2 10 25 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/83ddc69054006a0556b8c0fbfa8b31e4.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=nbIg0A2Opz47skf1uRJdUcKPBsR7hzluFxrjd2C1aPzzXmY86-XaHSo7NNZoWoRuUG6Ps1YLEJFe5x6FGZBxRK6xkInk3P7QH9t-lJee7ssy--rC-sYjyFChkDJRdwm-geWaC4ejFVJmmXCchZDfNQppU18mFmURGudG9Tzc0X0enpCdYhTLI5eaw6caFyV8J7zme-6XH1uykGGnh34TWEyV0VAWVrodNlRpzdAb749UPfgNCJ6WpAJEHLkkvTtxurlvHZtiwVNJZz41Hm87BJcsrcB1nBNU%7EKJ7rlSnpZOxBi7y3yuea0NvSVGPfDZ82RkeAJpBhn6JVUY8bGoBXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bfb48e6bd5a0e7542502f12d65a9d4bf PDF Text Text Price One Penny. THE J. THEODORE L’AUTON. w London : THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1887. �;•I' �THE NATIONALISATION OF SOCIETY. POVERTY. HERE is in the nature of every man a desire tor happiness, enjoyment, and pleasure ; a horror of pain and oppression. The physical constitution of man has craving instincts ; the intellectual part of him has also its desires. These desires must be satisfied; they cannot be oppressed. All oppression of a man’s lawful instincts means misery and death for him. The instincts of human nature are like dormant volcanoes, ready to burst forth when the opportunity offers. The passions of human nature may lie calmly beneath the surface, but when they break forth, they break forth with rage: men have in the course of the world's history risen against their fellow men, and like savage hyaenas have made them their food. A man will slay his fellow man for the slightest angry word or look. The lowest and meanest man will strive to avenge an insult; but why should he bear so meekly the monster of Poverty ? Poverty is the crime which outrages all a man’s instincts and feelings. What is it which condemns you to live in hovels unfit for brutes ; to eat the food of swine ; to wear out your life, health, strength, and beauty in a desperate inhuman struggle for your existence ? Poverty. What is it which robs you of education, crushes your natural intelligence, and destroys the distinguishing mark of your superiority ? Poverty. What is it that changes a man from contentment tQ sedition ; from sobriety to debauchery, from humanity to brutality? Poverty. What is that it makes men criminals, society a barbarism, and hands down to posterity as an heirloom, deformed, stupid progenies ? Poverty. Poverty is the worst crime in the world. The greatest criminal is not shunned as the poor man. If you are poor, the rich man will not sit beside you, will not eat with you, will not speak with you; but will sneer at you. While you are delving for a mere crumb to eat, he is enjoying himself at your expense. While you are passed by as an insig­ nificant object he is honoured. Who is he, this rich man ? The man who has taken advantage of your stupidity and mean opinion of yourself. Are we rich enough ? Do you think there are no men poor except those who ask for a crumb of bread for God’s sake ? Poverty means the inability to satisfy your lawful instincts; if you cannot satisfy your lawful instincts with ^10,000 a-year, you are poor. But nothing can be more barbarous than our idea of civilisation. If you can by a self-denial that eats out your very heart; by the economy of a miser, appear well before the eyes of men, then those that cannot practise your self-denial or your economy will deem you rich and blessed. Are we free from Poverty, when by a struggle that wears out our lives we can barely manage to cover our bodies and keep our blood circulating? In the present social condition of the world, the majority will consider themselves happy if they can find these two necessaries. Must we then rest satisfied with these ? Is there no grander civilisation for us ; no more blessedness than a life and death struggle ? I for one do net believe it; I see in reality no cruel Destiny com­ manding it to be so. All things have a cause ; and there is a cause for Poverty. There is Poverty, universal, degrading, damnable Poverty; men have a life and death Straggle for existence ; but who is responsible for such a state of things ? Are we not �4 41 ourselves responsible? The remedy is before us ; we need only apply it. There is no Tyrant-God ruling over us. Is not the world ours ? The earth will grow us corn and cotton if we only sow ; will give us food, clothing, light, and heat. Where lies the fault ? Is it not ours ? The life of mankind is not a life of blessedness at present; we must make it a life of blessedness. Not the bare necessaries of existence should be the ultimatum of our desires ; but the abundance that will make life worth living. Let us try. If in the nature of things such an acquisition be impossible ; if it be decreed by the immutable laws of the universe that Poverty must exist, then I say with Carlyle, “ So scandalous a beggarly universe deserves nothing but annihilation,” WHY WE ARE POOR. 1 How can a man become rich ? What is it that will make a man rich ? You would say if a shoemaker was making 1,000 pairs of shoes in a day instead of two pairs, that he was on the road to wealth. Precisely so. If a shoemaker, who by making two pairs of shoes in a day struggled through life, then he certainly has a better chance of a more human existence when he can make 1,000 pairs in a day. So also a farmer who rears 1,000 head of cattle has a better chance of being richer than if he only reared ten head of cattle. For i,ooo pairs of shoes are worth more than two pairs; and i,ooo cows are worth more than ten cows. The first condition of wealth therefore is;—A man must have a large amount of saleable commodity of some kind. The greater the amount the richer he will be. But though that is the first condition, it is not sufficient. What would be the use of you making i,ooo pairs of shoes per day if competition with other shoemakers forced you to sell at a trifling profit; or if people were so poor that they could not buy your shoes. So then it is not enough that you have a great amount of saleable commodity ; another condition is necessary. Other persons must have commodities to give you in exchange for your shoes. What would be the use of you making i.ooo pairs of shoes per day if you could not exchange them for other commodities necessary for your daily wants ? Tobe wealthy, or in other words, to have all your wants satisfied, implies two conditions, viz., you must by your labour produce a great amount; secondly, others must also pro­ duce an equivalent amount. The most illiterate workman knows that these two condi­ tions are implied in a good day’s wages. If you are a shoemaker, you know that the more work you do in the day, and the greater the demand for shoes, the greater will be your wages for that day. So also with every other occupation. The more you produce, therefore the richer you will be; provided there be a demand for the produce of your labour. If a shoemaker can make two of pairs shoes in a day, he will be twice as rich if he can make 4 pairs in a day ; he will be fifty times as rich if he can make 100 pairs in the day; provided that the condition of demand is co-existing. The question, therefore, “ How can we become richer ? ” is reduced to this one, “ How can we increase the produce of labour, and at the same time maintain an equivalent demand for that produce? ” HOW INCREASE THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. 'T .IP, Do you imagine that a shoemaker or tailor, who works before his fire plying his awl or his needle, will ever become richer by that means ? Never. He may by working late and early add a little to his income ; but that little would be totally insignificant. Take your ordinary shoemaker or tailor, and you will say that in order to live a life worthy of being called Life, they should be at least twenty times as rich as they are. They must consequently produce twenty times as much as they are producing inorder to be twenty times as rich. Men can never become richer till the produce of their labour increases. How then can the produce of labour be increased ? Evidently men cannot be left to themselves, to -work when and how they wish. The shoemaker cannot be left to ply his aw’l at his own leisure, “ far from the busy haunts of men.” The greatest result in labour is got from combination or co-operation. A man who by his own aid can make ten pins in a day, will in a factory make 1,000 in the same amount of time. It is the combination of all sorts of skill working in union that has enabled men to become millionaires. We say, therefore, that the only means of increasing the produce of man s labour is the combination of all the individual workers into factories adapted for their several employments. Machinery is the great increaser of the labour of man. Brain and muscle power is valued a thousandfold when applied to machinery. The shoe­ maker who expends his energy in finishing off a shoe, can finish 100 shoes with the same amount of energy when it directs the forces of Nature. The highest result of individual labour is obtained, therefore, by co-operation and scientific machinery. �5 HOW MAINTAIN A DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. A shoemaker may make 1,000 pairs of shoes in the day by the aid of machinery : even the enormous produce of our factories may increase a hundred-fold ; but what advan­ tage would all that be if competition forced down the prices to an irreducible minimum; or if the poverty of would-be buyers was the cause of the goods lying on hand unsold ? In order that any advantage may arise from increased production, there must be a demand for that increase; that is, these two phenomena, Competition and Poverty, must cease to exist. Competition which forces a man to sell at the lowest possible rate, and Poverty which condemns the produce of a man’s labour to rot on shelves, are the two evils which would render an increase of produce on the part of a portion of the community of no appreciable utility. As we stated before, the only two conditions of wealth are: ist. increased produce on the part of workers; 2nd. a universal demand for that produce. To increase the produce of your labour, with a co-existing co­ ordinate demand means to increase your wealth; the same conditions carried to an indefinite degree means indefinite wealth. We have shown how the produce of labour can be increassd ; we have now to show how a demand for that produce can be main­ tained. The two evils which prevent a universal demand for the produce of labour are poverty and competition. Let us deal first with poverty. We mean that if a certain portion of a community work, and produce a certain amount of commodities, and the other portion, for whom part of these commodities are intended, do not work and produce, and consequently have nothing to give in exchange for their wants, these commodities so produced will have to lie unsold. The poverty therefore of those who do not work is a direct reason why there is no demand for commodities produced ; it nullifies the labour of those who have produced ; it leaves the producer in the same position as if he had not produced at all. It is evident, therefore, that all must work ; there must be no exceptions. There is no use in one-half of a population working and producing, and leaving the produce to rot because the other half who have not worked are not able to buy. Labour must be compulsory. The more labourers, the more wealth. If the poverty of a portion of a community be the direct cause of the poverty of the other portion, no matter how much the other portion may produce, then, the only remedy is to remove the poverty by compelling all to work. No other remedy is possible, Not only must all be compelled to work, all must be compelled to work in such a manner as to obtain the maximum result from their labour : the more work the more wealth. But though actual poverty may be removed by compelling all to work, and a demand in general created for saleable commodities, still the evil of competition would remain. Certain branches of industry would compete with other branches of the same industry ; and while such a condition would exist increased production would only have the effect of increasing the evil. Competition, therefore, must cease to exist. How. can com­ petition be made to cease ? There is only one way : there must be equilibrium ot occupations, that is, the various industries must be so balanced, that the amount pro­ duced in any one industry must not be a surplus of what there is a demand for. If the produce of any one industry were more abundant than there was a demand for, then there would be depression or stagnation in that industry. We do not mean, as some political economists mean who cry out that there is overproduction, that industries in general should be restricted ; we mean only that industries should not be allow to overgrow themselves. That does not mean that men should be kept half idle; if men are not wanted in one industry, there are plenty of other industries for them. Hence we conceive that with every man working so that he may have something to to give in exchange for his wants; with every man, aided by science, producing the greatest possible amount so that he may have the greatest possible amount to give in exchange for his unlimited wants ; with equilibrium of occupations, so that no particular industry would produce more than the population naturally demanded, we conceive that poverty would be unknown; that the present barbarism and savagery of our civilisation would disappear ; and society would have more of the elements of perfection. NO-CAUSES AND FALSE REMEDIES. I. Ov.er-Population.—Since the dawn of political economy as a science, " over­ population ” has been adduced as one among the causes of poverty. That " over-popu­ lation ” is essentially a source of poverty is self-evident, if we attach any meaning at all to the word. If the population of the British Isles were such that in town and country, �6 moorland and upland, a man could just rind elbow room, then indeed you would say we were over-populated ; and should try to find elbowroom in some other part of the globe But we have not arrived at such straitened circumstances as that yet; we are in fact a considerable distance from that. It is one thing to say over-population is an evil • it is another to say the British Isles are over-populated. What part of the habitable’globe was ever yet over-populated ? We maintain that “ over-population ” is not the cause of either of the two great evils which we have pointed out as the causes of poverty. We maintain there is no such phenomenon in the British Isles as " over-population.” That there are multitudes who can get no employment is no reason for saying there are too many people here. These multitudes could get employment if labour were properly organised. Evidently a large population does not diminish the productiveness of labour. Neither does the fact that there are multitudes without employment prove that there can be no work here for them ; and that they should go elsewhere to find employment. That would be the case if the work of a country were identical with the work of miners, who having a limited quantity of work to do, must necessarily have it finished at some time. When the mine is worked out, they must go to some other mine. But the work of a nation is not identical with that. The manufacturer will never be in want of materials for labour. He can dig down 4,000 miles without injuring his neighbour. To illustrate further Suppose a settlement of 1,000 persons had formed a society among themselves, and by judicious apportioning of occupations, had formed themselves into a miniature nation, in which each man found ample demand for the product of his labour, why could not 1,000, or 10,000 more settle down there too, provided they adopted and maintained the same internal.organisation as the first thousand. Where everyone found demand for the product of his labour, there would be no cry of ‘‘over-population.” But if that internal organisation were destroyed, and occupations lost their commercial equilibrium, then, necessarily there would be a loss of employment for some. Suppose a few thousand missionaries were to go to Africa to evangelise the Hottentots, there would probably be a cry from some after a time that there. was" over-population " in the Hottentot terri­ tory. But [let these few thousand missionaries betake themselves to the making of drums, wooden pipes, spears, or whatever may be in demand, and the “ over-popula­ tion ” would disappear. It is not “ over-population ” that causes want of employment; it is want of employment that causes “ over-population.” It is the want of equilibrium or organisation in the occupations of life that condemns men to walk about idle, when they earnestly desire to work. The existing poverty will not be alleviated by diminish­ ing the population. As long as'the various industries remain unorganised, as long as some are permitted to live in voluntary pauperism and beggary, as long as one industry is permitted to compete with another, to reduce the value of labour to its lowest value, so long, with ‘‘overpopulation,” or a sparse population, poverty will exist. II. Landlordism.—No greater despotism or diabolical wrong than our present system of landlordism could exist on the surface of the earth. It has been the cause of misery and death to millions through all the centuries of its existence. It has given a few a monopoly over the soil of this earth, which was made for the human race; and thereby has consigned the happiness and lives of the many to the caprice or selfish tyranny of the few. Men have been forced by landlordism to life-long slavery, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others. Humane men, therefore, seeing the evils of the accursed system, have cried out for the destruction of landlordism. Such a cry cannot and will not be vain. Landlordism, or private property in land, is unjust, and must be swept away. But though landlordism has restricted the spirit of progress in man, and prevented the development of natural wealth; it . must be remembered that its abolition would be only half a remedy. Abolished it must be; but its abolition will not alone suffice as a foundation for national prosperity. There are many who believe that if private property in land were abolished, we would then be on the road to wealth and happiness. But land nationali­ sation would only be a means towards the first condition of wealth, viz., increased pro­ duction. It would not accomplish the second condition, viz., equilibrium of occupa­ tions. Were the land owned by the State, we would then have co-operation in labour, aided by scientific machinery, as the suitable means of getting the greatest produce from the land, We would then expect increased production from the land. But with­ out equilibrium of occupations there would be the same life and death struggle as now. Were the land possessed by the State there would be increased production ; but what would that avail if competition forced down the prices of that produce to a low degree. Land must be nationalised, as the first condition towards increased production ; it must be followed by equilibrium of occupations. If State ownership be not of itself the whole remedy, how much less the ownership �called “ Peasant Proprietary,’’ You will not abolish the evils of landlordism by creating an army of landlords. You will not destroy a great evil, says Henry George, by chopping it up into small pieces. To talk of “ peasant proprietary ” bringing any appre­ ciable happiness to the cultivators of the soil is to talk nonsense. It is said existing rents are too high. But suppose all the rent of the United Kingdom were abolished, what perceptible benefit would it be to any individual in the United Kingdom? The rental of the land of the “ United Kingdom ” is about ^67,000,000. Wererent abolished, it would be equivalent to a donation of less than £2 for every one of the population. “ Well, you say that itself would be something.” Yes, indeed; it would procure for each a suit of clothes, or some trifling playtoy. It may be said that present high rents are the cause of great poverty ; but you will not introduce an era of blessedness or tolerable prosperity by merely reducing them, or even abolishing them. In our present social condition a few pounds is a matter almost of Life or Death for many ; but if the life of'man is to be anything beyond the damnable inane anarchy of to-day, a few pounds will be a matter ®f indifference. The present cultivators of the soil may desire to have the land sub-divided and allotted to them, to take their stand on it, and call it their own ; but there are more people in the British Isles besides the cultivators of the soil. To-day the majority when they rise in the morning cannot point to any spot of earth, and say, “ Here can I rest unsubjected to the caprice of any one man to drive me forth a wanderer.” Were land allotted even in minute sub-divisions to individuals the same could not be said. The entire abolition of private property is necessary for the first condition of wealth. To sub-divide land would be a means of preventing co-operation, and far from introducing wealth, would probably be not a means towards a greater increase of production than we have at pre­ sent. But whether there would be increased or decreased production would not be a matter of much moment as long as our present anarchy of labour existed. The worst evils of humanity are associated with landlordism. These evils will not be abolished by instituting the system of landlordism on a small scale, or on any scale of it. The improvidence, recklessness, and poverty have been a necessary outcome of the system; and the effects will not be removed till the cause is removed. III. Overproduction.—-Many remarkable cries have been raised since the creation of the world, but this cry of “ Overproduction ” seems to be the most remarkable. I do not. see how any man of common intelligence would say there was such a thing as overproduction. “You have produced too much,” they say; “the supply is greater than the demand.” Well, I can only say with Carlyle “ That is a novelty in this in­ temperate earth, with its nine hundred millions of bare backs ! ” Good heavens ! what shall we say of the audacity of the man who stands up and declares too much has been produced. “ The supply is greater than the demand.” Indeed ! And will you tell me at what time since the creation of Adam was there a greater demand for all the com­ modities which this world can supply ? Millions of bare backs, shoeless feet, hatless heads, and empty stomachs ; and still the cry is “ there is too much produced.” We who are workers call God to witness that we cannot lay our hands upon one-twentieth of what we demand. A supply to satisfy us may be existing on the earth, but gods and demons forbid us to touch it. There are millions of commodities hanging up in the shops, and no one buys them. Very true. But if people came and bought as fast as you could take them down, you would not say then that there was “overproduction.” People say there is overpro­ duction when commodities cannot be sold. But why cannot they be sold ? Evidently because those who would buy them have no money. And now the ultimate question, why the would-be buyers have no money, is the very question.we are trying to solve, and certainly will not be solved by saying that overproduction is the cause of poverty and no demand; when the fact is that there was never in the world’s history a time when workers required more if they could only obtain it. There are millions of com­ modities, I say, hanging up in shops and we cannot obtain them. We have no means of obtaining them. Give us the means of obtaining them and then there will not be overproduction. Grant us the means of producing more, and then we will have more to give in exchange for all these commodities rotting on shelves. Increased production on the part of every one is the first condition of wealth ; what absurdity then to say there is overproduction. For such a ravenous, covetous animal as man there could never be such a thing as overproduction. And you would remedy what you call overproduction by compelling workers to cease their producing for some time until we all get naked and hungry, and then, you say there will be a universal demand for all kinds of commodities. But if I cannot obtain one-hundreth of what I want now, how will I obtain all what I want by ceasing to produce ? The evil lies not with overproduction ; it lies in the fact that there is not universal production—equilibrating production on each individual’s part. �8 . IV. 1. REE I rade.—What does Free Trade mean ? It means free and unrestricted importation of goods. Free Trade has been condemned as the cause of poverty and depression of trade. The various industries of the “ United Kingdom ’• have had to compete with foreign produce. Such competition has had the effect of decreasing prices here, and creating overflowing markets. On such grounds has Free Trade been condemned. But suppose we returned to either partial or complete prohibition, how would the two great evils of deficient production, and anarchy of occupations be remedied ? To institute protection or prohibition either partially or wholly would be useless unless the industries were organised. The two essential remedies of increased production on the part of all and equilibrium of occupations, must be instituted first; all other remedies will be merely subsidiary. Absolute Free Trade has its evils just as landlordism has its evils. But the abolition of ,fee Jrade or landlordism would be of themselves only half remedies. No one can ration­ ally deny that absolute Free Trade may ruin a country. Were the sole industry of the United Kingdom orange-growing, and had it to compete with Spain, it is evident our orange-growmg would be useless. The natural advantages of one country may render some of its industries capable of destroying similar industries in other less favoured countries. Absolute Free Trade has not the advantages claimed for it. Its advocates point to the extension of our industries as a result of Free Trade. They point also to cheapened prices and say it has brought luxuries within the reach o’f all. But if prices of commodities have been cheapened, labour has also been cheapened, and consequently its good effects have been counteracted. As to the extension of industries, they have been forced into existence by pressure of competition. Absolute Free Trade cannot continue. It would be antagonistic to the equilibrium of occupations. We will retain what is lawful of tree Trade; we will abolish what is detrimental. We must have free what we cannot produce; we must prohibit what we can produce in abundance. V. Non-Co-Operation.—There are some who say the poverty of the people can be remedied by co-operation among the people themselves. No one will deny that co­ operation is the only means of getting the highest production from labour ; but it must be remembered that there are two conditions for wealth and prosperity, viz :—-Increased production and equilibrium of occupations. With co-operation, increased production would come, but not equilibrium of occupations. Competition would still be in exist­ ence, and would be at a higher rate than now. The fact that there is not general co­ operation at present does not account for the universal poverty ; for with co-operation, the competition of the various trades would tend towards their destruction. . V?' Capitalism.—The Socialists of to-day cry out for the abolition of capitalists. Capitalists have tyrannised over the workers; have given them wages barely able to sustain life ; these have been the evils of capitalism. But capitalism is not universal; and yet poverty is universal. Were the existing system of capitalism swept away, and the operatives themselves formed into co-operative communities, by each one contri­ buting a share of capital, I say even that would be no safeguard against competition and consequent depression. Co-operative societies have flourished ; but that has been because of their limited number : if the whole British Isles were formed into co-opera­ tive communities there would still be competition. Co-operation truly means increased production, and consequently increase of wealth ; but it in nowise means just distribution of wealth. With co-operative communities alone men may work as long and laboriously as now, and still reap very little benefits of it. VII. Intemperance, Improvidence, Want of Education.—It is said the evils of intem­ perance and improvidence have kept portions of the masses in a condition bordering on absolute starvation. The amount we spend in intoxicating drinks yearly in the British Isles is /126,000,000. It is about ^3 per head of the population. Do you believe that by rooting out intemperance, and thereby saving to everyone that ^3, you will per­ ceptibly increase the welfare of the people ? Three pounds granted to each individual in the year is only a matter of a plain loaf or a sweet one occasionally. We claim for every individual a life embracing all the advantages which modem civilisation can bestow. Do we possess that now; or are we in any slight degree approaching it ? Intemperance must be destroyed as one cf the many evils of life ; but its destruction must be accompanied by intelligent scientific organisation of mankind. The one will not suffice without the other. The want of technical education among our industrial classes has been assigned as one of the causes of our chronic poverty. We are said to be far behind some of the Continental countries. Truly. Germany was the first European country to recognise the advantage of technical training ; and, as a consequence, she has made more progress than any other country in manufacturing. But at the same time there are two techni- �9 callj' trained men in Germany for every one that can find employment suited to his training. All these so-called remedies are useless without equilibrium of occupations. You may train workmen to the highest degree in their profession but unless the number trained in each profession be regulated by the demand for them you will have com­ petition among the members of these professions, and consequent low wages. Educa­ tion alone therefore is no remedy. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Who is to apply the remedy? Who is to compel the unwilling to work; locate isolated workers into co-operation; and determine the equilibrium of occupations ? Evidently such work is the work of a government. At first sight there may appear difficulties in the way of applying the remedy. But why should there be a difficulty in applying a remedy if that remedy be proved to be for the benefit of the people. The first duty of the government would be to divide the population into industrial communities, so that each community may be capable of being centres for factories. The next duty would be to determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity for which there would be a demand in every com­ munity. Let us suppose one of these industrial divisions to consist of 10,000 persons. We can determine approximately the number of shoes for these 10,000 persons to be 50,000 pairs in the year ; the number of hats 40,000; the number of loaves of bread 30,000. per week. That being determined for such a community, we see that if one shoemaker could make 1,000 pairs of shoes in a year, then 50 shoemakers would be re­ quired for such a community. More shoemakers than 50 in that community would be an injury to each other. So if one hatter could make 1,000 hats in a year, then 40 hatters would be required for the same community. And if one baker could bake 3,000 loaves in a week, then 10 bakers would be required. But you say, " What would the remaining 9,900 persons be doing?” Have we not wants enough to keep these 9,900 employed, even supposing an occupation to be allotted to each man. There are about 12,000 different occupations in the British Isles ; every man needs a little of the service of each. Given the amount required to be produced ; and also the amount each person is capable of producing, it is only a problem of arith­ metic to find how many workers are required in each occupation, so as to create an equilibrium of supply and demand. The population of the British Isles is about 35,000,000 ; the amount of every commodity utilised in daily use by such a population can be determined. The number to be employed in each occupation can be determined. We look forward to the development of science, and the means of shortening human labour, or, at least, the means of getting the greatest possible produce from a man’s labour, as the principal means of increasing the welfare of man. You may object : In case machinery and science should be so developed, that comparatively few would be able by working all day to supply all the necessaries required by the population, multi­ tudes would have no occupation; for the very reason, you say, that machinery, and all means of high production, would tend, as it has tended in the past, to throw persons out of employment. Granting that such a high rate of production may arise, and that comparatively few could supply multitudes, it would not follow, that equilibrium of occupations would be destroyed. If comparatively few, working ten hours a day could supply ten times their own number, then by reducing the time of labour down to one hour a day, both suppliers and supplied would have their share of work. The approxi­ mate amount of commodities of every description required for the population being determined ; the numbers to be employed in each occupation, based on the resources of scientific research being determined ; the next duty of the State would be to organise the factories already existing, and to institute others in localities naturally adapted to such factories. In order that the State may institute and organise factories to the best advantage, it will be necessary for the State to be the owner of all lands and buildings. Land must therefore be nationalised. Society must be nationalised. Private individuals could not be left in possession of either buildings or land ; because the tenants would have to pay rent to the owners ; and the payment of rent or interest to any private indi­ vidual is another name for tyranny and robbery. The State must become the owner of all lands, railways, ships, buildings, and all means of distribution and exchange. Com­ pensation must be given for all these. How much compensation should be given ; or whether any should be given for land, are debatable questions; but those who are desirous that our present system of anarchy and poverty should cease, will not dispute about reasonable compensation. Following, however, computations already made, the land value of the United Kingdom has been estimated at £,2,000,000,000 ; the railways �JO anyuA aqy pun ‘iiupnpojd ut paXoyduia oje uopuyndod yynpE jno jo qyjnoj-auo ynoqv XyUQ qjOJtUOO UI OAty oy yyB ayqBUO pynOAX BUO-XyuOMy BAOqB UBXH XjOAB JOJ Xnp B qjOAX sjnoq oaxj uEqy ssay ‘paiyddn Xyjadojd ojoax Xjaurqaura jt ynqy payujysuomap uaaq suq yj ■yuBayiuSisuT ysouqB pajaptsuoa aq pyno.vx yunoitre jBqy ‘Xyaiaog pasTjEuopBjq jo uoijbs -iueHjo aqj japup ‘uoiyByndod aqj jo pBaq jad ogj you st jt ynq 'tuns aSusy e sjuaddr jj ooo'ooo'ooo'zy jb pajEunysa uaaq snq ,, mopSuyx pajiup ,, aqj jo strops puBy aqj jo snjBA sqx i uoajaqy SuiqyXjaAa pun 'saurpytnq ‘puBy aqj yyn assqajnd ajBjg aqj pynoa ‘qsB noX ‘.xxoq puy ’diqsjauAxo aqj sauinssB ajEjg aqj uaqAx pajBSuaduioa aq ajojajaqy jsntu yuasajd jb Xyjadojd ssassod oqA\ asoqj, •aSuEqaxa puB ‘uoijnqyjjsip 'uopanpojd jo stream aqj yyn ptre 'sdyqs ‘sXuAxyiBj 'sSuipyinq 'spirey yyn jo jouaxo aqj aq yynqs ajEjg aqj ynqj stream jnqj, •pasqEUOijBU aq jsnm Xjaiaog -pasiyEuopBU aq jsnui ptreq <; osjb ujbj duaqa b je jnoqny jnoX jo aanpojd aqj yyas oj noX syaduioa jnqj uoijtjadmoa you ji st ‘dnaqa sayaijjn asaqy ya8 noX jnqy jubjS uoAxy ‘Suiqjoyo pnq ptre pooj pnq pire ! sa^ i Suiqjoya ptre pooj deaqa sn joj ajnaojd uoijtyadmoa you ssoq <; Sutqj yutayauaq b uotjpadmoa yon st yng •uopanp -oid pasBOJOUT ujojj poAtjap aq yyiAt syyauaq ou sasnaa uoiyiyadmoa ypupy 'ojej jsoaxoj jtaqy je uauiqjOAx jo so^eax aqy ^utdaaq jo nyqudna st uoppaduiOQ -auiES aqy ureuraj SBAtjBjado jo sbSeax aqy pun ‘asuajaut yyps Xbui uotjanpojd jo bjej aqy ynq ! anjy Xja7\ I XrpyBOAX you are saApnjado aqy yyps pun ‘aanpojd oy uiaqy adoq jbao pynoa sax sb qanui sb aanpojd jo junoure snouijoua ub SuipyaiX are sotjojobj jno yuqy anjy you yi st ynq SNOLLoafao •pasqBOj aq pynoAx Suiaq-yyaAX yntaos pun qyyBOAx jo suoijtpuoa aqy ‘puBtuap ajEuipjo-oa b pun uotyanpojd pasEajatq qyjAt aauayq ‘uotyanpojd jo snydjns ajaqy ajaqAx Xyuo sysixa uoppadtuop •uoppadtuoa joj uiooj ou aq pynoAx ajaqj 'Supsixa Xjysnput jo qauujq Xue ut snydjns ou ‘joj ! ysixa you pynoAx uotypadtuoa suoiyud -noao jo mnijqqinba qyq\\ •pa^uBqaxa Xytpnaj aq you Xbui paonpo.rd sSutqy aqy qSnoqy ‘XjjaAod ou ‘Supyuads Xyyayjys 'aq ubo ajaqy ‘Sutanpojd auoXjaAa qjiAX. qjB joj qjyuaAX jo asBOJauT joj uopypuoa ysjy aqy st qatqAx ‘yyB Xq uopanpojd pasuajaur aq pynoAx ajaqjp •jBaddBsrp pynoAx XyjaAod aynnyadjad puuayBurSpo qaiqAX saauEjsmnajia aqy ! ystxa pynoAx qyjBaAt joj Xjnssaaau sjb qaiqAX suoptpuoa aqy ‘jnoquy jo uopESiUExtio ub qans qji/W ■sayapjB ayqBajBS aqy jo uoyyonpojd aqy uo papuadxa jnoqny jo anyn.x ayqEjinba aqy Xq pautmjajayx aq yyiAx saatjd ‘suopnd -noao jo tumjqyyTnba SutqsiyqBjsa uopyjadtuoa Xq pauyuijayap oje saapd ‘yuasajd yy auioq je sapryuunb yuaraqjns ui paanpojd aq trea qaiqAX sapipotutuoa jo uopEyjoduq aqy ysuyB§B uoyyiqTqojd aq osyB ysnut ajaqy ynq iXjyunca stqy ur aanpojd youuna sax qaiqAX saprpotutuoa asoqy ut apBJj, as-ij ayaydmoa aq ysnui ajaqq purod ysaAxoy syi oy jnoquy jo anyBA aqy jo UMop buiajoj b puu uoryiyadmoo aq XyrjEssaaau pynoAx ajaqy ‘ysixa pyno.vx apBjj, aajq; aynyosqu sb Suoy sb yng •ayqissoduii st yy oy ujnyaj oy pun ‘uoiyaayojg dn uoaiS aAtq oax : uoiyaayojj suuam yuqy ‘pres aq Xeui yy •payjodtui Suiaq tuojj payyqiqojd Xyyayjys aq pynoqs uiopSuiyy payiupy aqy joj sappuBnb aynnbapE ut paanpojd Suiaq jo ayqEdEO ayaiyjE Xuy -suopEdnaao jo umTjqyyinba paqsiyqBysa aqy qyiAX ajajjayui oy you sb os payuynSaj aq pynoqs syjodun aqj, ■qyynaAx jo uopipuoa ysjg aqy si tyaiqAx ‘uopanpojd jo yunoure yuajS ynqy aAuq you pynoAx sax Xjosynauioa you ojoax jnoqny ji ‘jaqyouB jo uopanpojd aqy uo spuadayx uopanpojd s.ubui auo joj punuiap aqy sb joj ! yyn uo Xjosyn'dtuoa aq pynoAx jnoqnp •aauaSiyyayui pajinboB ptre yujujuu sjunpiAipur yuqy oy SuipjoaaB aynyg aqy Xq pauiuijayap aq pynoAx jEnpiAtpuT qana oy payyoyyu uopudnaao aqjp ’ayByg aqy uiojj yuatuyuioddu stq aAiaaaj pynoAx {EnpiAiput XjaAvr -jnoquy jo jaXoydma puu ystyHyidEa aqy aq pynoAx aynyg aqg ■paqsqqEysa aauo jnoqny jo tunijqqrnba aqy qjnysip oy payytuijad aq pynoa sjoynynaads jo sjojnyuoApu ajBAijd oy<y ’jnoquy jo yojyuoa aroqAx aqy oAEty pynoqs ayBjg aqj, •uiaqy pred aq oy uopusuadtuoa joj ayyyiy e ytEAX pynoqs sjouaxo saAyasmaqy yyua oq.xx asoqy ysqy ysnf Xyuo st yt ‘paAJBys Xaqy ayiqAx paqjOAx OAnq oqA\ suoqyttu jo qjo.xx aqy uaaq SBq ruopbtity paytupy aqy ut Xyjadojd aqy sb ! payaayja aq paau uuoy oyq asEqajnd ,sjboX jo jaqmnu b Xq jouaxo aqy auiooaq pynoa ayuyg aqj, •yuBogiuSisut sb tuns aqy jo uoiyejapisuoa aqy ayEdiapuB j paynaoApu OABq J yuamujaAog yuioog aqy japun ynq ! yunoure bSjbj b sjuaddu ynqy saauEysmnajya yuasajd jno uj -uopuyndod aqy jo auoXjaAa joj obiy ynaqn aq pynoAx ajnqs s.auo qoua 'uoiyuynoyBO aAoqu aqy ^uiAioyyog • Xyjadojd uouiuioa aqy jo uoissassod spjEAxoy ajuqs yunba ue aynquyuoa pynoAx auo qanyq pi jo sjouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy ojb aydoad aqy ysqy suuam Xyjadojd siqy yyB jo jouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy st ayuyg aqy Xes oj; -ooo'ooo'oo&bj jo yuyoy e Suiqum ! ooo'ooo‘oz(>-1/ sXurpyinq aqy ! ooo‘ooo'or7 sdiqs aqy : ooo‘ooo‘oo67 b st or �sjiao puB auiua aqj pB jo asnua ajBUipjn aqj uaaq snq XjjaAod jBqj aas ubo uaui jbuoijbj pB uaqA\ jug [ paapuj 'auiija §upjiuiuioa uiojj ajdoad juaAajd uopBjnqijj pun Xjjbaoj istnrepxa apaasE snoidaqj, ‘XjjaAod jnq asp outqjou aAjasap ‘Xjasiui oj sSupq uBinnq uuiapuoa oj sb juejXj b qans si asjaAtug siqj jo jojebjq aqj jnqj OAatpq oqM asoqj I jsbj jnqj sb uopjassB snouiaqdsEjq b qans oj Xjdai on aqBui j -asjaAiug aqj jo jojnajp aqj Xq pautEyjo si ji jnqj pun ! uopnjiABJ^ jo axej aqj sb jsixa Xpjns -saaau sb jsniu XjjaAod jesjoaiuu Suijsixa aqj jBqj OAatpq oqAx suosjad oje ajaqj Mouq j aqj jo os quiqj oqAx suosjad ajn ajaqj Axouq j ; ppoAx aqj ui XjjaAod on aq pjnoa ajaqj jnqj ajqtssoduii si ji Xbs oj uBaui noX o<j i ajqissoduii si ji Xbs noX oq 'uiii] joj aauBqa ou si ajaqj pps jnq ! aounjouSt pun ‘XjaSpnjp ‘XjjaAod uiojj jpsunq UAopaj oj s§uoj ubui qang 'sjpqj oj joijbjui si’ ajp siq Xpunjan jnqj spaj jnq ‘sjeuiiue jbuoijejji aqj aAoqn st aq Xjijebj ui jnqj SA\ouq ! ajp jo apoui jajqou auios joj sSuoj XjaSpnjp Xynp siq jb Xeaxe Suippojd’ ueui qang -ajiijEU jo suopBJidsE jnjMBj aqj Suispnaj uiojj uiiq pajuaA -aid jnqj" uiajsXs jniaos aqj pasjna jou SBq ‘aq oj jqSno ajp UBiunq jnq-w jo Supaaj jseoj aqj ‘ssauajqou jo jauijsui jseoj aqj uiiq in SuiAEq ‘oqAx ubui b ajaqj sj ‘tuajsXs jnqj Xq spua asaqj Suiuibjje’ uiojj pajuaXaid si jaX pun ‘ajp UBtnnq ajoui b pnaj oj SuiSuoj pun ‘jajqou Jouiuioaaq jo snojisap si ubui b jBqj ‘joej aqj st ‘Xbs j ‘tuajsXs Xue jo uoijeu -uiapuoa jsojbbjS aqj, ‘pauiBjjBun pps uopiqtUE jnoX jo jaafqo aqj jnq Xjoixue qjiAX jno ujoax oabjS aqj oj oS pun ‘qjpaq JnoX ‘Xauoui jnoX ‘ajp apqM jnoX aayuans Xbui noX : pautBjjB aq oj pua auios 'ajp jo juauiaouauiuioa aqj ui noX ajojaq jnd Xbui noy ■uotjiquiB siq aspnajjouueo ‘juaiuaauEApE joj joSeo pun ‘qjOM oj snoixun puB SuipiM st oqkx ubui b jnqj jobj aqj st uopipuoa pepos juasajd jno jo sjiao jsajBajg aqj jo auo •aoijsnfui pun uopjojxa §uispoBjd jnoqjtM. oaij pjnoa Xaqj ajaqAx uop -rsod b ui saApsuiaqj'puy uaqj ppiOM ‘ujnjaj ui jnoqnj qanui SuiaiS jnoqjiAV pajjoddns ja8 oj oSbubiu oqAx sjojaop ‘sjoXaxej ‘sjuBqojaui jo sjsoq aqj ‘paqsyqsjsa Suraq suop -Bdnoao jo tunijqpinbg -asBaa jsnui uiajsXs b qang ‘sjaqjo jo jnoqB[ aqj Xq pajjo’d -dns saApsuiaqj jaS oj oSbubui juajopui aqj puB ! Xjsauoq jbao spBAajd Suiuuna ! ajasnui sjanbuoa uiEjg gjOM siq jo sjinjj aqj jo uiiq qoj oj jaqjouB jo jqSp aqj jou jnq •. qjoAx oj ubui Xja/a jo jq3p aqj aSpapxouqaE a,\\ (PjqnuiuBp jou ji si ‘sjaqjo jo aoun -uajuiBin aqj joj jjo.xx oj auios sutnapuoa qaiqAX uiajsXs jBqj puy gjOAx oj uEiu Xjoab jo Xjnp pun jqSiJ aqj aSpapxouipB oax ! ijjoaa jsnui uaui ppoAX aqj jo pua aqj pig •uopipuoa jBiaos juasajd jno ui ubui Xub joj ssau -iddeq ou si ajaqj pjOAx auo uj ’SupjaS jo aauBqa Xub aq Xbui ajaqj jaAajuqAx joj jaqjo qaua uaaMjaq ajquiBjas suouoabj b ‘bjejjeai b ajq puy ptA\ uaui asaqj—pjBAtuo uiaqj saSjn jnq 'sjjas sb soaij Jtaqj jno §Bjp oj uiaqj jiuuad jou jjiai ssajSojd joj sjoupsut asoqM asoqg -saajoj oiubSjo jo ssbui ojoui b jpsuiiq ubui .‘ XjaSpnjp jBaiujojnE ajaiu b ! Xjiubui ub ajojajaqj uiaqj oj st ajig 'ajy uiBjsns oj qSnoua uibS ubo Xaqj ji paysijBs ajB Xaqj ‘qjjBOAx oj SutJidsB uiojj jbj juqj ‘paqsnja os ojb sbssbui aqg ’ojejjeax b pun Xjiubui ub qjoqsi juasajd jb ajiq -SutXofua jo ajqBdBO si ubui saijnxnj jo saSejUBApu aqj pu sueoui qatqAA ! ajnstaj puB qjjBBM Suijq pjno.vv paqojaqs OABq oa\ qaiqAi uiajsXs aqg 'ACESJALSH HHX JO S3f)VJLNVAaV •uitms jo quts jaqjta jsnui aq uiiq uodn jnaq oj satuoa uopijadiuoa uaqAt jnq : uoijanpojd-japun jo uopanpojd-jaAO qjtM ‘Xuiouoaa ou jo Xuiouoaa qjiAi ‘Xjjsnpui ou jo Xjjsnpui qjtAX aauajstxa ub jno aqa Xbui ubui y Suojjs aqj Xq uodn pajduiBJj pun UAtop paqsnja aq oj qnaAx aqj pun ‘qjOAx uiojj jyauaq apjq dnaj oj ‘japjnq >[jom oj ‘jaSuoj qjOAx oj uaui sjaduioa jBqj uoppaduioa si ji aas jou saop oqM ‘ uopijaduioo jo Jia9 aqj sojouSi oqA\ ubui §uiquiqj Xub ajaqj sj 'Xuiouooa puB Xjjsnput jo sjaajja aqj SutXjipnu jo ajqBdBO st qatqAx ‘uoppaduioa jsuibSe suoioa jiaqj osibj oqA\ ojb ajaqj A\aj Axoq juq : qjjBOAx jo sjuauiaja bje asaqj jnqj Xpsnf SuiAaipq ‘Xuioucaa pun 'uopanpojd ‘Xjjsnpui joj jno Xja ajdoag ‘asp Surqjauios jo paau si ajaqj aas jou saop auoXjaAa jnq ! jBqj jo paau aqj saas auoXjaAg -sassnp SuiqjOM aqj Suouib Xtuouoaa pun Xjjsnpui jo sjiqnq ajouiojd pun asnajaui oj si XjjaAog joj jubax oax Xpauiaj Xjuo aqj jBqj pins si jj ■ssauisnq jo qauBjq ojbuSoo auios ojui pasiuB§jo aq pjnoa sjaqBuiqajBAx siydjns aqj pasnaja -ap puBUiap aqj ji ubasj -sjBq jo sotXjs axbu joj puEuiap snonupuoa b axou si ajaqj sb auiBs aqj jsnC saqajBAx ui suoijuoaui axbu jo ‘sajXjs axou joj puniuap jubjsuoo b aq Pjuoax ajaqj Xjiunuiuioa XqjpaAx e ui ‘auip a]qBjaptsuoa b sjsbj jBqj apijjB ub st qajBAx b qSnoqg ’uiaqj joj juauiXojduia Xub aq jou ppoAx aiaqj Xpuanbasuoa puB ‘sjayBtuqajBAx joj puBUiap jaqjjnj aq jou pjnoAx ajaqj ‘saqajBAx Xes ‘sapijjB uiBjjaa qjiAx patjddns auiooaq pjnoAx pE ajaqAx Xjiuntuinoa XqqBOAX Xjoa b ui JBqj osje panXin aq Xbui jj •XjautqoEui jadojd Suisn puB ‘paXojduia ajaAx qjOAx oj ajqB suosjad pB ji aq pjnoAx jnoqBj pnuuu aqj jo junouiu aqi jnajg A\oq : XjauiqaBui jouajui uiojj paAijap si auiooui jboj§ JBqj, ’jBaX-B ooo‘ooo‘oo£‘iy jb pajEptapa st jnoqEj jpqj ii ♦ �12 world, what then can be said in its favour ? Poverty has existed now for some hundreds and thousands of years ; but that is no proof that it is impossible to remove it. Poverty has existed for centuries, not because of any laws of the Creator, but because of the laws of men—because of Might against Right. The day has now come when the few shall not trample the many ; when Might and Right shall be on the same side. A nobler life than the present is possible for every man; I have shown it to be possible. No laws of God or the Devil prevent it being possible ; it is man himself that renders it impossible. The human race want organisation of labour, equilibrium of occupations. The era that introduces that, will be a blessed one. Then the time, money, and energy a man will expend will not be spent in vain ; he will gain some reward for his labour. If his ambition be reasonable he will have the satisfaction of seeing it gratified. The inhuman feline scramble for wealth will then cease. The evil deeds which men commit in order to attain ends they cannot attain by fair means will no longer be necessary. Men will not then be afraid to live; self-destruction will not be necessary to end the miseries which are the companions of poverty. Men too will become more human; more God-like; less brutal: less demon-like. Incessant drudgery, which deforms the body and leaves no opportunity for intellectual culture or enjoyment will vanish into the past. Society then will deserve the name. Each human being brought into this world will be deemed a blessing, not a curse. A bright era of intelligence will take the place of stupidity and ignorance. Men will realise that we cannot live without society ; that the more intelligent a man is, the better for his neighbour. “ It is as reala loss," says Emerson, “ that others should be low, as that we should be low; for we must have society." WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Here let us ask the question : How is it that although schemes for the welfare of mankind have been propounded, have been demonstrated to be for the good of the people, have been fought for, still they are unaccomplished ? The masses through all ages have wished to be emancipated from their slavery ; there have been brave men through all ages who have struggled for their redemption ; yet their redemption has not been realised. How comes it ? Well, the reasons are clear. The people of a country are compelled to be subject to the laws of the country. The laws for the masses of mankind have through centuries been made by the few who have made them in their own interest. From the dawn of history the few who have managed to get possession of the wealth and power have made laws to degrade others in order to elevate themselves. The laws were not made to benefit the people, because those who made the laws did not represent the people. But you say we have changed all that now; the lawmakers now represent the people— at least the people give them the opportunity of making laws. Perfectly true. But though the masses have the power of electing persons to represent them in national assemblies, of what use is that if the people who are to decide for or against Reform are so ignorant concerning social evils and social remedies that they are unable to knowtbe merits or demerits of the remedies proposed. One-half of the people of a country are generally opposed in their opinions on social questions to the other half. Not till the majority of the people are freed from hallucinations ; not till they come to understand thoroughly the real causes of human poverty, and the futility of the so-called remedies of to-day, can you expect any more blessed era than the one we live in. The people must be educated. Till that is accomplished, nothing is accomplished. It is folly to suppose that because people are taught to read, they will read, or will be capable of seeking out for themselves a solution t® the problem of human misery. It is true the masses are able to read: it is in nowise true that they are able to think. For the thousand men says Ruskin, who can read and speak, you will find one who can think. The masses are ignorant and indifferent. If there is to be a nobler life for them their ignorance and indifference must vanish. "Why are the masses," says Emerson, " from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder "? The heirloom of the masses from the dawn of history down, has been poverty and misery ; and they have grown so accustomed to it that they take it for granted that poverty must exist in the world. They have no hope beyond the present. Their only desire is to obtain sufficient to keep them alive. We can account for such a low standard of human progress ; for anyone who looks around him, and sees the cruel wrongs and sufferings that men endure without uttering a word of complaint, will also see that poverty and misery are looked upon as a thing which must necessarily be, and for which there is no remedy. When the ignorance of the people will pass away, their indifference will pass away. They must be educated : in that lies the hope of better things. They must be taught �13 that there is a remedy for poverty, They must be made to know what that remedy is. Alas ! what a world of labour lies open there before all earnest men. One of the many reasons which have kept, and are still keeping nations in a state of slavery, has been the absence of organised union. They who fight for nobler aims must fight in unison. And not a union of sentiments alone will win the battle ; but steady, wise co-operation. Can you point to any nation where the people as a whole are acting in real unison for their common good ? No. The masses condemned to toil for mere subsistence, either in the dingy lanes of crowded cities, or on the lone wastes of mountain land, have no time or energy to think of remedies for social evils even if they would. Do I then expect from these downtrodden masses the commencement of a new era? No; but I look forward to those select few to whom the favour of Nature and Human Destiny have given souls capable of feeling for the degradation of their fellow­ men, and clear-sighted intelligence to see wherein lies the cause of our miseries. I look forward to those noble and courageous few who have endured the worst hardships of life, have triumphed over them, and are determined to lead a nobler existence or die. I look not to the things called “ Governments ” for the advancement of a nation, but to the nation itself. “What intellect,” says Carlyle, “can regulate the affairs of these millions of labouring men ? No one—great and greatest intellect can do it. What can ? Only these millions of ordinary intellects, once awakened into action ; these well presided over may do it.” By each individual getting a clear idea of what he is to do, and what must be done—only by that means can a nation prosper. But how can the people be educated ? Let us learn from the past. Men have laboured in the past, and have written books to point out to mankind a pathway from their slavery, but their efforts have been vain ; they have passed away unknown to the working millions. Even to-day movements are on foot for the regeneration of the human race ; but the nature of these movements are known only to those immediately connected with them. It is not sufficient to scatter noble opinions broadcast; there are barren soils for them to fall on. It is in the real contact of mind with mind that the dormant intelligence rouses itself into action. Men come together in the market place to buy and sell the scanty produce of each others' labour; but they must also come together in order to elevate human existence. Looking forward earnestly to the advent of a more human existence, and asking myself the grounds of my hope, I again appeal to those noble few in whom the spirit of Right and Justice must make itself known against oppression and injustice. Ye courageous Few! my hope rests upon you. Organize! organize! organize your fellow­ men. They are ignorant, and know not the way ; you must point it out to them. The poor two-footed slave far away on his mountain patch knows nothing of you or of your thoughts till you speak. Hide not, I say, the light that has been given you. Gather together your fellow-men in the thoroughfares and there teach them that a nobler life than a life of slavery is possible for every man. The doctrines which have caught men’s hearts, and which they have followed for centuries, were so preached. Teach them there is a remedy for all the miseries of our present existence ; that they themselves are to apply it. Is there a man who shall dare to say we are well enough ? For the base, worthless, indifferent you must have pity. You may have enemies, as all noble men have had since the creation of the world. But fear not; the spirit of a nobler existence is abroad, and the time of man’s redemption is at hand. The institutions of the past have failed to bring social happiness to mankind. They must change. There are some who cannot foresee the good a change may bring them ; but fear they may lose by it. These will be your enemies. But venture forward ; you shall have the many millions on your side. You may make sacrifices, but you should remember that there is but one life given you, and no chance for you for evermore after that. The tomb shall close over you, and your chance of leading a noble life and of causing others to lead it shall have passed away for ever. Is life worth living at present ? “ Life is an ecstasy” says Emerson; but alas how few there are who can say likewise. Is it worth living a life of monotonous drudgery ? There is no form of life worth living at the present moment if it be not in combatting with all the energy that is in you against the tyrannical wrongs, the insane bedlam delu­ sions of our age. No Demon-God is ruling over and condemning you to misery and scorn. If we are in misery it is because of our own unwisdom. Then why are we unwise ? If the life of man can be elevated why not attempt it ? This beautiful earth was made for us, and shall we be condemned to drag out our existence in some obscure corner without any chance of beholding the fairest portions of it? The wonders of creation and the knowledge and secrets gained by generations are unknown to the mass of men : they are born and they die as the lower animals. Let us then urge forward, fearing not for the cause that has Justice and the masses of men on its side, heeding not �M the opposition of those who foolishly fear a change, and be determined that we mus; have a better life, or die nobly struggling for it. Let us not fear: we shall not be alone the whole civilized world has risen against tyranny, oppression, and slavery. When all men shall know each others efforts, and shall be bound together in one common brother­ hood, to demand freedom it shall not be denied them. SUMMARY. Chap. I.—The feelings of man are easily aroused; he will rise up in resentment against an angry look er word. But why not arise with noble indignation and with earnest endeavour strive to throw off the yoke of poverty that outrages all the dearest instincts of man ? Chap. II.—Why are we poor ? We are poor because, first, we do not produce enough : second, the demand for the products of labour is not co-ordinate with production itself. Chap. III.—How, then, can we increase the produce of labour ? By co-operation ; bv the establishment of factories; by the highest adaptation of scientific machinery ; by compulsory labour. Chap. IV—How maintain a co-ordinate demand for the produce of labour? By establishing equilibrium of occupation ; by having as many workers in an occupation and no more than the wants of the community necessitate. Chap. V.—What are the false remedies for our universal poverty? Diminution of population, destruction of landlordism, restriction of production, protection, co-opera­ tion, abolition of capitalism, education, temperance, providence. To diminish population by emigration or other means, and still leave occupations disorganised, will not cause any decrease in the universal poverty. The United Kingdom seems to be over-populated because the workers are not organised. In a community either populous or otherwise, without equilibrium or organisation of occupa­ tions, the great monster of Competition will exist. So with the other false remedies, which are no remedies because such phenomena as over-population, over-production, intemperance, improvidence are the effects of poverty and the disorganisation of occupations ; while the abolition of landlordism, free trade, and capitalism would be only half-remedies. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Chap. VI.—The State would (ist) determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity necessary for the population. (2nd) It should determine the number of workers to be employed in each industry, so as to produce the amount required, and no more. (3rd) The occupations so organised should be carried on co-operatively, totally under State supervision, compulsorily. The State must be the owner of all lands, conveyances, means of transit, of distribution and exchange. Everything tending to destroy equi­ librium of occupations should be prohibited. OBJECTIONS. Chap. VII.—Is not our production as high as we could expect ? Does not competition bring cheap articles within the reach of all ? How is it possible for the State to buy up such immense property as the land, railways, ships, buildings ? At the high rate of produc­ tion proposed, would not some industries in a short time produce so much that there would be no further use for them ? Would not increased habits of industry, thrift, and temperance remove poverty ? ADVANTAGES OF THE REMEDY. Chap. VIII.—Life would cease to be an inanity and a warfare. To become rich it would not be necessary for one to prey on another. A man’s ambition would be realised. Inhuman strife and dark deeds would be unknown. Man will become more god­ like, less demon-like. WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Chap, IX.—The people must apply the remedy, The people must be educated, must be made to understand there is a remedy for poverty ; that they themselves are to apply the remedy. They must be taught that poverty is the worst crime in the world ; that they are many, their oppressors few. They must know that henceforth their watchwords must be “ Union ! ” “ Organisation ' ” You whom nature has gifted with a love of. justice and nobleness, be you in the vanguard, and in social circle or public thorough­ fare, by word and action, proclaim the doctrine of man's social redemption ! �OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community._ 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultura labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not exceeding ^300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation cf agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates : Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen­ Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election out of the Rates. Abolition of the House of Lords and all Hereditary Authorities. Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches. tation. Membership of Branches of the Federation is open to all who agree with its objects, and subscribe One Penny per week. Those ready to form Branches should communicate with the Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G. �Socialism and Soldiering ; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. By W. H. P. Campbell. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned bv a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years' imprisonment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag: B eing John Burns’ vidual Effort ; Desirable Mansions ; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. I ’Ik 14 Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman, (in reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann H. M. Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. Price id. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, t August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. held at Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The nationalisation of society Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource L'Auton, J. Theodore Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 27 cm. Notes: Publisher's list and information on the Social-Democratic Programme on unnumbered pages at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4980 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism 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 nationalisation of society), 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 Nationalisation Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0c90e3b311155b46c37d98cc789d3d99.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=m8BREjR4uJdqc-zo62mbbJTMFrCNqMEz12oso%7En-jkA-3s0qp66MH3RfTpjetW4R3dmQih3lP8iQ9tg8XdNf9hVLGOJOQpXLRitxKwsKv0PSYu3f1JoturOG3-756jVVHeZ2O1yA9yWGIjPaa0%7E0dBApQKJQleQ8jE8XLovmewa3ymgTsernfIfwVgFdYJUDcLXwQvc9fK4ZfTy%7Eh7O3Yn%7EwbBjMz8eODv3pbXhIwzW6amVTsxm3-OoYSOlH7iLG0%7EpUoWgK9pQJY-2gnYH0NxRPmXxXDHEV1S9Au1bl8ydnYcbccD3MoUlFrG4FKPoRDUeUTMqYnANqeWOds9wGIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6713fa61109732cbccca1659b9fd6030 PDF Text Text Desirable Mansions: A TRACT Reprinted, with a few alterations, from “Progress, June, 1883. By EDWARD CARPENTER. THIRD EDITION PRICE ONE PENNY. Published by THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 1887. �BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Towards Democracy. New edition, with numerous added Poems, crown 8vo, cloth, 260 pp. Price 2s. 6d “ A book whose power will certainly make it known.”— Dublin University Review. “ Truly ‘ mystic, wonderful ’—like nothing so much as a nightmare after too earnest a study of the Koran! ”— Graphic. “ Its plan includes a poetical appeal to the different nationalities of the world, a sketch of the characteristic features of England and English towns, and all kinds of industrial work, finally a series of dramatic pictures whose vividness and beauty seem magical.” — Cambridge Review. Modern Science : a Criticism. pp. Price is. Crown 8vo, paper, 7.6 Modern Money-Lending; or, the Meaning of DividendsA Pamphlet. Price 2d. Second edition. England’s Ideal. Price 2d. John Heywood, Deansgate and Ridgefield’ Manchester: 11, Paternoster Buildings, London. and ALSO Social Progress and Individual Effort. Reprinted from To-day. Price id. Co-operative Production, with an account of the experi­ ment of Leclaire. Price id. THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C. For popular pamphlets on all political, social and, economical subjects, apply to The Modern Press, or send stamped envelope for catalogue. �DESIRABLE MANSIONS FTER all, why should we rail against the rich ? I think if anything they should be pitied. In nine cases out of ten it is not a man’s fault. He is born in the lap of luxury, he grows up surrounded by absurd and impossible ideas about life, the innumerable chains of habit and circumstance tighten upon him, and when the time comes that he would escape, he finds he cannot. He is condemned to flop up and down in his cage for the re­ mainder of his days—a spectacle of boredom, and a warning to gods and men. I go into the houses of the rich. In the drawing-room I see chill weary faces, peaked features of ill-health ; down­ stairs and in the kitchen I meet with rosy smiles, kissable cheeks, and hear sounds of song and laughter. What is this ? Is it possible that the real human beings live with Jeames below-stairs! Often as I pass and see in suburb or country some “ desir­ able mansion ” rising from the ground, I think : That man is building a prison for himself. So it is—a prison. I would rather spend a calendar month in Clerkenwell or Holloway than I would in that desirable mansion. A young lady that I knew, and who lived in such a mansion, used with her sisters to teach a class of factory girls. Every now and again one of the girls would say, “ Eh, Miss, how I would like to be a grand lady like you ! ” Then she would answer, “ Yes, but you know you wouldn’t be able to do everthing you liked ; for instance, you wouldn’t be allowed to go out walking when �4 you liked.” “ Eh, dear I ” they would say to one another, “ she is not allowed to go out walking when she likes—she is not allowed to go out walking when she likes ! ” Certainly you are not allowed to go out walking when you like. Reader, did you ever spend a day within those desirable walls ? I have, many. I wake up in the morning. It is fine and bright. I think to myself: I will have a pleasant stroll before breakfast. Yes—man proposes. It is all very well to meditate a morning walk, but where O where are my clothes ? I cannot very well go out without them. What can have be­ come of them ? Suddenly it occurs to me: James, honest soul, has taken them away to brush. Good. I wait. Nothing happens. I ring the bell. James appears. “ My clothes, James.” “Yes, sir.” Again I wait—an intolerable time. At last the familiar jacket and trousers appear. Good. Now * I can go out. Not so fast—where are your boots ? Boots, good gracious, I had forgotten them. Heaven knows where they are—I don’t. Probably fifty yards away. I creep downstairs. All is quiet. The servants are evidently at breakfast. It would be madness to hope to get boots brushed at such a moment. I would like to clean them myself. In fact I am fond of cleaning my own boots: the exercise is pleasant, and besides it is just such a little bit of menial work as I would rather do for myself than have others do for me; but, as I said before, one cannot do what one likes. In the first place, in this house where one is fifty yards away from everything one wants I have not the faintest idea where my boots are, or the means and instru­ ments of blacking them ; in the second place an even more fatal objection is that if I did succeed in committing this deed of darkness the consequent uproar in the house would be per­ fectly indescribable. The outrage on propriety would not only shock the feelings of the world below-stairs, but it would put to confusion the master of the house, upset the whole domestic machinery, create unpleasant qualms in the minds * A friend tells me that once, to revenge himself for this sort of trifling, he concealed his nether garment under the mattrass and then, in the morning, slyly watched the footman as he vainly sought round the room for it. The consequence however was that he fell very much in the esti­ mation of the latter, who doubtless thought that, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, his master’s visitor •' had gone to bed with his breeches on.” �5 of the other guests, and possibly make me feel that I had better not have lived. Accordingly, I abandon the idea of my pleasant stroll. It is not worth such a sacrifice. The birds are singing outside, the flowers are gay in the morning sun — but it must not be. Within, in the sitting-rooms, chaos reigns. Chairs and tables are piled in cheerful confusion upon one another, carpets are partially strewn with tea-leaves. To read a book or write an aimless letter to some one (the usual resource of people in desirable mansions) is clearly impossible; to do anything in the way of house-work is forbidden—it being well understood in such places that one may do any­ thing except what is useful. There remains nothing but to beat a retreat to my chamber again—put my hands in my pockets and whistle at the open window. “ Who was that I heard whistling so early this morning ? ” says my kindly old host at breakfast. “ O, it was you, was it ? I expect now you’re an early riser ; get up at seven, take a walk before breakfast; that sort of thing—eh ? ” “Yes, when I can,” I reply with ambiguous intent. “ Well, I call that wonderful,” says an elderly matron—not likely, as far as ap­ pearances go, to be accused of a similar practice—“ such energy, you know.” “ What a strong constitution you must have to be able to stand it! ” remarks a charming young lady on whom it has not yet dawned that the vast majority of human kind have their breakfast before half-past nine. This is not a good beginning to the day ; but the rest is like unto it. I find that there are certain things to be done—a certain code of things that you may do, a certain way of doing them, a certain way of putting your knife and fork on your plate. When you come down to dinner in the evening you must put on what the Yankees call a claw-hammer coat. It is not certain, (and that is just the grisly part of it) what would happen if you did not do this. In some societies evidently such a casualty has never been contemplated. I have heard people seriously discussing—in cases where the required article was missing—what could be done, where one might be borrowed, &c.—but clearly it did not occur to them that anyone could dine in his natural clothes. Sometimes, when in a fashionable church, I have wondered whether it would be possible to worship God in a flannel shirt— but I suppose that to go out to a dinner party in such a �6 costume would be even more unthinkable. As I said before, you are in prison. Submit to the prison rules, and it is all right—attempt to go beyond them, and you are visited with condign punishment. The rules have no sense, but that does not matter (possibly some ot them had sense once, but it must have been a very long time ago); the people are good people, no better nor worse in themselves than the real workers, the real hands and hearts of the world; but they are condemned to banishment from the world, condemned into the prison houses of futility. The stream of human life goes past them as they gaze wearily upon it through their plate-glass windows; the great Mother’s breasts of our common Humanity, with all its toils and suf­ ferings and mighty joys, are withheld from them. Dimly al last I think I understand why it is their faces are so chill and sad, their unnourished lives so unhealthy and over-sensitive. Truly, if I could pity anyone, I would them. By the side of the road there stands a little girl, crying ; she has lost her way. It is very cold, and she looks pinched and starved. “ Come in, my little girl, and sit by my cottage fire, and you’ll soon get warm; and I’ll see if I can't find you a bit of something to eat before you go on . . . Eh 1 dear ! how stupid I am—I quite forgot. I am sorry 1 can’t ask you in, but I am living in a desirable mansion now—and though we are very sorry for you, yet you see we could hardly have you into our house, for your dirty little boots would make a dreadful mess of our carpets, and we should have to dust the chairs after you had sat upon them, and you see Mrs. Vavasour might happen to come in, and she would think it so very odd ; and I know cook can’t bear beggars, and, O dear ! I’m so sorry for you—and here’s a penny, and I hope you’ll get home safely.” The stream of human life goes past. When a rich man builds himself a prison, he puts up all these fences to shut the world out—to shut himself in. If he can he builds far back from the high road. In the front of his house he has a bound­ less polite lawn, with polite flower beds, afar from vulgarpeople and animals. Rows of polite servants attend upon him; and there within of inanity and politeness he dies. Of what human life really consists in he has little idea. He has not the faintest notion of what is necessary for human life or happi­ �7 ness. Sometimes with an indistinct vision of accumulated evil, he says: “ Poor So-and-so, he has only ^200 a year to keep his wife and family on ! ” No wonder his own daughters dedicate themselves to “ good works.” They go out with the curate and visit at neighbouring cottages. Their visits have little appreciable effect on the people, but are a great benefit to themselves and the curate. They observe, for the first time, how life is carried on ; they see the operations of scrub­ bing and cooking (removed in their own houses afar from mortal polite eye) ; perhaps they behold a mother actually suckling her own babe, and learn that such things are pos­ sible ; finally, they “ wonder ” how “ those .people ” live, and to them their wonder (like the fear of God) is the beginning of wisdom. The lord of the mansion sits on the magisterial bench or strides about his fields, and lumps together all who are not in a similar position to himself as the “ lower classes.” After dinner in the evening, if the conversation turns on politics, he and his compeers discuss the importance of keeping the said lower classes in order, or the best method of “ raising ” them out of the ignorance and disorder in which they are supposed to wallow. And during the conversation it will be noticed that it is by everyone tacitly allowed and understood, and is, in fact, the very foundation of the whole argument, that the speakers themselves belong to an educated class, while the mass of the people are uneducated. Yet this is exactly the reverse of the truth—for they themselves belong to an ill-educated class, and the mass of the people are, by the very nature of the case, the better educated of the two. In fact, the education of the one set of people (and it is a great pity that it should be so) consists almost entirely in the study of books. That is very useful in its way, and if pro­ perly balanced with other things; but it is hardly necessary to point out that books only deal with phantoms and shadows of reality. The education of the world at large, and the real education, lies, and must always lie, in dealing with the things themselves. To put it shortly (as it has been put before), one man learns to spell a “ spade,” to write it, to rhyme it, to translate it into French and Latin—possibly, like Wordsworth, to address a sonnet to it—the other man learns to use it. Is there any comparison between the two ? �8 Now is it not curious that those good people sitting round their dinner table in the desirable mansion, or listening to a little music in the drawing-room, should actually be so ignorant of the world, and what goes on in it, as to think, and honestly believe, that they are, par excellence, the educated people in it ? * Does it ever occur to them, I often think, to inquire who made all the elegant and costly objects with which they are surrounded ? Does it ever occur to them, as they tacitly assume the inferiority of the working classes, to think of the table itself across which they speak—how beauti­ fully fitted, veneered, polished ; the cloth which lies upon it, and the weaving of it; the chairs and other furniture, so light and yet so strong, each requiring the skill of years to make ; the silver, the glass, the steel, the tempering, hardening, grinding, fitting, riveting ; the lace and damask curtains, the wonderful machinery, the care, the delicate touch, adroit manipulation ? the piano 1 the very house itself in which they spend their days ! Is there one, I say, who we will not say could make even the smallest part, but who even has the faintest idea how one of these things is.made, where it is made, who makes it ? Not one. All the care, the loving thought, the artistic design, the conscientious workmanship that have been expended, and are daily expended, on these things and the like of them—go past them unrecognised, unacknowledged. The great hymn of human labour over the earth is to them an idle song. There, in the midst of all these beautiful products of toil and ingenuity, possessing but not enjoying, futile they sit, and fancy themselves educated— fit to rule. I have heard of a fly that sat stinging upon the hindquarters of a horse, and fancied that without it the cart would not go. Fancied so, I say, until the great beast whisked its tail, and after that it fancied nothing more. Doi put these things in a strong light? May be, I do; but I put them faithfully as I have seen them, and as I see them daily. * “ . . . . People who roll about in their fine equipages scarcely knowing what to do with themselves or what ails them, and some of whom occasionally run to such places as ours to have their carriage linings or cushions altered, or to know if they *can be altered as they don't feel quite 1 comfortable.' I often think ‘ God help them,’ for no one else can. . . I insert this extract just to show how these things are regarded from the side which does not usually find expression. It is from a letter written by an elderly and gentle-hearted man, employed in a carriage factory. �9 I do not suppose that riches are an evil in themselves. I do not suppose that anything is an evil in itself. I know that even in the midst of all these shackles and impediments, that wonderfulest of things, the human soul, may work out its own salvation ; and well I know that there are no condi­ tions or circumstances of human life, nor any profession from a king to a prostitute, that may not become to it the gateway of freedom and immortality. But I daily see people setting this standard of well-to-do respectability before them, daily more and more hastening forth in quest of desirable mansions to dwell in ; and I cannot but wonder whether they realise what it is they seek ; I cannot lend my voice to swell the chorus of encouragement. Here are the clean facts. Choose for yourselves. That is all. Respectability ! Heavy-browed and hunch-backed word ' Once innocent and light-hearted as any other word, why now in thy middle age art thou become so gloomy and saturnine ? Is it that thou art responsible for the murder of the innocents ? Respectability! Vision of clean hands and blameless dress— why dost thou now appear in the form of a ghoul before me ? I confess that the sight of a dirty hand is dear to me. It warms my heart with all manner of good hopes and promises. Often and long have I thought about this matter, and in all good faith I must say that I fail to see how hands always clean are compatible with honesty. This is no play upon words. I fail to see how in the long run, any man that takes his share in the work of the world can keep his hands in this desirable state. How ? The answer is obvious enough—leave others to do the dirty work. Good ! Let it be so ; let it be granted that others shall do the scrubbing and baking, the digging, the fishing, the breaking of horses, the carpentering, build­ ing, smithing, and the myriad other jobs that have to be done, and you at the pinnacle of all this pyramid of work, above all, keep your hands clean. We shouting to you from below, exhort you—At all costs, keep your hands cle‘an ! Think how important it is, while the great ships have to be got into harbour, that your nails should be blameless ! Think if by any accident you were to do a real good piece of work, and get your hands thoroughly grimed over it, unwashable for a week, what confusion would ensue to yourself and �IO friends ! Think O think of your clients, or of the next dinner party, and earnestly and prayerfully resolve that such a fall may never be yours. Seek, we pray you, some secure work—some legal, clerical, official, capitalist, or land­ owning business, safe from the dread stain of dirty hands, whatever other dirt it may bring with it—some thoroughly gentlemanly profession, marking you clearly off from the vulgar and general masses, and the blessing of heaven go with you ! Shut yourself off from the great stream of human life, from the great sources of physical and moral health ; ignore the common labour by which you live, show clearly your contempt for it, your dislike of it, and then ask others to do it for you ; turn aside from nature, divorce yourself from the living breathing heart of the nation; and then you will have done, what the governing classes of England to-day have done, have given full directions to your own heart and brain how to shrivel and starve and die. Man is made to work with his hands. This is a fact which cannot be got over. From this central fact he cannot travel far. I don’t care whether it is an individual or a class, the life which is far removed from this becomes corrupt, shrivelled, and diseased. You may explain it how you like, but it is so. Administrative work has to be done in a nation as well as productive work ; but it must be done by men accustomed to manual labour, who have the healthy decision and primitive authentic judgment which comes of that, else it cannot be done well. In the new form of society which is slowly advancing upon us, this will be felt more than now. The higher the position of trust a man occupies the more will it be thought important that, at some period of his life, he should have been thoroughly inured to manual work ; this not only on account of the physical and moral robustness implied by it, but equally because it will be seen to be im­ possible for any one, without this experience of what is the very flesh and blood of national life, to promote the good health of the nation, or to understand the conditions under which the people live whom he has to serve. But to return to the sorrows of the well-to-do—and care that sits on the crupper of wealth. This is a world-old and well-worn subject. Yet, possibly, some of its truisms may �II bear repeating. A clergyman, preaching once on the trials of life, turned first to his rich friends and bade them call to mind, one by one, the sorrows and sufferings of the poor; then, turning to his “ poorer brethren,” he exhorted them also not to forget that the rich man had his afflictions—with which they should sympathise—amongst which afflictions, growing chiefly out of their much money, he reckoned “ last, but not least, the difficulty of finding for it an investment which should be profitable and also secure 1 ” It has been generally supposed that the poorer brethren failed to sym­ pathise with this form of suffering. But it is a very real one. What cares, what anxieties, what yellow and blue fits, what sleepless nights, dance at­ tendance on the worshiper in the great Temple of Stocks ! The capricious deity that dwells there has to be appeased by ceaseless offerings. Usury ! crookfaced idol, loathed, yet grovelled to by half the world, whose name is an abomination to speak openly, yet whose secret rites are practised by thousands who revile thy name, what spell of gloom and bilious misery dost thou cast over thy worshipers! Is it possible that the ancient curse has not yet lost its effect: that to acquire interest on money and to acquire interest in life are not the same thing ; that they are positively not com­ patible with each other; that to fly from one’s just share of labour in the world, in order to live upon the hard-earned profits of others, is not, and cannot come to good ? Is it possible, I say, reader, that there is a moral law in the world facing us quite calmly in every transaction of our lives by which it must be so—by which cowardice and sham cannot breed anything else for us but gloom and bilious misery ? In this age which rushes to stocks—to debenture, preference, consolidated, and ordinary stocks, to shares, bonds, coupons, dividends—-not even refusing scrip when it can get it—does it ever occur to us to consider what it all means ?—to con­ sider that all the money so gained is taken from some one else ; that what we have not earned cannot possibly be ours, except by gift, or (shall I say it ?) theft ? How can it then come with a blessing ? How can we not but think of the railway operatives, the porters, managers, clerks, superin­ tendents, drivers, stokers, platelayers, carriage - washers, navvies, out of whose just earnings (and from no other �12 source) our dividends are taken ? ■ Let alone honesty—what, surely, does our pride say to this ? Is it possible that this frantic dividend-dance of the present day is like a dance of dancers dancing without any music—an aimless incoherent impossible dance, weltering down at last to idiocy and oblivion ? Curious, is it not, that this subject (of dividends) is never mentioned before said wage-receiving classes ? I have often noticed that. When James enters the room, or Jeffery comes to look at the gas-fittings, the babble of stocks dies faintly away, as if ashamed of itself? and while a man will, without reserve, allude to his professional salary, he is generally as secret concerning his share-gotten gains as ladies are said to be about their age. But, as I said at first, these things are not generally a man’s fault. They are the product of the circumstances in which he is born. From his childhood he is trained osten­ sibly in the fear of God, but really in the fear of money. The * whole tenor of the conversation which he hears round him, and his early teaching, tend to impress upon him the awful dangers of not having enough. Strange that it never occurs to parents of this class to teach their children how little they can live upon, and be happy (but perhaps they do not know). Hence, the child of the poor man—even in these adverse times—grows up with some independence of mind, for he knows that if at any time he can obtain £50 or ^100 a year by the work of his hands, he will be able to bring up a little family; while the son of a rich man in the midst of a family income of fifty times ^50, learns to tremble slavishly at the prospect of the future ; dark hints of the workhouse are whispered in his ears ; father and mother, school-teachers and friends, join in pressing him into a pro­ fession which he hates—stultifying his whole life—because it will lead to ^500, or even ^1,000 a year in course of time. This is the great test, the sure criterion between two paths: which will lead to more money? The youth* Or as Mr. Locker has it, They eat and drink and scheme and plod, And go to church on Sunday; For many are afraid of God, And more of Mrs. Grundy. �i3 ful tender conscience soon comes to look upon it as a duty, and the acquisition of large dividends as part of the serious work of life. Then come true the words of the preacher: he realises with painful clearness the difficulty of finding investments which shall be profitable and also secure; circulars, reports, newspaper-cuttings, and warning letters flow in upon him, sleepless nights are followed by anxious days, telegrams and railway journeys succeed each other. But the game goes on : the income gets bigger, and the fear of the workhouse looms closer ! Friendsand relations also, have shares. Some get married and others die. Hence trustee-ships and executor-ships, increasing in number year by year, coil upon coil; solicitors hover around on all sides, jungles of legal red tape have to be waded through, chancery looms up with its “ obscene birds ” upon the horizon, and the hapless boy, now an old man before his time, with snatched meals and care-lined brow, goes to and fro like an automaton—a walking testimony to his own words that “ the days of his happiness are long gone past.” Before God, I would rather with pick and shovel dig a yearlong drain beneath the open sky, breathing freely, than I would live in this jungle of idiotic duties and thin-lipped respect­ abilities that money breeds. Why the devil should the days of your happiness be gone past, except that you have lived a life to stultify the whole natural man in you ? Do you think that happiness is a little flash-in-the-pan when you are eighteen, and that is all ? Do you not know that expanding age, like a flower, lifts itself ever into a more and more exquisite sun­ light of happiness—to which Death, serene and beautiful, comes only at the last with the touch of perfected assurance ? Do you not know that the whole effort of Nature in you is towards this happiness, if you could only abandon yourself, and for one child-like moment have faith in your own mother ? But she knows it, and watches you, half amused, run after your little “ securities,” knowing surely that you must at length return to her. But wherein the affluent classes suffer most in the present day perhaps is the matter of health. Into that heaven it is indeed hard for a rich man to enter. Here again the whole tradition of his life is against him. If there is one thing that appears to me more certain than another it is, as I have �partly said before, that no individual or class can travel far from the native life of the race without becoming shrivelled, corrupt, diseased—without suffering, in fact. By the native life I mean the life of those (always the vast majority of human kind) who live and support themselves in direct contact with Nature. * To rise early, to be mostly in the open air, to do some amount of physical labour, to eat clean and simple food, are necessary and aboriginal conditions of the life of our race, and they are necessary and aboriginal conditions of health. The doctor who does not start from these as .the basis of his prescriptions does not know his work. The modern money-lender, man of stocks, or what­ ever you call him, and his family, live in the continual violation of these conditions. They get up late, are mostly indoors, do little or no physical work, and take quantities of rich and greasy food and stimulants, such as would exhaust the stomach of a strong man, but which to them, in their already enervated state, are simply fatal. Hence a long catalogue of evils, ever branching into more. Hence dys­ pepsia, nerves, liver, sexual degeneracies, and general de­ pression of vitality ; a gloomy train, but whose drawn features you will recognise if you peep into almost anyone of those desirable mansions of which I have spoken. A terrible symptom of our well-to-do (?) modern life is this want of health, and one which presses for serious attention. There is only one remedy for it; but that remedy is a sure one— the return (or advance) to a simpler mode of existence. What is the upshot of all this? There was a time when the rich man had duties attending his wealth. The lord or baron was a petty king, and had kingly responsibilities as well as power. The Sir Roger, of Addison’s time, was the succeeding type of landlord. And even to the present day there lingers, here and there, a country squire who fulfils that * It must be noticed that the working masses of our great towns do not by any means fulfil this condition. Thrust down into squalor by the very effort of others climbing to luxury, the unnaturalness and misery of their lives is the direct counterpart and inseparable accompaniment of the un­ naturalness of the lives of the rich. That the great masses of our popula­ tion to-day are in this unhealthy state does not however disprove the statement in the text—i.e., that the vast majority of mankind must live in direct contact with Nature—rather it would indicate that the present conditions can only be of brief duration. �j M fl! IUHM 15 now antiquated ideal of kindly condescension and patronage. But the modern rush of steam-engines, and the creation of an enormous class of wealthy folk, living on stocks, have completely subverted the old order. It has let loose on society a horde of wolves !—a horde of people who have no duties attaching to their mode of life, no responsibility. They roam hither and thither, seeking whom and what they may devour. Personally I have no objection to criminals, and think them quite as good as myself. But, Talk of criminal classes—can there be a doubt that the criminal classes, par excellence, in our modern society, are this horde of stock and share-mongers ? If to be a criminal is to be an enemy of society, then they are such. For their mode of life is founded on the principle of taking without giving, of claiming without earning—as much as that of any common thief. It is in vain to try and make amends for this by charity organisations and unpaid magistracies. The cure must go deeper. It is no good trying to set straight the roof and chimneys, when the whole foundation is aslant. These good people are not boarded and lodged at Her Majesty’s pleasure, but the Eternal Justice, unslumbering, causes them to build prisons (as I have said) for themselves-—plagues them with ill-health and divers unseen evils— and will and must plague them, till such time as they shall abandon the im­ possible task they have set themselves, and return to the paths of reason. The whole foundation is aslant—and aslip, as anyone may see who looks. In short, it is an age of transition. No mortal power could make durable a Society founded on Usury—universal and boundless usury. The very words scream at each other. The baron has passed away; and the landlord is passing. They each had their duties, and while they fulfilled them served their time well and faithfully. The shareholder has no duties, and is miserable, and will remain so till the final landslip, when the foundations having completely given way, he will crawl forth out of the ruins of his desirable mansion into the life and light of a new day. Less oracular than this I dare not be! As I have said before there is no conceivable condition of life in which the human soul may not find the materials of its surpassing deliverance from evil and mortality. And I for �one would not, if I had the power, cramp human life into the exhibition of one universal routine. If anyone desires to be rich, if anyone desires to gradually shut himself off from the world, to build walls and fences, to live in a house where it is impossible to get a breath of fresh air without going through half a dozen doors, and to be the prisoner of his own servants; if he desires it so that when he walks down the street he cannot whistle or sing, or shout across the road to a friend, or sit upon a doorstep when tired, or take off his coat if it be hot, but must wear certain particular clothes in a certain particular way, and be on such pins and needles as to what he may or may not do, that he is right glad when he gets back again to his own prison walls ; if he loves trustee­ ships and Egyptian Bonds, and visits from the lawyer, and feels glad when he finds a letter from the High Court of Chancery on his breakfast table, and experiences in attend­ ing to all these things that satisfaction which comes of all honest work ; if he feels renovated and braced by lying in bed of a morning, and by eating feast dinners every day, and by carefully abstaining from any bodily labour ; if dyspepsia, and gout, and biliousness, and distress of nerves are not otherwise than grateful to him ; and if he can obtain all these things without doing grievous wrong to others, by all means let him have them. Only for those who do not know what they desire I would lift up the red flag of warning. Only of that vast and ever vaster horde which to-day (chiefly, I cannot but think, in ignorance) rushes to Stocks, would I ask a moment’s pause, and to look at the bare facts, If these words should come to the eye of such an one I would pray him to think for a moment—to glance at this great enthroned Wrong in its dungeon palace (notffhe less a wrong because the laws coun­ tenance and encourage it)—to listen for the cry of the home­ less many, trodden under foot, a yearly sacrifice to it—to watch the self-inflicted sufferings of its worshipers, the ennui, the depression, the unlovely faces of ill-health, to observe the falsehood on which it is founded, and therefore the falsehood, the futility, the unbelief in God or Man which spring out of it—and to turn away, determined, as far as in him lies, to worship in that Dagon-house no longer. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Desirable mansions : a tract Description An account of the resource Edition: 3rd ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Reprinted, with a few alterations, from Progress, June 1883. List of other works by author on p. 2. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carpenter, Edward Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T395 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism 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 (Desirable mansions : a tract), 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 Social change Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6d5c0422bcccd53769bf72d3ccd7444a.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=v1VbVbsQOgeYoqfSdzHxdCL1nA4L6V-o2nn5XVTpX0doLLIFPxlmFxG7o3EGWnfzUqRd8VNY076j%7ESopcTopg958g6bO7qUPN5cb7UOXGKluCn77HXzyZTwfj4mPflb01YrcFwK22oOGGO-Yqajf9dQXQqMQjDukeXQO2dL%7E-qbW5PFb1LpDNnx7WlXt0G4bKaaQVIkSRQKqlM5x8BOfXvpv%7E7tYwpyAy2FmYG5PV6jPJjinzBI3hVYQWRW3t6oLOrnGI12YPrCHub2AH0NHfXMWXkIRkS25-5tzt-%7EuJVVhiu-RjjozhIttz3tsig1O7DyCydSX0adYYhbO6SJBRw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5a68a2a8850ef52a42fc40975892d4e9 PDF Text Text UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION; OR, REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S “ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”. [Reprinted from the “National Reformer”.] BY s. s. POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR. LONDON: fbeethought publishing company, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 7. PRICE FOURPENCE. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION; OR, REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S “ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”. [Reprinted from the “National Reformer”.] BY s. s. POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR. LONDON: fbeethought publishing company, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 7. PRICE FOURPENCE. ��N574- TO THE READER. Messrs. Macmillajst and Co. having published a volume of Essays and Addresses by the Rev. James M. Wilson, this opportunity is taken of reprinting some articles that appeared in the National Reformer, after the first appearance of the essays and addresses contained in the volume referred to. The second and third articles were written concerning two sermons that Mr. Wilson preached in March, 1884, and which are not included in the volume of essays and addresses. They were published by Macmillan and Co., in pamphlet form, shortly after their delivery. The paper of most interest in Mr. Wilson’s volume is undoubtedly the “Letter to a Bristol Artisan” (p. 128175), which, though dated in 1885, is now for the first time published. This letter (which has been recently criticised with force and ability by Mr. J. M. Robertson in the columns of the National Reformer} is Mr. Wilson’s reply to the pamphlet (published by W. H. Morrish, 18, Narrow Wine St., Bristol), wherein “ A Bristol Artisan ”, took up the theme of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures to the Secularists of that city, on the reasons why men do not believe the Bible. These lectures are contained in the new volume (p. 74-127), having previously been published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The artisan had not the same facilities for making his views known, his pamphlet appeared in modest guise, and a small edition has not yet been sold. If, on our side, we had a society for promoting Secular knowledge, it might do well to bring out a second edition of this remarkable �iv TO THE READER. essay, and to ensure that every thinking man and woman in England should have a chance of mastering its contents. But at present the want of such machinery is one of the great difficulties we have to contend against. I may, however, say that this pamphlet has extorted the approval of those most opposed to the artisan’s views. Mr. Wilson says of it: “ your pamphlet has deeply interested me, not only from its singular directness, and lucidity, and general moderation of tone, but because it is full of misconceptions, etc.” Another clergyman says of it that “ it will probably be widely read and influential both for good and evil”. And the general opinion seems to be that no more discreet and inoffensive statement of the higher secular philosophy has ever been published. Those who have read Mr. Robertson’s criticisms on Mr. Wilson’s reply to the artisan will be prepared to hear that no such complimentary language, can, in its turn, be used of it. At the same time it seems to me that Mr. Robert­ son has not fully realised the enormous advantage gained for Secularism, by the admissions that the letter contains. Mr. Robertson’s own mind is clear—his horizon free from haze and mist; has he not forgotten that such clearness of vision is rare in times of transition. One of our univer­ sities, in its proud motto, offers lux and pocula, light and ceremonials. But in these days the retention of the pocula involves too often the darkening of the lux. And not only do the traditionary status and ecclesiastical endow­ ments of the Church of England, that Cambridge offers to its graduates, tend to a frame of mind that shrinks from the full blaze of the rays of truth, but other and nobler ties are at work in the same direction—so noble and so human that I should be sorry to cast up the charge of nebulous inconsistency against the man whose light faileth. Let us, however, thank Mr. Wilson for these words: “It is absolutely necessary for you to grasp the conception of religion, as being NOT a system of dogmas about the being of God and his relation to man, revealed by some external and supernatural machinery, but as being an education, an evolution, a growth of the spirit of man towards something higher, by means of a gradual revelation.” Let us, I say, ponder well these words. And let us ask Mr. Wilson to consider if he can put bounds to this growth, and say, “ Thus far! ” or predict �V TO THE READER. safely that at this time, or at that time, finality will be reached. If I were inclined to be critical, I would also ask Mr. Wilson to reconcile his use of the word religion in the above extract with the conception of it given in the sermon he preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral, hereinafter referred to. But while anxious to award to Mr. Wilson all the merit that is due to him, I am entirely at one with Mr. Robert­ son in considering that this attempt to treat matters of faith by the methods of science has been (as all such attempts must be) a complete failure. In conclusion I gratefully accept Mr. Charles Bradlaugh’s permission to dedicate to him, as one of the leaders of sincere and active freethought—active because sincere— this attempt to state the issue between Materialism on one hand, and the indefinite faltering neo-Christianity on the other, which is clerical rather than agnostic, agnostic rather than religious. s. s. July, 1887. ��UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. I.—Mr. Wilson’s Bristol Lectures. [From the National Reformer of 16th September, 1883.] The late Archbishop of Canterbury, who combined the shrewdness of a Scot with the tact of a courtier, said some years ago that Atheism should not be regarded as a heresy to be condemned, but met as an argument, to be seriously and temperately answered. The attitude thus recommended has been adopted by several enlightened clergymen, and will probably commend itself to many more. But if gentle­ men in “holy orders” quit the vantage ground of ortho­ doxy, and meet Secularists on even terms, they must take the chances of war. Real argument implies that the side which has the best of it shall carry conviction to the other; and if the clergy cannot convert us, they run the risk of being themselves converted. The game is a perilous one for the clergy, but none the less are they bound in honor to play it out. The lectures before us are the first fruits of Dr. Tait’s remark. Mr. Wilson, head master of Clifton School, is one of the most distinguished of that noble band of workers in the cause of morality that the churches of to-day are producing. It were presumption for me to speak of the character and merits of such a man: if anyone wishes to learn them, let him ask the poor of Bristol. He delivered these lectures to audiences of the working men of that city about six months ago, and they have now been repub­ lished under the auspices of the Society for Promoting �8 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. Christian Knowledge. The Spectator remarks that the Society never did a bolder or a wiser thing than this ; and many who take a broader view of the subjects discussed than the Spectator does, will probably acquiesce in that opinion. Mr. Wilson addressed himself to the question, “ Why men do not believe the Bible ”, and in the first lecture considered the intellectual difficulties ; in the second, the . moral difficulties. By intellectual difficulties, Mr. Wilson means “ those which are the consequences of a particular theory as to the necessity of a literal translation and the verbal accuracy of the Bible”. This particular theory, viz., that the Bible is verbally or mechanically inspired, is not, Mr. Wilson asserts, laid down by the Church, nor found in the Bible, nor was it taught by Jesus Christ or his apostles. Up to the time that the Roman Empire became Christian, and the Canon of Scripture was formed, “ there was no thought of a divinely-guaranteed accuracy”. Even after the Reformation, when the thirty-nine articles were promulgated, “ there was no theory of inspiration”. But as the study of the Bible became more popular, theories of inspiration were started, especially that of Calvin, who held “that from Genesis to Revelation the Bible is not only the Word of God, but the words of God ; and it is this theory that lands men in endless contradictions ”, I will leave it to the followers and admirers of Calvin to prove, as I expect they easily can prove, that the theory of inspiration, which Mr. Wilson attributes to him, was not his invention, but was commonly held in the Church centuries before his time. This does not concern us much. But before I pass on to what Mr. Wilson would have us substitute for the Calvinistic theory of inspiration, I would hint that he took an unfair advantage of us Secularists, in saying that we have no warrant for putting into the mouths of Christians a theory of verbal inspiration, when it is notorious that his assertion that the Church of England does not teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible, fell like a thunderbolt on the Christian public. Nine-tenths of the religious people in these kingdoms firmly believe the Bible to be inspired. Secularists have to deal with popular superstition, and not with the esoteric creed of a few priests. The sixth article of religion is so worded that it can perfectly cover, if needs be, the Calvinistic theory; �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 9 and if it suits Mr. Wilson and his friends to say now that “Holy Scripture” is not verbally inspired, he ought not to blame Colonel Ingersoll for addressing himself to the current belief. I strongly suspect that if these doubts as to the authority of the Bible had not reached the great mass of our countrymen, the doctrine now produced by Canon Westcott and Mr. Wilson would not have been much heard of. It is to be regretted that Archbishop Benson has, in a letter printed in the preface to these lectures, apparently supported Mr. Wilson’s complaint of Colonel Ingersoll. The fact is, that Secularists make little use of the Calvinistic theory of the Bible. It is to the book itself, and not to any theory of it, that their apprehensions point. They regard it as the history, more or less authentic, of a small nation whose social ostracism is a fitting reward for moral delinquency, and who have made themselves more detested than any other race of men. They cannot admit that the history of such a race, curious and interesting as it is, ought to be our guide and standard here and now. It was a rhetorical artifice, and nothing more, to bring into contrast Colonel Ingersoll and Canon Westcott; clever and momentarily effective, but attended with no permanent gain. Mr. Wilson’s subsequent admission (page 31), that some of his friends urged “ You will unsettle more than you will help; you will shake the faith of believers, and not convert the sceptics ”, proves that Colonel Ingersoll was right and Canon Westcott wrong, in their estimate of popular theology. Mr. Wilson would remove from the portal of the temple the bogey of Calvinism ; unsuspecting worshippers are to be invited to enter ; but once inside the temple, and belief in inspiration is the atmosphere they breathe : “ Let men read the gospels as they would read any other book, with any theory of inspiration, or with none; with the one aim of learning the truth about Jesus Christ ”, and if this is done in a proper spirit, Mr. Wilson promises that they will soon get the belief in inspiration, though they may not be able to define it. Is this so? Does an absolute rejection of the Calvinistic theory, followed by careful, patient, honest study of the Bible, lead men to be Christians, or to form such an estimate of the character of Jesus Christ as enables them to recognise him as God ? Experience �10 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. meets Mr. Wilson’s promise with, no dubious or uncertain answer. Mr. Wilson avoids any definition of that theory which he would have us substitute for Calvin’s. He says he can no more define inspiration than he can define “ God”, and that he can no more prove inspiration than he can listen to the colors of the rainbow. It is surely irrational and immoral to believe a theory that can neither be defined or proved. Some clearly defined theory may commend itself as possibly credible, even if it cannot be proved, but it seems romantic, if not impossible, to believe without defi­ nition and without demonstration. And here I would make a protest and an appeal. The late Archbishop, and clergymen like Mr. Wilson, expect, and invite us to meet them in discussion. Do they consider that we do so with halters round our necks ? We may freely discuss morality, and the non-essentials of religion, but to deny by advised speaking or printing the truth of the Christian religion, entails the penalties of that statute of William and Mary, which Lord Coleridge termed “ferocious” and “shocking”. Can not Mr. Wilson and his friends help in getting the statute law and the common law amended ? And cannot they give an earnest of their sympathies, by signing the memorial to Mr. Gladstone for Messrs. Foote and Ramsey’s release that is printed at the head of page 265 of the Freethinker for 26tli August. Our unhappy friends have now been thirty long weeks in gaol. What is left of the “Christian religion ” that the statute of William and Mary, joint defenders of the faith, so jealously guarded? The Court of Queen’s Bench has by mandamus lopped off the devil; Canon Farrar’s sermons have eliminated hell; the Trinity is threatened when the Athanasian creed is expunged; and now Mr. Wilson tells us that inspiration is no part of it. Whatever happens, let us hope that no blasphemous hand will touch the 36th Article of religion that treats of the consecration of bishops. So long as they are maintained in pomp and power, Christianity has no cause to fear. The moral difficulty in the way of belief in the Bible with which Mr. Wilson’s second lecture deals, is thus described: that as the Bible tolerates, or even approves of, various forms of immorality, such as slavery, murder, polygamy, cruelty, and treachery, it is hard to accept of �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 11 the God of the Bible as an object of worship. I don’t think that Mr. Wilson has fully guaged the depth and strength of the moral difficulty felt by Secularists and Freethinkers, but accepting his statement of it, as above summarised, let us examine his mode of meeting it. He admits that many of the persons mentioned in the Bible as objects of God’s favor, are not fair examples of moral goodness, and that some of their actions are unworthy of our imitation. To get out of the Bible the moral teaching that it contains, we must read between the lines, and dis­ cover “the working out and the development of the idea of the kingdom of God ”. From the history of the “training of a typical nation ” (the Jews) we are to “ trace the growth of a purer morality, of personal responsibility, of the spirituality of God, of the thought of a future life”. He thinks that “ facts point unmistakably to the Jews as the nation that formed the chief channel for divine influence in religion”, qualifying this by the proviso that “the morality of the Old Testament is no pattern for us, except so far as our own consciences, enlightened by the completed revelation, approve ”. This, I take it, is a fair summary, mainly in his own words, of what Mr. Wilson told the working-men of Bristol. Close observation of these two lectures will show that Mr. Wilson avoided in the second the line of argument adopted in the first. When discussing the intellectual difficulty, he said the theory of inspiration that Secularists attributed to the Church was neither taught by it nor found in the Articles of Religion, but was a man of straw, set up for the purpose of being knocked down. He might have said the same of the theory of God’s providence and moral government. The words “Kingdom of God”, “ Morality ”, and “ Providence ” do not occur in any of the Articles. The word “ moral ” occurs only once, in the seventh Article, which speaks of “ the commandments which are called moral ”. Mr. Wilson might then have spoken of the moral difficulty, in the same form of words as he used for the intellectual difficulty: “What I say will doubtless surprise some of you, both Christians and Secularists, but it is an undeniable fact that the Articles of Religion do not assert that the Bible contains a moral standard, or that God governs as well as reigns ”. That he has not adopted this line of reasoning proves the truth �12 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. of the remark recently made in these columns : “ Religion seeks to secure her frail tenure by grasping the skirt of that holy piorality who was once but her timid and shrinking handmaid”.1 Mr. Wilson had the same ground for treating the moral difficulty as a man of straw, as he had in regard to the intellectual difficulty; but instead of doing so, he has eagerly enlisted him as a valiant champion on his own side. The future of human happiness and morality, Mr. Wilson would have us believe, depends on the esoteric teaching derived by learned men from a number of treatises, written we know not by whom and know not when; in an ancient language few can read; of which no original exists (save for some possible speculation of a future Shapira); and about whose text and interpretation the best authorities seldom agree. We learn from the first lecture that their claim to inspiration is shadowy, undefined, and incapable of proof; and from the second lecture that they contain a veiled, and not a revealed, record of the will of God as governor of the world. When these treatises agree about any moral law, or in their estimate of the moral worth of any human action, we are by no means to accept this as a guide or pattern, but we must try to ascertain what indi­ cation is to be derived, from the history contained in the Bible, of the general course of God’s providence in respect to the Jews; and this indication, when obtained, is to be subject to the veto of “ conscience ”. Is this a satisfactory or practicable system of philosophy ? What is conscience ? We may regard it as a knowledge of, and fidelity to, the stored-up experience of generations of men, as to what is best for human happiness on earth. If Mr. Wilson accepts this definition of conscience, he virtually accepts the secular philosophy. But whatever definition he may give of conscience, why is it to have a veto on the morality of the Old Testament, and not on the morality of the New Testament ? Let us apply Mr. Wilson’s system to a case of every day life. The question arises whether a man may marry the sister of his deceased wife. From a purely ethical point of view the advantages preponderate over the objections. But what does the Bible say ? is at once asked. The Bible See National Reformer, 8th July, 1883, page 22. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 13 gives an uncertain sound, but its more weighty texts are supposed to be against such marriages. But Mr. Wilson says we may not be guided by texts, but by the “ history of the development of the kingdom of God, as worked out in the case of the Jews ”. Laymen are puzzled, and refer the matter to divines. Divines differ—some say the pro­ posed marriage accords with that development, some say it does not. Eventually a clear majority decide one way or the other, it matters not which. Even then Mr. Wilson is not satisfied, but would appeal to “Conscience”. Why not let conscience decide it at first without all this ceremony ? It is hardly necessary to observe that the theory of Biblical morality set up by Mr. Wilson, is, like Canon Westcott’s theory of inspiration, new to the religious public. Both have been evolved by the “ struggle for existence ”. But for the certain and now ra,pid action of Ereethought, we should not have heard of either. A few years ago, and anyone who said that Mooses and Abraham and David were immoral characters deserving censure, would have been treated as a blasphemer. Mr. Wilson has discovered that it is right and just to submit the character and deeds of these old Jews to a tribunal and a test, that may possibly brand them as foul disgraces to humanity, and confirm the hatred with which in all ages the uncircumcised Gentiles have regarded God s chosen people, which is nearly as strong now as in the days of Pharoah, and of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Titus. Freethought has scored a considerable success in eliciting such admissions as Mr. Wilson has made. Wb are almost pre­ pared to concede to him the claim he made at last year s Church Congres, that clergymen are Freethinkers. At all events, some of them, if not actually Freethinkers, are not unwilling captives at the chariot wheels of Freethought, and will swell her approaching triumph. In these remarks I have treated only of the more im­ portant and essential parts of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures. There is much in them, and especially in the second lecture, for the adequate notice of which more space is needed than the columns of a newspaper can afford. The lectures form an important point in the struggle between Superstition and Freethought, and ought to be studied by all, on both sides, who are interested in its issue. May I express my �14 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. admiration of the learning, liberality, and rare human sympathy they breathe? In the knowledge and love of of man, they recall some high exemplars. Even if Mr. Wilson has not succeeded in the objects with which his lectures were given, he has secured the warm thanks and true well-wishing of all Secularists, not those of Bristol only.1 II.—Religion v. Revelation. [From the National Reformer, 16th November, 1884 J The Rev. Mr. Wilson, whose two lectures on “Inspira­ tion” were reviewed in these columns last year, has pub­ lished two sermons that he preached some months ago. The first, entitled “Opinion and Service”, was preached in Westminster Abbey, and reminds us that the question to be asked of us will be, What have ye done ? and not What did ye think? The second sermon, entitled “Religion and Revelation ”, was preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Both sermons—but especially the second one—prove the extent to which Church teaching has been influenced by hostile criticism, and what is now thought on these con­ troversial points by that section of enlightened Christian men that Mr. Wilson represents. In reviewing the Bristol lectures, we indicated the following concessions that they made to Freethought. (1) Mr. Wilson rejected the Calvinistic theory of inspira­ tion, and condemned it as “landing men in endless con­ tradictions”. (2) He professed himself unable to define or prove the theory of inspiration which he would have us substitute for Calvin’s. (3) He admitted that the Bible revealed no immutable standard of morality, but that its moral teaching must be sought for “ between the lines ”. And (4) that, when found, it was not supreme, but sub1 Possibly this estimate of the value of the Bristol lectures may to some persons appear too favorable, but I will leave unaltered the terms in which I expressed the opinion that I originally formed of them. Of course, my estimate refers to the lectures only, and does not apply to the other writings included in Mr. Wilson’s volume S. S. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 15 ject to the veto of conscience. Not only are these con­ cessions still maintained in the sermon before us, but in other directions a retreat is sounded, and vantage ground gained for the implacable foe of theology. Taking that which is known as “religion” in the popular and vague meaning assigned to it, the preacher divided it into the idea, power, or spirit, which he termed “revela­ tion”, and the expression cultus or form to which he con­ fined the word “religion”. He regarded revelation as ever antagonistic to religion, describing the latter as a universal human instinct common to all races, savage and civilised; dark and terrible in its history; stained with idolatry, cruelty, and lust. On the other hand, he would have us regard revelation as a divine work, spiritual, accumulative, and imperishable, ever striving with the low religious instinct, and illuminating and guiding man.1 Here I must ask if history affords any trace of this struggle between revelation and religion, or if it exists only in Mr. Wilson’s imagination? We know of the strife between the ideas of the divine and the human, between Spiritualism and Materialism, and that for long ages it has been one-sided and unequal; we know that the idea of man and matter is at length superseding that of God and spirit; that securing the happiness of man is of more importance than ascertaining the will of God; that human affairs depend on ourselves, and not on the moral govern­ ment of a personal God. This great strife is tending to the enlightenment and advancement of our race, but it is not the strife described by Mr. Wilson. Revelation is not mastering religion as he suggests, but religion and revela­ tion combined are about to fade away before morality. The revelation that is on the winning side is not the revelation of God’s will, but the revelation of man’s reason. All so-called divine revelations rest on the religious instinct, spring from it, and strengthen it. The two are inseparable, and history gives no indication of an inter1 One great merit of scientific system is accuracy of definition and rigid adherence t > a definition once laid down. If we compare the meaning of the term “religion” given in the passages now referred to with the conception of it that is inculcated in the passage quoted in the introduction to this work we shall be able to estimate the extreme tenuity of Mr. Wilson’s claim to scientific method. S. S. �16 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. necine strife between them. On the contrary, they have ever fought side by side against human reason and Freethought. Can Mr. Wilson find any instance of a stake or rack or pillory having been used on behalf of revelation against religion, or on behalf of religion against revela­ tion ? It is surely vain for him to say that a sentence like this: “To obey is better than sacrifice” is revelation,1 while this other is religion: “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying .... He among the sons of Aaron that offereth the blood of the peace offering shall have the right shoulder. For the wave-breast and the heave shoulder have i taken of the children of Israel, and have given them unto Aaron the Priest, and unto his sons by a statute for ever.” By what process of reading between the lines does he venture to designate Samuel’s words as revelation, and God’s words as religion? Mr. Wilson says that “the cry ‘crucify him, crucify him,’ is the climax and acme of the ceaseless contest between the lower religious instincts of the human race and the higher divine light that pours on men”. But supposing that the crucifixion really occurred, that the record of it is not (as Eobert Taylor avers) a Gnostic forgery emanating from Egypt, that old hotbed of superstition and lies, why should we regard that crucified “blasphemer” as “the unique revealer of God ” ? Why should we not regard him as a son of man, himself the slave of religion, using such poor reasoning faculty as he possessed to expose the fraud and hypocrisy of a priesthood ? What Jesus Christ revealed was human, and not divine; and he died, not as a revealer at the suit of religion, but as a reasoner at the suit of revelation. For our knowledge of divinity we are indebted to the Comforter, who never died for us. Let Mr. Wilson tell us in his own words what he means by revelation: “The word ‘revelation’ implies a theory; it is a way of regarding and grouping facts. The facts are the history of man, the development, continuous and discontinuous, of the spiritual insight and forces of mankind. These facts are what 1 The 15th chapter of 1 Samuel, from which Mr. Wilson quote these words, is one we should have expected him to ignore, lhe obedience inculcated by Samuel was an awful crime, and Saul’s clear duty was to have disobeyed the order. d �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 17 they are, and we may hope by study to arrive at some know­ ledge of them. But we need theories to group facts; and the theory which is expressed by the word revelation is this, that man is, in his present condition, a partaker in some inchoate manner of that controlling universal consciousness which we call God; which illuminates the mind and conscience of man : that man is, or possesses, a ^>avepwcri9, a manifestation of God. The control of God is exhibited in its effects, and one of the effects is the moral education and evolution of man. The growth, then, and development of this manifestation of the spirit of God in man, and by man, and to man, is revelation.” I fear that Mr. Wilson’s attempt to construct a safe theory of revelation is as unsatisfactory as his attempt to deal with inspiration. Why should any “way of regarding and grouping facts ” be styled revelation and not science ? What facts are there to be grouped ? The history of man is not a fact, but a theory resting on facts. The “develop­ ment of man’s spiritual insight ” is not a fact, but a theory resting on fictions. What is “spiritual insight”? from what has it been developed ? what is it tending to ? Does not the use of the word “spiritual” beg the whole question of inspiration and revelation ? Mr. Wilson here seems to fall into the same error that led Mr. Drummond to argue for the existence of a spiritual world governed by natural law. Human history needs no belief in revelation for group­ ing the facts it records. The best historians eschew all reference to a controlling providence. Sir Archibald Alison wrote twenty volumes to prove that Providence was always on the side of the Tories; but who reads Sir Archibald Alison ? Beal history (such as Gibbon’s) cannot be written if any such theory as Mr. Wilson’s “Revela­ tion ” is used to group its facts. Let us continue our quotation from Mr. Wilson : “ To those who are deeply impressed with God’s influence on the hearts of man, to those who grasp this God-theory—this revelation-theory—it carries conviction. They read and see the history of man in its light—they see the Spirit striving with man—the Eternal Consciousness more and more revealed in the inchoate, time-bound individual. All the world of nature and history speaks of God. It is a theory which man cannot per­ fectly master, nor apply to every detail, nor prove conclusively to all minds; but in spite of this it convinces such as grasp it, �18 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. Discovery becomes indistinguishable from revelation. the work of God.” All is Passing by those parts of this quotation that are to me incomprehensible, I would ask if this reference to a “ God­ theory ” is not either a palpable truism, or a misstatement of facts. Those who worshipped the Olympian Zeus, or Venus of the Myrtle-tree, or Diana of Ephesus; those who built the great temples of Hindustan; the Mahomedans who say that there is no God but Allah; were not all these imbued with the God-idea, and did they know of this eternal strife between revelation and religion ? If on the other hand the idea of God to which Mr. Wilson refers implies a being hostile to religion, and governing mankind by a slow and partial process of revelation, then his sen­ tence simply amounts to this, that those who believe it, believe it. Does this carry conviction to the great and constantly increasing mass of mankind who cannot grasp the God-idea ? They cannot “ see the spirit striving with man”, but they see man’s reason striving with religion and superstition. Mr. Wilson elsewhere says that it is found possible by experience “ to feel all human history instinct with God”. Does he realize the fact that those who have once grasped the profound solace of Materialistic philosophy see all theological dogma instinct with man ? With reference to such men, those “who have abandoned our dogma and are indifferent to our cultus ”, Mr. Wilson remarks as follows : “It is perhaps our fault if they think that this is all that Christianity has to offer. But they do not and cannot escape from the Christian revelation, even though they call it by another name. It is light; and in that light some of them live and walk; and the cultus, the ritual, the OpytTKeia which they adopt may not be wholly dissimilar to that ‘ pure ’ cultus or ritual or 6pt}<TK£M of St. James, which consists in charity and purity and unworldliness, and is, along with the sacraments, the only Christian ritual ordained in the Bible.” Here at least is consolation; whether we believe or reject the dogma, the work of revelation will go on. Why, then, should we force and strain our reason to accept a theory which does not depend on our acceptance of it, but which must remain true whether we accept it or not ? �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 19 Better to maintain the rectitude and supremacy of our reason, knowing that we shall not lose one iota of the benefit of revelation. Is this Mr. Wilson’s advice? It seems unanswerable. Mr. Wilson’s own position as regards religion seems to be delineated in the following sentences :— “ But for the vast mass of mankind it is of far more import­ ance to hand down to them and through them the leading truths of revelation in any form, than to insist on the inade­ quacy of the form. Of course men trained, as men ought to he trained, to criticise and question everything, may feel that the cultus and dogma of Christianity in its present form, if put forward and insisted on as absolute, authoritative, exhaustive truths, are a concealment of the higher light; and their honestyr compels them to renounce and even to denounce them. But when such men come in contact with their less critical brethren, whose convictions and hopes and faiths must be clear, defined, emphatic, dogmatic, to whom vaguer and more philosophical expressions convey no meaning, they will discover that the language in which revelation is transferable to them is, to a far larger extent than they anticipated before trial, the current language of cultus and dogma. They will be powerless.to find another shell for the kernel. Nevertheless, such men will fear­ lessly purify their teaching from the grosser dogmas from which Christian teaching is by no means wholly free, and will try to contend, to a certain extent, with the lower religious instinct in the true spirit of their Master, educating their people to feel the spirit, and not only see the letter.” Some of this quotation describes the position of Secu­ larists as well as of enlightened Churchmen. But in one essential point our morality differs from theirs. Holding as we do that the whole nut, shell and kernel alike, is poisonous, we do not retain a worthless shell for the sake of the kernel, but we boldly tell our less “critical brethren ” to beware of both. So far, therefore, as Mr. Wilson represents a distinct school of thought, whose influence in the church is on the increase, we may from this sermon, preached in our great national cathedral, claim this further concession to Freethought, that religion is hateful, injurious, and of human origin, and that it is committed to a long and eventually losing strife. That is a clear advantage. It matters not that Mr. Wilson would see a divine revelation in the power that is to overcome religion. Let him cherish the delusion. �20 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. —we know that it is man’s reason and not God’s spirit that has maintained the glorious, and soon to be victorious, conflict.1 III.—Religion v. Revelation. [From the National Reformer of the 30th November, 1884.] The theory of a ceaseless strife between the spirit of God and religion, propounded in the remarkable sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cathedral and recently reviewed here, is so novel and startling as to justify a closer examination than was then attempted. It is with all the greater pleasure that we again refer to it, because Mr. Wilson’s opinions deserve, in no ordinary measure, our respect and attention ; for no English churchman has made such efforts as he has to understand the position of Secularists, or has shown such a disposition to discuss philosophy with us on terms of equality. Freethinkers are in the habit of ascribing to human reason the gradual illumination of man, and his liberation from superstition. The claim, therefore, that these benefits are due to the influence or spirit of a God who hates superstition as much as any Secularist does, is well cal­ culated to arrest our attention. I have already quoted Mr. Wilson’s definition of the revelation to which he attributes such vast results ; and I have attempted to show that before his hypothesis can be placed before us for acceptance he must state with greater precision what facts there are for theorising about. Of ourselves we have no knowledge of such facts, and are entirely dependent on him for information about them. He tells us the facts are “the history of man, and the development of the spiritual insight and forces of man­ kind ”, It is surely on the propounder of a novel theory 1 The words “Let him cherish the delusion” have a shade of bitterness, and I should prefer to say * Let biw , if be can, prove his new position; till it is proved we must hold that it is’man’s reason, and not God’s spirit, that has maintained the conflict. ”, S. S. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 21 that the onus lies of defining the historical facts on which it rests. History contains many facts, but I can recall none for the grouping of which this hypothesis is required. Let us enumerate a few; the siege of Troy and the sacri­ fice of Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles; the rape of the Sabine women and the death of Lucretia; the invention of printing and the discovery of America; the Oxford movement and the establishment of the Divorce Court. These facts lend themselves to scientific grouping in every direction save one; they may be arranged in support of theories in morals and politics, arts and science, educa­ tion and political economy; they will even support Mr. Wilson’s theory of religion; but the one thing on which they have no apparent bearing is the ceaseless strife between a divine revelation and religion. As regards the so-called facts of spiritual development on which Mr. AVilson relies, the sermon before us does not furnish so clear a statement as is contained in a paper which he read in 1882, before the Church Congress at Derby, from which therefore we quote as follows: “ Besides these facts of history and criticism, there are other facts that cannot be traced to their ultimate origin ; the result of the evolution of human nature under the influence, as we believe, of God’s holy spirit; the facts of conscience and con­ sciousness, of hope and aspiration and worship, spiritual facts which have no verification but themselves. With these lies most of our concern. They contain the germ of the spiritual life and progress of every man, the inner life which Christian teaching fosters and trains, till it is supreme. These facts lie in a region equally beyond authority and Freethought. I submit that every phrase here used—evolution, con­ science, consciousness, aspiration, and worship—requires definition. At first sight I should say that none of them implied a fact; but it is possible I may be mistaken. Still, without definition, we know not what facts are implied and whether the facts are objective or spiritual. Here again the onus of definition and proof lies on the propounder. It is vain to tell men who profess to see no phsenomena that prove the existence of a God that from spiritual facts implied in such vague phrases as I have quoted, and which “ have no verification but themselves ”, they must admit not only the existence of a God but that he has a spirit also. �22 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. Having thus attempted to show that Mr. Wilson's theory of revelation must remain in the hypothetical stage until it is duly equipped with scientific definition and demonstration, we will turn to his a posteriori sketch of the history of revelation. The first instance he gives of its existence is when it ‘ ‘ spoke in Moses and made the two great commandments, love to God and man, stand out above all else”. I am unaware of this event. Moses is said to have received ten commandments, one of which may be read as prescribing love to God (as if love was ever a creature of command), but they contain no trace of love to man. The precedence given by Moses to an enforced and unnatural love of God. and his silence about human love, far from illumi­ nating our race, has caused much of the evil that Mi*. Wilson attributes to religion. I have already referred to the second instance of revelation mentioned in the sermon : “when it spoke in Samuel and taught the nations” that command which King Saul was dethroned for disobeying. I am confident that an impartial consideration of the chapter referred to will lead to the conclusion that Samuel’s speech was the reverse of illumination. The third instance is when “ it spoke in David and in the prophets again and again in words too familiar to need quotation ” : I know not what passages Mr. Wilson refers to. There are many verses in David and the prophets that inculcate religion in its worst form; 1 can recall none that have helped to suppress it. Then, Mr. Wilson says, from the time of Ezra, for four centuries “ the natural growth of thought and revelation was strangled by the grasp of religion”. Here surely is a new idea introduced into the theory by the use of the words “natural” and “thought”. Is the spirit of God a natural force; and has it, like man, the power of thinking ? But passing this difficulty, methinks that in these four centuries man’s reason achieved some deeds of renown. Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius taught; the Spartans fought at Thermopylae; Sophocles wrote the “Antigone”; Euclid, the “Elements”; and Lucretius, the “ Book of Nature ” ; and human art will never surpass the unknown sculptors of the Venus and the Apollo. We got on so well in those four centuries when revelation was hushed that one is tempted to ask if its revival has bettered us. Let the eighteen centuries of Christianity �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 23 and the twelve centuries of Mahomedanism answer the query. After this pause a fresh impetus was given to revelation by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. “ Obedience to the will of God, purity, gentleness, sympathy with all, with the sinful and the suffering, these and such as these were the lessons taught by his life.” But it has been asserted that none of the lofty sayings attributed to Jesus in the three synoptic gospels were original: they are all said to have occurred in some earlier writing; and even if we give him the credit of selecting the best sentiments of those who went before him, we must not forget that it was he who said : “ I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (Matt, x., 44), and that this prediction has been fulfilled. Not even to his own Church has he brought peace, still less to the world. “He abolished ritual” ; so did Buddha. He ‘‘broke down barriers of race and caste” ; if so, why do they still exist? “He introduced no new dogma”; but the Comforter, that Spirit of God whom he sent—the same, I presume, who works for our illumination through revela­ tion—has introduced much dogma. Of this final effort of revelation and its success Mr. Wilson says truly: “The religious instinct is strong; it is deep in human nature, and at times it would seem as if it had smothered the revelation of Christ”. Mr. Wilson has declined to define God. A God who has a spirit engaged in a ceaseless strife against religion, and which has been so near failure, suggests paradoxical ideas that cannot be clothed in definite terms. But though he does not define, he believes; and on this belief or con­ sciousness he founds the theology that he preaches. Many learned divines hold that a theology resting on conscious­ ness is insufficient, and that it requires the support of the understanding as well. Whether consciousness is of itself an adequate basis for theology is a question for the theo­ logian, and does not concern us. No consciousness or belief, either in his own mind or the mind of others, can Influence the earnest student of secular philosophy. To him such a theory as this, that rests both in its d priori aspect of hypothesis and in its a posteriori aspect of history, on unverifiable faets and sentimental consciousness, must fail to commend itself, even if without it the history of man were inexplicable. �24 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. But it is not so : we do not find in our history any entanglement that is insoluble save by the theory of a divine spirit; we can group all man’s varied story, by man himself, his passions and desires, his conscience and reason. Surely that theory is better which rests on facts that can be verified, which explains our history, which solves past difficulty and future doubt—better than one which sets up an agency whose very existence is an emotion, and whose interference in mundane affairs is a mystery, for the solu­ tion of which we must eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In these two articles I have tried to look at Mr. Wilson’s theory from the point of view of a Secularist, and from the point of view of a Christian. To a Materialist it must appear illusory. But there are many Christians to whom it will be welcome as a resting-place, or half-way house. Those who recognise the hatefulness of religion, the hol­ lowness of dogma, the impossibility of miracles, the con­ tradiction of inspiration, the supremacy of morals, the one-ness of human nature, the eternity of matter, and the persistence of force; who cannot as yet relinquish the idea of a personal God who takes some interest, however partial and indirect, in our affairs, and who stands towards us in some relation that implies mutual obligation—such men may gladly accept the philosophy of this sermon. I should be inclined, however, to predict that they will find it is but a temporary refuge, and that the only secure citadel rests on the everlasting rocks. IV.—Authority v. Consent. [From, the National Reformer of 14th December, 1884.] The honest and persistent expression of secular opinion is at length producing some effect on the public mind. We address ourselves to all shades of religious thought. We meet the unprincipled assertions of interested priests and their too credulous flocks with satire and disapproval’; those who show an inclination to argue we invite freely to �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 25 discussion ; and the thoughtful men who see the instability of the popular conception of religion and who desire to understand the secular position are met half way, and are sure of our best help to enable them to grasp those truths which are our great consolation. As- befits the guardians and expositors of truth, we strive to keep our walk and conversation unspotted and free from reproach, so as to show our fellows that morality is not dependent on belief. We make all due allowance for the hereditary taint of bigotry and intolerance, feeling that religion is an instinct of primitive and uncivilised man, and that its errors arise from no divine intervention, but from the ignorance and weakness of our race. Though assured of the ultimate triumph of truth, we accept with patience and forbearance, while the contest lasts, the rude buffets, the social and political disability which the laws of this country allot to unbelievers, knowing that deep down in the heart of England lies a feeling of justice, which must eventually ensure for earnest men and women a fair hearing and no disfavor. This is all we require; and when we obtain it we shall gladly leave our own opinions and those of our opponents to stand or fall by the test of truth. I have been led to make these remarks on the present position of Secularists by some statements in a paper on the limits of Freethought and Authority read by the Rev. J. M. Wilson at the Church Congress of 1882; because I think that wide as is that gentleman’s charity, and broad as are his views, he has failed to perceive that the weight of authority is on our side, and not on that of his Church. With much of Mr. Wilson’s paper we may agree. He has accurately defined Freethought, and appreciates its value ; he recognises its natural limits, and strongly depre­ cates any artificial limits ; he properly urges that between it and authority there is not a relation of mutual exclusion, but of mutual inter-dependence ; but when he speaks of the consent of the past as an authority, and claims for it in religion and morals the weight of authority, we are bound to express our dissent. I shall first quote the sentences where expression is given to those opinions that I differ from, and having done so I will state my views as to the real meaning of the words “Authority” and “Consent”. After stating that no artificial limit can be imposed on �26 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. the mind of man, and that even the creeds and tests of a Church must from time to time be interpreted and revised so as to bring them into accordance with progressive know­ ledge, he proceeds : “Nor, again, is there any limit to authority. Heredity, education, the weight given instinctively to established beliefs’ the vast momentum of long-standing habits and institutions, give to the past an influence on the present, which secures con­ tinuity amidst change, and makes progress steady. In other words, there exists a natural authority, subtle, groundless, far stronger than any artificial authority, and resented by none. NV e are held by the past, not to our harm, but our good: nursed by it, trained by it, for growth and for the right use of freedom.” Further on, speaking of the weight of authority in dif­ ferent branches of knowledge, he uses these words : “We shall see that the weight to be assigned to a great consensus of opinion in the past depends on the subject. In objective fact it is nil............. In criticism the weight is very small............. In theology it is far higher.................. In ethics it is highest of all, because the axioms of ethics—honesty, justice, patriotism, filial obedience, monogamy, purity—rest on such an enormous mass of observed facts and experience in human nature. In these subjects it is so high that we are right in treating Free Thought, or rather its consequence, free action, as a crime.” It seems to me that Mr. Wilson has here confused the two methods by which a man unable or unwilling to investigate a subject for himself may arrive at an opinion thereon without investigation. These methods are reliance on authority, and reliance on consent. They are of very different value, but are here treated as identical. We may form an opinion on the authority of others, if we are satisfied of the observance of three conditions: (1) That their sagacity and intelligence is adequate ; (2) that they have maturely studied the subject under consideration ; and (3) that they are free from bias, interest, or compul­ sion. Given these conditions, and we bow to trustworthy authority; if they are wanting, we feel hesitation and distrust. No one would trust the advice or opinion of a professional man whose intellect, or acquirements, or integrity was doubtful. But this highest form of authority is ignored by Mr. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 27 Wilson. When he speaks of authority, he refers to such influences as these,—heredity, education, long-standing habits, consensus of past opinion, experience of human nature. This is not authority but consent. Idle, in­ different, or superficial men may use it as a guide, but no earnest inquirer after truth can accept of it as a limit to, or substitute for, Freethought. If the “consensus of the past ” had continued to influence us, slavery would still have been legal, and scores of wretches would have been hanged every Monday morning at some modern substitute for Tyburn. Fortunately, in some respects, we are a practical people. To secure the higher form of authority I have described, absolute freedom of thought is indispensable; and no thought is free that is bound by the weight of past con­ sensus. Knowledge and experience are requisite, but they must be used as guides and not accepted as limits. Other­ wise the thought is fettered, and the opinion valueless as authority. In estimating the value of the opinion of another as authority, the third condition—that of freedom from bias, self-interest, and compulsion—is of such great importance that there is apnma facie reason for preferring the opinion of a Freethinker (I use the word in its common acceptation). Given equal intelligence and study, the opinion of a man who incurs obloquy by professing it, is more likely to be authoritative than that of a man who conforms to Mrs. Grundy and the “usages of society ”, The higher form of authority is wanting in regard to religion. Most dogmas are beyond human intellect, and no man ever existed whose opinion is authority for be­ lieving such a doctrine as the trinity. Nor is the study that Churchmen bring to bear on religious matters such as to command our confidence. It has no scientific value, and is bound by foregone conclusions. I shall wait till the third condition is seriously claimed for apologists before I dispute it, merely remarking that martyrdoms do not consecrate with the halo of authority the opinions for which men and women have died deaths of agony. Though every church has its martyr roll, it has also its black list of those who have suffered for free or for fettered thought, at its suit, and because they differed from it. Our fellow men have been so ready to die for all �28 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. sorts of irrational emotions that it is easier to inquire for oneself than to decide which of the martyrs is worthy to be followed as a guide. I admit, therefore, all the influence claimed for Consent in the first of the two extracts quoted above. The influence exists, and has some good and some bad effects : we think the bad effects preponderate, and we object to its being elevated into the position of Authority. Turning to the second extract above quoted, I shall very briefly state three objections of a more formidable nature than any hitherto made. Mr. Wilson seems desirous to impose on Freethought, in regard to morals, far more stringent bonds than he would impose in regard to religion; a course that appears to me so dangerous that I shall be very glad to learn that I have mistaken the drift of his opinion. My objections are: (1) The six “virtues” named by Mr. Wilson are not axioms of ethics nor axioms at all; an axiom must contain a statement of fact or opinion. (2) Not one of the virtues named implies an idea that can be transformed into axiomatic shape, resting on past con­ sent and adapted for future guidance. Let Mr. Wilson try, as regards “Patriotism”, to construct an axiom for the guidance of an Irish Nationalist, or, as regards “Monogamy”, to construct one for a Turkish Pasha: he will find that the light thrown by the past on the path of the future is dim, indirect, and apt to mislead; and that the “ authority ” of one man is more valuable than the consent of millions. (3) So soon as Freethought condemns an ethical rule that rests on past consent, then the crime is not (as Mr. Wilson asserts) to translate the thought into action, but to stifle the free thought by pretending that consent is an authority that supersedes it. In a word, I agree with Mr. Wilson in identifying Authority and Freethought. We differ in this, that he regards Consent as identical with Authority, and therefore identical with Freethought, while I regard Consent as opposed to and inconsistent with Authority and Freethought. �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 29 V.—On Free Discussion. [From the National Reformer of December 28th, 1884.] The following extract from the Edinburgh Review of 1850 (vol. xci., page 525) will be read with interest. The work reviewed is entitled “Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion”, and was published in 1849 by Mr. George Cornewell Lewis, afterwards Sir G. C. Lewis, Bart., who was a Cabinet Minister from 1855 till his death in 1863. A second edition appeared in 1875, and was reviewed by Mr. Gladstone in the opening article of the first volume of the A^he^ew/A Century. A reply from the pen of Sir James Stephen appears at page 270 ; and Mr. Gladstone s re­ joinder at page 902 of the same volume. The opinions on authority and consent which I recently expressed in these columns were to a great measure based on Sir G. C. Lewis s book. Times have changed since 1850, and it can no longer be said with truth that “public opinion exercises a formidable repression of infidelity ”, or that “ the avowedly infidel books that appear are few”. No dogma of religion.is now so sacred, no pretention so vital, as to preclude dis­ cussion from any point of view, however radical. Mr. Gladstone has thus described Sir G. C. Lewis’ posi­ tion : “As a Theist he did not recognise the ark of the covenant, but he recognised the presence within it as true, though undefinable ”. {Nineteenth Century, vol. i., p. 921.) “ There is one circumstance which, in England, impairs authority in matters of religion, to which Mr. Lewis has not adverted. It is the state of English law and English opinion on infidelity. “ Christianity, we are told, is parcel of the law of England ; therefore to ‘write against Christianity in general’, to use the words of Holt, or ‘to impugn the Christian religion generally’, in those of Lord Kenyon, or ‘ to impeach the esta­ blished faith, or to endeavor to unsettle the belief of others, in those of Justice Bayley, is a misdemeanor at common law, and subjects the offender, at the discretion of the court, to fine, imprisonment, and infamous corporal punishment. The statute law is rather vague. By the 9th and 10th Will. III., cap. 32, whoever, having been educated a Christian, shall bj writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the �30 UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, or assert that there are more Gods than one, or deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa­ ment to be of divine authority, shall for the first offence, be incapable of holding any office or place of trust, civil or military, and for the second, be imprisoned for three years, and be incapable of suing in any court of law or equity, or of accepting any gift or legacy. The punishment for deny­ ing the doctrine of the Trinity was repealed in our own times ; but the remainder of the statute is in full force at this day. It is true that, in these times, neither the common law nor the statute is likely to be enforced against a sober, temperate dis­ putant. The publisher of the translation of Strauss has not been punished. But his safety is precarious. If anyone were so ill-advised as to prosecute him, he must be convicted of libel, unless the jury should think fit to save him at the expense of perjury; and we doubt whether the court would venture to inflict on him a mere nominal sentence. “ But the repression of infidelity by law is far less formidable than that which is exercised by public opinion. The author of a work professedly and deliberately denying the truth of Chris­ tianity would become a Pariah in the English world. If he were in a profession, he would find his practice fall off; if he turned towards the public service, its avenues would be barred. In society he would find himself shunned or scorned —even his children would feel the taint of their descent. To be suspected of holding infidel opinions, though without any attempt at their propagation, even without avowing them, is a great mis­ fortune. It is an imputation which every prudent man care­ fully avoids. Under such circumstances, what reliance can an Englishman place on the authority of the writers who pro­ fess to have examined into the matter, and to have ascertained the truth? Can he say, ‘Their premises and conclusions are before the public. If there were any flaw in them, it would be detected and exposed ’ ? The errors committed or supposed to be committed by writers on the evidences of Christianity may be detected, but there is little chance of their being ex­ posed. It may, perhaps be safe sometimes to impugn a false premise, or an unwarranted inference, but never to deny a con­ clusion. It is dangerous, indeed, to assert on religious matters any views with which the public is not familiar. It is to this immunity from criticism that we owe the rash assumption of premises, and the unwarranted inferences, with which many theological writings abound. Facts and arguments are passed from author to author, which in Secular matters would be dissi­ pated in the blaze of free discussion. Theological literature, at least the portion of it which relates to the doctrines which ‘ are parcel of the common law ’ has been a protected literature ; �UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION. 31 and much of its offspring has the ricketty distorted form which belongs to the unhappy bantlings that have been swaddled by protection. “ To this state of things we owe the undue importance given to the few avowedly infidel books which actually appear. They are like the political libels which creep out in a despotism. Their authors are supposed to be at least sincere, since they peril reputation and fortune. 'What could have given popu­ larity to ‘ The Nemesis of Faith ’ but the persecution of its author ? To this also we owe the insidious form in which in­ fidelity is usually insinuated—intermixed with professions of orthodoxy, and conveyed by a hint or a sneer. If Gibbon could have ventured, in simple and express terms, to assert his dis­ belief in Christianity, all his persiflage would have been omitted ; and the reader, especially the young reader, would have known that his anti-Christian opinions were the attacks of an enemy— not the candid admissions of a friend. To this also we owe much of the scepticism which exists among educated English­ men : usiug the word scepticism in its derivative sense—to express not incredulity, but, doubt. They have not the means of making a real independent examination of the evidences of their faith. A single branch of that vast inquiry, if not aided by taking on trust the results handed down by previous inquirers, would occupy all the leisure which can be spared from a business or a profession. All that they think they have time for is to read a few popular treatises. But they know that these treatises have not been subjected to the ordeal of unfettered criticism. As little can they infer the truth of the established doctrine from the apparent acquiesence of those around them. They know that they may be surrounded by unbelieving conformists. And thus they pass their lives in scepticism—in a state of in­ decision— suspecting that what they have been taught may contain a mixture of truth and error which they are unable to decompose. If a balance could be struck between the infidelity that is prevented, and the infidelity that is occasioned, by the absence of free discussion, we have no doubt that the latter would greatly predominate.” ��iillj ihww � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit" Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: v, 7-31 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Reply to Essays and addresses of Rev. James M. Wilson (Macmillan, 1894). First published in the National Reformer. 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 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N574 Subject The topic of the resource Religion Science Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource S.S. 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 (Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit"), 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 James M. Wilson NSS Religion and science https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/875249d1dc691fb934359c9db111fa42.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=kKZEmOvSbmWDoDudZPCnWPWfKvqSFcJOt1NwjAVW%7E1ocDLiYjTddyc3XmJdoHYGRvAEQSFwPYsK3V55hlK32Q2MXB7hEfYtKFXsOoc68DeKiioXve0PV2BHPXpKtRA7f0PulloBYcgJJfcPii3z3-1iDylhkmn0cmruPI8pMhqoPUnTblLU9ceAkjCYo6i3QLHQBsX2ThU81h%7EFhjA0MSJUZTPnfQY2k8Ne1umqOviJ9acth%7EVQ4SFEkPJuMiu3pw1hygMj5P8qwhLfTKGXTSIO8j52dBSJKRRkxuq0fuff2DP-niqGwTomeun01ZWAY6QA4y7G8dYfHM-7Z%7ED8nIA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ccefbc5561ec629647e7c440704b1ecb PDF Text Text WORK AND WEALTH ESSAY AN ON THE OF ECONOMICS SOCIALISM, BY J. K. INGALLS. ONE PENNY. LONDON: INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, * r 35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N. 1887. ��WORK AND WEALTH.4 <Ti HAVE chosen the above terms in preference to Labour and W Capital, because they convey more exact ideas. Thè word labour carries with it the impression of compulsory, or servile toil. Capital is a word which economists themselves cannot satis­ factorily define, and to which they apply only an arbitrary meaning. The things signified by work and wealth are subject to no equivocal interpretation, are understood by all, and stand to each other in the relation of a natural sequence. Speaking from the standpoint of the trader, from which political economists mainly speak, Adam Smith lays down this fundamental proposition : “ It was not by gold or silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased.” For him the term labour was appropriate, because, in his time, a large proportion of the world’s work was performed by bondmen or by hirelings, even more the mere dependents of the legal possessors of the world’s wealth than are the workers of to-day. Starting from this comprehensive, but exact, proposition that work is the only source from which wealth can be produced or purchased as an axiom, the opposite of which is simply unthinkable, let us direct our attention to an inquiry into the manner in which wealth to appearance is transferred so often in exchange for no equivalent in labour. Even the trader may be interested in the attempt to account for the fact that wealth, at first purchasable only by work, comes to be possessed mainly by those who do no work. The thing which a man has produced by his work, and which is an object of desire to himself and others, can be transferred in several different ways. The natural or simplistic methods are: (r) Force, involving robbery, theft, and, in an advanced stage, cheating, over­ reaching, and advantage-taking of every description ; (2) Gift, involving partial and invidious bestowments, as well as noble gene­ rosities ; (3) Hazard, involving all kinds of gaming, and, in the progress of society, all speculative ventures. * This paper originally appeared in the Ameiican “ Radical Review.” * �4 v i The rational method, and one which is arrived at only by culture and the recognition of social obligations, is mutual exchange. With the earlier method^ as they have existed in the past, we need have no quarrel. They were the only ones possible under the con­ dition of social and moral development then obtaining. Robbery is the main element of organic and animated life. The carnivorous animals all support life by drawing it from orders less powerful or aggressive than themselves, and even the herbivorous sustain life by devouring vegetable life. Man destroys the lives of the creatures beneath him that he may eat their flesh and robe himself with their furs and skins.. He robs the sheep of its fleece, the silk-worm of its web that he may clothe himself. That he pursues a similar course with his fellow is not to be wondered at. Only a conception of the brotherhood of man and the real dignity of work can win him from his tendency to devour the substance of the weak and simple who fall into his hands, instead of producing wealth for himself. The rude man, who has spent hours in the forest gathering fagots, but lies down at night without a fire, while another enjoys the genial warmth those same fagots yield while burning, may have transferred their possession in several different ways. He may, with a certain degree of equity, have exchanged them, for different products which the other had worked to obtain ; he may have engaged in some game of chance, and lost them wholly ; or he may have been met by a stronger man, while returning laden, and deprived of his fagots by force. Or, he already may have been reduced to a bond-slave, his life having bten spared in war on condition of his submission to a life of slavery; and thus have given his captor the perpetual ability to purchase wealth with his and his childrens’ toil. From the mental state which results from such motives as sway the successful warrior and slave-holder, to that of the enlightened moralist and economist who discovers that, if another has created wealth which he himself desires, the true thing to do is to create something which the other will equally desire, that so the transfers may be mutually agreeable and beneficial, is a distance which requires ages of toil and struggle to overcome. It may be urged that in the capture and management of slaves, who would not willingly work if left to themselves, a certain necessary work was performed, and a larger production of wealth obtained. If we were to admit this as regards the past, it would serve as no justi­ fication for the continuance of slavery ; but it should also be con­ sidered that the robber class, until taught by the toil of the indus­ trious that labour will produce or purchase wealth, never seeks to subject the toilers to slavery. Besides, all experience shows that ••• �5 slavery, so far from promoting industry, begets a general repugnance to work on the part of both slave and slave owner : thus the thing urged in its justification is seen to have been caused mainly by itself. It was not till after centuries of advancement that civilized nations began to discourage chattel slavery. Its entire abolition in our country is a recent event. But by its abolition we have by no means reached any thing like an equitable system of exchange. We still have class legislation, protecting the vast accumalations of wealth and ownership of land in unlimited quantities, just as incom­ patible with justice as the older tyranny. To be able to purchase wealth with others’ labour, it is not at all necessary to own their bodies. The strong assumed “ property in ■ man ” and “ property in the soil ” at the same time. Now, since the soil is absolutely essential to the application of labour to productive uses, he who has an exclusive claim to it can labour under any tribute he pleases, or deny it opportunity to employ itself or be employed at all. Since ownership in man has been abolished, private ownership of land is the chief basis, the great fulcrum, of alt devices for purchasing wealth by the work of others. By the workers themselves this power is little understood, because it affects them indirectly. They come in immediate contact with their employers, and questions of raising or lowering wages, lengthen­ ing or shortening hours, attract their attention and divert it from more fundamental questions. They hardly reflect that their em­ ployers are also subject to the competitive struggle, and are often broken down by the operation of the same law which shortens the rations, and renders more and more precarious the employment, on which the labourer depends. The indifference of the working-men to this question of the land, and their failure to obtain even enough of it to enable them to rear homes for themselves and families, has a curious, as well as sad, result. Quite twenty-five per cent, of the earnings of labourers, clerks, and mechanics who do not own a home of their own, goes to the landlords for rent. In many instances, this is for structures which have been paid for a hundred times over, and are not worth in their material the labour of pulling down and carrying away. It is true that a portion of this rent comes back in payment of repairs, taxes, etc., but still leaving a large percentage for which labour receives no return whatever, and may almost be said to yield voluntarily, thus permitting others, to that extent, to purchase wealth with their unrequited toil. Had our Government established a system of easy access to the * �6 soil through nationalization of the land or a judicious limitation to private ownership, the questions arising between employer and em­ ployed would have a ready solution. On the recurrence of a de­ pression in business, general or special, the parties feeling themselves crowded would betake themselves to the cultivation of the soil, or some self-employment; or at least enough would do so to relieve the overstocked labour market, thus increasing the demand for the things which had been over-produced. Out of our semi-feudal land system grow also many of the giant evils which afflict our commerce and finance. The man who has no land must hire it or pay for its use, before he can apply his labours in cultivation, however willing and capable he may be. This basic necessity of borrowing is the foundation of all other borrowing ; paying for the use of land is the basis of all rent and usury and speculative profit of every description. Distressed by unnatural dis-'“*^* possession and deprivation, people are in no condition to resist the temptation to borrow anything which promises relief, and to pledge themselves to pay therefor impossible rates of interest. The poor man, to free himself from present deprivation, borrows the means to do a little business • the man of considerable means borrows that he may do more business; and for the result, we have most of the real estate and much of the personal property of both in the hands of the money-lender through foreclosures. A large proportion of all transfers of real estate, especially for the last three years, has been through foreclosures, and to avoid foreclosures. An annual half-billion does not cover the amount which goes into or through the hands of corporations in the form of interest in this country, not to mention the enormous rentals, private speculative profits, etc. The industrious man, who purchases by his work any desired wealth, gets only one-half, or less, himself,—the other half going to the usurer, landlord, or profit-monger. These are enabled to pur­ chase, or get recognized possession of, this other half through unlimited control of land, and the system of usance and annuities growing up from that basis. It may be said with too much truth that working-men get now more than they wisely use; but it is still truer that, in proportion as their share in what they have produced is diminished, they become more and more indifferent to saving, and more and more shiftless and unreliable. It is not the purpose of this paper to attempt to point out what is right and equitable between employer and employed under our system of wages. W-hen any considerable portion of mankind �7 desires equity and mutualism in industry and division, there will be no difficulty in arriving at exact conclusions. My object will be more than realized, if I draw attention to these things as they actually exist, and to the positive relation which work and wealth sustain to each other, the truth in regard to which can only be ascertained by careful analysis. Into all production of wealth only two factors enter: (i) the raw material—the soil or its spontaneous productions; (2) human effort. However complex or extended, in the last analysis only these two elements are found. It is not the carbon and nitrogen, the salts and gases, of which our food and clothing are composed, which we pro­ duce as wealth, but that specific form and aptitude for use which our work has wrought or effected. According to that ingenious political economist, Bastiat, even when we purchase things with money or by barter, we do not exchange things, but forms of service. The inference, however, which he draws from this truthful proposition—that, therefore, any one in possession of wealth to whatever amount must necessarily have rendered an equivalent service for that wealth (either by him­ self, or through an ancestor or donor)—is so monstrous as to be accepted only by specialists in 11 exact science.” On the contrary, we find mutuality of service nowhere recognized as at all requisite in the business transactions of the world. We might as well look for it under the chattel system, where men and women are bought and sold, and where labour does not have to be purchased with equiva­ lent service, but can be enforced by the lash. Adam Smith says : “ It is impossible for one to become excessively rich without making many others correspondingly poor.” This is a result which could not possibly arise from any mutual exchange of services, or from any honest transfers of equivalents, any more than we can have an equation with one side plus and the other minus. Hence it follows that, where inordinate wealth exists, it has been purchased by the labour of others than the possessors, and through transfers by force, fraud or hazard. To produce or have wealth at all, human effort must be put forth. Even the spontaneous productions of Nature cannot constitute wealth, until taken out of their natural state. The savage who has fagots and game in store for a week has wealth, as compared with him who has to gather a daily supply. Application and frugality seem the only requisites for its acquirement. By a wise division of labour and special adaptation of functions, the wealth of the world has been vastly increased; but we must not let the complexity of work and diversity of employments confuse our ideas in regard to �8 * the main question,—namely, the source of wealth, and the equity or iniquity of the present method of distribution. As society advanced from the simply savage state, the search, capture, and transportation of natural wealth was followed by various handicrafts which added value thereto. It was work, nothing less and nothing more, of hand and brain which formed social wealth from the resources of Nature. In all these elaborate transforma­ tions, we can discover no other earthly agency, nor indeed make any material distinction in the essential character of these varied services. One and all are necessary to each other. By no logic can we decide that one service is more important than another, except in the utility of its product. If one has discovered, another secured, and a third transported the prize to the place where it is needed for consumption, we can decide no otherwise than that the pay of each should be propor­ tioned to the time employed in labour and the useful result accom­ plished. Even the labour necessary to divide and distribute it comes in justly for a share. So far all must be plain in regard to the facts involved in our question. It seems to me the principles must also be clear. But it will be answered that still the distinctions in life and the inequali­ ties of distribution of which we complain have been transmitted to us from previously existing conditions, and result from the operations of forces that can be traced back through every form of civilization. This is, however, very far from proving that they exist in accordance with elementary principles or any rational interpretation of law. Really it comes to this,—whether we will continue the essential injustice, while dropping the barbaric methods of the savage, or attempt a truly scientific solution of the problem of work and wealth. In the discovery, procurance, and manipulation of natural produc­ tions, I have indicated all the steps in the production of wealth. Services in the preservation or conservation of wealth are equally entitled to consideration, but cannot be yielded a superior claim. With our inequitable division, and the disorganized methods of dis­ tribution which it begets, the number of traders becomes sadly disproportioned to the number of actual producers ; and since those despoiled are chiefly those who perform the most useful labour, the smart and shrewd seek the more indirect methods of obtaining wealth. And just here the principle of competition, which political economists seem to think ought to reconcile the wealth producers to starvation, does not work with facility, for no one can do a business at a loss, and hence society has to support numbers to do the work which one might do. �9 I may, in this connection, refer to the instrumentality of money or currency, serviceable in moving crops and the work of distribu­ tion generally. Its importance, however, is ’ mainly due to the want of mutualism in our distributive system and of equity in our methods of exchange. A charge for the time-use of this instrument, in defiance of the sentiments of all moralists from Moses and Cato to Ruskin and Palmer, has been enforced by our laws, because labour was at the mercy of the few who hold the soil, and because operations could be made to pay dividends out of the wealth purchased by the labour of the poor arid simple. Chattel slavery enabled the planter to pay interest. ‘Land monopoly enables the capitalist to assume that there is a usufruct ’to wealth. In return, usury has been the great lever by which millions of homes have been alienated, and gone to swell the domain of avarice and love of lordly domination. As war was the parent of slavery, by which whole families, tribes, and nations were reduced to bondage,—made “ hewers of wood and drawers of water” to the victors,—so it has been employed to enslave labour by the creation of immense national debts, the mere interest of which is an onerous tax upon the worker. Hazard has also played as large, if not so conspicuous, a part as war in reducing labour to the condition of dependence and distress. The liberty of self, wife, and children, in barbaric times, was often staked. And when this was not done, borrowing to prolong play was practised, as to-day in Turkey and in some Christian and even republican countries, upon conditions and at rates which can have no termina­ tion but in life-long bondage or peonage. To relieve present dis­ tress, or deluded by the hope of acquiring the ability to live by others’ labour, many people to-day, who would despise the mere gambler, fall into a similar fatuity, and wake from it only to find themselves slaves to the power they expected to use to lay others* labour under contribution. I am not urging sympathy for these dupes. I am only pointing out some of the causes, still in operation, which have resulted in making the few the actual masters of labour, and given them the ability to purchase wealth without work of their own. In our country and time we do not enforce gambling debts as they do in Turkey ; but we do enforce contracts to pay interest, often just as oppressive, and only outwardly less barbarous and inhuman. In.thus tracing the. working of these crude methods, we find that the productive labour of our time has its .inheritance, through the wage system, serfdom, and slavery, from primitive subjection to force; or through speculative trade, from the hazard which ruined �ro the victim without permanently benefiting the winner. It is not important to our purpose to inquire whether the plunderers or plundered are more to blame, or the greater sufferers. This is plain; with the land in the hands of the hereditary or speculative lord, the labourer has no resources for self-employment, however fit or unfit he may be. The working-man can obtain independence now only by the possession of exceptional powers, or by special good fortune, and then only through schemes and operations which raise one at the expense of many. The inheritance of the property class consists of a transmission of power attained by forceful conquest, or by the varied forms of hazard, fraud, and corruption. With their wealth they inherit generally the tendency to take advantage of the necessities of others, and to apply new methods of overreaching when the spirit of progress will no longer tolerate the old ones. 1 do not make this application to individuals, but only to those given to the shrewd use of wealth; well I know that many parvenus far outdo, in management, those who inherit wealth. In this country we have changed some things to suit republican prejudices. For instance, our land is no longer entailed in a family. Yet it is all falling into the hands of a class; and although the great fortunes sometimes change to other hands, they are controlled by those with still greater, and their attitude and relation to industry remain the same. Of the large fortunes now enjoyed in New York and New England, many had their foundations laid by successful privateers and slave traders ; and by other methods no less dis­ cordant with principles of natural justice. The immense fortunes made by two well-known citizens in the generation now past are quite exceptional, and yet they well illustrate the present divorced relation between work and wealth. In a certain sense, both were industrious workers. Each has said of himself that, when he worked in the ordinary way, his income was trifling. It was only after lon^ struggle, in which many worthy men went to the wall, that their fortunes began to accumulate with great rapidity. Both were greatly indebted to our civil war, which reduced whole populations to poverty, left the nation three billions in debt, and sacrificed a million lives. It is also worthy of note that a great banker at our nat onal capital was made rich by privileges granted him to trade during the Mexican war. When it is said in justifica­ tion of these men that they did not go outside the acknowledged rules of I usiness. it is admitting that our systems of trade, finance, etc., are essentially the same as in barbarous ages whose forms we have discarded. �11 Another great estate, also recently left in the city of New York was mainly inherited, being now in the possession of the third gene­ ration. In mentioning these instances I disclaim any purpose of judging the men. They were what inheritance and environment made them. My only purpose is to show the irrational and fatal policy which places in the hands of any men, however good or great, the power to purchase, ad libitum, wealth with other people’s work. I am quite well aware that for many years to come this remonstrance will remain measurably unheeded. The workers are so depressed with hardship, or so readily elated with the prospect of success in some exceptional field, that they are quite unwilling to look away from prospects of temporary relief to the consideration of broad questions of reform, even if they were less idiotically joined to party, labelled republican or democratic, by leaders who form a mutual ring, whichever party attains power, and conspire to make the plunder of public funds and public trusts a fine art. But from the operation upon the public mind of works like those of Spencer, Mill, Lewes, and Ruskin, much is to be hoped. Our own country, also, has the names of men, not unknown to fame, who are deeply impressed with the importance of this vital social and ethical problem. Its development promises to take form like this : First, As a civil right,—freedom of access to the soil and oppor­ tunity of self-employment; Second, As a principle of law,—the partnership of all concerned in the production of wealth requiring division of labour; Third, As a matter of commercial ethics,—equivalents of service in all exchanges. In connection with these developments in the intellectual and ethical field, it occurs to me that there is a probability, at least, of a movement which shall greatly hasten the downfall of our barbarous system of division, and the approach of the era when work shall be the only recognized title to wealth. Within the present century, men like Robert Owen, Peter Cooper, Gerrit Smith, and many others who could be mentioned, have shown, with more or less success, that it is “nobl-e to live for others,” and that personal interests may be subordinated to social aims. It seems to me no dream of romance to indulge the faith that, at a time near at hand, a class of true men and women will arise and form an order, which will abstain from preying on the results of others’ toil. These social knights-errant will scorn to rely on the efforts of others for their support, or to apply to their own use, in any way, that for which another has wrought. They will no more consider the necessity or �12 weakness of their toiling fellow a reason why they should overreach and plunder him, than would the model knight of the days of chivalry have considered that the weakness and defenceless state of a persecuted woman was a reason why he should outrage rather than protect her. These will organize industries on an equitable basis, promote emigration to districts where the exactions of landlords are less intolerable, and turn the current of many now questionable, though well-intended, charities into channels of self-employment and self-help. It is not too much to hope that they will be able ulti­ mately to change the application of the vast amount of labour and wealth now expended in “ plans of salvation ” to save the souls of men in a future world, into a broadly beneficent measures of indus­ trial organization and social renovation, and thus render possible the coming of the “ kingdom of heaven upon the earth,” under the equitable rule of which it<£ shall be given to every one according to his work.” PUBLICATION LIST. P. J. PROUDHON : A Biographical Sketch, with Portrait. Seymour. By Henry Post free, I ^d. SAMFUNDET DAGEN EFTER REVOLUTIONEN (Society on the Morrow of the Revolution). Translated from the French into Danish. 32 pp. and Coloured Cover Post free 2|d. THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. By “An English Anarchist.” Reprinted from “The Anarchist,” to which is added an Appendix. Post free, 1 jd. THE MALTHUSIANS. A Socialistic attack on the doctrine of Malthus. By P. J. Proudhon. Post free, i|d. EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION. A Scientific Essay on the doctrine of Evolution. By M. Elisee Reclus. Post free, i^d. LAW AND AUTHORITY. An essay on the error and usurpation of politi­ cal legislation, and its concomitant evils. By Pierre Kropotkine. Post free, 2|d. GESETZ UND AUTORITAET (Law and Authority). German Edition. Post free, 2.jd. THE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC EVOLUTION. By the same author. Post free, i|d. EXPROPRIATION. By the same author. Post free, i|d. WAR. By the same author. Post free, i^d. THE MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNISTS. By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Crimson Cover. Post free, 2|d. INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY. THE ANARCHIST, A Journal of Anti-political Socialism and advocate of the abolition of the State. EDITOR AND PUBLISHER: HENRY SEYMOUR. Price, One Penny. LONDON : 35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingalls, J.K. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 23 cm. Notes: Stamp on front flyleaf: South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library. "This paper originally appeared in the American 'Radical Review'". Publisher's list on numbered page at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4968 Subject The topic of the resource Economics 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 (Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism), 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 Economics Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f6d28807ceafc657599fc1bb488aeba.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=bbm3JoeQj%7ETc8Usg6ua7iwMxGLXc8DE7T4IN7v2iApc2afuvm1SVl2RurrU7db8ieZFgNEDOIXAUbOzhBOg-JISgWxxHeaaUEqxRs1oppq2jRpkYRcqO12souuoef0klHjmwwcmIJAZx1kxFzE4vMsijpMJNx9nTsRoj0vY2UZCDF5UD65qxUdudeFMhyeQHVRTXx93z9XnJgFO3uya5v4Ai5oQ%7EbZWxJSYAVnGY0IrPLWliO220vjgz2a1nEHzImJRXUx7ZR-%7E4vN2GbTsE1chFZUZic1EySOc8pZk1ZywgEbRlCttzOWF0osVJ51WmQrV8q971LJn33cm5aWWSbA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9134d7056c17eb6d369fc023dc01dd2e PDF Text Text ■ 1 - - NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY WH¥ I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. BY I ANNIE BESANT. r J./ LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 887. PRICE THREEPENCE. . �LONDON : PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BBADLAUGH, 63, ELEET STREET, E.C. �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. ■There is no doubt that the majority of people in most parts of the world—save in those in which Buddhism is supreme—believe in the existence of a God. The kind of God may vary indefinitely, but there is generally “some God Or other ”. Now a growing minority in every civilised ■Country finds it intellectually impossible to make the affir­ mation which is necessary for belief in God, and this growing minority includes many of the most thoughtful and most competent minds. The refusal to believe is unfortunately not always public, so cruel is the vengeance Worked by society on those who do not bow down to its dretish.es; but as John Stuart Mill said: ‘1 The world would be. astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments—of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue—are complete sceptics in religion” (“Autobiography,” p. 45). It is sad that all should not recognise that, as the late Professor Clifford put it, Truth is a thing to be shouted from the housetops, not to be whispered over the walnuts and wine after the ladies have left; for only by plain and honest speech on this matter can liberty of thought be won. Each who speaks out makes easier speech for others, and none, however insignificant, has right of silence here. Nor is it unfair,. I think, that a minority should be chal­ lenged on its dissidency, and should be expected to state clearly and definitely the grounds of its disagreement with the majority. Ere going into detailed argument it may be well to remind the reader that the burden of affording proof lies on the afiirmer of a. proposition; the rational attitude of the human mind is not that of a boundless credulity, accepting every statement as true until it has been proved to be false, but is that of a suspension of judgment on every �4 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. statement which, though not obviously false, is not sup­ ported. by evidence, and of an absolute rejection of a state­ ment self-contradictory in its terms, or incompatible with truth® already demonstrated. To remove this position from the region of prejudice in which theological discus­ sion is carried on, it may be well to take the following* illustration : a man asks me, “Do you believe that Jupiter is inhabited by a race of men who have one eye in the middle of their foreheads, and who walk about on three legs, with their heads under their left arms ? ” I answer “No, I do not believe it; I have no evidence that such beings exist”. If my interlocutor desires to convince mo that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of; them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evi­ dently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God’s existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him. Tor be it remembered that the Atheist makes no general denial of the existence of God; he does not say, “There is no God”. If he put forward such a proposition, which he can only do intelligently if he understand the term “God”, then, truly, he would be bound to bring forth his evidence in support. But the proof of a universal negative requires the possession of perfect knowledge of the universe of discourse, and in this case the universe of discourse is conterminous with the totality of existence. No* man can rationally affirm “There is no God”, until the word “ God ” has for him a definite meaning, and until everything that exists is known to him, and known with what Leibnitz calls “perfect knowledge”. The Atheist’s denial of the Gods begins only when these Gods are defined or described. Never yet has a God been defined in terms which were not palpably self-contradictory and absurd ;• never yet has a God been described so that a concept of him was made possible to human thought. Again I fall back on an illustration unconnected with theology in order to make clearly apparent the distinction drawn. If I am asked: “Do you believe in the existence of a triangle in space on the other side of Saturn?” I answer, “I neither �WHY I HO HOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 5 lielieve in, nor deny its existence; I know nothing about it”. But if I am asked: “Do you believe in the existence there of a boundless triangle, or of a square triangle ? ” -then my answer is : “I deny the possibility of the exist­ ence of such triangles”. The reason for the different answers to the two questions is that as I have never visited the other side of Saturn I know nothing about the exist­ ence or non-existence of triangles there ; but I deny the possibility of the existence of a boundless triangle, because the word triangle means a figure enclosed by three limiting lines; and I deny the possibility of the existence of a square triangle, because a triangle has three sides only while a square has four, and all the angles of a triangle taken together ar® equal to two right angles, while those of a square are equal to four. I allege that anyone who believes in a square triangle can have no clear concept either of a triangle or of a square. And so while I refuse to say “there is no God”, lacking the knowledge which would justify the denial, since to me the word God represents no .concept, I do say, “there is no infinite personality, there is no infinite creator, there is no being at once almighty and all-good, there is no Trinity in Unity, there is no -eternal and infinite existence save that of which each one • of us is mode”. Dor be it noted, these denials are justified .by our knowledge: an undefined “God” might be a limited being on the far side of Sirius, and I have no knowledge which justifies me in denying such an existence; but an infinite God, i.e., a God who is everywhere, who has no limits, and yet who is not I and who is therefore limited by my personality, is a being who is self-contra­ dictory, both limited and not-limited, and such a being ■ cannot exist. No perfect knowledge is needed here. “ God is an infinite being” is disproved by one being who is not God. “God is everywhere ” is disproved by the finding • of one spot where God is not. The universal affirmative -is disproved by a single exception. Nor is anything gained by the assertors of deity when they allege that he is incomprehensible. If “God” exists and is incompre­ hensible, his incomprehensibility is an admirable reason for being silent about him, but can never justify the affirma­ tion of self-contradictory propositions, and the threatening . of people with damnation if they do not accept them. I turn to examine the evidence which is brought forward �6 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. in support of the existence of God, taking “ God ” to mean some undefined being other than and superior to the various forms of living and non-living things on thisearth—or those forming part of the 1 ‘material universe” in which we exist—and related to these as creator and controller. Now the existence of anything may be sensated or it may be inferred; the astronomer believed in the existence of Saturn because he saw it; but he also believed in the existence of the planet afterwards named Neptune before he saw it, attaining this belief by way of' induction from the otherwise inexplicable behavior of Uranus. Can we then by the senses or by the reason find out God ? The most common, and to many the most satisfactory and convincing evidence, is that of the senses. A child bom into the world has open to him these sense avenues of knowledge; he learns that something exists which is not he by the impressions made on his senses; he sees, he feels, he hears, he smells, he tastes, and thus he learns to know. As the child’s past and present sensations increase in number, as he begins to remember them, to compare, to mark likenesses and unlikenesses, he gathers the materials for further mental elaboration. But this sen­ sational basis of his knowledge is the limit of the area on which his intellectual edifice can be built; he may rear it upward as far as his powers will permit, but he can neverwiden his foundation, while his senses remain only what they are. All that the mind works on has reached it by these senses; it can dissociate and combine, it can break in pieces and build up, but no sensation no percept, and no percept no concept. When this fundamental truth is securely grasped it will' be seen of what tremendous import is the admitted fact that the senses wholly fail us when We seek for proof of the existence of God. Our belief in the existence of all things outside ourselves rests on the testimony of the senses. The “objective universe” is that which we sensate. When we reason and reflect, when we think of love,, and fear, when we speak of truth and honor, we know that all these are not susceptible of being sensated, thatis, that they have no objective existence; they belong to the Subject universe. Now if God cannot be sensated healso must belong to the Subject world; that is, he must �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 7 be a creation of the mind, with no outside corresponding reality. Granted that we can never know “the thing in itself ” ; granted that all we know is only the effect on the ■mind produced by something which differs from the effect it produces ; yet this fundamental physiological distinction remains between the Object and the Subject worlds, that the Object world announces itself by nervous action which is set up at the periphery, while the Subject world results from the centrally initiated travail of the brain. It might., indeed, be argued by the Theist that God may exist, but may be incognisable by our senses, we lacking the sense which might sensate deity. Quite so. There may be existences around us but unknown to us, there being no part of our organism differentiated to receive from them impressions. There are rays beyond the solar spectrum which are invisible to us normally, the existence of which was unknown to us some years ago, but some of which apparently serve among light rays for the ant; so there may be all kinds of existences in the universe of which we are unconscious, as unconscious as we were of the existence of the ultra-violet rays until a chemical reagent rendered them visible. But as we cannot sensate them, for us they do not exist. This, then, cannot avail the Theist, for an incognisable God, a God who can enter into no kind of relation with us, is to us a non-existent God. We cannot even conceive a sense entirely different from those we possess, let alone argue over what we should find out by means of it if we had it. It is said that of old time the evidence of the senses for the existence of God was available; the seventy elders “ saw the God of Israel” ; Moses talked with him “ face to face ”; Elijah heard his “ still small voice ”. But these experiences are all traditional; we have no evidence at first hand; no witness that we can examine ; no facts that we can investigate. There is not even evidence enough to start a respectable ghost story, let alone enough to bear the tremendous weight of the existence of God. Yet, if some finite “God” exist—I say finite, because, as noted above, the co-existence of an infinite God anda finite creature is impossible—how easy for him to prove his existence; if he be too great for our “comprehension”, as some Theists argue, he might surely bestow on us a sense which ■might, receive impressions from him, and enable us to �8 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. reach, at least a partial, an imperfect, knowledge of him. But if he exist, he wraps himself in darkness; if he exist, he folds himself in silence. Leaning, as it were, over the edge of being, men strive to pierce the dark abyss of the unknown, above, below; they strain their sight, but they see nothing; they listen, but nothing strikes their ear; weary, dizzy, they stagger backwards, and with the dark­ ness pressing on their eyeballs they murmur 11 God! Bailing to discover God by way of the senses, we turn to such evidence for his existence as may be found by way of the reason, in order to determine whether we can establish by inference that which we have failed to establish by direct proof. As the world is alleged to be the handiwork of God, it is not unreasonable to scrutinise the phenomena of nature, and to seek in them for traces of a ruling intelligence, of a guiding will. But it is impossible even to glance at natural phenomena, much less to study them attentively, without being struck by the enormous waste of energy, the aimless destruction, the utterly unintelligent play of conflicting and jarring forces. For centuries “nature” has been steadily at work growing forests, cutting out channels for rivers, spreading alluvial soil and clothing it with grass and flowers ; at last a magnificent landscape is formed, birds and beasts dwell in its woods and on its pastures, men till its fertile fields, and thank the gracious God they worship for the work of his hands; there is a far-off growl which swells as it approaches, a trembling of the solid earth, a crash, an explosion, and then, in a darkness lightened only by the fiery rain of burning lava, all beauty, all fertility, vanish, and the slow results of thousands of years are destroyed in a night of earthquake and volcanic fury. Is it from this wild destruction of slowly obtained utility that we are to infer the existence of a divine intelligence and divine will ? If beauty and use were aimed at, why the destruction? If desolation and uselessness, why the millenniums spent in growth ? During the year 1886 many hundreds of people in Greece, in Spain, in America, in New Zealand, were killed or maimed by earthquakes and by cyclones. Many more perished in hurricanes at sea. Many more by explosions in mines and elsewhere. These deaths caused widespread misery, consigned families to hopeless poverty, cut short �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 9 •careers of use and of promise. They were caused by “ natural ” forces. Is “ God ” behind nature, and are all these horrors planned, carried out, by his mind and will ? •John Stuart Mill has put the case clearly and forcibly : “Next to the greatness of these cosmic forces, the quality which most forcibly strikes everyone who does not avert his •eyes from it is their perfect and absolute recklessness. They go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they crush on the road. Optimists, in their attempts to prove that ‘ whatever is, is right ’, are obliged to maintain, not that nature ‘ ever turns one step from her path to avoid trampling us into destruction, but that it would be very unreasonable in us to •expect that she should. Pope’s ‘ Shall gravitation cease when you go by ?’ may be a just rebuke to anyone who should be so silly as to expect common human morality from nature. But if the question were between two men, instead of between a man and a natural phenomenon, that triumphant apostrophe Would be thought a rare piece of impudence. A man who should persist in hurling stones or firing cannon when another man ‘ goes by ’, and having killed him should urge a similar plea in exculpation, would very deservedly be found guilty of murder. In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s , ■everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act recog­ nised by human laws, Nature does once to every being that lives; and in a large proportion of cases, after protracted tortures such as only the greatest monsters whom we read of ever purposely inflicted on their living fellow creatures. If, by an arbitrary reservation, we refuse to account anything murder but what abridges a certain term supposed to be allotted to human life, nature also does this to all but a small percentage of lives, and does it in all the modes, violent or insidious, in which the worst human beings take the lives of one another. Nature impales men, breaks them as if on the wheel, casts them to be devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes them with stones like the first Christian martyr, starves them ; With hunger, freezes them with cold, poisons them by the quick ■ or slow venom of her exhalations, and has hundreds of other hideous deaths in reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a Nabis or a Domitian never surpassed. All this, Nature does with the most supercilious disregard both of mercy and of Justice, emptying her shafts upon the best and noblest indiffer­ ently with the meanest and worst; upon those who are engaged in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct consequence of the noblest acts; and it might almost be imagined as a punishment for them. She mows down those on whose existence hangs the wellbeing of a whole people, perhaps the �10 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. prospects of the human race for generations to come, with aslittle compunction as those whose death is a relief to them­ selves, or a blessing to those under their noxious influence”" (“Three Essays on Religion,” pp. 28, 29, ed. 1874). It is not only from the suffering caused by the unde­ viating course of the phenomena which from the invariable sequence of their happening are called “laws of nature” that we infer the absence of any director or controller of these forces. There are many absurdities as well as miseries, caused by the “uniformity of nature”. Dr. Buchner tells us of a kid he saw which was born perfect in all parts save that it was headless (“Force and Matter”, page 234, ed. 1884). Here, for weeks the kid was a-forming, although life in the outer world was impossible for it. Monstrosities occur in considerable numbers, and each one bears silent witness to the unintelligence of the forces that produced it. Nay, they can be artificially produced, as has been shown by a whole series of experiments, eggstapped during incubation yielding monstrous chickens. In all these cases we recognise the blind action of unconscious forces bringing about a ridiculous and unforeseen result, if turned slightly out of their normal course. From studying this aspect of nature it is certain that we cannot find God. So far from finding here a God to worship, the whole progress of man depends on his learning to control and regulate these natural forces, so asto prevent them from working mischief and to turn them, into channels in which they will work for good. If from scrutinising the forces of nature we study the history of the evolution of life on our globe, and the physical conditions under which man now exists, it is impossible from these to infer the existence of a benevolent power as the creator of the world. Life is one vast battle­ field, in which the victory is always to the strong. More organisms are produced than can grow to maturity; they fight for the limited supply of food, and by means of this struggle the weakest are crushed out and the fittest survive to propagate their race. Each successful organism stands on the corpses of its weaker antagonists, and only by this ceaseless strife and slaying has progress been possible. As the organisms grow more complex and more developed, added difficulties surround their existence; the young of the higher animals are weaker and more defenceless at- �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. ii ■birth than those of the lower, and the young of man, the highest animal yet evolved, is the most helpless of all, and his hold of life the most precarious during infancy. So clumsy is the “plan of creation” that among the most highly-evolved animals a new life is only possibleby peril to life already existing, and the mother must pass through long weeks of physical weariness and hours of acute agony ere she can hold her baby in her arms. All these things are so “natural” to us that weneed to think of them, not as necessary, but as deliberately planned by a creative power, ere we can realise the mon­ strous absurdity of supposing them to be the outcome of’ “design”. Nor must we overlook the sufferings caused hy the incomplete adaptation of evolving animals to the conditions among which they are developing. The human race is still suffering from its want of adaptation to theupright position, from its inheritance of a structure from quadrupedal ancestors which was suited to the horizontal position of their trunks, but is unsuited to the vertical position of man. The sufferings caused by child-birth, and by hernia, testify to the incomplete adaptation of therace to the upright condition. To believe that all the slow stages of blood-stained evolution, that the struggle for existence, that the survival of the fittest with its other side, the crushing of the less fit, together with a million subsidiary consequences of the main “plan”, to believethat all these were designed, foreseen, deliberately selected as the method of creation, by an almighty power, to believe this is to believe that “ God ” is the supreme malignity, a creator who voluntarily devises and executes a plan of the most ghastly malice, and who works it out with a cruelty in details which no human pen can adequately describe. But, again, the condition and the history of the world are not consistent with its being the creation of an almighty and perfect cruelty. While the tragedy off life negates the possibility of an omnipotent goodness asits author, the beauty and happiness of life negate equally the possibility of an almighty fiend as its creator. Thedelight of bird and beast in the vigor of their eager life the love-notes of mate to mate, and the brooding ectasy of the mother over her young; the rapture of the song which sets quivering the body of the lark as he soars upwards in the sun-rays; the gambols of the young, with every �12 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. curve telling of sheer joy in life and movement; the beauty and strength of man and woman; the power of intellect, the glory of genius, the exquisite happiness of ■sympathy; all these things could not find place in the handiwork of a power delighting in pain. We cannot, then, from the study of life on our globe infer the exist­ ence of a God who is wholly good ; the evil disproves him: nor can we infer the existence of a God who is wholly evil; the good disproves him. All that we learn from life-conditions is that if the world has a creator his ■character must be exceedingly mixed, and must be one to be regarded with extreme suspicion and apprehension. Be it noted, however, that, so far, we have found no reason to infer the existence of any creative intelligence. Leaving the phenomena of nature exclusive of man, as yielding us no information as to the existence of God, we turn next to human life and human history to seek for traces of the “divine presence”. But here again we are met by the same mingling of good and evil, the same waste, the same prodigality, which met us in non-human nature. Instead of the “Providence watching over the affairs of men” in which Theists believe, we note that “there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous ”. A railway accident happens, in which a useful man, the mainstay of a family, is killed, and from which a profligate escapes. An explosion in a mine slays the hardwork­ ing breadwinners at their toil, and the drunken idler whose night’s debauch has resulted in heavy morning sleep is “providentially” saved as he snores lazily at home in bed. The man whose life is invaluable to a nation perishes in his prime, while the selfish race-haunt­ ing aristocrat lives on to a green old age. The honest •conscientious trader keeps with difficulty out of the bank­ ruptcy court, and sees his smart, unscrupulous neighbor pile up a fortune by tricks that just escape the meshes of the law. If indeed there be a guiding hand amid the vicissitudes of human life, it must be that of an ironical, mocking cruelty, which plays with men as puppets for the gratification of a sardonic humor. Of course, the real ■explanation of all these things is that there is no common factor in these moral and physical propositions; the �WHY I BO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 1® quantities are incommensurable; the virtues or vices of a man ar® not among the causes which launch, or do not launch, a chimney pot at his head. Outside these “changes and chances” of human life,, the thoughtful mind feels conscious of a profound dissatisfaction with many of the inevitable conditions of human existence: the sensative faculties are at their keenest when the intelligence is not sufficiently developed to utilise them; the perceptive faculties begin to fail as the reflective touch their fullest development; and when experience is ripest, judgment most trained, knowledge most full, old age lays its palsy on thebrain, and senility shakes down the edifice just when a life’s toil has made it of priceless value. To-, recognise our limitations, to accept the inevitable, to amend —so far as amendment is possible—both ourselves and our environment, all this forms part of a rational philo­ sophy of life ; but what has such self-controlled and keen­ eyed sternness of resolve to do with hysterical outcries for help to some power outside nature, which, if it existed as creator, must have modelled our existence at its pleasure, and towards which our attitude could be only one of bit­ terest, if silent, rebellion ? To bow to the inevitable evil, While studying its conditions in order to strive to make it the evitable, is consistent with strong hope which lightens life’s darkness; but to yield crushed before evil delibe­ rately and consciously inflicted by an omnipotent intelli­ gence—in such fate lies the agony of madness and despair. Nor do we find any reliable signs of the presence of a God in glancing over the incidents of human history. We note unjust wars, in which right is crushed by might, in which victory sides with “the strongest battalions”, in the issue of which there appears no trace of a “ God that judgeth the earth”. We meet with cruelties that sicken us inflicted on man by man; butcheries that desolate a city, persecutions that lay waste a province. In every civilised land of to-day we see wealth mocking poverty,, and poverty cursing wealth ; here, thousands wasted on a harlot, and there children sobbing themselves in hunger to sleep. Our earth rolls wailing yearly round the sun, bearing evidence that it has no creator who loves and guides it, but has only its men, children of its own womb, who by the ceaseless toil of countless genera­ �14 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. lions are hewing out the possibility of a better and gladder world. Similar testimony is borne by the slow progress of the human race. Truth is always fighting; each new truth undergoes a veritable struggle for existence, and if Her­ cules is to live to perform his labors he must succeed in strangling the serpents that hiss round his cradle. The new truth must first be held only by one, its discoverer ; if he is not crushed at the outset, a few disciples are won; then the little band is persecuted, some are martyred, and, it may be, the movement destroyed. Or, some survive, and gain converts, and so the new truth slowly spreads, winning acceptance at the last. But each new truth must pass through similar ordeal, and hence the slowness of the up­ ward climb of man. Look backwards over the time which has passed since man was emerging from the brute, and then compare those millenniums with the progress that has been made, and the distance which still separates the race from a reasonably happy life for all its members. If a God cannot do better for man than this, man may be well content to trust to his own unaided efforts. Weturn from the phenomena of human life, as from those of non-human nature, without finding any evidence which demonstrates, or even renders probable, the existence of a God. There is another line of reasoning, however, apart from the consideration of phenomena, which must, it is alleged, lead us to believe in the existence of a God. This is the well-used argument from causation. Every effect must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, is a favorite enthymeme, of which the suppressed minor is, the universe is an effect. But this is a mere begging of the question. Every effect must have a cause; granted; for a cause is defined as that which produces an effect, and an effect as that which is pro­ duced by a cause; the two words are co-relatives, and the one is meaningless separated from the other. Prove that the universe is an effect, and in so doing you will have proved that it has a cause; but in the proof of that quietly-suppressed minor is the crux of the dispute. We see that the forces around us are the causes of various effects, and that they, the causes of events which follow their action, are themselves the effects of causes which preceded such action. From the continued observation �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. ■of these sequences, ourselves part of this endless chain, the idea of causation is worked into the human mind, and becomes, as it were, part of its very texture, so that we cannot in thought separate phsenomena from their causes, and the uncaused becomes to us the incon­ ceivable. But wo cannot rationally extend reasoning wholly based on pheenomena into the region of the noumenon. That which is true of the phsenomenal universe gives us no clue when we try to pass without it, and to penetrate into the mystery of existence per se. To call God “the first cause” is to play with words after their meaning has been emptied from them. If the argument from causation is to be applied to the existence of the universe, which is, without any proof, to be accepted as an effect, why may it not with equal force be applied to “ God ”, who, equally without any proof, may be regarded as an effect ? and so we may create an illimitable series of Gods, each an assumption unsupported by evidence. If we once begin puffing divine smoke-rings, the only limit to the exercise is our want of occupation and the amount of suit­ able tobacco our imagination is able to supply. The belief of the Atheist stops where his evidence stops. He believes in the existence of the universe, judging the accessible proof thereof to be adequate, and he finds in this universe sufficient cause for the happening of all pheenomena. He finds no intellectual satisfaction in placing a gigantic conundrum be­ hind the universe, which only adds its own unintelligibility to the already sufficiently difficult problem of existence. Our lungs are not fitted to breathe beyond the atmosphere which surrounds our globe, and our faculties cannot breathe outside the atmosphere of the phsenomenal. If I went up in a balloon I should check it when I found it carrying me into air too rare for my respiration; and I decline to be carried by a theological balloon into regions wherein thought cannot breathe healthily, but can only fall down gasping, imagining that its gasps are inspiration. There remain for us to investigate two lines of evidence, either of which suffices, apparently, to carry conviction to a large number of minds; these are, the argument from human experience, and the argument from design. I have no desire to lessen the weight of an argument drawn from the sensus communis, the common sense, of mankind. It is on this that we largely rely in drawing �16 WIIY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. distinctions between the normal and the abnormal; it isthis which serves as test between the sane and the insane no thoughtful student can venture to ignore the tre­ mendous force of the consensus of human experience. But while he will not ignore, he must judge : he must ask, first, is this experience universal and unanimous ? Secondly, on what experimental or other evidence is it based ? The universal and unanimous verdict of human experience, based on clear verifiable experience, is one which the thinker will challenge with extreme hesitation. Yet cause may arise which justifies such challenge. Perhaps no belief has at once been so general, and so undeniably based on the evidence of the senses, as the belief in the movement of the sun and the immobility of our globe. All but the blind could daily see the rising of' the sun in the eastern sky, and its setting in the west; alL could feel the firmness of the unshaken earth, the solid unmoving steadfastness of the ground on which we tread. Yet this consensus of human experience, this universality of Tinman testimony, has been rejected as false on evidence which none who can feel the force of reasoning is able to deny. If this belief, in defence of which can be brought the no plus ultra of the verdict of common sense, be not tenable in the light of modern knowledge, how shall a belief on which the sensus communis is practically non­ existent, on which human testimony is. lacking in many cases, contradictory in all others, and which fails to main­ tain itself on experimental or other evidence, how shall it hold ground from which the other has been driven ? The reply to the question, “Is the evidence universal and unanimous ? ” must be in the negative. The religion of Buddha, which is embraced by more than a third of the population of the globe, is an Atheistic creed; many Buddhists pay veneration to Buddha, and to the statues of their own deceased ancestors, but none pretend that these objects of reverence are symbols of a divine power. Many of the lower savage tribes have no idea of &od. Darwin writes: “There is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more Gods, and who have no words in their language to express such an idea” (“Descent of Man,” pp. 93, 94, ed. 1875). Buchner (“Force and �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 17 Matter,” pp. 382—393) has collected a mass of evidence showing that whole races of men have no idea of God at all. Sir John Lubbock has done the same. When savages reach a stage of intelligence at which they begin to seek the causes of phenomena, they invariably postulate many Gods as causes of the many objects around them. A New Zealander who was told of the existence of the one God by a missionary, asked him scoffingly if, among Europeans, one man made things of every sort; and he argued that as there were various trades among men, so there were various Gods, each with his own business, and one made trees, another the sea, another the animals, and so on. Only when intelligence has reached a comparatively high plane, is evolved the idea of one God, the creator and the rurs^of the universe. Moreover this idea of “God” is essentially an abstract, not a concrete idea, and the fancy that there ia an entity belonging to it is but a survival of Realism, a/meory which is discredited in everything save in this one theological remnant. It has been alleged by some writers that, however degraded may be the savage, he still has some idea of supernatural existences, and that error on this head has arisen from the want of thoroughly understanding the savage’s ideas. But even these writers do not allege that the belief of these savages touches on a being who can be called by the most extreme courtesy “God”. There may be a vague fear of the unknown, a tendency to crouch before striking and dangerous manifestations of natural forces, an idea of some unseen power residing in a stone or a relic—a fetish; but such things—and of the existence of even these in the lowest savages evidence is lacking— can surely not be described as belief in God. Not only is the universal evidence a-wanting, but such evidence as there is wholly lacks unanimity. What at­ tribute of the divine character, what property of the divine nature, is attested by the unanimous voice of human experience ? What is there in common between the Mumbo-Jumbo of Africa, and the “heavenly Father”, of refined nineteenth century European Theism.? What tie, save that of a common name, unites the blood-dripping Tezcatlepoca of Mexico with him “ whose tender mercy is over, all his works ” ? Even if we confine ourselves to the Gods of the Jews, the Christians, and the Mahommedans, �18 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. how great is the clash of dissension. The Jew proclaims it blasphemy to speak of a divine Trinity, and shrinks with horror from the thought of an incarnate God. The Christian calls it blasphemy to deny the deity of the man Christ Jesus, aqd affirms, under anathema, the triune nature of the Godhead. The Mahommedan asserts the unity of God, and stamps as infidel everyone who refuses to see in Mahommed the true revealer of the divinity. Each is equally certain that he is right, and each is equally certain that the others are wrong, and are in peril of eternal damnation for their rejection of the one true faith. If the Christian has his lake of fire and brimstone for those who deny Christ, the Mahommedan has his drinks of boiling water for those who assert him. Among 'this clash of tongues, to whom shall turn the bewildered enquirer after truth ? All his would-be teachers are equally positive, and equally without evidence. All are loud in assertion, but singularly modest in their offers of proof. Now, it may be taken as an undeniable fact that where there is confusion of belief there is deficiency of evidence. Scientific men quarrel and dispute over some much con­ troverted scientific theory. They dispute because the experimental proofs are lacking that would decide the truth or the error of the suggested hypothesis. While the evidence is unsatisfactory, the controversy continues, but when once decisive proof has been discovered all tongues are still. The endless controversies over the ex­ istence of God show that decisive proof has not yet been attained. And while this proof is wanting, I remain Atheist, resolute not to profess belief till my intellect can find some stable ground whereon to rest. We have reached the last citadel, once the apparently impregnable fortress of Theism, but one whose walls are now crumbling, the argument from design. It was this argument which so impressed John Stuart Mill that he wrote in his Essay on “ Theism ” : “I- think it must be allowed that, in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence. It is equally certain that this is no more than a probability ” (“ Three Essays on Religion ”, p. 174). This Essay was, however, written between the years 1868 and 1870, and at that time the �■WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 19 tremendous effect of the hypothesis of evolution had not yet made itself felt; Mill speaks (p. 172) of the “recent speculations ” on “ the principle of the ‘ survival of the of the fittest’ ”, and recognising that if this principle were sound “there would be a constant though slow general improvement of the type as it branched out into many different varieties, adapting it to different media and modes of existence, until it might possibly, in countless ages, attain to the most advanced examples which now exist ” (p. 173), he admits that if this be true “ it must be acknowledged that it would greatly attenuate the evidence for ” creation. And I am prepared to admit frankly that until the “how” of evolution explained the adaptations in Nature, the weight of the argument from design was very great, and to most minds would have been absolutely decisive. It would not of course prove the existence of an omnipotent and universal creator, but it certainly did powerfully suggest the presence of some contriving intel­ ligence at work on natural phenomena. But now, when we can trace the gradual evolution of a complex and highly developed organ through the various stages which separate its origin from its most complete condition ; when we can study the retrogression of organs becoming rudimentary by disuse, and the improvement of organs becoming developed by use; when we notice as imperfections in the higher type things which were essential in the lower: what wonder is it that the instructed can no longer admit the force of the argument from design ? The human eye has often been pointed to as a trium­ phant proof of design, and it naturally seemed perfect in the past to those who could imagine no higher kind of optical instrument; but now, as Tyndall says, “Along list of indictments might indeed be brought against the eye—its opacity, its want of symmetry, its lack of achro­ matism, its absolute blindness, in part. All these taken together caused Helmholtz to say that, if any optician sent him an instrument so full of defects, he would be justified in sending it back with the severest censure” (“On Light”, p. 8, ed. 1875). It is only since men have made optical instruments without the faults of the eye, that we have become aware how much better we might see than we do. Nor is this all; the imperfections which would show incompetence on the part of a designer become inte­ �20 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. resting and significant as traces of gradual development, and the eye, which in the complexity of its highest form seemed, notwithstanding its defects, to demand such great intelligence to conceive and fashion it, becomes more in­ telligible when we can watch it a-building, and, as it were, See it put together bit by bit. I venture to quote here from a pamphlet of my own a very brief statement of the stages through which the eye has passed in its evolution: “ The first definite eye-spot that we yet know of is a little colored speck at the base of the tentacles of some of the Hydromedusse, jelly-fish in common parlance. They are only spots of pigment, and we should not know they were attempts at eyes were it not that some relations, the Discophora, have little refractive bodies in their pigment spots, and these refractive bodies resemble the crystalline cones of animals a little higher in the scale. In the next class (Vermes), including all worms, we find only pigment spots in the lowest; then pigment spots with a nerve­ fibre ending in them; pigment spots with rod-shaped cells, with crystalline rods ; pigment spots with crystalline cones. Next, the cones begin to be arranged radially; and in the Alciopidse the eye has become a sphere with a lens and a vitreous body, layer of pigment, layer of rods, and optic nerve. To mark the evolution definitely in another way, we find the more highly developed eye of the adult appearing as a pigment spot in the embryo, so that both the evolution of the race and the evolution of the individual tell the same story. In the Echino­ derma (sea-urchins, star-fishes) we find only pigment spots in the lower forms, but in the higher the rod-shaped cells, the transparent cones projecting from pigment cells. In the Arthropoda (lobsters, insects, etc.,) the advance continues from the Vermes. The retina is formed more definitely than in the Alciopidm, and the eye becomes more complex. The compound eye is an attempt at grouping many cones together, and is found in the higher members of this sub-kingdom. In the lowest vertebrate, the Amphioxus, the eye is a mere pigment spot, but in the others the more complex forms are taken up and carried on to the comparative perfection of the mammalian eye” (“Eyes and Ears”, pp. 9, 10). And be it noted that in the most complex and highly developed eye there is still the same relation of pigment layer, rod layer, cone layer, �WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 21 seen in its earliest beginnings in the Discophora and the worms. The line of argument here applied to the eye may be followed in every instance of so-called design. The ex­ quisite mechanism of the ear may be similarly traced, from the mere sac with otoliths of the Medusse up to the elabo­ rate external, middle, and internal ears of man. Man’s ear is a very complex thing. Its three chambers ; the curious characteristics of the innermost of these, with its three “semi-circular canals”, its coiled extension, like a snail-shell, called the cochlea, its elaborate nervous mechan­ ism ; the membrane between the middle and outer cham­ bers, which vibrates with every pulsation of the air; we can trace all these separate parts as they are added one to one to the auditory apparatus of the evolving race. If we examine the edge of the “ umbrella ” of the free-swimming Medusa, we shall find some little capsules containing one or more tiny crystals, the homologues of the inner ear; the lower forms of Vermes have similar ears, and in some there are delicate hairs within the capsule which quiver con­ stantly ; the higher worms have these capsules paired and they lie close to a mass of nervous matter. Lobsters and their relations have similar ears, the capsule being some­ times closed and sometimes open. In many insects a delicate membrane is added to the auditory apparatus, and stretches between the vesicle and the outer air, homologue of our membrane. The lower fishes have added one semi­ circular canal, the next higher two, and the next higher three : a little expansion is also seen at one part of the vesicle. In the frogs and toads this extension is increased, and in the reptiles and birds it is still larger, and is curled a little at the further end. In the lowest mammals it is still only bent, but in the higher it rolls round on itself and forms the cochlea. The reptiles and birds have the space developed between the vesicle and the membrane, and so acquire a middle ear; the crocodile and the owl show a trace of the external ear, but it is not highly developed till we reach the mammals, and even the lowest mammals, and the aquatic ones, have little of it developed. Thus step by step is the ear built up, until we see it com­ plete as a slow growth, not as an intelligent design. And if it be asked, how are these changes caused, the answer comes readily : “ By variation and by the survival of �22 WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. the fittest ”. Since organisms and their environments re-act on each other, slight variations are constantly occurring; living organisms are ever in very unstable equilibrium, chemical association and disassociation are continually going on within them. Some of these changes are advantageous to the organism in the struggle for existence; some are indifferent; some are disadvantageous. Those that are advantageous tend to persist, since the organism possessing them is more likely to survive than its less fortunate com­ petitors, and — since variations are transmissible from parents to progeny—to hand on its favorable variation to its young. On the other hand the disadvantageous varia­ tions tend to disappear, since the organism which is by them placed at a disadvantage is likely to perish in the fight for food. Here are the mighty forces that cause evo­ lution ; here the “ not ourselves which makes for righteous­ ness”, i.e., forever-increasing suitability of the organism to its environment. It is, of course, impossible in so brief a statement as this to do justice to the fulness of the explanation of all cases of apparent design which can be made in this fashion. The thoughtful student must work out the line of argu­ ment for himself. Nor must he forget to notice the argu­ ment from the absence of design, the want of adaptation, the myriad failures, the ineptitudes and incompetences of nature. How, from the point of view of design, can he explain the numerous rudimentary organs in the higher animals ? What is the meaning of man’s hidden rudimen­ tary tail? of his appendix coeci vermiformis? of the branchial clefts and the lanugo of the human being dur­ ing periods of ante-natal life ? of the erratic course of the recurrent laryngeal? of the communication between the larynx and the alimentary canal ? I might extend the list over a page. The fact that uninstructed people do not appreciate these difficulties offers no explanation to the instructed who feel their force; and the abuse so freely lavished on the Atheist does not carry conviction to the intellect. I do not believe in God. My mind finds no grounds on which to build up a reasonable faith. My heart revolts against the spectre of an Almighty Indifference to the pain, of sentient beings. My conscience rebels against the injustice, the cruelty, the inequality, which surround me �WHY" I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. 23 on every side. But I believe in Man. In man’s redeeming power; in man’s remoulding energy; in man’s approach­ ing triumph, through knowledge, love, and work. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Why I do not believe in God 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: 23 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N074 Subject The topic of the resource Atheism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why I do not believe in God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> 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 God NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7910f259dd601cedf0a793babeab7e2.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=U8LduXzN8gYMWNNH4ITW40QFQqMmCsuRAf1FslFzF8R6qhl1QNV2QAN680ygfUagGsAUvgjghJBgjhu2XVe9aGRM4dcZrkSOlxoayLn4HrCWZSGORADR3cs-QhcfxBmWaZ6vYQm30dz2ab%7EKMqi4Jjeo7DFRRtfukBY0GsY4QnrpkqubWFP3%7EIZi2elPxUs0-L61WxDxj8mcj4TlkHdEZLLI86a7L1Z8oVYZhZBef5Vn6AuopKoEyDR6x2du5pXKXQtzn1cHuFkw3jhA50s699Eu6VO7C4tZl%7El%7Edd44SjvrwRWezbuQVf4gIZwT9oK%7ED-YXTQrXLDEaGoY2umeQjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ce6a71b3edd1c356642b41a3a5e4fa8a PDF Text Text HA-nONALSECULARSOCffiTV “THERE WAS WAR IN HEAVEN.” jlnfiòtl Sermon Delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society BY ROBERT FORDER. , ‘ And there was war in Heaven : Michael and his angels plight against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his mg els.”—Rev. xii. 7. ONE PENNY, LONDON: R. FORDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1887. �28, S-ton4.cu-W^c S-tre-^t, S.S. �r \ \ *l Mib ifjere was Mar in tjcaucn.” (Bev. xii. 7.) "Friends,—The text that has just been read cannot "but bring forcibly to your minds the picture of the ter­ rible affray in the celestial regions, which may indeed be described as “ the cause of all our woe.” To ascribe the entry of sin and misery into the1 world as due to our first parents eating fruit that was forbidden them by Jehovah is obviously a mistake, for the vanquished leader of the rebel host was only continuing the strife in another portion of the victor’s dominions, when-Ae persuaded’ poor Eve that that apple was both pleasant to the eye, -agreeable to the taste, and requisite to give the know­ ledge that she then lacked. The fall, therefore, was a defeat of Jehovah, and an effect of the war being trans­ ferred to the new-made earth, to which Satan had been so unceremoniously hurled. But where, when, and how did this unbloody war begin? Do your priests tell you? Is it explained in your catechisms or made clear in your creeds ? Do any of the ministers of the Gospel ever venture to fix a date? No. It is left to the preachers of the gospel of freethought . to faithfully set before their friends. the time ' when this conflict began and the causes that led to the outbreak of hostilities. God’s holy word, aided by one of his. faithful servants, John Milton by name, shall be requisitioned into our service, with an occasional aid from more profane but equally well-informed sources, so determined are we that the whole truth shall be fully set forth. ’ ............. . . �Jehovah, then, once upon a time alone with his three selves, made out of what they alone know, a, company of beings generally known as archangels, seraphs, cherubim, and the rank and file known as angels. When this was is not known. But as Jahveh is the only “ eternal,” it must have been after his devel­ opment. These seem to have been all male, as none of the gentle sex are mentioned. Some impious mortals have not hesitated to name their children after t]u? highest of these beings, for Michael, Gabriel, and. Raphael are by no means uncommon amongst Irishmen, and Jews. If it is any consolation to my lady hearers, I may at once cheer them with the welcome news that, unlike many of the wars that have desolated the earth, the cause of this one was' not woman. And women ought to be glad when, together with this testimony as to the non-existence of feminine aboriginal angels, there is the negative evidence of the whole of the Bible that no women have got there, coupled with the undeniable assertion of St. John the Divine that “ there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour ” (Rev. viii. 1). Bor this wise provision Milton even compliments Jahveh, but he almost upbraids him for giving Satan such an opportunity by making a woman upon earth. Hear him :— “ O, why did God, Creator wise, that peopled heaven With spirits masculine, create at last This novelty on earth, this fair defect Of Nature, and not fill the world at once With men as angels without feminine! Or find some other way to generate Mankind ?” But the divine John had, we are told, a termagant wife, and this must be his excuse for his impious and ungallant thought. The archangels, then, were named, and among them was Lucifer. Jahveh, who certainly could not have * foreseen the consequences that resulted from the creation, of this being, must have made him imperfect, for ho sooner or later showed signs of having a will of his own, growing at last into open rebellion against his Maker. But let us pause here, and ask, from our experience of �(5) similar events amongst us, whether there must not have Jbeen a reason for this insubordination ? Rebellion is 'always brought about by the tyranny of rulers or the 'ambition of rivals. .Which was it, think you, that actuated Lucifer ? Is it possible to imagine that abuses had crept into the imperial government ? Were services -required of a degrading and unworthy character? Or Hid his highness the Devil fancy he could boss the con­ cern with a view to the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Was his employment that apportioned after­ wards to the four-headed beasts, and which is vividly depicted for us by the other John in his Revelation, who rest not day and night saying, Holy, Holy, Holy,” “before the great white throne ? This occupation would certainly after a time become tedious, and there would be some excuse for trying to bring such antics to a close. Or had Satan charge of the stables of the heavenly toenagerie, and did he ask for a change of duties and get ■refused? No one knows. But he rebelled ; and we find from the fact of his following being numerous that a "Spirit of dissatisfaction must have been prevalent among the angels also. Here let me quote, with approval, a remark from the article “ Satan” in Smith’s Bible Dic­ tionary : “ We cannot, of course, conceive that anything essentially and originally evil was created by God.” Therefore it follows that circumstances over which Jahveh had no control led up to a feeling in myriads of his angels that things were getting very bad there, and that radical reform was necessary. Lucifer unfurled the banner of revolt, and “ Hoping by treason foul to get Into the great Jehovah’s seat; And drawing in by wiles and snares ■Angels of all sorts unawares,” ............. ■ > < ’ wept into the fight in earnest. Here Holy Scripture fails Ils when we ask for particulars. We know nothing as to the beginning of hostilities—who sent the declaration of war; whether either side was equally well armed ; whether the commissariat had been properly attended to ; and whether adequate preparation had been made for the nursing of the sick and the wounded. But Mil­ ton assists us here; for ammunition appears to ba.vetutt, short on the Imperial side, and Michael’s followers . �“ From their foundations loosening to and fro O' ■ ' They plucked the seated hills with all their load.” ’’ ‘These they hurled at the rebel hosts, and terror was naturally excited in their breasts when they saw coming thick upon them . & “ The bottom of the mountains upward turned.” But Nick was not to be outdone by Mick at this game and, giving the order, “ Up, lads, and at ’em ! ” to his ■Captains, they, “ In imitation, to like arms Betake them, and the neighboring hills uptore i So hills amid the air encountered hills, Hurled to and fro with jaculation dire I That underground they fought in dismal shade.” £ , "What carnage ! And heaven is a holy place, my friends > there no sin or sorrow can enter; there all is joy and love’ Is it ? . Ask your Christian teachers for a guarantee thatwar will not occur there again. Look at the danger into which you are needlessly running by going there, now that it is the home of most of the scoundrels that have desolated the earth ; of atrocious murderers— wretches who have been assured by priests, while on the very point of being "jerked to Jesus,” that they were going straight to glory ! There is infinitely more pro­ bability of a row there now than there was when all the inhabitants of the celestial regions were aboriginals, and had not incurred the risk of being corrupted by the miscreants that have gone there during the last six thousand years. But to the field again. Besides this Brobdignagiaq. ammunition, cutlery was brought into use, although it is difficult to understand how immortal beings could slash and maim one another. Yet so it was, for “ The girding sword with discontinuous wound, Passed through him, but the ethereal substance closed, 7 Not long divisible.----- Yet soon he healed.” • This peculiar action of “ ethereal substance ” prompted Cobbett to remark : “I am abused for my notions of Milton and Shakespeare ; but why abuse me ? 1 If there?be persons who are delighted with the idea of an angef being split down the middle, and of the two halves com- �(f) ing (slap !) together again, intestines and’ all, they surely let me pass without abuse for not haying sb re * fined a taste.” ; The conflict raged for a long time, with varying for? tune, Satan displaying generalship not unworthy of a> Wellington or a Napoleon. Milton even seems proud of his prowess and gallantry, for thus he . sings his valor in the fray:—' . D, r , . ’ -: “ ........................ ... down they fell ' By thousands, angel on archangel rolled. ‘ ..................... Satan beheld their flight, And to his mates thus in derision called : ‘ O, friends, why come not on these victors proud ? Erewhile they fierce were coming.’” ; , •» •' .; , J But all great battles must come to an end; and so» Jahveh finished this bloodless struggle by pursuing Satan: . “ With terrors and with furies to the bounds <; And crystal wall of heaven, which, opening wide, c- Rolled inward, and a spacious gap disclosed. . 4,., . Into the wasteful deep eternal wrath Burnt after them to the bottomless pit. ’ . Nine days they fell.” •' J ? : ' • - . Here Milton’s genius seems to. have deserted him, for,’ if the pit was bottomless, they would still be tumbling, and Satan would be powerless. But the other John aversthat they were cast out into the earth, though this state­ ment is curiously contradicted by Christian theologians, who have invented a hell in which to preserve him. This, assertion may seem to Christians present to be a very, reckless one indeed ; but it is the opinion of the writer Of the article “ Hell,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, a view that we may fairly take to be that of all’ the eminenttheologians who contributed to that important biblicalcyclopaedia. Hear what Hell is. “ This is the word,' generally and unfortunately used by our translators tb> render the Hebrew Sheol. It would, perhaps, .have beenbetter to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by ‘ the grave,’ or ‘ the pit.’............. .The Hebrew ideas respecting Sheol were of a vague description. Gen­ erally speaking, the Hebrews regarded the grave as the * end of all sentient and intelligent existence.” It may bet * Urged that Jesus often used, the words hell and hellfire ;> hut we must not allow the ignorance? of! a poor Jew, see ? * �/ (8) Ing that there Js no evidence that he understood a word of Hebrew, to influence us on this question. His reported passionate and revengeful speeches, in which those words 'occur, were probably invented' by artful priests in the Second or third century of our era. Besides, the Revised Version has generally substituted Sheol for “ Hell ” in the Old Testament ; and Hellophiles are sadly distressed in consequence. Satan, then, was hurled from heaven to earth; «.nd here we may now expect to find him. It would be nnfa.ir to charge him with that artful trick of chousing Jahveh in Eden, but for the fact that orthodox Christians iden­ tify him with the serpent. Of this there is no evidence whatever, and the view cannot be supported by a single Sentence from the Hebrew books. We first find him and Michael “at it again,” contending about the body of Moses (Jude 9), but whether for a dissecting room or in the interest of rival undertakers “ no one knoweth unto this day. Certain it is, however, that Mick showed due and proper respect to his whilom confrere, and subsequent antagonist, as he dared not bring a railing accusation against him, but simply said at the end of the conflict: “ The Lord rebuke thee.” Certain it is, therefore, that Satan secured the body of Holy Moses, either for an hospital or for some professional Mr. Mould, Round three for Satan. Pursuing our inquiries about this time, we find that Nick, having entered into a kind of treaty of peace with Jahveh, again became on friendly terms with his rival. “ There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job i. 6). Of course he did; what was to prevent him? “Ha! how do, Sate?” said Jahveh. “ All right, old boy; how are things up here?” replied Nick. “Very quiet indeed; scarcely any addition to our circle,” says Jahveh, “ since you sent most souls another way by that Eden escapade of yours, old man.” “ No recriminations, let byegones be byegones!” sharply replied the Old One, a reply which brought Jahveh back to the novelty of the situation. “Where have you been lately, Satan? ” said the elder Old One in his blandest tone; to which the younger Old One answered: “ Oh, only having a run up and down the earth.” “ And how are matters generally in �(9) that neighborhood,” queried the Omniscient, “ and by the bye, do you ever get as far as Uz?”* “ Oh, yes, I have a country house there, and generally spend a part of the autumn in the locality.” “ Do you know a big pot down there named Job ? ’’ “ Know him well, as well as I know you. Saw his missus home from a party the other night—Job, who keeps good hours, having gone home early.” “What’s your opinion of the old chap, Satan—tell us the truth now? I consider him to be a right good sort, in fact there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man.” “Is he?” said Satan; “you don’t know him as well as I do. See what you have done for him, made his fortune for him, blessed him with a large family, enabled him to become prime minister of his country, and protected him on every hand. Take these advantages from him, and he’ll repudiate you at once.” “ I don’t believe it; but I know, Satan, you’re a man of your word. Promise me you won’t hurt the old fellow, and you may try the experiment of depriving him of all his property, knocking his house down about his ears, and you can even go so far as to smite his sons and daughters; but don’t meddle with Job, and respect his missus.” “ That’s a bargain, Jahveh; you may trust me to keep my word respecting Job, and nothing wTould induce me to harm his missus. Ta, ta! ” Now, if the story in the Book of Job be true (and we must assume that it is), Satan went straight from Heaven to Uz, and played the devil with poor Job in real earnest. The Sabeans carried off all his oxen and donkeys, the Chaldeans stole his camels, and, probably, in order that nothing should be left, God himself lent a helping hand in this work of destruction by dropping down fire from Heaven on the poor sheep, being rewarded, no doubt, by “ a sweet savour ” of which we know from holy writ that he was' exceedingly fond. In this general destruction, my friends, do not forget that the whole of Job’s servants, with the exception of three or four, were Either burnt to death by God or murdered by those bands . * Only Jahveh and Nick knew this country. “ Whether the name of Uz'survived to classical times is uncertain.”—Die. of the Bible. ' �that, fell, on his. flocks; and,, to complete this- hellish. Satan-Jahveh experiment, a hurricane was sent which wrecked the house of Job’s eldest son, in which were gathered Job’s other sons, and daughters, all of whom met with a violent death. O■•! friends, it was a dreadful thing to fall under the notice of the living God; but, fortunately for humanity, he is dead now, or gone, on a, journey, or is asleep. Amid all this carnage and des­ truction it is satisfactory to. state of Satan that he was a man of his word; he faithfully kept the promise he. made to Jahveh not to harm Job. Bound four for Satan» Satan returned, to Heaven on the next Levée day, pre­ sumably to report progress, for the conversation is a repetition of the former interview, Jahveh again asking Nick what was his opinion of Job. If the Devil’s character has not been grossly misrepresented, his Christian enemies have credited him with being possessed of craft, cunning, and deceitfulness to such a degree that even saints have for a time been deceived by him. We may, therefore, assume that Nick took in the sitúa-, tion at once, laid his plans accordingly, and reasoned thus: “I have with very little difficulty got round my old enemy, and have bamboozled him by blarney sufficient to allow me to go and punish, with his permission (al­ though I could have done it without), one of his most obsequious followers ; and if I. only humor him a little * more, I have no doubt I can get round him and obtain his permission to go and torment old Job with small-póx, fever, or blotches. . I will therefore tempt him.” So Satan acted; poor old Jahveh fell into the trap, not; without some suspicion, however, that Nick was diddling him, for he pathetically reproached Satan with having “ movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.’’ “Skin for skin,” said Nick, “all that aman hath will he give for his life. Put forth thine hand now, and touch' his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee- to thyface.” The historian of the transaction has suppressed1 the remainder of the conversation, but let us try and fill up the hiatus. Jahveh exclaimed : “I don’t believe it.” “ Try him,” said Satan, “ and see if I don’t know^ him better than you do.” “ Well, Sate, “ replied Jabyqh, ** most honorably have. you .kept your word in conducting the last mission; make me a solemn promise bn your �’<11) yvord as a devil that you won’t take his- life from him, and a further experiment shall be tried.” “ I will swear it, if you doubt me,” began Nick ; but he was instantly stopped by Jahveh exclaiming : “ No—no oath; I myself sware one once to Abraham and have been unable to* perform it. Your word is sufficient.” Here the inspired, chronicler comes. again to our aid. “Behold, he is in thine hand; but spare his life.” Off went the old onn to Uz, “ and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to his crown.” You will notice, my friends, how ‘clearly every fact is stated in this holy book; you cannot possibly mistake the character of these boils. They were sore boils ; boils that were not sore were none of Satan’s production. Poor Job seems to have had a sour-tempered wife, like= Milton, for, instead of at once making him some strong, linseed-meal poultices, or looking him up a box of Hollo­ way’s'ointment, she began reproaching him, Job getting, out of her way by going out and lying down on the dust heap in the back-yard, scraping his boils with a piece of a broken tea-cup. There’s a spectacle, my friends L there’s an incentive to be good ! What an awful example, of serving Jahveh faithfully 1 Beware of him, shun him. as you would the----- boils. But in order that theremay be no doubt whatever of the truth of this event, the narrative relates that-Job had three friends ; and soaccurate is the book in small matters, as well as great, that it descends to telling their names. There was. Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar“ the Naamathite; but where these countries were the: Devil only knows. These three men began comforting, poor Job by tearing up their coats and throwing dirt om their heads—actions which by no stretch of the imagina? tion can be considered as cures for boils ; they finished,, however, by sitting down on the ground by Job’s midden “ for seven days and seven nights, and none spake a. word to him.” Tins round must certainly be given tothe Devil. Score : Devil four, God one. You will have noticed that after Satan’s repulse hewas cast out into the earth, and all his angels were castout with him ; and the history in Job certainly corrobo— •See Genesis, xxvi—3. �■Tates this, for it speaks of him walking up and down in it then. Subsequently we find him playing pranks with ¿David, tempting him to take a census of his kingdom — * a little eccentricity indulged in by us every decade in Great Britain and Ireland, just to show that we are still faithful to the Prince of this world, and respect his coun■sel and follow his advice. True, a few devoted followers ■of Jahveh the younger indignantly protested against this -device when it was first adopted; but they were met with scorn and derision in Parliament and in the press. Satan again triumphed, and the result of his victory in this bout has been of immense advantage to his subjects here. Jahveh waxed angry with David for taking that first census, and, possibly being afraid to engage in open ¿hostilities with Satan, resolved to punish the old Jewish ¿king. So he sent to David a certain fortune-teller, named Gad, with a message of a most engaging nature. “I, .■Jahveh, am determined to be revenged for this your action in following the advice of Satan: choose, therefore, how you will be punished. You can have three years of famine,, or three months in flight before your enemies, or I will gird my angel Michael with one of my best Dam­ ascus blades, and he shall have three days’ sport among your people.” David, feeling assured that Satan would stand by him, chose the last alternative, and Jahveh’s -deputy went at it with a pestilence, and smote 23,333J •persons per day for three days—70,000 in all. Not a bad three days’ work, was it ? Consider, too, how just naid moral it was—killing the people for being counted, -and sparing the king who counted them, and Satan who “ moved ” the king thereto. It is only fair to say that -another writer in this blessed book declares that it was Jahveh himself who “ moved ” David to number his sub­ jects ; but that is manifestly impossible, as it would make of Jahveh a fool as well as a murderer. Besides, "the writer shows his ignorance of the details of the affair ■by making the three years’ famine into seven. It is possible to believe that three are equal to one; but to /require assent to the proposition that three are equiva­ lent to seven is rather too much—even for the faithful. . Satan and his angels are more frequently met with in * I Chron. xxi. 1. �( 13 ) ; later times.- When Jesus was led up by the spirit into-y the wilderness, it was on purpose to be tempted by the , Devil. On another occasion we find some of Satan’s, angels taking up their abode inside the body or bodies of a man or men (for Matthew and Mark relate the story ■ differently as to the number; and, while one lays the scene in Gergesha, the other is positive that it was at Gedara). In this affair we learn that the devils knew < Jesus although they were inside the man, and begged of ■ Jesus, if he evicted them, to permit them to take up their. residence inside two thousand pigs that were in the neigh- , borhood. This being conceded, the pigs—doubtless won- • dering what the devil was the matter with them—ram headlong “ down a steep place into the sea,” and were-' drowned. The news of this destruction of these Jews’ pigs brought the people out of the city, and they very naturally “besought him that he would depart out of • their coasts.” This is not the only story told of devils in God’s Word. Jesus, in choosing his twelve apostles, admitted that one. of them was a devil; and, in another place, we have this, apostle identified, when Jesus says to Peter: “ Get thee, behind me, Satan.” In those authentic productions of the early Christian writers we have numerous instances, of the trouble caused by devils to the Christian Church. Some of these veracious writers descend to particulars f and thus enable us to estimate their power in this fight. Hear St. Cyprian : “They (the devils) insinuate them­ selves into the bodies of men, raise terrors in the mind,, distortions in the limbs, break the constitution, and bring on diseases—yet, adjured by us in the name of the true God, they presently yield, confess, and are forced to quit the bodies which they possessed.” This work of exor­ cism went on for more than a thousand years, the Church drawing up a form of prayer to drive devils out of dwell­ ings—an operation which took seven days to perform. The whole of this office has been preserved by Bourne in his Antiquities, and I will cite a pertinent remark of Brand, another antiquary, in introducing it in his work : “ Here follows the tedious process for the expulsion of Daemons, who, it should seem, have not easily been ferretted out of their quarters, if one may judge of their unwillingness to depart by the prolixity of the subsequent �removal-warrant, which I suppose the Romish clerical bailiffs were not at the trouble of serving for nothing.” Rather Montfaucon has recorded, in his Journey, an in­ stance of how these devils vexed the faithful in later times. In the Church of St. Maria del Popolo, at Rome, ie found an altar bearing upon it an inscription in the Latin tongue, which his English translator renders thus: '“This altar, solemnly erected by Pope Paschal II., in "this place, upon a Divine Inspiration, by which he soon <lrove out the tall Devils who, sitting on the Nut Tree, cruelly insulted the people as they passed by, was, by the authority of Pope Urban VIII., removed to the higher place,, where you now see it, in the year of our Lord; 1527.” To-day it is not uncommon, among people that are very religious and very ignorant, to believe in the raising and laying of the Devil. I know that in Norfolk ' it is a widespread form of this Bible superstition, and the charms employed to remove the Evil. One are many and' quaint. Saying the Lord’s Prayer backwards, whilst. walking round the parish church, is one of these ; but a much easier method is to be found in the Jewish records. Eor the use of those who may at any time be troubled by having the Devil in their houses, we will relate how he was got rid pf. There was a young man named Toby,' who fell dn love with a young lady named Sara, and, like most young men under similar circumstances, he ‘ proposed marriage to her. The girl was young and ; pretty, and she had been married to seven men, all of whom went to bed on their wedding-night well and strong, but all were found dead beside her the next morning. The Devil was in love with her, and was de- ' termined that no one but he should be her spouse. When Toby discovered this he was not quite so anxious to make her his wife. However, one evening he went down to the river Tigris to wash himself, when a fish ' jumped up and sought to devour him. No doubt it was Jonah’s whale on the rampage again ; but Toby eluded it. Looking round he saw the angel Raphael, who shouted: “Toby, put in your hand and pull out that; fish.” A fish that is about to swallow you is the sort of . fish to pull out with your hand. Toby did so. Then Raphael gave instructions to Toby to take out the heart, liver and gall, and put them away safely. The fish' was1' �015 ) ¿ext cooked and eaten for supper by Toby and the angel, after which they both jogged on together to Ecbatane. Here we may remark that whenever the angels came down to. earth they were noted for indulging in a goodSquare meal; in Abraham’s time roast veal was the billOf fare ; in this it is roast fish. Perhaps up above they are restricted to manna, and are glad of a change when: Put visiting. On the way, the angel assured the young man that he could now safely marry the girl, but the fate ofher seven husbands troubled, poor Toby. He, however,, being assured by the angel, went to the girl, proposed, and was accepted. Raphael gave him instructions how to “ lay ” the Devil, and after they had supped, they brought the girl to Toby’s bedroom ; he made a fire in it and put the heart and liver of the fish on it “ and made a smoke therewith.” You may take it for granted that if he had kept those organs of that fish long he would, have made a stink also ; and this is borne out by the statement of the writer, who says : “ The which smell, when the evil spirit had smelled, he fled into the utter-, most parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.” So you see, my friends, that if you should be troubled by Satan, leave holy water,.prayers, and signs of the cross alone— give him a dose of ^stinking fish! There was war in Heaven; but let us again remark that it was only discovered by the last writer in the Bible. Similar tales were prevalent with nearly all the peoples from most remote antiquity. In the Persian, Etruscan, Indian, Egyptian, and Assyrian cosmogonies this story is variously related, and there has recently Been unearthed what are known as the Chaldean creation tablets, which have been translated by the late George Smith. In editing a popular History of Baby- ■ Ionia, written by Mr. Smith, the Rev. A. H. Sayce, an Oxford professor, says : “ Connected with these creation, tablets are others which describe the fall of man, brought about by the tempter, the great dragon Tiamatu (Tehamtu), or the ‘ Deep,’' as well as another series which recounts the war of Merodach, the sun-god, with Tiamatu and her allies. This- war reminds us of the1* Biblical passage (Rev. xii. 7), in which it says there wash­ war in heaven.” (History of Babylonia from the Monu­ ments, p. 53.) ' Remind us, good heavens ! remind us of �( U ) what ? Why, that the early Christians cribbed from the old, hated Babylonian sun-myths their pretended origin, of the Devil, and-foisted it on a credulous and ignorant people as a revelation from God. ’ . Such, then, is the origin of this story, which has been of enormous advantage to priests in all times, but which is now laughed at and derided by the wisest and.' best of men. Let us all do our best to exorcise this wretched superstition from earth—by logic, if you like,, by reasoning, if you will, but, more potent than either of these, by ridictile and laughter, as adopted by us to-night. Tilly » DE VII/S t PULPIT. Forty-six Discourses by the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A. 734 pages, cloth, 2/- (postage 6d.) For delivering two of these Discourses the author was indicted for Blasphemy, and sentenced, on July 4, 1831, to two years’ imprisonment, to pay a fine of £200, and to find two sureties for £250 each for five years. THE TRUE SOURCE OF CHRISTIANITY; OR, A VOICE FROM THE GANGES. By AN INDIAN OFFICER. IN PAPER COVERS, Is.; CLOTH, Is. 6d. POST FREE Frauds and Follies of the Christian Fathers. By JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER. Price Threepence. BSF The icorks of Voltaire, Paine, Volney, Holyoake, Bradlaugh, Besant, Foote, Ingersoll, and other Free­ thinkers, always in stock. Orders to the amount of one shilling sent post free. R. Forder, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Forder, Robert Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Text taken from Rev. xii. 7 'And there was war in heaven...'. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N274 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p> <p class="western">This work ("There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible. N.T. Revelation NSS Original Sin https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e05f74daba8074a25d1d54a88ee6372b.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=e7jtSYP%7EGmWbtOyV74L2TCgqs4qUdyI4eV8k5RVqLxGlmJdCDCQlhwRFKM7tW3tMCi3kA9M54hNexGxnPa2rq%7Ek980vIlUx64OCLW6i80r2v5kr2sRiMte1g9Yz0EcDLBD69Efp2-GOb8HW5irtuxeRWHoMqL2sWVPJ36INYQ3JgIVvtYuP0FDmdhmNLeCwl1LQzUHgmqH41fRjRse3qquNesZby7bau9nVDAvw5uOuXtMB28bVidN-kp9%7Ed7jcZ78uh1HSskg5k5Lde5i%7ERsExBLJWlYkqRhG4czKDVdt4dXbiduADTgdtj8vgNQfzdUarVpLG0AYPln1kunQE%7E4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 493692d85326f07c2a0542e209785b92 PDF Text Text WHAT WAS CHRIST? JL REPLY TO JOHN STUART MILL. BY 1 : : : TWOPENCE, PRICE i 4 J : ♦ ♦ 4 4 4 4 4 t LONDON : PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. �LONDON : POINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �11 national secular society WHAT WAS CHRIST? Thebe are many passages in John Stuart Mill’s Three Essays on Religion which the apologists of Christianity very prudently ignore. Orthodoxy naturally shrinks from the descrip­ tion of a God who could make a Hell as a “ dreadful idealisa­ tion of wickedness.” Nor is it pleasant to read that “ Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which ever was framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent.” But Christian lecturers are never tired of quoting the pane­ gyric on their blessed Savior, which occurs in another part of the same volume. They never mention the fact that the Essay which contains this eulogium was not revised by the author for publication, while the other two essays were finally prepared for the press. It is enough for them that the passage is found in a volume of Mill’s. Whether it harmonises with the rest of the volume, or whether the author might have considerably modified it-in revision, are questions with which they have no concern. “ Here is Mill’s testimony to Christ,” they cry, “ and we fling it like a bombshell into the Freethought camp.” We propose to pick up this bombshell, to dissect and analyse it, and to show that it is perfectly harmless. Mill’s panegyric on Christ, as Professor Newman says, “ caused surprise.”* Professor Bain, who was one of Mill’s most intimate friends, and has written his biography,f uses the very same expression. The whole of the Essay on Theism “was a surprise to his friends,” not for its attacks on orthodoxy, but for its concessions to “ modern sentimental Theism.” Professor Bain observes that these concessions have been made the most of, “ and, as is usual in such cases, the inch has been stretched to an ell.” Speaking with all the authority of his position, Professor Bain adds that the “ fact remains that in everything * “ Christianity in its Cradle,” p. 57. f “ John Stuart Mill: A Criticism; with Personal Recollections.” �(4 ) characteristic of the creed of Christendom, he was a thorough­ going negationist. He admitted neither its truth nor its utility.” How, then, did Mill come to write those passages of his Three Essays which caused such surprise to his intimate friends ? The answer is simple. “ Who is the woman ? ” asked Talley­ rand, when two friends wished him to settle a dispute. There was a woman in Mill’s case. Mrs. Taylor, afterwards his wife, and the object of his adoring love, disturbed his judgment in life and perverted it in death. He buried her at Avignon, and resided near her grave until he could lie beside her in the eternal sleep. No doubt the long vigil at his wife’s tomb shows the depth of his love, but it necessarily tended to make his brain the victim of his heart. There can be no worse offence against the laws of logic than to argue from our feelings; and when Mill began to talk about “ indulging the hope ” of immortality, he had set his feet, however hesitatingly, on the high road of senti­ mentalism and superstition. How different was his attitude in the vigor of manhood, when his intellect was unclouded by personal sorrow ! In closing his splendid Essay on fhe Utility of Religion, he wrote : “ It seems to me not only possible, but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life, not annihilation, but immor­ tality, may be the burdensome idea; and that human nature, though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence which it cannot be assured that it will always wish to preserve.” How great is the range of egoism, even with the best of us! Writing before his own great loss, Mill sees no argument for immortality in the yearning of bereaved hearts for reunion with the beloved dead ; but when- he himself craves “ the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still,” he perceives room for hope. His own passion of grief lights a beacon in the darkness, which his sympathy with the grief of others had never kindled. We can easily understand how Mill’s profound love for his wife affected his intellect after her death, when we see how it deluded him while she lived. In his Autobiography he describes her as a beauty and a wit. Mr. Maccall says that she was 'not brilliant in conversation, and decidedly plain-looking; and the same objection appears to be hinted by Professor Bain. Carlyle refers to her several times in his Reminiscences, always as a light gossamery creature. It is notorious that the Grotes regarded �( 5 ) Mill’s attachment to her as an infatuation. And certainly he did a great deal to justify their opinion. In the dedication of his Essay on Liberty, he refers to her “ great thoughts and noble feelings,” and her “ all but unrivalled wisdom. This eulogium a little astonished those who had read her Essay in the West­ minster Review, reprinted by Mill in his Dissertations and Dis­ cussions, which revealed no very wonderful ability, and assuredly did not place her beside Harriet Martineau or George Eliot. But in his Autobiography this panegyric was completely eclipsed. Mill informs the world in that volume that her mind “included Carlyle’s and infinitely more,” and that in comparison with her Shelley was but a child. Apparently seeing, however, that sceptics might inquire why a woman of such profound and original genius did not leave some memorable work, Mill con­ fidingly tells us that she was content to inspire other minds rather than express herself through the channels of literature. In other words, she played second fiddle in preference to first, which is exactly what men and women of original genius will never do. But whom did she inspire ? We know of none but Mill, and on examining his works chronologically we find that all his greatest books were composed before he fell under her influence. Mr. Gladstone explains Mill’s “ ludicrous estimate of his wife’s powers,” by saying that she was a quick receptive woman, who gave him back the echo of: his own thoughts, which he took for the independent oracles of truth. Over the tomb of this idolised wife, whom his fancy clothed with fictitious or exaggerated attributes, Mill wrote his Essay on Theism. Miss Helen Taylor says it shows “the carefullybalanced results of the deliberations of a life-time.” But she allows that— “ On the other hand, there had not been time for it to undergo the revision to which from time to time he subjected most of his writings before making them public. Not only, therefore, is the style less polished than of any other of his published works, but even the matter itself, at least in the exact shape it here assumes, has nevei' undergone the repeated examination which it certainly would have passed through before he would himself have given it to the world.” If Mill had lived, he would perhaps have made many improve­ ments and excisions in this unfortunate essay. As it stands it is singularly feeble in comparison with the two former Essays. He “hopes” for immortality, and “regrets to say” that the Design Argument is not inexpugnable, as though this were the language of a philosopher or a logician. After writing several pages on the “Marks of Design in Nature,” he passingly notices the �( 6 ) Darwinian Theory and admits that, if established, it “would greatly attenuate the evidence ” for Creation. Yet he drops this great hypothesis in the next paragraph, and talks about “ the large balance of probability in favor of creation by intel­ ligence ” in the present state of our knowledge. What he meant was, in the present state of our ignorance. Mill neither under­ stood nor felt the force of Darwinism. We shall find, in examining his panegyric on Christ, that he understood that subject just as little, and that, where his knowledge did apply, he flatly contradicted what he had written before. Let us now ascertain what were Mill’s qualifications for the task of estimating the teachings and personality of Christ. He had a subtle logical mind, strong though restricted sympathies, a singular power of mastering an opponent’s case, and remark­ able candor in stating it. But his intellect was of the purely speculative order. He possessed a “ rich storage of principles, doctrines, generalities of every degree, over several wide depart­ ments of knowledge,” as Professor Bain says ; but he “ had not much memory for detail of any kind,” although “ by express study and frequent reference he had amassed a store of facts bearing on political or sociological doctrines.” In short, “ he had an intellect for the abstract and the logical out of all pro­ portion to his hold of the concrete and the poetical.” He was cut out for a metaphysician, a political speculator and a sociologist. But he never could have become an historian or a man of letters. He had little sense of style, no faculty of literary criticism, a dislike of picturesque expression, a scanty knowledge of human nature, and an extremely feeble imagina­ tion. He was a great philosopher, but perhaps less an artist than any other thinker of the same eminence that ever lived. Now the faculties required in dealing with the origin of Christianity, including the character of its founder, are obviously those of the literary critic and the historian, in which Mill was deficient. He was, therefore, not equipped by nature for the task. Had he even the necessary knowledge ? Certainly not. There is not the slightest evidence that he had studied the relation of Christianity to previous systems, the growth of its literature, the formation of its canon, and the development of its ethics and its dogmas. He probably knew next to nothing of the oriental religions, and was only acquainted with the name of Buddhism. Nay, if we may trust Professor Bain (his friend, his biographer, and his eulogist), he knew very little of Chris- �( 7 ) inanity itself. He “ searcely ever read a theological book,” and he only knew “ the main positions of theology from our general literature.” Just when Mill’s Three Essays on Eehgwn ap­ peared, Strauss’s Old Faith and the New was published m England, and Professor Bain justly remarks that Anyone reading it would, I think, be struck with its immense superiority to Mill’s work, in all but the logic and metaphysics. Strauss speaks like a man thoroughly, at home with his subject. Mill does indeed say, in his Autobiography, that Ins. father made him, at a very early age, “a reader of ecclesiastical history ; but he does not tell us that he continued so in his after lite, and even if he did, ecclesiastical, history begins just where the problem of the origin of Christianity ends. . Another thing must be said. Professor Bain states, and we can well believe him, that Mill was “ not even well read, m the sceptics that preceded him.” He was really ignorant on both sides of the controversy. His idea of Christ was formed from a selection of the best things in the New Testament. A most uncritical process, and in fact an impossible one ; for the New Testament is not history, but an arbitrary selection from a mass of early Christian tracts, of uncertain authorship, different dates, and various value. The literature on this subject, even from the pens of eminent writers, is vast enough to show, its immense complication. Unless it is read m a cluld-like spirit which in grown men and women is childish, the New. Testament needs to be explained ; and when the process has fairly begun, you find all the familiar features shifting like the pieces in. a kaleidoscope, until at last they reassume an organic, but a dif­ ferent, form and color. Twenty Christs may be elicited from the New Testament as it stands. Mill deduced one, but the nineteen others are just as valid. . Strictly speaking, our task is completed. It would logically suffice to say that Mill’s panegyric on Christ is a mere piece of fancy. Like other men of genius, he had his special aptitudes and special knowledge, and his authority only extends as far as they carry him. Mr. Swinburne’s opinion of Newton is of no particular importance, and Newton’s famous ineptitude about Paradise Lost in no way affects our estimate of Milton. Let us go further, however, and examine Mill’s panegyric on Christ in detail. In justice to him, as well as to the subject, it should be quoted in full: “Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the character which Christianity has produced by .holding up m a Divine Person a �ÉTotíe ufnbpH±nCe Td a m°del f01’ÍmÍtatÍOn’ bailable even to the absolute unbellever and can never more be lost to humanity. For is Christ, lather than God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is the God ideahsede’hTs°teithan Gfd °/ tbe JeWS or °f Nature, who being AndhXbdfh ^ken so,great and salutary a hold on the modern mind, is stiH íeft T 6lS-e mac be tak<3n aWay fr°m US by rational criticism, Christ hL fnii ’ Umq?K figUre’ n0t more unlike a11 his precursors than 4» Ins followers even those who had the direct benefit of his personal teachhiSoric« «nA th tOi Say tha\Ohrist as exhibited in the Gospels is not sunerad/lía h 7® ^°W n?tbow much of what is admirable has been suffice« Í 7 t tradition of his followers. The tradition of followers miSelf? any number °f marvels’ and may have inserted all the dSS™hlCh .rePutedt°have wrought. But who among his ascGbld + among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings SV i,eT.01; Of lma«lnin& the life and character revealed in the p ? / ertamly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Sil í J th® cbara<^®rand idiosyncracies were of a totally different sort: fb?f th the TTly1 9bristlan writers m whom nothing is more evident than ' fXiS F? wbicb.was m timm was all derived, as they always professed that it was derived, from a higher source. What could be added XJ^w rd?y a dlsclPle we may see in the mystical parts of the gospel of St John, matter imported from Philo and the Alexandrian himSí t mt° the mouth of the Savior in long speeches about tffi?™h S as?be/tber Gospels contain not the slightest vestige of, though pretended to have been delivered on occasions of the deepest interest and when his principal followers were all present; most promt, nently at the last supper. The East was full of men who could have stolen any quantity of this poor stuff, as the multitudinous Oriental sects of Gnostics afterwards did. But about the life and sayings of Jesus there • 13vVa-?P of Per®onal originaiity combined with profundity of insight, which if we abandon the idle expectation of finding scientific precision wheie something very different was aimed at, must place the Prophet of Nazareth, even m the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, m the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer, and martyr to that mission, who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative ana guide of humanity; nor even now, would it be easy, even for ail un• a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life. Our first complaint is that the whole passage is too vague and rhetorical. What is the meaning of “ the absolute unbeliever ” m the first sentence ? If it means a person who rejects all the pretensions of Christ, the sentence is absurd. If it means a person who rejects his divinity, it is practically untrue ; for. as a matter of fact, those who have thought themselves out of Chris­ tianity (which Mill did not, as he was never in it) very seldom do take Christ as “ a standard of excellence and a model for �(9) imitation,” much less as “ the pattern of perfection for humanity.” When the supernatural glamor is dispelled, we see that Christ is no example whatever. He is simply a preacher, and his personal conduct fails to illustrate a single public or private virtue, or assist us in any of our practical diffi­ culties as husbands, fathers, sons, or citizens. Mill has himself shown that even Christians do not attempt to imitate their Savior ; and we are puzzled to understand how he could speak of Christ’s having “ taken so great and salutary hold on the modern mind ” after telling us, in his Essay on Liberty, that he has done nothing of the kind. He there says: “ By Christianity, I here mean what is acconnted such by all churches and sects, the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws by all professing Chris­ tians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. . . . Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.” Had Mill forgotten this passage when he wrote the Essay on Theism, or had Christendom changed in the interval ? Scarcely the latter. John Bright has justly said that the lower classes in England care as little for the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes care about its practice. Until Christians follow their Savior’s teachings, it is idle to expect unbelievers to do so. Yet it is perhaps as well they do not, for there are many things recorded in the Gospels which are far from redounding to his credit. It is a great pity that Mill, before eulogising Christ, could not read the chapter on “Jesus of Nazareth ” in Professor Newman’s last work. Why did Jesus consort with Publicans (or Roman tax-gatherers), rhe very sight of whom was hateful to every patriotic Jew ? .Why did he herd with Sinners, who so far despised ceremony as to dip in the dish with dirty fingers ? Why did he avoid all who were able to criticise him ? Why did he exclaim, “Ye hypocrites, why put ye me to proof?” when the Jews sought to test his claims, and to act on his own advice to “ Beware of false prophets ” ? Why did he rudely repel educated inquirers, and then solemnly thank God that “ he had hidden these things from the wise and pru­ dent, and revealed them unto babes ” ? Why did he denounce inhabitants of cities he could not convince, and prophesy that they would fare worse in the Day of Judgment than the filthy inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah ? Why did he assail his religious rivals with invectives which, as Professor Newman �( 10 ) says, “ outdo Tacitus and Suetonius in malignity,, and seem to convict themselves of falsehood and bitter slander ?” Why, in short, did he so constantly display the vanity and passion of a spoilt child ? Surely these are not characteristics we should emulate, but glaring blots in a “ pattern of perfection.” When the arrogance of Christ is countenanced by a writer like Mill, these defects must be insisted on. Professor Newman rightly says that “ If honor were claimed for Jesus as for Socrates, for Seneca, for Hillel, for Epictetus, we might apologise for his weak points as either incident to his era and country or to human nature itself—weakness to be forgiven and forgotten. But the unremitting assumption of super-human wisdom, not only made for him by the moderns, but breathing through every utterance attributed to him, changes the whole scene, and ought to change our treatment of it. Unless his prodigious claim of divine superiority is made good in fact, it betrays an arrogance difficult to excuse, eminently mischievous and eminently ignominious.” But this prodigious claim cannot be made good. As Pro­ fessor Newman says : “It is hard to point to anything in the teaching of Jesus at once new to Hebrew and Greek sages, and likewise in general estimate true.” The same view was ex­ pressed by Buckle, with more vigor if less urbanity. “ Whoever,” he said, “ asserts that Christianity revealed to the world truths with which it was previously unacquainted, is guilty either of gross ignorance or of wilful fraud.” Mill had himself, in the Essay on Liberty, shown the evil of taking Christ, or any other man, as “the ideal representative and guide of humanity.” He there charged Christianity with possessing a negative rather than a positive ideal; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good constituting its essence, in which “ thou shalt not ” unduly predominated over “ thou shalt.” He accused it of making an idol of asceticism, of holding out “ the hope of heaven and the threat of hell as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life, and of thus “ giving to human morality an essentially selfish character.” And he added that— “ What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern morality, is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not fiom Christian; as, even in the morality of private life, whatever exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honor, is derived from the purely human, not the religious, part of our educa­ tion, and never could have grown out of a standard of ethics in which the only worth, professedly recognised, is that of obedience.” Mill does indeed throw a sop to orthodoxy by allowing that Christ and Christianity are different things ; but he is obliged �(11) to add that the Founder of Christianity failed to provide for “ many essential elements of the highest morality.” He main­ tains that “ other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusively Christian sources must exist side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind.” And he deprecates ihe policy of “formingthe mind and feelings on an exclusively religious type.” Surely these arguments are quite inconsistent with Mill’s later notion of taking Christ as our ideal, and living so that he would approve our life. Besides, as Professor Bain points out, the morality of Christ belongs to this exclusively religious type. Its sanctions are all religious, and if religion is dispensed with they “ must lose their suitability to human life.” Professor Bain very justly observes that “the best guidance, under such altered circumstances, would be that furnished by the wisest of purely secular teachers.” That Christ was “ probably the greatest moral reformer ” that ever lived is a statement easy to make and difficult to prove. When Mill, in the Essay on Liberty, twits the Chris­ tians with professing doctrines they never practise, he furnishes ■a catalogue of the duties they neglect. “ All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world ; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not lest they should be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbors as themselves ; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also ; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect they should sell all they have and give it to the poor.” Surely Mill was aware that all these absurd and impracticable maxims were taught by Christ. Hgw, then, except on the theory we have advanced, could he call him the greatest moral reformer in history ? The “rational criticism ” by means of which Mill obtains the “ unique figure ” of Christ is a purely arbitrary process. George Eliot, who knew the subject far better, said in one of. her letters that the materials for any biography of Jesus do not exist. The Unitarians have tried Mill’s process with small success ; and, as Professoi’ Bain maliciously observes, “ It would seem in this, as in other parts of religion, that what the rationalist disapproves of most the multitude likes best.” Professor Bain’s remarks on Mill’s construction of his “ unique figure ” from the Gospels are so pertinent and happy that we venture to give them in full: �(12) “ We are, of course, at liberty to dissent from the prevailing view, which makes Christ a divine person. But to reduce a Deity to the human level, to rank him simply as a great man, and to hold ideal intercourse with him in that capacity is, to say the least of it, an incongruity. His­ torians and moralists have been accustomed to treat with condemnation those monarchs that, after being dethroned, have accepted in full the position of subjects. Either to die, or else to withdraw into dignified isola­ tion, has been accounted the only fitting termination to the loss of royal power. So, a Deity dethroned should retire altogether from playing a part in human affairs, and remain simply as an historic name.” Mill finds in Christ “ sublime genius ” and “ profundity of insight.” Surely it did not require any very sublime genius to teach those peculiar doctrines which Mill catalogued for back­ sliding Christians, nor any very great profundity of insight to see that none but paupers and lunatics could evei’ practise them. Many of the best sayings ascribed to Jesus were the common possession of the East before his birth ; but many of the worst seem more his own. “ Leave all and follow me ” is a vain and foolish command. “ Give to everyone that asketh ” is an excel­ lent rule for pauperising society. “ That industry is a human duty,” says Professor Newman, “ cannot be gathered from his doctrine: how could it, when he kept twelve religious men­ dicants around him ?” “ Resist not evil ” is a premium on tyranny. “ Blessed be ye poor ” and “• Woe unto you rich ” are the exclamations of a vulgar demagogue, a cunning agent of privilege, or an irresponsible maniac. “ By shovelling away wealth,” says Professor Newman, “ we are to buy treasures in heaven. Unless our narrators belie him, Jesus never warns hearers that to give without a heart of charity does not prepare a soul for heaven nor ‘ earn salvation ’; and that ¿elfish pre­ speculation turns virtue into despicable marketing. To forgive that we may be forgiven, to avoid judging lest we be judged, to do good that we may get extrinsic reward, to affect humility that we may be promoted, to lose life that we may gain it with advantage, are precepts not needing a lofty prophet.” - It is also from the words of Christ alone, according to the New Testa­ ment, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment can be estab­ lished ; and he is responsible for the intellectual crime of identifying Credulity with Faith, which has been a fatal rotten­ ness at the very core of Christianity. As for the “personal originality” of Mill’s “ unique figure, ** he might be safely challenged to demonstrate it from the Gospels. We shall have something more to say about the originality of Christ’s teaching presently ; we confine our- �( 13 ) «elves now to his personal character. Take away from the Gospel story the pathetic legend of Calvary, which throws around him a glamor of suffering, and what is there in his whole life of a positive heroic quality ? He is a tame, effeminate, shrinking figure, beside hundreds of men who have not been made the -object of a superstitious cultus. His brief, ineffective career, so ■soon closed by his own madness or ambition, will not bear a moment’s comparison with the long and glorious life of Buddha. It pales into insignificance before the mighty genius of Muhammed. Doctrine apart, the Nazarene is to the Meccan as a pallid moon to a fiery sun. With the single exception of •Cromwell, who was a more original character than twenty Christs rolled into one, where shall we find Muhammed’s equal in history ? As Eliot Warburton well said, he stands almost alone in “ the sustained and almost superhuman energy with which he carried out his views, in defiance, as it would seem, of God and man.” Christ quails in his Gethsemane. Muhammed struggles through his seven years’ ordeal of obloquy and danger like a resolute swimmer, who scorns to turn back, and will reach the ■other shore or die. When his followers faint under the burning desert sun, he tells them that “Hell is hotter,” and silences their murmurs. Christ cries in ah agony of despair, “My ■God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ” When Muhammed’s assassination is resolved on at Mecca, each of the tribes devoting a sword to drink his blood, and Abubekar, the companion of his flight, says “We are but two,” the indomitable prophet answers “We are three, for God is with us.” Christ implores “ 0 my' father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” When Muhammed is threa­ tened by the Koreishites, so that his most devoted followers remonstrate against his projects, he makes the sublime answer, “ If they should place the sun on my right hand, and the moon on my left, they should not divert me from my course.” Within a century after the Hegira, the empire of Islam had spread from Arabia eastward to Delhi and westward to Granada. Oh, it is •said, Muhammed used the sword. True, but not before it was drawn against him. The man who rode to Jerusalem, and -called himself King of the Jews, would have used the sword too had he dared. “ The sword indeed,” snorts Carlyle at this rubbish, “ but where will you get your sword ? Every new ■opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone there it dwells as yet. That Ae'take a sword •and try to propagate with that will do little for him. You �( 14 ) must first get your sword. On the whole, a thing will propa­ gate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had gotone.” True, thou sarcastic old sage of Chelsea, and the sting is in the tail. From Constantine downwards, Christianity has not been imposed on mankind without, as Sir James Stephen remarks, exhausting all the terrors of this life as well as the next. Mill tells us that Christ was a “martyr” to his “mission ” as a “moral reformer.” We should like to know how he dis­ covered the fact. Certainly not from the Gospels. It was not the Sermon on the Mount, but his vagaries at Jerusalem, that led to the crucifixion. Christ deliberately chose twelve disciples, the legendary number of the tribes of Israel, and told them that when he came into his kingdom they should sit on twelve " thrones as judges. Professor Newman answers those who call this language figurative with the just remark that “ we should call a teacher mad who used such words to simple men, and did not expect them to understand him literally.” When the dis­ ciples ask him, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom ' unto Israel ?” he does not rebuke them (although it is after his resurrection), but simply says that the time is a secret. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem can only be considered as a , declaration of sovereignty, and his countenancing the shout ' of Hosanna! (the war cry of previous insurrections, and an appeal to Jehovah against the foe) could only be construed as rebellion against Rome. His conduct inside Jerusalem was that of a man intoxicated with vanity and ambition, without judg­ ment, policy, or purpose. The very inscription on the cross shows that he was believed to aim at earthly royalty. Pontius Pilate tried to save Jesus, acting wisely and humanely as the repre­ sentative of an empire that was always tolerant in matters of religion. He would not receive a charge of blasphemy, but he could not overlook a charge of sedition. Yet he still gave Jesus an opportunity of escaping. “ Come now,” he seems to say, “ your enemies want your blood. Your blasphemy is no businessof mine, and I shall not decide a squabble between your rabid sects. But I must try you if they accuse you of sedition. You are young, and cannot wish to die. Plead ‘not guilty.’ Deny the charge. Say you are not the King of the Jews and do not contemplate rebellion. One word, and I save you from death. You shall go free though all the rabbis in Jerusalem howled like mad dogs. Rome shall stand between bigotry and blood.” But- �( 15 ) Jesus actually admits the indictment, and afterwards remains contumaciously silent. Pilate had no alternative ; he sentenced Jesus to execution ; but amid all the absurd fictions of the nar­ rative, the fact shines out clearly that he did so with the utmost reluctance. To call the death of Christ, in these circumstances, a martyrdom, is to degrade the name. He died for no principle. The truth would have saved him, and he would not utter it. Either he was in a stupor of despair, or so crazed with the Messianic delusion that he still trusted to the legion of angels for his rescue. In any case it was an act of insanity. He courted his doom. It was not a martyrdom but a suicide. We may also observe that, if a cultus had not been formed around it, and men’s imaginations suborned in its favor from the cradle, the “ martyrdom ” of Christ would be obviously lesssevere than that of many persecuted reformers. Giordano Bruno’s Gethsemane was an Inquisition dungeon, where he languished in solitude for seven years, and was tortured no one knows how often. What was Christ’s few hours’ agony of weakness before death compared with this ? Bruno died by. fire, the most cruel form of murder, whilst Christ suffered the milder doom of crucifixion. Christ was watched by weeping women, whose sympathy must have alleviated his pain; and it was not until the hand of death touched his very heart that he despaired of assistance from heaven. Bruno stood alone against the world, without any sources of courage but his own quench­ less heroism. Christ quailed before the inevitable. Bruno met it with a serene smile, for he had that within him which only death could extinguish—a daring fiery spirit, that nothing could quell, that outsoared the malice of men, and outshone the flames of the stake. Mill’s remarks on the originality of Christ’s teaching betray his utter ignorance of the subject. It is of no use, he says, to assert that the Christ of the Gospels is not historical. Begging his pardon, that is the most important factor in the problem. If the Gospels are what we allege (and no scholar would dispute it), George Eliot is right in saying that the materials for a biography of Jesus do not exist, and Mill’s “ rational criticism ” is a purely fantastic process. But the reason he assigns for his position is still more absurd. Who, he asks, could have in­ vented the sayings ascribed to Jesus ? Certainly, he says, not St. Paul: a sentence which alone stamps him as an incompetent critic. No man who understood the subject would ever have thought of anticipating such a preposterous objection. “Cer­ �( 16 ) tainly not the fishermen of Galilee,” is equally futile, for no student of the origin of Christianity supposes that the Gospels were written by the first disciples. They are of much later date. But except for that fact, why might not the “ fishermen of Galilee ” have been able to invent the logia of the Gospels as well as Jesus ? He was only a carpenter, and there is no reason in the nature of things why fishermen should not equal carpenters as prophets, preachers, and moralists. Mill is alto­ gether on the wrong scent. There was no need for Christ or his disciples to invent the sayings ascribed to him. As we have already remarked, they were the common possession of the East before his birth. The Lord’s Prayer is merely a cento from the Talmud, and, as Emanuel Deutsch showed, every catchword of Christ’s was a household word of Talmudic Judaism before he began his ministry. There is not a single maxim, however good or bad, however sensible or silly, in the whole of Christ’s dis­ courses that cannot be found in the writings of Pagan moralists and poets or Jewish doctors who flourished before him; and his best sayings, if they may be called his, were all anticipated by Buddha several centuries before he was born. It is also well known that the Golden Rule, as it is called, was taught by Con­ fucius long before the time of Christ, without any of the absurdities with which the Nazarene surrounded it. “ Love your enemies,” says Christ, as though it were wise or possible to do so. Confucius corrected this exaggeration. “No,” he said, “ if I love my enemies, what shall I give to my friends ? To my friends I give my love, and to my enemies—justice.! ” We think we have said enough to show that Mill’s panegyric on Christ is utterly valueless. Mr. Matthew Arnold is far more subtle and dexterous in his eulogy; but he knows the subject as well as Mill knew it badly. If the apologists of Christianity are prudent, they will cease to make use of Mill’s tribute to their Blessed Savior, or at least employ it only before people who are in that blissful ignorance which fancies it folly to be •wise. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill 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. ; 17 cm. Notes: Reply to passages in Mill's Three essays on religion. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Limited Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N269 Subject The topic of the resource Jesus Christ Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p> <p class="western">This work (What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p> 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 Jesus Christ John Stuart Mill NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6ea73c16174c3e137d46e7a0c3d5cdd9.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=qepbpbQgTxSUi%7E1RFFm7LBG3AlnZowtY6xKYEdEkOGz4MsJN%7ELxRnSsjc6JdrGwXXgD2S5DQffp%7EYucVI9xBowDoXaA3gGkUty1OmZSGUdAS8gHwin%7EuBGjqZjIVsx1tSObSYzfBy1khVuZtv2Y9F0j%7ESMQJ3OQHcxzz-AxCrWGhScidgX5Htro3Hzn1RLjJYWnItXgS%7EkrgRoZaCkV1goHNguKYLl%7ESVN5YPbLjWam1wct4E20rebNT-AgGREPZ-WC216K6Ja4Dbf5pPipKWONvEFC8DQultpGvCbFF40%7E77Jh%7ErE6--xhcYTrNKBuJvaSSpYBOTs8bbaeMdUUilg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c029b94fa1cf05ebac9475f426a0d7a9 PDF Text Text 11 PROBLEM INDUSTRIAL SOLVED. BY W. B. ROBERTSON. “ England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind—yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the land of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest, and the willingest our earth ever had ; these men are here, the work they have done, the fruit they have realised is here, abundant, exuberant on every hand of us; and behold some baleful fiat as of Enchantment has gone forth, saying, ‘ Touch it not, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers ; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit.’ ”— Thomas Carlyle {Past and Present}. ----- LENDING sb LONDON: THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. �CON TEN 7 S. Overproduction ------ Overpopulation ....... Remedy ......... �OVERPRODUCTION. —I. Y over-production is meant that there are more commodities produced than can be sold. The problem, therefore, in connexion with over-production is, why can this surplus of commodities not be sold? .Many writers, among them John Stuart Mill, deny the possibility of a general over-supply. They maintain that, while there may be over­ production as regards one or more kinds of commodities, there cannot be over-production in all kinds, so long as there is a human want un­ satisfied. It is impossible, for instance, to have an over-supply of food so long as millions of our fellow-men are in need of the barest necessities of life. If there be any strength in an argument like this at all, it would follow, or rather it is implied in such argument, that the mere need, the mere human desire, for any given commodity is sufficient to set the machinery in motion to produce it. Here is a man with an empty stomach and in need of a meal, this of itself, is, on such grounds, sufficient to procure such meal; or here is another man with a bare back, and in need of a coat, this is enough to procure him the coat. Now it must be plain to every one, that those that have nothing but empty stomachs and bare backs cannot influence in the slightest degree the quantity of food that may be produced, or the quantity of coats that may be made. Is any farmer going to plough and sow a field for men that come to him with nothing except empty stomachs; or is any tailor going to make coats for men that have nothing to show but bare backs ? Here, however, from one of the Cobden Club publications, are facts that show clearly enough that the quantity of food produced has nothing to do with the number of people that are m need of food, that in fact the more food there is, the greater will be the number of people in want. In this pamphlet * we have the paradoxical statement that the present depression, which set m in 1884, “ was the natural and necessary result of the improved and fairly good harvest with which this country was favoured in that year.” This statement the author (Augustus Mongredien) proves by figures taken from the Boardof Trade returns. Thus, in 1884, our imports and exports together were twenty-five million odd pounds sterling less than the average of the four previous years. This * Trade Depression : Recent and Present. �4 diminution is accounted for by the fact that in the same year “ our foreign supplies of cereals fell short of the previous years to the extent of 15^ millions of pounds sterling ; and to that extent, therefore, we may infer that the home harvests of 1884 had exceeded in yield the harvests of the previous few years.” The effect of this extra harvest was, according to our authority, to lessen directly our importations of cereals ; we had the cereals at home, and consequently did not require to buy them from foreign countries. Indirectly our exports were also lessened. Our whole foreign trade, exports and imports together, by this good harvest, Mr. Mongredien computes, was reduced by 43 millions of pounds sterling ; for he considers the effects of this good harvest as extending into 1885. After, making allowances he concludes, that this 43 millions worth of goods, represents from 2,500 to 3,000 cargoes; by so many cargoes, therefore, would our shipowners’ trade be lessened ; they would have that number of cargoes the less to carry, This sudden diminution in their business threw idle ships upon their hands; it then affected the shipbuilders, for the shipowners having more ships than they could find employment for, were of course not likely to order more. “ As a natural consequence,” Mr. Mongredien proceeds, “ the diminished construction of ships (in which the consumption of iron enters so largely) occasioned a propor­ tionate falling off in the demand for that metal, so that (other causes assisting) the wave of depression extended to the iron trade, and then spread to the closely connected coal-producing industries and others, which they influence more or less directly. Moreover, it would necessarily follow from there being between 2,500 and 3,000 fewer cargoes to load and unload at our chief ports, London, Liverpool, Glas­ gow, &c., that there would be less demand for persons living by that kind of labour, so that a number of dock labourers of all sorts would be thrown out of work. . . . On examination we find that the industries which really did most suffer from the recent and present depression are precisely those which we have enumerated above.” Such then is the account of trade depression given by the Cobden Club. There can be no questioning its accuracy so far as it goes; it leaves us helpless, however—in fact, it paralyses us. The farmer always endeavours to make his labour as productive as possible—the better his crops the more he rejoices, and the more does the nation rejoice with him. How tempered must this joy be though, if its cause is also to be the means of throwing thousands of hard working men out of work, and depriving them of the necessaries of life ! The bounties of Nature would thus seem to benefit no one, for the more bountiful she is, the less wrork is there for people to do, and in consequence the less able are they to get at these bounties. Besides the foregoing facts, we have others showing that .people may and do suffer want in the midst of plenty. The stocks of wheat held in Liverpool at the end of 1885 were 3,578,938 centals, while at the end of 1884 there were only 1,869,146 centals. Now, the winter 1885-6 was marked by great distress throughout the country; and yet we were more abundantly supplied in food-stuffs than we had ever been, for the figures taken at other ports besides Liverpool showed the same increase. The argument, therefore, that a general overproduction is impossible while there is human want can no longer be maintained. It now remains for us to explain why overproduction comes about, and �5 why it is, as already remarked, that the more abundant commodities are, the greater will be the number of people in want. For this purpose it will be necessary for us to say a word upon the system of renumerating labour. The remuneration of every kind of labour is fixed in the same way, viz., by competition. This competition may be amongst the employers, or amongst the employed. When there is a great deal of work to be done, when everybody is in employment, and there is still a demand for more men, these additional men must be drawn from other masters ; and to be so drawn inducements in the shape of higher wages must be held out to them. Under circumstances like these wages tend to rise. In a state of society, for example, such as that presented by a newly settled country where human labour is little aided by machinery, the labouring classes are,, it is well known, highly paid. The reason of this is because labourers are few compared with the amount of work that is offered. For these few labourers employers compete amongst themselves —each one holding out better inducements than the other. Take America some years ago ; wages were high then because there were more labourers wanted than could be got. Not only were wages high, but masters were very civil to their servants, as is evidenced by the fact that servants were euphemistically called “ helps,” allowed to sit at the same table with their employers, and treated in every way as equals. This courtesy, on the part of employers, is rapidly disappearing with the cause that gave rise to it; for labourers are no longer scarce in America, and if a servant dislikes to be called a servant, he can go about his busi­ ness—there are plenty others willing to take his place. It was the scarcity of labour that gave rise to the appearance of a system of equality in America, which many attributed to the Republican form of Govern­ ment. The form of Government had nothing whatever to do with it. So much then for the fixing of wages when labour is scarce. When labour is plentiful, when there are a great many seeking work, the labourers compete with one another for such employment as there is to be had. This of course brings wages down. It is useless for a man to offer his services for five shillings a day, when there are plenty others willing to do the same thing for two shillings and sixpence. Thus one man underbids another, and the one whose necessities are the greatest is the one that will accept the lowest terms. It is this competi­ tion amongst the working-classes that has brought wages down to star­ vation point in the simpler kinds of work. Starving men and women compete with starving men and women, and are glad to get the oppor­ tunity of working long hours every day for a few coppers ; because this is better than nothing at all. The foregoing then is the method upon which wages are fixed, and it operates in every department of human activity. The reason that a navvy is worse paid than a mechanic is simply because there are more men able to do navvy’s work than mechanic’s work, and the competition is consequently keener amongst the navvies than amongst the mechanics. We might go through all the different kinds of labour, and we wnuld find that wages in each kind are high or low according to the relation between the number of men seeking employment, and the quantity of employment to be got. The law of wages, then, may be stated in these words: Wages vary according to the relation between the quantity of labour offered and the quantity of labour required. �6 If people had borne this in mind, we would not have had so many ex­ pressions.of surprise at the fact that our working population has made so little, if, indeed, any progress. We often hear our great wealth spoken of, the wonderful strides we have made, and yet only a few seem, and we are told this with astonishment, to have participated in our increased power. All this is quite in accordance with what Political Economy has predicted, as is shown by the following passage from Ricardo;—“ If the shoes and clothing of the labourer could, by improvements in machinery, be produced by one fourth of the labour now necessary to their production, they would probably fall 75 per cent.; but so far is it from being true, that the labourer would thereby be enabled permanently to consume four coats, or lour pairs of shoes, instead of one, that his wages would in no long time be adjusted by the effects of competition, and the stimulus to popuation, to the new value of the necessaries on which they were expended. If these improvements extended to all the objects of the labourers’ consump­ tion, we should find him, probably at the end of a very few years, in possession of only a small, if any, adddition to his enjoyments.” This was written at the beginning of the present century. It afnounts to saying, “ It makes no difference how much you improve your methods of production, the position of the labourer will not be one whit the better; he will not enjoy any more of the necessaries and conveniences of life, his command over these necessaries and conveniences will always be just enough to enable him to subsist and to raise up more labourers.” This is perfectly true. It was at the beginning of the century, as we have just remarked, that Ricardo wrote the passage. Since then, we have introduced improve­ ments into every kind of work, -and the result is as predicted. The labourers are poor and ignorant; they still toil unceasingly; and they think themselves lucky if they can get the opportunity of undergoing this toil. We shall now endeavour to give more pointedly, the reason of this anomalous position, the reason why in the midst of plenty people starve, why, in fact, the more plentiful things are the less able are we to get at them. As Carlyle says:—“ We have more riches than any nation ever had before ; we have less good of them than any nation ever had before. Our successful industry is hitherto unsuccessful; a strange success if we stop here ! In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish ; with gold walls and full barns, no man feels himself safe or satisfied. Workers, master-workers, un workers, all men come to a pause ; stand fixed, and cannot farther. Have’we actually got enchanted then ; accursed by some God1” Now let us offer a simple illustration of some of the economic effects of such a system of remunerating labour. Suppose that the only thing we did in this country was to make cotton—a single industry is supposed because it simplifies matters ; suppose, moreover, that we could make enough cotton to supply our own requirements for that article, and had enough to send to other countries for our food and whatever else we needed. At the beginning of the centruy we will further suppose that everybody is employed, that there is nobody out of work, and the wages are good enough to keep them comfortably and respectably. By and by improved methods of production and transit are introduced, and to such an extent that one man can do as much as five formerly did. As these improvements are applied four men out of every five would be thrown �out of work ; wages, moreover, would be reduced, for rather than be thrown out of work the men would offer their services at a lower rate, and competition amongst the workers would become keener. Here, then, with an increasing power of production, we would have a reduced number of consumers—these too getting a smaller share of the produce of their labour. What under such circumstances can be more natural than a glut, than over-production ? With such a fair start then at the beginning of the century, we should be as bad to-day as we now actually are. The men that had been thrown out of work with every successive improvement, and their families, would have to live somehow ; many of them would become thieves and vagrants, many of them paupers. All this too would come about independently of the extraordinary tendency of population to increase. When we take this into account we can only wonder, not that evils are so rampant in society, but that society has continued so long upon such a basis. The hard lot of man then would appear not to be due to the niggard­ liness of nature as we have been taught; to have no connection with the curse that doomed him to eat his bread “ by the sweat of his brow.” It is due to a mere convention, the shadowy nature of which will appear clearly enough later on. The real significance of over-production is to reduce our present indus­ trial system to an absurdity. It is ridiculous for people to have to starve because they have grown too much food, to go unclad because they have made too many clothes, and unhoused because they have built too many houses. There would be work for all the unemployed to-morrow if the half of London were destroyed; there is nothing like calamities for trade. By bringing about over-production, then, the working population has proved our present industrial system to be false; and how very unequal that system is we see every day. Here in a few words is one of its most ■ glaring inequalities. The governing class has said to the working class, you go to work under this system—your share of the result of your labour will be fixed in this wise, our share of the result of your labour will be fixed in this other wise. So the working population said all right, took up their hammers and went to work. They weret old to work hard and ever harder, and overseers were put to see that they did work hard. But what is this that has come upon us now ? The governing class exclaim, “ Stop ! you have produced too much ; you must lay down your hammers until we require you again ; we have quite enough here of everything to suit us—indeed more than enough. So you can go and shake your heels outside there while we enjoy ourselves and consume the things that you have made.” OVER-POPULATION.—II. The view that attributes our social disorders to the fact that we are overpopulated, is perhaps more widely accepted than any other. The reason for this is because it is an easily understood view. What can be more clear than that, if there be a greater number of people in a commu­ nity than can get employment, and if the livelihood of these people depend upon their getting employment, the privation of those that cannot get employment �8 is due to the fact that there is no room for them in such community ? At one time it was universally believed that the sun moved round the earth ; for what could be more clear than that, if Rome continued to remain in the same spot and the sun every day passed over it, the sun must so move ? Rome, however, did not continue to remain in the same spot; hence what was so very clear was all wrong. Similarly the livelihood of man does not depend upon his getting employment, it depends upon his get­ ting the means of livelihood ; hence what is so very clear as to our being over-populated, may also be all wrong. This is a point, however, that remains for us to consider. The reader has of course heard of Malthus and his celebrated essay on “ Population.” In that essay it was shown that in every community the number of members is limited by the means of subsistence at their command; increase the subsistence and an increased population will result; diminish the subsistence, and there follows a diminished popula­ tion. “ This is incontrovertibly true,” he says. “ Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, Nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand; but has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this earth, if they could freely develop themselves, would fill millions of worlds in a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious, all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants, and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law; and man cannot by any efforts of reason escape from it.” Such was the truth that Malthus laboured to enforce—a truth that one would have thought so self-evident as not to need enforcing. His essay, however, is really nothing more than a demonstration of the extraordinary strength of the principle of self- con servation. Malthusians consider themselves followers of Malthus on the ground that they accept and seek to promulgate his views on population. Let us consider for a moment their position. This country, they say, is over-populated. Why I Because there are more people in it wanting work than can get work ; many are con­ sequently compelled to idleness, these not having any other way of procuring the necessaries of life except by labour, are consequently either thrown upon the generosity of their friends or become recipients of public relief, or criminals. In this simple way does the Malthusian explain all our social calamities, and, as the only remedy, he suggests that people must be more prudent, must regulate the number of children they bring into the world—in a word, the population of a country must correspond to the work to be done in that country, the more work the greater the population may be, the less work the less the population. The reader will now see that there is a difference between the view of Malthus and the view of the Malthusian.; the former set up subsistence as the limit to population, the latter sets up employment or work to be done—the more work there is to be done as already remarked, the more room is there for an increased population. Let us now follow the Malthusian position to its logical issue. Why do we call one method of'production or transit an improvement upon another ? Simply because it involves less labour, simply because it abridges labour, and that is the reason that we adopt the improved method. Now, with every abridgment in the labour of making and �9 transferring things there becomes relatively, less and less labour to do, and consequently, the ideal population of the Malthusian becomes less and less. In this way, if the Malthusian position had free play, the most ingenious race, the race that is most apt to discover quicker and quicker methods of doing things, would thereby be always narrowing the limits of its populatiou. It would consequently be the first to disappear from the face of the earth, the fittest to survive would be the most stupid, the unkindest countries would be the most densely populated; in a word, nature and man would be at daggers drawn. We do not say that such is not the case to-day—in fact it is the case. Nature and man are at war, and all through one little fallacy in our economic system. Meanwhile as to our statement that it is the case that nature and man are at daggers drawn, that the stupidest, or least adaptive, are fittest to survive, we have practical proof of this in recent legislative action in America and Australia. Chinese labour was forbid­ den the markets of these countries, because the Chinaman can underbid the Anglo-Saxon. Laws are made to protect the weak against the strong; the strong man m the case just noticed, is the Chinaman, the weak, the Anglo-Saxon, who requires special protection. The fittest will always survive—that statement points to a law that we cannot alter. What we can alter, however, and what we must alter if we would continue our race—if, indeed, we wish to make any further progress at all—are the conditions that make the Chinaman and those that approach him in character the superior. Suppose again, that the Malthusian doctrines were practically adopted and most rigidly carried out. Suppose that to-day our population was so regulated, that there was not an idle man in the kingdom, not a pauper, not even a criminal. Every one is fed, and clad, and legitimately employed. There remains, however, in this happy state of affairs just one thing that we have got to-day, and that is our present industrial system. Let us now take a step forward from this ideal point to a time when improved methods of production and transit have been introduced. Com­ modities can be manufactured with less labour, goods can be conveyed to their destinations with less labour—in a word, we shall suppose, as is really what happens, that in nearly every department of human effort, improvements have been introduced. They are called improvements, because they lessen labour. What then would be the economic effect of a year’s progress upon the ideal state of affairs that we have just been imagining ? The first effect would be that to make the same quantity of manufactures, less workmen would be required ; masters would consequently have to discharge some of their men. Now, what becomes of these men? Well, they do not want to be discharged, so they offer their services at a lower wage, competition amongst the work­ men for such employment as there is to be had becomes keener, wages consequently become lower, for masters are obliged to follow the market rate of wages. No matter, however, whether wages be high or low, the masters cannot employ as many men as they did before the introduction of the supposed improvements. What, then, becomes of the surplus ? Why, enforced idleness, and with it loss of independence : then as wc go on improving, we recruit the ranks of the enforced idlers—they are enforced idlers at first—and out of them springs the necessity for those vigorous institutions police courts, prisons, and workhouses. �IO The Malthusian would thus have to resort periodically to some drastic measures to restore the balance between employment and population. One word more in connexion with improvements. We have seen their effect to be the lessening the nurhber of those employed and the lowering of wages. Now here comes the economic effect par excellence. Fewer men in employment at reduced wages means a diminution in the power of the community to consume. Improved methods of production, &c., are ever increasing our power over nature, our power to produce ; they are at the same time, by rendering competition amongst labourers keener and keener, diminishing our power to consume. This is going on all over the world, is operating upon the industrial classes in every civilised community, is the noose with which we are stranglingourselves, is in the words of Carlyle, “ the accursed invisible night-mare that is crushing out the life of us and ours.” Can anyone wonder that the markets of the world are glutted ? The supply pipes are ever widening, the waste pipes ever contracting: of course, there is a running over ; of course, as Carlyle says, our wealth “i s an enchanted wealth.” THE REMEDY.—III. The 'main evils that result from our present economic svrstem have appeared from our observations on over-production and over-population. Over-production and over-population are themselves under existing arrangements sources of great suffering. Both, curiously enough, too, exist together. This in itself shews that there must be some contradic­ tory forces in operation in the industrial world ; for is it not ridiculous that we should have too large a population while we are complaining of having too great an abundance of useful things? How are we to tell when a population is great or small ? By a reference to the limit of population. Now the limit to population is professed to be the means of subsistence. But our population is so far from pressing upon this limit that we are complaining of a too abundant supply of the means of subsistence. Here then is an absurdity; and we are landed in this absurdity because the limit to population is not as supposed, the means of subsistence, but the employment offered in a community. By referring to this limit, the employment offered in a community, we find that our population is too great; for there are many more than can get employ­ ment, and by so many is our population excessive. Now, it remains for us to ask ourselves whether we are to maintain this limiting principle, or whether it would not be better for us to adopt another. We have already shewn that it is impossible to have population regu­ lated by the employment to be had in a community because such em­ ployment is always varying, is by the introduction of improved methods of production always becoming less and less. Now, here is a fertile source of evil; for with every contraction of the field of employment some are thrust out of that field, these keep on recruiting the everlasting army of paupers and criminals, and form the dregs of society. They are forced into these positions, and no subsequent action on the part of society is of any avail in recalling them. There is the field of labour, it is full; �11 place another man in it, it is more than full; the consequence is that either that man or some one else must go out. Besides paupers and criminals, and what are called the dregs of society, such a limiting principle to population leads in its working out to deterioration in workmanship, and indeed in human character. As already shown, improvements by lessening the demand for labour lead to a keener competition amongst labourers, and thereby lead to a con­ traction of the labourers’ pockets ; to meet this diminished consuming power commodities have to be made as cheaply as possible ; there is no effective demand for good materials, consequently jerrymaundering is in the ascendant. As to the deterioration in human character that is con­ tinually going on, we have already shown what class is best fitted to survive. It is the class that can live on least, whose manner of living approaches more and more closely to the beasts. Thus is our civilisa­ tion being undermined, and thus are all our attempts at social progress frustrated. It is apparent, then, that some other limit to population must be substituted for the one that prevails to-day, and it is. such other limit that we now proceed to unfold. This other limit is the means of subsistence—the very limit that is supposed to be in operation, but which we have shown to be not the case. Now, in the first place, with such a limit as the means of subsist­ ence over-population would be impossible; for no community could ever consist of more members than it could support. This, of course, is evi­ dent, and requires no further elucidation. In speaking of the limiting principle that is in operation now, viz., employment, we objected to it that it was always varying. Might not the means of subsistence vary too ? If, moreover, at any time, writh the means of subsistence as the limit to population there should become less subsistence than will suffice to maintain the whole population, who is to have such subsistence and who is to go without ? Of course the means of subsistence might vary; the difficulties that might arise from such a possibility will, however, disappear after we have shown how this limit is to be practically adopted, and this brings us to enquire into the nature of property. What is property ? Why does society have such a thing as property at all ? Why should it put itself about to ensure any man in the pos­ session of whatever goods he may have got hold of? The only reason that can be given for this, and a very gocd one it is, is to encourage industry. For instance, I make chairs ; suppose that as soon as I have done so a stronger man than myself comes along and takes them from me; I should most certainly come to the conclusion to make no more chairs, because I would derive no benefit from pursuing such a course, and would at once betake myself to procuring whatever I wanted by stealing also. Of course, there would very soon be nothing to steal, and society would at once collapse. To prevent this collapse, however, and to preserve its own life, society steps forward and says that these chairs are mine, that they are mine because I made them ; the reason that such a course of conduct on the part of society preserves its life is because I am .thereby encouraged to go on making more chairs, and every other maker of everything else is encouraged in the same way. Thus are the members of the community kept supplied with such commodities as are required. The institution of private property, then, is maintained by society �T2 for the sake of encouraging industry, and for the sake of nothing else, except what is implied in the encouragement of industry — viz., the continuance of society. Such, then, is the reason why we have such a thing as property. How far does society practically adhere to this, the. recognised theory of property ? It has departed from it as far as it can. To see that this is so, the merest glance round is sufficient; for those that have made everything have got nothing. As soon as an article has been made it is by some magical operation—an operation so subtle that it is scarce perceptible —snatched from the maker, and becomes the property of some one else. Speaking in this connection John Stuart Mill says that he would prefer Communism itself to such an unholy state of affairs. “ If,” he says, “ the institution of private property necessarily carried with it as a con­ sequence that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour—the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so, in a descending scale, the remuneration dwind­ ling as the work grows harder aud more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life: if this, or communism were the alternative, ail the difficulties, great or small, of communism would be but as dust in the balance.” Surely it cannot be impossible for society to carry out so simple a theory—a theory that it recognises and accepts as true—as to see that people have the produce of their own labour, that industry is rewarded and encouraged. The grossest inconsistency on the part of society as regards property is the maintenance of property in. land. How can that encourage in­ dustry ? It is only the produce of the land, the result of labour, that can be called property. By insuring to this individual or to that individual this or that tract of land, what industry does society encourage ? It en­ courages the industry of the idle—a terrible industry, a scourge: it reduces thousands of its members to the position of flunkeys, ministers to idleness. As we have already said, the view that property is maintained in a community for the purpose of encouraging industry and for no other pur­ pose, is not new neither is it denied. All that it implies is that men are to be rewarded according to their industry—this, no one can for a mo­ ment deny, is far from being practically carried out; in fact, we practically carry out the very opposite doctrine. Here then are two principles, viz.: that population is limited by subsistence and that property is instituted to encourage industry ; that are universally accepted and argued upon, as if they were carried into practice ; we have shown that the one not carried into practice, how­ ever, seeks to deny them. Why should they not be adopted by society ? It is the adoption of these two principles, and of these two principles alone that is recommended here. Indeed by seeing that the theory of property alone is applied, the limiting principle to population will be implicitly applied too. Such, and such alone, is the work that lies before reformers now. 'AXVV • wy""........... •''WXxxxax" �OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community. 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force ; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption :— The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultural labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not exceeding /300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation of agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates : Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen­ tation. Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election out of the Rates. Abolition of the House of Lords and all Hereditary Authorities. Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches. Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G. �4t J ■ All who are interested in Socialism should read THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C. Which will be sent post free at the published prices on receipt of an order amounting to one shilling or more. (The Publications of the Modern Press can be obtained from W. L. Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New York City.) The Historical Basis of Socialism in England. By H. M. Hyndman. Paul, Trench, & Co. Crown 8-vo., price 8s. 6d London: Kegan This is the only Book in the English Language which gives the Historical and Economical Theories of Organised Socialism. It should be carefully studied by all who desire to understand why Socialists are enthusiastic for their cause, and confident of ucces s in the near future. Woman in the Past, Present and Future. By August Bebel, Deputy in the Reichstag. Translated from the German by H. B. Adams Walther. Demy 8-vo., cloth, price 5s. ft. F This work by the best known of the German Socialists aims at showing that the social condition of women can be permanently improved only by the solution of the whole social problem, The Co-operative Commonwealth: an Exposition of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund, of Philadelphia. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, is. This book supplies the want, frequently complained of, of definite proposals for the administration of a Socialistic State. Mr. Gronlund has reconciled the teaching of Marx with the influence of Carlyle in the constructive part of his work, which is specially recommended to English Socialists. Socialism versus Smithism: I An open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for Liverpool. 8-vo. Cheaper edition, price id. Crown John E. Williams, and the Early History of THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION. trait. Price one penny. 1 With Por­ Opening Address to the Trade Union Congress at Southport, September, 1885. Delivered by T. R. Threlfall. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. An able address from a representative working man on political and social topics. i| L- ■ Ek. I I Social ism made Plain. The social and political manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation issued in June 1883 ; with “The Unemployed,” a Manifesto issued after the “ Riots in the West End” on 8th February, 1886. Sixty-first thousand. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price id. “ JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every Saturday, one penny. I! �Socialism and Soldiering*; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. By W. H. P. Campbell. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hindman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at t.he hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag : Being John Burns’ vidual Effort; Desirable Mansions; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman. (In reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By H. M. What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. Price id. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, held at August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. �Social Progress and Individual Effort. Desirable Mansions. Co-operative Production. England Arise. Song with Music. By Edward Carpenter. Price id. each. Cashel Byron’s Profession: G. Bernard Shaw. A Novel. The Genesis Of Capital. Translated from the French of Gabriel Deville by B. J. Royal 8vo. Price id. The Nationalisation of Societv. dore D’Auton. By Price is. Royal 8vo, paper covers. By J. Theo­ Royal 8vo., price id. The Australian Labour Market: Startling The Industrial Problem Solved. By W. B. Disclosures. By John Norton, New South Wales Labour Delegate. Royal 8vo., Price id. Robertson. Royal 8vo., Price id. The Nationalisation of Railways. By F. Keddell. Reprinted from Justice and revised. 8vo., price id. Mining Rates and Royalties. Royal By J. Morrison Davidson (Author of “ New Book of Kings,” &c.) By the REV. MERCER DAVIES, M.A. The Bishops and their Wealth. The Bishops and their Religion. Price 2d. Price id. The Facts about the Unemployed. One of the Middle Class. Royal 8vo., price id. By An appeal and a warning issued in October, 1886, showing the causes of the present distress, how they can be removed, what steps have already been taken, and what are the consequences of continued indifference to hunger and despair. Also the following Leaflets for Distribution. The Use of a Vote. Royal 8-vo. Handbill. Price 2S. per 500, post free. Work for all, Overwork for none. 8-vo. Handbill. 2s. per 500, post free. Royal � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The industrial problem solved Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Robertson, W.B. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12, [4] p. ; 23 cm. Notes: Stamp on title page: South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library. Publisher's list and Information on the Social-Democratic Federation on unnumbered pages at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4973 Subject The topic of the resource Industry Socialism 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 industrial problem solved), 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 Economics Industrial Democracy Industrialization Population Increase Production Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/64948264688ba2b0d7e751f52e7d586c.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=oPeqszCbDGgI05yVN9lPApG37SFcCRumaFQgCCkpbwJ-vHKqOzVn6s5uP44H0rwaNP7DjOz9GboGwPHjL476Oi9-1oxcO7Uv6Uvp8Gom5EgqweArucCuq75AdoJ-Bls72MWc9hJRpz9NOOiQcj84UrDreXwuW5-yHDpM0lxnqG6k4XQX8uS1wGJLofejFkTkgOxbNwuc8l4u34L%7EjV-ROTZARnaCapBbx9pt8q%7ESvZ2j5qHn7pTgB2-eLKpLLsO%7EH600cfI-Myb3LeINe%7EWvaJ-tDt9CbAT7jFLSciHTiu7FfOFVo1PBe6uFOIdKgEZM0zyFmMD%7EcwbB1QNN2SBwIg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cd4896b96ce0d732ab4866d4d942ace4 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY SALADIN THE LITTLE AN EXPOSURE. BY T. EVAN JACOB, B.A. PBICE TWOPSKCE. / äkmbxrn : ROBERT FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER 1887. STREET, E. C. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY R. EORDER, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �6 303© ^57| SALADIN THE LITTLE. SALADIN’S MOTIVES EXPOSED. UNION concentrates force and thus becomes strength. As in physical matters so in social and political struggles, he who promotes union paves the way of victory. Down yonder mountain slope those dozen babbling rills skipped and danced for ages : they tripped their way to the sea with sweet music, but without much practical benefit to man. The great engineer perceives in them a source of power ; he unites them ; factories are built on the spot; families obtain food ; the strag­ gling village grows into a town. The music of the rills has lost none of its sweetness, because it is accom­ panied by the merry prattle of childhood ■ their inde­ pendence is gone, but on their grave bloom the lovliest of flowers, domestic peace, domestic plenty, domestic happiness. Union is useful in all things. All parties in Church and State recognise its value. To those who advocate unpopular opinions, who endeavor to expel error and restore truth, who struggle to disperse the mists of pre­ judice and the clouds of bigotry, union is the very breath of life. With it we may do something, without it we are like one of those independent rills, wasting on rocky ears “ the majesty of our prose and the thunder of our poetry,” as we tread our weary way to our long home. We worked hard, early and late ; and is this our reward? Ah! laurels wreathe the victor’s brow. There is no prize for unsuccessful merit. Wouldst thou be useful in thy day and generation ? Sink thy petty independence, fall in like a loyal soldier, and fight to the bitter end. �4 SALADIN THE LITTLE. A. great responsibility attaches to those who would, destroy any union that has been formed for good pur­ poses. They disable others without adding to their own strength ; they clog my carriage wheel, but increase not the velocity of their own waggon. Some there are in our day who think they can redress the grievances of their country by destroying the implements, and mutilating the cattle of their neighbors, as there are those. who endeavor to spread secular principles by pointing out to the enemy some imagined weakness in secular armor. The dastardly crime of the former is great, but insignificant as compared with the dastardly devilry of the latter, just as one weed less in the field of thought is more than ample compensation for a county run wild, and one flower more in the garden of truth outweighs a million times the decrease of exports and fall of revenue. Secularism is unpopular enough. Secularists are the Ishmaels of the age. Our hands are against all pre­ judices and all prejudices are against us. The force of prejudice is. strong; the hosts of prejudice are many. If our little band is to make any headway at all against the foe, it is our bounden duty to unite. The union is ready. It is the work of brave men and women who have devoted themselves to the cause. It is known by the title “ The National Secular Society.” Whatever this society may have left undone, it has, at least, erected a platform from which to attack bigotry, built halls dedicated to the cause of Freethought, and enlisted under its banner many gallant soldiers, who might otherwise be wasting their energies and exhaust­ ing their strength in hopeless struggle against over­ whelming odds. This society it is that has made active and public Freethought propaganda possible in England —a very gratifying and satisfactory result, mainly due, as no honorable man would deny, to the eloquence and, above all, to the indomitable energy of its Presi­ dent. All Secularists and Freethinkers ought to support this society, if only to show their Christian opponents that it is possible to unite in brotherly love without being hammered into shape by blind faith on the anvil of terror. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 5 But this is not to be. The Freethought party must, it seems, go through the ordeal of schisms and heresies The heretic, in this instance, is one Mr. W. Stewart Ross, an enterprising publisher and bookseller of i arringdon Street, but better known, perhaps, as editor of the Secular Review under the nom de plume of i( Saladin." This gentleman has during the last two years written against this society. His opposition is not that of a philosopher combating error ; that oppo­ sition would have been welcome. There is malice in his every word, resentment and petty pique. Such, criticism can do no good, can be acceptable to none but the enemies of Secular progress. He who plays into, the hands of the enemy, but weakens the cause he pretends to champion. I am not objecting to criticism. As a Freethinker I freely grant to others what I claim for myself. Freedom to think presupposes freedom to speak : without the latter the former would be sheer mockery. Saladin has given himself, plenty of rem. I do not propose to copy his diction or imitate his style. There is no need in the nineteenth century to don the controversial armor of the dark ages. Vitriolic epithets, do not strengthen a proposition ; all they do is to act as a label to the intellectual contents of the individual who uses them. Between Saladin and me there will, be no occasion to use them, as the facts are emphatic ^■What then, are the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the National Secular Society? What the raison d'etre of the heresy which he is at so much pains to christen with his name? I must remind the reader that Saladin professes to be a Secularist, a Freethinker, an Agnostic, etc. His motives should be exceptionally pure In attacking us, a Christian would be allowed more latitude than an Agnostic. To the former every­ thing is fair, for we are his sworn enemies, lhe latter should kindly point out our errors and suggest correc­ tions for he is our friend. Enemies indulge in lies and slander, whereas it is a friend’s holy office to tell thNowJSaladin calls all the members of the National Secular Society Dirtites, Cat-and-ladleites, Know!- �6 SALADIN THE LITTLE. tonites, Malthusians, and other complimentary expres­ sions of similar odor, in the coining of which he enjoys an unenviable notoriety. Whenever I read abusive insulting expressions, I generally conclude that the writer has no case and no confidence. These puerile word-toys are unworthy of a grown-up man. Dirtites indeed ! It were idle to expect sober criticism from such an unbridled tongue. But to go on. The National Secular Society teaches Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism. These doctrines Saladin hates and detests: they are worse than the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Atonement. Nay, suppress these horrid opinions, and Saladin would consent to let the Cross stand add the fire of hell burn for ever. This is the odious trinity of his abomination—Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism ; and the National Secular Society promulgates these vile doctrines—vile Society ! •Does it ? Let us see. In this Society’s Almanac for .lbo7, p. 34, I think that the Principles and Objects of the Society are : Secularism teaches that conduct should be based on reason and knowledge. It knows nothing of divine guidance or intei lei ence : it excludes supernatural hopes and fears; it regards happiness as man’s proper aim, and utility as his moral guide. “ Secularism affirms that Progress is only possible through Liberty, which is at once a right and a duty; and therefore seeks to remove every barrier to the fullest equal freedom of thought, action, and speech. Secularism declares that theology is condemned by reason as superstitious and by experience as mischievous, and assails it as the historic enemy of progress. “ Secularism accordingly seeks to dispel superstition; to spread education; to disestablish religion; to rationalise morality; to promote peace; to dignify labor; to extend material well-being; and to realise the self-government of the people.” Not a word do we find here about Malthusianism, Socialism, or Materialism, but rather a platform on which every honest Freethinker could stand, a flag under which all unselfish Secularists could fight. If Saladin has no reason more valid to offer for his oppo­ sition, he stands condemned out of his own month, �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 7 Saladin has other reasons. The President of the National Secular Society is a Malthusian ; but he is also editor of a Freethought paper, and in that capacity he reviewed a book entitled Elements of Social Science, and expressed his opinion that the book was honest and useful. It should also be stated that this review was written nearly thirty years ago. Why may not the President be a Malthusian, or anything else if he likes, so long as he is a loyal and sincere Secularist ? It is only as a Freethinker that his opinions must not clash with the published principles of the Society over which he presides. On other ques­ tions, more or less intimately connected with Secu­ larism, he, like every other member, has a right to use his private judgment. Indeed, I always thought that the right of private judgment, on all matters whatso­ ever, was the essence of Freethought—that it recognised the government of reason, and not the impostures of faith or the despotism of any individual. But another School of Freethought has arisen in our midst: the fundamental article of its creed has been stolen from the putrefying rags of the Galilean. “ Believe or be damned,” was the old watchword. “ You are free to think but, as I do,” is the badge of this heresy, the chief priest of which is Saladin, who discards the mantle of freedom, for the Nessus-robe of intolerance. Oh 1 Saladin, fie, fie, fie, for shame! A tiger loves his tribe and protects his kind ; but you, a Freethinker, strike your brother Freethinkers and, on the stage of life, for the sake of a little rascal gold, play a traitor’s part. Freethought has come to this. What a deplorable falling off! So with regard to the recommendation of the Ele­ ments of Social Science, the President has a perfect right to recommend the book, if he thinks it a book worthy of being read. Verily it is a memorable book. Its contents cannot be the rubbish that Saladin and his school pretend they are. It has already in England reached its twenty-fifth edition. It is translated into ten modern languages, practically all the languages of the Continent. The French translation has reached its third edition, the Italian its fourth edition, the �8 SALADIN THE LITTLE. German its sixth edition—a proof that this book finds most readers where education is most spread and cul­ ture most general. Scholarly Germany rises up in judgment against Saladin. Mr. G. J. Holyoake recom­ mended the book. It is called “ a blessing to the human race ” by Ernest Jones, a name that will, I ven­ ture to predict, be fondly remembered in England, even when that of Saladin is forgotten. Some of the most eminent organs of the medical profession, both in this country and abroad, are lavish in praise of the treatise. Surely in the face of this cloud of witnesses it behoves Saladin, I will not say, to reconsider his opinion, but to be more tolerant towards those who form a different estimate of that remarkable book to his own. I make this suggestion for Saladin’s good, not to purchase his vote and favor for the Elements. That book has found a place in the literature of Europe, whence Saladin’s sordid criticism and blatant incom­ petence will no more dislodge it, than will a barking cur snatch from the sky the pale autumn moon. An index expurgatorius drawn up by a Freethinker! Nettles on rose bushes ; poison from the grape ; the night of error from the sun of light. The Farringdon School of Freethought usurps the functions of the Holy Office. No Freethinker of that school must read a book that bears not the imprimatur of Saladin. Retro­ gression not progress is the order of the day. The legitimate corallary of suppressing books is to destroy men. When a man’s right to think, read, and write is taken away, the next step is the deprivation of his right to live. The next role for Saladin is that of Torquemada or Bonner. Luckily for him Smithfield is near. I blush for Freethought when I see it draped in the bloody robes of the Inquisition. I am seeking the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the organised Freethought of our day. I have examined those which he publishes with commendable regularity in his journal week after week. But they are pretences, shams—all gas. The views of the President of the National Secular Society on certain questions outside the platform of that society cannot be the cause of Saladin’s inextinguish­ able hatred. There are hundreds and thousands of �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 9 members of this society who are not Malthusians. I am a member of this society, but I am not a Malthusian, not yet, at all events. When, on the other hand, he calls, in sweeping condemnation, all the members of this society Dirtites, because they advocate socialistic and Malthusian principles, he knows that he is telling an untruth and playing the hypocrite. Even if they did, and if Malthusian principles were dirty, it does not lie with Saladin to call them by that name. Sala­ din knows that, none better, in his heart of hearts. I must refresh his memory, for he seems to be burdened with unaccountable forgetfulness. To call the National Secular Society Socialistic and Malthusian is an unpar­ donable misrepresentation, to put it in the mildest possible way. In the Secular Review for 1884, Saladin offers “ to proclaim himself a liar,” if certain charges were proved against him. I shall give him an oppor­ tunity of displaying his honor and love of truth before I have done with him. In an ancient historian, I find that individuals have two sets of motives—one for the public, which is a pre­ tence, the other for themselves, which is real and genuine. The publicly stated motives of Saladin’s opposition I have demonstrated to be untrue, and un­ worthy a Freethinker, even if they were true : these evidently, are the pretended set. Would a man who deals in pretences, who puts forward reasons, for his conduct, which he knows to be false, would that man be called truthful ? I must seek for Saladin’s motives elsewhere. In prosecuting my search, I shall have to lift many a veil which I would fain leave untouched. But Saladin’s cant, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation compel me to do my duty, and I will do it with care, but without malice ; with truth, but without vindic­ tiveness. In the year 1884, Saladin became sole proprietor of the Secular Reviezv, having bought it of Mr. Charles Watts, whom he previously assisted in editing that journal. Then he had an opportunity to examine the financial condition of his investment. That examina­ tion was not one to make him jubilant. The paper was running into debt. A large percentage of the sub­ �10 SALADIN THE LITTLE. scribers were bogus subscribers. This state of things was very distasteful to Saladin’s Scottish shrewdness. If it were possible for him to worship a god, that God would be money. An admirer of Saladin’s goes so far as to say that the editor of the Secular Review cares nothing for Freethought, except in so far as it brings grist to the mill. The written statement of this gen­ tleman is quoted in extenso in the Secular Revieiv without a shadow of an editorial note to repudiate such base, sordid motives. Weary and disheartening must those weeks and months of deficit have been to Saladin. There he was laboring like a giant without being able to earn literary salt. Week after week, he was turning out of his intellectual workshop, leaders and essays and rhyme that shook the great white throne, carried dis­ may throughout the length and breadth of heaven, and made the hierarchies of earth totter to their base, but the inhabitants of England, thankless crew, would not buy the Secular Revieiv, would not support and encourage the greatest writer of the nineteenth century. His efforts were Titanic, his remuneration considerably less than zero. Were it not for the honor of his name, and the glory of his dear Scotland, he would have washed his hands of English Freethinkers and locked up the Agnostic Restaurant in which he figured as caterer, carver, and customer, without a rival or companion. The game was not worth a rushlight and the Free­ thinkers of England were unworthy of him. If the Secular Revieiv was to pay, it must seek buyers outside English Freethought. Saladin’s shrewdness soon saw this. How to extend the market of the Secular Review became henceforth the subject which engrossed Sala­ din’s thoughts. An accident helped him, as unexpected as it was gratifying. Within a hundred miles of the Cotswolds lives (and long may he live !) a venerable and munificent gentleman, who is nothing . if. not original. He conceived the bold scheme of building a Secular school, and has had the courage to carry it out. Now, under the roof of this noble-minded man lives a noble-minded lady, whom to see is to esteem, who has devoted herself absolutely to the cause of Freethought. �SALADIN THE LITTLE, 11 This lady was commissioned by the daring reformer to put herself in communication with some of the leaders of the party, with a view to start the school, he him­ self not wishing to figure publicly or prominently in the administration of the institution, for he is a benefactor of the unobtrusive, unassuming kind, whose delight it is to do good, and who find their great reward in the happiness of others, not in the nauseous eulogy of flatterers. The lady obeyed. She had been for years a reader of the Secular Review. She entertained, and still entertains, a high opinion of Mr. Charles Watts, while she regards with special esteem that gentleman’s gifted wife. Mr. Watts’s connection with the Secular Review had, she was at the time aware, been severed, but she was loyal to the organ which she had been so long in the habit of reading. She went to hunt up the present editor of that journal. She paid him a visit. That visit changed the course of Saladin’s boat, and explains the otherwise unaccountable metamorphosis of the man. After the first intoxication of success was over, he reviewed his position and prospects in the light of the great honor he had received. The first Secular School in England had been made over to him by deed of gift. Was not that something to be proud of ? Who said that Saladin’s services to Freethought were not recognised ? Behold a proof to the contrary —a very tangible proof too in the shape of a substantial building and a respectable plot of ground, together with many other delights and enjoyments that the world wots not of. Modesty is not a foible of Saladin’s. The world ought to know how nobly he has been paid for his “ pencraft.” The world shall know it. A golden image is set up in Farringdon Street to com­ memorate the event, while Saladin and his/satellites in the Secular Revieiv crow the song of triumph, the strutting pæan of petty pride, cock-a-doodle-doo ! cocka-doodle-doo ! cock-a-doodle doo ! That visit did it for Saladin—fed his vanity. He could now claim recognition at the hands of English Freethinkers. Was it not he who was selected to be the proud trustee of this splendid bequest, an Agnostic school whence all gods were banished except �12 SaLADIN the little. Saladin ? But alas lie has never made it known that his co-trustee was a Christian. Did this trouble him ? Not in the least. And what has been the result to Freethought of the possession of this school ? How many boys has it educated into Agnosticism ? Has it ever been full ? Never, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary. In the current issue of the Secular Review is an advertisement “that there are a few vacancies for Young Gentlemen as boarders. And what has been the cost ? In the course of the. lunacy inquiry, the other day, on poor Mr. Bullock, it came out that he paid into the London and Westminster Bank, on June 28, 1884, the sum of £900 to the account of Saladin and his Christian co-trustee. This was for three years expenses ; but in September, 1885, another £300 was applied for and eventually obtained. For the manner in which Saladin obtained two other sums of ¿£600 each as loans, and two cheques for ¿£8,000 and and £5,000 as gifts, from Mr. Bullock, see Gloucester Chronicle of Dec. 11, 1886. It was time to assert this claim. The object of his fond dreams was within his reach. But there was a leader in the field whom the party did not at all desire to abandon. What of that? Would not Christian England rejoice at any attacks made on this man, whom she hated for his ability, and detested for his influence ? She would not too nicely examine the source of the attacks, or the motives of the aggressor, so but the attacks be violent. Saladin will oblige Christian England. He launches on the unnatural crusade against the veteran Freethinker, he a raw recruit of thirty-five weeks’ standing, against him a trained warrior, grey with the burden of thirtyfive years of meritorious service. Ye gods, what a spectacle for the world ! One Lilliput shooting needle arrows at Captain Gulliver! That visit spoiled Saladin —puffed him with presumption * And the Secular Review, can it not be made to pay now ? Is there no means of converting the deficit into * Even the alleged insult of the Building Society is now admitted to be deserved. There was some foundation for it after all, as is admitted, in self-righteous indignation, by Saladin in the ¡Secular Review foi Nov. 7, 188G. Why did not Saladin admit this before? �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 13 a surplus ? What is the good of prestige, of renown and unrivalled genius if, in this free England of the nineteenth century, all these advantages and gifts cannot make a paper pay ? Saladin will make a good bid for success by smashing gods, if smashing gods will yield a revenue ; if not, by smashing anything. God-breaking, after Saladin’s fashion, was not profit­ able : the people of England were too obtuse to grasp the meaning of this celestial genius, whose writings carried terror to Paradise but created no sensation on this planet. He will attack the National Secular Society, which has never wronged him ; he will throw as much mud as he can on thè President of that Society, in the fond hope that some of’ it may stick ? Not at all, that for his mud-throwing he may earn a penny and keep the mud-mill going. Of course, in attacking the Pre­ sident of the National Secular Society, Saladin is still attacking a god. In the National Reformer, Nov. 21, 1875, p. 327, Saladin writes thus : “ And Theists, if you’ll have a god, Hail one where Bradlaugh stands.” And “ Assail us as we rank around The hero of our choice.”* His success in attacking this god is measured by the good old golden standard, far more decisive than the thunder of his declamation and the light­ ning flashes of his wit, against the gods of Sinai and Calvary. The Secular Review is floated ; Christian purses contribute to repair its timbers and patch its storm-rent sails. The Christian Evidence Society is one of its largest purchasers, and its lecturers and emissaries take good care that it is well advertised. Without breaking entirely with his Agnosticism he must, however, humor and indulge this generous Society. The articles which they so freely circulate are vile personalities, contemptible slanders, blatant vitu* It is only fair to state that this Saladinesque rhodomontade was inserted in the National Reformer by Saladin’s then friend Mr. C Watts, during Mr. Bradlaugh’s absence in America. �14 SALADIN THE LITTLE. peration and splendid indignation. Just the field in n • Saladin has no rival, and long may the field be all his own ! So, in order to keep his customers, Saladin has to attend the literary market as a sandwichman, hawking his wares. He carries two boards ; on the front one is written : “ ‘ A Terrible Attack on the irtites . ‘The Death Agony of the National Secular Society ! All by Saladin. Price twopence. Only twopence for a work of art.” On the other board this legend is inscribed : “ ‘ Sarai’s Petticoat on Sale !’ ‘ A k °J-JeSU-n *n Vomit!’ Two withering satires by Saladin. Price twopence ; only twopence. Worth a guinea each.” He has to wear a reversible coat, the one side Calvary cloth, the other Agnostic tweed. A disgrace, this, that to an honorable man is worse than literary death ; but Saladin recks it not. Has he not increased the circulation of the Secular Review ? The journal, which two or three years ago was all but dead, now circulates “ from the rosy cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun.” That visit wrecked Saladin : it made him a lover of filthy lucre. Such is the. Farringdon school of Freethought of which Saladin is the apostle and hierophant in chief. It was founded by Envy and Jealousy ; it is supported by Slander and Personalities ; it is administered by sordid meanness and unblushing Hypocrisy. Sham, Pretence, Humbug and Cant are the leading professors. The secretary is crass Ignorance. SALADIN’S QUALIFICATIONS TO LEAD EXAMINED. What are Saladin s qualifications to lead ? I have asked a most impious question. Who can be igno­ rant of Saladin’s claims ? Are they not much better known than Paul’s and more universally acknowledged than Churchill’s ? Are they not printed every week in the Secular Review, a journal that circulates “ from the rosy,cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun ” ? Are they not vouched for by independent ad­ mirers, whose number is legion, and whose testimony �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 15 may be represented by X, or better still by 0 ? too, true, alas! Yet I would fain catalogue his titles for the sake of any stray ignoramus to whom the Secular Revieiv may be a sealed book. Saladin is a man of imposing birth, the greatest writer since the death of Homer, a profound metaphy­ sician, a stirring poet, a consummate scholar. Saladin is a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche; a man who lives for a cause, not self ; truthful and truth-loving as Epaminondas ; a man of spotless honor, the preacher of a lofty morality. Such is Saladin as painted by his friends and admirers. Beautiful picture ! I must ex­ amine it more closely. txt-j-k •+ Oh! fame is a soothing balm for all sores, with it for a blanket one could lie easy and contented on a bed of thorns. How happy must Saladin be with this com­ panion ! Biographies of him have issued from the press ; then came reviews of the life story, followed in turn by correspondence on the reviews, so that Prince Bismarck is not “in it” with him. No wonder, for the chancellor of “ blood and iron ” is only the son of a poor German nobleman, while Saladin, through the yielding virtue of two of his female ancestors, claims descent from the most royal of Scotland s kings and the most gifted of Scotland’s bards. I do not blame or * reproach these dear old souls. Their blacksliding is a proof that they were daughters of Eve. The tempta­ tion was terrible, but, (rest the turf lightly on their immortal breasts!) great was their reward, for out of their weakness sprung Saladin, in whom there is no guile, who knows not sin. Saladin wields a powerful pen. His prose is racy and vigorous, but with a tendency to be prolix. In some of his verses there is the verve and go of genuine poetry, though he writes too often in blood. His judg­ ment is sadly at fault, as his idea of literary art is very confused. Insult is not wit; farcical vulgarity is not humor ; vituperation is not satire ; personalities are not the essence of sarcasm. In Saladin’s writings these terms are considered synonymous. See Life of Saladin, by Hithersay and Ernest. �16 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He may be a great metaphysician, but I do not re­ member having read many of his writings in that line. Since I have been a reader of the Secular Review, Saladin has confined himself, for the most part, to theology and historical criticism. One thing, however, strikes me as being remarkable. Saladin professes to be an Agnostic. Agnostics maintain that there are certain questions to which the only legitimate answer man can give is, “I do not know.” The origin of the world is such a question, and yet Saladin affirms that * the base of the universe is psychic not somatic. This may be a profound ontological fact, but it is not Agnosticism. At all events, metaphysicians, dealing as they do with general propositions, are not dis­ tinguished for accuracy in details. Miniature is their abhorrence : hence they are, generally speaking, failures as scholars. This metaphysical turn of mind may ex­ plain the villainous state of Saladin’s scholarship. I am aware that to question his scholarship will, in some quarters, be deemed as absurd as to deny the rotundity of the earth, or as blasphemous as to rob Jesus of his divinity. What is scholarship ? Precision, elegance, accuracy. Saladin lacks these qualities and is accordingly, not entitled to the name of scholar. He is very strong on one point—spelling: so are the pupils in our Board Schools. An error in spelling he detects at once, and makes no allowance for slips of pen, hasty writing or anything whatever. Now to spell correctly is good, and desirable, but it is sheer memory. A bad speller might write excellent sentiments. Correct spelling is not, necessarily, a mark of scholarship. But even here Saladin fails. Even in Orthography he is at sea. In recent numbers of the Secular Review, under the head­ ings “At Random” and “Editorial Notes” I have seen these gross blunders—freizes for friezes ; Belgiae for Belgae ; Germanies for G-ermani; scaribaeus for scarabiBus, Sephor for Sepher ; Tishreden for Tischreden. But enough of this. It is below criticism, but as it is the height of Saladin’s scholarship, I am compelled to descend to his level and learn the art of sinking. See Secular Review, June 28, 1884. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. J7 The editor of the Secular Review professes to bevery strong on languages- Has he not had an Academic education ? French, German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, he has them on his finger’s ends. As specimens of his knowledge of French we have savans.. But unfortunately there is no such word in that language. Chacun a son gout, is a favorite quotation of Saladin’s ; a scholar would write gout. He speaks of the possibility of Jesus standing to Joseph in the re­ lation of filles héritières. I have read a little about Jesus, and have had him presented to me in different lights, but to Saladin belongs the credit of making him a girl. He wishes a correspondent to hold his tongue, he conveys the polite hint in French, tachez vous which means, “ to defile.” Saladin would be a guide in French of questionable value. In the limited portion of the Secular Review which I have examined for the purpose of this paper, Saladin has, as far as I am aware, only once shown his acquaint­ ance with German. He refers to Luther’s Table Talk? * under its German title of course, and calls it Tishreden for Tischreden. His first German coin is a counter­ feit. In Greek, his scholarship is likewise of the super­ ficial and slovenly kind, crude as a child’s first pic­ torial attempts. He writes mra gpofirj instead of -n-âcra ypa^g. Quoting the famous oracle in Herodotus, he makes it untranslateable by introducing the word Sia^as, which is not only nonsense but not Greek even.f His Latin quotations are more numerous and, natu­ rally, the crop of blunders is in this field more luxuriant.. * The reader will please observe that I have only read the itali­ cised quotations in the Secular Review. Had I made a more thorough investigation of it, I could fill a large pamphlet with the editor’s mis­ takes and blunders. In fact I have never read an article of Saladin’s without detecting in it gross errors, if he dares to push out, ever so little, from the shallows of declamation. Even Saladin is safe on that plank—the refuge of sciolism. f He talks in one number of his journal thus: “The positive ovTos of no law of nature is known.” What is orros ? This sen­ tence is philosophy, or rather was intended to be such, but ovtoç' knocked it into nonsense. �18 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He has discovered a new plural for Calebs, which he spells Coelebses instead of Coelebes. He quotes from Augustine this sentence: “ Quid est enim pejor, mors animae quam libertas erroris.” Now, elegant classical Latinity is not a strong point of this saint; but assuredly he knew the elementary laws of the Latin language—how, for instance, and to what extent the adjective agrees with the noun. He could not but be aware that words are used to convey to others his mean­ ing.. In the same quotation the great Augustine is made to violate the rules of accidence, syntax and sense. But Augustine could never write such arrant nonsense. It is to the pen of the scholarly Saladin that the world is indebted for this linguistic puzzle, and the world will estimate the Latinity of the editor of the Secular Review at its market value—considerably less than nothing. The man who palms such impostures on the people, and complacently regards them as the offspring of a ripe and mature scholarship, ought to sail to Anticyra. He, more than once, in his journal puts to the * discredit of Wetstein the following barbarism—“tota haec oratio ex formulis Habraeorum consinnata est.” In Latin is no word consinnata. Wetstein was a scholar, and it is a cause of pain to see his works thus defiled. Saladin more than once quotes from a certain “ Henricus Seynensis.” There is no such name in the catalogues of the British Museum. There is no word in the Atlases I have consulted from which could be formed the appellative Seynensis. There was a Hen­ ricus de Senesis, and he might be called SenensisA * See Secular Review, March 22, 1884, and Oct. 23, 1886. Saladin’s scholarship has not improved during this period. Apparently he does not cut new ground in his reading, the bulk of many “ At Randoms” which, as they issue in 1886, held Civilisation spell­ bound, having appeared a couple of years before. The Book of God, which threatens to exceed the Bible in length and depth, may be patched together from the Secular Review of 1884. Saladin moves like a planet in a certain orbit, save when he quotes foreign or dead languages: then he is most erratic. t Mrs. A. R. Wilkie “ shares,” we are told, “ with the editor of the Secular Review much of the perferidwm Scotorum.” Whatever is perferidum ? What does it mean ? What can be the meaning of this conundrum ? I should like to know what it is that Mrs, A. R. Wilkie shares with Saladin. Not scholarship, I hope. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. In Hebrew he commits wild vagaries. 19 Inspiration is said to be the work of ro . I don’t think there is in the Hebrew language a word HO- What Saladin intended to write was J . Q * I am able to correct his blunder here because he has been kind enough to state to his readers in intelligible English what he managed to conceal in his, but nobody else’s, Hebrew. In the same number of the journal he transcribes two speci­ mens of Semitic printing : one he calls Chaldean, the letters being curved and rounded ; the other is named real Hebrew, in which the characters are rectangular. He wants his readers “ to form some idea of the wide difference ” between the two specimens. * There is no real difference : the letters are the same, the manner of writing being different. He wants his readers to believe that the second specimen is later than the first. This is absurd. It requires more skill to make round and curved strokes than to make straight lines. The shape of the characters or the manner of writing, is the chief criterion in deciding the age of manuscripts. Saladin is ignorant of this fact, having spent too much of his time in spelling. At the foot of the same page he gives a word-for-word translation of Gen. i., 1, from the Hebrew. This translation shows that Saladin has no knowledge whatever of the language. The word eth he renders by them, as though it was a demonstra­ tive pronoun, qualifying gods. It is nothing of the kind. In itself eth has no meaning. It only shows that the word to which it is attached is not in the nominative case. Therefore the word here cannot be taken with gods, because gods is the nominative case. No scholar before Saladin took it in that way. This is the man that poses before the world as the scholar par excellence of English Freethought. I may be told that the knowledge of languages is not essential to a public teacher. I quite agree. I am of opinion that no good or useful purpose is served by lugging * Why did not Saladin print the same passage in the two styles ? Why select Deut. iv., 1,2, to represent Specimen No. 1, but Gen. i., 1, to represent No. 2? See Secular Review, March 6, 1886. �20 SALADIN THE LITTLE. quotations from foreign and dead languages into jour­ nals which are to be read by the people, of whom ninety-nine per cent, know nothing about those lan­ guages. If, however, they are made, then, for the honor of Freethought, let them be accurate. Saladin’s quotations do not reflect much credit on his readers or himself. The intelligence of the former must be very low to be satisfied with such rubbish, and Saladin must know this, otherwise he would never have dared to insult them with words that never were used, and sen­ tences without a meaning. Of the languages he so often quotes, Saladin knows nothing or next to nothing. He cannot translate easy passages from them into Eng­ lish, not even with the aid of a grammar and a dic­ tionary. As to .Hebrew he cannot read it. But he was taught these things at a celebrated university. Then he is no credit to his teachers. Education seems to have had on Saladin the same effect as inspiration had on the writers of Israel: it leads him from, not to, truth. Let us leave language and try other fields. He does not know the names of the two sects of Islam ; at least he calls, one of them Shites. I have already pointed out his ignorance on the evolution of writing. It was Saladin that wrote the following gem:—“ The two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal to two right angles.” This language is very unscientific, as the geometry is outrageous. A boy in the sixth standard at a Board School would smart for this blunder. So it matters not into what fields of knowledge Saladin may go, one companion always follows, never deserts, his great patron—that faithful attendant of Saladin is ig­ * norance. .A ludicrous instance of Saladin’s literary knowledge and historical attainments, or want of them, is furnished by him in the A R. of Jan. 15, 1887. In answer to a correspondent and with a view to adver­ tise his patch-work book he speaks of only four copies of the Bordeaux New Testament being known to exist in England. After stating where three of these are he says “ the fourth is in the possession of the Duke of Sussex. It is to the latter copy that God and his Book is indebted.” Is it a fact then that Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, is still in the flesh, and is it a fiction that he was buried at Kensal Green in 1843 at the age of 70? Or is the matter explainable on the ground that �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 21 I admire the scholar and his impersonal existence, ■who hates error as he hates poison, to whom truth is the very bread of life, who carries his honors meekly ’ and unostentatiously, who entertains a special affection for two classes of men, those who excel.him m know­ ledge, and those who detect errors in his works. Oh. how I admire the scholar. But Saladin is not a scholar. He decks him in tawdry tinsel to catch the ears of the mob ; he has not the gold of scholarship, but the dross of pedantry ; he wears arms which he cannot use ; He never was in the temple of knowledge—what he.knows of the service he picked up from the conversations ot the wise. He dons the plumes of the bird of knowledge, but under them are the feathers of the crow. Let him return to his rookery. In the name of all that is sacred, let him prostitute no longer the scholar s holy name, no longer degrade the holy cause of breeSaladin lives for the cause not self. Does he ?. This would cover a multitude of sins. In my opinion, it would sponge away every blemish. He has been re­ solving plans of great pith, to be carried out m the West of England, when a certain auspicious event hap­ pened. There was a house to buy, lands to cultivate, and money to be made. Are commerce and convey­ ancing, Freethought? Is this the cause for . which Saladin lives ? He would have nothing to do with the Secular School unless he had absolute control of the money. If there was any objection on this point, at head-quarters, he would require a salary for doing secretarial work. If the salary offered were satisfactory, he would accept it, if not, he would sever his con­ nection with the institution. What about the cause for which he lives ? It is to be hoped that, he will re­ consider his decision, for if Saladin leaves, it, the school will soon die out, and this would be a serious blow to Freethought, the cause for which he lives. The generous founder of the School will, I have no doubt, humor Saladin’s seeming selfishness, and secure his ' Saladin stole the whole of the paragraph from a controversial journal of fifty years ago when the Radical Duke was living ? O Saladin, Saladin �22 SALADIN THE LITTLE. powerful aid, to carry on the school, by Hiving him absolute control of the endowment fund. Some of the money will, of course, be spent in buying- a mansion, close to the school which will be very will be° VvST Wiih c Seaside ^pensel will be avoided and Saladin rendered stronger and stronger to battle for the cause-stronger aid stronger m pocket. Some of the money will be required grapes t0 send t0 “arket Is this Freethought ? Perhaps not. But it will be the means of securing Saladin’s co-operation. Is this then the cause for which Saladin lives? Aye, and the only cause he has ever lived for. Does not living for thevX ,he/ois^ ? dt does- And heroes, are they not few and far between ? They are. But there are millions of heroes who live for their cause after S^Limanner KSaladin- This is the measure of ' He UVeS &r the °aU8e’ and Saladin zs a gentleman, a man of truth. He calls his opponents, some of whom are as good as he, irtites and Squirtites. All clergymen and mini­ sters, many of whom are men of culture and in­ tegrity, he names Beetles and Holy Wastrels The manners of a gentleman are not these. Saladin must ave picked up his ideas of a gentleman from a social Yahoo the head master of which was a Thug or a In his journal for July 3, 1886, Saladin says that Peter Agate is not a Christian, while in October 31, lobb, weare told that the same gentleman had found Jesus Which is true ? The founder of the Secular School handed it over to Saladin by a deed of gift because, it is written, he was an admirer of “At . andom. That is not true. A correspondent is informed that the school is full. At the time of writing that statement was not true, never has been . he fact is, the school will not fill—the cause of which is obvious ; and many are the dodges to which anS Zf1S P+lagrn?£«AAS written before the bubble burst on Dec. 7th, stand £13’°00 WaS °rdered t0 be Siven UP- Bnt I let it �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 23 Saladin resorts in order to have a large number of boys on the books—the motive for which is manifest. In various numbers of his journal he declares that he attacks a certain society because of its principles. In­ engaging a gentleman, once upon a time to fill a post of which he is the patron, Saladin informed that gentleman what salary was paid to his predecessor. But he didn’t tell the truth, committing that sin tor which Ananias suffered death. And yet Saladin is.a man of truth and he can permit himself to write of his own “ sterling sincerity and inviolable honesty. It is easy to write oneself a saint. . Saladin is a man of honor. One of his contributors thanks him for a suggestive word. Saladin accepts the compliment, though the credit, whatever it is, of com­ ing that word was not his. All that comes into Sala­ din’s net is fish. He wanted a translation of some Latin extracts that appeared in his journal. Unable to do it himself, he applied to a friend who had the trouble of doing the work, while Saladin pocketed the money, for he sold the translation for a guinea, nor offered a penny of it to the translator. Saladin falls fo.u o nearly every one whom he comes in contact with, if that person dare differ from the editor of the Secular Review. Mr. Charles Watts, Dr. Lewins, and Lara have all been scourged by him. Lara is, at one time, his second self, and highly honored. Lara deserved the honor, for he was, without doubt, by far the ablest writer on the journal. But in Oct. 1885 Saladin throws him overboard, and, coward-like, stabs him as. he falls. In a recent issue, Lara is again praised to the skies. Men of honor are consistent. But Saladin s honor is a very Proteus. Mr. Bradlaugh is generally regarded as a man of ability. Opponents recognise his intellectual power. The Lord Chief Justice of England—no mean judge— has paid many a tribute to his eloquence .and know­ ledge. Saladin himself some years ago hailed him as a hero and a God. But now he goes back on his formei convictions and, out of malice ■which, he has been long and tenderly nursing, he vilifies this gentleman in * * Saladin did not quarrel with Mr. Bradlaugh as he states, because the latter had insulted him. I have often heard Saladin declare that �24 SALADIN THE LITTLE. language that would have discredited a bargee and been considered improper in the purlieus of Seven Dials. And yet Saladin is an honorable man. It dishonor mteresting to know . Saladin’s definition of ?.es^ sPe°imen °f his honor is this. He attacks e National Secular Society week after week, in that beautiful language of elegant filth of which he is a b.e<^use that Society is Malthusian, Socialis­ tic and Materialistic ? I have proved that it is not so. Because the President of that Society is Mr. C. Brad­ laugh, his god and hero in 1875 ? That’s it. To remove refer t0 Aug. M, 1886, where you will find the real reason of Saladin s animosity and rancor stated by himself in a moment of impetuous forgetfulness. After stating that he fancied he had been insulted by Mr. Bradlaugh ; that if he were wrong he would be glad to have his error pointed out to him ; that he is a man of forgiving disposition; that he had been for a long time expecting an apology ; Saladin ruefully declares that no apologv was made, and then adds, sighing from the bottom of his wounded heart: “ Am I too insignificant a person to apologise to, however much my feelings may be wounded. That long-expected apology never came. Saladin was thought an insignificant person. Hine ' illce lacrimce. This man, the soul of honor, and essence of truth, attacks a certain Society, not because he has any quarrel with that Society, but because the President of the same considers him an insignificant person. He grossly slanders thousands of honest people who never wronged him, because the President of the National Secular Society answers his buffoonery with sueuce He calumniates a whole party to feed fat the grudge he bears to the leader of that party, because that leader holds him to be insignificant, who can “ with his pen and ever-increasing influence of his journal make the strongest man in Europe wince.” And Saladin is a man of honor, a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche. . , he had been long-watching for an opportunity to attack the “ god ” of his earlier years. Such people do not watch in vain. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 25 Then, in that number of his journal from which I quoted above, he holds out a promise that if an apology (of course, Saladin calls it amende honorable) be made to him, he will sheathe his sword and help to build up the breaches in the ramparts of Freethought, breaches that are entirely due to his rancorous spleen and in­ ordinate vanity. Impudent cynicism never penned a more audacious proposal. Week after week, month by month, and year after year, Saladin has been most shamefully attacking a certain society which, on his own showing, never wronged him, and which, to my knowledge, is morally and intellectually his superior. Now he promises that, if the President of this Society will be kind enough to notice him, and gracious enough to remove the stigma of insignificance from him, he will bury the hatchet. Mr. Bradlaugh is perfectly at liberty, and is certain, to act as he thinks fit. But what amends does Saladin propose to make to the innocent Society he has so foully calumniated ? There are words and deeds which an apology cannot blot from the memory. For Saladin’s insults there is no amende. Take a plebiscite of the National Secular Society : the verdict would be—“ Leave Saladin alone in his insult­ ing insignificance. Let us have no commerce with the man. His insolence is colossal, exceeded only by his ignorance.” This is the code of honor which is •observed by Saladin, the apostle of a pure cult, the priest of a spotless Freethought. May English Freethought never adopt this horrid code, written by the pen of malice, with the ink of petulance, on the paper of dirty insignificance. Saladin is the preacher of lofty morality. Is he ? And does he act up to the height of his doctrine ? That is the test of moral excellence. It is possible to have three kinds of moral teachers. There are those who tell others to do what they themselves neither practise nor believe—the loaf-disciples and hypocrites and blood-sucking parasites of creeds and creedless societies ; their name is legion. Next we have those splendid souls, who by word and deed do all they can to lift humanity from the misery of its environment, without for a moment forgetting that they are frail; �26 SALADIN THE LITTLE. that they fall far short of the high standard they haveintroduced into the world ; that it is easier “ to show twenty what were good to be done than be one of the twenty to follow their own instruction that, in a word, they are men. In this class are to be placed the greatest reformers of the world, humanity’s very gods,, from Jean Jacques Rousseau to Sakya Muni. The pen of the former trembled, his heart rebelled, as he reflected on the vast distance between the ideal and the actual. Honor him for an honest man—a very rose-plant indeed. Buddha, “ the best friend of man,” requested his apostles, the “ army of beggars,” to per­ form one miracle and one only—to confess their sins before the people. A miracle ! aye, a million times more stupendous than the raising of the dead to life. To tell the truth is a trite advice, but oh ! how few take it and carry it out in life! The third class of moral teachers is made up of those who practise what they preach. This class had never a representativeuntil these latter days. Even now there is in it but one man—Saladin. Hail him, Freethinkers of the universe. He is purer than Francis of Assizi, holier than Gautama, more sinless than Jesus. There never has been such a champion of conjugal' purity as Saladin. To him marriage is an inviolable contract. The keeping of this contract often entails unhappiness, begets troubles and quarrels, sometimes ends in suicide or murder, or both. “ Never mind,” says Saladin, “ nothing can justify a breach of this con­ tract.” Admirable this. Glendower can call spirits from the vasty deep. Will they come ? is Hotspur’s pertinent query. Does Saladin honorably perform his part of this inviolable contract ? Does not his pen, like Rousseau’s, tremble when he preaches his ideal evangel ? Rebels not his heart now and then ? Rises not his memory against him, to point out the places and fix the dates of his backsliding ? Oh! Saladin, oh ! Saladin, you are shod with hypocrisy and mantled in catchpenny cant. It pains me to expose your faults —for you are a Freethinker. I waited long to see if you would descend from your lip morality, and appear as a man among your fellow men. In vain. You con­ �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 27 tinue to shoot your envenomed arrows from your castle of humbug. You spare nobody to gratify your spleen and rancor : in the interests of truth I must refresh you memory. I know how you propagate the cause of Freethought— by attacking your comrades. I should like to know how you observe the marriage contract. Have you the courage of Buddha, as you have more than his holi­ ness ? Dare you tell the world how you keep the inviolable contract ? I care not to enter more fully into this matter, nor would I now touch on it, but for your inexplicable hypocrisy. I am not given to pick out the faults and slips of any man or woman. Scandal-mongering is not in my line. I kpow that you are a man and must have your weaknesses. Pray remember this fact. Do not throw the mantle of dissimulation over your humanity. Do not say that you are above hawking your genius for filthy lucre while, at the same time, you write elegies over the death of your child and trade on a father’s sacred grief at a penny per copy. Confess that you are a man. If you cannot rise to this heroic level, at least cease to throw dirt on people who are as pure and sinful as yourself. Such is the real Saladin that aspires to lead the Free­ thinkers of England. He has immortalised himself as the founder of a heresy on original foundations. The heretics of the past revolted, from love of truth, he rebels from vanity. He proclaims the purity of his motives, because nobody else would or could. He claims to be a scholar, much in the same way as an inflated bladder claims to be full of matter. He parades his tastes and gentlemanly manners : if he speak true, there is only one gentleman in the world, and that makes one too many. He is a man of honor and calumniates a party from jealousy of the President of that party. He is a man of truth, and tells lies because people will persist in considering him small. He lives for a cause, and that cause is self. He is the one sinless progeny of eternity, but his holiness resides in his tongue and pen, not in his life and conduct. He prostitutes a great historic name. Saladin was a syno­ �28 SALADIN THE LITTLE. nym of heroic valor and loyal chivalry, until Mr. Stewart Ross assumed it. Whosoever will raise such a man to the place of leader, let him by all means. If there be anybody desirous of rallying round such an intellectual and moral composite, let him by all means. But English Freethinkers, ye who criticise principles and not per­ sons, shun him like poison. His teaching will spoil you. Ye who seek truth and are not ashamed of your humanity, avoid this man, before he contaminates your better nature and converts you into automatic com pounds of vanity and hypocrisy like unto himself. Any party, save English Freethought, is welcome to such a leader. �CATALOGUE of WORKS SOLD BY ROBERT FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road, London, E.C. ALLBUTT, H. A., M.R.G.P.E., L.8.A. The Wife’s Handbook : How a Woman should order herself during Pregnancy, in the Lying-in Room, and after Delivery. With Hints on Important Matters necessary to be known by Married Women. In paper covers ... In cloth ... - 0 0 6 0 AVELING, E. B., D.Sc. Theoretical and Praotical General Biology. Cloth - - The Student’s Darwin. Cloth - - -20 -50 ANONYMOUS The Gospel History and Doctrinal Teachings Critically Examined. By the Author of “ Mankind, their Origin and Destiny.” Published at 10s. 6d. Reduced to-20 An invaluable work to the Freethinker, showing how, when and where the Canon of the Testament was formed. A Voice from the Ganges ; or the True Source of Christianity. Paper covers, Is. Cloth - 1 (> �‘ t ) BESANT, ANNIE Autobiographical Sketches, with Cabinet Photo­ . _ . 4 o A Vade Mecum for Liberationists. Cloth . _ -10 Marriage as it Was, as it Is, and as it Should Be. Cloth _ . _ -10 My Path to Atheism. Cloth .40 Boots of Christianity ; or, The Christian Religion Before Christ . „ -06 The Law of Population . *-06 God’s Views on Marriage ---02 Is the Bible Indictable ? _ 0 2 What is the Use of Prayer ? 0 1 The Myth of the Besurrection 0 1 Fruits of Christianity 0 2 Free Trade v. Fair Trade -06 graph. Cloth - . Disestablish the Church. BRADLAUGH, CHARLES Genesis : Its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth - . . _ . -50 Impeachment of House of Brunswick Perpetual Pensions Jesus, Shelley and Malthus. An Essay on the - Population Question - 1 - 1 0 0 2 0 2 Plea for Atheism 0 3 Is There a God ? . 0 1 Who was Jesus Christ? 0 1 What did Jesus Teach? -01 A Few Words about the Devil ? o i. Were Adam and Eve our First Parents? 0 1 Lives of Jacob, Jonah, Moses and Abraham. - _ . _ _ - - - . . . . . . . 0 1 0 2 o 1 0 1 Mind Considered as a Bodily Function - 0 Each Life of David The Atonement Twelve Apostles - BRADLAUGH, MISS 1 �( 3 ) BUCHNER, PROFESSOR LUDWIG, M.D. TWind in Animals. Cloth - Translated by Annie Besant. -50 The Influence of Heredity on Free Will 0 2 - COOPER, ROBERT The Holy Scriptures Analysed - - -06 - - DRYSDALE, C. R., M.D. The Population Question - - 1 0 DEBATES Christianity or Secularism : Which is True ? Four Nights, between Mr. G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. McCann. Paper covers, Is. Cloth -16 The Jesus of the Gospels. Two Nights, between Mrs. A. Besant and the Rev. A. Hatchard 1 0 0. Bradlaugh and Rev. Dr. Baylee, Mr. Thomas Cooper and Rev. A. G. Harrison, 6d. each ; and with the Rev. W. M. Westerby, on “ Has Man a Soul ?” Is. FOOTE, G. W. Prisoner for Blasphemy. Being a Full History of the Author’s Prosecution, Trials and Imprisonment for Blasphemy. Cheap edition, Is. 6d. Cloth - Was Jesus Insane ? Bible Romances. Each Bible Heroes. Each Infidel Death-Beds - - - - - - - - 2 6 0 1 0 1 -01 0 6 - - - - Cloth -10 List of Freethinkers dealt with : Lords Amberley, Byron and Bolingbroke, Bruno, Buckle, Carlile, Clifford, Collins, Condorcet, Cooper, Danton, Diderot, “ George Eliot,” Frederick the Great, Gambetta, Gendre, Gibbon, Goethe, Hetherington, Hobbes, A. Holyoake, Hugo, Hume, Littré, Miss Martineau, Mill, Mirabeau, Owen, Paine, Shelley, Spinoza, Strauss, Toland, Vanini, Volney, Voltaire, Watson, Watts and Woolston. The Shadow of the Sword - - - 0 2 FOOTE, G. W., & W. P. BALL A Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and In­ quiring Christians. Part I., Bible Contradictions ; Part II., Bible Absurdities. Each - 0 4 �(4 ) FOOTE, G. W., & J. M. WHEELER The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher Toldoth .Teshu. Translated from the Hebrew. Edited with an Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes.’ Cloth - IQ FORDER, R. There was War in Heaven (Rev. xii., 7) - - o 1 Illustrated with 80 Wood Engravings. Translated by Dr. E. B. Aveling. Cloth 6 0 HAECKAL, PROF. ERNST The Pedigree of Man. HOLYOAKE, G. J. Logic of Death - . - . - 0 1 HOWELL, MISS CONSTANCE Biography of Jesus Christ; The After Life of the Apostles ; History of the Jews. Written for young Freethinkers. Each, Paper Covers, Is. Cloth 1 6 HUME, D. Essay on Miracles. By J. M. Wheeler - With Introduction and Notes . . - 0 3 INGERSOLL, COL. ROBERT Mistakes of Moses. Paper Covers 1 0 . . _ _ -16 Lectures. One Penny each Real Blasphemy, Myth and Miracle, Live Topics, Social Salvation, Take a Road of Your Own, Divine Vivisection or Hell, The Christian Religion, The Ghosts (Parts I. and II.), Thomas Paine, Is all Religion Inspired ? (Parts I. and II.), Mistakes of Moses, Saviors of the World, What Must I do to be Saved ? (Parts I. and n.), Spirit of the Age, Intellectual Development (Parts I. and II.), Which Way ? The Oath Question, The Great Mistake, and Do I Blaspheme ? Lectures. Twopence each .-—Hereafter, Religion of The Future, Breaking the Fetters, Farm Life in America, Difficulties of Belief, and Prose Poems. Cloth TAYLOR, REV. ROBERT, B.A. . - 3 6 For this latter work the author was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a heavy fine for Blas­ phemy. 2 0 The Diegesis The Devil’s Pulpit. Two vols. - Printed and Published by R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Saladin the little : an exposure Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jacob, T. Evan Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list (4 p.) at the end. Subtitle on p.[3]: 'Saladin's motives exposed'. William Stewart Ross was a Scottish writer and publisher. He was a noted secularist thinker, and used the pseudonym "Saladin". Between 1888 and 1906 he was the editor of the Agnostic Journal, successor to the Secular Review. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Robert Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N571 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Saladin the little : an exposure), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Free Thought NSS Secularism William Stewart Ross https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/942bcdae16dcac69905eac62b6a49dd7.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=IAdbR44QStw%7Ett%7EGiPv57YkSVYcBVZrCk0awylRS%7Ed5EaJG3nvpECbYfLTCS3AQESaWf1VfnYffkcUhReQYyaAQ5-Ngmmk2omuyPAkYA71AOBkvNzRwUY5b27kOkdDZBOr7Cp20MmReksN-kFtY7lp%7EkFjIu4ZTGshrHxaB8HDaZAU0bL%7E29AahYS3mg4MC2wuNDgeB4YxhPufS5AI60jiNrzalfmVA4yRdbbdgGlxo-aDR1X8Zt5a1ZPxYhlXbnh1RAGtxqG2u3lMHEwaNwlLS4oVQT5NEBSLpO8F4JrzQaao9OHemzxwDjrmerUILmbkgpgZb201a8yaVvpgjzpA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c4c9abe3107a61cd27706315954dd420 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AND FACT 4 A Letter to The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D. BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. REPRINTED FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW (November 1887). Price Twopence, LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING ¡COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. : �LONDON : FEINTED AND FUFIISHED BY U. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.U. �N'34-4- FAITH AND FACT. My Dear Mr. Field,—I answer your letter because it is manly, candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief, tends to show that those who love God are not always the friends of their fellow men. Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be' eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro­ gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ? ” And- yet “some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous, rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect to receives as alms an eternity of joy. The first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence of honest error—as to the right to express an honest thought. You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im­ portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the advocates of protection. There are honest Democrats and sincere Republicans. How do you account for these differences? Edu­ cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions capable of solution—questions that the mind can grasp, concerning which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this ? If such differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those who differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining different views on subjects about which nothing can be positively known ? You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ” do. How do you account for this difference? Of course, your brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian God—are governed by charity and love. They do not regard me as a monster because I have committed an infamous crime, but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest thoughts. What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great �care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? Was it my duty to remain silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a monster ? Has religion had control of the world so long that an honest man seems monstrous ? According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and sowed within those wonderous fields the seeds of every thought and deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it as a guide to all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the brain. And yet there are millions who do not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian ever stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar with nature from sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries and conclusions, “ more precious than the tested gold,” to all mankind. Yet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied the existence of their God. Certainly Charles Darwin was one of the greatest and purest of men—as free from prejudice as the mariner’s compass—desiring only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance the star of truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the intellectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate conclusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of mankind. In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest, and The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion becomes a gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest, thoughtful, brave, and generous man. Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and tell me, candidly, which, in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy, or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same freedom of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason is the supreme and final test. If God has made a revelation to man, it must have been ad­ �dressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could even decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the starless night —blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains. You draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call “ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com­ mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ? What is your opinion of Jehovah himself ? Is not the sacrifice of a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ? Why should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Wh y should the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg of the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light ? You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care of the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through a false belief on the part of the mother, She breaks her heart for love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian mother who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a convict in the eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from which none escape ? What do you say of those Christians who believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstasy that all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred relations of life and all the passions of the heart will fade and die, so that they will look with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the miseries of the lost ? You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be distin­ guished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.” Let us test your religion by this rule. Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and is it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also another question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise ? According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you con­ demn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say, for acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—do you not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when you reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that which happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not make that a �( 6 ) virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do you not bring your own religion exactly within your own definition of superstition ? The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We mnst. believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish. That which must be, has the right to be. We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old accustomed ways. The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest thoughts? You certainly have the right to express yours, and you. have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who regard me as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question now is, have I the right to express mine ? In other words, have I the right to answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me which is a virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition of superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is simply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your honest thoughts ? When, and where, and how did I lose mine ? You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because I differ with you mn a subject about which neither of us knows anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof of the depravity of man. You are far better than your creed. You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing the fright­ ful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon whom they are used, that the religion of those who use them was founded by a God of infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now persecutes for opinion s sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship will, according to your creed, torture through all the endless years the man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is the foundation and cause of ’ all religious persecution. You may reply that only the belief in a false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you must admit that the Jews believed in a true God, and you are forced to say that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they crucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was committed, not in spite of their religion, but in �accordance with it. They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on account of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At this point absurdity becomes infinite. Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of death. And this you call a “consolation.” You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According to your creed a man must believe in your god, All the nations dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe in any one of the heathen gods. What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and to put forth arguments that even Christians have answered ? The Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the Bible. This answer was complete. I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the super­ natural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous myths. Yet a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make men charitable or just. For most people, theism is the easiest solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that there must be a being who created and who governs the world. But the universality of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The belief in the �( 8 ) existence of a malignant devil has been as universal as the be lief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent men will say that the universality of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to prove his existence. In the world of thought majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with the few. Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man has sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and child ; he has fasted and prayed ; he has suffered beyond the power of language to express, and yet he has received nothing from the gods —they have heard no supplication, they have answered no prayer. You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest and the criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is cruel to all alike ? In other words, do they not demonstrate the absolute im­ partiality of the divine negligence ? Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts' or floods ; the crops would not be permitted to wither and die, while rain was being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good man with power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones ? Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the lightning ? Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve the vile ? Why should he treat all alike here, and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ? Does it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of shame when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of her babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with sobs, commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ? It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed, you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci­ tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence of God. Now, ,if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of the soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity ? Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You seem to �think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for the Atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being he so passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon—one of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely strung that he was sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you driven to the neces­ sity of proving the existence of one tyrant by the words of another? Personally, I have but little confidence in a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans. In regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast amount of testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of Charles Darwin, and then denied the correctness of these theories—preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause of the intellectual world. I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constellations. But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the universe by the mystery of God, you do not even exchange mysteries—you simply make one more. Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation. The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God. That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that man can be convinced by any evidence of the existence of that which he can­ not in any measure comprehend. Such evidence would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible fact sought to be es­ tablished by it, and the intellect of man can grasp neither the one nor the other. You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God— is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship the in­ flexible ? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ? You say that your God “ does not bend to human thought any more than to human will,” and that “ the more we study him, the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to be.” So that after all, the only thing you are really certain of in relation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is it not almost, ab­ surd to insist that such a state of mind is necessary to salvation, �( 10 ) or that it is a moral restraint, or that it is the foundation of social order ? The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the I. cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian nation more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ? Certainly you must know that what you call religion has produced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the sword all the natural ties that produce “ the unity and married calm of States.” Theology is the fruitful mother of discord ; order is the child of reason. If you will candidly consider this question, if you will for a few moments forget your preconceived opinions, you will instantly see that the instinct of self-preservation holds society together. People, being ignorant, believed that the gods were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms that demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms that could be flattered by praise and changed by prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve themselves. They supposed that they could in this way avoid pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do you not see that self-preservation lies at the foundation of worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplishment of certain ends. Men defend their property because it is of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire to live, and for that reason murder is a crime. Fraud is hateful to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce the necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of value. This is the foundation of social order, and this holds society together. Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together. Of What consequence is anything in this world compared with eternal joy ? You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes and preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your God is responsible for the government of this world. Does he preserve �(11) S> order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did he establish the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of the Inquisition ? You answer all these questions by calling my attention to “the retributions of history.” What are the retributions of history ? The honest were burned at the stake ; the patriotic, the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons ; whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They who committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified these infamies were adorned with the tiara. You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg said: “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.” Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he says__ speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—“ If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must be said, ‘ The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ ” But admitting that you are correct in the assertion, let me ask you one question : Could one standing over the body of Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman’s wound, have truthfully said : “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty ” ? .Do you really believe that this world is governed by an infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even yourself of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ? Why should the loving be tortured ? Why should the noblest be destroyed ? Why should the world be filled with misery, with ignorance and with want ? What reason have you for believing that your God will do better in another world than he has done and is doing in this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he have more power ? Will he be more merciful? When I say “your God,” of course I mean the God described in the Bible and the Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of the existence of an Infinite Being. An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an Infinite Being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do nothing for a Being who wants nothing. A conditioned being can be made happy or miserable by changing conditions, but the conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and effect. I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a �( 12 ) God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe God as “ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind, is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I am acquainted, and I was surprised to find in your lettter the expression that “ perhaps others are better acquainted with that of which I am so ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say that you know any­ thing of any other state of existence—that you have inhabited some other planet—that you lived before you were born, and that you recollect something of that other world, or of that other state ? Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unintention­ ally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have never uttered a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality, that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or the folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one. The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou­ sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had lived and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven of the New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, aftei’ they were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word was said to have been uttered by Christ—.-nothing philosophic, nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the cloud of doubt. According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did not some one of his disciples ask him where he had been ? Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ? There was the opportu­ nity to “bring life and immortality to light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had left—speechless as the stone that angels had rolled away. �( 13 ) How do you account for this ? Was it not infinitely cruel to leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could have filled time with hope and light ? ’ The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long as men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the human heart. All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those who hope to live again—Tor those who bend above their dream of life to come. But I have denounced tjbf, selfishness and heartlessness of those who.'expect for themselves an eternity of joy, and for the rest of mankind predict, 'Without a tear, a world of endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible thair, such a hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of the human race. When I say that>1 do not know^tfheh'dh.deny the existence of perdition, you-reply that “therefis something very cruel in this treatment of the,belief of my fellow creatures.” You have had the goodness to inyijte me to a grave over which a mother bends an^v^ps for only son.1 I accept your invitation. We will go togetlj^r. £ Do not, pray yon,'Ideal in splendid generali­ ties. Bh. explicit. Bemember fhat the son for whom the loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for some star of hope in the midnight of •her grief. What must you say ? Do not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus: Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a portion of the Presbyterian con­ fession of faith ? Will you read this ? “ Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi" deuce, do so far maniflfc the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man inexcusably yet they are not sufficient to give that know­ ledge of God and of his will which is necessary to salvation.” Or, will you read this ? By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.” Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say: �( 14 ) “ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life for me. Is there no hope for him ?” Would you then put this serpent in her breast ?— “ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives according to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works meA^ pardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation’ Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to them­ selves and others, are sinful and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God.” And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What has become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still read from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism, this ?— “The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. At the last day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the wicked shall be cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torment, both of body and soul, with the Devil and his angels forever.” If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would you thrust this dagger in her heart ?— “ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.” If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of Christ ?— “ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.” Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “Your son lived in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach. He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son is for ever lost. You can meet your son again only by dying in your sins ; but if you will give your heart to God you can never clasp him to your breast again.” What could I say ? Let me tell you. “ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply �( 15 ) stated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear. If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him, according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he gave his life for him ; and why should that love be changed to hatred the moment your son was dead ? “My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no rewards—there are consequences ; and of one thing you may rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere it may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing right. “ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is some­ thing. Your son does not suffer. Next to a life of joy is the dreamless sleep of death.” Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox Chris­ tianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in this world, where every human being is enshrouded in cloud and mist—where all lives are filled with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is it “ a conso­ lation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal pain ” ? Is it possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from the doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If that doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why should he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer for ever ? Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Compared with this crime, any crime that any man can by any possibility commit is a virtue. Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was made. If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un­ justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of the guilty ? According to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will, makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man, and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.” �( 16 ) I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment, nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con­ sequences ; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness of man ; and the consequences must be borne. A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power. The laws of the State are made, and, being made, can be changed; but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all power, and consequently, there is no analogy between the laws of the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not change the relation between the diameter and circumference of the circle. A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be to suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all: Nature cannot pardon. You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has by his perfidy broken a loving and a confiding heart. No power can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no atone­ ment. But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven to insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships strain at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught that this poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of infinite com­ passion. This is not all that you have taught. You have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would not listen to her wailing cry—who would not even stretch forth his hand to catch her fluttering garments—you have said to him : “ Believe in the �( 17 J Lord Jesus Christ; and you shall be happy forever; you shall live iu the realms of infinite delight, from which you can, without a shadow falling upon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the agonies of hell.” You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how an angel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand of God, should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of the damned. You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence­ ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—that he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You seem to have forgotten the line which you emphasised with italics : “ The effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause, is eternal.” In the light of this sentence, where do you find a place for your for­ giveness—for your atonement ? Where is a way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not see that this sen­ tence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theological. You have put “ new wine into old bottles,” and the predicted result has followed. Will the angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose their memory ? Will not all the redeemed rascals remember their rascality ? Will not all the redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ? Will not the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the redeemed be as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ? If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly happy ; and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the kind actions, the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the memory of good deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost can never be per­ fectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one ? So that the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying pain, and the undying memory of those in hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done good and bad, the future can’ have neither a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ? I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness of another. �( 18 ) If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice, the effects following a noble and disinterested action ; if you mean that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the human race—which your letter seems to show—then there is no question between us. If you have thrown away the old and bar­ barous idea that a law had been broken, that God demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our place, then I congratulate you with all my heart. It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the globe, so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men. According to your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here, the vicious-may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here, a few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in your future state, for countless billions of the human race, there will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see that your future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem to mistake the glare of hell for the light of morning. Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us “ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of this life.” You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for cari­ cature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, you mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility, and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, aud concludes to act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regeneration, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regeneration in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There is some mys­ terious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency, called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under the con­ trol, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regeneration that I have attacked. You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying, “ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live and die on the earth.” �( 19 ) I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said nothing against the institution of slavery; nothing against the tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals; nothing about education, about intellectual progress ; nothing of art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the rights and duties of nations. You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this is necessary to educate the human race. It is not enough to say to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny. Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue the right of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the world. Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of hundreds of millions of human beings? How is it that he conquered and overran more than half of the Christian world? How is it that on a thousand fields' the banner of the cross went down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ? How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ? Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius, whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired —this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of millions of his fellow-men ? How do you account for Buddha, in many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he who was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was born, to declare the universal brotherhoood of man, great enough to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind ? How do you account for him, who has had more followers than any other ? Are you willing to say that all success is divine ? How do you account for Shakespeare, born of parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly ac­ quainted with the human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of �( 20 ) all experience, and a prophecy of all to be ; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty and depth of whose words increase with the intelligence and civilisation of mankind ? How do you account for this miracle ? Do you believe that any founder of any religion could have written “ Lear ” or “ Hamlet ” ? Did Greece pro­ duce a man who could by any possibility have been the author of “ Troilus and Cressida ” ? Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Rome an intellect that could have written the tragedy of “ Julius Caesar ” ? Is not the play of “ Antony and Cleopatra ” as Egyptian as the Nile ? How do you account for this man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of every race, and in whose brain there were the poetry and philo­ sophy of a world ? You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the darkness, cried out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ”—for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theological mask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a great and genuine man. It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness “ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there was something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his fellow­ creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a “ gene­ ration of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepulchres.” How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ? They go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They tell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their religion is a lie, not only that their Gods are myths, but that the ancestors of these people, their fathers and mothers, who never heard of God, of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in perdition. Is not this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature ? A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain. Aireligion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out: “Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my feelings,” is fit only for asylums. You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power. While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the �( 21 ) dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these thingsbecause he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ? Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he not, with a touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power to give sight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not exercise it, what would be thought of you? What is the difference between one who can, and will not cure, and one who causes disease? Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of her body like morning on the desert. What would I think of myself had I the power by a word to send the blood through all her withered limbs freighted again with life, should I refuse ? Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have beenproduced by and are really the children of religion. Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct by means of which happines s can be attained in another world. The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular. They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and are of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest, courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure without being religious—that is to say, without any belief in the supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is to say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a m an who is kind and loving in his family may or may not believe in the Bible. In order that you may see t he effect of belief in the formation of character, it is only necessa ry to call your attention to the fact that your Bible shows that th e Devil himself is a believer in the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains a devil still. Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super­ stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Christi­ anity—or at least crimes th at involved the commission of all others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made �"blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship was called “The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds, the fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ to crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of the Most High. As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention to an incident. You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of having all things in common. Their followers, who had something, were to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds over to these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, concluded to keep a little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good and pious bankers should abscond. When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not; where­ upon God, the compassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They did not tell her that her husband had been killed. They deliberately set a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough or noble enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to believe that her husband had told his story, and that she was free to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that they were giving more than they could afford, and, with the instinct of a woman, wanted to keep a little. She denied that any part of the price had been kept back. That moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart. Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime than mendacity. You have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you really wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army should send word to the general of the other that his men were firing too high, do you think the general would be misled ? Can you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the message ? I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to �( 23 ) worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not in the interest- of freedom. It never entered their minds that other men had the same right to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment they had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison and burn. They did not believe in religious freedom. They had no more idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah. I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or assassi­ nated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in fighting the hordes of religious superstition. Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire. He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white­ ness of his soul. For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church was a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many cen­ turies with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the earth. Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold sneer —half pity half sneer—with which I look down on household worship.” Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in this life, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have my entire respect. Never have I said one word against the spirit of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of the man who gathers his family about him after the storm, or after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours out his heart in thankfulness to the sup­ posed God who has protected his fireside. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol of stone, or his fetish of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one nor of the other that I respect, it is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt the prayer. I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, cool clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its. perfume to the air. The �( 24) home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire, the fairest flower in all this world. What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home ? What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifica­ tion of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happiness in another to those who would desert their wives and children and follow him ? What effect has that promise had upon family life ? As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Christi­ anity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ, and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that. Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife to desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled souls. It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to love God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ. It is better to serve your neighbor than to serve your God —even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the pathway of another. It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why should he waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same thoughts repeated again and again ? Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust, the laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul in his body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich, may go to the village church which you have described. They answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this village church ? Is it that God is the father of the human race ; is that all ? If that were all, you never would have heard an objection from my lips. That is not all. If all ministers said : Bear the evil of this life ; your Father in heaven counts your tears ; the time will come when pain and death and grief will be forgotten words—I should have listened with the rest. What else does the minister say to the poor people who have answered the chimes of your bell He says : “The smallest sin deserves eternal pain.” “ A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer the wrath of God for ever.’ He fills �( 25 ) the present with fear and the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,” and a great highway worn with countless feet that leads to ever­ lasting death. Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real sav­ ages. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get ac­ quainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange civilities with your neighbors ; and gladly would I see the church in which such sermons are preached changed to a place of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox sermons—the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in crevices and corners— driven out by the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the Sunday-school, where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed to a happy dance upon the village green. Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades. Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery. You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without the sanctions of religion. Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit. It has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all. Of course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not mur­ der but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of escape ; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I in­ sist that such religion is no restraint. It is far better to teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every human being must bear the consequence of his acts. The first great step toward national reformation is the universal acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their country homes into a city filled with temptations, may be restrained by the thought of father and mother. This is a natural restraint. They may be restrained by their knowledge of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its consequences, and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot conceive of such a man being more liable to temptation because he has heard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only good is happiness—that the only way to attain that good is by doing what he believes to be right. I can­ not imagine that his moral character will be weakened by the statement that there is no escape from the consequences of his acts.' You seem to think that he will be instantly led astray — that he will go off under the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. �( 26 ) Do you think the Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent this would you recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament ? Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ? Do you think this would enable him to withstand temptation? Would it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts, so that he may know exactly the physical consequences of such acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ? Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ? You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves. You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious and profligate. The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have en­ tertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say to you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has to do with this world, and with this world alone. My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the gaoler of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is to say, the super­ natural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a convict. Under the government of a personal deity, consequences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards. Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments and rewards are simply conse­ quences. Nature does not punish. Nature does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do not think : “ This is being done by a tyrant.” When the sun shines, I do not say : “ This is being done by a friend.” Liberty means freedom from personal dictation. It does not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in Nature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Temperance walks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain from the body puts an additional responsibility upon the soul. Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit �yourself ; you increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a question of intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or to infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those you injure, and to none other. I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature. There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which happens must happen. The present is the child of all the past, the mother of all the future. Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence have they on which to found this belief ? When has any God listened to the prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven falls—when and where has the prayer of man been answered ? Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of prayer ? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United States. The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their knees and asked God to spare the life of one man. You know the result. You know just as well as I that the forces of Nature pro­ duce the good and bad alike. You know that the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You know that the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking to death the honest man that it does or would in striking the assassin with his knife lifted above the bosom of innocence. Did God hear the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear the prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of glorious men ? Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of those whose hearts were his ? Why should any man depend on the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing that they would suffer eternal grief ? The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate or manly or womanly sentiment of love and honor ”—is the faith that nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought an honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith because those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ? You say to me : “ There is a hell. A man advocating the opinions you advocate will go there when he dies.” I answer : “ There is no hell. The �( 28 ) And you say : “ How can Bible that teaches that is not true.” you hurt my feelings ? " You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother. Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the Apostles ? Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of their fathers and mothers? Did they not join with him who denounced their people as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they not follow one who offered a reward to those who would desert father and mother ? Of course you have only to go back a few generations in your family to find a Field who was not a Presbyterian. After that you find a Presby­ terian. Was he base enough and infamous enough to heap con­ tempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All the Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion of their fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is a prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his mother a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not se.e that your doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ? If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of forgive­ ness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree with you when you say that <l Christ is Christianity and that it stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the founda­ tion of your religion. If it should be established beyond doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Christianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who painted or chiseled the greatest pictures and statues so long as we have the pictures and statues. When he who has given the world a truth passes from- the earth the truth is left. A truth dies only when forgotten by the human race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in the human heart, were known and practised for uncounted ages before the birth of Christ. You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abject terror ’ — does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.” Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible to tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive a worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the race ? �( 29 ) Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ” who be­ lieves your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have committed “ the un­ pardonable sin”—a sin to which your God has attached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe the offence ? Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the penalty of eternal pain for the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the secrecy of infinite darkness ? How much happier it is to know nothing about it, and to believe nothing about it! How much better to have no God. You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer elements of character, conduce to our future happiness.” This is an old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is, that this world is a school in which man becomes educated through tri­ bulation—the muscles of character being developed by wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this life in order to develop character, in order to become worthy of a better world, how do you account for the fact that billions of the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this necessary education and development ? What would you think of a schoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his scholars during the first day, before they had even an opportunity to look at A ? You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for righteousness.” If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of nature ? If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ” that man, as he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not only takes ad­ vantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit, but perceives more and more clearly that if he be happy he must live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony with the facts by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the relations he sustains to others and to things; if this is what you mean, then there is “ a power making for righteousness.” But if you mean that there is something supernatural at the back of nature directing events, then I insist that there can by no possibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power. The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall. There is a limit to the life of a race ; so that it can be said of every nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteousness, and that there came a time when this nation became a spendthrift, when it �( 30 ) ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the labors of its youth, and passed from strength and glory to the weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb. The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only power that makes for righteousness. You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two thou­ sand years before I was born, and that it will live two thousand years after I am dead. Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself ? Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this to Christ ? Could he not have said : “ The religion of Jehovah began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it will live two thousand years after you are dead ?” Could not a follower of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a missionary from Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say: “You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha began to be twenty-five hundred years before vou were born, and hundreds of millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s shrine ?” Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider that the survival of the fittest ? Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during the Middle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no differ­ ence between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is the same Christianity that has been living all these years ? Have you noticed any change in the last generation? Do you remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in the Bible are exceeding anxious to prove its trurn by some fact that science has demonstrated? Do you know that the standard has changed? Other things are not measured by the Bible, but the Bible has to submit to another test. It no longer owns the scales. It has to be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing lighter and lighter every day. Do you know that only a few years a go “the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a description of hell ? Do vou know that nearly every intelligent minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about it, or to talk about it ? Is there any change ? Do you know that but few ministers now be­ lieve in “the plenary inspiration ” of the Bible, that from thou­ �( 31 ) sands of pulpits people are now told that the creation according to •Genesis is a mistake, that it never was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of the Old Testament are considered simply as myths or mistakes ? How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ? What will there be left of the supernatural ? It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to mas­ sacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers to persecute wives and daughters unto death for opinion’s sake. It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the creator and preserver of the universe. Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours and is ■devoured ? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Innocence is not a certain shield ? It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment. If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane. Day after day there are mournful processions of men and women, patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving lips, driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. These men, these women, these daughters go to exile and to slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death. Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” sees all this and sits as silent as a god of stone ? And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another procession, in which are the noblest and the best, iu which you will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the human race, the teachers of their fellow men, the greatest soldiers that ever battled for the right; and this procession of countless millions in which you will find the most generous and the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony becomes immortal. How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this infinite lie ? Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been �( 32 ) necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all mis­ takes and all crimes were simply necessities ? Is it not possible that out of this perception may come not only love and pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual ? May we not find that every soul Jias; like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of fate ? You ask me to take the “sober second thought.” I beg of you to take the first, and if you do you will throw-away the Presby­ terian creed ; you will instantly perceive that he who commits the. smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who does; the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss you will becomj* convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years is ah infinite demon ; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and cannot exist. For you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not« to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a ereed- that should be shrieked in a mad-house^ Do not make the cradle as terri-blbj as the coffin. Preach, I.pxay you, the gospel of intellectwj hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take from loving^ hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose tears are falling on the pallid faces of those who died in unbelief. ‘ Pity tbp,erring, wayward", I suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as “ tidings of greatj joy ” that an Infinite Spider*is weaving webs to catch the souls of men. 1 I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N344 Subject The topic of the resource Religion Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Religion