Motion. By N. A. Nicholson, M.A., Trinity Colleo'e
. Oxford. 48 pp., demy 8vo, 3d. P. Id.
S >
�The Year Book of Facts for 1880.
Containing the principal ;
discoveries in Geology, Dynamics, Geography, etc., with the Speech
of the President at the British Association Congress of that year,
with Index. 210 pp., 7d. P. 3|d.
The Classification of the Sciences ; to which are added Reasons
for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte. By Herbert
Spencer. 48 pp., demy 8vo, colored wrapper, Is. P. Id.
The Eternal Gospel; or, the Idea of Christian Perfectibility. By
N. W. Mackay, M.A. (Published at 2s. by Thomas Scott.) In
two Parts, 200 pp. in all, 6d. P. 2d.
Practical Remarks on State Vaccination, addressed to the
Smallpox and Vaccination Committee of the Epidemiological
Society. By Edward J. Hughes, M.D., Medical Officer to the
Holywell Union. 32 pp., demy 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Crimea and Transcaucasia; being the narrative of a
journey in the Kouban, in Gouria, Georgia, Armenia, Ossety,
Imeritia, Swannety, and Mingrelia, and in the Tauric Range. By
Commander J. P. Telfer, R.N. With two fine Maps and nume
rous Illustrations ; two vols. in one, splendidly bound in cloth, gilt
edges, royal 8vo, 600 pp. (Published at £1 16s.) A handsome
presentation book, 5s.
An Essay on Classification. By Louis Agassiz. 8vo. Pp. vii.
and 381. Cloth. (Published at 12s.) Reduced to 3s. P. 6d.
Light, and its Influence on Life and Health. By Dr.
Forbes Winslow. 301 pp. Is. P. 4d.
Human Longevity; and the amount of life upon the globe.—By P
Flourens, Professor of Comparative Physiology, Paris. Trans
lated by Charles Martel. Boards, Is. P. 2Jd.
The Meteoric Theory of Saturn’s Bings, considered with
reference to the Solar Motion in Space. With illustrations. Paper
wrapper, crown 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Human Mind. A System of Mental Philosophy. By J. G.
Murphy, LL.D. Cloth, crown 8vo, 350 pp., 2s. P. ad.
The Modern Practice of Physic, exhibiting the symptoms,
causes, prognostics, morbid appearances and treatment of the
diseases of all climates. By R. Thomas, M.D. Eleventh edition,
revised by A. Frampton, Physician London Hospital. In 2 vols.,
royal 8vo, 564 pp. and 756 pp. This work contains a great
number of recipes and prescriptions for all kinds of diseases, each
given in both Latin and English. With a copious index and table
of contents. 6s.
The Finding of the Book. An essay on the origin of the Dogma
of Infallibility. By John Robertson. This is the important
work which provoked the famous heresy’ prosecution. Published
at 2s. Post free Is.
Facts and Figures for Working Men. An analysis of the
Drink Question in relation to commerce, foreign competition,
our food supply, strikes, the death rate, and prosperity of the
country, etc. By Frederick Leary. Id.
�The Irish Problem and how to solve it.
An historical and
critical review of the legislation and events that have led to Irish
difficulties, including suggestions for practical remedies. Cloth,
demy 8vo, 410 pp. This work is only just issued, and brings the
History of the Irish Question up to the present time, and contains
in addition to Compensation for Disturbance Bill, several Acts
of Parliament, including the Coercion Bill of the present year.
2s. P. 9d.
The Rights and Duties of Property. With a plan for paying
off the National Debt, dealing with the Science of Political
Economy, the Land Question, etc., etc. Clotb, gilt lettered, 260
pp. 6d. P. 3d.
Satan: His existence disproved, and the notions of Battles in
Heaven and of Fallen Angels shown to have originated in Astro
nomical Phsenomena. Id. P. ¿d.
Science Lectures for the People. By Professors Huxley,
Tyndall, Duncan, Williamson, Huggins, Roscoe and others.
In all 55 lectures, in 3 vols., gilt cloth, 4s. 6d.
Intervention and Non-Intervention on the Foreign Policy
of Great Britain, from 1790 to 1865. By A. G. Stapleton.
Demy 8vo, 300 pp. 2s. P. 6d.
Reply to Bishop Watson’s attack on the “ Age of
Reason.” By Thomas Paine. Id. P. |d.
Splendid Steel Portraits of Lord Brougham, John Bright and
Richard Cobden. 24 by 18 Is. each; or the three for 2s. 6d.
The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in Contrast with the
Moral Sense of our Age. Published at 6s. 6d. in parts. By the
late Thomas Scott. In 1 vol. complete. 2s. P. 5d.
Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. A Religious and
Philosophical Survey of the Immediate Past. By Etienne
Ohastel, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of
Geneva. Translated by J. Beard. Cloth, crown 8vo, 236 pp.,
Is. P. 3£d.
The History of Christianity. By E. N. Bouzique. Translated
by J. Beard. In three vols., nearly 400 pp. in each, crown 8vo,
cloth. 5s.
EDUCATIONAL.
From List B.
Elementary Chemistry.
P. 3|d.
By Rev. H. Martyn Hart, B.A.
A Compendium of English History.
Is.
From the Earliest Times
to a.d. 1872. With copious quotations on leading events and Con
stitutional History, with Appendices. By Herbert R. Clinton.
358 pp. Published at 7s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 5d.
First Book of English Grammar. By John Hugh Hawley.
Third edition, . Cloth, 3d. P. Id.
�22
Geography Classified.
A systematic manual of Mathematical,
Physical and Political Geography. With Geographical, Etymo
logical and Historical Notes. By Edwin Adams, F.R.G.S. Pp.
357. (Published at 7s. 6d.) Is. 6d. P. 4d.
Latin Grammar. By L. Direy. Pp. 179. Neatly bound. (Pub
lished at 4s.) 6d. P. 2d.
English. Grammar. By L. Direy and A. Foggo. Pp. 136.
(Published at 3s.) 6d. P. 2^-d.
The Life of Cicero. By Conyers Middleton, D.D. Complete
in one volume, with copious index and steel frontispiece. Demy
8vo, 760 pp. 2s. 6d. P. 9£d. Very cheap.
Facts and Figures, Important Events in History, Geography,
Literature, Biography, Ecclesiastical History, etc., etc. Arranged
in classified chronological order. Post free, 6d.
Elements of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical, including the
most recent discoveries and applications of the science to medicine
and pharmacy, to agriculture, and to manufacture. Illustrated
by 230 woodcuts, with copious index. Second edition. By Sir
Robert Kane, M.D., M.R.I.A., President of Queen’s College, Cork.
Cloth, royal 8vo, 1069 pp. Price, 3s. 6d.
Parker’s Compendium of Natural and Experimental
Philosophy Mechanics, Hydrostatics, Acoustics, Astro
nomy, etc., etc. Post 8vo, profusely illustrated, 400 pp. Is. 6d.
P. 3|d.
The Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology.
By the late Professor J. F. W. Johnston and C. A. Cameron,
Prof. Chemistry, R.C.S., etc., etc. Post 8vo., 500 pp., tenth
edition. 2s. P. 4|d.
Elements of Astronomy, for Academies and High Schools. By
Elias Loomis, LL.D. Well illustrated, crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. P. 4d.
Crabbe’s Technical Dictionary of all the Terms used in the Arts
and Sciences. Post 8vo, 600 pp., 2s. P. 5d.
The Child’s Ladder of Knowledge. By G. J. Holyoake.
Illustrated (published at 8d.), post free 4d.
Works by the celebrated Sir Benjamin Brodie.
Physiological Researches. Dealing with the Influence of the
Brain on the Action of the Heart and the Generation of Animal
Heat. Observations and experiments on the modes in which death
is produced by vegetable poisons, &c., &c. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 146 pp.
(Published at 5s.) Is. P. 3d.
The Diseases of the Urinary Organs, with Treatment and
Modes of Cure. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 12s.) 2s
P. 7d.
Pathological and Surgical Observations on the Diseases of
the Joints, Inflammation of the Synovial Membrane, Ulceration of
ditto, Morbid Alteration of Structure, Cancellous Structure of
Bones, &c., &c. Cloth, royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 10s. 6d.)
2s. P. 6d.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Saint Clair, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 74 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list, dated January 1882, on pages at the end numbered [1]-8 and 17-22, i.e. p.9-16 are missing. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1777
N631
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Theism
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 (Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair), 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
Atheism
NSS
Theism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb8c72ceaed855269677f11ed7fcc672.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mqCC-swd7Xxmrr2DvcI%7EGzCv9Tevq7GYCz9E40p8OfxwQb8wxQwPFeN0jE9rM5RURd18FABegxzMoxDZodqNAEeYbmJh%7ErfqStxgM0RLUwYX7jb%7EC0tkgZVDSpXJhx9scWF7ByQnjbiQ1VD6beqsUMxGZ0g%7ENDygdEfPpkDwIp%7E0TKYD5XM0RscdzYowzViXxML-ry0HVlYd1lZ9VECKp97oIeXZtqh518ObPWtBll8WTIvaGUT%7E4SHJ1rsx%7Efwxg91SV7EZMpLfGYU3iS5Bk%7EZOF2Xodcj1cR67FhvkuVBSYJsiGtrRsCAj5yd2Dm3JgLXAqwMceSd8ie6EzI2dTw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
92af1ef847474167df1cfd59a5c85d56
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AN
ESSAY
* ON MIRACLES.
BY 'p
DAVID HUME.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
Commenting upon the views of Campbell, Paley, Mill,
Powell, Greg, Mozley, Tyndall, Huxley, etc.,
1SY
JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER.
“Apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but
effective arguments of Hume than to answer them."—11 Supernatural
Religion," vol. i.,p. 78.
LONDON :
I
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 882.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
�BIBLE
ROMANCES.
By G. W. FOOTE.
1. —THE CREATION. STORY' ..................
2. —NOAH’S FLOOD
..................................
3. —EVE AND THE APPLE..........................
4. —THE BIBLE DEVIL..................................
5. —THE TEN PLAGUES
..........................
6. —JONAH AND THE WHALE..................
7. —THE WANDERING JEWS ..................
A—THE TOWER OF BABEL ..................
9.—BALAAM’S ASS.........................................
10. —GOD’S THIEVES IN CANAAN ...........
11. —CAIN AND ABEL ..................................
12. —LOT’S WIFE
..........................................
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
BIBLE ROMANCES—First Series—Containing the above Twelve
Numbers, bound in handsome wrapper. Is.
SECOND SERIES.
13. —DANIEL AND THE LIONS
..........
14. —THE JEW JUDGES
..........................
Id.
Id.
The SECOND SERIES will soon be completed in six
instalments.
Other Pamphlets by G. W. Foote.
Secularism the True Philosophy of Life.
and a Defence
...
...
...
An Exposition
Atheism and Morality
........................................... 2d.
The Futility of Prayer....................................... '
... 2d.
Death’s Test: or Christian Lies about Dying Infidels. 2d.
Atheism and Suicide. (A reply to Alfred Tennyson—Paet
Laureate)...
...
...
..
" ...
The God Christians Swear By
.............................. 2d.
Was Jesus Insane P
................................................. Id.
London: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
When an author has the fortune to be attacked by every
succeeding writer upon the same subject for upwards of a
century, and when his opinions, so far from being crushed out,
become more widely spread by each “ refutation,” it induces
a supicion that “ sophisms ” so constantly refuted may be
truisms after all. This has been notably the case with the
essay here reprinted. Since its first publication in 1748 it has
been the bête noire of Christian controversialists. Campbell,
IPhley, De Quincey, Chalmers, Whately, Babbage, Mansel,
Mozley, and a shoal of ministerial minnows sailing in the
wake of these theological Tritons, have felt it incumbent
upon them to refute the “ sophisms ” of the sceptic Hume
Yet no one will say that unbelief in the miraculous is upon
the decline.. On the contrary, never were Christians less
anxious to insist upon the supernatural elements of their
îehgion, and never more willing to seek reconcilements with
science ; never were there so many trained minds with perfect
confidence that the uniformity of nature has never been dis
turbed by coups d’état célestes.
In truth, Hume’s argument, though so constantly assailed,
has never been refuted at all. It has been misapprehended
and evaded, but it remains as unanswerable as that of Arch
bishop Tillotson against the real presence. And this, because
m point of fact—the terms being rightly understood—it is a
truism. John Stuart Mill well says: “Hume’s celebrated
principle that nothing is credible which is contradictory to
experience, or at variance with laws of nature, is merely this
very plain and harmless proposition, that whatever is contra
dictory to a complete induction is incredible. That such a
maxim as this should either be accounted a dangerous heresy,
or mistaken for a great and recondite truth, speaks ill for the
state of philosophical speculation on such subjects-.” (“System
of Logic,” book 3, chap, xxv., sec. 2.)
Few essays so brief, for it must be borne in mind that the
first part contains the argument complete in itself, have been
so persistently misunderstood. The whole school of Christian evidence writers have either argued as it were an à priori
argument against the possibility of miracles, or as if it were
an argument against testimony being received for wonders •
whereas it is neither the one nor the other. Principal Campbell, as Mill points out, considered it a complete answer to
*
Hume’s doctrine (that things are incredible which are contrary
to the uniform course of experience) that we do not disbelieve.
* “ Logic.” See the “ Three Essays,” p. 217.
�2
merely because the chances were against them, things in strict
conformity to the uniform course of experience. Yet no one
would call an unusual combination which was found by experi
ence to occur among the whole number of possible cases a.
miracle, save in the popular, indefinite style of speech which
is totally unfit for theological, and still more for logical, pur
poses. And here lies the gist of the whole misunderstanding.
Everyone knows that both etymologically and popularly the
word miracle is equivalent simply to a wonder. But Hume’s
argument is not directed against the occurrence of wonders,
prodigies or unprecedented events; though it offers a criterion
by which the value of their evidence can be judged. He was
not such a simpleton as to contend, or intend, that no testi
mony could be sufficient to add to our knowledge of the laws
of nature. His argument is based on the theological definition
of miracles as infractions of the laws of nature by a super
natural being or beings exterior to those laws.
The essay has done much to modify the views of theolo
gians, and they have since its time done their best to class
their miracles under’ “unknown laws.” Yet Canon Mozley,
certainly the ablest late defender of miracles, admits that
“ their evidential value depends entirely upon their deviating
from the order of nature.” A miracle in the theological sense
denotes not simply the counteraction of one natural law by
another, which is not opposed to experience, but the suppres
sion of the law of uniformity of cause and effect, which ex
perience shows to be universal, and in which all other laws
are included. As Hume puts it, unless there were an uniform
*
experience against any miraculous event, “the event would not
merit that appellation.” If, by some unknown law, persons
could, under given c onditions, be raised from the dead, such facts,
however wonderful, would take their place in the vast scheme
of nature, and no more be properly entitled supernatural than
any other. But such an event is classed as a miracle, as our
essayist says, “ because it has never been observed in any age
or country.”
The instance of the King of Siam rejecting accounts of ice
has often, foolishly enough, been quoted against Hume by
opponents who failed to notice the distinction between a dis
covery of the laws of nature and their suspension. If we could
be taken to a region where the dead rise at command with the
same certainty that water freezes when the temperature is
below a certain point the fact would be indubitable, but the
miracle would be gone. We cannot admit a proposition as a
law of nature and yet believe a fact in contradiction to it.
We must disbelieve the alleged fact, or believe that we are
See Mill’s “Essay on Theism,” p. 222.
�8
mistaken in admitting the supposed law. In gaming the fact
the miracle is lost; because to this, the supernatural nature or
the fact, all testimony is incompetent. Mr. Vv. H. Greg
pointed out that the assertion of a miracle being performed
*
involves three elements, a fact and two inferences. It predi
cates, first, that such an event took place; second, that it
was brought about by the act and will of the individual to
whom it is attributed ; third, that it could not have been pro
duced by natural means. The fact may have been conectly o served, and yet either or both of the inferences be unwarranted;
or either inference may be rendered unsound by the slightest
deviation from accuracy in the observation or statement ot
the fact. Nay, any new discovery in science may show that
the inference which has hitherto appeared quite irrefragable,
was, in fact, wholly unwarranted and incorrect.
But it has been said : Assume a supernatural power and the
antecedent improbability of supernatural visitations is re
moved. Paley says, “ In a word, once believe that there is a
God, and miracles are not incredible.’’t To this assertion
Mill has been thought to lend his. authority. He endorses
Hume’s argument only as substantiating that ‘‘ no evidence
can prove a miracle to anyone who did not previously believe
the existence of a being or beings with supernatural power ;
or who believes himself to have full proof that the character
of the Being whom he recognises, is inconsistent with his
having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question. +
Now this statement is inadequate. The existence of.God, if He
be the Supreme Cause of the order of the universe, is rather an
additional difficulty to those who think that order was created
by Him and subsequently disturbed. The argument against
miracles rests on our experience of the order of nature ; and
is, therefore, equally valid whether a cause of that order be
assumed or not. For the only test of the will or way of work
ing of such a cause is to be found within the order itself.
Any interference with that order still has to be. proved by
testimony; and the question remains whether it is more
credible that men have been deceived, or that the laws of
nature have been disturbed?
This last is the aspect of the argument which comes home
to the popular mind. Every individual has experience that
men lie and make mistakes ; none that miracles occur. Expe
riment upon experiment; the records of generation after
* “ Creed of Christendom,” vol. ii., p. 136.
+ Evidences of Christianity. “Preparatory Considerations.”
+ “System of Logic,” Bk. 3, ch. xxv., sec. 2. Dr. Farrar’s abuse
of Mill’s reasoning is well exposed by the author of “ Supernatural
Religion,” Pt. 1, ch. iii.
�4
generation; the very stability of our life depends upon and
confirms the belief m the uniformity of law
“In the
case of miracles, then,” says Professor Tyndall, “ it behoves
us to understand the weight of the negative before we assign
a value to the positive ; to comprehend the protest of nature
before we attempt to measure with it the assertions of
men. *
Paley’s supposition of “ twelve men whose probity and good
sense I had well known,” who should be ready, one after
another, to be racked, burnt or strangled, rather than give up
the assertion that they had witnessed miracles, does not even
meeu the case. For how could it be shown that it was impos
sible tor these twelve men to be deceived? Twelve infallible
men w ould be as incredible as any miracle they were supposed
to assert. Paley’s reference is simply a disingenuous attempt
to. imply that twelve good witnesses testified to the Christian
miracles at the time and in the place where they are said to
have occurred, and that they suffered on this account. Whereas
not one single original witness is known ; nor can even any
early Christian be proved to have suffered for his belief in
miracles.
Professor Huxley, who,, in his admirable little book on
Hume, very captiously, as it seems to me, takes exception to
iiume s defining miracles in their theological sense, agrees
that his arguments on the matter of testimony resolve them
selves into a simple statement of the dictates of common
sense, which may be expressed in this canon: the more a
statement of fact conflicts with previous experience, the more
complete must be the evidence which is to justify us in be
lieving it. It is upon this principle that everyone carries on
the business of common life. “ If,” continues the Professor,
a man tells me he saw a piebald horse in Piccadilly, I believe
~.lm w^hout hesitation. The thing itself is likely enough, and
there is no imaginable motive for his deceiving me. But if
the.same person tells me he observed a zebra there, I might
hesitate a little about accepting his testimony, unless I were
well satisfied, not only as to his previous acquaintance with
zebras, but as to his powers and opportunities of observation
in the present case. If, however, my informant assured me
that he beheld a centaur trotting down that famous thoroughrare, I should emphatically decline to credit his statement; and
this even if he were the most saintly of men, and ready to
suffer martyrdom in support of his belief. In such a case I
could, of course, entertain no doubt of the good faith of the
witness; it would be only his competency, which, unfortunately,
* “ Fragments of Science,” “ On Miracles and Special Providence ”
vol. ii., p. 33. 1879.
’
�5
has very little to do with good faith or intensity of conviction,
which I should presume to call in question.”*
The sceptic being securely entrenched in the first part of the
essay, the second carries the war into the supernaturalists’
camp. With the confidence of a thorough student of human
nature and historian, Hume gives his conviction that there is
not in all history an wholly trustworthy testimony to mira
culous events. Huxley says on this passage (page 10 of this
edition):—“ These are grave assertions, but they are least
likely to be challenged by those who have made it their busi
ness to weigh evidence and to give their decision under a due
sense of the moral responsibility which they incur in so
doing.”
Miracles are only alleged to have happened among people
devoid of scientific information and critical spirit. The learned
author of “ Supernatural Religion,” in his chapter on “ The
Age of Miracles,’’gives abundant proof that the miracles now
credited arose in a time of the grossest superstition, among a
people believing in the every-day operations of angels and
demons, full of religious excitement, and prone to exaggera
tion. In an age of science, where no one expects miracles,
they do not occur, and most are ready to take as evidence of
superstition the belief in any others than those in faith of
which they have themselves been reared. The same silent
process which has destroyed the belief in fairies and witch
craft has undermined all other supernatural beliefs, and they
only await the application of criticism to be levelled with the
dust. It is true the universe remains a mystery. In one
sense every atom is a miracle. It is so because man’s faculties
are finite and the relations of nature infinite. But the mystery
ef nature affords no ground for belief in miraculous events,
the only testimony for which has been handed down from
superstitious and ill-informed ancestors. It is rather a reason
for abiding by the only light we have—the light which comes
from reason and observation. The part of a wise man is to
study and investigate, and “ proportion his belief to the
evidence.”
There being slight variations in the various editions of the
Essay, the present text has been carefully compared with all
those in the library of the British Museum.
* “English Men of Letters : Hume,” p. 134.
�ON MIRACLES.
-------- ♦--------
PART
I.
There is in Dr. Tillotson’s writings an argument against the real
presence, which is as concise, and elegant, and strong as any
argument can possibly be supposed against a doctrine that is
so little worthy of a serious refutation. It is acknowledged on
all hands, says that learned prelate, that the authority, either
of the scripture or of tradition, is founded merely in the testi
mony of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses to those miracles
of our Savior, by which he proved his divine mission. Our
evidence, then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less
than the evidence for the truth of our senses ; because, even in
the first authors of our religion, it was no greater; and it is
evident it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples;
nor can any one be so certain of the truth of their testimony,
as of the immediate object of his senses. But a weaker evidence
can never destroy a stronger; and therefore, were the doctrine
of the real presence ever so clearly revealed in scripture, it
were directly contrary to the rules of just reasoning to give
our assent to it. It contradicts sense, though both the scripture
and tradition, on which it is supposed to be built, carry not
such evidence with them as sense, when they are considered
merely as external evidences, and are not brought home to
every one’s breast by the immediate operation of the Holy
Spirit.
Nothing is so convenient as a decisive argument of this kind,
which must at least silence the most arrogant bigotry and
superstition, and free us from their impertinent solicitations.
I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like
nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an
everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and
consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures. For
so long, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies
be found in all history, sacred and profane.
Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning
matters of fact; it must be acknowledged that this guide is
not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us
into errors and mistakes. One, who, in our climate, should
expect better weather in any week of June than in one of
December, would reason justly, and conformably to experience;
but it is certain that he may happen, in the event, to find
himself mistaken. However, we may observe, that, in such
a case, he would have no cause to complain of experience;
�7
because it commonly informs us beforehand of the uncertainty,
by that contrariety of events, which we may learn from a
diligent observation. All effects follow not with like certainty
from their supposed causes. Some events are found, in all
countries and all ages, to have been constantly conjoined to
gether : Others are found to have been more variable, and
sometimes to disappoint our expectations; so that, in our
reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest
species of moral evidence.
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience,
he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and
regards his past experience as a full proof of the future
existence of that event.
In other cases he proceeds with
more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He
considers which side is supported by the greatest number of
experiments: To that side he inclines with doubt and hesi
tation ; and when at last he fixes his judgment, the evidence
exceeds not what we properly
probability. All probability,
then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations;
where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to
produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority.
A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty
on another, afford a very doubtful expectation of any event;
though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is
contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of
assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experi
ments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number
from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the
superior evidence.
To apply these principles to a particular instance ; we may
observe that there is no species of reasoning more common,
more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that
derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye
witnesses and spectators. This species of reasoning, perhaps,
one may deny to be founded on the relation of cause and
effect. I shall not dispute about a word. It will be sufficient
to observe, that our assurance in any argument of this kind is
derived from no other principle than our observation of the
veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of
facts to the reports of witnesses. It being a general maxim,
that no objects have any discoverable connexion together, and
that all the inferences which we can draw from one to another
are founded merely on our experience of their constant and
regular conjunction; it is evident that we ought not to make
an exception to this maxim in favor of human testimony,
whose connexion with any events seems, in itself, as liitJo
�8
necessary as any other. Were not the memory tenacious to a
certain degree ; had not men commonly an inclination to
truth and a principle of probity; were they not sensible to
snanie wh.cn detected in a falsehood : TiVere not these, I say,
discovered by experience to be qualities inherent in ’human
natuie, we should never repose the least confidence in human
testimony. A man delirious, or noted for falsehood and villainy
has no manner of authority with us.
’
And as the evidence, derived from witnesses and human
testimony, is founded on past experience, so it varies with
the experience, and is reg'arded either as a proof or a proba
bility according as the conjunction between any particular kind
of report and any kind of objects, has been found to be constant
or variable. There are a number of circumstances to be taken
into consideration in all judgments of this kind; and the
ultimate standard, by which we determine all disputes that
may arise concerning them, is always derived from experience
and observation. . Where this experience is not entirely uni
form on any side, it is attended with an unavoidable contrariety
in our judgments, and with the same opposition and mutual
destruction of arguments as in every other kind of evidence.
We frequently hesitate concerning the reports of others. We
balance the opposite circumstances which cause tiny doubt or
uncertainty; and when we discover a superiority on any side,
we incline to it; but still with a diminution of assurance in
proportion to the force of its antagonist.
This contrariety of evidence, in the present case, may be
derived from several different causes; from the opposition of
contrary testimony, from the character or number of the wit
nesses, from the manner of their delivering their testimony,
or from the union of all these circumstances. We entertain a
suspicion concerning any matter of fact when the witnesses
contradict each other, when they are but few or of a doubtful
character, when they have an interest in what they affirm,
when they deliver their testimony with doubt and hesitation’
or, on the contrary, with too violent asseverations. There are
many other particulars of the same kind, which may diminish
or destroy the force of any argument derived from human
testimony.
Suppose, for instance, that the fact which the testimony
endeavors to establish partakes of the extraordinary and the
marvellous, in that case, the evidence resulting from the testi
mony admits of a diminution greater or less in proportion as
the fact is more or less unusual. The reason why we place
any credit in witnesses and historians is not from any con
nexion, which we perceive a priori, between testimony and
reality, but because we are accustomed to find a conformity
between them. But when the fact attested is such a one as
�9
has seldom fallen under our observation, here is a contest of
two opposite experiences; of which the one destroys the othc-,
-as far . as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on
the mind by the force which remains. The very same principle
of experience, which gives us a certain degree of assurance in
the testimony of witnesses, gives us also, in this case, another
'degree of assurance against the fact which they endeavor to
establish; from which contradiction there necessarily arise a
•counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.
“ I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato ; ”
was a proverbial , saying in Rome, even during the lifetime
of that philosophical patriot (1). The incredibility of a fact,
at was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority.
The Indian prince who refused to believe the first relations
concerning the effects of frost reasoned justly, and it naturally
required very strong testimony to engage his assent to facts
which, arose from a state of nature with which he was un
acquainted, and bore so little analogy to those events of which
he had had constant and uniform experience. Though they
were not contrary to his experience, they were not conform
able to it (2).
But in order to increase the probability against the testi
mony of witnesses, let us suppose that the fact which they
n,inrm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous,
suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in
itself, amounts to an. entire proof ; in that case there is proof
against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still
with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its
antagonist.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm
and unalterable experience has established these laws, the
proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact is
as entire as any argument from experience can possibly ’be
imagined Why is it more than probable that all men must
y?e»
iea(l cannot of itself remain suspended in the air •
that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless
it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of
nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in
other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed
a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature
It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should
•die on a sudden : because such a kind of death, though more
unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to
happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to
-Ute; because that has never been observed in any age or countrv
There must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every
miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that
appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof
�10
there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the
fact against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof
be destroyed or the miracle rendered credible by an opposite
proof, which is superior (3).
.
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy
of our attention), “ That no testimony is sufficient to establish
a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its false
hood would be more miraculous than the fact which it en
deavors to establish: And even in that case there is a mutual
destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an
assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after
deducting the inferior.” When anyone tells me that he saw
a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself
whether it be more probable that this person should either
deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates, should
really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the
other; and, according to the superiority which I discover, I
pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle.
If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous
than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can
he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
PART II.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed that the testi
mony upon which a miracle is founded may possibly amount to
an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would
be a real prodigy : But it is easy to show that we have been
a oreat deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never
was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.
*
For first, there is not to be found in all history any miracle
attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned
yood sense, education, and learning as to secure us against all
delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity as to place
them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of
such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have
a o-reat deal to lose in case of being detected in any falsehood;
and at the same time attesting facts, performed m such a
public manner and in so celebrated a part of. the world, as to
render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are
requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.
Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle
which, if strictly examined, will be. found to dimmish ex
tremely the assurance which we might have from human
testimony in any kind of prodigy. The maxim by which we
commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the
objects, of which we have no experience, resemble those of
* The 1750 edition inserts: “ In any history.”
�11
which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is
always most probable; and that where there is an opposition
of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such of them
as are founded on the greatest number of past observations.
But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any
fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree;
yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the
same rule, but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and
miraculous, it rather the more readily admits such a fact, upon
account of that very circumstance which ought to destroy all
its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from
miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency
towards the belief of those events from which it is derived.
And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this
pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events of
which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction
at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight
in exciting the admiration of others.
With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of
travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land mon
sters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men,
and uncouth manners ! But if the spirit of religion join itself
to the love of wonder, there is an end of common-sense, and
human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions
to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine
he sees what has no reality : He may know his narration to be
fal3e, and yet persevere in it with the best intentions in the
world for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: Or even where
this delusion has no place, vanity, excited by so strong a tempta
tion, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of
mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with
equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have
not, sufficient judgment to canvass his evidence : What
judgment they have, they renounce by principle, in these
sublime and mysterious subjects : Or if they were ever so
willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb
the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his
impudence ; and his impudence overpowers their credulity.
Eloquence, when in its highest pitch, leaves little room for
reason or reflection, but addressing itself entirely to the fancy
or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues
their understandings. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains.
But what a Cicero or a Demosthenes could scarcely operate
over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every
itinerant or stationary teacher, can perform over the generality
of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross
and vulgar passions (4).
Thirdly. It forms a very strong presumption against all
�12
supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed
chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if
a civilised people has ever given admission to any of them,
that people will be found to have received them from ignorant
and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that in
violable sanction and authority which always attend received
opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations
we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new
world, where the w’hole frame of nature is disjointed and every
element performs its operations in a different manner from
what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence,
famine, and death, are never the effects of those natural
causes which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles,
judgments, quite obscure the few natural events that are
intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner
every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened
ages of science and knowledge, we soon learn that there is
nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all
proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the
marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at inter
vals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never
thoroughly be extirpated from human nature.
‘‘ It is strange,” a judicious reader is apt to say upon the peru
sal of these wonderful historians, “that such prodigious events
never happen in our days.” But it is nothing strange, I hope,
that men should lie in all ages. You must surely have seen
instances enow of that frailty. You have yourself heard
many such marvellous relations started, which, being treated
with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have at last been
abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured, that those re
nowned lies which have spread and flourished to such a
monstrous height, arose from like beginnings, but being sown
in a more proper soil, shot up at last into prodigies almost
equal to those which they relate.
It was a wise policy in that false prophet, Alexander, who,
though now forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the first
scene of his impostures in Paphlagonia, where, as Lucian tells
us, the people were extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready
to swallow even the grossest delusion. People at a distance,
who are weak enough to think the matter at all worthy inquiry,
have no opportunity of receiving better information. The
stories come magnified to them by a hundred circumstances.
Fools, are industrious in propagating the imposture; while
the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its
absurdity, without informing themselves of the particular facts
by which it .may be distinctly refuted. And thus the impostor
above-mentioned was enabled to proceed from his ignorant
Paphlagonians to the enlisting of votaries, even among the
�13
Grecian philosophers and men of the most eminent rank and
distinction in Rome : Nay, could engage the attention of that
sage emperor, Marcus Aurelius, so far as to make him trust
the success of a military expedition to his delusive prophecies.
The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among
an ignorant people, that even though the delusion should be
too gross to impose on the generality of them—which, though
seldom, is sometimes the case—it has a much better chance of suc
ceeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid
in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant
and barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad.
None of their countrymen have large correspondence or
sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down
the delusion. Men’s inclination to the marvellous has full
opportunity to display itself. And thus a story, which is
universally exploded in the place where it was first started, shall
pass for certain at a thousand miles distance. But had Alex
ander fixed his residence at Athens, the philosophers of that
renowned mart of learning had immediately spread throughout
the whole Roman empire, their sense of the matter; which, being
supported by so great authority, and displayed by all the force of
reason and eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of mankind.
It is true, Lucian, passing by chance through Paphlagonia, had
an opportunity of performing this good office. But, though much
to be wished, it does not always happen, that every Alexander
meets with a Lucian, ready to expose and detect his im
postures (5).
I may add as a fourth reason which diminishes the authority
of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those
•which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed
by an infinite number of witnesses ; so that not only the miracle
destroys the credit of the testimony, but even the testimony
destroys itself. To make this the better understood, let us
consider, that in matters of religion, whatever is different is
contrary, and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome,
of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be
established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, there
fore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions
(and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is
to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so
has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthow every
other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys
the credit of those miracles on which that system was
established ; so that all the prodigies of different religions are
to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these
prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any
miracle of Mahomet or any of his successors, we have for our
�14
warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians : And on
the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus Livius,
Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and witnesses,
Grecian, . Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any
miracle in their. particular religion; I say, we are to regard
theii testimony in . the same light as if they had mentioned
that .Mahometan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted
it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracles they
relate. This argument may appear over subtle and refined,
but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge
who supposes that the credit of two witnesses maintaining a
crime against any one is destroyed by the testimony of two
others who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues dis
tant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been
committed.
One of the best attested miracles in all profane history is
that .which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind
man in Alexandria by means of his spittle, and a lame man by
the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god
Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the
Emperor for these miraculous cures. The story may be
seen in that fine historian (6); where every circumstance
seems to add weight to the testimony, and might be dis
played at large with all the force of argument and eloquence
if anyone were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that
exploded and idolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity,
age, and probity of so great an emperor, who, through the
whole course of his life conversed in a familiar manner with
his. friends and. courtiers, and never affected those extra
ordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius:
The historian, a cotemporary writer noted for candor and
veracity, and withal the greatest and most penetrating genius
perhaps of all antiquity; and so free from any superstition and
credulity that he even lies under the contrary imputation of
Atheism and pro.faneness : The persons, from whose testimony
he related.the miracle, of established character for judgment
and veracity, as we may well presume; eye-witnesses of the
fact, and confirming their verdict after the Flavian family
were despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any
reward as the price of a lie. TJtrumque, qui interfuere, nunc
quoque memorant, postquam nullum mendacio pretium. To which,
if we add the public nature of the facts as related, it will ap
pear that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so
gross and. so palpable a falsehood.
There is also a memorable story related by Cardinal de
Betz, which may well deserve our consideration. When
that intriguing politician fled into Spain to avoid the perse
cution of his enemies he passed through Saragossa, the capital
�15
of Arragon, where he was shown
^n^was well known
had served seven years as a doo_ - p ,
devotions
to everybody in
at that chnrch. He had bee
ri1bbin" of holy oil upon,
a leg; but recovered that limb by the rub
Jwo leUgiP’Thids mirade X vouched by all the canons3 of the
the relator was also cotemporary.to the&nius;
S7X°x^":"r<; i :«»:
r»e“ardS»
-to give any credit to it ^d conseq
CO]lsidered justly,
of anv concurrence m the holy traua.
f+li..Atl,re
“ ? Z accSly to ^■s^)rro^^^ree''^S^'^OQfr SavSy^and
its falsehood through all the °irc^s^an
k
Y
£
mediately present, by reason of the bigotry, 1g°^^0C™0^
ss-sssaaxgs
by any human testimony, was more propeily a subject o
^Tteh^XieXalabreater number of miracles ascribed
to o“^E those which were lately ;
to have been
wrought in France upon the tomb of Abbe Pans,
ta
Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people ^re s° 1on deluclecL
Whp pnri-no- of the sick, giving hearing to the deal ana si&m io
S bhnd wire everywhere talked of as the usual effects of
Iw hSv sepulchre. But what is more extraordinary; many
oflh^miraclto were immediately proved upon the spot^before
iudo-es of unquestioned integrity, attested y
rnoqf
Stand distinction. in a learned Xid N^r is ftis alb
l^SX^ofSem w^pSisSd and disperse'd everywhere ;
nor were the Jesuits though a learned body supP°rted
in
oivil magistrate, and determined enemies to those opimonsi
whose favor the miracles were said to h^7^eei».g^ll we
.able distinctly to refute or detect them ( ).
�16
XIS>of^fiSp°A±Z?i1Ce5 agreeiag t0 the “r-
tb?utao?tnSie.U^ jusf; bTu?e some huma“ testimony has-
distance have been able to determine between them ? The
contrariety is equally strong between the miraclesTreated bv
or
th“e deUYered by MariaUa’ Me'
country, his family, Or himself, or in any other way§strikes in
with his natural inclinations and propensities
But what
greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet an
d±Zad0^?m uaVeU? Wh0^uld not encounter man?
ter ?°%r ?fdh^U1pV inporde.r to attaiu so sublime a charac°
?y t^e help of vaW and a heated imagination ainf? the 5? made a ?onvert of himself and entered^seriously
into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious
frauds m support of so holy and meritorious a cause ?
lhe smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame
because the materials are always prepared for it. The avicbum
genus aurwularum(8), the gazing populace, receive greedily
motesUwondSmatl°n’ whatever soothes superstition, and prol
St?EeSi ?f this nature have in a11 ages been
detected and exploded in their infancy? How many more have
been celebrated for a time, and have afterwards sunk into
negiect and oblivion? Where such reports, therefore, fly
about, the solution of the phenomenon is obvious, and we iudge
m conformity to regular experience and observation when we
account for it by the known and natural principles of credulity
and delusion. And shall we, rather than have a resource to so.
natural a solution allow of a miraculous violation of the most
established laws of nature ?
i I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in
any private or even public history, at the time and place where
it is said to happen, much more where the scene is removed to
ever so small a distance. Even a court of judicature, with all
�17
the authority, accuracy, and judgment, which they can employ,
find themselves often at a loss to distinguish between truth
and falsehood in most recent actions. But the matter never
comes to any issue if trusted to the common method of alter
cation and debate and flying rumors ; especially when men’s
passions have taken part on either side.
In the infancy of new religions the wise and learned com
monly esteem the mattei- too inconsiderable to deserve their
attention or regard. And when afterwards they would will
ingly detect the cheat in order to undeceive the deluded multi
tude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which
might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.
No means of detection remain but those which must be
drawn from the very testimony itself of the reporters : And
these, though always sufficient with the judicious and know
ing, are commonly too fine to fall under the comprehension of
the vulgar.
_ Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any
kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability much less
*
to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof,
it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very
nature of the fact which it would endeavor to establish. It is
experience only, which gives authority to human testimony;
and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws
of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are
contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from
the other, and embrace an opinion either on one side or the
other with that assurance which arises from the remainder.
But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction
with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire
annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim that
no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle
and make it a just foundation for any such system of
religion (9).
I am the better pleased with this method of reasoning, as X
think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or
disguised enemies to the Ghistian religion, who have under
taken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our
most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason, and it
is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial, as it is
by no means fitted to endure. To make this more evident, let us
examine those miracles related in scripture, and not to lose our
selves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we
find in the Pentateuch, which we shall examine according to
the principles of these pretended Christians, not as the word
or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere
* The first two editions read; “ Can ever possibly amount.'
�18
human writer and historian. Here, then, we are first to con
sider a book presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant
people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous
•and in all probability long after the facts which it relates,
corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those
fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin.
Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and
miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and
of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our
fall from that state : Of the age of man extended to near a
thousand years : Of the destruction of the world by a deluge :
•Of the arbitrary choice of one people as the favorites of heaven
and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliver
ance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imagin
able : I desire anyone to lay his hand upon his heart and after
serious consideration declare whether he thinks that the false
hood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be
more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it
relates ; which is, however, necessary to make it be received
according to the measures of probability above established.
What we have said of miracles may be applied without any
variation to prophecies; and indeed all prophecies are real
miracles, and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any
revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of human nature
to foretel future events, it would be absurd to employ any
prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority
from heaven; so that, upon the whole, we may conclude that
the Christian religion not only was at first attended with
miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any
reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to
•convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to
assent to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own
person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding,
and gives him a determination to believe what is most con
trary to custom and experience.
NOTES.
(1) Plutarch, in vita Catonis Min. 19.
*(2) No Indian, it is evident, could have experience that water
did not freeze in cold climates. This, is placing. nature in a
situation quite unknown to him, and it is impossible for him
to tell a priori what will result from it. It is making a new
experiment, the consequence of which is always uncertain.
One may sometimes conjecture from analogy what will follow;
but still this is but conjecture. And it must be confessed, that
in the present case of freezing, the event follows contrary to
�19
Ihe rules of analogy, and is such, as a rational Indian would
not look for. The operations of cold upon water are not
Gradual according to the degrees of cold, but. whenever it
comes to the freezing point the water passes m a moment
from the utmost liquidity to perfect hardness. Such an event
therefore may be denominated extraordinary, and requires a
pretty strong testimony to render it credible to people in a
warm climate ; but still it is not miraudous., nor contrary to
uniform experience of the course of nature in cases where all
the circumstances are the same. The inhabitants of Sumatra
have always seen water fluid in their own climate,.and the
freezing of their rivers ought to be deemed a prodigy: but
they never saw water in Muscovy during the winter; and
therefore they cannot reasonably be positive what would there
be the consequence.
(3) Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem, to be con
trary to the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might, by
reason of some circumstances, be denominated a miracle, be
cause, in fact, it is contrary to these laws. Thus, if a person,
claiming a divine authority, should command a sick person to
be well, a healthful man to fall down dead, the clouds to pour
rain, the winds to blow—in short, should order many natural
events which immediately, follow upon his commandthese
might justly be esteemed miracles, because they arereally, in this
case, contrary to the laws of nature. For if any suspicion remain
that the event and command concurred by accident there is no
miracle and no transgression of the laws of nature. If this
suspicion be removed, there is evidently a miracle, and a trans
gression of these laws; because nothing can be more contrary
to nature than that the voice or command of a man should have
such an influence. A miracle may be accurately, defined, a
transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the
Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent. A miracle
may either be discoverable by men or not. This alters not its
nature and essence. The raising of a house or ship into the
air is a visible miracle. The raising of a feather, when the
wind wants ever so little of a force requisite.for that purpose,
is as real a miracle, though not so sensible with regard to us.
(4) The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies,
and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been
detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by
their absurdity, mark sufficiently the strong propensity of
man kind to the extraordinary and the marvellous., and ought
reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this
kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard
to the most common and most credible events. i^For instance,
there is no kind of report which rises so easily and spreads so
quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as
�20
those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons’
n^Sr1!,00^1011 “?ver see each Other twice, but thePwTole
“fh’kborhood immediately join them together. The pleasure
so interesting, the^ntefiSenceAnd
of r.6 • 1Ug k Plece reporters of it, spread of propagating it and
being the first
hSeXS1 ¿ST
“,r “of rnse
evidenc? Bn „S
confirmed by some greater
inel^n fi. D noV?6 Sfme Pa?sions, and others still stronger
ino- tv'+p e generality of mankind to the believing and reportm&ade^V116 Sre&teSt vebemence and assurance all religious
(5)It may here perhaps be objected that I proceed rashlv
Mvenrf mJ motions of
-erely froâ the aecS
given ot Mm by Lucian, a professed enemy. It were indeed,
foil 6 Wisbed tbat some of the. accounts published by his
contSSbSiaCCO^P neS had remained- The oppositio? and
as^X hvZf? J6 Character aHd conduct of the same man
Hfe m^ohbwnrï - ?b°r aU
as strong’ even in common
two ZÎin T * mSe ^l1^0118 matters, as that betwixt any
two men m the world—betwixt Alexander and St. Paul for
instance. See a letter to Gilbert West, Esq., on the conver
sion and apostlesMp of St. Paul.
4
oonver
aoSuSÏ’X VespP
Suetoaius
“““IF the seme
ri„^j^^SA%°^:jra8yr^ei1 by Mons. deMontgeron, counsellor
or judge of the Parliament of Paris, a man of figure and cha
racter, who was also a martyr to the cause, and is now said to
be somewhere m a dungeon on account of his book.
/here is another book, in three volumes (called “Recueil des
Miracles de 1 Abbe Pans ”), giving an account of many of these
miracles and accompanied with prefatory discourses, which
XiVerp ^Iel1 Wri-jt.en-1 Tbere runs’ however, through the
whole of these a ridiculous comparison between the miracles
SaV-f an<l th?S%0f tbe Abbé’ therein it is asserted
that the evidence for the latter is equal to that for the former •
Übu
etesfr-onyof men could ever be put in the balance
with that of God himself, who conducted the pen of the
inspired writers. If these writers, indeed, were to be con
sidered merely as human testimony, the French author is very
moderate m his comparison, since he might, with some appear
ance of reason, pretend that the Jansenist miracles much
surpass the others in evidence and authority. The following
circumstances are drawn from authentic papers inserted in the
above-mentioned book.
Many of the miracles of Abbé Paris were proved immediately
by witnesses before the officiality or bishop’s court at Paris»
under the eyes of Cardinal Noailles, whose character for in
tegrity and capacity was never contested even by his enemies»
�21
His successor in the archbishopric was an enemy to the
Jansenists, and for that reason promoted to the see by the
•Court. Yet twenty-two rectors or cures of Paris, with infinite
earnestness, press him to examine those miracles, which they
assert to be known to the whole world, and indisputably certain:
But he wisely forbore.
The Molinist party had tried to discredit these miracles in
-one instance, that of Madamoiselle le Franc. But besides that,
their proceedings in many respects are the most irregular in the
world, particularly in citing only a few of the Jansenist’s wit
nesses, whom they tampered with: Besides this, I say they
•soon found themselves overwhelmed by a cloud of new witnesses
one hundred and twenty in number, most of them persons of
•credit and substance in Paris, who gave oath for the miracle.
This was accompanied with a solemn and earnest appeal to the
Parliament. But the Parliament were forbidden by authority to
meddle in the affair. It was at last observed that where men
are heated by zeal and enthusiasm there is no degree of human
testimony so strong as may not be procured for the greatest
absurdity : And those who will be so silly as to examine the
affair by that medium, and seek particular flaws in the testi
mony, are almost sure to be confounded. It must be a miser
able imposture indeed that does not prevail in that contest.
All who have been in France about that time have heard of
the great reputation of Mons. Heraut, the Lieutenant de Police,
whose vigilance, penetration, activity and extensive intelligence
Fave been much talked of. This magistrate, who by the nature
of his office is almost absolute, was invested with full powers
on purpose to suppress or discredit these miracles; and he
frequently seized immediately and examined the witnesses
.and subjects of them; but never could reach anything satis
factory against them.
In the case of Madamoiselle Thibaut he sent the famous
■de Sylvia to examine her, whose evidence is very curious. The
physician declares that it was impossible she could have been
so ill as was proved by witnesses, because it was impossible
she could in so short a time have recovered so perfectly as he
found her. He reasoned like a man of sense from natural
•causes ; but the opposite party told him that the whole was a
miracle, and that his evidence was the very best proof of it.
The Molinists were in a sad dilemma. They dared not
assert the absolute insufficiency of human evidence to prove a
miracle. They were obliged to say that these miracles were
wrought by witchcraft and the devil. But they were told that
this was the resource of the Jews of old.
No Jansenist was ever embarrassed to account for the
cessation of the miracles, when the churchyard was shut up
by the king’s edict. It was the touch of the tomb which
�22
produced these extraordinary effects ; and when no one could
approach the tomb, no effects could be expected. God indeed
could have thrown down the walls in a moment; but he is
master of his own graces and works, and it belongs not to us
to account for them. He did not throw down the walls of
every city like those of Jericho on the sounding of the rams’’
horns, nor break up the prison of every apostle like that of
St. Paul.
No less a man than the Due de Chatillon, a duke and peer
of France of the highest rank and family, gives evidence of a
miraculous cure performed upon a servant of his, who had
lived several years in his house with a visible and palpable
infirmity.
I shall conclude with observing that no clergy are more
celebrated for strictness of life and manners than the secular
clergy of France, particularly the rectors or cures of Paris
who bear testimony to these impostures.
The learning, genius, and probity of the gentlemen, and the
austerity of the nuns of Port Royal, have been much celebrated
all over Europe. Yet they all give evidence for a miracle
wrought on the niece of the famous Pascal, whose sanctity of
life, as well as extraordinary capacity, is well known. The
famous Racine gives an account of this miracle in his famous
history of Port-Royal, and fortifies it with all the proofs which
a multitude of nuns, priests, physicians and men of the world,
all of them of undoubted credit, could bestow upon it. Several
men of letters, particularly the Bishop of Tournay, thought
this miracle so certain, as to employ it in the refutation of
Atheists and Freethinkers. The Queen-Regent of France,
who was extremely prejudiced against the Port-Royal, sent
hei’ own physician to examine the miracle, who returned an
absolute convert.. In short, the supernatural cure was so uncontestable that it saved for a time that famous monastery
from the ruin with which it was threatened by the Jesuits.
Had it been a cheat, it had certainly been detected by such
sagacious and powerful antagonists and must have hastened
the ruin of the contrivers. Our divines who can build up a
formidable castle from suoh despicable materials, what a pro
digious fabric could they have reared from these and many
other circumstances which I have not mentioned!—How oft
would the great names of Pascal, Racine, Arnaud, Nicole, have
resounded in our ears ? But if they be wise, they had better
adopt the miracle as being more worth a thousand times than
all the rest of their collection. Besides, it may serve very
much to their purpose. For that miracle was really per
formed by the touch of an authentic holy prickle of the holy
thorn, which composed the holy crown, which, etc.
(8) Lucret, iv., 594.
�('9'1 I beg the limitations here made may be remarked when
I say that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the founda
tion of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise there
may possibly be miracles or violations of the usual course of
nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testi
mony, though perhaps it will be impossible to find any such in
51 ¿he recordsP of history. Thus, suppose all authors m all
languages agree that from the 1st of January 1600, there was
a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: SuPPos®
that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and
lively among the people, that all travellers who return from
foreign countries bring us accounts , of the same tradition
without the least variation or contradiction: It¡is evident that
our present philosophers, instead of doubting that fact,
to receive it for certain, and ought to search for the causes
whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dis
solution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many
analogies, that any phsenomenon which seems to have a
tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach
of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and
U1 But^uppose that all the historians who treat of England
should agree, that, on the 1st of January 1600, Queen Eliza
beth died; that both before and after her death she was seen
by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with person»
of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and pro
claimed by the Parliament; and that, after being interred a
month, she again appeared, took possession of the throne, and
governed England for three years : I must confess I should be
surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances,
but should not have the least inclination to believe somiraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended
death and of those other public circumstances that followed
it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that.it
neither was nor possibly could be real. You would m vam
obiect to me the difficulty and almost impossibility of deceiving
the world in an affair of such consequence ; the wisdom and
integrity of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which, she could reap from so poor an artifice: All
this might astonish me; hut I would still reply that the
knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that
I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise
from their concurrence than admit so signal a violation ot the
laws of nature.
,
~
But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of
religion men in all ages have been so much imposed on by
ridiculous stories of that kind, that this, very .circumstance
would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient with all men of
�24
sense not only to make them reject the fact, but reject
it without farther examination. Though the being to whom
the miracle is ascribed be in this case Almighty, it does not
upon that account, become a whit more probable ; since it is
impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a
Benig, otherwise than from the experience which we have of
ms productions m the usual course of nature. This still
reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the
instance of the violations of truth in the testimony of men
with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles
m order to judge which of them is most likely and probable’
As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony
concerning religious miracles than in that concerning any
other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the
authority of the former testimony, and make us form a
general resolution never to lend any attention to it, with
whatever specious pretext it may be covered.
‘■’•Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same principles
of reasoning:—“ We ought,” says he, “to make a collection
or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births or
productions, and in a word of everything new, rare, and extra
ordinary m nature. But this must be done with the most
severe scrutiny, lest we depart from truth. Above all every
relation must be considered as suspicious which depends in
any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: And no less
so, everything that is to be found in the writers of natural
magic or alchemy, or such authors, who seem, all of them to
have an uncontrollable appetite for falsehood and fable.”
hacienda enim est congeries sive historia naturalis par
ticulars omnium monstrorum et partuum naturse prodio-i®sorum; omnis denique novitatis et raritatis et inconsueti
in natura. Hoc vero faciendum est cum severissimo delectu, ut constet fides. Maxime autem habenda sunt pro
suspectis quae pendent quomodocunque ex religione, ut prodigia Livn: Nec minus quae inveniuntur in scriptoribus ma^iae
naturals, aut etiam alchymiae, et hujusmodi hominibns; qui
tanquam proci sunt et amatores fabularum.”—“Nov Organ ”
lib. 2., Aph. 29.
° ”
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.CL
�A new edition, the best ever issued, printed in large type, on good
paper, Is.; cloth gilt, Is. 6d.
THE AGE OF REASON.
Complete, with Preface by C. Bradlaugh.
In Two Volumes, neatly bound in cloth, 8s.; or in Forty-Six Numbers,
2d. each.
THE
DEVIL’S
PULPIT:
BEING
Astronomico-Theological Discourses.
By the Rev. ROBERT TAYLOR, B.A., of St. John’s
College, Cambridge,
Author of the “ Diegesis,” “ Syntagma,” &c.
(Reprinted verbatim from Richard Carlile's original edition.)
Paper Covers, Is.; Cloth Gilt. Is. Gd.
The True Source of Christianity;
0r5 A Voice from the Ganges.
By
AN
INDIAN
OFFICER.
“ This is a reprint of a very scarce work. The author gives a
thorough analysis of the Gospels, and shows how they differ
from each other and from authentic history ; traces the obliga
tions of Christianity to Pagan and Rabbinical teaching, and the
close resemblance of many of its doctrines to the tenets of the
Essenes : examines the prophetical claims of the Evangelists on
behalf of Christ ; and freely criticises, although in no ungenerous
spirit, the moral and religious ideas of Christ himself. He does
all this with considerable aid from authoritative scholars, and his
numerous quotations will be especially valuable to the amateur
champions of Freethought in their contests with the representa
tives of Christianity. We cordially recommend this little volume
of 138 pages which is one of the cheapest shilling’s-worth we
have yet seen.”—Freethinker.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St.,E.C.
�THE FREETHINKER.
Edited
PUBLISHED
by
G. W. FOOTE.
EVERY
THURSDAY.
Price One Penny.
THE FREETHINKER is first of all aggressive. It wages relent
THE
THE
THE
THE
THE
less war against Superstition in general, and against Christian
Superstition in particular. No personal attacks, however,
will. he made, except when the practical rights of Freet&iukers are assailed, in which case retaliation is only a form
of Self-defence; or when persons and principles are s0 closely
identified that both must be struck together.
FREETHINKER assists the propaganda of heresy by fur
nishing hints to those engaged in it as to the policy they
.. should pursue. Special attention is given during the summer
months to out-door advocacy.
FREETHINKER is not full of long, lumpy articles. It is
something between English and American journalism, and,
without being trivial, as smart as the editor can make it.
Under the head of “ Acid Drops ” the reader will find some
racy paragraphs on orthodox ideas and practices ; jvhile under
the head of “ Sugar Plums ” will be found succinct records of
the progress of Freethought in all parts of the world whence
such information can be obtained. American and European
papers are laid under contribution.
FREETHINKER, in order to stimulate the courage and
activity of all workers in the good cause, from time to time
gives biographical sketches of those heroes and martyrs of
progress who in past days made greater sacrifices for freedom
than are now either necessary or possible.
FREETHINKER keeps a sharp eye on professional Chris
tians (priests, parsons, preachers or lecturers), and does its
utmost to catch them tripping in their advocacy or public
conduct, and to expose them before the world.
FREETHINKER also does its best to employ the resources
of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy, and Ethics against the
claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; and it does not
scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridi
cule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the armory of
Common Sense.
A copy sent weekly for one year, post free, for (i.s\ Qcl.; six months, ?js.?>d.
Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
An essay on miracles
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hume, David [1711-1776]
Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini [1850-1898]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements inside front cover and inside and on back cover. "With an introduction commenting upon the views of Campbell, Paley, Mill, Powell, Grey, Mozley, Tyndall, Huxley, etc. by Joseph Mazzini Wheeler". [Front cover]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N315
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 (An essay on miracles), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Miracles
Superstition
Miracles
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4afa18500709ef3dc60e1e37ec0c059d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ANxUxKlu1yTJ%7EDfu8kaeSNnS5SqGuhWrTgVGgp10aO27jJxUhI%7EuHm6X5D0XGBMmEc4gJpqUsD310dlbxc%7EFlWw9zIIWsHjwshBiUYykZXiIF9Ub20HUxojU0XcMSNjv2SOUc8GxNV9rtLjJaph%7EBbtuGmBiA56KdkGAUpSUobgD43WZ3UVnliSQr0O-9BkHkjd0cRkSHfdYX1yXX56gAzfgfpzVegxlxNkVBlMn5VklwsRgJcXke%7EjvgmMSUWWuocXacBoh48wmq3YSFv7fgfoSgIPL%7Ezslzqc4xFWG2FMrsA9MUU9evcRa2NUAdB6rbQ0HtXFvfe-tBsSvbsjhYA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b13998e3f4244d31481b85feea094433
PDF Text
Text
£ 1^2-0 •
MO £5
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIET?
FORCE NO REMEDY.
------ >------
By
ANNIE BESANT.
------ ♦-------
There is excessive difficulty in dealing with the Irish question
at the present moment; Tories are howling for revenge on a
whole nation as answer to the crime committed bj a few W
are swelling the outcry; many Radicals are swept aw
current and feeling that “something must be done they
endorse the Government action, forgetting to ask X^/Vm
“ something ” proposed is the wisest thing. A few stand fiim,
but they are ve?y few; too few to prevent the Coercion Bill from
passing^into law. But few though we be, who lift up voice of
protest against the wrong which we are powerless to prevent, we
may yet do much to make the new Act of brief duration by so
rousing public opinion as to bring about its early repeal When
the measure is understood by the public half the battle will be
won; it is accepted at the moment from faith in the Govern
ment • it will be rejected when its true character is grasped.
The murders which have given birth to this repressive measure
came with a shock upon the country, which was the more terrible
from the sudden change from gladness and hope to darkness
and despair The new policy was welcomed so joyfully; the
messenger of the new policy was slain ere yet the pen was dry
which had signed the orders of mercy and of liberty. Small
wonder that cry of horror should be followed by measure of ven
seance ; but the murders were the work of a few criminals, while
the measure of vengeance strikes the whole of the Irish people.
I plead against the panic which confounds political agitation
and political redressal of wrong with crime and its punishment.
The Government measure gags every mouth in Ireland, and puts,
as we shall see, all political effort at. the mercy of the Lord
Lieutenant, the magistracy, and the police.
.
Th.© point round which, rages the whole of the struggle in Ireland is the land. The absence of manufactures—destroyed by
past English legislation—has thrown the people.wholly on the
soil. From this arises the fierce competition which has forced
rents up to figures impossible to pay ; from this the terrible truth
that “ a sentence of eviction is a sentence of death; ” from this
�2
Force no Remedy
bornXhe
Ir, sb^an 5lrned off the land, and the revenge
i
born of the despair striking down the author and the messengers
of the ej ection. M hat the rack-renting has been is proved by the
In hiTb .twdU T °f TtS ma1de by tbe Land Commissioners,
bv ieadini
WaS v-dy paid by tbe Connaught peasant
g starvatl0T1 Me; in his worst, he was pushed over the
Vi tb|6 bl,’ink of wbich be was always tottering.
Men who see the life slowly drained out of their dearest by the
pi-?fS?5e
landl°rd—who have seen aged mother orwife
with the new-born babe at her breast, die on the turf whereon
iosTaZhc^aidby„tbebailiff.^0 unroofed the cabin-such men
lose all thought of the sanctity of human life when the lives of
the dearest are reckoned as less worth than the shillings of
overdue rack-rental, and either catch up the rifle to revenge
their own pain, or stand with folded arms in sullen indifference
when landlord or agent falls dead under bullet, with a dim feel
ing that the crime m some poor fashion makes more level the
balance of misery, and that the pain in the mud-cabin has in some
sort reacted m the anguish thus caused in the hall
Hf
r® reP°rtr°iMr“ °n tbe Condition of the Peasantry
C°nnty of Mayo, m 1880, speak of the misery which pre
ceded the present “ social revolution: ”_
il do n°t believe that tongue, or pen, however eloquent,
could truly depict the awful destitution of some of those hovels
lhe children are often nearly naked. Bedding there is none
everything of that kind having long since gone to the pawnothce, as proved to me by numerous tickets placed in my hands
for inspection in well-nigh every hovel. A layer of old straw
covered by the dirty sacks which conveyed the seed potatoes and
artificial manure in the spring is the sole provision of thousands
—with this exception, that little babies in wooden boxes are
occasionally indulged with a bit of thin, old flannel stitched on
to the sacking. Sometimes even charity itself had failed and
the mother of the tender young family was found absent, begging
tor the loan of some Indian meal from other recipients of
charitable relief the father being in almost every instance away
m England laboring to make out some provision for the coming
winter. Men, women, and children sleep under a roof and
within walls dripping with wet, while the floor is saturated with
damp, not uncommonly oozing out of it in little pools. The
construction and dimensions of their hovels are, as abodes of
human beings, probably unique. On the uplands they are
mostly built of common stone walls without plaster, and are
often totally devoid of the ordinary means of exit for the smoke
as it may also be almost said they are devoid of anything in the
shape of furniture. On the low-lying lands, on the other hand
they may be briefly described as bog holes, though by a merciful
dispensation of the architect these are undoubtedly rendered
somewhat warmer by their very construction out of the solidified
�Force no Remedy.
3
peat and mud. Their dimensions are even more extraordinary
still, varying from 12 feet by 15 feet down to one half that
limited space. Yet all of them are inhabited by large families
of children, numbers of whom sleep on a little straw spread on
the bare ground, with nothing to cover them save the rags and
tatters worn during the day. I invariably found them on the
occasion of my visits crouching around the semblance ot a tire,
lighted on the open hearth. And this at midsummer, shewing
how terribly low must be the vitality amongst them ....
“We visited more than thirty hovels of the poor, principally
in the townlands of Culmore and Cashel, in which I beheld
scenes of wretchedness and misery wholly indescribable. In
some of those hovels evicted families had lately taken refuge,
so that the overcrowding added to the other horrors of the
situation. In one hovel, in the townland of Cashel, we found a
little child, three years old, one of a family of six, apparently
very ill, with no person more competent to watch it than an
idiot sister of eighteen; while the mother was absent begging
committee relief, the father being in England. In another an
aged mother, also very ill, lying alone, with nothing to eat save
long-cooked Indian meal, which she was unable to swallow. In
another, in the townland of Culmore, there were four young
children, one of whom was in a desperate condition for want of
its natural food—milk—without which it was no longer capable
of eating the Indian meal stirabout, or even retaining anything
whatever on its stomach. I took off my glove to feel its emaciated
little face, calm and livid as in death, which I found to be stone
cold. My companion gently stirred its limbs, and after a while
it opened its eyes, though only for a moment, again relapsing
into a state of coma, apparently. It lay on a wallet of dirty
straw, with shreds and tatters of sacking and other things
covering it. The mother was in Foxford begging for relief, the
father being in England in this case also. In no Christian
country in the world probably would so barbarous a spectacle be
tolerated, except in Ireland.”
Mr. Fox further remarks on the absence of crime, borne witness
to by the police themselves ; on the action of absentee landlords,
one of whom, an Irish peer, was “ drawing £30,000 a year out of
the country, whose tenants are everywhere living upon the
Indian meal which we have had so much labor in collecting
from the four quarters of the globe.” Even Mr. Forster
admitted that the “normal condition” of the peasantry and
small tenant farmers was one predisposing to fever—famine
fever.
The Land League was founded by Michael Davitt to win such
a change in the tenure of land as should prevent the “ normal
condition ” of the people in the future being such as was de
scribed by Mr. Forster. The organisation was, at least, an
enormous advance on previous attempts at settling the question,
�Force no Remedy.
and its tendency was to lead the people to look to public and
open agitation for a remedy, instead of to secret conspiracy and
armed redress. That outrages resulting from misery and long
ing tor vengeance should continue side by side with the healthier
movement was not wonderful, but Michael Davitt—alone among
the leaders of the Land League—strove with strenuous effort to
raise the new movement out of the old ruts in which Irish agita“-ad ^un so
an(i would probably have succeeded had
not the Government silenced him, and helped the outrage
mongers by throwing him into Portland Prison. His imprison
ment became the answer to those who urged that peaceful
agitation was the best road whereby to win redressal of wrong,
and the old secret societies gathered new force and wider immn.
mty when the gaol held the founder of the Land League, and
the Coercion Act—to quote Lord Cowper—drove discontent
under the surface.”
The complete failure of the Coercion Act as a repressor of out
rages is now so generally recognised that it would be idle to
dwell upon it. Mr. Gladstone himself, in the debate on the
second reading, described it as “a bill of an invidious and offenriTrejC^iaraC^e^'
Pass^nSs wonder with what adjectives Mr,
Gladstone will describe the new Coercion Act a year hence.)
The Goverment. determined that it should become a dead letter,
and that a policy of redressal of wrong and relief of misery
should take the place of coercive legislation. This decision being
carried out shortly after the murders of Mr. Herbert and of
Mrs. Smythe, a plainer declaration could scarcely have been made
that suspension of constitutional liberty did not touch crime.
The murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and of Mr. Burke fol
lowed, and on this Mr. Gladstone stated that these had forced
the Government to “ recast their policy.” The new Coercion
Bill is the recasting. But the question is inevitable : “ If it was
right to reverse a policy of coercion after the murders of Mr.
Herbert and Mrs. Smythe, why is it also right to return again to
the policy of coercion after the murders of Lord F. Cavendish
and Mr. Burke ? ” It is impossible to avoid seeing in the present
proposal of . the Government the result of personal feeling and
personal pain ; that the feeling is natural all must admit; that
the murder of a colleague and a relative should make deeper
impression than the murder of a stranger is not marvellous ; but
the treatment of a nation should not be swayed by such feelings,
and if two murders were followed by the lightening of coercive
pressure, two others ought not to be followed by the increase of
the same pressure. The plain fact is that the murderers have
succeeded. They saw in the new policy the reconciliation of
England and Ireland ; they knew that friendship would follow
justice, and that the two countries, for the first time in history,
would clasp hands. To prevent this they dug a new gulf, which
they hoped the English nation would not span ; they sent a river
of blood across the road of friendship, and they flung two corpses
�Force no Remedy.
5
to bar the newly-opened gate of reconciliation and peace. They
have succeeded.
The new Act will not prevent crime, but it will still further
alienate the Irish people. The daily life of each citizen is put
under the most aggravating restrictions, and under a constant
menace, while criminals will easily slip through the. clumsy
•mesbes of the new Act. Secret societies are said to be aimed at;
but never yet was secret society destroyed by repressive legisla
tion. Secret societies are only destroyed by the destruction of
the social wrongs in which they strike their roots.. In.Russia we
have a standing example of what repressive legislation, can do
against a secret society : its Czar is shivering in Gatskina, and
dares not even to publicly assume his diadem. Yet repression
there is carried on with a brutality and a thoroughness which
public opinion in England would not tolerate, even in Ireland.
If measure after measure of growing cruelty is to be levelled
against secret societies within these realms, we may yet.come to
a period when an English Prime Minister will be trembling in a
new Gatskina, and the rulers of free England, encircled by police
and by soldiery, will be degraded to the level of the agents of
continental tyranny.
Let us examine the Bill, dividing it into the clauses that give
new judicial powers, and those which deal with “ offences.”
Part I. : Power is given to the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Special
Commission, forming a court to try persons accused of certain
crimes. The court is to consist of three judges, who shall try
prisoners without a jury, the prisoner, if convicted, to have the
right of appeal to a court consisting of not less than five judges,
none of whom must have sat in the first court. This part of the
Act is met by a protest from the Irish judges, who object to the
new duties forced upon them, and, if passed, will therefore be
administered by a reluctant Bench. The abolition of trial by jury
is, I venture to submit, both unwise and useless. It would be
better, if any change be made, either to take the verdict of a
majority, as in Scotland, or to legalise the transference of trials
for certain offences to England, where a jury composed of Irish
men living in England would not be in terror of their lives. But
really it is not a question of justice failing because of the failure
of juries to convict; the difficulties in Ireland do not lie with the
juries ; the difficulties are the non-finding of the criminals, and
the failure of witnesses to give evidence, the first being by far
the greater. In the returns of agrarian offences for January,
February and March of the present year, this important fact is
very clearly shown. In January 479 outrages were committed
(of these 290 were only threatening letters and notices and 46
more “ intimidation otherwise than by threatening letters and
notices ”); for these 31 persons only were rendered “ amenable
to justice ; ” of these 12 were convicted, 16 were not convicted,
and 3 are awaiting trial; in 448 cases out of the 479 no
persons were brought to justice. In February, out of 407
�6
Force no Remedy.
Bases, only 23 persons were charged; 7 of these are await
ing trial, and 4 were convicted. In March 531 outrages, and
only 46 persons charged; 18 are awaiting trial, 5 have been
convicted. No. details are given as to the convictions in
January, the 12 in February, or the 23 in March, so we cannot
judge whether in these the jury or the witnesses broke down.
Now how will the new Court help us ? They cannot try in the
cases where no persons are charged; they cannot convict without
evidence if the persons are charged ; and even supposing that
they convict every person brought before them, with or without
evidence, they will make very small impression on the roll of
outrages. If such a Court had existed during January, February
and March, and had condemned every prisoner brought before
it, out of 1417 outrages, 1317 would have remained unpunished,
28 persons would be awaiting trial, while only 72 would have
been condemned. It is hardly worth while to abolish trial by
jury for such small results, and it must be remembered that even
judges sitting without jury must have some evidence before they
can convict.
The “ Court of Summary Jurisdiction,” erected by the Bill, is
even more objectional than the Special Commission Court. It is
formed of one police magistrate in Dublin, and two resident ma.
gistrates elsewhere. “Any offence against this Act” may be
dealt with by this Court, and from its decision there is no appeal.
So that while the decision of three judges may be appealed
against, the decision of one or of two petty magistrates stands
above all revision. When we remember the woful abuses of
magisterial authority in Ireland (see “ Coercion in Ireland and
its Results”), we may well stand aghast in considering the tre
mendous powers vested in them under this Act. For let us see
what the “ offences ” are. Some are crimes of violence and
assaults which need no statute to become punishable offences.
But a new one is “intimidation,” defined as “ any word spoken
or act done calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or
danger to himself .... business, or means of living.” Under
this clause a Major Clifford Lloyd and a friend may send to gaol
for six months any person who uses any sort of argument to his
neighbor to persuade him to, or dissuade him from, any course of
action. Any suspicion, any private spite, may cause two magis
trates to see in the most harmless discussion an attempt at “ in
timidation,” and against their abuse of authority there is no
appeal.
Another offence is taking part in an “ unlawful assembly.”
Such an assembly may be construed as consisting of any number
of persons over three; and the Lord Lieutenant has power to
forbid any proposed assembly if he considers it “ dangerous to
the public peace or the public safety.” What political leader will
dare to call a public meeting in Ireland when the new Act is in
force ? Every person present at such meeting, if it be forbidden,
comes at once under the power of the court of summary jurisdic
�Force no Remedy.
7
tion, and even idle curiosity becomes punishable with six months’
imprisonment. The great political question there is the question
of the land ; the agrarian outrages arise because of the evil system
of land-tenure ; any political meeting called to ask for the redressal of grievances connected with the land will most certainly
be regarded as “ dangerous to the public peace
and the people,
denied all open expression of their grievances, will be more than
ever thrown back on violent means.
Not only is liberty of meeting taken away, but liberty of the
press is also annulled. The Lord Lieutenant may confiscate any
newspaper which “ appears ” to him “ to contain matter inciting
to the commission of treason, or of any act of violence or intimi
dation”—intimidation being as before defined. The publisher
of such forfeited newspaper is to be made to give security to the
extent of £200 not to repeat the offence, and if he has not given
this within fourteen days, any paper he issues is to be seized,
whether it be mischievous or not. So that if a paper is wicked
enough to complain of Major Clifford Lloyd’s destruction of huts
sent to shelter from the weather the miserable victims of land
lord cruelty, the paper will be forfeited, and the publisher’s
journalistic career cut short.
Liberty of person follows liberty of meeting and of press.
Any person criminal enough to be out of doors (in a proclaimed
district) one hour later than sunset or before sunrise, may be
arrested by “ any constable ” who chooses to consider the cir
cumstances “ suspicious,” while any stranger may be similarly
arrested at any hour. It is very certain that the victims of police
vigilance will not be the intending committers of outrages, who
will always be provided with some ostensible reason for their
walk, but silly, harmless, nervous people, terrified out of their
wits by the sudden arrest. No quiet evening strolls for Irish
men and Irishwomen during the long cool summer evenings ; no
saunterings of man and maid side by side ; what court of sum
mary jurisdiction will believe that Pat, loitering near a stile, is
only peeping over the hedge to watch for Bridget’s coming ?
Love-making will be too dangerous a pastime to indulge in for
the next three years on Irish soil.
Kight of search at any hour of the day or night is also to be
a power granted by the Lord Lieutenant, and this right is one
which may be very easily made intolerable. The Alien Act is to
be revived, and the cost of extra police and of compensation for
injury is to be levied on the district where outrages take place.
This last enactment is the only rational one in the Act.
To sum up: When this Act passes, trial by jury, right of
public meeting, liberty of press, sanctity of house, will one and
all be held at the will of the Lord Lieutenant, the irresponsible
autocrat of Ireland, while liberty of person will lie at the mercy
of every constable. Such is England’s way of governing Ireland
in the year 1882. And this is supposed to be a Bill for the
“repression of crime;” it will strike at the personal comfort
�8
Force no Remedy.
and dignity of everyone living in Ireland for the next three
years, but will leave criminals absolutely untouched. Such a
law, administered by a Mr. James Lowther, as it may very likely
be, will cause more crime and more bloodshed in Ireland than
any measure passed during this generation, and it will turn
passive alienation from law into active, and perhaps violent,
hostility.
It may be fairly asked of me : Would you, then, do nothing ?
No; I would do something, but the something should be levelled
against criminals only. Instead of keeping thousands of soldiers
concentrated in large bodies, I would draft off infantry enough
to hold headquarters not too far apart in each district where out
rages took place: to these headquarters I would send cavalry,
and a part of the cavalry each night should be divided into small
bodies of six or eight men each, well mounted and lightly armed,
who should patrol the district from end to end. Every isolated
farmhouse should be regularly visited, and should be further
provided with signal lights or rockets, to be used in case of
attack. The knowledge that aid was within reach would
give courage to the inmates of any attacked house to hold
out for a short time against their assailants. These patrol
ling parties should have orders, if they came across any attack
ing party, to take every man prisoner, alive or dead. And in case
of attack, where help came after the criminals had escaped, or
of murder where the body was found after the disappearance
of the assassins, or of wounding when the assailants had
vanished, I should be inclined to put a muzzled bloodhound on
their track, and literally hunt them down. Men caught in the
act of committing outrage, or found with blackened faces and
armed, should be sent straight to Dublin for speedy trial, and
penalties on all crimes of violence should be increased. Firing
at a person or firing into a house should be classed as murder,
and punished as such. The measures would be severe, but their
severity would fall wholly on criminals. Innocent men do not
attack houses, nor wander about armed at night with blackened
faces, and the man who fires into a house, and whose bullet may
strike the child in its cot or the mother with babe in her bosom,
is a murderer in will and should be treated as a murderer. No
innocent man or woman would run the smallest chance of suffer
ing by such laws, and for the scoundrels who make Ireland’s
name a shame throughout the world no mercy need be shown
nor felt.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Beadlaugh, 28, Stone
cutter Street, E.O.—1882.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Force no remedy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N065
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ireland
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 (Force no remedy), 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
Ireland-History-1837-1901
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f753951dfd4b6904a0ed1734381cd2b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=csAn800SP8tUTcnoY47wsBBMgAvav9aclVbXFru4Wl2SM8WSTniDeb%7EMCuP%7EpNk4SRoU0jhG-%7EEJ7%7EP55Mt%7ErKSWopc-uoQK%7Edrg4hEGcSqAsB7bJOuKZR23Qa2QCf-OU18wmcFkXVPuIQY2z-uXR5SXvypLPrGDlPuNit6GL9z2vu3NFMcJCjrltwY5dvSKcHrMtCN9Qo22PGTkOvaf6oUKThVlPJ6xM65891xVoy0G7HX0wZeg9N1ms1YOYupNH8VGWuKIS9aerFTAs1-gECc-dpnvpkIfEKa6FjOKlgEJB%7EZ4LcnOCe2H4JamZwUTcAn7bR8pwaqO8bpxiBsQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d85639b812b8c68209956ddaad9250b4
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULnk SOCIETY
THE
FABLES OF FAITH:
Immmrdxfg anb ^tarbifjL
BY
AN EASTERN TRAVELLER.
“Il est affreux sans doute que l’Eglise chretienne ait toujours ete
dechiree par ses qtterelles et que le sang ait could pendant tant de
siecles par des mains qui portaient le Dieu de la paix.”—“ Le Siecle de
Louis XIV.,” par Voltaire.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1882.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�6 2-40'2-
CU-CA"
TO
HIS EMINENCE
CARDINAL MANNING.
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER,
THIS ESSAY IS DEDICATED,
AS A TOKEN OF RESPECT
FOR
HIS CHARACTER AND LIFE,
SO HIGH ABOVE THE LEVEL OF HIS
ADOPTED FAITH.
�PREFACE.
The writer of this little essay was born and educated in the
Church of England. The prejudices of his education were
strong enough (as is usually the case) to bind him to the
belief in a church, and, on arriving at years of discretion,
his reason convinced him that if there be a church it must
be an infallible one, and thus he “ submitted ” to the Church
of Rome as the only church claiming infallibility. A study
“ on the spot ” of Mahometanism and other Eastern faiths
led him to a comparison of all faiths, and ultimately to the
reluctant conclusion that they are all founded on assump
tions more or less inconsistent with truth, and that their
doctrines and practices are prejudicial to morals and human
happiness. His reasons for coming to this conclusion are
sketched in the following pages—pages which must inevi
tably be painful to the “ faithful,” and not only to them,
but also to him who has felt forced to retire from their
ranks, and thus abandon many cherished theories, many
beloved friends. The sacrifice he has thus made is a great
one, but truth is a sufficient consolation.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
------- ♦-------
CHAPTER I.
Fnth: its Definition, its Origin, its Evidences and their
Value.
(1) It is not to the faithful only, but also to the sceptical,
that faith is a matter of profound interest, for it is closely
woven into the history of every country, in every age, and
remains an important factor in many vital questions of the
present and of the future. Who, for example, would
venture to govern India without taking into account her
religions and sects ? We may disbelieve and despise these
religions, but the “lively faith” reposed in them by 250
millions of our fellow subjects is a fact which, however much
we may deplclre it, we cannot ignore.
(2) What is, then, this “ faith,” so dear to its votaries,
so praised by poets and painters, so pregnant with influence
on the destinies of nations and of individuals ? St. Paul
defines it as the “ substance of things hoped for, the evi
dence of things not seen.” But this definition, however satis
factory to a Christian believer, falls short of presenting any
accurate idea to a mind of another “ persuasion,” or to that
of a mere philosopher. If faith be the “ substance of things
hoped for ” it must be undiluted happiness; and yet those
who possess it do not appear any happier than those who
possess it not. And if it be the “ evidence of things not
seen,” how is it that, as regards such things, the faithful
know just as much and just as little as the unbelievers?
The revolution of the earth round the sun is, in a sense, a
thing not seen ; yet the faithful Joshua was ignorant of the
fact, and when it was discovered, the Prince of the faithful
hurled his anathemas against the unhappy astronomer who
had dared to find better evidence of “ things not seen ” than
the combined faith of the college of cardinals was able to
accumulate.
�6
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(3) Faith would be better defined as the belief in things
unproved by evidence; and if faith be in itself evidence, as
St. Paul advances, it is merely evidence of credulity in its
votary. In the ordinary affairs of life we believe little that
we hear, and not all we see, and the laws of every country
discourage the admission of hearsay evidence. But in the
concerns of our salvation we are less exacting: an envoy
from heaven is never asked for his credentials, and we
believe greedily and gratuitously all he alleges with regard
to his instructions from his august master. If a trades
man’s assistant call to collect his master’s account, we take
care to have evidence of his authority ; but if an ignorant
shoemaker or a reformed thief ties a bit of white cambric
round his neck and announces his arrival on a mission from
the king of kings, we rush in our thousands to heai' the
glad tidings, without even thinking of demanding a sight of
his “ full powers.”
(4) Man has an innate love of the marvellous, and from
his cradle yearns for something higher than his own
standard. His imagination is equally great and permeates his
thoughts and even his language, which is more or less impreg
nated with hopes and figures in proportion to the accuracy, or
rather the inaccuracy, of his mode of thought. And so
possessing both the will and the way, he easily conjures up
for himself “ troops of spirits,” “ black spirits and white, red
spirits and grey,” witches, fairies, hobgoblins, demons, gods,
and hosts of other “things not seen.” And with the lapse of
time these “ vain imaginings ” crystalise into faith—faith by
which the cunning often live, and for which the credulous
often die. The awe of ignorance, and the zeal of fanaticism
have covered the earth’s crust with altars of all shapes and
sizes, to the “ great unknown
and no mystery, however
improbable, or even impossible, can exceed the bounds of
the faith of the faithful. Indeed, the very merit of faith is
credulity; and so we are told that St. Thomas was rebuked
for requiring evidence of what he had heard, haphazard as
it were, and which appeared to him too improbable to
deserve credence.
(5) But the difficulty of believing things without evidence
presented itself very early to those who undertook to syste
matise faith ; but they scrambled over it, sans cere'monie, by
declaring faith to be a gift. But if it be a gift, who has
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
7
selected the donees, and how has it come to pass that each of
them has a gift of a different sort ? For every religion
differs from every other religion, and there are no two
members of the same religion whose gifts of faith are
exactly alike. Indeed one may go farther and say, that
if all the dogmas of all the religions were tabulated, and so
arranged as to give a bird’s-eye view of their various
similarities and differences, we should see at a glance
that one half of the faithful anathematises what the other
half looks on as essential portions of the “ deposit
of faith.”
And as all these faiths are different
they cannot all be true, and so in spite of the old pro
verb about looking a gift horse in the mouth, the re
cipients, as well as the non-recipients, of the gift of faith,
are at last reduced to the necessity of going more or less
into the question of evidence. The faithful enter on the
inquiry with excusable reluctance, for they have the case of
St. Thomas before their eyes; and in the end they argue the
case in a circle and produce as evidence a book 1 bound and
lettered, which they claim should be received without evidence
as the Word of God ; or they call into court a witness who
proposes to be Vicarius Dei Generates in terris,1 though he
possesses no power of attorney duly “ signed, sealed, and de
livered ” by his supposed august principal. If one accept
the book or the “ Vicar ” as being what they profess to be,
we must believe a host of improbabilities, and not a
few contradictions and impossibilities—all, it must be
admitted, for we wish to be candid, attested by the blood of
martyrs, the best possible evidence of sincerity, and which
would settle the question at once and for ever if it were
only one of sincerity. But it is not: it is a question of
truth, and on such a question sincerity, if mistaken, has no
bearing. If a honest but stupid ignoramus tells me in all
sincerity that three times one make one or five, his mere
sincerity does not convince me ; I prefer demonstration to
his stupid but sincere miscalculation. And if he assure me
that three Almighty persons make one Almighty God, I
1 As we are writing in the English language we have here, for the
sake of brevity, selected the two “ rules of faith ” best known to the
English-speaking faithful, and which are in fact more than “ equal to
average” when compared with the rest. Faith has, therefore, the
advantage of being judged “ in bulk” by flattering “ samples.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
stop his arithmetic at once by pointing out the impossibility of more than one Almighty person existing at the
same time. His sincere belief in this impossibility does not
prove it to my mind, even if he die for it.
(6) The value of evidence does not, therefore, depend
entirely on the witness’s sincerity, but also on his means of
knowledge, and on his capacity for availing himself of these
means. A hundred persons may see a man die, but if the
question be one of poisoning it might well be that not one
of them would be competent to give material evidence ; one
would require a post-mortem examination by surgeons and
physicians, assisted by analysts learned in poisons—in fact,
the evidence of persons with good means of knowledge, and
competent to avail themselves of those means. And yet,
after all this would only be a question of the shortening by
a few years of the life of one single individual. How much
more careful ought we not to be in receiving evidence on
which depends (according to theologians) the length of life
of millions upon millions of human beings, and that not for
a question of a few short years, but of the countless ages of
eternity, when clocks and watches and calendars shall have
perished in an universal fire and “ time shall be no
more.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
9
CHAPTER II.
The Miracles and Prophecies of the gods of faith.
(7) “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; ”
but then he was but a fool, though not, it would seem, the
greatest of fools, for he does not appear to have been guilty
of the supreme folly of attempting to prove openly the
negative proposition which formed the subject of his secret
sayings, “ in his heart.” We are not such fools as to say,
even in our own heart, there is no God. We cannot help
admitting, indeed, we gladly avow that the universality of
nature’s laws, and the absolute impossibility of disobeying
them, are quite consistent with the existence of a Supreme
Being of absolute power to do all that is possible, and of
unchanging will. We say advisedly, all that is possible, for
there are things absolutely impossible, such as making twice
two into five, or making that not to have existed which, in
point of fact, has existed. If God were to persuade all his
creatures of any such nonsensical impossibility, he might be
said to have wrought a “ miraclebut it would be a mere
triumph of falsehood over truth, and the fact would remain
the same.
(8) But the gods created by “faith” are neither
Almighty nor of immutable will; they are supposed to
have made a huge universe for the benefit of a few preda
tory tribes, whose common ancestor, although a miserable
savage, was powerful enough to frustrate the will of his
maker and make that maker repent of having carried
out his original design! It is not against the Supreme
Being that we write (God forbid!), but against tribal gods,
the creation of their own votaries, the offspring of man’s
imagination and woman’s credulity, “crossed” with igno
rance and superstition.
(9) The faithful may demand : “ If we are wrong, how is
it that the great bulk of the human race are with us ? ”
�10
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
Because man is a gregarious and imitative animal—indepen
dent minds with original thoughts are rarities, the great
mass of mankind are followers, they are like sheep at a gap,
or the “field” at a fox-hunt, they must be “shown the
way ”—and the leaders ? Are as a rule themselves mere
followers though of a higher class ; their imitation is not so
immediate, they follow, at a more respectful distance, some
model, forgotten of the multitude, making the path a little
broader here, a little narrower there, but still following it.
The fashion of faith changes like the fashion in costume,
and the leaders of both fashions are equally arbitrary; to
be out of fashion is to be out of favor, and so the faithful
and the fashionable are always numerous, though always
divided into contradictory sections and sub-sections. All
they have in common is the belief in things unproved by
evidence; that is their fundamental principle, the founda
tion on which each separate section of the faithful builds its
house, in its own style, and repairs in the same style, or
in another, in accordance with the prevailing fashion. If
all these houses formed a beautiful and united city it
would be strong and possibly impregnable. But the city
of faith is always divided against itself, always in a state
of civil war, and its gutters often flow with the blood of
its citizens. Faith has, it is true, a great following, but
no one of her followers can say he has the rest with him ;
he should rather say against him. Ishmael is the patron
saint of every faith, if not of every “ faithful.”
(10) “But we have our prophets and our miracles, which,
attest the truth of our faith.” Every faith has its prophets,
“true” and “false,” and its miracles and counter-miracles;
but is salvation a mere prize for the guessers of conundrums
and the connoisseurs in jugglery ? The Egyptian wizards
were, perhaps, cleverer than Messrs. Maskelyne and Cooke;
they turned sticks into snakes, but Aaron, the idolator, was,
according to his brother Moses, a better juggler still ; he
turned his stick into a snake that eat up the Egyptian
snakes. But does this prove that Aaron’s god was a better
god than those of the Egyptians ? and if so, in what propor
tion, calculated in decimals ? (for w’e should be accurate
in theological matters, and decimals sound more respectful
to the gods than mere vulgar fractions.) Let us state the
case thus: God A can turn sticks into snakes, God B can
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
11
turn sticks into snakes that will eat up other sticks turned
into snakes—assuming the value of God A to be unity, or 1,
what is the value of God B ? On the answer to this
absurd sum depends the future of millions! not of sticks or
of snakes, as one might think, but of intelligent human
beings!
(11) Raising the dead is a favorite miracle with some faiths,
but it is an unsavory one, and no one seems to have gone
close enough to it to have the testimony of his senses on its
genuineness. When the experiment is tried under the noses
of experts it invariably fails; there is not one solitary
instance of success. And it is an unnecessary miracle which
would be much better replaced by the miracle of keeping a
good and true witness of the faith alive for ever. A respect
able venerable-looking old man of two or three thousand
years of age, living a regular life without eating or drinking,
and enjoying good health and the “ possession of all his
faculties,” and the memory of all the remarkable events of
his lifetime, would be a standing witness of the faith, and, at
the same time, a useful historian. No one would doubt Azs
word, and the faith would be “ kept,” not only by enthusiasts
but by philosophers and men of business; and thus a multi
tude of silly miracles, such as the liquefaction of some old
bloodstains, the periodical appearance of saints to patients
suffering from those effects of indigestion which are known
as nightmare, would be as unnecessary as they are to most
minds ridiculous.
(12) But to come to the prophets: they are divided into
two classes, “true” and “false;” but both classes are so
much alike that each has nearly the same chance of deceiving
the very “ elect ”—i.e., the persons who have been privately
supplied with the only “ correct card of the race ” for heaven,
including the winners’ names, or at all events their own. A
prophecy, according to the faithful, is not the accurate and
definite anticipation of a future event incapable of calcula
tion ; on the contrary, it is the use of indefinite language
capable of various interpretations, and is generally of the
nature of a conundrum or riddle. All definite, or compara
tively definite, promises have failed. The greatest of all
prophets is reported to have said that the generation in which
he lived should not pass away till all should be accom
plished. Yet his generation has passed away many centuries
�12
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
ago, and no part of his prophesy has been accomplished, and
his followers have nothing left but a miserable play on the
word “ generation.”
(13) But the most celebrated of all prophecies, the one
on which millions of the most educated of the faithful rely
for the origin of a third of their deity was not so definite,
and was therefore not open to immediate refutation.
‘ Behold,” said the prophet, “ a virgin shall conceive.” No
particular virgin is indicated and no particular time is
fixed for her conception, so that no precautions are possible
for providing evidence of the conception not being the
result of human agency. We wish to speak with all respect
for the faith of our fellow-men, but it is necessary to
examine this matter somewhat closely, and if it be indeli
cate, the prophet is to blame and not we. If a married
woman conceive a child the world and the law assume, as
a matter of prima facie evidence, that her husband is the
father of it: and that evidence is not likely to be rebutted.
But when an unmarried woman conceives a child, who
does not recognise the difficulty of proving its paternity?
Yet every modest matron and every innocent virgin of the
Christian faith is bound to examine or rather to believe
this matter of a virgin having conceived! Can it be
possible that the true God, who alone can be called the
god of purity, ever intended to exact from his creatures—
men, matrons, or maids—a belief on a question of pater
nity under penalty of death ? And without any evidence ?
For under what circumstances did the virgin in question
—(i.e., begging the question for the sake of argument)—
under what circumstance did she conceive ? She was living
in daily intercourse with her intended husband, in an age
when the forms of marriage were not respected so much as
they are now; both were young, both were poor, and both
probably had the average of human instincts and passions
—there is absolutely no evidence that they did not anticipate
the formal ceremony of their marriage. Yet in her case
we are called upon to assume that she was the virgin
alluded to by the prophet, and that his most indefinite
prophecy was fulfilled in her person 1 The prophesy and
its fulfilment are equally unsatisfactory, and neither can be
accepted by any but the faithful—i.e., by those who can
believe without evidence. And even they would find a diffi
�the fables of faith.
13
culty if, as magistrates, or judges or jurymen, they had to
deal with a similar case of our own times, even if it only
involved the legitimacy of an insignificant “ bit of
humanity,” the inheritance to a few “ dirty ” acres, or
a miserable pittance of a few shillings per week. Yet in
the affairs of “ salvation ” they greedily swallow an
“opening statement” unsupported by a tittle of satis
factory evidence and improbable in the highest degree.
Why ? It is the foundation of their faith, the rock on
which they have built their house, and they do not dare to
blast it “ in the mere interest of scientific investigation.”
In time, when the flood of knowledge shall have under
mined their little bit of sandstone, or when it shall itself
have crumbled gradually away, the house will fall, and
the dwellers therein will then be able to see the scientific
difference between the sandstone of Faith and the eternal
rock of Truth. Meanwhile, they will live in their house
and occupy their time in mending their own windows
and breaking those of their neighbors.
(14) If a prophet wish to prophesy a birth and be
believed, let him select the mother by name, and let him
indicate the day and hour of the birth, the sex of
the child, the color of its hair and eyes, and any other
“ distinguishing marks;” it is idle to say a virgin shall
conceive without naming the person, place, or time, and it
does not help the matter to say that the child shall bear a
certain name, because names are generally given by parents,
and parents naturally select a good one, especially if any
thing is to be got by it. Or if the prophet know that the
“ sun is going to stand still” let him name the day and hour,
so as to give us an opportunity of consulting our clocks and
almanacks, and of thus testing his prophecy. It is playing
with us to give the prophecy and its fulfilment as pages from
his own history, when he was engaged in carrying fire and
sword into the country of his “ unbelieving ” neighbors.
And the matter is not mended when we consider that the
movement (if any) of the sun had absolutely nothing to do
with the matter, and that it was the earth, and not the sun,
that he wanted to “stand still,” to give him time to
slaughter his fellow-men and their women and children.
The unblushing ignorance of this prophet and the re
volting circumstances of his alleged prophecy (or “ com
�14
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
mand ” as he calls it) are sufficient to stamp him as an im
poster ; but his prophesy is so old that it has “ crystalised ”
on the deposit of faith and the faithful believe it implicitly.
Would the faithful believe a modern “ prophet ” who should
incidentally mention that the world is flat, and that we have
only to walk to the end of it and look over the wall to see
the Ksole inhabitant of the moon chopping up the old moons
into stars ? Yet that would scarcely be more absurd than
Joshua’s ignorance of the motion of the earth round the
sun, for he professed to be on intimate terms with the
Supreme, and to be authorised to speak in His name. It is
childish to say that when Joshua said the sun he meant the
earth, and that he only used the language of ignorance to
ignorant people that they might the better understand him.
If he had had miraculous powers he could have used the
language of truth and have given his hearers the capacity
of understanding it. Or are miracles inconsistent with
truth ? Let the faithful ponder a little over that question.
(15) But, say the faithful: “ We do do not pin our faith
on Joshua; we'have the whole of the Old Testament, we
have the New, we have the Koran, and many other good
books, and all containing intrinsic evidence of divine inspir
ation, and all attested by the blood of martyrs.” The blood
of martyrs is, as we have seen, a mere evidence of perfect
sincerity. There is, or was, a patient in a lunatic asylum
in Staffordshire whose only trouble was that they would
not recognise him as Jesus Christ come a second time. He
was not Jesus Christ, but he merely believed he was, and
was willing to be crucified “ again,” as he put it, to prove
the authenticity of his mission. If he had lived when the
inquisition flourished, his blood would have possibly testified
to his belief in his identity with the founder of the greatest
religion on earth; but it would not have proved that
identity. Let us therefore leave for the moment the poor
martyrs on their crosses, their gridirons, their slow fires, and
cast a glance at the intrinsic evidence of the divine inspira
tion of what are called the “ sacred scriptures.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
15
CHAPTER III.
Science
The Inspiration of the Scriptures and their Internal
Evidences.
(16) No one who is sincerely convinced of the inspiration
of the scriptures can possibly doubt anything they contain,
and where they clash with the so-called discoveries of
modern science, he is bound to accept the higher evidence
of God in preference to the lower evidence of science, how
ever perfect it may seem to be—he must believe with
Joshua that the sun goes round the earth, and reject as an
optical illusion the “appearances” which have led men of
science into the “ erroneous ” belief that the earth goes
round the sun. It is uncandid and illogical to “ cut and
snip at inspiration and science in order to make them
dove-tail into each other. Let us therefore be candid and
just, though the heavens fall, or our cherished notions on
astronomy, geology and the other sciences have to be re
jected as pretty but fatal fancies into which our weak
judgments have seduced us. What, then, are the scrip
tures ? Let us first consider the collection of books known
as the Old Testament. They are said to express the will
of the creator to his creatures. But we find a difficulty at
the outset; they are not signed either in person or by proxy,
or duly attested. When a human legislator makes laws
he signs them, and publishes them over the whole area of
territory to which they are to apply, and it very seldom
happens that a question arises as to the making of these
laws or their publication. The scriptures of the Old Testa
ment, on the other hand, are unsigned, and were never
published to the world until most of them had lost all
interest except that of history. This difficulty is, however,
surmounted by the assumption that the scriptures in ques
tion contain intrinsic evidence of divine inspiration. Let
us, then, “ search the scriptures” for this evidence, and let
�16
THE EABLES OF FAITH.
us not forget what we are looking for—viz., an expression
of the will of the Supreme to his creatures. What ought
we to expect to find? Omnipotence, Justice, Purity,
Knowledge. What do we find ? God ingloriously defeated
in his grand design by an anti-god! God inciting to murder
and pillage! God relating indecent stories! God ignorant
of his own works ! God speaking in a language almost un
known I God scolding his people and repenting his crea
tion of them! In one word, we find a tribal god, “ the god
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
(17) “But all these charges are false.” Let us see, and
first as to the defeat of this tribal deity. According to the
scriptures, he made man in his own image, intending that
man should always be his faithful and obedient servant—
that was his will. But a strange personage, who seems to
have created himself, and who, besides working that miracle,
had the habit of miraculously assuming various forms and
shapes, turned himself into a serpent, and in that form
seduced the brand new man from the service of his maker !
Both wanted the servant; the serpent got him, and was
not that a defeat for the God ? Where was his omnipotence
when this miserable, miraculous, self-created serpent took
to talking, and talking with success, on the “ other side ? ”
And, moreover, the serpent’s advice was in favor of know
ledge, whilst the “ god ” inculcated ignorance as a virtue.
And, indeed, well he might, for he was himself ignorant of
the works he claimed as his own. He made the sun to rule
the day (in going round the earth!) and the moon to rule
the night (though, as a matter of fact, she often dances
attendance on mid-day), and we are told parenthetically by
the scriptures “he made the stars also,” as though that
brilliant assemblage of bigger worlds than ours were thrown
in as kinds of understrappers to the moon! Then as to the
creation itself, the account of it is grotesquely inaccurate,
and Noah’s ark is only fit to be a plaything for children’
What naturalist could believe the absurd story of a perfect
menagerie being established in one ship long before Great
Easterns were thought of. And where was the food for the
carnivora kept ?—not to mention the hay, straw and chaff
for the other animals. The writer of this story must have
been a thorough ignoramus, who wrote for a “ public ” even
more ignorant than himself, and the notion of his having
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
17
obtained his ideas from God is as absurd as the belief of his
story by sane people is strange and wonderful.
(18) All this is only grotesque. The incitement to
murder and rapine is more serious, and places at once the
“ god of Abraham ” on the same level with the “ one god”
who has Mahomet for “ his prophet.” Both gods are
equally bloodthirsty, equally narrow-minded, equally partial
to their robber bands; in a word, both are tribal gods in
the strictest sense of the term, and neither evinces the
slightest trace of the character of the God of the Universe,
who made heaven and earth.
(19) As to the indecent stories, it is a difficult matter
even to allude to them without shocking that sense of
decency which God has implanted in the nature of man, and
which even the most abandoned (with the exception of tribal
gods) cannot thoroughly eradicate. We will only mention
the stories told of Lot, referring our readers to the
Bible for the details, which are too foul for our pages.
An edifying composition of drink, debauchery, and incest
for the delectation of the children of faith! And the
story is told without a single word of condemnation of its
disgusting depravity! This gutter literature never flowed
from the pen of the God of purity, and it is mere blasphemy
to impute it to Him. Yet this is part of the intrinsic
evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures 1
(20) As to the language in which each book of the
Scriptures is written, the fact that it is not a universal
language proves that the writings themselves were not in
tended for universal circulation. God is almighty, and if
he wants to speak to his creatures, he does not require inter
preters ; and the story of his having confounded the tongues
of men when they were building the Tower of Babel, lest
they should “ climb up to heaven,” is no apology for the
non-universality of the language ; it is merely a proof that
the writer of that story was utterly ignorant of the necessity
of oxygen for the existence of animal life, and knew nothing
of the law of gravity or of the distance of “ heaven ” from
earth. This story of the confusion of tongues may be in
teresting to the admirers of the “ Thousand and One Nights,”
but the crass ignorance of its writer proves conclusively that
the Supreme took no part in concocting it. The simple
circumstance that the god spoken of was jealous of men
�18
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
and afraid they would “ climb up to heaven ” is sufficient to
stamp that god as a mere tribal god, the creation of ignorant
superstition.
(21) “ But the New Testament is of a higher standard of
morality, and evinces nobler ideas of God. Surely the New
Testament is true? ” The New Testament is but a supplement
to the Old, as is proved by the first chapter of its first book,
where we find the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham
to Joseph, and the statement that Joseph was not his father,
but that the Holy Ghost was, and that his birth was a mira
culous fulfilment of the prophecy we have considered (§ 13),
“ Behold, a virgin shall conceive.” The New Testament is,
therefore, founded entirely on the Old; and if the founda
tion be rotten, the superstructure must perish with it. The
Old Testament was the “rule of faith” of the Jews:
Jesus Christ was a Jew and a great Jewish reformer, but
he founded all his reforms on the prophets of the Old
Testament. It is true that Jesus Christ’s morality is of a
much higher standard than that of the Old Testament; but
what does that prove ? That the god of his father Abraham
was a changeable god, willing one thing at one time and
something very different at another—was, in fact, a mere
tribal god.
(22) “Then, was Jesus Christ an impostor?” We do
not say so : he gave the best proof of his sincerity, his life;
but the enthusiasts of other religions have done the same, and,
as we have seen, martyrdom proves nothing beyond the mar
tyr’s individual sincerity. “ But his miracles ? ” Were not
recorded by himself, but by his followers, chiefly ignorant
and all superstitious, and ready to believe anything and every
thing wonderful with regard to their great and good leader.
They idolised him during his life, and in their writings after
his death they deified him, and magnified his “ miracles,”
which are unproved by any tittle of independent and im
partial evidence. If Jesus Christ had had a mission from
the Supreme to his creatures, he would have been provided
with credentials sufficient to satisfy those creatures of the
reality of his mission ; but, as a matter of fact, Jesus
Christ spent the best part of his life working at a humble,
though honorable, trade, and the rest of it in vainly
attempting to persuade his people, in a remote corner of the
world, that he had received a divine mission. The great
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
19
mass of mankind was absolutely ignorant of his existence,
and the few who were not, only knew him as an itinerant
street preacher, who was endeavoring to form a schism in
the religion in which he had been born. And his judicial
murder was only regarded by those who knew of it as an
execution for heresy, or as a result of that religious intole
rance which has in all ages spilt the blood of religious
enthusiasts. And if the “King of Kings” really sent Jesus
Christ on a mission, why did he not protect his ambassador,
or demand immediate satisfaction for his murder ?
(23) One final word as to the New Testament. Although
it is the second dispensation of the “ God of Abraham,” it
is by no means the last. That wonderful dreamer, St.
John the Divine, in his “revelations,” tells us, amongst
other things, that Satan was, or is to be (when, as is usual
in such matters, left doubtful), bound for a thousand years,
during which his privilege to “ deceive the nations ” is to
be suspended, though it is afterwards to be revived for “ a
little season! ” Now this Satan has played a grand part
under the two dispensations of the two testaments, and, as
we have seen, succeeded in defeating the original design
of the God of Abraham, and, moreover, was powerful
enough to seize that God’s son and place him on a pinnacle
of the temple ; in fact, Satan has played the important
role of god’s rival, and successful rival. But St. John tells us
that he is to be shut up for a thousand years: and it is
reasonable to suppose that during that period God will have
it all his own way. This will, indeed, be a new dispensa
tion—an Almighty without a rival has the appearance of
a real Almighty. But, unfortunately, it is only another
temporary arrangement, and after a thousand years the
rival is to play his part again for a “ little season,” as St.
John, the stage manager, indefinitely phrases it.
(24) It is difficult to write seriously of the “ prophecy ”
of St. John, especially as he told us nearly two thousand
years ago that the time of its fulfilment was “ at hand,”
and it remains unfulfiled to the present day. It is a
mixture of grotesque romance and unintelligible conundrum,
all very well for a midsummer night’s dream or nightmare,
but totally unworthy of a Supreme Being of infinite power
and unchangeable will. And yet it is the foundation of a
new dispensation of the will of the God of Abraham !
�20
THE
fables of faith.
(25) The Koran and other sacred scriptures of “ faith,”
although containing here and there moral precepts of uni
versal application are, like the Bible, all strongly impreg
nated with the principles of tribal theology: they all picture
a god of limited power and wisdom, of vacillating will, of
strong passions, of absurd partiality for his own particular
tribe—on which he lavishes all his gifts and all his little
power, to the neglect of the greater part of this tiny
world, and in complete oblivion of those bigger and brighter
worlds, whose light reaches us through millions of miles of
space.
The scriptures tell us nothing that is new and much that
is not true ; and it is only by an “ act ” of blind “ faith ”
that we can find in them any internal evidence of having
been written under the inspiration of the God and Maker of
the universe.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
21
CHAPTER IV.
The Substitute for Faith—Truth—Future Rewards and Punish
ments—A Glance at “ Heaven” and “ Hell.”
(26) “ But if we abandon the ‘ faith of our fathers’ what
can you give us in its stead?” Truth! demonstrated truth,
who claims no sacrifice of her votaries’ reason. Truth, who,
conscious of her own power and ultimate victory, has no per
secution for her ignorant enemies. If faithful enthusiasts
believe that the Alps were once in the ocean, and were
removed to their present site by an “ act of faith ” on the
part of some pious prince in want of a “scientific frontier,”
truth does not burn them alive to extinguish their foolish
faith; she pities them and patiently watches for an oppor
tunity to convince them of the folly and absurdity of their
unfounded faith. Truth does not preach ignorance as a
virtue, she does not coquet with drunkenness and impurity;
she is the foundation of all morality, and the great
antagonist of all crime. A thief is a liar (“ Show me a liar,
I will show you a thief ”). A seducer is a liar, for truth
cannot seduce. An adulturer is a liar, for he breaks his
marriage vow. A murderer is a liar, for he always denies
his crime (those who plead guilty to murder are invariably
insane or consider their homicide justifiable). In short,
there is no offence against morality that is not at the same
time an offence against truth. Do the “faiths” inculcate
a higher morality than Truth ? The Bible sanctions
murder and rapine of neighbors, including women and
children. The Bible and the Koran sanction plurality of
wives, which is an untruth to the first. Then holy books
wink at slavery, which is opposed to the now recognised
truth of the freedom of man. The Bible visits the sins of
the fathers on the children. The Bible winks at lying, for
Abraham, who “walked with his god,” said his wife was
his sister. The Bible inculcates religious persecution, the
“ casting out of the heathen.”
�22
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(27) “ But the Christian religion is more moral.” Possibly ;
but what explanation is there of the murders and tortures
of the Inquisition, of the autos da fe, of the fires of Smithfield, of the dragonnades, and of the horrors that followed the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes ? The blood shed by
Faith in all ages has stained almost every page of the history
of every country; “religious” war is par excellence the
war of inhumanity and of extermination ; and it borders on
a miracle that Faith has not depopulated the world. If the
wretched gipsies under Moses had fully carried out their
god’s commands where should we Gentiles be now ? And a
similar question may be asked with regard to almost every
“ faith.”
(28) “ Good, but the truth you speak of has no system of
future rewards and punishments, such as faith has, and with
out these inducements and deterrents it is impossible to rule
mankind.” No one has, as yet, made any serious attempt
to rule without them, and all the attempts to rule with them
have failed, and failed miserably. The heaven and the hell
invented by faith are too clumsily made for the purposes for
which they were intended, and the conditions of admission
are simply absurd. Heaven, according to the Christian, is
a huge concert-room, in which 144,000 Jews and a “ multi
tude which no man could number ” of other persuasions sing
without ceasing a monotonous bit of flattery to their tribal
god: terms of admission, simple credulity 1 The Mohametan is not so musical; he furnishes his heaven with beauti
ful women; it is a sort of “ gay ” house without the drunken
ness: price of admission, simple credulity. Then look at hell
—its temperature is kept up at a ridiculously high degree,
and the fuel, though always burning, is never burnt ; its
aboriginal inhabitants enjoy an immortality which they
appear to have created for themselves, and their chief takes
a change of air as often as he pleases, and plays an occa
sional game at cards with the chief of the “ other place,” in
which he sometimes loses, but more frequently wins ; for,
according to theologians, hell is more frequented than
heaven : terms of admission quite as easy, incredulity. “ He
that believeth not shall be damned.”
(29) There are “ faiths,” rewards, and punishments : how
do they work in practice ? Do they lead men to lead good
lives? Not at all: they lead men to slaughter the “ un
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
23
believers,” and steal their goods or burn them—to commit,
in a word, all the atrocities of a “ holy war.” Good lives ?
It is good deaths that the faithful prize. A life spent in
bloodshed and plunder is atoned for by a death-bed re
pentance—the giving of a share of the plunder to “ holy
church,” and falling asleep in her bosom. The brigand,
whose profession is a combination of habitual robbery with
occasional murder, goes regularly to his “ Easter duties he
fulfils the condition of admission to heaven; he believes, and
he is safe. But let us take another and a better-known son
of the Faith—Louis XIV. of France—the sovereign of his
century. Louis was a “ patriot,” a “ pattern king,” and a
powerful “ defender of the faith/’ and lived his life under the
eyes of his resident confessor. What kind of life ? He
carried fire and sword amongst his weaker neighbors, he
revoked the edict of Nantes, he broke “ unbelievers ” on the
wheel, and, whilst his dragoons were protecting the faith
against thousands of harmless unarmed citizens, he was lying
in the lap of debauched luxury, surrounded by his mistresses
and his illegitimate children, and attended by his faithful
confessor, ever ready to give him absolution when he felt in the
humor to receive it. Did the hope of heaven, or the fear of
hell, influence his life for good ? Or take another king of
the same kidney—David. He was also a defender of the
faith. Did he scruple to seduce Uriah’s wife and murder her
husband out of fear of future punishment? (And, by the
way, this guilty pair are said by St. Matthew to be direct
ancestors of Jesus Christ!) Or, to come to our own times.
Some of the Glasgow Bank directors were shining lights of
faith: they even built churches. Did the fear of hell induce
them to look on other people’s money as sacred ?
(30) As a matter of fact the heaven of faith is too in
definite, her hell is too absurd and too easily evaded, to form
any real inducement to a good life or deterrent from a bad
one. They are mere “ bogies,” whose real influence has
never done the world any good, though the faith they are
supposed to enforce has done the world incalculable mischief.
(31) Having supped full of the horrors of Faith, having
seen “ in a vision,” the nightmare of the ghosts of her
millions of victims, let us awake to the beauty of Truth.
Her hands are not stained with innocent blood, she is not
guilty of any amorous embrace of Ignorance, she puts no
�24
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
prohibition on the tree of knowledge, she has no slaves, she
is not capricious, she is the same to all men, in all ages, she
has no worthless favorites. She is eternal and, conscious
of her own strength, and of her ultimate triumph, she has
no hatred to cherish, no enemies to punish ; she would con
vert them all into friends, her triumphs are the triumphs of
peace. The pursuit of truth and of peace are the only
noble pursuits, and they alone contribute to the happiness
of the human race. War and Faith,1 despite their sham
glory, bring but misery and ruin alike to their devotees and
their victims.
(32) We do not know all the laws of the Supreme, but
such as we do know are certain and unchangeable : let us
search diligently after the others, reserving our judgment
on them until they be demonstrated, and respecting, at the
same time, the judgments of others. Let us be charitable,
and endeavor to shame Faith out of her intolerance, her
ignorance, her superstition, her immorality; and we shall
certainly ultimately be successful, if we only live that good
moral life which Truth, and the experience of enlightened
minds, demonstrate to be most consistent with the real
happiness of the human race.
Truth is the blessing, par excellence ; and it is this blessing
which the author of this humble vindication of her wishes
his readers, both friends and foes.
1 The faithful have always admitted the likeness Faith bears to War:
we recognise the likeness as perfect.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Essay, dedicated to Cardinal Manning "as a token of respect for his character and life, so high above the level of his adopted faith." Published anonymously. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N204
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
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 (Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller), 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
Fables-History and Criticism
Faith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/268ce4b3934c924af4adac8537d87a75.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JrznL5uvHDqZk1xXp90QrhSX0ItgewWe9Ua8hwE5fvelBDCmKi1VCT2NXx8aOsOwzPalLbrRok0D6PMOb6xx7oUD-ksy9cc0Dym4azQ0EBzFC5xVLe3Y1%7E8qbk8lNZ1QUjIZ1ril12TeVgAR53ztW3-N3Z1HI4COZxPfktC%7EuhW-KWpu%7ElucRqdAnjApn3hV5yyg8xPE%7E8MIYev6iKlcxjukaH8y8oaIw2JHIMJ31LoRKfP0EiRg5b-Ss6dQVz0QSztzR9dJtVhBv5kWxUuxj44%7EyWDg6DlBNPOXb1Ddkg1XPPXGBa0kpts%7EaZPpsn9qxPXzZNZC5nBbaMAXnw2hyw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5f2f37d3cd7d1577d66ec4f276ab42f1
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A RROWS OF
PREETHOUGHT.
BY
Gr -
W.
ZE O O T ZE 7
Editor of “ The Freethinker.”
LONDON :
H. Ä. KEMP, 28 STONECUTTER STREET,
FÁRRINGDON STREET, E.C.
1882.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY H. A. KEMP
�&-2-4-3O
CON T E N T S.
Preface ■ Religion and Progress
A Defence of Thomas Paine The Gospel of Freethought
Freethought in Current Literature
Dean Stanley's Latest
God and the Queen
Cardinal Newman on Infidelity
Sunday Tyranny
Who are the Blasphemers?
The Birth of Christ
----The Reign of Christ
The Primate on Modern Infidelity
Baiting a Bishop Professor Flint on Atheism
A Hidden God
General Joshua -----Going to Hell
Christmas Eve in Heaven
Professor Blackie on Atheism
Salvation ism’ A Pious Showman -
PAGE
4
5
10
17
24
32
3S
41
41
47
4'J
54
59
67
73
77
S3
87
90
96
10-1
IOS
�PREFACE.
I republish in. this little volume a few of my numerous
articles that have appeared in the Secularist, the Liberal, the
National Reformer, and the Freethinker, during the last five
or six years. I have included nothing (I hope) of merely
ephemeral interest. Every article in this collection was at
least written carefully, and with an eye to more than the
exigencies of the moment. In disentombing them from the
cemeteries of periodical literature, where so many of their
companions lie buried, I trust I have not allowed parental
love to outrun discretion.
I have not thought it necessary to indicate, in each
case, the journal in which the reprinted articles were first
published.
Should anyone object to the freedom of my style, or the
asperity of my criticism, I would ask him to remember that
Christianity still persecutes to the full extent of its power,
and that a Creed which answers argument with prosecution
cannot expect tender treatment in return; and I would also
ask him, in the words of Ruskin, “ to consider how much less
harm is done in the world by ungraceful boldness than by
untimely fear.”
London, November 15th, 1882.
�RELIGION AND PROGRESS.
(November, 1882.)
The Archbishop of York is peculiarly qualified to speak on
religion and progress. His form of thanksgiving to the
God of Battles for our “ victory ” in Egypt marks him as
a man of extraordinary intellect and character, such as
common people may admire without hoping to emulate;
while his position, in Archbishop Tait’s necessitated
absence from the scene, makes him the active head of the
English Church. Let us listen to the great man.
Archbishop Thomson recently addressed “ a working-men’s
meeting ” in the Drill Hall, Sheffield. It was densely
crowded by six or seven thousand people, and this fact was
cited by the Archbishop as a proof that the working classes
of England have not yet lost interest in the Christian faith.
But we should very much like to know how it was ascercertained that all, or even the major portion, of the vast
audience were working-men. It is easy enough to give any
meeting a name. We often hear of a Conservative Work
ing-men’s banquet, with tickets at something like a guinea
each, a duke at the top of the table and a row of lords down
each side. And our experience leads us to believe that
nearly all religious meetings of “working-men ” are attended
chiefly by the lower middle classes who go regularly to
church or chapel every Sunday of their lives.
Even, however, if the whole six or seven thousand were
working-men, the fact would prove little; for Sheffield con
tains a population of three hundred thousand, and it was
not difficult for the clergy who thronged the platform to get
up a big “ ticket ” meeting, at which a popular Archbishop
was the principal speaker, and the eloquence was all to be
had for nothing.
The Archbishop’s lecture, or sermon, or whatever it was,
contained nothing new, nor was any old idea presented in a
new light. It was simply a summary of the vulgar decla
mations against the “ carnal mind ” with which we are all
so familiar. Progress, said his Grace, was of two kinds,
intellectual and moral. Of the former sort we had plenty,
�6
RELIGION AND PROGRESS.
but of the latter not so much. He repudiated the notion
that moral progress would naturally keep pace with intel
lectual progress, and he denied that righteousuess could ever
prevail without “ some sanction from above.” This was
the sum and substance of his discourse, and we have no
doubt that our readers have heard the same thing, in various
forms of language, some hundreds of times.
Like the rest of his tribe, Archbishop Thomson went
abroad for all his frightful warnings, and especially to
France. He severely condemned the French “pride in
progress,” which led to the Revolution. His Grace has
certainly a most original conception of history. Ordinary
historians tell us that the Revolution was caused by hunger,
bad government, and the rigidity of old institutions that
could not accommodate themselves to new ideas. But
whatever were the causes, look at the results. Compare the
state of France before the Revolution with its condition
now. The despotic monarchy is gone ; the luxurious and
privileged aristocracy has disappeared ; and the incredibly
wealthy and tyrannous Church is reduced to humbleness
and poverty. But the starving masses have become the
most prosperous on the face of the earth ; the ignorant
multitudes are well educated; the platform and the press
are free ; a career is open to every citizen ; science, art, and
literature have made immense strides ; and although Paris,
like every great capital, may still, as Mr. Arnold says, lack
morality, there is no such flagrant vileness within her walls
as the corruptions of the ancien régime; no such impudent
affronting of the decencies of life as made the parc aux cerfs
for ever infamous, and his Christian Majesty, Louis the
Fifteenth, a worthy compeer of Tiberius ; no such shameless
wickedness as made the orgies of the Duke of Orleans and
the Abbé Dubois match the worst saturnalia of Nero.
His Grace felt obliged to advert also to the Paris Com
mune, about which his information seems to be equal to his
knowledge of the Revolution. He has the ignorance or
audacity to declare that the Commune “ destroyed a city and
ravaged the land ;” when, as a matter of fact, the struggle
was absolutely confined to Paris, and the few buildings
injured were in the line of fire. This worthy prelate thinks
destruction of buildings a crime on the part of Communalists,
but a virtue on the part of a Christian power; and while
�RELIGION. AND PROGRESS.
7
¿enouncing the partial wreck of Paris, he blesses the whole
sale ruin of Alexandria.
His Grace ventures also to call the leading men of the
Commune “ drunken dissolute villains.” The beaten party
is always wicked, and perhaps Dr. Thomson will remember
that Jesus Christ himself was accused of consorting with
publicans and sinners. Drunken dissolute villains do not
risk their lives for an idea. The men of the Commune may
have been mistaken, but their motives were lofty ; and
Millière, falling dead on the Church steps before the
Versailles bullets, with the cry of Vive VHumanité on his
lips, was as noble a hero as any crucified Galilean who
questioned why his God had forsaken him.
That intellectual and moral progress naturally go to
gether, the Archbishop calls “ an absurd and insane
doctrine,” and he couples with these epithets the honored
names of Buckle and Spencer. Now it will be well to have
a clear understanding on this point. Are intellectual causes
dominant or subordinate ? Even so intensely religious a
man as Lamennais unhesitatingly answers that they are
dominant. He affirms, in his Du Passé et de V Avenir du
Peuple., that “intellectual development has produced all other
developments,” and he adds :—
“It is represented that evil, as it appears in history, springs
entirely from the passions. This is quite false. The passions
disturb the existing order, whatever it may be, but they do not
constitute it. They have not that power. It is the necessary
result of the received ideas and beliefs. Thus the passions
show themselves the same in all epochs, and yet, in different
epochs, the established order changes, and sometimes funda
mentally.”
The truth is that the great moral conceptions are securely
•established, and the only possible improvement in them must
come from the increased fineness and subtlety of oui- mental
powers.
Civilisation and progress are, according to Archbishop
Thomson, nothing but “ cobwebs and terms.” He besought
the working men of Sheffield not to go for information to a
big book written in some garret in London. His Grace,
who lives in a palace at other people’s expense, has a very
natural dislike of any man of genius who may live in a
garret at his own. What has the place in which a book is
�RELIGION AND PROGRESS.
written to do with its value ? “ Don Quixote ” and the
“ Pilgrim’s Progress ” were written in gaol; and for all
Archbishop Thomson knows to the contrary every gospel
and epistle of the New Testament may have been written in
an attic or a cellar.
The Archbishop seems to hate the very idea of Progress.
What has it done, he asks, to abolish drunkenness and
gambling ? To which we reply by asking what Christianity
has done. Those vices are unmistakably here, and on the face
of it“any objection they may furnish against Progress must
equally apply to Christianity. Nay more; for Christianity
has had an unlimited opportunity to reform the world, while
Progress has been hindered at every turn by the insolent
usurpation of its rival.
Dr. Thomson admits that he cannot find a text in the
Bible against gambling, and assuredly he cannot find one in
favor of teetotalism. On the contrary he will find plenty of
texts which recommend the “wine that cheereth the heart of
God and man
and he knows that his master, Jesus
Christ, once played the part of an amateur publican at a
marriage feast, and turned a large quantity of water into
wine in order to keep the spree going when it had once
begun.
We repeat that all the Archbishop’s objections to Pro
gress, based on the moral defects of men, apply with tenfold
force against Religion, which has practically had the whole
field to itself. And we assert that he is grievously mistaken
if he imagines that supernatural beliefs can ennoble knaves
or give wisdom to fools. When he talks about “ Christ’s
blood shed to purchase our souls,” and specifies the first
message of his creed as “Come and be forgiven,” he is
appealing to our basest motives, and turning the temple into
a huckster’s shop. Let him and all his tribe listen to these
words of Ruskin’s :—
“Your honesty is not to be based either on religion or policy.
Both your religion and policy must be based on it. Your
honesty must be based, as the sun is, in vacant heaven; poised,
as the lights in the firmament, which have rule over the day
and over the night. If you ask why you are to be honest—you
are, in the question itself, dishonored. “ Because you are a man,”
is the only answer; and therefore I said in a former letter that
to make your children capable of honesty is the beginning of
education. Make them men first and religious men afterwards,
�RELIGION AND PROGRESS.
9
and all will be sound; but a knave’s religion is always the
rottenest thing about him.—Time and Tide, p. 37.”
These are the words of a real spiritual teacher. Arch
bishop Thomson will never get within a million miles of
their meaning; nor will anybody be deceived by the
unctuous “ Oh that ” with which he concludes his discourse,
like a mental rolling of the whites of his eyes.
As we approach the end of his address, we begin to under
stand his Grace’s hatred of Progress. He complains that
“ intellectual progress never makes a man conceive eternal
hopes, never makes a man conceive that he has an eternal
friend in heaven, even the Son of God.” Quite true. In
tellectual progress tends to bound our desires within the
scope of their realisation, and to dissipate the fictions of
theology. It is therefore inimical to all professional soul
savers, who chatter about another world with no under
standing of this; and especially to the lofty teachers of
religion who luxuriate in palaces, and fling jibes and sneers
at the toiling soldiers of progress who face hunger, thirst
and death. These rich disciples of the poor Nazarene are
horrified when the scorn is retorted on them and their creed ;
and Archbishop Thomson expresses his “ disgust ” at our
ridiculing his Bible and endeavoring to bring his “ con
victions ” into “ contempt.” It is, he says, “ an offence
against the first principles of mutual sympathy and con
sideration.” Yet this angry complainant describes other
people’s convictions as “ absurd and insane.” All the
sympathy and consideration is to be on one side ! The less
said about either the better. There can be no treaty or truce
in a war of principles, and the soldiers of Progress will
neither take quarter nor give it. Christianity must defend
itself. It may try to kill us with the poisoned arrows of
persecution ; but what defence can it make against the rifle
shot of common-sense, or how stand against the shattering
artillery of science ? Every such battle is decided in its
commencement, for every religion begins to succumb the
very moment it is attacked.
�A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
(February^ 1879.)
Fling mud enough and some of it will stick. This noble
maxim has been the favorite of traducers in all ages and
climes. They know that the object of their malignity can
not always be on the alert to cleanse himself from the filth
they fling, especially if cast behind his back; they know that
lies, and especially slanderous lies, are hard to overtake, and
when caught harder to strangle ; and therefore they feel
confident as to the ultimate fate of their victim if they can
only persevere long enough in their vile policy of defamation.
For human nature being more prone to believe evil than
good of others, it generally happens that the original traducers
are at length joined by a host of kindred spirits almost as
eager and venomous as themselves, “ the long-neck’d geese
of the world, who are ever hissing dispraise because their
natures are little;” while a multitude of others, not so much
malignant as foolish and given to scandal, lend their cowardly
assistance, and help to vilify characters far beyond the reach
of their emulation. And should such characters be those of
men -who champion unpopular causes, there is no lie too
black for belief concerning them, no accusation of secret
theft or hateful meanness or loathsome -lust, that will not
readily gain credence. Mr. Tennyson speaks of—
that fierce light which beats upon a throne,
And blackens every blot:
but ■what is that to the far fiercer and keener light which
beats upon the lives of the great heroes of progress ? With
all due deference to the Poet Laureate, we conceive that
kings and their kind have usually extended to them a charity
which covers a multitude of their sins. The late king of
Italy, for instance, was said to have had “the language of a
guardroom, the manners of a trooper, and the morals of a
lie-goat,” yet at his death how tenderly his faults were dealt
with by the loyal press, and how strongly were all his merits
brought into relief. Our own royal Sardanapalus, George
the Fourth, although Leigh Hunt had the courage to describe
him aright and went to the gaol for so doing, was styled by
(
�A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
11
Society “ the first gentleman in Europe.” Yet Mazzini,
Vittor Emmanuel’s great contemporary, whose aims were
high and noble as his life was pure, got little else than abuse
from this same loyal press ; and the Society which adored
George the Fourth charged Shelley himself with unspeak
able vices equalled only by the native turpitude of his soul.
Perhaps no man has suffered more from calumny than
Thomas Paine. During his lifetime, indeed, his traducers
scarcely ever dared to vent their malice in public, doubtless
through fear of receiving a castigation from his vigorous and
trenchant pen. But after his death they rioted in safety,
and gave free play to the ingenuity of their malevolence.
Gradually their libels became current; thousands of people
who knew almost nothing of his life and less of his writings
were persuaded that Thomas Paine, “ the Infidel,” was a
monster of iniquity, in comparison with whom Judas appeared
a saint, and the Devil himself nearly white ; and this estimate
finally became a tradition, which the editors of illustrated
religious papers and the writers of fraudulent “ Death-Bed
Scenes ” did their best to perpetuate. In such hands the
labor of posthumous vilification might have remained with
out greatly troubling those who feel an interest in Thomas
Paine’s honor through gratitude for his work. The lowest
scavengers of literature, who purvey religious offal to the
dregs of orthodoxy, were better employed thus than in a
reverse way, since their praise is so very much more dis
honorable and appalling than their blame. But when other
literary workmen of loftier repute descend to the level of
these, and help them in their villainous task, it becomes
advisable that some one who honors the memory of the man
thus aspersed should interpose, and attempt that vindication
which he can no longer make for himself.
In reviewing Mr. Edward Smith’s “Life of Cobbett,” our
principal literary paper, the Athenceum, in its number for
January 11th, went out of its way to defame Paine’s
character. This is what it said:—
“A more despicable man than Tom Paine cannot easily be
found among the ready writers of the eighteenth century. He sold
himself to the highest bidder, and he could be bought at a ve ry
low price. He wrote well; sometimes he wrote as pointedly as
Junius or Cobbett. Neither excelled him in coining telling and
mischievous phrases ; neither surpassed him in popularity-hunting.
�12
A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
He had the art, which was almost equal to genius, of giving
happy titles to his productions. When he denounced the
British Government in the name of ‘ Common Sense ’ he found
willing readers in the rebellious American colonists, and a rich
reward from their grateful representatives. When he ’wrote on
behalf of the ‘Rights of Man,’ and in furtherance of the ‘Age of
Reason,’ he convinced thousands by his title-pages who were
incapable of perceiving the inconclusiveness of his arguments.
His speculations have long since gone the way of all shams; and
his charlatanism as a writer was not redeemed by his character as
a man. Nothing could be worse than his private life ; he was
addicted to the most degrading of vices. He was no hypocrite,
however, and he cannot be charged with showing that regard for
appearances which constitutes the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Such a man was well qualified for earning notoriety by insulting
Washington. Only a thorough-paced rascal could have had the
assurance to charge Washington with being unprincipled and
unpatriotic. Certainly Mr. Smith has either much to learn, or
else he has forgotten much, otherwise he could not venture to
suggest the erection of a monument ‘ recording the wisdom and
political virtues of Thomas Paine.’ ”
Now we have in this tirade all the old charges, with a new
one which the critic has either furnished himself or derived
from an obscure source—namely, that Paine “ sold himself
to the highest bidder.” Let us examine the last charge first.
The critic curiously contradicts himself. Paine, he admits,
could “ sometimes write as pointedly as Junius or Cobbett,”
whose works sold enormously, and he had the art of
devising happy titles for his productions ; yet, although he
sold himself to the highest bidder, he could be bought at a
very low price ! The fact is, Paine was never bought at all.
His was not a hireling pen. Whatever he wrote he put his
name to, and he never parted with the copyright of any of
his works, lest the Government or some friend of despotism
should procure their suppression. He also published his
writings at a ridiculously low price, so low indeed that he
lost by them instead of gaining. Of his “ Common Sense,”
that fine pamphlet which stirred the American colonists to
battle against their oppressors, not less than a hundred
thousand copies were sold; yet he found himself finally
indebted to his printer £29 12s. Id. Fifteen years later the
English Government tried through the publisher to get the
copyright of the “ Rights of Man
but though a large
sum was offered, Paine refused on principle to let it pass
�A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
13
out of his own hands. The first part of this work was pub
lished at a price which precluded any chance of profit ; the
publication of the second part caused him to be tried and
condemned for treason, the penalty of the law being escaped
onlv bv flight. All publication of his works, whether
political or religious, was afterwards illegal. Thousands of
copies were circulated surreptitiously, or openly by men like
Richard Carlile, who spent nine years in prison for his sale
of prohibited books. But clearly Paine could derive no
profit from this traffic in his works, for he never set foot in
England again. Thomas Paine wrote in order to spread his
political and religious views, and for no other purpose. He
was not a professional author, flor a professional critic, and
never needed payment for his literary work. And assuredly
he got none. Let the Athenceum critic inform the world to
whom Paine sold himself, or who ever paid him a penny for
his writings. Until he does so we shall believe that the
author of •• Common Sense,” the u Rights of Man,” a nd the
*
• Age of Reason,” was honest in saying: " In a great affair,
where the good of mankind is at stake, I love to work for
nothing ; and so fullv am I under the influence of this
principle, that I should lose the spirit, the pride, and the
pleasure of it. were I conscious that I looked for reward.”
Popularity-hunting, to use the critic's graceless phrase,
was Paine’s next fault; but as, according to the same
authority, he was guilty in this respect only in the same sense
as Junius was, the burden of his iniquity cannot be very
great.
Addiction to the most degrading of vices, is a charge
difficult to confute until we know specifically what vice is
meant. Paine has been accused of drunkenness; but by
whom ? Not by his intimate acquaintances, who would have
detected his guilt, but by his enemies ivho were never in his
society, and therefore could know nothing of his habits.
Cheetham, who first disseminated this accusation, was a
notorious libeller, and was more than once compelled to
make a public apology for his lies ; but he was a shameless
creature, and actually in his “ Life ” of Paine resuscitated
and amplified falsehoods for which he had tendered abject
apologies while his victim was alive. Even, however, if
Paine had yielded to the seductions of strong drink, he should
be judged by the custom of his own age, and not that of ours.
�14
A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
Mr. Leslie Stephen does not rail against Boswell for liis
drinking powers ; Burns is not outlawed for his devotion to
John Barlycorn ; Byron and Sheridan are not beyond pardon
because they often went drunk to bed ; and some of the
greatest statesmen of last century and this, including Pitt
and Fox, are not considered the basest of men because they
exercised that right which Major O’Gorman claims for all
Irishmen—“ to drink as much as they can carry.” But no
such plea is necessary, for Paine was not addicted to drink, but
remarkably abstemious. Mr. Fellows, with whom he lived for
more than six months, said that he never saw him the worse
for drink. Dr. Manley said, “ while I attended him he never
was inebriated.” Colonel Burr said, “ he was decidedly
temperate.” And even Mr. Jarvis, whom Cheetham cited as
his authority for charging Paine with drunkenness, authorised
Mr. Vale, of New York, editor of the Beacon, to say that
Cheatham lied. Amongst the public men who knew Paine
personally were Burke, Horne Tooke, Priestley, Lord
Edward Fitzgerald, Dr. Moore, Jefferson, Washington,
Volney and Condorcet: but none of these ever hinted at his
love of drink. The charge of drunkeness is a posthumous
libel, circulated by a man who had publicly quarrelled with
Paine, who had been obliged to apologise for former
aspersions, and who after Paine’s death was prosecuted and
condemned for libelling a lady whom he had accused of undue
familiarity with the principal object of his malice.
Finding the charge of drunkenness unequivocally rebutted.
Paine's traducers advance that of licentiousness. But this is
equally unsuccessful. The authority relied on is still
Cheetham, who in turn borrowed from a no less disreput
able source. A man named Carver had quarrelled with
Paine over money matters; in fact, he had been obliged
with a loan which he forgot to pay, and like all base natures
he showed his gratitude to his benefactor, when no more
favors could be expected, by hating and maligning him. A
scurrilous letter written by this fellow fell into the hands of
Cheetham, who elaborated it in his “Life.” It broadly hinted
that Madame Bonneville, the by no means youthful wife of a
Paris bookseller who had sheltered Paine when he was
threatened with danger in that city, was his paramour; for
no other reason than that he had in turn sheltered her when
she repaired with her children to America, after her home
�A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
15'
had been broken up by Buonaparte’s persecution of heihusband. This lady prosecuted Cheetham for libel, and a
jury of American citizens gave her a verdict and damages.
Here the matter might rest, but we are inclined to urge
another consideration. No one of his many enemies ever
accused Paine of licentiousness in his virile manhood; and can
we beli ve that he began a career of licentiousness in his old
age, when, besides the infirmities natural to his time of life, he
suffered dreadfid tortures from an internal abcess brought
on by his confinement in the reeking dungeons of the Luxem
bourg, which made life a terror and death a boon ? Only
lunatics or worse would credit such a preposterous story.
The Athenceum critic alleges that Paine insulted Washing
ton, and was therefore a “ thorough-paced rascal.” But he
did nothing of the kind. He very properly remonstrated
with Washington for coolly allowing him to rot in a French
dungeon for no crime except that he was a foreigner, when
a word from the President of the United States, of which he
was a citizen, would have effected his release. Washington
was aware of Paine’s miserable plight, yet he forgot the
obligations of friendship ; and notwithstanding frequent
letters from Munro, the American ambassador at Paris,
he supinely suffered the man he had once delighted to honor
to languish in wretchedness, filth, and disease. George
Washington did much for American Independence, but
Thomas Paine did perhaps more, for his writings animated
the oppressed Colonists with an enthusiasm for liberty
without which the respectable generalship of Washington
might have been exerted in vain. The first President of theUnited States was, as Carlyle grimly says, “no immeasur
able man,” and we conceive that Paine had earned the
right to criticise even him and his policy.
Every person is of course free to hold what opinion hepleases of Paine’s writings. The Atlienceum critic thinks
they have “ gone the way of all shams.” He is wrong in
fact, for they circulate very extensively still. And he may
also be wrong in his literary judgment. William Hazlitt,
wdiose opinion on any subject connected with literature is at
least as valuable as an Athenceum critic’s, ranked Paine very
high as a political writer, and affirmed of his “ Rights of
Man” that it was “ a powerful and explicit reply to Burke.”
But Hazlitt had read Paine, which we suspect many glib
�16
A DEFENCE OF THOMAS PAINE.
critics of to-day have not; for we well remember how
puzzled some of them were to explain whence Shelley took
the motto “We pity the Plumage, but Forget the Dying
Bird” prefixed to his Address to the People on the death of
the Princess Charlotte. It was taken, as they should
have known, from one of the finest passages of the “ Rights
of Man.” Critics, it is well known, sometimes write as
Artemus Ward proposed to lecture on science, “ with an
imagination untrammeled by the least knowledge of the
subject.”
Let us close this vindication of Paine by citing the esti
mate of him formed by Walt Whitman, an authority not to
be sneered at now even by Athenaeum critics. In 1877 the
Liberal League of Philadelphia celebrated the 140th birthday
of Thomas Paine, and a large audience was gathered by the
announcement that Whitman would speak. The great
poet, according to the Index report, after telling how he had
become intimate with some of Paine’s friends thirty-five
years before, went on to say :—
“ I dare not say how much of what our Union is owning and
enjoying to-day, its independence, its ardent belief in, and sub
stantial practice of, Radical human rights, and the severance of
its Government from all ecclesiastical and superstitious dominion
—I dare not say how much of all this is owing to Thomas Paine ;
but I am inclined to think a good portion of it decidedly is. Of
the foul and foolish fictions yet told about the circumstances of
his decease, the absolute fact is that, as he lived a good life after
its kind, he died calmly, philosophically, as became him. He
served the embryo Union with the most precious service, a ser
vice that every man, woman, and child in the thirty-eight States
is to some extent receiving the benefit of to-day, and I for one
here cheerfully and reverently throw one pebble on the cairn of
his memory.”
We are content to let the reader decide between Whitman
and the Athenaeum critic in their respective estimates of him
who wrote, and as we think acted up to it—“ All the world
is my country, and to do good my religion.”
�FREETHOUGHT IN CURRENT LITERATURE.
31
Almost all the young school of poets are Freethinkers.
Browning, our greatest, and Tennyson, our most popular,
belong to a generation that is past. Mr. Swinburne is at
the head of the new school, and he is a notorious heretic.
He never sings more loftily, or with stronger passion, or
with finer thought, than when he arraigns and denounces
priestcraft and its superstitions before the bar of humanity
and truth.
The reception of Mr. Thomson’s poems and essays affords
another sign of the progress of Freethought. This gentle
man for many years contributed to secular journals under
the initials of “B. V.” He is a pronounced Atheist, and
makes no concealment of it in his poems. Yet, while a few
critics have expressed horror at his heresy, the majority
have treated it as extremely natural in an educated thought
ful man, and confined themselves to the task of estimating
the genius he has put into his work.
I must now draw to a close. Freethought, I hold, is an
omnipresent active force in the English literature of to-day.
It appears alike in the greatest works of scholarship, in the
writings of men of science, in the songs of poets, in the
productions of novelists, in the most respectable magazines,
and in the multitudinous daily press. It is urgent and aggres
sive, and tolerates no restraint. It indicates the progress
we have made towards that time when the mind of man
shall play freely on every subject, when no question shall be
thought too sacred to be investigated, when reason shall be
the sovereign arbiter of all disputes, when priestly authority
shall havq perished, when every man’s thought shall decide
his own belief, and his conscience determine the way in
which he shall walk.
�DEAN
STANLEY’S
LATEST.
(August, 1880.)
At one of Charles Lamb’s delightful Wednesday evenings
Coleridge had, as usual, consumed more than his fair share
of time in talking of some “ regenerated” orthodoxy. Leigh
Hunt, who was one of the listeners, manifested his surprise
at the prodigality and intensity of the poet’s religious ex
pressions, and especially at his always speaking of Jesus as
'• our Savior.” Whereupon Lamb, slightly exhilarated by
a glass of gooseberry cordial, stammered out, “ Ne—ne—
never mind what Coleridge says ; he’s full of fun.” This
jocular and irreverent criticism is perhaps, after all, the
most pertinent that can be passed on the utterances of this
school of “ regenerated orthodoxy.” Coleridge, who had un
bounded genius, and was intellectually capable of transform
ing British philosophy, went on year after year maundering
about his “ sumject” and “ omject,” mysteriously alluding
to his great projected work on the Logos, and assuring
everybody that he knew a way of bringing all ascertained
truth within the dogmas of the Church of England. His
pupil, Maurice, wasted a noble intellect (as Mill says, few of
his contemporaries had so much intellect to waste) in the
endeavor to demonstrate that the Thirty-Nine Articles really
anticipated all the extremest conclusions of modern thought;
afflicting himself perpetually, as has been well said, with
those “ forty stripes save one.” And now we have Dean
Stanley, certainly a much smaller man than Maurice, and
infinitely smaller than Coleridge, continuing the traditions
of the school, of which let us hope he will be the last
teacher. What his theology precisely is no mortal can
determine. He subscribes the doctrines of the Church of
England, but then he interprets them in an esoteric sense;
that is, of course, in a Stanleyan sense ; for when the letter
of doctrine is left for its occult meaning every man “ runs”
a private interpretation of his own. The Nineteenth
Century for August contains a characteristic specimen of
his exegesis. It is entitled “ The Creed of the Early
Christians,” but is really a sermon on the Trinity, which
doubtless has been preached at Westminster. We shall
�dean Stanley’s latest.
qq
examine its peculiarities and try to reach, its meaning ; a
task by no means easy, and one which we could pardon
anyone for putting aside with Lamb’s remark, “ It’s only
his fun.”
Dean Stanley has a new theory of the Trinity, partly de
duced from other mystics, and partly constructed on the
plan of the negro who explained that his wooden doll was
made “ all by myself, out of my own head.” God the
Father, in this as in other theories, comes first: not that
he is older or greater than the other persons, for they are all
three coequal and coeternal; but because you must have a
first for the sake of enumeration, or else the most blessed
Trinity would be like the Irishman’s little pig who ran about
so that there was no counting him. There is also another
reason. God the Father corresponds to Natural Religion,
which of course has priority in the religious development of
mankind ; coming before Revealed Religion, to which God
the Son corresponds, and still more before Spiritual Religion
to which corresponds the Holy Ghost.
“ We look round the physical world; we see indications of
order, design, and good will towards the living creatures which
animate it. Often, it is true, we cannot trace any such design ; but,
whenever we can, the impression upon us is the sense of a Single,
Wise, Beneficent Mind, the same now that it was ages before the
appearance of man—the same in other parts of the Universe as
it is in our own. And in our own hearts and consciences we
feel an instinct corresponding to this—a voice, a faculty, that
seems to refer us to a higher power than ourselves, and to point
to some Invisible Sovereign Will, like to that which we see im
pressed on the natural world. And further, the more we think
of the Supreme, the more we try to imagine what his feelings
are towards us, the more our idea of him becomes fixed as in
the one simple, all-embracing word that he is Our Father."
The words we have italicised say that design cannot
always be traced in nature. We should like to know where
it can ever be. Evolution shows that the design argument
puts the cart before the horse. Natural Selection, as Dr.
Schmidt appositely remarks, accounts for adaptation as a
result, without requiring the supposition of design as a
cause. And if you cannot deduce God from the animate
world, you are not likely to deduce him from the inanimate.
Dean Stanley himself quotes some remarkable words from
Dr. Newman’s Apologia—“ The being of a god is as certain
c
�34
DEAN" STANLEY S LATEST.
to me as the certainty of my own existence. Yet when I
look ont of myself into the world of men, I see a sight
which fills me with unspeakable distress. The world of men
seems simply to give the lie to that great truth of which my
whole being is so full. If I looked into a mirror and did
not see my face, I should experience the same sort of diffi
culty that actually comes upon me when I look into this
living busy world and see no reflection of its Creator.” How,
asks the Dean, is this difficulty to be met p Oh, he replies,
we must turn to God the Son in the person of Jesus Christ,
and his utterances will supplement and correct the uncertain
sounds of nature; and then there is the Holy Ghost to
finally supply all omissions, and clear up all difficulties.
Now to our mind this is simply intellectual thimble-rigging.
Or rather does it not suggest the three-card trick ? One
card is useless, two cards are unsafe, but with three cards to
shuffle you are almost sure to win. Dr. Newman gets his
God through intuition; he maintains that the existence of
God is a primary fact of consciousness, and entirely declines
the impossible task of proving it from the phenomena of
nature. Dean Stanley should do the same. It is not
honest to employ an argument and then shirk all the diffi
culties it raises by resorting to the theological three-card
trick, which confounds instead of satisfying the spectator,
while emptying his mental pockets of the good cash of com
mon sense.
The Dean’s treatment of God the Son is amusing. He
writes of Jesus Christ as though he were a principle instead
of a person. “The Mahometan,” he says, “ rightly objects
to the introduction of the paternal and filial relations into
the idea of God, when they are interpreted in the gross and
literal sense. But in the moral spiritual sense it is true that
the kindness, tenderness and wisdom we find in Jesus Christ
is the reflection of the same kindness, tenderness and wisdom
which we recognise in the governance of the universe.”
This may be called mysticism, but we think it moonshine.
Gross and literal sense, forsooth ! Why, was not Jesus Christ
a man, a most literal fact, “ gross as a mountain, open,
palpable ?” Dean Stanley approves the Mahometan’s objec
tion, and yet he knows full well that it contravenes a funda
mental dogma of the Christian Church, and is accounted a
most damnable heresy. Why this paltering with us in a
�35
DEAN STANLEY S LATEST.
double sense ? To our mind downright blatant orthodoxy,
which is at least honest if not subtle, is preferable to this
hybrid theology which attempts to reconcile contradictions
in order to show respect to truth while sticking to the fleshpots of error, and evades all difficulties by a patent and
patently dishonest method of “interpretation.”
Quoting Goethe’s “ Wilhelm Meister, ” Dean Stanley tells
us that one great benefit traceable to God the Son is the re
cognition of “humility and poverty, mockery and despising,
wretchedness and suffering, as divine.” Well, if these things
are divine, the sooner we all become devilish the better.
Nobody thinks them divine when they happen to himself;
on the contrary, he cries out lustily against them. But it is
a different matter when they happen to others. Then the
good Christian considers them divine. How easily, says a
French wit, we bear other people’s troubles ! Undistracted
by personal care, pious souls contemplate with serene resigna
tion the suffering of their neighbors, and acknowledge in
them the chastening hand of a Divine Father.
God the Holy Ghost represents Spiritual religion: the
Father represents God in Nature, the Son represents God
in History, and “ the Holy Ghost represents to us God in
our own hearts and spirits and consciences.” Here be
truths ! An illustration is given. Theodore Parker, wheD
a boy, took up a stone to throw at a tortoise in a pond, but
felt himself restrained by something within him; and that
something, as his mother told him, was the voice of God, or
in other words the Holy Ghost. Now if the Holy Ghost
is required to account for every kind impulse of boys and
men, there is required also an Unholy Ghost to account for
all our unkind impulses. That is, a place in theology must
be found for the Devil. The equilateral triangle of theology
must be turned into a square, with Old Nick for the fourth
side. But Dean Stanley does not like the Devil; he deems
him not quite respectable enough for polite society. Let
him, then, give up the Holy Ghost too, for the one is the
correlative of the other.
“ It may be,” says the Dean, after interpreting the Trinity,
“that the Biblical words in some respects fall short of this
high signification.” What, God’s own language inferior to
that of the Dean of Westminster ? Surely this is strange
arrogance, unless after all “ it’s only his fun.” Perhaps
c 2
�36
bean
Stanley’s latest.
that is how we should take it. Referring to some sacred
pictures in the old churches of the East on Mount Athos,
intended to represent the doctrine of the Trinity, the Dean
says that standing on one side the spectator sees only Christ
on the Cross, standing on the other he sees only the Holy
Dove, while standing in front he sees only the Eternal
Father. Very admirable, no doubt. But there is a more
admirable picture described by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his
“ Study of Sociology,” which graphically represents the
doctrine of the Trinity in the guise of three persons trying
to stand in one pair of boots !
Goethe is cited as a Christian, a believer in the Trinity.
Doubtless the Dean forgets his bitter epigram to the effect
that he found four things too hard to put up with, and as
hateful as poison and serpents; namely, tobacco, garlic,
bugs, and the Cross. Heine also is pressed into service,
and an excellent prose translation of one of his poems is
given, wherein he celebrates the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of
God. But Dean Stanley has read his Heine to little purpose
if he imagines that this radiant and splendid soldier of pro
gress meant by the Spirit of God the third person of the
Christian Trinity. Heine was no Christian, and the very
opposite of a theologian. We might translate passages of
scathing irony on the ascetic creed of the Cross from the
De L’Allemagne, but space does not admit. A few of
Heine’s last words must do instead. To Adolph Stahr he
said : “ For the man in good health Christianity is an un
serviceable religion, with its resignation and one-sided pre
cepts. For the sick man, however, I assure you it is a very
good religion.” To Alfred Meissner: “ When health is
used up, money used up, and sound human sense used up,
Christianity begins.” Once, while lying on his mattress
grave, he said with a sigh : “ If I could even get out on
crutches, do you know whither I would go ? Straight to
church.” And when his hearer looked incredulous, he
added : “ Most decidedly to church. Where else should one
go with crutches ?” Such exquisite and mordant irony is
strange indeed in a defender of the holy and blessed
Trinity.
Dean Stanley’s peroration runs thus :—“ Wherever we
are taught to know and understand the real nature of the
world in which our lot is cast, there is a testimony, however
�dean
Stanley’s
latest.
37
humble, to the name of the Father ; wherever we are taught
to know and admire the highest and best of human excel
lence, there is a testimony to the name of the Son:
wherever there is implanted in us a presence of freedom,
purity and love, there is a testimony to the name of the
Holy Ghost.” Very fine, no doubt; also very soporific.
One is inclined to mutter a sleepy Amen. If this passage
means anything at all it implies that all who know truth,
admire excellence, and have any share in freedom and
virtue, are testators to the names of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost; so that many Atheists are Trinitarians with
out knowing it. “ In Christianity,” says the Dean, “ no
thing is of real concern except that which makes us wiser
and better.” That is precisely what the sceptic says, yet
for that coroners reject his service on juries, and rowdy
Christians try to keep him out of Parliament when he has
•a legal right to enter. But the Dean adds : “ Everything
which does make us wiser and better is the very thing which
Christianity intends.” That is, Christianity means just
what you like to find in it. How can a man of Dean
Stanley’s eminence and ability write such dishonest trash ?
Must we charitably, though with a touch of sarcasm, repeat
Lamb’s words of Coleridge—“ Never mind; it’s only his
fun ?”
�GOD AND THE QUEEN.
(March, 1882.)
The Queen is now safely lodged at Mentone. Althoughthe political outlook is not very bright, there is pretty sure
to be a good solid majority to vote a dowry for Prince
Leopold’s bride ; and so long as royalty is safe it does not
ranch matter what becomes of the people. That dreadful
Bradlaugh is gagged; he cannot open his mouth in the
House of Commons against perpetual pensions or royal
grants. The interests of monarchy are in no immediate
peril, and so the Queen is off to Mentone.
Now she is gone, and the loyal hubbub has subsided, it
is just the time to consider her late “ providential escape ”
from the bullet which was never fired at her.
What is the meaning of providential ? God does all or
nothing. There is a special providence in the fall of a
sparrow, as well as in the fall of empires. In that case
everything is providential. But this is not the ordinary view.
When a railway accident occurs those who do not come to
grief ascribe their preservation to Providence. Who then
is responsible for the fate of those who perish ? Centuries
ago Christians would have answered, “ the Devil.” Now
they give no answer at all, but treat the question as frivo
lous or profane.
. Thomas Cooper, in his Autobiography, says that the per
fecting touch was given to his conversion by an interposition
of God. During a collision, the carriage in which he sat
was lifted clean on to another line of rails, and thus escaped
the fate of the other carriages, which were broken to
pieces. Pious Thomas recognised at once the finger of God,
and he there and then fell on his knees and offered up a
thanksgiving. He was too vain to carry his argument out
to its logical end. Why did the Lord protect him, and not
his fellow-travellers ? Was he of more importance than
any of the others ? And why, if it was right to thank God
for saving Thomas Cooper, would it be wrong to curse him
for smashing all the rest ?
This superstition of Providence is dying out. Common
�GOD AND THE QUEEN.
39
people are gradually being left to the laws of Nature. If a
workhouse were to catch on fire, no one would speak of
those who escaped the flames as providentially saved. God
does not look after the welfare of paupers; nor is it likely
that he would pluck a charwoman’s brat out of the fire if
it tumbled in during her absence. Such interpositions are
■ absurd. But with kings, queens, princes, princesses, and big
nobs in general, the case is different. God looks after the
quality. He stretches forth his hand to save them from
danger, from the pestilence that walketh by day and the
terror that walketh by night. And his worshippers take
just the same view of the “ swells.” When the Queen came
to London, a few weeks ago, one of her mounted attend
ants was thrown and badly hurt; and the next day one of
the loyal Tory papers reported that her Majesty had com
pletely recovered from the accident to her outrider !
But if the Lord overlooks the great ones of the earth, why
is he not impartial ? He did not turn aside Guiteau’s
bullet, nor did he answer the prayers of a whole nation on
its knees. President Garfield was allowed to die after a
long agony. Poor Mrs. Garfield believed up to the very
last minute that God would interpose and save her husband.
But he never did. Why was he so indifferent in this case ?
Was it because Garfield was a President instead of a King,
the elected leader of free men instead of the hereditary
ruler of political slaves ? Informer Newdegate would say
so. In his opinion God Almighty hates Republicans. Yet
the Bible clearly shows that the Lord is opposed to monarchy.
He gave his chosen people a king as a punishment, after •
plainly telling them what an evil they had sought; and
there is perhaps a covert irony in the story of Saul, the son
*' of Kish, who went to seek his father’s asses and found in
stead a nation of subjects—two-legged asses, who begged
him to mount them and ride.
Take another case. ' Why did God permit the Nihilists
to assassinate the late Czar of Russia ? All their previous
plots had failed. Why was the last plot allowed to succeed ?
There is only one answer. God had nothing to do with
any of them, and the last succeeded because it was better
devised and more carefully executed. If God protected
the Czar against their former attempts, they were too
many for him in the end; that is, they defeated Omni
�40
GOD AND THE QUEEN.
potence—an absurdity too flagrant for any sane naan to
believe.
Why should God care for princes more than for peasants,
for queens more than for washerwomen ? There is no
difference in their compositions ; they are all made of the
same flesh and blood. The very book these loyal gushers
call the Word of God declares that he is no respecter of
persons. What are the distinctions of rank and wealth ?
Mere nothings. Look down from an altitude of a thousand
feet, and an emperor and his subjects shall appear equally
small; and what are even a thousand feet in the infinite
universe? Nay, strip them of all their fictions of dress;
reduce them to the same condition of featherless bipeds;
and you shall find the forms of strength or beauty, and the
power of brain, impartially distributed by Nature, who is
the truest democrat, who raises her Shakespeares from the
lowest strata of society, and laughs to scorn the pride of
palaces and thrones.
Providence is an absurdity, a superstitious relic of the
ignorant past. Sensible men disbelieve it, and scientists
laugh it to scorn. Our very moral sense revolts against it.
Why should God help a few of his children and neglect all
the others ? Explosions happen in mines, and scores of honest
industrious men, doing the rough work of the world and
winning bread for wife and child, are blown to atoms or
hurled into shapeless death. God does not help them, and
tears moisten the dry bread of half-starved widows and
orphans. Sailors on the mighty deep go down with uplifted
hands, or slowly gaze their life away on the merciless
heavens. The mother bends over her dying child, the first
flower of her wedded love, the sweetest hope of her life.
She is rigid with despair, and in her hot tearless eyes there
dwells a dumb misery that would touch a heart of stone.
But God does not help, the death-curtain falls, and dark
ness reigns where all was light.
Who has the audacity to say that the God who will not
aid a mother in the death-chamber shelters the Queen upon
her throne ? It is an insult to reason and a ghastly mockery
of justice. The impartiality of Nature is better than the
mercy of such a God.
�CARDINAL NEWMAN ON INFIDELITY.
(ApriZ, 1882.)
Cardinal Newman is perhaps the only Catholic in England
worth listening to. He has immured his intellect in the
catacombs of the Romish Church, but he has not been able
to quench it, and even there it radiates a splendor through
the gloom. His saintly character is as indubitable as the
subtlety of his mind, and no vicissitude has impaired the
charm of his style, which is pure and perfect as an exquisite
and flawless diamond; serene and chaste in its usual mood,
but scintillating gloriously in the light of his imagina
tion.
On Sunday last Cardinal Newman preached a sermon at
the Oratory in Birmingham on “ Modern Infidelity.” Un
fortunately we have not a full report, from which we might
be able to extract some notable passages, but only a news
paper summary. Even this, however, shows some points of
interest.
Cardinal Newman told his hearers that “ a great storm of
infidelity and irreligion was at hand,” and that “ some
dreadful spiritual catastrophe was coming upon them.” We
quite agree with the great preacher ; but every storm is not
an evil, and every catastrophe is not a disaster. The revo
lutionary storm in France cleared the air of much pestilence.
It dissipated as by enchantment the h rrible cloud of
tyranny, persecution and want, which had for centuries
hovered over the land. And certainly, to go back a stage
farther in history, the Reformation was not a misfortune,
although it looked like a “spiritual catastrophe” to a great
many amiable people. The truth is, Revolutions must occur
in this world, both in thought and in action. They may
happen slowly, so that we may accommodate ourselves to
them; or rapidly, and so disturb and injure whole genera’
tions. But come they must, and no power can hinder them ;
not even that once mighty Church which has always striven
to bind Humanity to the past with adamantine chains of
dogma. In Cardinal Newman’s own words, from perhaps
his greatest and most characteristic book,—“ here below
�42
CARDINAL NEWMAN ON INFIDELITY.
to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed
often.”
We cannot say that Cardinal Newman indicates how
humanity will suffer from the “ coming storm of infidelity
and irreligion.” He does, indeed, refer to the awful state
of a people forsaken by God, but in our humble opinion
this is somewhat ludicrous. We can hardly understand
how God can forsake his own creatures. Why all this
pother if he really exists ? In that case our scepticism eannot affect him, any more than a man’s blindness obscures the
sun. And surely, if Omnipotence desired us all to believe
the truth, the means are ready to hand. The God who
said, Let there be light, and there was light, could as easily
say, Let all men be Christians, and they would be Chris
tians. If God had spoken the universe would be convinced ;
and the fact that it is not convinced proves, either that he
does not exist, or that he purposely keeps silent, and desires
that we should mind our own business-.
The only tangible evil Cardinal Newman ventures to
indicate is the “ indignity which at this moment has come
over the Holy Father at R ime.” He declares, as to the
Pope, that “there hardly seems a place in the whole of
Europe where he could put his foot.” The Catholics are
carrying this pretence of a captive Pope a trifle too far.
His Holiness must have a tremendous foot if he cannot put
it fairly down on the floor of the Vatican. He and his
Cardinals really wail over their loss of temporal power. It
would be wiser and nobler to reconcile themselves to the
inevitable, and to end the nefarious diplomacy by which they
are continually striving to recover what is for ever lost.
The whole world is aware of the scandalous misrule and
the flagrant immorality which, under the government of the
Papacy, made the Eternal City a byword and a reproach.
Under the secular government, Rome has made wonderful
progress. It has better streets, cleaner inhabitants, less
fever and filth, and a much smaller army of priests, beggars,
and prostitutes. Catholics may rest assured that the bad
old times will never return. They may, of course, promise
a reformation of manners if the Holy Father’s dominion is
restored, but the world will not believe them. Reforming
the Papacy, as Carlyle grimly said, is like tinkering a rusty
old kettle. If you stop up the holes of it with temporary
�CARDINAL NEWMAN ON INFIDELITY.
43
putty, it may hang together for awhile ; but “ begin to
hammer at it, solder it, to what you call mend and rectify
it,—it will fall to shreds, as sure as rust is rust; go all into
nameless dissolution,—and the fat in the fire will be a thing
worth looking at, poor Pope !”
As a sincere Christian (a very rare thing, by the way, in
these days), Cardinal Newman is bound to lament the spread
of infidelity. He is a keen observer, and his word may be
taken for the fact. A stormy time is undoubtedly coming.
Old creeds and institutions will have to give an account of
themselves, and nothing that cannot stand the test will live.
But truth will not suffer. Criticise the multiplication table
as much as you please, and twice two will still be four. In
the storm and stress of controversy what is true and solid
will survive; only the hollow shams of authority and
superstition will collapse. Humanity has nothing to fear,
however the Churches may groan.
�SUNDAY
TYRANNY.
(May, 1882.)
Last Sunday the myriads of Paris turned out to the Chan
tilly races. The sun shone brilliantly, and all went merry
as a marriage hell. Yet there was no drunkenness or dis
order ; on the contrary, the multitude behaved with such
decorum, that one English correspondent said it would not
have appeared strange if a bishop had stepped forward in
full canonicals to give them his benediction.
Why cannot Englishmen enjoy their Sunday’s leisure
like the French ? Because we are still under the bondage
of Puritanism ; because our religious dress is nothing but
Hebrew Old Clothes ; because we follow Moses instead of
Jesus ; because we believe that man was made for the
Sabbath, instead of the Sabbath for man • because, in short,
there are in England a lot of sour Christians who play the
dog in the manger, and will neither enjoy themselves on
Sunday nor let anyone else. They often prate about liberty,
but they understand it as the Yankee did, who defined it as
the right to do as he pleased and the right to make every
*
body else do so too.
Let us all be unhappy on Sunday, is the burden of "thensong. Now, we have no objection to their teing miserable,
it they desire it, on that or any other day. This is supposed
to be a free country ; you decide to be wretched and you
select your own time for the treat. But you have no right
to interfere with your neighbors. This, however, is what
the Christians, with their customary “ cheek,” will insist on
doing. They like going to the church and the public-house
on Sunday, and those establishments are permitted to open ;
they have no wish to go elsewhere, and so they keep all
other establishments closed. This is mere impudence.
Let them go where they choose, and allow the same freedom
to other people. Those who advocate a free Sunday ask for
no favor ; they demand justice. They do not propose to
compel any Christian to enter a museum, a library, or an
art gallery ; they simply claim the right to go in themselves.
�SUNDAY TYBANNY.
45-
The denial of that right is a violation of liberty, which every
free man is bound to resent.
This country is said to be civilised. To a certain extent
it is, but all our civilisation has been won against Chris
tianity and its hrutal laws. Our toiling masses, in factory,
mine, shop, and counting-house, have one day of leisure in
the week. Rightly considered it is of infinite value. It is
a splendid breathing-time. We cast off the storm and stress
of life, fling aside the fierce passion of gain, and let the
spirit of humanity throb in our pulses and stream from our
eyes. Our fellow man is no longer a rival, but a brother.
His gain is not our loss. We enrich each other by the
noble give-and-take of fellowship, and feel what it really
is to live. Yet our Christian legislature tries its utmost to
spoil the boon. It cannot prevent us from visiting each
other, or walking as far as our legs will carry us ; but
almost everything else is tabooed. Go to church, it says.
Millions answer, We are sick of going ; we have heard the
same old story until it is unspeakably stale, and many of
the sermons have been so frequently repeated that we
suspect they were bought by the dozen. Then it says, Go
to the public-house. But a huge multitude answer, We
don’t want to go there either, except for a minute to quench
our thirst; we have no wish for spirituous any more than
spiritual intoxication ; we desire some other alternative than
gospel or gin. Then our Christian legislature answers, You
are discontented fools. It crushes down their better aspi
rations, and condemns them to a wearisome inactivity.
Go through London, the metropolis of the world, as we
call it, on a Sunday. How utterly dreary it is ! The
shutters are all up before the gay shop-windows. You
pace mile after mile of streets, with sombre houses on either
hand as though tenanted by the dead. You stand in front
of the British Museum, and it looks as if it had been closed
since the date of the mummies inside. You yearn to walk
through its galleries, to gaze on the relics of antiquity, to
inspect the memorials of the dead, to feel the subtle links
that bind together the past and the present and make one
great family of countless generations of men. But you must
wander away disappointed and dejected. You repair to the
Kational Gallery. You long to behold the masterpieces of
art, to have your imagination quickened and thrilled by the
�46
SUNDAY TYRANNY.
glories of form and color, to look once more on Romo
favorite picture which touches your nature to its fineRt
issues. But again you are foiled. You desire to visit a
library, full of books you cannot buy, and there commune
with the great minds who have left their thoughts to
posterity. But you are frustrated again. You are cheated
out of your natural right, and treated less like a man than
a dog.
This Christian legislature has much to answer for.
Drunkenness is our great national vice. And how is it to
be overcome ? Preaching will not do it. Give Englishmen
a chance, furnish them with counter attractions, and they
will abjure intoxication like their continental neighbors.
Elevate their tastes, and they will feel superior to the vulgar
temptation of drink. Every other method has been tried
and has failed; this is the only method that promises success.
Fortunately the Sunday question is growing. Christian
tyranny is evidently doomed. Mr. Howard’s motion for
the opening of public museums and art galleries, although
defeated, received the support of eighty-five members of Par
liament. That minority will increase again next year, and
in time it will become a majority. Mr. Broadhurst, for
some peculiar reason, voted against it, but we imagine he
will some day repent of his action. The working-classes
are fools if they listen to the idle talk about Sunday labor,
with which the Tories and bigots try to bamboozle them.
The opening of public institutions on Sunday would not
necessitate a hundredth part of the labor already employed
in keeping open places of worship, and driving rich people
to and fro. All the nonsense about the thin end of the
wedge is simply dust thrown into their eyes. The very
people who vote against Sunday freedom under a pretence
of opposing Sunday labor, keep their own servants at work
and visit the “ Zoo” in the afternoon, where they doubtless
chuckle over the credulity of the lower orders. Christian
tyranny unites with Tory oppression to debase and enslave
the people. It is time that both were imperiously stopped.
The upper classes wish to keep us ignorant, and parsons
naturally want everybody else’s shutters up when they open
shop. We ought to see through the swindle. Let us check
their impudence, laugh at their hypocrisy, and rescue our
Sunday from their hands.
�WHO ARE THE BLASPHEMERS?
(June, 1882.)
Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a
crime they cannot commit. God is to them merely a word,
expressing all sorts of ideas, and not a person. It is,
properly speaking, a general term, which includes all that
there is in common among the various deities of the world.
The idea of the supernatural embodies itself in a thousand
ways. Truth is always simple and the same, but error is
infinitely diverse. Jupiter, Jehovah and Mumbo-Jumbo
are alike creations of human fancy, the products of ignor
ance and wonder. Which is the God is not yet settled.
When the sects have decided this point, the question may
take a fresh turn ; but until then god must be considered
as a generic term, like tree or horse or man; with just this
difference, however, that while the words tree, horse and
man express the general qualities of visible objects, the
word god expresses only the imagined qualities of some
thing that nobody has ever seen.
When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirises the
gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He
is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the
existence of any such being.
Ideas of god may be good or bad, beautiful or ugly; and
according as he finds them the Atheist treats them. If we
lived in Turkey we should deal with the god of the Koran,
but as we live in England we deal with the god of the
Bible. We speak of that god as a being, just for conveni
ence sake, and not from conviction. At bottom, we admit
nothing but the mass of contradictory notions between
Genesis and Revelation. We attack not a person but a
belief, not a being but an idea, not a fact but a fancy.
Lord Brougham long ago pointed out, in his “ Life of
Voltaire,” that the great French heretic was not guilty of
blasphemy, as his enemies alleged ; since he bad no belief
in the actual existence of the god he dissected, analysed and
laughed at. Mr. Ruskin very eloquently defends Byron
from the same charge. In “ Cain,” and elsewhere, the
�48
WHO ARE THE BLASPHEMERS ?
great poet does not impeach God ; he merely impeaches the
orthodox creed. We may sum up the whole matter briefly.
No man satirises the god he believes in, and no man
believes in the god he satirises.
We shall not, therefore, be deterred by the cry of “ blas
phemy,” which is exactly what the Jewish priests shouted
against Jesus Christ. If there is a God, he cannot be half
so stupid and malignant as the Bible declares. In de
stroying the counterfeit we do not harm the reality. And
as it is better, in the words of Plutarch, to have no notion
of the gods than to have notions which dishonor them we
are satisfied that the Lord (if he exist) will never burn us
in hell for denying a few lies told in his name.
S' The real blasphemers are those who believe in God and
*
blacken his character ; who credit him with less knowledge
than a child, and less intelligence than an idiot; who make
him quibble, deceive, and lie ; who represent him as in
decent, cruel, and revengeful; who give him the heart of a
savage and the brain of a fool. These are the blasphemers.
When the priest steps between husband and wife, with
the name of God on his lips, he blasphemes. When, in the
name of God, he resists education and science, he blas
phemes. When, in the name of God, he opposes freedom
of thought and liberty of conscience, he blasphemes.
When, in the name of God, he robs, tortures, and kills
those who differ from him, he blasphemes. When, in the
name of God, he opposes the equal rights of all, he blas
phemes. When, in the name of God, he preaches content
to the poor and oppressed, flatters the rich and powerful,
and makes religious tyranny the handmaiden of political
privilege, he blasphemes. And when he takes the Bible in
his hand, and says it was written by the inspiration of
God, he blasphemes almost beyond forgiveness.
Who are the blasphemers ? Not we who preach freedom
and progress for all men ; but those who try to bind the
world with chains of dogma, and to burden it, in God’s
name, with all the foul superstitions of its ignorant past.
�THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
(December, 1880.)
“ The time draws near, the birth of Christ,” as Tennyson
sings in “ In Memoriam,” and the pious followers of the
Nazarene will celebrate it with wonted orgies of pleasure.
The Incarnation will be pondered to the accompaniment
of roast beef, and the Atonement will play lambently
around the solid richness of plum-pudding. And thus
will be illustrated the biological truth that the stomach
is the basis of everything, including religion.
But while Christians comport themselves thus in pre
sence of the subtlest mysteries of faith, the Sceptic
cannot be without his peculiar reflections.
He, of
course, knows that the festal observance of this season is
far more ancient than Christianity ; but he naturally wonders
how people, who imagine it to be a unique feature of their
sublimely spiritual creed, remain contented with its extremely
sensual character. They profess to believe that the fate of
the whole human race was decided by the advent of the
Man of Sorrows ; yet theyi£ommemorate that event by an
unhealthy consumption of tqa meat which perisheth, and a
wild indulgence in the frivolousqfleasures of that carnal mind
which is at enmity with God. Astonished at such conduct,
the Sceptic muses on the inconsistency of mankind. He may
also once more consider the circumstances of the birth of
Christ and its relation to the history of the modern world.
Jesus, called the Christ, is popularly supposed to have been
of the seed of David, from whi‘Bh it was promised that the
Messiah should come. It is, however, perfectly clear that
he was in no-wise related to the man after G-od’s own heart
His putative father, Joseph, admittedly had no share in
bringing him into the world ; for he disdained the assistance
of a father, although he was unable to dispense with that of
a mother. But Joseph, and not Mary, according to the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke, was the distant blood
relation of David; and therefore Jesus was not of the seed
of the royal house, but a bastard slip grafted on the ancient
family-tree by the Holy Ghost. It is a great pity that
D
�50
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
newspaper correspondents did not exist in those days. Had
Joseph been skilfully “interviewed,” it is highly probable
that the world would have been initiated into his domestic
secrets, and enlightened as to the paternity of Mary’s
eldest son. The Holy Ghost is rather too shadowy a
peisonage to be the father of a lusty boy, and no young lady
would be credited in this age if she ascribed to him the
authorship of a child born out of wedlock. Mbst assuredly
no . magistrate would make an order against him for its
. maintenance. Even a father of the Spiritualist persuasion,
who believed in what is grandly called “ the materialisation
of spirit forms,” would probably be more than dubious if his
daughter were to present him with a grandson whose father
lived on the other side of death and resided in a mansion not
made with hands. It is, we repeat, to be for ever regretted
that poor Joseph has not left his version of the affair. The
Immaculate Conception might perhaps have been cleared
up, and theology relieved of a half-obscene mystery, which
has unfortunately perverted not a few minds.
The birth of Jesus was announced to “wise men from the
East ” by the appearance of a singular star. Is not this a
relic of astrology ? Well does Byron sing—
“ Ye stars ! which are the poetry of heaven,
If in your bright beams we would read the fate
Of men and empires, ’tis to be forgiven,
That in our aspirations to be great
Our destinies o’erleap their mortal state,
And claim a kindred with you ; for ye are
A beauty and a mystery, and create
In us such love and reverence from afar
That fortune, fame, power, life, have named themselves a
star.”
But this star was the most wonderful on record. It “ went
before ” the wise men, and “ stood over where the young
child was.” Such an absurdity could be related and credited
only by people who conceived of the sky as a solid vault, not
far distant, wherein all the heavenly bodies were stuck.
The present writer once asked an exceedingly ignorant and
simple man where he thought he would alight if he dropped
from the comet then in the sky. “ Oh,” said he, naming the
open space nearest his own residence, “ somewhere about
Finsbury Circus.” That man’s astronomical notions were
�THE BIRTH OE CHRIST.
51
very imperfect, but they were quite as good as those of the
person who seriously wrote, and of the persons who seriously
believe, this fairy tale of the star which heralded the birth of
Christ.
Luke’s version of the episode differs widely from Matthew’s.
He makes no reference to “ wise men from the East,” but
simply says that certain “ shepherds” of the same country,
who kept watch over their flock by night, were visited by
“ the angel of the Lord,” and told that they would find the
Savior, Christ the Lord, just born at Bethlehem, the City
of David, “ wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a
manger.” Luke does not, as is generally supposed, represent
Mary as confined in a stable because Joseph 'was too poor to
pay for decent accommodation, but because “ there was no
room for them in the inn.” It is perfectly consistent with
all the Gospel references to Joseph’s status to assume that
he carried on a flourishing business, and Jesus himself in
later years might doubtless have earned a good living in the
concern if he had not deliberately preferred to lead the life
of a mendicant preacher. This, however, is by the way.
Cur point is that Luke says nothing about the “ star ” or
the “wise men from the East,” who had an important inter
view with Herod himself; while Matthew says nothing
about the “ manger ” or the shepherds and their angelic
visitors. Surely these discrepancies on points so important,
and as to which there could be little mistake, are enough to
throw discredit on the whole story.
It is further noticeable that Luke is absolutely silent about
Herod’s massacre of the innocents. What can we think of
his reticence on such a subject ? Had the massacre occurred,
it would have been widely known, and the memory of so
horrible a deed would have been vivid for generations.
Matthew, or whoever wrote the Gospel which bears his name,
is open to suspicion. His mind was distorted by an intense
belief in prophecy, a subject which, as old Bishop South
said, either finds a man cracked or leaves him so. After
narrating the story of Herod’s massacre, he adds : “ Then
was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy, the prophet,
saying,” etc. Now, he makes similar reference to prophecy
no less than five times in the first two chapters, and in each
case we find that the “prohetical” utterance referred to
has not the faintest connexion with the incident related.
d 2
�52
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
Besides, a man who writes history with one eye on his own
period, and the other on a period centuries anterior is not
likely to be veracious, however earnestly he may intend to.
There is an early tradition, which is as strong as any state
ment about the history of the Primitive Church, that
Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew ; and it
has been supposed that the writer gratuitously threw in
these references to Jeremy and others, in order to please the
Jews, who were extremely fond of prophecy. But this supposition is equally fatal to his credibility as an historian.
In any case, the Evangelists differ so widely on matters of
such interest and importance that we are constrained to dis
credit their story. It is evidently, as scholarship reveals, a
fairy tale, which slowly gathered round the memory of
Jesus after his death. Some of its elements were creations
of his disciples’ fancy, but others were borrowed from the
mythology of more ancient creeds.
Yet this fairy tale is accepted by hundreds of millions of
men as veritable history. It is incorporated into the founda
tion of Christianity, and every year at this season its in
cidents are joyously commemorated. How slowly the world
of intelligence moves ! But let us not despair. Science and
scholarship have already done much to sap belief in this
supernatural religion, and we may trust them to do still
more. They will ultimately destroy its authority by refuting
its pretensions, and compel it to take its place among the
general multitude of historic faiths.
If Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Deliverer, why
is the world still so full of sin and misery ? The Redeemer
has come, say the Christians. Yes, we reply, but when
will come the redemption ? Apostrophising Jesus in his
lines “ Before a Crucifix,” Mr. Swinburne reminds him that
“ the nineteenth wave of the ages rolls now usward since thy
birth began,” and then inquires :—
“ Hast thou fed full men’s starved-out souls,
Or are there less oppressions done
In this wide world under the sun ?”
Only a negative answer can be given. Christ has in no
wise redeemed the world. He was no god of power, but a
weak fallible man like ourselves ; and his cry of despair on
the cross might now be repeated with tenfold force. The
�THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
53
older myth, of Prometheus is truer and more inspiring than
the myth of Christ. If there be gods, they have never
yielded man aught of their grace. All his possessions have
been cunningly, patiently, and valorously extorted from the
powers that be, even as Prometheus filched the fire from
heaven. In that realm of mythology, whereto all religions
will eventually be consigned, Jesus will dwindle beneath
Prometheus. One is feminine, and typifies resigned sub
mission to a supernatural will ; the other is masculine, and
typifies that insurgent audacity of heart and head, which has
wrested a kingdom of science from the vast empire of
nescience, and strewed the world with the wrecks of theo
logical power.
�THE REIGN OF CHRIST.
(January
1880.J
Christmas and Easter are fruitful in panegyrics on Jesus
and the religion which fraudulently bears his name. On
these occasions, not only the religious but even the secular
newspapers give the rein to their rhetoric and imagination,
and indulge in much fervid eloquence on the birth or the
crucifixion of the Nazarene. Time-honored platitudes are
brought out from their resting-places and dexterously moved
to a well-known tune; and fallacies which have been
refuted ad nauseam are paraded afresh as though their
logical purity were still beyond suspicion. Papers that differ
on all other occasions and on all other subjects concur then,
and “ when they do agree their unanimity is wonderful.'’
While the more sober and orthodox discourse in tones
befitting their dignity and repute, the more profane riotously
join in the chorus ; and not to be behind the rest, the noto
riously misbelieving Greatest Circulator orders from the
profanest member of its staff “ a rousing article on the
Crucifixion,” or on the birth of Jesus, as the case may be.
All this, however, is of small account, except as an indica
tion of the slavery of our “ independent” journals to Bumble
and his prejudices, before whom they are obliged to masque
rade when he ordains a celebration of his social or religious
rites. But here and there a more serious voice is heard
through the din, with an accent of earnest veracity, and not
that of an actor playing a part. Such a voice may be worth
listening to, and certainly no other can be. Let us heai’ the
Rev. J. Baldwin Brown on “ The Reign of Christ.” He is.
I believe, honorably distinguished among Dissenters; his
sermons often bear marks of originality; and the goodness
of his heart, whatever may be thought of the strength of his.
head, is sufficiently attested by his emphatic revolt against
the doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell.
Before criticising Mr. Brown’s sermon in detail I cannot
help remarking that it is far too rhetorical and far too
empty of argument. Sentimentality is the bane of religion
in our day; subservience to popularity degrades the pulpit
�THE REIGN OF CHRIST.
55
as it degrades the press. If we desire to find the language
of reason in theology, we must seek it in the writings of
such men as Newman, who contemplate the ignorant and
passionate multitude with mingled pity and disdain. The
“ advanced ” school of theologians, from Dean Stanley to
the humblest reconciler of reason and faith, are sentimen
talists almost to a man ; the reason being, I take it, that
although their emotional tendencies are very admirable, they
lack the intellectual consistency and rigor which impel
others to stand on definite first principles, as a sure basis of
operation and an impregnable citadel against attack. Mr.
Brown belongs to this “ advanced ” school, and has a
liberal share of its failings. He is full of eloquent passages
that lead to nothing, and he excites expectations which are
seldom if ever satisfied. He faces stupendous obstacles
raised by reason against his creed, and just as we look to
see him valiantly surmount them, we find that he veils them
from base to summit with a dense cloud of words, out of
which his voice is heard asking us to believe him on the
other side. Yet of all men professional students of the
Bible should be freest from such a fault, seeing what a
magnificent, masterpiece it is of terse and vigorous simplicity.
Mr. Brown and his “advanced” friends would do well to
ponder that quaint and pregnant aphorism of old Bishop
Andrewes—“ Waste words addle questions'’ When I first
read it I was thrown into convulsions of laughter, and even
now it tickles my risibility ; but despite its irresistible quaint
ness I cannot but regard it as one of the wisest and pithiest
sentences in our literature. Dr. Newman has splendidly
amplified it in a passage of his “University Sermons,”
which I gratuitously present to Mr. Brown and every reader
who can make use of it:—“ Half the controversies in the
world are verbal ones ; and could they be brought to a plain
issue, they would be brought to a prompt termination.
Parties engaged in them would then perceive, either that in
substance they agreed together, or that their difference was
one of first principles. This is the great object to be aimed
at in the present age, though confessedly a very arduous
one. We need not dispute, we need not prove,—we need
but define. At all events, let us, if we can, do this first of
all; and then see who are left for us to dispute with, and
what is left for us to prove.”
�56
THE REIGN OF CHRIST.
Mr. Brown’s sermon on “ The Reign of Christ ” is
preached from a verse of St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,
wherein Jesus is styled “The blessed and only Potentate.”
From this “ inspired ” statement he derives infinite consola
tion. This, he admits, is far from being the best of all
possible worlds, for it is full of strife and cruelty, the wail
of anguish and the clamor of frenzy ; but as Christ is “ the
blessed and only Potentate,” moral order will finally be
evolved from the chaos and good be triumphant over evil.
Now the question arises: Who made the chaos and who is
responsible for the evil ? Not Christ, of course : Mr. Brown
will not allow that. Is it the Devil then ? Oh no! To
say that would be blasphemy against God. He admits,
however, that the notion has largely prevailed, and has even
been formulated into religious creeds, “ that a malignant
spirit, a spirit who loves cursing as God loves blessing, has
a large and independent share in the government of the
world.” But, he adds, “ in Christendom men dare not say
that they believe it, with the throne of the crucified and
risen Christ revealed in the Apocalypse to their gaze.”
Ordinary people will rub their eyes in sheer amazement at
this cool assertion. Is it not plain that Christians in all
ages have believed in the power and subtlety of the Devil
as God’s sleepless antagonist ? Have they not held, and do
they not still hold, that he caused the Fall of Adam and
Eve, and thus introduced original sin, which was certain to
infect the whole human race ever afterwards until the end
of time ? Was not John Milton a Christian, and did he not
in his “Paradise Lost” develope all the phases of that
portentous competition between the celestial and infernal
powers for the virtual possession of this world and lordship
over the destinies of our race ? If we accept Mr. Brown’s
statements we shall have to reverse history and belie the
evidence of our senses.
But who is responsible for the moral chaos and the exist
ence of evil ? That is the question. If to say Christ is
absurd, and to say the Devil blasphemy, what alternative is
left ? The usual answer is : Man’s freewill. Christ as “ the
blessed and only Potentate ” leaves us liberty of action, and
our own evil passions cause all the misery of our lives. But
who gave us our evil passions ? To this question no answer
s vouchsafed, and so we are left exactly at the point from
�THE REIGN OF CHRIST.
57
which we started. Yet Mr. Brown has a very decided opinion
as to the part these “ evil passions ” play in the history c f
mankind. He refers to them as “ the Devil’s brood of lust
and lies, and wrongs and hates, and murderous passion and
insolent power, which through all the ages of earth’s sad
history have made it liker hell than heaven.” No Atheist
could use stronger language. Mr. Brown even believes that
our “ insurgent lusts and passions ” are predetermining causes
of heresy, so that in respect both to faith and to works they
achieve our damnation. How then did we come by them ?
The Evolutionist frankly answers the question without fear
of blasphemy on the one hand or of moral despair on the
other. Mr. Brown is bound to give his answer after raising
the question so vividly. But he will not. He urges that it
“ presents points of tremendous difficulty,” although “ we
shall unravel the mystery, we shall solve the problems in
God’s good time.” Thus the solution of the problem is to
be postponed until we are dead, when it will no longer
interest us. However convenient this may be for the
teachers of mystery, it is most unsatisfactory to rationalists.
Mr. Brown must also be reminded that the “ tremendous
difficulties ” he alludes to are all of his own creation. There is
no difficulty about any fact except in relation to some theory.
It is Mr. Brown’s theory of the universe which creates the
difficulties. It does not account for all the facts of existence
—nay, it is logically contravened by the most conspicuous
and persistent of them. Instead of modifying or transform
ing his theory into accordance with the facts, he rushes off
with it into the cloud-land of faith. There let him remain
as he has a perfect right to. Our objection is neither to
reason nor to faith, but to a mischievous playing fast and
loose with both.
Mr. Brown opines that Christ will reign until all his
enemies are under his feet. And who are these enemies ?
Not the souls of men, says Mr. Brown, for Christ “ loves
them with an infinite tenderness.” This infinite tenderness
is clearly not allied to infinite power or the world’s anguish
would long since have been appeased and extinguished, or
never have been permitted to exist at all. The real enemies
of Christ are not the souls of men, but “ the hates and
passions which torment them.” Oh those hates and passions!
They are the dialectical balls with which Mr. Brown goes
�58
THE REIGN OF CHRIST.
through his performance in that circle of petitio principii so
hated by all logicians, the middle sphere of intellects too
light for the solid earth of fact and too gross for the aerial
heaven of imagination.
It will be a fitting conclusion to present to Mr. Brown a
very serious matter which he has overlooked. Christ,
“ the blessed and only Potentate,” came on earth and origi
nated the universal religion nearly two thousand years ago.
Up to the present time three-fourths of the world’s inhabitants
are outside its pale, and more than half of them have never
heard it preached. Amongst the quarter which nominally
professes Christianity disbelief is spreading more rapidly
than the missionaries succeed in converting the heathen; so
that the reign of Christ is being restricted instead of in
creased. To ask us, despite this, to believe that he is God,
and possessed of infinite power, is to ask us to believe a
marvel compared with which the wildest fables are credible,
and the most extravagant miracles but as dust in the
balance.
�THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
(^September, 1880.)
A bishop once twitted a curate with preaching indifferent
orthodoxy. “ Well,” answered the latter, “ I don’t see how
you can expect me to be as orthodox as yourself. I believe
at the rate of a hundred a year, and you at the rate of ten
thousand.” In the spirit of this anecdote we should expect
an archbishop to be as orthodox as the frailty of human
nature will allow. A man who faithfully believes at the
rate of fifteen thousand a year should be able to swallow
most things and stick at very little. And there can be no
doubt that the canny Scotchman who has climbed or wrig
gled up to the Archbishopric of Canterbury is prepared to
go any lengths his salary may require. We suspect that he
regards the doctrines of the Church very much as did that
irreverent youth mentioned by Sidney Smith, who, on being
asked to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, replied “ Oh yes,
forty if you like.” The clean linen of his theology is im
maculately pure. Never has he fallen under a suspicion of
entertaining dangerous or questionable opinions, and he has
in a remarkable degree that faculty praised by Saint Paul
of being all things to all men, or at least as many men as
make a lumping majority. What else could be expected
from a Scotchman who has mounted to the spiritual Primacy
of England ?
His Grace has recently been visiting the clergy and
churchwardens of his diocese and delivering what are called
Charges to them. The third of these was on the momentous
subject of Modern Infidelity, which seems to have greatly
exercised his mind. This horrid influence is found to be very
prevalent, much to the disconcertion of his Grace, who felt
constrained to begin his Charge with expressions of des
pondency, and only recovered his spirits towards the end,
where he confidently relies on the gracious promise of Christ
never to forsake his darling church. Some of the admissions
he makes are worth recording—
“I can,” he says, “have no doubt that the aspect of Christian
society in the present day is somewhat troubled, that the Church
�■60
THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
of Christ and the faith of Christ are passing through a great
trial in all regions of the civilised world, and not least among our
selves. There are dark clouds on the horizon already breaking,
which may speedily burst into a violent storm .... It is
well to note in history how these two evils—superstition and
infidelity—act and react in strengthening each other. Still, I
cannot doubt that the most [? more] formidable of the two for us
at present is infidelity...................... It is indeed a frightful
thought that numbers of our intelligent mechanics seem to be
alienated from all religious ordinances, that our Secularist halls
are well filled, that there is an active propagandism at work for
shaking belief in all creeds.”
These facts are of course patent, but it is something to
get an Archbishop to acknowledge them, His Grace also
finds “from above, in the regions of literature and art,
efforts to degrade mankind by denying our high original
the high original being, we presume, a certain simple pair
called Adem and Eve, who damned themselves and nearly
the whole of their posterity by eating an apple six thousand
years ago. The degradation of a denial of this theory is
hardly perceptible to untheological eyes. Most candid minds
would prefer to believe in Darwin rather than in Moses even
if the latter had, which he has not, a single leg to stand on.
For the theory of our Simian origin at least involves pro
gression in the past and perhaps salvation in the future of
our race, while the “ high original ” theory involves our re
trogression and perdition. His grace wonders how these
persons can “ confine their hopes and aspirations to a life
which is so irresistibly hastening to its speedy conclusion.”
But surely he is aware that they do so for the very simple
reason that they know nothing of any other life to hope
about or aspire to. One bird in the hand is worth twenty
in the bush when the bush itself remains obstinately invisible,
and if properly cooked is worth all the dishes in the world
filled only with expectations. His grace likewise refers to
the unequal distribution of worldly goods, to the poverty and
misery which exist “ notwithstanding all attempts to regene
rate society by specious schemes of socialistic reorganisation.”
It is, of course, very natural that an archbishop in the en
joyment of a vast income should stigmatise these “specious
schemes ” for distributing more equitably the good things of
this world; but the words “ blessed be ye poor ” go ill to
the tune of fifteen thousand a year, and there is a grim irony
�THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
61
in the fact that palaces are tenanted by men who profess to
represent and preach the gospel of him who had not where to
lay his head. Modern Christainity has been called a civilised
heathenism; with no less justice it might be called an
organised hypocrisy.
After a dolorous complaint as to the magazines “lying
everywhere for the use of our sons and daughters,” in which
the doctrines both of natural and of revealed religion are
assailed, the Archbishop proceeds to deal with the first great
form of infidelity, namely Agnosticism. With a feeble
attempt at wit he remarks that the name itself implies a
confession of ignorance, which he marvels to find unaccom
panied by “ the logical result of a philosophical humility.”
A fair account of the Agnostic position is then given, after
which it is severely observed that “ the better feelings of man
contradict these sophisms.” In proof of this, his Grace
cites the fact that in Paris, the “stronghold of Atheistical
philosophy,” the number of burials that take place without
religious rites is “a scarcely appreciable percentage.” We
suspect the accuracy of this statement, but having no
statistics on the subject by us, we are not prepared to
dispute it. We will assume its truth ; but the important
question then arises—What kind of persons are those who
dispense with the rites of religion ? Notoriously they are
men of the highest intellect and character, whose quality far
outweighs the quantity of the other side. They are the
leaders of action and thought, and what they think and do
to-day will be thought and done by the masses to-morrow.
When a man like Gambetta, occupying such a high position
and wielding such immense influence, invariably declines to
enter a church, whether he attends the marriage or the
funeral of his friends, we are entitled to say that his ex
ample on our side is infinitely more important than the
practice of millions who are creatures of habit and for the
most part blind followers of tradition. The Archbishop’s
argument tells against his own position, and the fact he cites,
when closely examined, proves more for our side than he
thought it proved for his own.
Atheism is disrelished by his Grace even more than
Agnosticism. His favorite epithet for it is “ dogmatic.”
“ Surely,” he cries, “ the boasted enlightenment of this
century will never tolerate the gross ignorance and arrogant
�62
THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
self-conceit which presumes to dogmatise as to things con
fessedly beyond its ken.” Quite so; but that is what the
theologians are perpetually doing. To use Matthew Arnold’s
happy expression, they talk familiarly about God as though
he were a man living in the next street. The Atheist and
the Agnostic confess their inability to fathom the universe
and profess doubts as to the ability of others. Yet they are
called dogmatic, arrogant, and self-conceited. On the other
hand, the theologians claim the power of seeing ih/rough
nature up to nature’s God. Yet they, forsooth, must be ac
counted modest, humble, and retiring.
wad some pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see usI”
“O
These abominable Atheists are by no means scarce, for,
says his Grace, “ practical Atheists we have everywhere, if
Atheism be the denial of God.” Just so ; that is precisely
what we “ infidels ” have been saying for years. Chris
tianity is utterly alien to the life of modern society, and in
flagrant contradiction to the spirit of our secular progress.
It stands outside all the institutions of our material civilisa
tion. Its churches still echo the old strains of music and
the old dogmatic tones from the pulpit, but the worshippers
themselves feel the anomaly of its doctrines and rites when
they return to their secular avocations. The Sunday does
nothing but break the continuity of their lives, steeping
them in sentiments and ideas which have no relation to their
experience during the rest of the week. The profession of
Christendom is one thing, its practice is another. God is
simply acknowledged with the lips on Sunday, and on every
other day profoundly disregarded in all the pursuits of life
whether of business or of pleasure. Even in our national
legislature, although the practice of prayer is still retained,
any man would be sneered at as a fool who made the least
appeal to the sanctions of theology. An allusion to the
Sermon on the Mount would provoke a smile, and a citation
of one of the Thirty-nine Articles be instantly ruled as
irrelevant. Nothing from the top to the bottom of our
political and social life is done with any reference to those
theological doctrines which the nation professes to believe,
and to the maintenance of which it devotes annually so
many millions of its wealth.
�THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
63
In order to pose any member of the two great divisions of
“ infidelity,” the Archbishop advises his clergy to ask the
following rather comical questions :—
“Do you believe nothing which is not capable of being tested
by the ordinary rules which govern experience in things natural ?
How then do you know that you yourself exist ? How do you
know that the perceptions of your senses are not mere delusions,
and that there is anything outside you answering to what your
mind conceives? Have you a mind? and if you have not,
what is it that enables you to think and reason, and fear, and
hope ? Are these conditions of your being the mere results of
your material organism, like the headache which springs from
indigestion, or the high spirits engendered by too much wine ?
Are you something better than a vegetable highly cultivated, or
than your brothers of the lower animals ? and, if so, what is it
that differentiates your superiority ? Why do things outside you
obey your will ? Who gave you a will ? and, if so, what is it ?
I think you must allow that intellect is a thing almost divine, if
there be anything divine ; and I think also you must allow that
it is not a thing to be propagated as we propagate well-made and
high-bred cattle. Whence came Alexander the Great ? Whence
Charlemagne? And whence the First Napoleon? Was it
through a mere process of spontaneous generation that they
sprang up to alter by their genius and overwhelming will the
destinies of the world? Whence came Homer, Shakespeare,
Bacon ? Whence came all the great historians ? Whence came
Flato and all the bright lights of divine philosophy, of divinity,
■of poetry ? Their influence, after all, you must allow to be quite
as wide and enduring as any produced by the masters of those
positive material sciences which you worship. Do you think that
all these great minds—for they are minds, and their work was
not the product of a merely highly organised material frame—
were the outcome of some system of material generation, which
your so-called science can subject to rule, and teach men how to
produce by growth, as they grow vegetables?”
The Archbishop is not a very skilful physician. His pre
scription shows that he has not diagnosed the disease.
These strange questions might strike the infidel “ all of a
heap/’ as the expressive vernacular has it, but although
they might dumbfounder him, they would assuredly not con
vince. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were not so exalted
a personage we should venture to remark that to ask a man
how he knows that he exists betrays a marvellous depth of
ignorance or folly. Ultimate facts of consciousness are not
subjects of proof or disproof ; they are their own warranty
�64
TUE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
and cannot be transcended. There is, besides, something ex
traordinary in an archbishop of the church to which
Berkeley belonged supposing that extreme idealism follows
only the rejection of deity. Whether the senses are after all
delusory does not matter to the Atheist a straw ; they are
real enough to him, they make his world in which he lives
and moves, and it is of no practical consequence whether
they mirror an outer world or not. What differentiates you
from the lower animals ? asks his Grace. The answer is
simple—a higher development of nervous structure. Who
gave you a will ? is just as sensible a question as Who gave
you a nose ? We have every reason to believe that both
can be accounted for on natural grounds without introducing
a supernatural donor. The question whether Alexander,
Napoleon, Homer, Bacon and Shakespeare came through a
process of spontaneous generation is excruciatingly ludicrous.
That process could only produce the very lowest form of
organism, and not a wonderfully complex being like man
who is the product of an incalculable evolution. But the
Archbishop did not perhaps intend this ; it may be that in
his haste to silence the “ infidel ” he stumbled over his own
meaning. Lastly, there is a remarkable naïveté in the aside
of the final question—•“ for they are minds.” He should
have added “ you know,” and then the episode would have
been delightfully complete. The assumption of the whole
point at issue in an innocent parenthesis is perhaps to be ex
pected from a pulpiteer, but it is not likely that the “ infidel”
will be caught by such a simple stratagem. All these
questions are so irrelevant and absurb that we doubt whether
his Grace would have the courage to put one of them to any
sceptic across a table, or indeed from any place in the world
except the pulpit, which is beyond all risk of attack, and
whence a man may ask any number of questions without
the least fear of hearing one of them answered.
The invitation given by his grace, to “ descend to the
harder ground of strictest logical argumentation,” is very
appropriate.
Whether the movement be ascending or
descending, there is undoubtedly a vast distance be
tween logical argumentation and anything he has yet
advanced. But even on the “ harder ” ground the Arch
bishop treads no more firmly. He demands to know how
the original protoplasm became endowed with life, and if
�65
THE PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
that question cannot be answered he calls upon us to admit
his theory of divine agency, as though that made the subject
more intelligible. Supernatural hypotheses are but refuges
of ignorance. Earl Beaconsfield, in his impish way, once
remarked that where knowledge ended religion began, and
the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to share that opinion.
His Grace also avers that “ no one has ever yet been able
to refute the argument necessitating a great First Cause.”
It is very easy to assert this, but rather difficult to main
tain it. One assertion is as good as another, and we shall
therefore content ourselves with saying that in our opinion
the argument for a great First Cause was (to mention only
one name) completely demolished by John Stuart Mill, who
showed it to be based on a total misconception of the nature
of cause and effect, which apply only to phaenomenal changes
and not to the apparently unchangeable matter and force of
which the universe is composed.
But the overwhelming last argument is that “ man has
something in him which speaks of God, of something above
this fleeting world, and rules of right and wrong have their
foundation elsewhere than in man’s opinion .... that
there is an immutable, eternal distinction between right and
wrong—that there is a God who is on the side of right.”
Again we must complain of unbounded assertion. Every
point of this rhetorical flourish is disputed by “ infidels ”
who are not likely to yield to anything short of proof. If
God is on the side of right he is singularly incapable of
maintaining it; for, in this world at least, according to some
penetrating minds, the devil has hitherto had it pretty much
his own way, and good men have had to struggle very hard
to make things even as equitable as we find them. But
after all, says his Grace, the supreme defence of the Church
against the assaults of infidelity is Christ himself. Weak
in argument, the clergy must throw themselves behind his
shield and trust in him. Before his brightness “ the mists
which rise from a gross materialistic Atheism evaporate,
and are scattered like the clouds of night before the dawn.”
It is useless to oppose reason to such preaching cs this. We
shall therefore simply retort the Archbishop’s epithets.
Gross and materialistic are just the terms to describe a
religion which traffics in blood and declares that without the
shedding of it there is no remission of sin; whose ascetic
E
�66
TUB PRIMATE ON MODERN INFIDELITY.
doctrines malign our purest affections and defile the sweetest
fountains of our spiritual health ; whose heaven is nothing
but an exaggerated jeweller’s shop, and its hell a den of
torture in which God punishes his children for the conse
quences of his own ignorance, incapacity or crime.
�BAITING
A
BISHOP.
(^February, 1880.)
Bishops should speak as men having authority, and not as
the Scribes and Pharisees. Even the smallest of them should
be a great man. An archbishop, with fifteen thousand a
year, ought to possess a transcendent intellect, almost be
yond comprehension ; while the worst paid of all the reverend
fathers of the Church, with less than a fifth of that salary,
ought to possess no common powers of mind. The Bishop
of Carlisle is not rich as bishops go, but he enjoys a yearly
income of ¿£4,500, besides the patronage of forty-nine
livings. Now this quite equals the salary of the Prime
Minister of the greatest empire in the world, and the Bishop
of Carlisle should therefore be a truly great man. We regret
however, to say that he is very much the reverse, if we may
judge from a newspaper report which has reached us of his
lecture on “Man’s Place in Nature,” recently delivered
before the Keswick Scientific and Literary Society. News
paper reports, we know, are often misleading in consequence
of their summary character; nevertheless two columns of
small type must give some idea of a discourse, however ab
struse or profound; here and there, if such occured, a fine
thought or a shrewd observation would shine through the
densest veil. Yet, unless our vision be exceptionally obtuse,
nothing of the kind is apparent in this report of the Bishop’s
lecture. Being, as his lordship confessed, the development
of “ a sermon delivered to the men at the Royal Agricul
tural Society’s Show last summer,” the lecture was perhaps,
like the sermon, adapted to the bucolic mind, and thus does
meagre justice to the genius of its author. His lordship,
however, chose to read it before a society with some pre
tentions to culture, and therefore such a plea cannot avail.
As the case stands, we are constrained to accuse the bishop
of having delivered a lecture on a question of supreme im
portance, which would do little credit to the president of a
Young Men’s Christian Asssciation ; and when we reflect
that a parson occupied the chair at the meeting, and that
the vote of thanks to the episcopal lecturer was moved by
e 2
�68
BAITING A BISHOP.
a canon, who coupled with it some highly complimentary
remarks, we are obliged to think the Church more short of
brains than even we had previously believed, and that Mene,
Mene, Tekel, Upharsin has already been written on its
temple walls by the finger of doom.
Very early in his lecture the Bishop observed that “the
Scriptures are built on the hypothesis of the supreme and
unique position of man.” Well, there is nothing novel in
this statement. What we wrnnt is some proof of the hypo
thesis. His lordship’s way of supplying this need is, to say
the least, peculiar. After saying that “he would rather
trust the poet as an exponent of man than he would a student
of natural history,” he proceeds to quote from Shakespeare,
Pope and Plato, and ends that part of his argument with a
rhetorical flourish, as though he had thus really settled the
whole case of Darwin versus Moses. Our reverence of great
poets is probably as deep and sincere as the Bishop’s, but we'
never thought of treating them as scientific authorities, or
as witnesses to events that happened hundreds of thousands
of years before their birth. Poets deal with subjective facts
of consciousness, or with objective facts as related to these.
The dry light of the intellect, radiated from the cloudless
sun of truth, is not their proper element, but belongs ex
clusively to the man of science. They move in a softer
element suffused with emotion, whose varied clouds are by
the sun of imagination touched to all forms of beauty and
splendor. The scientific man’s description of a lion, for
instance, would be very different from a poet’s ; because the
one would describe the lion as it is in itself, and the other
as it affects us, a living whole, through our organs of sight
and sound. Both are true, because each is faithful to its
purpose and expresses a fact; yet neither can stand for the
other, because they express different facts and are faithful
to different purposes. Shakespeare poetically speaks of
“the ruddy drops that visit this sad heart,” but the scientific
truth of the circulation of the blood had to await its Harvey.
In like manner, it was not Milton but Newton who ex
pounded the Cosmos ; the great poet, like Dante before
him, wove pre-existent cosmical ideas into the texture of his
sublime epic, while the great scientist wove all the truth of
them into the texture of his sublime theory. Let each
receive his meed of reverent praise, but do not let us appeal
�BAITING A BISHOP.
69
to Newton on poetry or to Milton on physics. And when a
Bishop of Carlisle, or other diocese, complains that “ the
views advanced by scientific men tend painfully to degrade
the views of poets and philosophers,” let us reply that in
almost every case the great truths of science have been
found to transcend infinitely the marvels of theology, and
that the magnificence of song persists through all fluctua
tions of knowledge, because its real cause lies less in the
subject than in the native grandeur of the poet’s mind.
Man’s place in nature is, indeed, a great question, and it
can be settled only by a wide appeal to past and present
facts. And those facts, besides being objective realities,
must be treated in a purely scientific, and not in a poetic
or didactic spirit. Let the poet sing the beauty of a con
summate flower; and, if such things are required, let the
moralist preach its lessons. But neither should arrogate
the prerogative of the botanist, whose special function it is
to inform us of its genesis and development, and its true
relations to other forms of vegetable life. So with man.
The poet may celebrate his passions and aspirations, his joys
and sorrows, his laughter and tears, and ever body forth
anew the shapes of things unseen ; the moralist may employ
every fact of his life to illustrate its laws or to enforce its
duties ; but they must leave it to the biologist to explain his
position in the animal economy, and the stages by which it
has been reached. With regard to that, Darwin is authori
tative, while Moses is not even entitled to a hearing.
Although the Bishop is very ready to quote from the
poets, he is not always ready to use them fairly. For
instance, he cites the splendid and famous passage in
“ Hamlet“ What a piece of work is man I How noble
in reason ! How infinite in faculties ! in form and moving,
how express and admirable! in action, how like an angel!
in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world !
the paragon of animals !” There his lordship stops, and then
exclaims, “ Shakespeare knew nothing of the evolution of
man from inferior forms.” But why did he not continue
the quotation ? Hamlet goes on to say, “ And yet, what to
me is this quintessence of dust?” How now, your lordship ?
We have you on the hip! “Quintessence of dust” comes
perilously near to evolution. Does not your lordship re
member, too, Hamlet’s pursuing the dust of Caesar to the
�70
BAITING A BISHOP.
ignominious bunghole ? And have you never reflected how
the prescient mind of Shakespeare created an entirely new
and wonderful figure in literature, the half-human, halfbestial Caliban, with his god Setebos—a truly marvellous
resuscitation of primitive man, that in our day has inspired
Mr. Browning’s “ Caliban on Setebos,” which contains the
entire essence of all that Tylor and other investigators in
the same field have since written on the subject of Animism ?
It seems that the Lord Bishop of Carlisle reads even the
poets to small purpose.
Haughtily waving the biologists aside, his lordship proceeds
to remark that “ man’s superiority is not the same that a dog
would claim over a lobster, or an eagle over a wormthe
difference between man and other animals being “ not one of
degree, but of kind.” Such a statement, without the least
evidence being adduced to support it, places the Bishop
almost outside the pale of civil discussion. When will these
lordly ecclesiastics learn that the time for dogmatic assertion
is past, and that the intellectual temper of the present age
can be satisfied only by proof? We defy the Bishop of
Carlisle to indicate a single phase of man’s nature which
has no parallel in the lower animals. Man’s physical
structure is notoriously akin to theirs, and even his brain
does not imply a distinction of kind, for every convolution of
the brain of man is reproduced in the brain of the higher
apes. His lordship draws a distinction between instinct and
reason, which is purely fanciful and evinces great ignorance
of the subject. That, however, is a question we have at
present no room to discuss ; nor, indeed, is there any neces
sity to do so, since his lordship presently admits that the
lower animals share our “ reason ” to some extent, just as to
a much larger extent we share their “ instinct,” and thus
evacuates the logical fortress he took such pains to construct.
Quitting that ground, which proves too slippery for his
feet, the Bishop goes on to notice the moral and aesthetic
difference between man and the lower animals. No animal,
says his lordship, shows “ anything approaching to a love of
art.” Now we are quite aware that no animal except man
ever painted a picture or chiselled a statue, for these things
involve a very high development of the artistic faculty. But
the appreciation of form and color, which is the foundation
of all fine art, is certainly manifested by the lower animals,
�BAITING A BISHOP.
71
and by some ofathem to an extreme degree. If his lordship
doubts this, let him study the ways of animals for himself;
or, if' he cannot do that, let him read the chapters in Mr.
Darwin’s “ Descent of Man ” on sexual selection among
birds. If he retains any doubt after that, we must conclude
that his head is too hard or too soft to be influenced, in either
of which cases he is much to be pitied.
His lordship thinks that the moral sense is entirely absent
in the lower animals. This, however, is absurdly untrue;
so much so, indeed, that we shall not trouble to refute it.
Good and noble, he avers, are epithets inapplicable to animals,
even to the horse or dog. What vain creatures men are to
talk thus! Does his lordship remember Byron’s epitaph on
his Newfoundland dog, and the very uncomplimentary dis
tinction drawn therein between dogs and men ? Look at
that big pet with the lordly yet tender eye! How he
submits to the boisterous caresses of children, because he
knows their weakness and shares their spirit of play ! Let
their elders do the same, and he will at once show resent
ment. See him peril his life ungrudgingly for those he loves,
or even for comparative strangers ! And shall we deny him
the epithet of noble or good ? Whatever theologians may
say, the sound heart of common men and women will answer
No!
Lastly, we are told that “ the religious sentunent is cha
racteristically and supremely human.” But here again we
must complain of his lordship’s mental confusion. The re
ligious sentiment is not a simple but a highly complex
emotion. Resolve it into its elemental feelings, and it will
be found that all these are possessed in some degree by lower
animals. The feeling of a dog who bays the moon is pro
bably very similar to that of the savage who cowers and
moans beneath an eclipse; and if the savage has supersti
tious ideas as well as awesome feelings, it is only because
he possesses a higher development of thought and imagina
tion.
Canon Battersby, who moved the vote of thanks to the
Bishop, ridiculed the biologists, and likened them to Topsy
who accounted for her existence by saying “ Specs I growed.”
Just so. That is precisely how we all did come into
■existence. Growth and not making is the law for man as
well as for every othei’ form of life. Moses stands for
�72
BAITING A BISHOP.
manufacture and Darwin stands for growth. And if the
great biologist finds himself in the company of Topsy, he will
not mind. Perhaps, indeed, as he is said to enjoy a joke and
to be able to crack one, might he jocularly observe to
“ tremendous personages ” lihe the Bishop of Carlisle, that
this is not the first instance of truths being hidden from the
“ wise ” and revealed unto babes.
�PROFESSOR FLINT ON ATHEISM.
(January^ 1877.)
Professor Flint delivered last week the first of the present
year’s course of Baird lectures to a numerous audience in
Blythswood Church, Glasgow, taking for his subject ‘u The
Theories opposed to Theism.” Anti-Theism, he said, is more
general now than Atheism, and includes all systems opposed
to Theism. Atheism he defined as “ the system which teaches
that there is no God, and that it is impossible for man to
know that there is a God.” At least this is how Professor
Flint is reported in the newspapers, although we hope he was
not guilty of so idiotic a jumble.
Where are the Atheists who say there is no God ? What
are their names ? Having mingled much with thorough
going sceptics, and read many volumes of heretical literature,
we can confidently defy Professor Flint to produce the names
of half a dozen dogmatic Atheists, and we will give him the
whole world’s literature to select from. Does he think that
the brains of an Atheist are addled ? If not, why does he
make the Atheist first affirm that there is no God, and then
affirm the impossibility of man’s ever knowing whether thereis a God or not? How could a man who holds his judgment
in suspense, or who thinks the universal mystery insoluble to
us, dogmatise upon the question of God’s existence? If
Professor Flint will carefully and candidly study sceptical
literature, he will find that the dogmatic Atheist is as rare as
the phoenix, and that those who consider the extant evidences
of Theism inadequate, do not go on to affirm an universal
negative, but content themselves with expressing their
ignorance of Nature’s why. Foi’ the most part they endorse
Thomas Cooper’s words, “ I do not say there is no God, but
this I say, I know not.” Of course this modesty of affirma
tion may seem impiously immodest to one who has been
trained and steeped in Theism so long that the infinite
universe has become quite explicable to him; but to the
sceptic it seems more wise and modest to confess one’s igno
rance, than to make false pretensions of knowledge.
Professor Flint “ characterised the objections which
�74
PROFESSOR FLINT ON ATHEISM.
Atheism urges against the existence of God as extremely
feeble.” Against the existence of what God ? There be
Gods many and Lords many; which of the long theological
list is to be selected as the God ? A God, like everything
else from the heights to the depths, can be known only by
his attributes; and what the Atheist does is not to argue
against the existence of any God, which would be sheer
lunacy, but to take the attributes affirmed by Theism as
composing its Deity and inquire whether they are compatible
with each other and with the facts of life. Finding that
they are not, the Atheist simply sets Theism aside as not
proven, and goes on his way without further afflicting him
self with such abstruse questions.
The Atheist must be a very dreary creature, thinks Pro
fessor Flint. But why ? Does he know any Atheists, and has
hefound them one half as dreary as Scotch Calvinists ? It
may seem hard to the immoderately selfish that some Infinite
Spirit is not looking after their little interests, but it is
•assuredly a thousandfold harder to think that this Infinite
Spirit has a yawning hell ready to engulph the vast majority
•of the world’s miserable sinners. If the Atheist has no
heaven, he has also no hell, which is a most merciful relief.
Far better were universal annihilation than that even the
meanest life should writhe for ever in hell, gnawed by the
worm which never dieth, and burnt in the fire which is never
quenched.
Even Nature, thinks Professor Flint, cannot be contem
plated by the Atheist as the Theist contemplates it; for
while the latter views it as God’s vesture wherewith he hides
from us his intolerable glory, the latter views it as the mere
embodiment of force, senseless, aimless, pitiless, an enormous
mechanism grinding on of itself from age to age, but to
wards no God and for no good. Here we must observe
that the lecturer trespasses beyond the truth. The Atheist
•does not affirm that Nature drives on to no God and no
good; he simply says he knows not whither she is driving.
And how many Theists are there who think of God in the
presence of Nature, who see God’s smile in the sunshine, or
hear his wrath in the storm ? Very few, we opine, in this
practical sceptical age. To the Atheist as to the Theist, in
deed to all blessed with vision, Nature is an ever new
wonder of majesty and beauty. Sun, moon, and stars,
�PROFESSOR FLINT ON ATHEISM.
75
earth, air, and sky, endure while the generations of men pass
and perish; but every new generation is warmed, lighted,
nurtured and gladdened by them with most sovereign and
perfect impartiality. The loveliness and infinite majesty of
Nature speak to all men, of all ages, climes and creeds. Not
in her inanimate beauty do we find fatal objections to the
doctrine of a wise and bountiful power which overrules her,
but rather in the multiplied horrors, woes, and pangs of
sentient life. When all actual and recorded misery is effaced,
when no intolerable grief corrodes and no immedicable
despair poisons life, when the tears of anguish are assuaged,
when crime and vice are unknown and unremembered, and
evil lusts are consumed in the fire of holiness ; then, and
then only, could we admit that a wise and righteous omni
potence rules the universal destinies. Until then we cannot
recognise the fatherhood of God, but must find shelter and
comfort in the more efficacious doctrine of the brotherhood
of Man.
Professor Flint concluded his lecture, according to the
newspaper report, thus :—“ History bears witness that the
declension of religion has ever been the decline of nations,
because it has ever brought the decay of their moral life;
■and people have achieved noble things only when strongly
animated by religious faith.” All this is very poor stuff
indeed to come from a learned professor. What nation has
declined because of a relapse from religious belief ? Surely
not Assyria, Egypt, Greece, or Carthage ? In the case of
Rome, the decline of the empire was coincident with the
rise of Christianity and the decline of Paganism ; but the
Roman Empire fell abroad mainly from political, and not
from religious causes, as every student of history well knows.
Christianity, that is the religion of the Bible, has been
dying for nearly three centuries ; and during that period,
instead of witnessing a general degradation of mankind we
have witnessed a marvellous elevation. The civilisation of
to-day, compared with that which existed before Secular
Science began her great battle with a tyrannous and obscu
rantist Church, is as a summer morn to a star-lit winter
night.
Again, it is not true that men have achieved noble things
only when strongly animated by religious faith ; unless by
“ religious faith ” be meant some vital idea or fervent enthu-
�76
FliOFESSOll FLINT ON ATHEISM.
siasm. The three hundred Spartans who met certain death
at Thermopylae died for a religious idea, but not for a
theological idea, which is a very different thing. They
perished to preserve the integrity of the state to which they
belonged. The greatest Athenians were certainly not re
ligious in Professor Flint’s sense of the word, and the grand
old Roman patriots had scarcely a scintillation of such a
religious faith as he speaks of. Their religion was simply
patriotism, but it was quite as operant and effective as
Christian piety has ever been. Was it religious faith or
patriotism which banded Frenchmen together in defiance of
all Europe, and made them march to death as a bridegroom
hastens to his bride ? And in our own history have not our
greatest achievers of noble things been very indifferent to
theological dogmas? Nay, in all ages, have not the noblest
laborers for human welfare been impelled by an urgent
enthusiasm of humanity rather than by any supernatural
faith ? Professor Flint may rest assured that even though
all “ the old faiths ruin and rend,” the human heart will
still burn, and virtue and beauty still gladden the earth,
although divorced from the creeds which held them in the
thraldom of an enforced marriage.
�A
HI D D E N
GOD.
(Oo/o&er, 1879.)
The Christian World is distinguished among religious jour
nals by a certain breadth and vigor. On all social and
political subjects it is remarkably advanced and outspoken,
and its treatment of theological questions is far more liberal
and intelligent than sceptics would expect. Of late years it
has opened its columns to correspondence on many topics,
some of a watery character, like the reality of Noah’s flood,
and others of a burning kind, like the doctrine of eternal
punishment, on all of which great freedom of expression has
been allowed. The editor himself, who is, we suspect, far
more sceptical than most of his readers, has had his say on
the question of Hell, and it is to be inferred from his some
what guarded utterance that he has little belief in any such
place. This, however, we state with considerable hesitation,
for the majority of Christians still regard the doctrine of
everlasting torture as indubitable and sacred, and we have
no desire to lower him in the estimation of the Christian
world in which he labors, or to cast a doubt on the ortho
doxy of his creed. But the editor will not take it amiss
if we insist that his paper is liberal in its Christianity, and
unusually tolerant of unbelief.
Yet, while entitled to praise on his ground, the Christian
World deserves something else than praise on another. It
has recently published a series of articles for the purpose of
stimulating faith and allaying doubt. If undertaken by a
competent writer, able and willing to face the mighty differ
ence between Christianity and the scientific spirit of our age,
such a series of articles might be well worth reading. We
might then admire if we could not agree, and derive benefit
from friendly contact with an antagonist mind. But the
writer selected for the task appears to possess neither of
these qualifications. Instead of thinking he gushes ; instead
of reason he supplies us with unlimited sentiment. We
expect to tread solid ground, or at least to find it not
perilously soft; and lo ! the soil is moist, and now and then
we find ourselves up to the knees in unctuous mud. How
�78
A HIDDEN GOD.
difficult it is nowadays to discover a really argumentative
Christian! The eminent favorites of orthodoxy write
sentimental romances and call them “ Lives of Christ,” and
preach sermons with no conceivable relation to the human
intellect; while the apologists of faith imitate the tactics of
the cuttle-fish, and when pursued cast out their opaque fluid
of sentimentality to conceal their position. They mostly
dabble in the shallows of scepticism, never daring to venture
in the deeps ; and what they take pride in as flashes of
spiritual light resembles neither the royal gleaming of the sun
nor the milder radiance of the moon, but rather the phos
phorescence of corruption.
In the last article of the series referred to, entitled
“ Thou art a God that Hidest Thyself,” there is an abund
ance of fictitious emotion and spurious rhetoric. From
beginning to end there is a painful strain that never relaxes,
reminding us of singers who pitch their voices too high and
have to render all the upper notes in falsetto. An attempt
is made to employ poetical imagery, but it ludicrously fails.
The heaven of the Book of Revelation, with its gold and
silver and precious stones, is nothing but a magnified
jeweller’s shop, and a study of it has influenced the style of
later writers. At present Christian gushers have descended
still lower, dealing not even in gold and j'ewels, but in Brum
magem and paste. The word gem is greatly in vogue.
Talmage uses it about twenty times in every lecture, Parker
delights in it, and it often figures on the pages of serious
books. In the article before us it is made to do frequent
service. A promise of redemption is represented as shining
(¡rem-like on the brow of Revelation, Elims gem the dark
bosom of the universal desert, and the morning gleams on
the tew-gemmed earth. Perhaps a good recipe for this kind
of composition would be an hour’s gloat on the flaming
window of a jeweller’s shop in the West End.
But let us deal with the purport and purpose of the
article. It aims at showing that God hides himself, and
why he does so. The fact which it is attempted to explain
none will deny. Moses ascended Mount Sinai to see God and
converse with him, Abraham and God walked and talked
together, and according to St. Paul the Almighty is not far
from any one of us. But the modern mind is not prone to
believe these things. The empire of reason has been en-
�A HIDDEN GOD.
79
larged at the expense of faith, whose provinces have one after
another been annexed until only a small territory is left her,
and that she finds it dificult to keep. Coincidently, God
has become less and less a reality and more and more
a dream.
The reign of law is perceived everywhere,
and all classes of phsenomena may be explained without
recourse to supernatural power. When Napoleon objected
to Laplace that divine design was omitted from his
mechanical theory of the universe, the French philosopher
characteristically replied: “I had no need of that hypo
thesis.” And the same disposition prevails in other depart
ments of science. Darwin, for instance, undertakes to
explain the origin and development of man, physical, intel
lectual and moral, without assuming any cause other than
those which obtain wherever life exists. God is being slowly
but surely driven from the domain of intermediate causes,
and transformed into an ultimate cause, a mere figment of
the imagination. He is being banished from nature into that
poetical region inhabited by the gods of Polytheism, to keep
company there with Jupiter and Apollo and Neptune and
Juno and Venus, and all the rest of that glorious Pantheon.
He no longer rules the actual life and struggle of the world,
but lives at peace with his old rivals in—
“ The lucid interspace of world and world,
Where never creeps a cloud or moves a wind,
Nor ever falls the least white star of snow,
Nor ever lowest roll of thunder moans;
Nor sound of human sorrow mounts, to mar
Their sacred everlasting calm.”*
The essence of all this is admitted by the writer in the
Christian World; he admits the facts, but denies the infer
ence. They show us one of God’s ways of hiding himself.
Order prevails, but it is the expression of God’s will, and not
a mere result of the working of material forces. He operates
by method, not by caprice, and hence the unchanging
stability of things. While doing nothing in particular, he
does everything in general. And this idea must be extended
to human history. God endows man with powers, and
allows him freedom to employ them as he will. But,
strangely enough, God has a way of “ruling our freedom,”
Tennyson: “ Lucretius.'
�.80
A HIDDEN GOD.
and always there is “a restraining and restoring hand.”
How man’s will can be free and yet overruled passes our
merely carnal understanding, although it may be intelligible
■ enough to minds steeped in the mysteries of theology.
According to this writer, God’s government of mankind is
a “ constitutional kingdom.” Quite so. It was once
arbitrary and despotic; now it is fai' milder and less ex
acting, having dwindled into the “constitutional” stage,
wherein the King reigns but does not govern. Will the law
of human growth and divine decay stop here ? We think
not. As the despotism has changed to a constitutional
monarchy, so that will change to a republic, and the
empty throne be preserved among other curious relics of
the past.
God also hides himself in history. Although unapparent
on the surface of events, his spirit is potent within them.
“ What,” the writer asks, “ is history—with all its dark
passages of horror, its stormy revolutions, its ceaseless
conflict, its tears, its groans, its blood—but the chronicle
of an ever-widening realm of light, of order, of intelligence,
wisdom, truth, and charity ?” But if we admit the progress,
we need not explain it as the work of God. Bunsen wrote
a book on “ God in History,” which a profane wag said
should have been called “ Bunsen in Historyyet his
attempt to justify the ways of God to men was not very
successful. It is simply a mockery to ask us to believe
that the slow progress of humanity must be attributed to
omniscient omnipotence. A God who can evolve virtue
and happiness only out of infinite evil and misery, and
elevate us only through the agency of perpetual blood and
tears, is scarcely a being to be loved and worshipped, unless
we assume that his power and wisdom are exceedingly
limited. Are we to suppose that God has woven himself
a garment of violence, evil, and deceit, in order that we
might not see too clearly his righteousness, goodness, and
truth ?
It must further be observed that Christian Theists cannot
be permitted to ascribe all the good in the world to God,
and all the evil to man, or else leave it absolutely un
explained. In the name of humanity we protest against
this indignity to our race. Let God be responsible for good
and evil both, or for neither; and if man is to considei’
�81
A HIDDEN GOD.
himself chargeable with all the world’s wrong, he should at
least be allowed credit for all the compensating good.
The theory of evolution is being patronised by Theists
rather too fulsomely. Not long ago they treated it with
obloquy and contempt, but now they endeavor to use it as
an argument for their faith, and in doing so they distort
language as only theological controversialists can. Changing
“ survival of the fittest ” into “survival of the bestfi they
transform a physical fact into a moral law ; and thus, as they
think, take a new north-west passage to the old harbor
zof “whatever is is right.” But while evolution may be
•construed as progress, which some would contest, it cannot,
be construed as the invariable survival of the best; nor, if
it were, could the process by which this result is achieved
be justified. For evolution works through a universal
struggle for existence, in which the life and well-being of
Some can be secured only through the suffering and final
extinction of others ; and even in its higher stages, cunning
and unscrupulous strength frequently overcomes humane
wisdom fettered by weakness. “Nature, red in tooth and
•claw, with ravin shrieks against the creed ” of the Theist.
If God is working through evolution, we must admit that
he has marvellously hidden himself, and agree with the
poet that he does “ move in a mysterious way his wonders
to perform.”
The writer in the Christian_ World borrows an image
from the puling scepticism of “In Memoriam,” which
describes man as
“ An infant crying in the night,
And with no language but a cry.”
This image of the infant is put to strange use. The writer
says that God is necessarily hidden from us because we can
grasp “ his inscrutable nature and methods ” only as “ an
infant can grasp the thought and purpose of a man.”
Similes are dangerous things. When it is demanded that they
shall run upon all fours, they often turn against their mas
ters. This one does so. The infant grows into a man in
due course, and then he can not only grasp the thought and
purpose of his father, but also, it may be, comprehend still
greater things. Will the infant mind of man, when it
reaches maturity, be thus related to God’s ? If not, the
F
�82
A HIDDEN GOD.
analogy is fallacious. Man is quite mature enough already,
and has been so for thousands of years, to understand
something of God’s thought and purpose if he had only
chosen to reveal them. This, however, if there be a God,
he has not condescended to do. An appeal to the various
pretended revelations of the world serves to convince us
that all are the words of fallible men. Their very dis
cord discredits them. As D’Holbach said, if God had
spoken, the universe would surely be convinced, and the
same conviction would fill every breast.
The reason given for God’s hiding himself is very curious.
“ If,” says the writer, “ the way of God were not in large
measure hidden, it would mean that we could survey all
things from the height and the depth of God.” Truly an
awful contemplation! May it not be that God is hidden
from us because there is none to be revealed, that “ all the
oracles are dumb or cheat because they have no secret to
express ” ?
But, says the writer in the Ghristian World, there is one
revelation of God that can never be gainsaid; “ while the
Cross stands as earth’s most sacred symbol, there can be no
utter hiding of his love.” This, however, we venture to
dispute. That Cross which was laid upon the back of Jesus
poor mankind has been compelled to carry ever since, with
no Simon to ease it of the load. Jesus was crucified on
Calvary, and in his name man has suffered centuries of
crucifixion. The immolation of Jesus can be no revelation
of God’s love. If the Nazarene was God, his crucifixion
involves a complicated arrangement for murder; the Jews
who demanded his death were divinely instigated, and Judas
Iscariot was pre-ordained to betray his master; in which
case his treachery was a necessary element of the drama,
entitling him not to vituperation but to gratitude, even
perhaps to the monument which Benjamin Disraeli sug
gested as his proper reward. Looking also at the history of
Christianity, and seeing how the Cross has sheltered op
pressors of mind and body, sanctioned immeasurable shed
ding of blood, and frightened peoples from freedom, while
even now it symbolises all that is reactionary and accursed
in Europe, we are constrained to say that the love it reveals
is as noxious as the vilest hate.
�GENERAL
JOSHUA.
(April, 1882.)
Mountebank Talmage has just preached a funeral sermon
on General Joshua. It is rather behind date, as the old
warrior has been dead above three thousand years. But
better late than never. Talmage tells us many things about
Joshua which are not in the Bible, and some sceptics will
say that his panegyric is a sheer invention. They may,
however, be mistaken. The oracle of the Brooklyn Jabbernacle is known to be inspired. God holds converse with
him, and he is thus enabled to supply us with fresh facts
about Jehovah’s fighting-cock from the lost books of Jasher
and the Wars of the Lord.
Joshua, says Talmage, was a magnificent fighter. We
say, he was a magnificent butcher. Jehovah did the fight
ing. He was the virtual commander of the Jewish hosts;
he won all their victories ; and Joshua only did the slaughter.
He excelled in that line of business. He delighted in the
dying groans of women and children, and loved to dabble
his feet and hands in the warm blood of the slain. No
“ Chamber of Horrors ” contains the effigy of any wretch
half so bloodthirsty and cruel.
According to Talmage, Joshua “always fought on the
right side.” Wars of conquest are never right. Thieving
other people’s lands is an abominable crime. The Jews had
absolutely no claim to the territory they took possession of,
and which they manured with the blood of its rightful
owners. We know they said that G-od told them to requisition
that fine little landed estate of Canaan. Half the thieves
in history have said the same thing. We don’t believe them.
God never told any man to rob his neighbor, and whoever
says so lies. The thief’s statement does not suffice. Let
him produce better evidence. A rascal who steals and
murders cannot be believed on his oath, and ’tis more likely
that he is a liar than that God is a scoundrel.
Talmage celebrates “five great victories ” of Joshua. He
omits two mighty achievements. General Joshua circum
cised a million and a half Jews in a single day. His greatest
F 2
�84
GENERAL JOSHUA.
battle never equalled that wonderful feat. The amputations
were done at the rate of over a thousand a minute. Samson’s
jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua’s knife. This surprising
old Jew was as great in oratory as in surgery. On one
occasion he addressed an audience of three millions, and
everyone heard him. His voice must have reached two or
three miles. No wonder the walls of Jericho fell down
when Joshua joined in the shout. We dare say the Jews
wore ear-preservers to guard their tympanums against the
dreadful artillery of his speech.
Joshua’s first victory, says Talmage, was conquering the
spring freshet of Jordan. As a matter of fact, Jehovah
transacted that little affair. See, says Talmage, “ one mile
ahead go two priests carrying a glittering box four feet long
and two feet wide. It is the Ark of the Covenant.” He
forgets to add that the Jew God was supposed to be inside
it. Jack in the box is nothing to God in a box. What
would have happened if the Ark had been buried with
Jehovah safely fastened in? Would his godship have
mouldered to dust? In that case he would never have
seduced a carpenter’s wife, and there would have been no
God the Son as the fruit of his adultery.
Talmage credits General Joshua with the capture of
Jericho. The Bible says that Jehovah overcame it. Seven
priests went blowing rams’ horns round the city for seven
days. On the seventh day they went round it seven times.
It must have been tiresome work, for Jericho was a large
city several miles in circumference. But priests are always
good “Walkers.” After the last blowing of horns all the
Jews shouted “ Down Jericho, down Jericho!” This is
Talmage’s inspired account. The Bible states nothing of
the kind. Just as the Islamites cry “ Allah, Il Allah,” it is
probable that the Jews cried “ Jahveh, Jahveh.” But Talmage
and the Bible both agree that when their shout rent the air
the walls of Jericho fell flat—as flat as the fools who be
lieve it.
Then, says Talmage, “ the huzza of the victorious
Israelites and the groan of the conquered Canaanites com
mingle !” Ah, that groan ! Its sound still curses the Bible
God. Men, women and children, were murdered. The
very cattle, sheep and asses, were killed with the sword.
Only one woman’s house was spared, and she was a harlot.
�GENERAL JOSHUA.
85
It is as if the German army took Paris, and killed every
inhabitant except Cora Pearl. This is inspired war, and
Talmage glories in it. He would consider it an honor to be
bottle-washer to such a pious hero as General Joshua.
When Ai was taken, all its people were slaughtered, with
out any regard to age or sex. Talmage grins with delight,
and cries “ Bravo, Joshua!” The King of Ai was reserved
for sport. They hung him on a tree and enjoyed the fun.
Talmage approves this too. Everything Joshua did was
right. Talmage is ready to stake his own poor little soul on
that.
Joshua’s victory over the five kings calls forth a burst of
supernatural eloquence. Talmage pictures the “ catapults
of the sky pouring a volley of hailstones ” on the flying
Amorites, and words almost fail him to describe the
glorious miracle of the lengthening of the day in order that
Jehovah’s prize-fighters might go on killing. One passage
is almost sublime. It is only one step off. “ What,” asks
Talmage, “ is the matter with Joshua? Has he fallen in an
apoplectic fit ? No. He is in prayer.” Our profanity would
not have gone to that length. But we take Talmage’s word
for it that prayer and apoplexy are very much alike.
The five kings were decapitated. “ Ah,” says Talmage,
i‘ I want five more kings beheaded to-day, King Alcohol,
King Fraud, King Lust, King Superstition, and King Infi
delity.” Soft, you priestly calumniator ! What right have
you to associate Infidelity with fraud and lust ? That
Freethought, which you call “ infidelity,” is more faithful
to truth and justice than your creed has ever been. And
it will not be disposed of so easily as you think. You will
never behead us, but we shall strangle you. We are crush
ing the life out of your wretched faith, and your spasmodic
sermons are only the groans of its despair.
Talmage’s boldest step on the line which separates the
ludicrous from the sublime occurs in his peroration. He
makes General Joshua conquer Death by lying down and
giving up the ghost, and then asks for a headstone and a foot
stone for the holy corpse. “ I imagine,” he says, “ that for
the head it shall be the sun that stood still upon Gibeon,
and for the foot the moon that stood still in the valley of
Ajalon.” This is about the finest piece of Yankee buncombe
extant. If the sun and moon keep watch over General
�86
GENERAL JOSHUA.
Joshua’s grave, what are we to do ? When we get to the
New Jerusalem we shall want neither of these luminaries,
for the glory of the Lord will shine upon us. But until
then we cannot dispense with them, and we decidedly object
to their being retained as perpetual mourners over Joshua’s
grave. If, however, one of them must do service, we
humbly beg that it may be the moon. Let the sun illumine
us by day, so that we may see to transact our affairs. And
if ever we should long to behold “ pale Dian’s beams ”
again, we might take Talmage as our guide to the unknown
grave of General Joshua, and while they played softly over
the miraculous two yards of turf we should see his fitting
epitaph—Moonshine.
�GOING
TO
HELL.
{June, 1882.)
Editing a Freethought paper is a dreadful business. It
brings one into contact with many half-baked people who
have little patent recipes for hastening the millennium ; with
ambitious versifiers who think it a disgrace to journalism
that their productions are not instantly inserted; with
discontented ladies and gentlemen who fancy that a heterodox
paper is the proper vehicle for every species of complaint;
and with a multitude of other bores too numerous to mention
and too various to classify. But the worst of all are the
anonymous bores, who send them insults, advice, or warnings,
through the post for the benefit of the Queen’s revenue.
We generally pitch their puerile missives into the waste-paper
basket; but occasionally we find one diverting enough to be
introduced to our readers. A few days ago we received the
following lugubrious epistle, ostensibly from a parson in
Worcestershire, as the envelope bore the postmark of
Tything.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God”—I have seen
one of your blasphemous papers; and I say solemnly, as a clergy
man of the Church of England, that I believe you are doing the
work of the Devil, and are on the road to hell, and will spend
eternity with the Devil, unless God, in his mercy, lead you, by the
Holy Spirit, to repentance. Nothing is impossible, with him. A
Dean in the Church of England says, ‘ Be wise, and laugh not
through a speck of time, and then wail through an immeasurable
eternity.’ Except you change your views you will most certainly
hear Christ say, at the Judgment Day, ‘Depart ye cursed into
everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.’
(Matt, xxv.)”
This is a tolerably warm, though not very elegant effusion,
and it is really a pity that so grave a counsellor should con
ceal his name ; for if it should lead to our conversion, we
should not know whom to thank for having turned us out of
the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire. Our mentor
assures us that with God nothing is impossible. We are
sorry to learn this; for we must conclude that he does not
�88
GOING TO HELL.
take sufficient trouble with parsons to endow them with the
courage of their convictions, or to make them observe the
common decencies of epistolary intercourse.
This anonymous parson, who acts like an Irish “ Moon
*
lighter,” and masks his identity while venting his spleen,,
presumes to anticipate the Day of Judgment, and tells
exactly what Jesus Christ will say to us on that occasion.
We are obliged to him for the information, but we wonderhow he obtained it. The twenty-fifth of Matthew, to which
he refers us, contains not a word about unbelievers. It
simply states that certain persons, who have treated the Son
of Man very shabbily in his distress, shall be sent to keep
company with Old Nick and his imps. Now, we have never
shown the Son of Man any incivility, much less any in
humanity, and we therefore repudiate this odious insinuation.
Whenever Jesus Christ sends us a message that he is sick,
we will pay him a visit; if he is hungry, we will find him a
dinner; if he is thirsty, we will stand whatever he likes to
drink; if he is naked, we will hunt him up a clean shirt and
an old suit; and if he is in prison, we will, according as he
is innocent or guilty, try to procure his release, or leave him
to serve out his term. We should be much surprised if
any parson in the three kingdoms would do any more.
Some of them, we believe, would see him condemned (new
version) before they would lift a finger or spend sixpence to
help him.
We are charged with doing the work of the Devil. This
is indeed news. We never knew the Devil required any
assistance. He was always very active and enterprising, and
quite able to manage his own business. And although his
rival, Jehovah, is so do tingly senile as to yield up everything
to his mistress and her son, no one has ever whispered the
least hint of the Devil’s decline into the same abject position.
But if his Satanic Majesty needed our aid we should not be
loth to give it, for after carefully reading the Bible many
times from beginning to end, we have come to the conclusion
that he is about the only gentleman in it.
We are “ on the road to hell.” Well, if we must go
somewhere, that is just the place we should choose. The
temperature is high, and it would no doubt at first be incom
modious. But, as old Sir Thomas Browne says, afflictions
induce callosities, and in time we should get used to anything.
�GOING- TO HELL.
89
When once we grew accustomed to the heat, how thankful
we should be at having escaped the dreary insipidity of
heaven, with its perpetual psalms, its dolorous trumpets, its
gruesome elders, and its eldarly beasts ! How thankful at
having missed an eternity with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David, and all the many blackguards and scoundrels of the
Bible I How thankful at having joined for ever the society
of Rabelais, Bruno, Spinoza, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John
Stuart Mill, and all the great poets, sages and wits, who
possess so much of that carnal wisdom which is at enmity
with the pious folly of babes and sucklings I
On the whole, we think it best to keep on our present
course. Let the bigots .rave and the parsons wail. They
are deeply interested in the doctrine of heaven and hell beyond
the grave. We believe in heaven and hell on this side of it;
a hell of ignorance, crime, and misery ; a heaven of wisdom,
virtue, and happiness. Our duty is to promote the one and
combat the other. If there be a just God, the fulfilment of
that duty will suffice ; if God be unjust, all honest men will
be in the same boat, and have the courage to despise and
defy him.
�CHRISTMAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
(December, 1881.)
Christmas Eve had come and almost gone. It was drawing
nigh midnight, and I sat solitary in my room, immersed in
memory, dreaming of old days and their buried secrets. The
fire, before which I mused, was burning clear without flame,
and its intense glow, which alone lighted my apartment, cast a
red tint on the furniture and walls. Outside the streets
were muffled deep with snow, in which no footstep was
audible. All was quiet as death, silent as the grave, save
for the faint murmur of my own breathing. Time and
space seemed annihilated beyond those four narrow walls,
and I was as a coffined living centre of an else lifeless
infinity.
My reverie was rudely broken by the staggering step of a
fellow-lodger, whose devotion to Bacchus was the one
symptom of reverence in his nature. He reeled up stair after
stair, and as he passed my door he lurched against it so
violently that I feared he would come through. But he
slowly recovered himself after some profane mutterings,
reeled up the next flight of stairs, and finally deposited his
well-soaked clay on the bed in his own room immediately
over mine.
After this interruption my thoughts changed most fanci
fully. Why I know not, but I began to brood on the strange
statement of Saint Paul concerning the man who was lifted
up into the seventh heaven, and there beheld things not
lawful to reveal. While pondering this story I was presently
aware of an astonishing change. The walls of my room
slowly expanded, growing ever thinner and thinner, until
they became the filmiest transparent veil which at last dis
solved utterly away. Then (whether in the spirit or the
flesh I know not) I was hurried along through space, past
galaxy aftei’ ■ galaxy of suns and stars, separate systems yet
all mysteriously related.
Swifter than light we travelled, I and my unseen guide,
through the infinite ocean of ether, until our flight was
arrested by a denser medium, which I recognised as an
�CHBISTJIAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
91
atmosphere like that of our earth. I had scarcely recovered
from this new surprise when (marvel of marvels!) I found
myself before a huge gate of wondrous art and dazzling
splendor. At a word from my still unseen guide it swung
open, and I was urged within. Beneath my feet was a solid
pavement of gold. Gorgeous mansions, interspersed with
palaces, rose around me, and above them all towered the
airy pinnacles of a matchless temple, whose points quivered
in the rich light like tongues of golden fire. The walls
glittered with countless rubies, diamonds, pearls, amethysts,
emeralds, and other precious stones; and lovely presences,
arrayed in shining garments, moved noiselessly from place
to place. “ Where am I ?” I ejaculated, half faint with
wonder. And my hitherto unseen guide, who now revealed
himself, softly answered, “ In Heaven.”
Thereupon my whole frame was agitated with inward
laughter. I in Heaven, whose fiery doom had been pro
phesied so often by the saints on earth ! I, the sceptic, the
blasphemer, the scoffer at all things sacred, who had laughed
at the legends and dogmas of Christianism as though they
were incredible and effete as the myths of Olympus ! And I
thought to myself, “ Better I had gone straight to Hell, for
here in the New Jerusalem they will no doubt punish me
worse than there.” But my angelic guide, who read my
thought, smiled benignly and said, “Fear not, no harm
shall happen to you. I have exacted a promise of safety
for you, and here no promise can be broken.” “ But why,”
I asked, “ have you brought me hither, and how did you obtain
my guarantee of safety?” And my guide answered, “It is
our privilege each year to demand one favor which may not
be refused; I requested that I might bring you here ; but I
did not mention your name, and if you do nothing outrageous
you will not be noticed, for no one here meddles with
another’s business, and our rulers are too much occupied
with foreign affairs to trouble about our domestic concerns.”
Yet,” I rejoined, “I shall surely be detected, for I wear
no heavenly robe.” Then my guide produced one from a
little packet, and having donned it, I felt safe from the fate
of him who was expelled because he had not on a wedding
garment at the marriage feast.
As we moved along, I inquired of my guide why he took
such interest in me; and he replied, looking sadly, w I was
�92
CHRISTMAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
a sceptic on earth centuries ago, but I stood alone, and at
last on my death-bed, weakened by sickness, I again
embraced the creed of my youth and died in the Christian
faith. Hence my presence in Heaven. But gladly would
I renounce Paradise even for Hell, for those figures so lovely
without are not all lovely within, and I would rather consort
with the choicer spirits who abide with Satan and hold
high revel of heart and head in his court. Yet wishes are
fruitless ; as the tree falls it lies, and my lot is cast for
ever.” . Whereupon I laid my hand in his, being speechless
with grief!
We soon approached the magnificent temple, and entering
it we mixed with the mighty crowd of angels who were
witnessing the rites of worship performed by the' elders and
beasts before the great white throne. All happened exactly
as Saint John describes. The angels rent the air with their
acclamations, after the inner circle had concluded, and then
the throne was deserted by its occupants.
My dear guide then led me through some narrow passages
until we emerged into a spacious hall, at one end of which
hung a curtain. Advancing towards this with silent tread,
we were able to look through a slight aperture, where the
curtain fell away from the pillar, into the room beyond. It
was small and cosy, and a fire burned in the grate, before
which sat poor dear God the Father in a big arm-chair.
Divested of his godly paraphernalia, he looked old and thin,
though an evil fire still gleamed from his cavernous eyes.
On a table beside him stood some phials, one of which had
seemingly just been used. God the Son stood near, looking
much younger and fresher, but time was beginning to tell
on him also. The Ghost flitted about in the form of a dove,
now perching on the Father’s shoulder and now on the head
of the Son.
Presently the massive bony frame of the Father was con
vulsed with a fit of coughing; Jesus promptly applied a
restorative from the phial, and after a terrible struggle the
cough was subdued. During this scene the Dove fluttered
violently from wall to wall. When the patient was
thoroughly restored the following conversation ensued :—
Jesus.—Are you well now, my Father?
Jehovah.—Yes, yes, well enough. Alack, how my
�CHRISTMAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
93
strength wanes! Where is the pith that filled these
arms when I fought for my chosen people ? Where
the fiery vigor that filled my veins when I courted your
mother ?
(Here the Dove fluttered and looked queer.)
Jesus.—Ah, sire, do not speak thus. You will regain
your old strengthJehovah.—Nay, nay, and you know it. You do not
even wish me to recover, for in my weakness you exercise
sovereign power and rule as you please.
Jissus.—0 sire, sire !
Jehovah.—Come now, none of these demure looks. We
know each other too well. Practise before the saints if you
like, but don’t waste your acting on me.
Jesus.—My dear Father, pray curb your temper. That
is the very thing the people on earth so much complain of.
Jehovah.—My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am not
at all well pleased, desist from this hypocrisy. Your temper
is as bad as mine. You’ve shed blood enough in your time,
and need not rail at me.
Jesus.—Ah, sire, only the blood of heretics.
Jehovah.—Heretics, forsooth! They were very worthy
people for the most part, and their only crime was that they
neglected you. But why should we wrangle ? We stand or
fall together, and I am falling. Satan draws most souls
from earth to his place, including all the best workers and
thinkers, who are needed to sustain our drooping power;
and we receive nothing but the refuse ; weak, slavish, flabby
souls, hardly worth saving or damning; gushing preachers,
pious editors, crazy enthusiasts, and half-baked old ladies of
both sexes. Why didn’t you preach a different Gospel while
you were about it ? You had the chance once and let it
slip : we shall never have another.
Jesus.—My dear Father, I am reforming my Gospel to
make it suit the altered taste of the times.
Jehovah.—Stuff and nonsense! It can’t be done ;
thinking people see through it; the divine is immutable.
The only remedy is to start afresh. Could I beget a new
son all might be rectified; but I cannot, I am too old. Our
dominion is melting away like that of all our predecessors.
You cannot outlast me, for I am the fountain of your life;
and all the multitude of “ immortal ” angels who throng our
�/
94
CHRISTMAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
court, live only while I uphold them, and with me they will
vanish into eternal limbo.
Here followed another fit of coughing worse than before.
Jesus resorted again to the phial, but the cordial seemed
powerless against this sharp attack. Just then the Dove
fluttered against the curtain, and my guide hurried me
swiftly away.
In a corridor of the temple we met Michael and Raphael.
The latter scrutinised me so closely that my blood ran cold;
but just when my dread was deepest his countenance cleared,
and he turned towards his companion. Walking behind the
great archangels we were able to hear their conversation.
Raphael had just returned from a visit to the earth, and he
was reporting to Michael a most alarming defection from
the Christian faith. People, he said, were leaving in shoals,
and unless fresh miracles were worked he trembled for the
prospects of the dynasty. But what most alarmed him was
the spread of profanity. While in England he had seen
copies of a blasphemous paper which horrified the elect by
ridiculing the Bible in what a bishop had justly called “ a
heartless and cruel way.” “ But, my dear Michael,” con
tinued Raphael, “ that is not all, nor even the worst. This
scurrilous paper, which would be quickly suppressed if we
retained our old influence, actually caricatures our supreme
Lord and his heavenly host in woodcuts, and thousands of
people enjoy this wicked profanity. I dare say our turn
will soon come, and we shall be held up to ridicule like
the rest.” “ Impossible ! ” cried Michael: “ Surely there
is some mistake. What is the name of this abominable
print?”
With a grave look, Raphael replied: “No,
Michael, there is no mistake. The name of this imp of
blasphemy is—I hesitate to. say it—the Free------” *
But at this moment my guide again hurried me along.
We reached the splendid gate once more, which slowly
opened and let us through. Again we flew through the
billowy ether, sweeping past system after system with in
toxicating speed, until at last, dazed and almost unconscious,
I regained this earthly shore. Then I sank into a stupor.
When I awoke the fire had burnt down to the last cinder,
all was dark and cold, and I shivered as I tried to stretch
* Was it the Freethinker?
�CHRISTMAS EVE IN HEAVEN.
95
my half-cramped limbs. Was it all a dream? Who can
say ? Whether in the spirit or the flesh I know not, said
Saint Paul, and I am compelled to echo his words. Sceptics
may shrug their shoulders, smile, or laugh ; but “ there are
more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in
their philosophy.”
�PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
(January, 1879.)
Professor Blackie is a man with whom we cannot be
angry, however greatly his utterances are calculated to
arouse that feeling. He is so impulsive, frank, and essen
tially good-natured, that even his most provoking words call
forth rather a smile of compassion than a frown of resent
ment. Those who know his character and position will
yield him the widest allowance. His fiery nature prompts
him to energetic speech on all occasions. But when his
temper has been fretted, as it frequently is, by the boisterous
whims of his Greek students in that most boisterous of
universities, it is not surprising if his expressions become
splenetic even to rashness. The ingenuous Professor is quite
impartial in his denunciations. He strikes out right and left
against various objects of his dislike. Everything he dis
sents from receives one and the same kind of treatment, so
that no opinion he assails has any special reason to com
plain ; and every blow he deals is accompained with such a
jolly smile, sometimes verging into a hearty laugh, that no
opponent can well refuse to shake hands with him when all
is over.
This temper, however, is somewhat inconsistent with the
scientific purpose indicated in the title of Professor Blackie’s
book. A zoologist who had such a particular and unconquer
able aversion to one species of animals that the bare mention
of its name made his gorge rise, would naturally give us a
very inadequate and unsatisfactory account of it. So, in this
■case, instead of getting a true natural history of Atheism,
which would be of immense service to every thinker, we get
only an emphatic statement of the authors’ hatred of it under
different aspects. Atheism is styled “ a hollow absurdity,”
“ that culmination of all speculative absurdities,” “ a disease
of the speculative faculty,” “a monstrous disease of the
reasoning faculty,” and so on.
The chapter on “ Its Specific Varieties and General
Root ” is significantly headed with that hackneyed declara
tion of the Psalmist, “ The fool hath said in his heart, There
�97
PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
is no God,” as though impertinence were better from a Jew
than from a Christian, or more respectable for being three
thousand years old. Perhaps Professor Blackie has never
heard of the sceptical critic who exonerated the Psalmist on
the ground that he was speaking jocosely, and really meant
that the man who said in his heart only “ There is no God,”
without saying so openly, was the fool. But this interpre
tation is as profane as the other is impertinent; and in fact
does a great injustice to the Atheist, who has never been
accustomed to say “ There is no God,” an assertion which
involves the arrogance of infinite knowledge, since nothing
less than that is requisite to prove an universal negative :
but simply “ I know not of such an existence,” which is a
modest statement intellectually and morally, and quite unlike
the presumption of certain theologians who, as Mr. Arnold
says, speak familiarly of God as though he were a man
living in the next street.
For his own sake Professor Blackie should a little curb
his proneness to the use of uncomplimentary epithets. He
does himself injustice when he condescends to describe David
Hume’s theory of causation as “ wretched cavil.” Carlyle
is more just to this great representative of an antagonistic
school of thought. He exempts him from the sweeping
condemnation of his contemporaries in Scottish prose
literature, and admits that he was “ too rich a man to
borrow ” from France or elsewhere. And surely Hume was
no less honest than rich in thought. Jest and captiousness
were entirely foreign to his mind. Wincing under his
inexorable logic, the ontologist may try to console himself
with the thought that the great sceptic was playing with
arguments like a mere dialectician of wondrous skill; but in
reality Hume was quite in earnest, and always meant what
he said. We may also observe that it is Professor Blackie
and not Darwin who suffers from the asking of such questions
as these :—“ What monkey ever wrote an epic poem, or com
posed a tragedy or a comedy, or even a sonnet ? What
monkey professed his belief in any thirty-nine articles, or
well-compacted Calvinistic confession, or gave in his ad
hesion to any Church, established or disestablished ?” If
Mr. Darwin heard these questions he might answer with a
good humored smile, “ My dear sir, you quite mistake my
theories, and your questions travesty them. I would further
G
�98
PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
observe that while the composition of poems would un
questionably be creditable to monkeys, I, who have some
regard for them as relatives, however distant, am heartily
glad they have never done any of the other things you
mention, which I deem a negative proof that their reason,
though limited, is fortunately sane.”
Professor Blackie’s opening chapter on “Presumptions”
fully justifies its title. The general consent of mankind in
favor of Theism is assumed to have established its validity,
and to have put Atheists altogether out of court; and a long
list of illustrious Theists, from Solomon to Hegel, is con
trasted with a meagre catalogue of Atheists, comprising only
the names of David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, and John
Stuart Mill.
*
Confucius and Buddha are classed apart, as
lying “ outside of our Western European Culture altogether,”
but with a promise that “ in so far as they seem to have
taught a morality without religion, or a religion without
God, we shall say a word or two about them by-and-by.”
So far as Buddha is concerned this promise is kept; but in
relation to Confucius it is broken. Probably the Chinese
sage was found too tough and embarrassing a subject, and
so it was thought expedient to ignore him for the more tract
able prophet of India, whose doctrine of Transmigration
might with a little sophistry be made to resemble the
Christian doctrine of Immortality, and his Nirvana the
Kingdom of Heaven.
What does the general consent of mankind prove in
regard to beliefs like Theism ? Simply nothing. Professor
Blackie himself sees that on some subjects it is worthless,
particularly when special knowledge or special faculty is re
quired. But there are questions, he contends, which public
opinion rightly decides, even though opposed to the con
clusions of subtle thinkers. “ Perhaps,” he says, “ we shall
hit the mark here if we say broadly that, as nature is always
right, the general and normal sentiment of the majority must
always be right, in so far as it is rooted in the universal and
* Professor Blackie is singularly silent as to James Mill, the
father of the celebrated Utilitarian philosopher, far more robust in
intellect and character than his son. He is the dominant figure of
Mill’s “ Autobiography,” and has about him a more august air
than his son ever wore.
�PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
99
■abiding instincts of humanity; and public opinion, as the
opinion of the majority, will be right also in all matters
which belong to the general conduct of life among all classes,
and with respect to which the mind of the majority has been
allowed a perfectly free, natural, and healthy exercise.”
Now, in the first place, we must reiterate our opinion that
the general consent of mankind on a subject like Theism
proves absolutely nothing. It is perfectly valid on questions
of ordinary taste and feeling, but loses all logical efficacy
in relation to questions which cannot be determined by - a
direct appeal to experience. And undeniably Theism is one
of those questions, unless we admit with the transcendentalist
what is contrary to evident fact, that men have an intuitive
perception of God. In the next place, the minor premise of
this argument is assumed. There is no general consent of
mankind in favor of Theism, but only a very extensive con
sent. Mr. Gladstone, not long since, in the Nineteenth
Century, went so far as to claim the general consent of man
kind in favor of Christianity, by simply excluding all heathen
nations from a right to be heard. Professor Blackie does
not go to this length, but his logical process is no different.
Lastly, our author’s concluding proviso vitiates his whole
case; for if there be one question on which “ the mind of
the majority ” has not been allowed a “ perfectly free, •
natural, and healthy exercise,” it is that of the existence of
God. We are all prepossessed in its favor by early training,
custom, and authority. Our minds have never been per
mitted to play freely upon it. A century ago Atheists stood
in danger of death ; only recently have penal and invidious
statutes against them been cancelled or mitigated; and even
now bigotry against honest disbelief in Theism is so strong
that a man often incurs greater odium in publicly avowing
it than in constantly violating all the decalogue save the
commandment against murder. Murderers and thieves,
though punished here, are either forgotten or compassionated
after death; but not even the grave effectually shields the
Atheist from the malignity of pious zeal. Fortunately, how
ever, a wise and humane tolerance is growing in the world,
and extending towards the most flagrant heresies. Perhaps
we shall ultimately admit with sage old Felltham, that “ we
fill the world with cruel brawls in the obstinate defence of
that whereof we might with more honor confess ourselves to
a 2
�100
PBOFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
be ignorant,” and that “ it is no shame for man not to know
that which is not in his possibility.”
The causes of Atheism are, according to Professor
Blackie, very numerous. He finds seven or eight distinct,
ones. The lowest class of Atheists are “ Atheists of im
becility,” persons of stunted intellect, incapable of compre
hending the idea of God. These, however, he will not
waste his time with, nor will we. He then passes to the
second class of reprobates, whose Atheism springs not from
defect of intellect, but from moral disorder, and who delight
to conceive the universe as resembling their own chaos.
These we shall dismiss, with a passing remark that if moral
disorder naturally induces Atheism, some very eminent,
Christians have been marvellous hypocrites. Lack of rever
ence is the next cause of Atheism, and is indeed its “ natural
soil.” But as Professor Blackie thinks this may be “ con
genital, like a lack of taste for music, or an incapacity of
understanding a mathematical problem,” we are obliged to
consider this third class of Atheists as hopeless as the first.
Having admitted that their malady may be congenital, our
author inflicts upon these unfortunates a great deal of super
fluous abuse, apparently forgetting that they are less to
blame than their omnipotent maker. The fourth cause of
Atheism is pride or self-will. But this seems very erratic
in its operations, since the only two instances cited—namely,
Napoleon the Great and Napoleon the Little, were certainly
Theists. Next comes democracy, between which and irre
verence there is a natural connexion, and from which, “ as
from a hotbed, Atheism in its rankest stage naturally shoots
up.” Professor Blackie, as may be surmised, tilts madly
against this horrible foe. But it will not thus be subdued.
Democracy is here and daily extending itself, overwhelming
slowly but surely all impediments to its supremacy. If
Theism is incompatible with it, then the days of Theism are
numbered. Professor Blackie’s peculiar Natural History of
Atheism is more likely to please the opposite ranks than his
own, who may naturally cry out, with a sense of being sold,
“ call you that backing of your friends ?”
Pride of intellect is the next cause of Atheism. Don Juan
sells himself to perdition for a liberal share of pleasure, but
Faust hankers only after forbidden knowledge. This is of
various kinds ; but “ of all kinds, that which has long had
�PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
101
the most evil reputation of begetting Atheism is Physical
Science ” Again does the fervid Professor set lance in rest,
and dash against this new foe to Theism, much as Don
Quixote charged the famous windmill. But science, like the
windmill, is too big and strong to suffer from such assaults.
The “ father of this sort of nonsense,” in modern times was
David Hume, who, we are elegantly informed, was “ a
very clever fellow, a very agreeable, gentlemanly fellow too.”
His “ nonsense about causation ” is to be traced to a want
of reverence in his character. Indeed, it seems that all
persons who adhere to a philosophy alien to Professor
Blackie’s have something radically wrong with them. Let
this Edinburgh Professor rail as he may, David Hume’s
theory of causation will suffer no harm, and his contrast of
human architecture, which is mechanism, with natural
architecture, which is growth, will still form an insuperable
•obstacle to that “ natural theology ” which, as Garth
Wilkinson says with grim humor, seeks to elicit, or rather
construct,” “ a scientific abstraction answering to the
'concrete figure of the Vulcan of the Greeks—that is to say
a universal Smith ” !
Eventually Professor Blackie gets so sick of philosophers,
that he turns from them to poets, who may more safely be
trusted “ in matters of healthy human sentiment.” But here
fresh difficulties arise. Although “ a poet is naturally a
religious animal,” we find that the greatest of Roman poets
Lucretius, was an Atheist, while even “ some of our most
brilliant notorieties in the modern world of song are not the
most notable for piety.” But our versatile Professor easily
accounts for this by assuming that there “ may be an
idolatry of the imaginative, as well as of the knowing
faculty.” Never did natural historian so jauntily provide
for every fact contravening his theories. Professor Blackie
will never understand Atheism, or write profitably upon it,
while he pursues this course. Let him restrain his discursive
propensities, and deal scientifically with this one fact, which
explodes his whole theory of Atheism. The supreme glory
•of our modern poetry is Shelley, and if ever a man combined
splendor of imagination with keen intelligence and saintly
character it was he. Raphael incarnate he seems, yet he
stands outside all the creeds, and to his prophetic vision, in
the sunlight of the world’s great age begun anew, the—
�1 02
PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
Faiths and empires gleam
Like wrecks of a dissolving dream.
In his treatment of Buddhism Professor Blackie is candid
and impartial, until he comes to consider its Atheistic cha
racter. Then his reason seems almost entirely to forsake
him. After saying that “ what Buddha preached was a
gospel of pure human ethics, divorced not only from Brahma
and the Brahminic Trinity, but even from the existence of
God;” and describing Buddha himself as “ a rare, exceptional,
and altogether transcendental incarnation of moral per
fection ;” he first tries to show that Nirvana is the same as
the Christian eternal life, and transmigration of souls a
faithful counterpart of the Christian doctrine of future
reward and punishment. Feeling, perhaps, how miserably
he has failed in this attempt, he turns with exasperation on
Buddhism, and affirms that it “ can in no wise be looked
upon as anything but an abnormal manifestation of the
religious life of man.” We believe that Professor Blackie
himself must have already perceived the futility and
absurdity of this.
The last chapter of Professor Blackie’s book is entitled
“ The Atheism of Reaction.” In it he strikes characteristi
cally at the five points of Calvinism, at Original Guilt,
Eternal Punishment, Creation out of Nothing, and Special
Providence ; which he charges with largely contributing to
the spread of Atheism. While welcoming these assaults on
superstition, we are constrained to observe that the Christian
dogmas which Professor Blackie impugns and denounces are
not specific causes of Atheism. Again he is on the wrong
scent. The revolt against Theism at the present time is
indeed mainly moral, but the preparation for it has been an
intellectual one. Modern Science has demonstrated, for all
practical purposes, the inexorable reign of law. The God
of miracles, answering prayer and intimately related to his
children of men, is an idea exploded and henceforth im
possible. The only idea of God at all possible, is that of a
supreme universal intelligence, governing nature by fixed
laws, and apparently quite heedless whether their operation
brings us joy or pain. This idea is intellectually permissible,
but it is beyond all proof, and can be entertained only as a
speculation. Now, the development of knowledge which
makes this the only permissible idea of God, also changes
�PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON ATHEISM.
103
Immortality from a religious certitude to an unverifiable
supposition. The rectification of the evils of this life cannot,
therefore, be reasonably expected in another; so that man
stands alone, fighting a terrible battle, with no aid save from
his own strength and skill. To believe that Omnipotence is
the passive spectator of this fearful strife, is for many minds
altogethei' too hard. They prefer to believe that the woes
and pangs of sentient life were not designed ; that madness,
anguish, and despair, result from the interplay of unconscious
forces. They thus set Theism aside, and unable to recognise
the fatherhood of God, they cling more closely to the
brotherhood of Man.
�SALVATIONISM.
(April, 1882.)
There is ho new thing under the sun, said the wise king
Many a surprising novelty is only an old thing in a new
dress. And this is especially true in respect to religion.
Ever since the feast of Pentecost, when the Apostles all
jabbered like madmen, Christianity has been marked by
periodical fits of insanity. It would occupy too much space
to enumerate these outbursts, which have occurred in every
part of Christendom, but we may mention a few that have
happened in our own country. During the Commonwealth,
some of the numerous sects went to the most ludicrous
extremes; preaching rousing sermons, praying through the
nose, assuming Biblical names, and prophesying the im
mediate reign of the saints. There was a reaction against
the excesses of Puritanism after the death of Cromwell;
and until the time of Whitfield and Wesley religion con
tinued to be a sobei- and respectable influence, chiefly useful
to the sovereign and the magistrate. But these two powerful
preachers rekindled the fire of religious enthusiasm in the
hearts of the common people, and Methodism was founded
among those whom the Church had scarcely touched. Not
many years ago the Hallelujah Band spread itself far and
wide, and then went out like a straw fire. And now we
have Salvationism, doing just the same kind of work, and
employing just the same kind of means. Will this new
movement die away like so many others ? It is difficult to
say. Salvationism may be only a flash in the pan ; but, on
the other hand, it may provide the only sort of Christianity
possible in an age of science and freethought. The educated
classes and the intelligent artisans will more and more desert
the Christian creed, and there will probably be left nothing
but the dregs and the scum, for whom Salvationism is
exactly suited. Christianity began among the poor, igno
rant, and depraved; and it may possibly end its existence
among the very same classes.
In all these movements we see a striking illustration of
what the biologists call the law of Atavism. There is a
�SALVATIONIST.
105
■constant tendency to return to the primitive type. We can
form some idea of what early Christianity was by reading
the Acts of the Apostles. The true believers went about
preaching in season and out of season; they cried and
prayed with a loud voice; they caused tumult in the streets,
and gave plenty of trouble to the civil authorities. All this
is true of Salvationism to-day; and we have no doubt that
the early Church, under the guidance of Peter, was just a
counterpart of the Salvation Army under “ General ”
Booth—to the Jews, or men of the world, a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks, or educated thinkers, a folly.
Early Christians were “ full of the Holy Ghost,” that is
of wild enthusiasm. Scoffers said they were drunk, and
they acted like madmen. Leap across seventeen centuries,
and we shall find Methodists acting in the same way. Wesley
states in his Journal (1739) of his hearers at Wapping, that
“ some were torn with a kind of convulsive motion in every
part of their bodies, and that so violently that often four or
five persons could not hold one of them.” And Lecky tells
us, in his “History of the Eighteenth Century,” that
“religious madness, which from the nature of its hallucina
tions, is usually the most miserable of all the forms of
insanity, was in this, as in many later revivals, of no unfre
quent occurrence.” Now Salvationism produces the very
same effects. It drives many people mad; and it is a
common thing for men and women at its meetings to shout,
dance, jump, and finally fall on the floor in a pious ecstacy.
While they are in this condition, the Holy Ghost is entering
them and the Devil is being driven out. Poor creatures!
They take us back in thought to the days of demoniacal pos
session, and the strange old world that saw the devil-plagued
swine of Gadara drowned in the sea.
The free and easy mingling of the sexes at these pious
assemblies, is another noticeable feature. Love-feasts were
a flagrant scandal in the early Church, and women who
returned from them virtuous must have been miracles of
chastity. Methodism was not quite so bad, but it tolerated
some very strange pranks. The Rev. Richard Polwhele, in
his “Anecdotes of Methodism” (a very rare book), says
that “ At St. Agnes, the Society stay up the whole night,
when girls of twelve and fourteen years of age, run about
the streets, calling out that they are possessed.” He goes on
�106
SALVATIONISM.
to relate that at Pro bus “ the preacher at a late hour of the
night, after all but the higher classes left the room, would
order the candles to be put out, and the saints fall down and
kneel on their naked knees ; when he would go round and
thrust his hand under every knee to feel if it were bare.”
Salvationism does not at present go to this length, but it has
still time enough to imitate all the freaks of its predecessor.
There was an All-Night meeting in Whitechapel a few
months ago, which threatened to develope into a thorough
going love-feast. The light was rather dim, voices grew
low, cheeks came perilously near, and hands met caressingly.
Of course it was nothing but the love of God that moved
them, yet it looked like something else ; and the uninitiated
spectator of “ the mystery of godliness ” found it easy to
understand how American camp-meetings tend to increase
the population, and why a Magistrate in the South-west of
England observed that one result of revivals in his district
was a number of fatherless weans.
In one respect Salvationism excels all previous revivals.
It is unparalleled in its vulgarity. The imbecile coarseness
of its language makes one ashamed of human nature. Had
it existed in Swift’s time, he'might have added a fresh clause
to his terrible indictment of mankind. Its metaphors are
borrowed from the slaughter-house, its songs are frequently
coarser than those of the lowest music-hall, and the general
style of its preaching is worthy of a congregation of drunken
pugilists. The very names assumed by its officers are enough
to turn one’s stomach. Christianity has fallen low indeed
when its champions boast such titles as the “ Hallelujah
Fishmonger,” the “ Blood-washed Miner,” the “ Devil
Dodger,” the “ Devil Walloper,” and “ Gipsy Sal.”
The constitution of the Salvation Army is a pure despot
ism. General Booth commands it absolutely. There is a
Council of War, consisting of his own family. All the
funds flow into his exchequer, and he spends them as he
likes. No questions are allowed, no accounts are rendered,
and everything is undei’ his unqualified control. The
“ General ” may be a perfectly honest man, but we are quite
sure that none but pious lunatics would trust him with such
irresponsible power.
We understand that the officials are all paid, and some of
them extremely well. They lead a very pleasant life, full of
�SALVATI0NI8M.
107
agreeable excitement; they wear uniform, and are dubbed
captain, major, or some other title. Add to all this, that
they suppose themselves (when honest) to be particular
favorites of God; and it will be easy to understand how so
many of them prefer a career of singing and praying to
earning an honest living by hard work, The Hallelujah
lads and lasses could not, for the most part, get decent
wages in any other occupation. All they require for this
work is a good stomach and good lungs; and if they can
only boast of having been the greatest drunkard in the
district, the worst thief, or the most brutal character, they
are on the high road to fortune, and may count on living in
clover for the rest of their sojourn in this vale of tears.
�A
PIOUS
SHOWMAN.
{October, 1882.)
We all remember how that clever showman, Barnum,
managed to fan the Jumbo fever. When the enterprising
Yankee writes his true autobiography we shall doubtless
find some extraordinary revelations. Yet Barnum, after
all, makes no pretence of morality or religion. He merely
goes in for making a handsome fortune out of the curiosity
and credulity of the public. If he were questioned as to
his principles, he would probably reply like Artemus Ward
■—“ Princerpuls ? I’ve nare a one. I’m in the show
bizniz.”
General Booth is quite as much a showman as Barnum,
but he is a pious showman. He is a perfect master of the
vulgar art of attracting fools. Every day brings a fresh
change in his “ Walk up, Walk up.” Tambourine girls,
hallelujah lasses, converted clowns and fiddlers, sham
Italian organ grinders, bands in which every man plays
his own tune, officers in uniform, Davidic dances, and
music-hall tunes, are all served up with a plentiful supply
of blood and fire. The “ General ” evidently means to
•stick at nothing that will draw; and we quite believe that
if a pair of Ezekiel’s cherubim were available, he would
worry God Almighty into sending them down for exhibition
at the City Road show.
Booth’s latest dodge is to say the least peculiar. Most
fathers would shrink from trafficking in a son’s marriage,
but Booth is above such nice scruples. The worst deeds
are sanctified by love of God, and religion condones every
indecency.
Mr. Bramwell Booth, whom the General has singled out as
his apostolic successor, and heir to all the Army’s property,
:got married last week; and the pious showman actually
exhibited the bridegroom and bride to the public at a
shilling a head. About three hundred pounds were taken at
the doors, and a big collection was made inside. Booth’s
anxiety for the cash was very strongly illustrated. Com
missioner Railton, who has had a very eccentric career,
�A PIOUS SHOWMAN.
10&
was enjoying his long deferred opportunity of making
a speech, when many of the crowd began to press towards
the door. “ Stop,” cried Booth, “ don’t go yet, there’s
going to be a collection.” But the audience melted faster
than ever. Whereupon Booth jumped up again, stopped
poor Railton unceremoniously, and shouted “ Hold on, we’ll
make the collection now.” This little manoeuvre was quite
in keeping with the showman’s instruction to his subal
terns, to have plenty of good strong collecting boxes and
pass them round often.
Booth’s facetious remarks during his son’s marriage
according to the Army forms were well adapted to tickle
the ears of his groundlings. The whole thing was a roar
ing farce, and well sustained the reputation of the show.
There was also the usual spice of blasphemy. Before
Bramwell Booth marched on to the platform a board was
held up bearing the inscription “ Behold the bridegroom
cometh.” These mountebanks have no reverence even for
what they call sacred. They make everything dance to
their tune. They prostitute “ God’s Word,” caricature
Jesus Christ, and burlesque all the watchwords and symbols
of their creed.
One of Booth’s remarks after the splicing was finished is
full of suggestion. He said that his enemies might cavil,
but he had found out a road to fortune in this world and
the next. Well, the Lord only knows how he will fare in
the next world, but in this world the pious showman has
certainly gained a big success. He can neither write nor
preach, and as for singing, a half a dozen notes from his
brazen throat would empty the place as easily as a cry of
“ Fire.” But he is a dexterous manager ; he knows how to
work the oracle ; he understands catering for the mob ; in
short, he is a very clever showman, who deals in religion
just as other showmen deal in wild animals, giants, dwarfs,
two-headed sheep, fat women, and Siamese twins.
Fortune has brought to our hands a copy of a private
circular issued by “ Commissioner ” Railton, soliciting
wedding presents for Mr. Bramwell Booth. With the
exception of Reuben May’s begging letters, it is the finest
cadging document we ever saw. Booth was evidently
ashamed to sign it himself, so it bears the name of Railton.
But the pious showman cannot disown the responsibility
�110
A PIOUS SHOWMAN.
for it. He will not allow the officers of the Army to marry
without his sanction ; he forbids them to accept any private
present; he keeps a sharp eye on every detail of the
organisation. Surely, then, he will not have the face to
say that he knew nothing of Railton’s circular. He has
face enough for almost anything, but hardly for this.
There is one damning fact which he cannot shirk. Railton
asks that all contributions shall be made “ pavable to
William Booth, as usual.”
Railton spreads the butter pretty freely on Booth and
his family. He says that their devotion to the Army has
“ loaded them with care, and often made them suffer weak
ness and pain.” As to Mr. Bramwell Booth, in particular,
we are informed that he has worked so hard behind the
scenes, as Chief of the Staff, that many of his hairs are
grey at twenty-seven. Poor Bramwell ! The Army should
present him with a dozen bottles of hair restorer. Perhaps
his young wife will renew his raven head by imitating the
lady in the fable, and pulling out all the grey hairs.
In order to compensate this noble family in some degree
for their marvellous devotion to the great cause, Railton
proposes that wedding presents in the shape of cash should
be made to Mr. Bramwell Booth on the day of his marriage.
Whatever money is received will go, not to the young
gentleman personally, but to reducing the Army debt of
¿£11,000. But as the Army property is all in Booth’s
hands, and Mr. Bramwell is his hair and successor, it is
obvious that any reduction of the debt will be so much clear
gain to the firm.
The General evidently saw that the case was a delicate
one; so Railton sends out a private circular, which he
excuses on the ground that “ any public appeal would not
be at all agreeable to Mr. Bramwell’s own feelings.” Of
course not. But we dare say the wedding presents will
be agreeable enough. As this is a strong point with the
firm, Railton repeats it later on. “ I do not wish ” he
says, “ to make any public announcement of this.” ’ The
reason of this secrecy is doubtless the same as that which
prompts the General to exclude reporters and interlopers
from his all-night meetings. Only the initiated are allowed
in, and they of course may be safely trusted.
With the circular Railton sent out envelopes in which
�A PIOUS SHOWMAN.
Ill
the pious dupes were to forward their contributions ; and
printed slips, headed “ Wedding Presents to Mr. Bramwell
Booth,” on which they were asked to specify the amount
of their gift and the sin from which the Salvation Army
had rescued them. This printed slip contains a list of sins,
which would do credit to a Jesuit confessor. Booth has
we think missed his vocation. He might have achieved
real distinction in the army of Ignatius Loyola.
The circular is a wonderful mixture of piety and business.
Nearly every sentence contains a little of both. The cash
will not only gladden the hearts of the Booths, but
“ make the devil tremble,” and “ give earth and hell
another shock.” This last bit of extravagance is rather
puzzling. That hell should receive another shock is very
proper, but why is there to be an earthquake at the same
time ?
We have said enough to show the true character of this
cadging trick. It throws a strong light on the business
methods of this pious showman. Booth is playing a very
astute game. By reducing the Army to military discipline,
a’ld constituting himself its General, he retains an absolute
confoand over its resources, and is able to crush out all
opposition and silence all criticism. He wields a more
man Papal despotism. All the higher posts are held by
members of his own family. His eldest son is appointed
as his successor. The property thus remains in the family,
and the Booth, dynasty is established on a solid foundation.
Such an impudent imposture would scarcely be credible if
it were not patent that there is still amongst us a vast mul
titude of two-legged sheep, who are ready to follow any
plausible shepherd, and to yield up their fleeces to his
shears.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY H. A. KEMP.
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 & 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
Arrows of freethought
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 111 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Inscription in ink on title page: "To J.M. Wheeler, from his old friend, The Author, Nov. 18th 1882". Articles previously published in the Secularist, the Liberal, the National Reformer, and the Freethinker.
Contents: Religion And Progress; A Defence Of Thomas Paine; The Gospel Of Freethought; Freethought In Current Literature; Dean Stanley's Latest; God And The Queen; Cardinal Newman On Infidelity; Sunday Tyranny; Who Are The Blasphemers?; The Birth Of Christ; The Reign Of Christ; The Primate On Modern Infidelity; Baiting A Bishop; Professor Flint On Atheism; A Hidden God; General Joshua; Going To Hell; Christmas Eve In Heaven; Professor Blackie On Atheism; Salvationism; A Pious Showman.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
H. A. Kemp
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N222
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Arrows of freethought), 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
Atheism
blasphemers
Free Thought
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/db24c60c3cab575c232622438bf67356.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uPE4uQKtNNrSMCylsDoV6X1M0S%7E3UUA7LjxnaFmsoNNcD6SyLdwnPhiNjMqRV2%7Ep6xC1mNfuZRYYJghCZQaXr0Ap86qeTu7JyT2%7EEryTFwy-ia1eC5ncRpJzmMR-wwPW3oV7dCORTtdiHKTjyUk724KzbhqSkZlDec3GKCO4FAH410X0b5wlSRP57qbN2AeuoHcV%7Ejyt9YPLHRSz7Ioo4SqZ4C4GoyJxq3OKpt9RdlrhBOqSpqOAzx%7ED3iIS5DIuyzFL1GxiGKqA0BRptr%7EaKEUPNibxqBuU5pEg4X9ZDKNx1I6WEJsshKilupjEGNylQSctsRfXEgfctYe20f9v2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1b60d76defd1e3f7805804184579a4d9
PDF Text
Text
SECOND EDITION. SIXTH THOUSAND.________
------ =—7—-
=
MR. CHAS. BRADLAUGH, referring to this Orat.icrth. ¿fy
says in the National Reformer of J uly 2nd, 1882 ¡-MJ». "L
“As a sample of eloquence it should be read by evRf^.. <4 •.
admirer of fine clear oratory.
*
<$
<0 ¿X. •
NATIONALSECtJLARSOCIETY
nJ
COL. INGERSOLL’S
LONDON:
Printed at the Paine Press, 8, Finsbury-street, e.c.
1882
Price One Penny.
i
�( 2 )
-Ht IJ'i’FRODUC’FISjV.
ECORATION DAY, the occasion upon which the following
Oration was delivered in June, 1882, is a national commemora
tion of the dead heroes of America, of the men who fought and died
for the great republic. It is observed throughout the country, and
the tombs of the departed great ones are decked with flowers and
other symbols of remembrance and respect. Col. Ingersoll, whose
fame as an orator is world-wide, was requested to deliver the com
memorative discourse. The Colonel accepted the honorable post, and
the oration given below was the result. The Academy of Music was
thronged on the evening of Decoration Day. The gay dresses of the
ladies and the bright uniforms of military men gave the audience a
brilliant appearance. The Academy was profusely decorated with
flags. Amidst thunders of applause, Colonel Ingersoll advanced to
the reading desk, and delivered the
ORATION.
'T'IIIS day is sacred to our heroes dead. Upon their tombs we hav
A lovingly laid the wealth of spring.
This is a day for memory and tears. A mighty nation bends above
its honored grave and pays to noble dust the tribute of its love.
Gratitude is the fairest flower that sheds its perfume in the heart.
To-day we tell the history of oui' country’s life—-recount the lofty
deeds, of vanished years—the toil and suffering, the defeats and
victories of heroic men—of men who made our nation great and free.
We see the first ships whose prows were gilded by the Western
sun. We feel the thrill of discovery when the new world was found.
We see the oppressed, the serf, the peasant, and the slavemen whose
flesh had known the chill of chains—the adventurous, the proud, the
brave, sailing an unknown sea, seeking homes in unknown lands.
We see the settlements, the little clearings, the block-house, and
the fort, the rude and lonely huts. Brave men, true women, builders
of homes, fellers of forests, founders of states !
Separated from the Old World—away from the heartless distinctions
of caste—away from sceptres, and titles, and crowns, they governed
themselves. They defended their homes, they earned them bread.
Each citizen had a voice, and the little villages became almost
republics.
Slowly the savage was driven, foot by foot, back in the dim forest.
The days and nights were filled with fear, and the slow years with
massacre and war, and cabins' earthen floors were wet with blood of
mothers and their babes.
But the savages of the New World were kinder than the kings and
nobles of the Old ; and so the human tide kept coming, and the
places of the dead were filled.
�( 3 )
Amid common dangers and common hopes, the prejudices and
feuds of Europe faded slowly from their hearts. From every land,
of every speech, driven by want and lured by hope, exiles and
emigrants sought the mysterious continent of the West.
Year after year the colonists fought and toiled, and suffered and
increased.
They began to talk about liberty—to reason of the rights of man.
They asked no help from distant kings, and they began to doubt the
use of paying tribute to the useless. They lost respects for dukes
and lords, and held in high esteem all honest men.
There was the dawn of a new day. They began to dream of in
dependence. They found that they could make and execute the laws.
They had tried the experiment of self-government. They had
succeeded. The Old World wished to dominate the New. In the
care and keeping of the colonists was the destiny of this continent—
of half the world.
On this day the story of the great struggle between colonists and
kings should be told. We should tell our children of the contest—
first for justice, then for freedom. We should tell them the history
of the Declaration of Independence—the chart and compass of all
human rights—that all men are equal, and have the right of life,
liberty, and joy.
This Declaration uncrowned kings, and wrested from the hands of
titled tyranny the sceptre of usurped and arbitrary power. It super
seded royal grants, and repealed the cruel statutes of a thousand
years. It gave the peasant a career; it knighted all the sons of toil;
it opened all the paths to fame, and put the star of hope above the
cradle of the poor man’s babe.
England was then the mightiest of nations—mistress of every sea—
and yet our fathers, poor and few, defied her power.
To-day we remember the defeats, the victories, the disasters, the
weary marches, the poverty, the hunger, the sufferings, the agonies,
and, above all, the glories of the Revolution. We remember all—
from Lexington to Valley Forge, and from that midnight of despair
to Yorktown's cloudless day.
We remember the soldiers and thinkers—the heroes of the sword
and pen. They had the brain and heart, the wisdom and the courage
to utter and defend these words, “Governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed.”
In defence of this sublime and self-evident truth the war was waged
and won.
To-day we remember all the heroes, all the generous and chivalric
men who came from other lands to make ours free.
Of the many thousands who shared the gloom and glory of the
seven sacred years, not one remains. The last has mingled with the
earth, and nearly all are sleeping now in unmarked graves, and some
beneath the leaning, crumbling stones, from which their names have
been effaced by Time’s irreverent and relentless hands.
But the nation they founded remains. The United States are still
free and independent. The “government derives its just powers
�( 4 )
from the consent of the governed,” and fifty millions of free people
remember with gratitude the heroes of the Revolution.
Let us be truthful; let us be kind. When peace came, when the
independence of a new nation was acknowledged, the great truth for
which our fathers fought was half denied, and the Constitution was
inconsistent with the Declaration. The war was waged for liberty,
and yet the victors forged new fetters for their fellow-men. The
chains our fathers broke were put by them upon the limbs of others.
Freedom for all was the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night,
through seven years of want and war. In peace the cloud was for
gotten and the pillar blazed unseen.
Let us be truthful; all of our fathers were not true to themselves.
In war, they had been generous, noble, and self-sacrificing ; with
peace came selfishness and greed. They were not great enough to
appreciate the grandeur of the principles for which they fought.
They ceased to regard the great truths as having universal applica
tion. “ Liberty for all ” included only themselves. They qualified
the Declaration. They interpolated the word “ white; ” they obliter
ated the world “all.”
Let us be kind. We will remember the ag-e in which they lived.
We will compare them with the citizens of other nations.
They made merchandise of men. They legalized a crime. They
sowed the seeds of war. But they founded this nation.
Let us gratefully remember.
Let us gratefully forget.
To-day we remember the heroes of the second war with England—
in which our fathers fought for the freedom of the seas, for the rights
of the American sailor.
We remember with pride the splendid victories of Erie and Champ
lain, and the wondrous achievements upon the sea—achievements
that covered our navy with glory that neither the victories nor defeats
of the future can dim.
We remember the heroic services and sufferings of those who
fought the merciless savage of the frontier. We see the midnight
massacre, and hear the war-cries of the allies of England. We see
the flames climb round the happy homes, and in the charred and
blackened ruins we see the mutilated bodies of wives and children.
Peace came at last, crowned with the victory of New Orleans—a
victory that “ did redeem all sorrows ” and all defeats.
The Revolution gave our fathers a free land—the war of 1812 a
free sea.
To-day we remember the gallant men who bore our flag in tri
umph from the Rio Grande to the heights of Chatultepec.
Leaving out of question the justice of our cause—the necessity for
war—we are yet compelled to applaud the marvellous courage of our
troops. A handful of men—brave, impetuous determined, irresist
ible—conquered a nation. Our history has no record of more daring
deeds.
Again peace came, and the nation hoped and thought that strife
was at an end.
oi
�( 5 )
We had grown too powerful to be attacked. Our resources were
boundless, ^and the future seemed secured. The hardy pioneers
moved to the great West. Beneath their ringing strokes the forests
disappeared, and on the prairies waved the billowed.seas of wheat
and corn. The great plains were crossed, the mountains were con
quered, and the foot of victorious adventure pressed the shore of the
Pacific.
In the great north, all the streams went singing to the sea, turning
wheels and spindles, and casting shuttles back and forth. Inventions
were springing like magic from a thousand brains. From laboi s
holy altars rose and leaped the smoke and flame, and from the count
less forges rang the chant of the rhythmic stroke.
But in the South the negro toiled unpaid, and mothers wept while
babes were sold, and at the auction black husbands and wives speech
lessly looked the last good-bye. Fugitives, lighted by the Northern
star, sought liberty on English soil, and were by northern men thrust
back to whip and chain.
The great statesmen, the successful politicians, announced that law
had compromised with crime, that justice had been bribed, and that
time had barred appeal. A race was left without a right, without a
hope. The future had no dawn, no star—nothing but ignorance and
fear, nothing but work and want. This was the conclusion of the
statesman, the philosophy of the politicians—of constitutional ex
pounders. This was decided by courts and ratified by the nation.
We had been successful in three wars. We had wrested thirteen
colonies from Great Britain. We had conquered our place upon the
high seas. We had added more than two millions of square miles to
the national domain. We had increased in population from three to
thirty-one millions. We were in the midst of plenty. We were rich
and free. Ours appeared to be the most prosperous of nations. •
But it was only appearance. The statesmen and the politicians
were deceived. Real victories can be won only for the right. .The
triumph of justice is the only peace. Such is the nature of things.
He who enslaves another cannot be free. He who attacks the right
assaults himself.
The mistake our fathers made had not been corrected. The found
ations of the republic were insecure. The great dome of the temple
was bathed in the light of prosperity, but the corner-stones were
crumbling. Four millions of human beings were enslaved. . Party
cries had been mistaken for principles—partisanship for patriotism,
success for justice.
But pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves;
mercy heard the sobs of mothers reft of babes, and justice held aloft
the scales, in which one drop of blood, shed by a master’s lash out
weighed a nation’s gold.
There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to. at
tack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitu
tions, statutes, and decisions, barricaded and bastioned by every
department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, states
men its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon
�( 6 )
its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country’s honor.
It was the crime of the nation—of the whole country—North and
South responsible alike.
To-day we reverently thank the abolitionists. Earth has produced
no grander men, no nobler women. They were the real philanthrop
ists, the true patriots.
When the will defies fear, when the heart- applauds the brain, when
duty throws the gauntlet down to fate, when honor scorns to com
promise with death—this is heroism.
The abolitionists were heroes. He loves his country best who
strives to make it best. The bravest men are those who have the
greatest fear of doing wrong.
Mere politicians wish the country to do something for them, true
patriots desire to do something for their country.
Courage without conscience is a wild beast; patriotism without
principle is the prejudice of birth—the animal attachment to place.
These men, these women, had courage and conscience, patriotism
and principle, heart and brain.
The South relied upon the bond—upon a barbarous clause that
stained, disfigured, and defiled the Federal pact—and made the mon
strous claim that- slavery was the nation’s ward. The spot of shame
grew red in Northern cheeks, and Northern men declared that slavery
had poisoned, cursed, and blighted soul and soil enough, and that the
territories must be free.
The radicals of the South cried, “No Union without slavery!”
The radicals of the North replied, “No Union without- liberty!”
The Northern radicals were right. Upon the great issue of free
homes for free men a president was elected by the free states. The
South appealed to the sword, and raised the standard of revolt. For
the first time in history the oppressors rebelled.
But let us to-day be great enough to forget individuals—great
enough to know that slavery was treason, that slavery was rebellion,
that slavery fired upon our flag, and sought to wreck and strand the
mighty ship that bears the hope and fortune of this world.
The first shot liberated the North. Constitutions, statutes, and
decisions, compromises, platforms, and resolutions, made, passed, and
ratified in the interest of slavery, became mere legal lies, mean and
meaningless, base and baseless.
Parchment and paper could no longer stop or stay the onward
march of man. Tire North was free. Millions instantly resolved
that the nation should not die—that freedom should not perish, and
that slavery should not live. Millions of our brothers, our sons, our
fathers, our husbands, answered to the nation’s call.
The great armies have desolated the earth; the greatest soldiers
have been ambition’s dupes. They waged war for the sake of place
and pillage, pomp and power, for the ignorant applause of vulgar
millions, for the flattery of parasites, and t-he adulation of sycophants
and slaves.
Let us proudly remember that in our time the greatest, the
grandest, the noblest army of the world fought—not to enslave, but
�( 7 )
to free ; not to destroy, but to save ; not simply for themselves, but
for others; not for conquest, but for conscience ; not only for us, but
for every land and every race.
With courage, with enthusiasm, with devotion never excelled, with
an exaltation and purity of purpose never equalled, this grand army
fought the battles of the republic. For the preservation of this
nation, for the destruction of slavery, these soldiers, these sailors—on
land and sea-—disheartened by no defeat, discouraged by no obstacle,
appalled by no danger, neither paused nor swerved until a stainless
flag, without a rival, floated over all our wide domain, and until every
human being beneath its folds was absolutely free.
The great victory for human rights-—the greatest of all the years—
had been won ; won by the Union men of the North, by the Union
men of the South, and by those who had been slaves. Liberty was
national—slavery was dead.
The flag for which the heroes fought, for which they died, is the
symbol of all we are, of all we hope to be.
It is the emblem of equal rights.
It means free hands, free lips, self-government, and the sovereign
ty of the individual.
It means that this continent has been dedicated to freedom.
It means universal education—light for every mind, knowledge for
every child.
It means that the school-house is the fortress of liberty.
It means that “ governments derive their just powers from the con
sent of the governed ”—that each man is accountable to and for the
government—-that- responsibility goes hand in hand with liberty.
It means that it is the duty of every citizen to bear his share of the
public burden—to take part in the affairs of his town, his county, his
state, and his country.
It means that the ballot-box is the ark of the covenant—that the
source of authority must not be poisoned.
It means the perpetual right of peaceful revolution.
It means that every citizen of the republic—native or naturalised
—must be protected; at home, in every state ; abroad, in every land,
on every sea.
It means that all distinctions based on birth or blood have perished
from our laws—that our government shall stand between labor and
capital, between the weak and the strong, between the individual and
the corporation, between want and wealth—and give and guarantee
simple justice to each and all.
It means that there shall be a legal remedy for every wrong.
It means national hospitality—that we must welcome to our shores
the exiles of the world, and that we may not drive them back. Some
may be deformed by labor, dwarfed by hunger, broken in spirit, vic
tims of tyranny and caste, in whose sad faces may be read the touch
ing record of a weary life ; and yet their children, born of liberty and
love, will be symmetrical and fair, intelligent and free.
That flag is the emblem of a supreme will-—of a nation’s power.
Beneath its folds the weakest must be protected, and the strongest
must obey.
�It shields and canopies alike the loftiest mansion and the rudest
hut.
That flag was given to the air in the Revolution’s darkest days.
It represents the sufferings of the past, the glories yet to be ; and like
the bow of heaven, it is the child of storm and sun.
This day is sacred to the great heroic host who kept this flag above
our heads—sacred to the living and the dead—sacred to the scarred
and the maimed—sacred to the wives who gave their husbands, to the
mothers who gave their sons.
Here in this peaceful land of ours—here where the sun shmes,
where flowers grow, where children play, millions of armed men
battled for the right, and breasted on a thousand fields the iron storms
of war.
These brave, these incomparable men founded the first republic.
They fulfilled the prophecies; they brought to pass the dreams;
they realized the hopes that all the great and good and wise and just
have made and had since man was man.
But what of those who fell?
There is no language to express the debt we owe, the love we bear,
to all the dead who died for us. Words are but barren sounds. We
can but stand beside their graves, and, in the hush and silence, feel
what speech has never told.
They fought, they died, and for the first time since man has kept
a record of events the heavens bent above and domed a land without
a serf, a servant, or a slave.
NOTICE.
*
*
Read THE REPUBLICAN, Id. monthly, each number containing
Portrait and biography of some well-known reformer.
By G.
a^URT FLUNKEYS: Their “Work” and Wages.
W Standring. An exposure of aristocratic sinecures. Id. 4-. .. „
BiFE of C. BRADLAUGH, M.P., 12 pages, with Portrait &
* autograph. By G. Standring. Id.
LIFE of^tL. INGERSOLL, with Portrait, Autograph, and Extracts
froworks. In neat wrapper, Id.
By orderlhroug^uy nmAvnt; or by post from 8, Finsbury-st., London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Col. Ingersoll's Decoration Day oration, June 1882
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Printed at the Paine Press, 8 Finsbury-street, E.C." Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Office, 68 Fleet Street, E.C., A. Bonner, Manager. Publisher's advertisements on back cover include The Republican [periodical] and other republican works. Not in Stein checklist, but cf his No. 155. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Paine Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N336
Subject
The topic of the resource
USA
Memorial Day
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's Decoration Day oration, June 1882), 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
Memorial Addresses
NSS
United States-History
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7133143a51cf07bbdfabd90d8cc5a787.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=srr-DI8ocun%7EMXeTdNbMXwkup3N1Rz29CDdY2F7QbHuOMR8ZlXLFMbJ%7E8LZg4vioDLbm75axh%7EHSuZfIbtbAx92KzGSwASi-ol2vJoMp45GUTHMszPp%7EwsfTe0d810rgeLInICVx2-93jPMspsB4MN0%7EYmrhUIc94jNiaYLAeJhxIqUneXHMX90EvOqyxGYZDFDHnmEkRngjHvdEqCGv7HLDroTuwwGwUnAbHtDpTKo30Qzdbbvt43ffK0zmiNVOeUt06AkUYPP4kEAJlqDwdGlxe45Ogi7V6Oexs7FjKQKCMTgMmTSj7Ojcp5BdVCnw84CAbu3YpHAgGXdyQI6N1A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bae34b4ff3eca01cb1e1a308cd876baf
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIE^
THE GOD
THE
CHRISTIANS SWEAR BY.
A
BY
G-.
W.
BOOTIE
(Editor of The Freethinker).
“ I have a hundred times heard him [his father, James Mill] say,
that all ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a
constantly increasing progression, that mankind had gone on adding
trait after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called this
God, and prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of
wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is presented to man
kind as the creed of Christianity.” — John Stuart Mill, “Auto
biography,” p. 40.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
• /
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 8 82.
�Mr. Foote’s Pamphlets.
Secularism the True Philosophy of Life. Au Exposition
and a Defence
... 4d.
Atheism and Morality..................................................... 2d.
The Futility of Prayer.....................................................2d.
Death’s Test: or Christian Lies about Dying Infidels. 2d.
Atheism and Suicide. (A reply to Alfred Tennyson—Poet
Laureate)...
...
...
...
...
•••
Id.
BIBLE
ROMANCES,
1.—The Creation Story.................................................. Id.
II. —Noah’s Flood.............................................................. Id.
III. —Eve and the Apple ...
...
.............
... Id.
IV. —The Bible Devil
...
...
.......................... Id.
V.—The Ten Plagues ..............
...
...
... Id.
VI. —Jonah and the Whale
...................................... Id.
VII. —The Wandering Jews
.................
... Id.
VIII.—The Tower of Babel
.................
... Id.
IX.—Balaam’s Ass............................................................. Id.
X. —God’s Thieves in Canaan..................................... Id.
XI. —Cain and Abel
...
...
.......................... Id.
XII.—Lot’s Wife
............................................................. Id.
BIBLE ROMANCES—First Series—Containing the above Twelve
Numbers, bound in handsome wrapper, Is.
SECOND SERIES:
XIII. —Daniel and the Lions
......................... .
...
XIV. —The Jew Judges
.....................................
...
XV.—Saint John’s Nightmare
..............
..............
XVI.—A Virgin Mother
.................................................
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St.,E.C
�6 0-4 j S
N0-4-O
THE GOD THE CHRISTIANS SWEAR BY.
i.
John Stuart Mill, in one of the most incisive passages of
his Essay on Liberty, ridiculed the Christian notions of
oath-taking, and after stating that in our law courts you
must swear by God, he contemptuously added “ any God
will do.” In this country we must have a God, even if. as the
Americans say, it is only a little tin Jesus. Sir Henry Drum
mond Wolff on a memorable occasion emphasised this view.
When Mr. Bradlaugh first sought to take his seat in the
House of Commons that sapient member of the Fourth
Party urged against him that there was a grand difference
between the member for Northampton and the other legis
lators. They all had some deity or other, while Mr.
Bradlaugh had no sort of God. We have heard a Christian
minister carry this idea out to its logical end, and declare
that it is better to worship the wrong God than worship
none at all.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s offence is that he has no God. He is
therefore said to be unfit to sit in Parliament. Want of
brains or of honor might be easily overlooked, but want of
theology is unpardonable. It is the one sin which can
never be forgiven. You may sin against Man with
impunity, but you may not sin against the Ghost without
being treated as a criminal and an outlaw.
But, after all. Mr. Bradlaugh’s real offence is that he does
not believe in the Bible God. That is the deity the House
of Commons believes in. Christian and Jew are at one in
this. Aiderman Fowler and Baron de Worms coincide
here, and, as the man in Sheridan’s play says of two dif
ferent characters, “when they do agree their unanimity is
wonderful.” The God of the New Testament is simply a con
tinuation of the God of the Old. ’Tis the same God washed
and shaved, and with his best clothes on, a little more fit
for decent society. Why the Jew and the Christian have
fallen out so frightfully we cannot understand, except on the
principle that family quarrels are always the bitterest.
Mr. Bradlaugh does not believe in the Bible God, and
the pious majority of the House of Commons will not let
�4
him swear. Their God, Jesus Christ, said, “ Swear not at
all,” yet they claim a monopoly of swearing, and no doubt
many of them do a great deal more of it outside the House
than they ever do inside. Christ’s command is binding on
them, and they break it. It is not binding on Mr. Brad
laugh, and they make him obey it!
As Mr. Bradlaugh’s way to his seat is barred in God’s
name, we have the right to ask what kind of a being
he is. What is the character of this God the Christians
swear by ?
In answering this question we shall go to authentic
sources. Fortunately, we have this God’s character written
by himself, or at his dictation. The Bible contains it, and
to that we shall appeal. If we malign or misrepresent him,
the fault is his own.
When men describe themselves they never say the worst
that can be said. Something is concealed, something toned
down, something heightened. Defects are slurred over and
virtues brought into strong relief. No doubt gods act in
the same way. The. Bible God has described himself, and
if we find his character bad we may depend upon it
that if the whole truth were told it would be worse. Let
none of his worshippers, then, quarrel with the result of our
examination.
II.
God’s original name was Jehovah or Iahveh. He was one
of the deities of the early Jews. Natural selection applies
to gods as well as animals, and Jehovah beat all his com
petitors as the fittest to survive. Baal, Moloch, Ashtaroth,
and a crowd of other deities, perished in the struggle for
existence.
Jehovah never denied the reality of his opponents; on
the contrary, he fiercely resented their rivalry. He described
himself as a jealous god. A husband could not be jealous
of his wife unless there were other men to make love to
her, and no god could be jealous unless there were other
gods bidding for the adoration of his worshippers. Moses
styled Jehovah “the lord God of the Hebrews,” and
Pharoah in speaking to the prophet always refers to him as
“ your God.” And he himself distinctly says, in the
twelfth verse of the thirteenth chapter of Exodus, “ against
all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” This clearly
implies that they were gods as well as he, although of
�5
inferior power. He was only the strongest member of a
large family.
God the Son and God the Holy Ghost did not exist then.
Jehovah was too much absorbed in the task of self-preserva
tion to propagate himself. Only when his supremacy was
undisputed did he find leisure to branch out in two directions.
But his great adversary existed. The Devil was active
from the beginning of the world, and held his own against
Jehovah when Baal and all the other gods were demolished.
£^ay, he more than held his own; he outwitted and worsted
his rival; and from the Fall until now he has secured the
vast majority of the human beings whom the Lord made
expressly for himself. The Devil pursues a Machiavellian
policy. He allows God to create things and appropriates
them afterwards. God invests all the capital and the Devil
takes nearly all the profit.
This does not surprise us when we consider the Lord’s
ignorance. His knowledge and intelligence are about as
small as those of a savage. The only explanation of this
is that savages made him thousands of years ago.
While he worked hard at creating the world he quite
forgot that the Devil was prowling about. When it was
finished he retired to rest and the Devil turned everything
upside-down. Why did he go to sleep at all ? Or why did
he not depute an archangel to watch the world while its boss
was napping ?
When he made Adam as the flower of creation he pro
nounced everything good, but soon after he found it was not
good for man to be alone. Any idiot might have known
that. There was poor Adam, monarch of all he surveyed,
and king of the dreariest paradise that ever existed. What
are all the flowers in the world worth with no lovely flower
of womanhood to crown them ?
God then made Adam a wife. All the nothing out of
which everything was made being used up, some of the
manufactured article had to be employed. The Lord could
no more make something out of nothing, not even a curate;
so Eve was made out of one of Adam’s ribs. The first
woman was manufactured from a spare rib. Fortunately
the Lord did not bungle over this job; but suppose he had
forgotten some of his apparatus, and while he was gone for
it the dog had carried off that bone !
So far were Adam and Eve from being “ good,” that God
soon after cursed them up and down, and their descendants
�6
were so bad that he resolved to drown them as an old lady
does her stock of kittens. What a queer method! Why
did he not reform his children ? Why not hang a few
priests and put a few schoolmasters in their places ? The
Lord’s ways are not our ways, and he does as he likes with
his own.
Even then he bungled afresh and perpetrated blunder
within blunder. Instead of drowning all and starting with
a new stock, he saved eight of the bad old lot. These
replenished the world with wretched creatures like them
selves, and the people after the Flood were, if anything,
worse than those before it. Before Noah died there were
not ten righteous men found in one populous city to save it
from destruction, and no doubt other cities were very little
better.
After the Flood this God promised that he would never
again deluge the earth. But the people said “Walker!”
and began to build a big tower with its top in heaven, so
that if another Flood came they might mount the stairs and
step clean on to the golden floor. How high heaven is we
cannot say, but no tower could ever near it. When it
reached a certain height it would tumble about the
builders’ ears. But God did not know this any more
than they. He thought they might succeed. He knew
nothing of gravitation or the principles of architecture.
He . became alarmed, and instead of leaving them alone
until their tower toppled over, he afflicted them with a
diversity of speech. One man talked Sanskrit, another
Monoglian, another American Indian, another Dutch, and
another Double Dutch.
The story represents God as
ignorant of the simplest laws of nature, and stupid as a
hydrocephalic idiot.
III.
The Bible God is infinitely petty. He exhibits all the
weakness of a spoilt child or a savage chief. His temper is
usually very warm, and in his fits of anger he rages about
like a monstrous madman, killing wholesale by flood, famine,
earthquake, pestilence and war. Occasionally he relents.
But woe unto those who presume on his goodness, and
imagine that “ his tender mercies are over all his works ” 1
He suddenly rouses himself, and they and their fool’s para
dise vanish into limbo.
He is constantly changing his mind, and cannot be
�7
depended on for twenty-four hours together. He regrets,,
repents, wails, and carries on like a big baby whose hopes
are disappointed; and when things turn out contrary to his
expectations, he never blames his own want of foresight,
but damns his own creation for being what he made it.
Let us take an instance. He sent Moses to rescue the
Jews from bondage and lead them to the land of promise.
But after Moses brought them out of Egypt, the Lord found,
that they were all unfit to enter Palestine, and he led them
a devilish dance up and down the wilderness for forty years,,
until every soul had perished except Joshua and Caleb.
Even Moses was not allowed to cross the river Jordan; and
as, although a hundred and twenty years old, he was still
strong and hale, the Lord asked him up a mountain, and
there killed and buried him.
Another instance. While the Jews were in the desert,,
wandering about like a blind man in a fifty-acre field, the
Lord visited Mount Sinai ; and after staying there alone for
some time, he invited Moses to come up and spend a few
days with him. They had so much to talk about that the
interview lasted forty days and nights. During that time
the Jews grew impatient. They looked up and could see
nothing of Moses or the Lord except a murky cloud, and
they naturally concluded that both of them had ended in
smoke. Thereupon they desired Aaron to become their
leader and to make them a new God. Ever ready to
oblige, he accepted the leadership in place of Moses; and
for a God instead of Jehovah he made them a golden calf—
fit deity for such a multitude of fools.
When God observed the disgraceful antics of his “ holy
people,” his “ special people, above all people on the face of
the earth,” who had stripped stark naked and were dancing
like calves before the calf, he became greatly enraged.
“ Now Moses,” said he, “ just you get out of the way, for I
mean mischief. I’ll kill every one of the blackguards, and
start a fresh people.” But Moses, who had a calmer head,
smoothed down his ruffled feathers. “ Come now,” said he,
“ don’t act in a hurry ; think over it a bit; just remember
that you are bound by an oath to these scurvy Jews ; and
then think what the Egyptians will say and how they’ll
laugh at you.” Then the Lord cooled down, and said he
was sorry he forgot himself.
Sometimes his pettiness is more funny still. While
Moses was journeying from his father-in-law’s to Egypt to
�8
execute God’s commission, he stayed one night atva wayside
inn: and the Lord put up at the same hotel. At any rate
he “ met ” Moses there, and strangely enough tried to kill
him. Imagine an all-wise God seeking to kill a man for
obeying his commands, and imagine an all-powerful God
trying to do it without success ! Moses does not appear to
have committed any offence. The probability is that the
Lord had a fit of the blues that night, and, like human
beings in that state, he turned against his best friend.
On another occasion the Lord played Balaam a similar
trick. When the messengers of Barak came asking him to
come and curse the Jews, the prophet wisely asked the Lord
what he should do. The Lord said “ Don’t go,” and Balaam
stopped at home. The messengers came a second time: then
the Lord said “ Go,” and Balaam went. But he did not
reflect that a god who had changed his mind once might
change it twice; and that is exactly what the Lord did. He
posted an angel in Balaam’s path to slay him for doing as
God commanded ; and poor Balaam would inevitably have
perished had it not been for the providential interference of
his jackass.
God’s treatment of Pharaoh and the Egyptians was no
less singular. He sent Moses to bring the Jews out, and in
cited Pharaoh to keep them in. The king and the prophet
had ten tugs of war ; it was pull Moses, pull Pharaoh;
and each time the poor Egyptians suffered. At the end
God joined in and pulled Pharaoh clean over. If the game
had ended there we might enjoy the fun, for it is indifferent
to mankind whether kings or priests come to grief when they
quarrel. But it did not end there. The first-born of every
family in Egypt was slain by this divine butcher; and after
that he completed his “ plaguings ” by drowning Pharaoh
and all the Egyptian hosts in the Red Sea.
Nor was this God over clean. His necromancers, Moses
and Aaron, turned all the water of Egypt into blood, but
the magicians of Egypt beat them by turning all the rest
into blood. Then the Lord exerted his omnipotence to
defeat them. His two necromancers turned all the dust of
Egypt into lice. That settled it. “ This,” said they, “ is
the finger of God.” When they saw the lice they knew the
Lord was shaking himself.
Neither was God over truthful. He told an untruth to
Adam and Eve, which the Devil corrected. He falsified
many of his promises. The men and women he most favored
�9
were notorious deceivers. He hated open Esau and loved
lying Jacob. He more than winked at the guile of his ser
vants. He sanctioned the treachery of Jael, who invited a
hunted man into her tent and basely killed him while he
slept. He even kept lying spirits in heaven to go forth and
prophesy falsely so that people might be lured to ruin; and
there is a fine instance of this in the last chapter of the first
Book of Kings. No doubt the stock of liars is still kept
up, for any number of rogues, thieves and murderers have
.gone to glory since then.
IV.
Jehovah never had the faintest idea of justice until the
Jews had sufficiently progressed to give him lessons in that
virtue; and he heartily detested every sign of mental freeddom. He was so “jealous” that he visited the sins of the
fathers upon the children of those who neglected him for
three or four generations. According to the thirteenth
•chapter of Deuteronomy, he commanded his “ holy people”
to stone to death any person who broached new ideas on
the subject of religion, even though the heretic were bound
to them by the dearest ties of friendship or blood. The
twenty-eighth chapter of the same Book contains a list of
the curses he would inflict on them if they “ went after
■other gods.” It is one of the most terrible denunciations
in all literature, and any god ought to be ashamed of him
self for using such frightful threats. A man who indulged
in such language in the streets would be “run in” as a
public nuisance, and sent to an asylum or a jail.
Let it not be said that the Lord has improved in this
respect. There is just as vicious language to be found in
the New Testament. Saint Paul told the new elect to
“ hold no fellowship with unbelievers ; ” Saint John con
signs all sceptics to the “ lake which burneth with brim
stone and fire; ” and the statement of Jesus, in the last
chapter of Mark, that those who believed and were baptised
should be saved, while those who believed not should be
damned, shows that in the eyes of God heresy is the one
sin which can never be forgiven. It is worthy of notice,
too, that the deity of the New Testament is really more
cruel to sceptics than the deity of the Old Testament. God
the Father had them killed in this world, and there was
an end to their punishment; but God the Son prolongs their
�10
misery after death, and burns them for ever and ever in
hell.
In return for the undivided worship of his chosen people,
God promised, and in some cases gave them, many advan
tages at the expense of their neighbors. He told them to
“ borrow ” of the Egyptians without the remotest intention
of ever paying them back. He forbade them to practise
usury with each other, but permitted them to practise it to
any extent with the “ stranger,” so that no alien should be
able to say to them “ I was a stranger and ye took me not in.”
He told them that they should lend unto many nations, but
never borrow, and that he would “ make them the head,
and not the tail.” He depopulated whole districts for them,
to inhabit, and carried out the process in the most hellish
manner, sparing neither age nor sex. And all this was done
solely through his good pleasure, and not because the Jews
were any better than the populations who were exterminated;
for we are expressly told that they did “ more evil than did
the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of
Israel.” Moral obligations do not concern him. He claims
the potter’s right over the clay, and smashes one vessel and
preserves another, without any respect to their merits. He
“ hath made all things for himself; yea even the wicked
for the day of evil.” The saint who goes to heaven and
the sinner who goes to hell are both “elected” by his grace;
and the latter has no more right to complain than the dying
pauper who, when he resented the statement that he was
going to hell, was told that he ought to be thankful there
was a hell to go to.
V.
God’s savagery is a fruitful theme. Look at the story of
the Fall. He places a damnation-trap in Paradise and
curses the first couple for falling into it. How could he
expect them to refrain from the one thing forbidden ? The
tabooed fruit hung temptingly before their eyes every minute.
Is it any wonder they yielded ? The least inquisitive woman
in the universe would have had her teeth in one of those
apples in less than ten minutes. But God was so angered
by their offence that he not only cursed them, but all their
posterity, and even the ground under their feet. He must
have been an awful sight in his passion, and it is surprising
that he did not go off in a fit of apoplexy.
God curses the unborn for a paltry “ sin ” committed
�11
long before they were thought of ! What would be thought
of a legislator who proposed that the relatives of all mur
derers should be hung, and the relatives of all thieves
imprisoned ? We should judge him to be bad or mad. Yet
this is what God did, does, and will do ; God who should
be infinitely wiser than the wisest man and infinitely better
than the best.
Look at the story of the Flood. God drowned all the
people in the world, except eight, for being what he made
them ; and in his wrath he spared not the lower animals
who had no share in man’s transgression. He looked down
on the mountains filled with his fugitive children. He saw
them climb the rocky heights to escape from the devouring
waves. He heard their cries of agony as they were over
taken. He beheld the mother and babe drop together in
the raging flood. He witnessed the death-struggle of the
last strong man who scaled the highest peak and was washed,
off into the universal grave. And when the waters subsided,
he saw the earth a vast charnel-house, and the herbless
fields covered with the bones of a slaughtered world.
If it be a virtue to emulate God, the greatest villains in
history deserve the most reverence, and instead of hanging,
murderers we should maintain them in luxury during their
lives, and erect monuments to their memory when they are
dead.
Look at the Jewish wars. Read the twentieth chapter of
Deuteronomy, and ask whether any devil could have given
viler advice. Let God’s words stand in all their hideous
nakedness:—
“ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer
of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people
that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they
shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but
will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And
when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou
shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But
the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in
the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;
and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities
which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of
these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive
nothing that hreathethy
�12
What awful maxims of desolation, straight from the heart
of cruelty and lust! The loving mother holds aloft her
habe, shrieking for mercy, and the flashing sword of
Jehovah’s bandits cleaves them dead together. The men
fight, and can die exclaiming that all is lost save honor.
But the flying maidens cannot even say that. They are
handed over by God’s command as victims to lust. Onehalf go to the soldiers and the other to the congregation,
after a few have been reserved for Jehovah himself. Thirtytwo thousand Midianitish virgins were treated in this way,
of whom “ the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two.”
O English maidens, with heaven’s own azure in your
sweet eyes, and hearts as soft as its fleecy clouds, look out
from the sheltei' of your homes on this ghastly scene!
Imagine the brave men who have perished in defending
hearth and home your own fathers and brothers ; imagine
the bloody corpses slain amid cries for mercy those of your
mothers and your baby brothers and sisters, whose prattling
presence was as dancing sunshine in the house; imagine
yourselves those sweet girls fleeing from worse than death ;
and then think whether this Bible God deserves your worship
and your love.
We need not wonder, after reading these maxims of in
spired war, why David showed his repentance for adultery
with Bathsheba by fighting the Ammonites, and putting his
prisoners “ under saws, and under harrows of iron, and
under axes of iron,” and making them “ pass through the
brick-kiln;” or why God took the kingdom from Saul for
sparing Agag after utterly destroying his subjects.
Look at God’s favorites. We judge men by the company
they keep, and the same rule should apply to gods.
Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected
from all the world’s inhabitants to be the founder of God’s
chosen nation, did only one good deed in his whole life.
He rescued his nephew Lot from captivity, and we will give
him the credit of it, although his defeat of five mighty
kings with a mere handful of servants is an achievement
which can hardly be credited without a great deal of faith.
Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice passed his
wife off as his sister, not to save her honor, but to save
his own skin; and on each occasion God punished not the
liar, but the persons who were simple enough to believe him.
He turned his own son and the lad’s mother out into the
wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a little
�13
dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another
son as a burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at
the critical moment. But in estimating character, intention
is everything. These two occasions show that he was a
murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.
Isaac was a true chip of the old block. He also was
a constitutional liar; like his father he passed his wife
off as his sister, and for the same paltry reason. Besides
this he had only one peculiarity. He was very fond of
venison, and liked it so well that, objecting to die on an
empty stomach, he laid in a good supply before giving up
the ghost.
Jacob was one of the meanest blackguards that ever
lived. He is the father of the great race of Jeremy
Diddlers. He diddled everybody he met—including God
himself—with the single exception of his uncle Laban, who
diddled him. He took advantage of his brother’s hunger to
bargain away his birthright. He cozened his blind father,
and cheated his brother out of the old man’s blessing. He
ran away like a coward to avoid Esau’s vengance. He
wrestled with an angel all night for his blessing, and
probably wouldn’t have let him go then if he wore clothes
and had any small change in his pockets. He bargained
with God for unlimited capital, without any security, on
condition of paying ten per cent, of the profits. He married
both his uncle’s daughters, got possession of all his sheep
and cattle worth having, and finally left the old man without
even a god to worship. On his way home he sent forward
a large present to mollify Esau, who was coming out to
meet him. But this noble fellow put it by, said he had
enough, fell on his brother’s neck, wept, and forgave him all.
Yet God says, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I
hated.”
David, the man “ after God’s own heart,” lied, deceived,
robbed, murdered, committed adultery, and died with counsels
of blood on his lips. This savage warrior was “ after God’s
own heart.” What a remarkably black heart it must be!
VI.
The treatment of women has often been declared a fair
test of civilisation. If God treats them worse than the
most advanced nations of to-day would tolerate he is far
�14
less civilised than his own creatures. We shall find that
his sexual views are almost beneath contempt. Women
are the greatest supporters of the clergy, yet the Bible God
outrages their holiest instincts in nearly every part of his
sacred word.
He so planned creation that the human race had to be
propagated through incest in the first generation. Why did
he not create two couples instead of one, so that their children
might have intermarried without violating decency?
Throughout the Old Testament woman is never regarded
as possessing any rights; she is treated simply as a chattel.
The Decalogue classes the wife with the ox and the ass as
things belonging to the husband, which his neighbours are
not to covet. God empowered the Jewish father to sell
his daughter as a concubine, and sanctioned wholesale
rape on the women who were “spoil ” of war. He allowed
the males of his chosen people to take wives for a month on
trial. He never said anything against infidelity on the part
of the husband, but he appointed a “jealousy” trial for
suspected wives so utterly revolting, as well as absurd, that
no preacher dares read it to his congregation. His favorites
from Abraham to Solomon were all polygamists. God
never inculcated monogamy, the marriage of one man with
one woman ; and no one, in the whole of the Bible, is for
bidden to have more than one wife except Bishops and
Deacons.
The Bible God clearly sanctions polygamy,
which desecrates our noblest feelings, turns love into lust,
and destroys the very idea of home.
The New Testament God is little better. He had no con
ception of true marriage. It never occurred to him that
love differed from lust. Jesus frowned on all sexual rela
tions. He even advised men to make themselves eunuchs,
and we might think that he carried out his doctrine if he
had not been followed about by so many females. He
taught that in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving
in marriage, which may be a consolation to timid husbands
who fear what might happen there with a fellow like David
prowling about.
Saint Paul, who was inspired by God, recommended
celibacy, which means the suicide of the race. He lived
single himself (the dry old crust!) and thought that the
best state for everybody. But if they could not live single
without fornication, he advised them to marry. This is
holy Paul’s doctrine, and he was called by God to preach.
�15
He places the union of men and women on exactly the same
ground as the coupling of beasts.
The Bible God emphasises the inferiority of women. The
first woman brought evil into the world. That would never
have been stated if men had not written the whole of the
Bible from beginning to end. God tells us how long the
patriarchs lived, but he does not consider women of suffi
cient importance to chronicle their ages. Nearly all the
Old Testament women are wicked. In the New Testament,
women are told to obey their lords and masters, and not
to open their mouths while away from home, but to wait
until they get their husbands by the fireside and then meekly
ask whatever they want to know. Women are to obey
men as men obey God. More false and ignoble doctrines
were never penned. Let husband and wife walk side by
side, not as mastei’ and slave, but as equals, and let the
hateful word “ obedience ” be banished from the vocabulary
of love.
The Bible God sanctions slavery, the right to property in
human flesh and blood, the most horrid institution that
ever disgraced and cursed the earth. Abraham was a slave
holder, and so were all the heroes of Israel. God told his
people to make slaves of their captives, and he laid down
laws as to their treatment. Saint Paul sent a runaway
slave back to his master. “ Servants, obey your masters,”
means literally “ slaves obey your owners.” God never
said a word against slavery from Genesis to Revelation.
Yet he had many opportunities. Why did he not waste
less time over laws of priestly millinery, and devote more to
the teaching of moral truth? Why did he not declare that
all men should be free and that no man should enslave his
brother ? Why did he leave it for the infidels of France to
invent that word of fire, “ Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,”
which sums up the aspirations of humanity, and flames like
a beacon over the stormy path of progress ?
We have already said that Jehovah was only one of an
ancient multitude of Gods. We now repeat that he was never
the infinite spirit of the universe, but a local, visible deity
of one little nation. He walked about in the Garden of
Eden “ in the cool of the day,” or, according to the learned
Lightfoot, about “four o’clock in the afternoon.” Cain
fled “ from his presence ” into the land of Nod, socalled perhaps because he was not wide awake in that
locality. Jonah tried to do the same thing but failed, be
�16
cause the Lord sent a storm after him, and had him thrown
overboard and swallowed by a whale, before he could reach
Tarshish which was outside his “beat.” God wrote ten
commandments on two tables of stone with his own finger.
Probably it had a long sharp nail like a Chinese ascetic’s.
A finger is inconceivable without a hand, a hand implies an
arm, an arm a body, and thus God becomes a magnified
man. In keeping with this view, we read that God showed
Moses his “ hinder parts,” a rather undignified and ludic
rous exhibition. We also learn that the Lord freoxuently
visited people he liked. On one occasion he looked in on
Abraham, who said “ Stop to dinner,” and God accepted
the invitation. Anyone who wants a copy of the bill of
fare on that occasion will find it in the eighteenth chapter
of Genesis. After dinner the Lord was so good-humored
that he promised Abraham, who was a hundred years old, a
son by his wife, who was ninety. Sarah knew better; she
treated it as a joke; and being in a secluded part of the
tent she laughed to herself. God, however, overheard her,
and asked why she laughed. Sarah, being afraid, answered
“ I did not laugh.” And the Lord replied “ But you didi
laugh.” Just imagine a conversation like that going on
between Sarah and Qod Almighty in Abraham’s back
kitchen I
In the New Testament, God is still visible. Jesus Christ
was God, and he walked and talked for about thirty-seven
years. And after rising from the grave he visibly ascended
into heaven with some fish and honeycomb just eaten on his
stomach!
This petty God of a petty nation, this Jehovah of the
Jews, has become God the Father of Christianity. The
deity of Christendom was worshipped three thousand years
ago in the form of a bull. That idol was real, but all the
rest is fancy. The Bible God is a superstitious dream
which will vanish into oblivion like the myriad imaginings
of unbridled ignorance. He is a last shadow of the night
fleeing before the mighty dawn of a new day.
P'reethoi/ght Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The God the Christians swear by
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements ("Mr Foote's pamphlets") inside front cover (p.[2]).
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
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N240
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The God the Christians swear by), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
God
NSS