1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5b999671d2233aa6ed8398b565dfc2dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Z%7ECDrdnlZO8LFZAjxDlOvSu-wiFW3gciE2Tul4IS7sU2wJAfvzAI7Gbapup4m6Gf90-WX7qE18x6gM1FBrsZpj7oJ7vXo%7E2Irkdc65c6TsHEdbr9960f5HIIpr1WvaiFYypy7oAPLI-6Kkp1blxe60TtpSfxokwsjlR3NA9R3pKyRPbZTMxna2RRTywfBIW%7EFHxBTvv1tViXn2CI6U8RwNSco2P5pNCviQTFcJavS%7E4QL1HjmtygUxmkLBPWoC1bvtQNzE9ff6EPj5EhTAQw9EYQZYSIkG4VNWUrhhDeNhm1kXPdHMaAjfxQcOX5zrQ8%7EF02MiiTQJk3icNtw2XycQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
10064613ce716a85386cccaafef39d71
PDF Text
Text
W88
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
TWO ADDRESSES
DELIVERED BY
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose,
AT THE
BIBLE CONVENTION,
HELD IN HARTFORD, (CONN.,) IN JUNE, 1854.
Being Her Replies to tiie Rev. Mr. Turner
Accompanied with Comments on the Un
reasonable Character of the Bible.
[Published by request.]
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1888.
��MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE
ON
THE BIBLE.
FIRST ADDRESS.
J/y Friends:—I rise under peculiar disadvan
tages : one is, that it is so late, and another that
the ground has been most ably, eloquently, and
masterly occupied by the various speakers who
preceded me. Under these circumstances I would
prefer not to speak at all, were it not for the fact
that this movement seems to be one of the highest
and greatest importance that has taken place in
our age — (Applause)—of more importance even
than the one that has so long lain at my heart,
the rights of woman—(Applause)—for it is closely
connected with it; and as woman has not been
represented here, I feel it my duty to raise my
voice and protest against the Bible, or, as it is
called, the Word of God; for if a line of demarkation could be drawn of the injurious effects pro
duced by the errors of that book on man or wo
man, I would say most emphatically, that on
account of the inferior education and experience of
�4
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
woman, the errors of the Bible which have been
palmed off upon society as emanations from some
superior wisdom and power, have had a far more
pernicious effect on the mind of woman than of
man, for knowledge and experience are the only
safeguards against superstition ; and as woman has
received less of the light of knowledge, supersti
tion has had a stronger hold on her mind, and has
enslaved her far more than man. (Applause,
hisses, and cries of “ Shame! shame! ”)
Mrs. Rose, on looking around at the confusion,
said—My conviction is, that man always acts as
well as he can; and if I see my poor unfortunate
fellow-being act as it appears to me inconsistent
and irrational, I can but pity him for it. (Ap
plause.)
The question under consideration, I believe, is
the origin, influence, and authority of the Bible, or,
Ts the Bible an emanation from, or inspiration of,
God ? It seems to me that it would have been
more in order had we commenced by inquiring
what is meant by the term God, or Divine; but
here again a difficulty presents itself, Where shall
we commence to make the inquiry? If we go
back to past ages, to the very infancy of the race,
and from thence come up to the present time and
hour, and ask the definition of God, the answer
would be that, just what any age or people con
sidered their beau-ideal of greatness, of wisdom, of
virtue, and of perfection, they embodied in one
grand idea, and called it God. (Renewed and
long-continued disturbance in the gallery.) I will
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
5
wait till I can be heard. (Renewed confusion.)
This confusion is an evidence of the influence of
the Bible. (Hissing.) The Bible tells them that
woman “ should not speak in public.” Oh! no, she
must not raise her voice in behalf of truth and
humanity, and if she does, she is met with con
fusion and riot by the believers in that doctrine;
but after all, that is the best argument that can be
brought m support of the Bible. With the sword
it has been promulgated, with riot and confusion it
must be supported. (Applause and hisses.) Yes !
if we go back to the past, we find that men in all
ages, all countries, conditions, and states, have
always embodied what to them appeared the acme
of perfection, and worshipped it. In those ages
wherein the warrior, the conqueror, the hunter has
been considered the most perfect and noble beings
m the conception of men, they have cut out images
of stone, wood, silver, and gold, to embody the
various attributes, and knelt down and worshipped
them; and as we came up from the long past,
through all ages, without mentioning the various
gradations, for time is short, to the present time,
we still behold the same. The opinions only as to
what constitutes greatness, goodness, and perfec
tion, have changed; the tastes have become more
refined, the feelings more humanized, the minds
more enlightened and consistent.
Man, in fact, lias become more civilized; there
fore the beau-ideal of his conception, or the idol of
his imagination, is so too. Thus, instead of cutting
out an image of the grosser materials, or painting
�6
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
it on the canvas, ancl then kneeling clown to wor
ship it, he shuts his eyes and beholds the embodi
ment of what appears to him to be the greatest,
best, and noblest of human attributes, on the
retina of his imagination, and bows down his head
and pays homage to it; but however gross or re
fined, it is ever a likeness of himself, or what he
would wish to be. It has been a great mistake to
say that God has made man in his image, for man
in all ages and times has made his God in his
image, and hence we have as great a variety of
religions and gods as we have stages and grada
tions of man’s perception of the true, the beautiful,
and the noble, from the darkest ignorance and
barbarity to the present comparative state of know
ledge and civilization. (Prolonged applause, hiss
ing, and hooting.) Hiss on, if it does you any
good. I give utterance to these convictions to aid
in man’s emancipation from the superstition and
ignorance from which he has so long suffered. I
know but too well what it is to go against the
long-cherished and time-honored prejudices and
superstitions. It is no pleasant task to go against
the current, but there is a sense of duty that
balances all unpleasantness, even hissing and hoot
ing, and all, that is more potent than all persecu
tions, that brings a peace of mind, content, and
happiness that none can feel but the mentally free.
(Applause.) But to the subject. The Rev. Mr.
Turner denied the objections brought against the
Bible, saying that objections were not arguments ;
but I would respectfully remind him, that denials
�MRS. E. L. IiOSE ON THE BIBLE.
/
are no arguments, and it would have been better to
confute the arguments that were brought against
the Bible, than to do nothing but constantly deny
them. (Applause.)
To judge of the inspiration of the Bible we
must examine the Bible itself, and as its contents
will appear consistent or inconsistent, so we must
pronounce it based upon truth or error, for truth is
always consistent with itself, and with every other
truth, while error is always inconsistent. Now,
when we examine the Bible hi its commencement,
we find its account of creation is perfectly incon
sistent with, and contrary to, the sciences of ge
ology, astronomy, physiology, and all well-ascer
tained facts based upon science and truth; and
therefore we are justified in saying that whosoever
wrote or inspired that part of the book must have
been utterly ignorant of all these sciences; and as
we proceed, we find so many inconsistencies, vices,
and cruelties, that it is impossible to ascribe them
to a wise or kind and benevolent power or being.
(Hissing, stamping of feet, and whistling in the
gallery, and cries of “ Go on, go on.”) My friends,
there was once a time when I had a voice strong
enough to speak against all opposition, and be
heard, but that time is past. My constitution has
been somewhat broken, and mainly broken in the
great conflict against error. I had hoped that
whatever our opponents might think of my opin
ions, they would behave like gentlemen, though
believers and defenders of the Bible. (Cries of
■x‘ Hear, hear.”) [A lady said—“ If you have a
�8
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
heart to speak, speak on.”] (Great applause.) I
thank my sister for saying so. I have a heart to
speak, and I will speak. (Tremendous applause.)
My friends, you who do not know how long and
how ardently I have wished for such a movement,
can have no idea how I rejoice in this Convention,
even hissing and all. (Applause.) The time was,
some twenty-five years ago, when I stood alone on
a platform—(Voice, “Where?”)—for precisely the
same noble cause, to defend the rights of humanity
against the assumptions, superstitions, and errors
of the Bible, without knowing that there was
another human being in the wide world who
thought as I did, and there and then I bore testi
mony against the same errors that I do now.
(Applause and hissing.)
[The Rev. Mr. Turner expressed his hopes that
Mrs. Rose would not be interrupted.]
As we proceed in our investigation of the Bible
we find it inculcates war, slavery, incest, rapine,
murder, and all the vices and crimes that blind
selfishness and corruption could suggest; many
have been enumerated here to-day, but it is utterly
impossible to enumerate all. That book has been
a two-edged sword to men; it has united them in
nothing but persecution; to woman it has been
like a millstone tied to her neck to keep her down;
it has subjected her to the entire control and arbi
trary will of man. It has libelled human nature,
and libelled the very God of whom it speaks—it
represents him as having created man in utter
ignorance of consequences, as having created one-
�AIRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
9
sex, ancl pronounced it all to be very good, but
foiuid out that “it was not good for man to be
alone,” therefore he created woman—not for the
same aims and objects of life that he created man
—Oh! no; but because he found, contrary to his
expectation, that it was not well for him to be
alone. So, after he had finished his work, and
rested, he had to go to work again and make
woman. This might be sublime if it were not
ridiculous. And yet, do you know, my sisters, that
most of the subjugation of woman, the tyranny
and insult heaped upon her, sprung directly or in
directly from that absurd and false assumption. It
is an insult to the suposed Creator to say he
created one-half of the race for the mere purpose
of subjectmg it to the other, as well as a libel on
the nature and powers of woman, to say that there
is no other aim nor destiny in her existence except
to be a mere plaything or a drudge to man, as the
circumstances may require. The writers of all
such parts of the Bible, where it libels her nature
and powers, and therefore restricts her rights more
than man’s, were alike devoid of a knowledge of
her nature and destiny, as of wisdom, justice, and
humanity.
Yes, in reading that book understandingly, and
judging it by its own contents, it tells us in lan
guage not to be misunderstood, that instead of
being an emanation from some exalted wisdom and
goodness, it is simply the work of different minds,
existing in different ages, possessing different de
grees of knowledge and principle; and in accord
�10
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
ance with their state of progress, their knowledge,
and feelings, so did they write—they could do no
better. I have charity and forbearance for the
writers of the Bible. Had they had loftier concep
tions, juster ideas, kinder feelings, and a more
accurate knowledge of Nature in general, and
human nature in particular, they would have writ
ten quite a different Bible. As it is, it seems to
me to be a concoction of incongruities, absurdities,
and falsehoods almost impossible to conceive. It
is true we find some excellent sentiments in it,
such as “ love thy neighbor as thyself,” “ do unto
others as you would others should do unto you,”
and some others equally good; and though they
are not original with the Bible, they are still beau
tiful sentiments; but as arbitrary commands they
never can be carried out, for man is a being that
requires a reason and a motive for his actions.
Give him the reason and motive to love his neigh
bor as himself, in the knowledge of human nature
and the relation he sustains to his fellow-man;
convince him that he can find happiness only in
proportion as he endeavors to promote the happi
ness of others—not only of those immediately con
nected with him, but of the race, for the race is
but the great family of man, of which every indi
vidual is a member; and depend upon it, there will
be no necessity for arbitrary commands with prom
ised bribes and artificial rewards for the observ
ance, and threats of penalties and artificial punish
ments for the non-observance of the great moral
law Nature has implanted in man for his rule of
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
11
action, but which ignorance and error, called re
ligion, has stifled by making mere belief of more
consequence than works. A blind faith in things
unseen and unknown is upheld as the greatest
virtue in man.
The idea that “ he that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” has
caused more mischief to man than all the rest of
the Bible could ever have benefited him, for it has
produced all the persecution and ill-will on account
of belief; and it is evident to my mind that the
writer of this passage was utterly ignorant of the
nature and formation of belief, or he would have
known that there can be no merit in belief, nor de
merit in disbelief, for it is not in our power to
believe or disbelieve by a mere effort of the will.
In childhood, belief is given to us the same as our
food; we can make a child believe that what we
call black is white; and if we tell it that it is of
the highest importance, that its happiness here and
hereafter depends upon its being called white in
stead of black, and any one who dares to call it by
any other name is a bad man, an enemy to the
power who wished it to be called white, and an
enemy to man, whose safety here and hereafter
depends upon its being called white, that child, if
grown up, and possessed of an ardent, sincere, and
conscientious temperament, would lay down his
life, or sacrifice the lives of others, in support of
black being white; and yet it would be black for
all that. Thus we can make a child believe error
to be truth, and it may die or sacrifice the lives of
�12
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
others in maintenance of it, ancl yet the error is
not truth, but error.
[Here Mrs. Rose was interrupted by hissing,
hooting, and stamping. Some gentleman asked if
such disturbances were the kind of arguments by
which they expected to sustain the Bible? He
hoped not. Mr. Barker said, “ As we cannot do
the Bible justice without their assistance, they, the
disturbers, are willing to assist us.” At this point,
some one having gained access to the gas-meter,
turned off the gas, and for some minutes a con
tinual hissing, shrieking, stamping, drumming of
canes, and whistling was kept up by the rioters,
mainly occupying the gallery, the body of the
church having been occupied almost entirely during
the Convention by peaceable and well-disposed
auditors, who during the enactment of this scene
mostly sat in silence. The utter confusion made it
impossible to hear any voice that might have ap
pealed to any sense of decency and propriety per
haps yet existing in the minds of the rioters. The
lights being restored, Mrs. Rose proceeded with her
remarks, and said :]—
When the lights were extinguished, it reminded
me of one of the true things we find in the Bible,
that some there are “who love darkness better
than light.” (Laughter and applause.) Just before
that demonstration I endeavored to impress upon
your minds how easily a child may be made to
believe a falsehood and die hr support of it, and
therefore there can be no merit in a belief. We
find in the various sects in Christendom, among the
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
13
Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in fact, throughout
the entire world, that children are made to believe
m the creed in which they are brought up. The
children of the sect called the Thugs are made
to believe in their creed, their Bible—for they,
too, have a Bible, and priests to interpret it,
and Bibles are always written so obscure as to
require priestly interpreters—which tells them they
are governed by a goddess ; they seem to favor the
rights of woman. (Applause.) Their means of
salvation is to strangle every one they come in con
tact with who does not believe as they do; and the
more Infidels and heretics they strangle the surer
their reward in heaven, and the most pious and
conscientious among them try to bring the most
human sacrifices; and as humanity is not quite
dead even among them, so they have quite a re
fined way to dispatch their victims: they have a
silken cord made into a lasso, and when they come
in contact with an unbeliever, they throw it adroit
ly over his head, and by a quick pull strangle him
without the shedding of blood, and almost without
a struggle. So strongly is humanity engrafted in
man, that in spite of all the errors and supersti
tions called religion, it has not entirely been de
stroyed. (Applause.)
Referring to some loafer in the gallery, with his
boots hanging over the railing, Mrs. Rose said:
—I do not know but exhibiting the boots over the
railing may be a part of the defence of the Bible,
but whether it is so or not, we live in an enlight
ened age, in the free United States of America,
�14
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
where every one may do as he pleases, so long as
he does not interfere with the rights of others,
even to exhibit his boots or discourse in favor of
the Bible. (Applause and hissing.)
Thus we see that children acquire their belief as
they acquire any other habit. In after life, when
we are more capable of reasoning, comparing, and
reflecting, belief depends on the amount of evi
dence. If the evidence is strong enough to con
vince the mind,an assent is elicited; if the evidence
is not strong enough to convince the mind, we can
not believe; and the amount of evidence sufficient
to convince one mind may not be enough to con
vince another; but whether the evidence is con
vincing or not, there can be no particle of merit in
belief, or demerit in disbelief. No one within the
reach of my voice can persuade himself that he
hears me not, nor any one out of it that he hears
me, any more than he can believe that two and
two make five, after he has been made to know that
they make four. Yet in spite of this truth in con
nection with the formation of belief, all religions
have been based on the false supposition that we
can believe as we please, or as the priest wishes
us to, and therefore we were promised rewards for
believing, and punishment for disbelieving, the
fashionable superstitions called religion.
Christianity is based on this error, my friends. I
say it not in anger, but in sadness of heart, that
all cruelties, persecutions, and uncharitableness,
from the time of the Inquisition to the present
hissing, have been in consequence of that irrational
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
15
ancl pernicious sentence, “ He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned.” (Hissing.) That is perfectly consistent
with your belief. But convinced as I am of the
truth of the formation of human character, and of
the inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods of the
Bible, in teaching a doctrine contrary to truth and
to Nature, I must come to the conclusion, that no
very good, wise, exalted power or being could have
been the author of it.
Now a few words as to its influence. As the
Bible is based on error, what can its influence be
but pernicious ? For as truth is always beneficial,
so is error always injurious. If we examine the
history of Christianity, we will find that every
step of its progress has been made in blood, and
every atrocity committed has found authority in
the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia and his
despotic coadjutor of Austria subjugated poor,
bleeding Hungary, they brought authority from
the Bible. They told them that all power was of
God—kings, priests, and emperors reign by the
grace of God. “ Oppose not those in authority;
submit to the powers that be, for they are of God,”
has been the motto of every tyrant and every
usurper; and when the burden has become too
heavy to bear, the yoke too severe, and man could
bear the oppression no longer, and tried to cast it
off, he has ever been met with the cry of Babel to
God’s authority, which must be enforced with the
point of the bayonet. The Pope has oppressed
and all but destroyed poor Italy with the authority
�16
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
of the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia held his
iron heel on the neck of my own poor, prostrate
native land, Poland, he brought the same authority.
When with the iron rod, that terrible thing called
a sceptre, said to have been given from heaven, the
usurper sways the liberties and lives of millions, he
brings good authority from the Bible. (Loud hiss
ing.) Do you hiss the Bible, or Russia? (Ap
plause.) My friends, a most terrible outrage has
been perpetrated on poor humanity; there never
has been a heart broken, a tear drawn from the
eye, a drop of blood from the human heart, nor a
sigli of agony from the expiring victim, but the
perpetrators of these horrid inhumanities have
found authorities for it in the Bible. It is a sad
reflection on man, that he could be so enslaved by
the authority of a book. No one knows its origin,
in itself the most unintelligible, unreasonable, and
inconsistent that could ever have been concocted
by the mind of man. (Disturbance.)
It is to be regretted that disorder takes the place
of order; but this confusion of acts proceeds from
the confusion of mind, in consequence of the con
fusion of ideas taught by the Bible; here is its
source and its influence. The disorder of this
book has filled man’s mind with disorder, and when
the mind is a chaos, how can his actions be order ?
What do we claim in this Protestant republic ?
Why, only what it professes to guarantee to every
one, namely, freedom of speech; and look at the
conduct of the believers and defenders of the
Bible ; but their disorder and riot is the best argu
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
17
ment they can bring in support of it. Martin
Luther once received the same argument from the
Church of Rome. (Hisses.) Do you hiss Luther,
or the Pope ? (Applause.) Luther protested agamst
the Church of Rome and her Bible; he called her
a harlot, a falsehood, a libel upon human nature,
religion, and God; he claimed the right of con
science and of private judgment; we, too, claim it
here. Since his time, Protestantism has gone on
constantly protesting; we, too, protest against the
right to shackle the mind and prevent private
judgment and freedom of speech; our protest here
is in consequence of the protest of Luther; do you
dislike it ? Throw your minds back to that time
and hiss him to your hearts’ content. (Applause
and hissing, and drumming of feet and canes.)
According to the Bible in the hands of the Pope,
there is no freedom of opinion, no variety of sects,
no private judgment; his Bible tells him only to
subject human rights, reason, and judgment to his
despotic rule. (Applause and hisses.) Protestant
ism professes to give freedom of conscience and of
speech. Make your choice between the Church of
Rome and Protestantism, and abide by it. (Tre
mendous applause and hissing.) And yet the
Bible, as a history of the past—as reminiscences
of other times and people—would be interesting
enough, provided it was not palmed upon us as a
guide for our age and time; as well might you
force a man, at forty, to wear his swaddling clothes,
because they were once fit for him. The time I
trust will come—is already at hand—when the
�.18
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Bible, like any other book, will be subjected to the
test of reason, the light of knowledge and of truth,
and by that test either stand or fall, and every man
will adopt what appears to him good, and reject
what appears to him bad and inconsistent. But on
account of its having been forced on man as an in
fallible rule of life, it has been more instrumental
to keep him in ignorance, degradation, and vice, to
prevent his elevation and development, to produce
war, slavery, intemperance, and all the evils that
afflict the race, than any and all the books that
have ever been concocted by man. (Renewed his
sing, indecent expressions, and disturbance.) All
this does not disturb me nor ruffle my temper; it is
only an additional evidence to me of the pernicious
influence of the Bible. This is a practical illustra
tion of it. I have stood more than this in opposing
error, and I can stand this. It inspires me with no
other feeling than pity and commiseration for such
irrationality; but it is late, and I had better save
my voice; it may be wanted to be raised hi the
same holy cause at some other time. (Applause
and hissing in the gallery.) To you, my sisters, I
would but say, that the defenders of the Bible have
given you a most practical evidence of the rights
and liberties Christianity has conferred upon you.
The Bible has enslaved you, the churches have
been built upon your subjugated necks; do you
wish to be free ? Then you must trample the Bible,
the church, and the priests under your feet.
Mrs. Rose took her place amidst deafening ap
plause, hisses, and confusion.
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
19
SECOND ADDRESS.
It seems to me to be a pitiable condition in the
way of argument, when, instead of testing a sub
ject on its own intrinsic value, by its own worth
and its own truth, we have to resort to a compari
son of it with something else that may be quite as
bad. Now to this process our friends, the sup
porters of the Bible, have to resort. The first
speaker, Mr. Storrs, this afternoon, instead of try
ing to defend the origin, authority, and influence of
the Bible by its own intrinsic value and merits,
went to comparing it, or the God of the Bible, with
what he imagines to be the God of Nature; and
therefore, thus comparing the two, they exclaim,
“You will say that the God of the Bible is cruel
and inhuman,—the God of Nature is as cruel; you
will say the God of the Bible allowed many evils to
exist—,we retaliate and say the God of Nature did
the same.” But what does all that amount to ? To
any defence of the God of the Bible? Not in the
least. It simply amounts to this, that if there is
any such thing as a God behind Nature who sends
earthquakes, whirlwinds, tempests, and destruc
tion for the purpose of destroying men, he is quite
as inconsistent as the God of the Bible. It means
no more. But it did not prove it right, nor dis
�20
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prove any of tlie charges I made against the Bible
or the Bible God. (Cries of hear, hear, and ap
plause.) Mr. Turner, after he had thus compared
the charges laid to the God of the Bible with the
charges he laid against the God of Nature, went to
some of my remarks of last evening. He thought
it was a most outrageous thing to lay the evils that
woman suffers to the Bible. It may appear out
rageous to him, I do not doubt; it appears far more
outrageous to me to find that such is the case; and
as owing to the confusion last evening he may not
have been able to hear what I said on the subject,
I will repeat some of it.
I mentioned last evening the passage of Scrip
ture, that after God had created man, and pro
nounced all to be very good, he found out his mis
take, namely, “It was not good for man to be
alone,” and therefore he created woman. I said,
and do say, that it is a libel alike to the power they
call God, or Creator, as well as to the nature of wo
man, to say that he created one half of his children—
one-half of the whole human race—not for the same
great aim and end in life as man, but because it
was not well for man to be alone; so he was under
the painful necessity to create her as a pastime, a
plaything, or a drudge, as the circumstances and
the position may require. Upon this irrational
foundation has the subjugation of woman in Chris
tendom been based. (Applause.) But Mr. Turner
asked, is it such a hardship to obey a husband?
and brought Sarabias an example, that she, too,
obeyed her husband. I asked him whether, if
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
21
there was no hardship in obeying, he would
like to have been in the position of Sarah, and
obey his wife as she had to obey her husband ? His
answer was, that he was not a woman, and there
fore could not say how he would have felt hi her
position. Yes, so say I, that as he is not a woman, he
is utterly incapaple of judging for her. How incon
sistent then—what an assumption and a farce—for
him to stand here and talk about woman’s position
and woman’s sphere, when he is incapable of plac
ing himself for one moment in her position, to judge
how she would feel under certain circumstances!
The Bible writers were not women, hence they so
cruelly libelled her nature; and as they were men
as utterly ignorant of her nature and feelings as he
is, how could they know what was her proper
sphere ? and how does Mr. Turner know that the
sphere the Bible prescribes to woman is the right
and proper sphere for her, when he cannot give the
simplest answer to the simplest question, how he
would feel were he a woman ? (Applause.) Con
sistency is a jewel which I fear can not be found in
his possession. (Applause.)
How can she ever be in her proper position and
her proper sphere when man prescribes both for
her ? How can she ever be understood when man
defines and interprets for her ? How can she ever
be rightly governed when man enacts the laws to
govern the being whose nature he can not under
stand, whose feelings he can not realize, whose mo
tives he can not appreciate ? How can justice be
done to her when he most ignorantly judges and con
�22
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
demns her? Never! No! woman must speak for
herself, she must help to enact the laws by which
she shall be governed, she must plead her cause,
she must judge for woman. (Pointing to Mr. T.,
Mrs. Rose said, with much feeling and vehemence :)
Yonder sits a man who bears testimony that man
is incapable of judging for woman. (Great ap
plause.) But we are told Christianity has done a
great deal for woman, “for the Bible commands the
husband to love his wife.” Indeed! Husbands
before me, can you love your wives by an arbitrary
command ? [A Voice—Yes, hi some cases.] Wives,
can you love your husbands because somebody,
somewhere, commanded you to do it? No. [A
Voice—As true as eternity.] ■ (Laughter.) If we
are not able to love by an arbitrary command, how
irrational then—.what a wonderful ignorance in the
writers of that command—I care not whether they
were from above or below, that gave it! Husbands,
love your wives from a painful sense of duty, be
cause the Bible commands you to do so. (Laugh
ter.) Painful, indeed, must such a duty be, both to
the giver and receiver. (Applause.) What a pros
titution of the very term love, by affixing a com
mand to it! But suppose it could be done, but
some husbands will not do it,—at any rate we find
not all husbands do it—then would the commander
force him to love his wife ? For if it is true that
husbands can love their wives by an arbitrary com
mand, then they ought to be made to obey. When
any of our laws are violated, the person is held to
account for it, unless a law is so bad and incon
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
23
sistent that no one can or ought to obey it; then
we call that law or lawgiver to account to abolish it.
Let the supporters of the Bible command force
husbands to do their duty, or abolish all such ir
rational laws, or at any rate, whatever the laws are
—good, bad, or indifferent—let them be alike for
both, or not at all. I wish we had fair laws, and
we would be much better, wiser, and happier. We
have far too much legislation here, and I am sure
we require no Bible legislation in addition. (Ap
plause.)
Mr. Turner spoke about the happy condition wo
man was hi. Yes, we have a very gratifying pic
ture before us—to my mind more gratifying than
any other in Nature—to see an assembly of human
beings met with a desire to inquire into the nature
of a book forced upon mankind as a truth; and the
condition of my sisters before me, if compared, as
Mr. Turner compares the God of the Bible, with
something worse, I doubt not is very flattering and
happy; but if we compare her present position
with what she ought, what she might, and would
be, had she her full rights, as a human being, to
education and position, then we find a difference
almost too great to realize it, but of which Mr.
Turner, not being a woman, can know nothing
whatever. (Laughter.) But it is asked, what does
woman want ? Our friend there (pointing to Mr.
Turner) insinuated that we wanted to become ipen.
Do you, my sisters, wish to become men? [A
Voice—“No.”] (Laughter.) In the general sense
of the term, as applying to human beings, we are
�24
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
men. (Hear, hear.) As applying to sex, it requires
no answer, and I will give it none. (Applause.)
But whether man or woman, are we not entitled to
the rights of humanity because we are your mothers
instead of your fathers? We claim our rights
irrespective of sex. We claim them, not only in
accordance with the laws of humanity, but also in
accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
Are we not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness ? (Hear, hear.) And what is life
without liberty ? (Applause.) Who of you would
desire to preserve it an hour without it ? and what
is liberty without equality of rights ? A mockery.
And what can be our pursuit of happiness when
man has prescribed our sphere of thought and
action within the narrowest possible limits—when
the needle and the wash-tub are nearly the only
avocations he has assigned her for her independence,
except getting married.
(Hear, hear, and ap
plause.)
Tell me we complain, and that we ought to be
thankful to Christianity for our condition! Yes,
we owe to Christianity our degraded, enslaved
position, and let all be thankful for it who can. I
ask for woman what you ask for man—the same
rights, privileges, and opportunities to educate and
develop our beings physically, mentally, and moral
ly, to the fullest extent of her being; throw open to
her all the avenues of emolument of honor, and
greatness, and she will find her true sphere, for
who can find it for her ? “Why do I ask for it ?”
Because it is our right, and because the withholding
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
25
of our rights has produced incalcuable evil and suf
fering. I suffer, not only individually, but as belong
ing to niy sex—as belonging to the race—for man
suffers as grievously by it as woman does. We ask
to give woman her inalienable rights, and to enable
her to become a real and true woman, and not a
man ; but if by the term, man, is meant the capacity
to think and reason more, reflect deeper, judge
wiser, and act better, then the sooner all of us are
men, Mr. Turner included, the better. (Applause.)
We ask for knowledge, for knowledge is power.
After mother Eve partook of and gave her husband
of the tree of knowledge, the gods even became
afraid of them, so it must be worth something, and
it is worth to woman just as much as to man. The
great misfortune was, that poor mother Eve did not
eat enough of the tree of knowledge, for we have
been hungry after it ever since. She did not know
that
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or touch not the Pierian spring.”
(Applause.) The slave ought to be in utter ignor
ance ; the moment you give him any knowledge he
will cast off his slavery. We know now too much
to be satisfied with our condition; we want more,
we want all that can be given; for as knowledge is
power, it promotes independence, and we want to
be independent, for dependence is degrading, for
woman ought to be as independent of man as he is
of her. The dependence ought to be mutual and
reciprocal—not as master and slave — joined by
unjust and mercenary ties, but the dependence on
�26
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
each other’s kindness and services ; affection ought
to be the only bond between man and woman.
(Applause.)
And would she be any less woman if capable of
insuring, if necessary, her own independence?
Some wiseacres may tell you so. They will tell
you that if she has her rights she will cease to be
a woman, forsake her children, and turn recreant
to her nature. Common sense will tell you that
only then will she be a woman, capable, if needs
be, to take care of herself, her children, aye, and
her husband too. And why should she not. If it
gives you pleasure, and, I doubt not, elevates you
and fills your minds with unspeakable gratification
when you strive for and succeed in promoting the
happiness of those you love, it would be as gratifying
to her; the same generous emotions would fill the
mind of woman, were she able, if necessity called
for it, to show her affection to her husband, not
only in letting him maintain her, but when she had
to maintain him, by her knowledge and well-directed
industry; and there would be just as little degrada
tion in the one case as in the other. (Applause.)
Mr. Turner proclaims himself a friend to woman’s
rights. I don’t doubt, according to his understand
ing of human rights, and according to his knowl
edge of the nature of woman, he goes for her rights;
but as he derives his knowledge from the Bible,
ought we to wonder that it falls so deplorably
short? Not in the least. I should wonder if, with
his belief in the Bible, he went for woman’s perfect
equality with man, or for human rights, without
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
27
distinction of sex, country or color. Oh! but he told
us that in comparison to other countries and ages,
woman is treated very kindly! The Mohammedan
has been instanced; and we were told that woman
was found there holding the plow. Dreadful! I
can point you to Christian countries where the hus
band smokes his pipe while the wife plows the
land.
[Mr. Turner said, in Mohammedan countries the
woman has to draw the plow, not hold it.]
Well, I can point you to Christian countries for
the same. Go to Christian Germany, and you will
find many a wife plow the ground; and where they
have no horses she has to do it without, and reap
the harvest, and carry it home on her broken back,
while her husband sits and smokes his pipe. But
where he is not too lazy to work, I don’t see any
great hardship that the wife should help him, even
at the plow, if she can do it, only he ought to be
with her if he can. I should prefer to have my
husband with me. (Laughter.) But if a husband
is not able to do his work, or attend to his business,
Oh! what delight it would give a true woman,
how it would rouse her generous feelings, and fill
her with tender emotions, were she able to do the
work for him, or to attend to their busmess, and
take the corroding care and anxiety about the busi
ness going to wreck and rum off his mind, and by
her own exertion provide the necessaries and com
forts for him she loved! Yes, loved, not by arbitrary
command, but by the force of the law of attraction
and affinity. (Great applause.) Love her husband!
�28
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
I don’t think that the wife has any right or any
business to love her husband. The Bible does not
command the wife to love her husband at all; this
command was only given to the husband to love his
wife; the wife has only to obey, that is all. Well,
though we cannot be made to love by force, it is
quite clear we may be made to obey by force; any
slave can tell you that, and so can a wife, according
to the Bible—Sarah for instance. (Laughter.
The Bible husbands Mr. Turner spoke of framed
the laws for woman; hence she is so well protected.
Blackstone tells us—and he must have taken his
ideas of right from the Bible—that the husband
and the wife are one, and that one is the husband.
(Laughter.) That is according to the common law
of England, and common enough it is, mercy
knows ; but from these common laws we have our
laws regulating marriage; and yet it must be right,
for it is according to the Bible; the husband and
wife become one, and that one is the husband, and,
therefore, whatever the wife possesses becomes the
husband’s, for they are one, says the Bible and
Blackstone, except when the wife violates a law of
the land, then they become two again, for instead
of hanging the husband, they hang the wife.
(Laughter.) But Mr. Turner will tell us that even
that is better than something worse. (Laughter.) Is
it not so? (Laughter.) Well, I suppose it is. (Ap
plause.) That in more barbarous ages and countries
woman was treated more barbarously; and who lias
a desire to deuy it ? Not I. But what does it prove ?
Anything ? Oh! yes, it proves that man is always a
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
29
child before he is grown to be a man; not only is that
true with the individual man, but with the race; that
the race was not born civilized any more than indi
vidual man is ever born in the full maturity of
strength and mind, and that in more barbarous
ages we acted more barbarously than in more civil
ized ages (applause), which proves the truth of my
position, that man always acts according to the
knowledge and civilization he possesses. Last
evening we had a full illustration of it (laughter
and applause) ; for it is an unmistakable fact, that
just according as man is civilized does he treat wo
man. (Applause.)
And would you know the
amount of civilization in a country, look at the
position woman occupies, and you will find that in
proportion as she has her rights equal with man, so
is the nation civilized, and in proportion as they are
denied her, so are they yet in a state of barbarity,
no matter by what name they may exist. The
position of woman is a living index of the state of
civilization; they go hand in hand. And as man
becomes more civilized, through the cultivation of
the art and sciences, and has his taste more refined,
his sentiments more elevated, is more capable to
appreciate the beautiful, better to understand the
nature and laws that govern man, the relation he
sustains to his fellow-man, human rights and happi
ness, the aim and end of human existence, so does
he act more rational and more consistent, and wo
man, of course, occupies a more rational and consist
ent position in the scale of society.
But what have we to thank for it ? Christianity
�30
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
or the Bible’? Then let us see how much Christi
anity has done to promote civilization, how much it
has done for the arts and sciences. Go to the Bible,
and you will find it opposed to all the arts, sciences,
happiness, and life itself. Worldly wisdom, knowl
edge, and happiness are called, in Bible language,
“ the enemies of man.” “ Life is only a vale of
tears,” only a gloomy passage to stumble through,
fight with the devil, die, and go up to sing halle
lujah, or down to roast, for the gratification of
those in heaven. What need, then, for arts and
sciences’? They would not be required there.
(Cries of hear, hear.) That is the whole Bible esti
mate of human life, and hence Christianity has ever
opposed every art and science, as the light of knowl
edge and progress forced it upon society. (Cries of
hear, hear.) These facts are too well known to
require any illustration to confirm the truth of
the statement. Astronomy, geology, physiology,
chemistry, the art of printing, education, even, all
has been opposed by the priests, and they found
their authority in the Bible to warn the people
against innovations, against worldly wisdom, to
attach them to this life, and lead them away from
heaven, as emanations from the devil. (Cries of
hear, hear, and applause.) Reason is held up by the
Bible as An enemy to man, a false guide, that will
lead him to perdition; human virtues are called
“filthy ragsfaith, only faith in things unseen and
unknown will save him. Yet we have to thank the
Bible and Christianity for the little civilization,
rights, and happiness we enjoy, when every step
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
31
we have taken, every inch of ground we have
gained, was hi direct opposition to it. My very
standing here is in opposition to it. (Applause.)
But I will leave this subject, though my heart and
head are full with it, and go to some other evi
dence that the Bible must be by divine inspiration;
and, as a proof we are told in the Bible that after
God created the world and had pronounced it to be
good, he found out he had made a mistake, for not
only was it not good, but he found it so bad that it
repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart, and he swore
he would destroy it again.
“ And God saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu
ally,” and, consequently, he brought the flood to
destroy all flesh; but as if afraid lest he might not
succeed hi making the animal portion over again, he
adopted the very prudent plan of preserving a pair
of each kind as stock in hand to commence the
world anew with. I think the construction of the
ark, with its numberless compartments to accomo
date the vast number and variety of animals that
have existed, from the polar bear, the giraffe, the
elephant, through all gradations, down to the musquito, the flea, and the fly, must be a proof of
divine inspiration! As for how they were all
brought together, I can see no other way than the
angel Gabriel must have called them together with
his trumpet. (Laughter.) However, after the
flood was all over, and Father Noah built an altar,
�32
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
and brought a nice fat little lamb as a sacrifice,
then the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and it
repented him that he destroyed the world, and
he said in his heart that he would not curse the
ground any more for man’s sake, “ for the imagina
tion of his heart is evil from his youth.” Thus the
same reason that made him repent that he had
made man, and induced him to destroy the world,
namely, that the “ imagination of the thoughts of
the heart of man being evil continually,” induced
him, after the flood, to promise Noah that he would
never destroy it again, namely, “for the imagination
of his heart is evil from his youth.” But we must
remember that the sweet savor of the freshlyburned offerings of the fowls, and the beasts, and
the creeping things was so irresistible to God’s
nostrils, that it put him in such a good humor, that
in spite of the wickedness of man’s heart, he resolved
not to destroy him agam.
(Laughter and ap
plause.)
Let no one say that we ridicule the Bible, for it
is utterly impossible to ridicule a thing so sublimely
ridiculous as the whole account of the flood in the
Bible. Just see the position the Bible places its
God in. He created man, pronounced him good,
found him bad, repented for having created him,
resolved to destroy, not only him, but the whole
animal and vegetable creation, then repented again
of having done it, and resolved never to do it again.
Would any of you like to be placed hi so ridiculous
a position? (Cries of no, and laughter.) Yet this
God, the same book tells us, possesses all wisdom,
�MRS. E. L. BOSE ON THE BIBLE.
33
all knowledge, and all goodness. It is almost an in
sult to common sense to talk about believing in such
stuff and nonsense. (Applause.) The head and
the heart, or reason and affection, have always been
libelled by the Bible; for the writers and priestly
interpreters knew but too well if reason and affec
tion were consulted, the Bible would be left alone,
for in it there is food neither for head nor heart;
it has nearly famished and destroyed both. The
wars, the slavery, the intolerance, the vices and
crimes it inculcated, are so many plague-spots on
human society, and will never be entirely effaced
as long as that book is consulted as authority and
guide for man. But Mr. Turner said, it was not at
all inconsistent that the Lord commanded war, for
have not we, as a nation, had war? Yes, we had
war, and all the more shame for it; but does our
having war make it right ? But suppose it were
right for one nation to make war upon another
nation, can that be an excuse for God to make war
upon his children ? For are not all men his chil
dren? We are told he created all men ; if so, all
must be his children. Oh! yes ; but then the impar
tial Father had chosen a few as his favorites, and
commanded them to extirpate all other nations—the
Midianites, Canaanites, and all the other ites that
existed around them, and take their lands as their
possessions. Were these ites, then, not his children ? Had not the Lord created the Midianites,
Canaanites, and all the rest of the ites the Bible tells
us of? And yet the Bible says, “Thus saith the
Lord; go and slay and extirpate, and spare not
�34
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
man or woman, old or young,” except such as they
could make useful to gratify their brutal passions
and appetites. This is said to be the word of God!
Well, I care not whose word it is; most em
phatically do I protest against it as an outrage on
humanity, for my whole heart, mind, and soul
revolts against such barbarity. (Applause.) [A
Voice — Amen.]
[Another Voice — When the
Egyptian power became corrupt, and oppressed the
Israelites, did not God command them to refuse
obedience ?] Oh! yes ; he told his chosen children
to refuse obedience to Pharaoh, another child of his.
And what did this kind and impartial Father (for
God, we are told, is impartial) do to induce his dis
obedient child Pharaoh to set his favorites free ?
Why, he sent Moses to tell him to let them go, and
at the same time he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so
that he might not send them out, so that he might
have the pleasure to punish him, and send him the
plagues for not doing what he would not allow
him to do. And yet Pharaoh, I believe, was made
of flesh, bone, and muscles, the same as all other
men, and therefore the Lord must have made him,
for we are told that he created all flesh. Yes, the
Father hardened the heart of one child to enslave
some of his other children, and they again in turn,
to massacre and extirpate some others again.
(Laughter.) Is this not a beautiful characteristic
of the God of the Bible ? He created all men as
his children, but could not manage them, so he
chose a few as his favorites—I am sure no one can
tell for what particular merits—and set them at
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
85
loggerheads, to fight and destroy each other. I
should be sorry if an earthly parent could not man
age his children better than that. Again, the Bible
says God created man and woman, and placed them
m the garden of Eden, in the midst of which he
placed a tree with tempting fruit on it, of which he
forbade the man to eat; and he also created a ser
pent, which he permitted to go and tempt the
woman to partake of this very forbidden fruit.
Well, did he not know when he placed them there,
and placed the tree there, and sent the serpent to
tempt them—for the Bible tells us that nothing is
done without his permission—that poor mother Eve
would partake of it, and as a faithful wife, finding
the fruit was so good, that she would induce her
husband to partake of it too ? If he knew all this
—and he must have known, for the Bible tells us
that God is omniscient—and he did not wish them
to eat of the tree of knowledge, then why did he
place it there? or placing it there, why did he
allow the serpent to tempt them?
Or why
create them so weak, and with such a taste for fruit,
or rather for knowledge, so as to be unable to with
stand the temptation? If the Bible could only
speak, it might give some satisfactory answer to all
these important questions, for I am sure no one
else can. (Applause.) [A Voice—Woman is so
weak now as to be tempted.]
Mrs. Rose—Very likely; I am sorry he made her
so weak, and created a tempter to tempt her.
(Laughter.) Yes, she is weak enough, or she
would not be so deluded by the Bible and its inter
�36
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prefers the priests. (Applause.) Well, then, poor
Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit, as they
could do no otherwise under the circumstances.
What then ? Did their heavenly Father correct
them for their first disobedience, the same as any
earthly parent would, and induce them to do better
after that ? Oh! no! curses and heavy penalties
were pronounced against them, and not only against
them for life, but on the whole unborn race to come
after them. (Cries of hear, hear.) This is Bible
justice and Bible mercy. [A Voice from the gallery
—Hear, blasphemy.] Blasphemy! Oh! yes, blas
phemy has ever been the cry against progress, and
opposition to superstition. This was the cry of the
old Pope against the ancient Luther, and this is the
cry of the modern Popes against the modern
Luthers. (Applause.) But it has lost its power
now, and has become harmless. (Applause.) Yes,
only the God of the Bible, mercy and justice, could
have pronounced an eternal curse on an unborn race
for the first fault committed by the first two chil
dren. Is there an imagination black enough to
conceive of a more inhuman and atrocious spirit
than that *? If there were any meaning in the term
blasphemy, then it would be the greatest blasphemy
to ascribe such revolting deeds to any power or
being deserving the name of the most ordinary
goodness. (Applause.) But what was the nature
of the curse ? Why, Adam should have to plow
the ground and cultivate the earth. Well, I don’t
know how it might have been had they remained
in their blissful paradisaic ignorance, but I doubt
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
37
very much if corn, potatoes, and all the other good
things, would have grown without cultivation.
(Laughter.) But perhaps the two inhabitants of
Eden might not have required such gross, material
food. But it always puzzled me to know, that if
Adam and Eve had not sinned by tasting that nnfortunate apple, what would have become of the
rest of creation ? We are told that every thing was
created for man; God gave man dominion over
every thing; but if they had not tasted of knowl
edge they could not have had dominion over any
thing, nor made use of any thing; they were too
ignorant even to use a fig-leaf, (laughter), so that
the whole object of creation would have been lost,
were it not for mother Eve’s desire for knowledge.
(Applause.) For knowledge is power, of which
even God seemed to be afraid; for as soon as he
found that they had tasted of the tree of knowledge,
he drove them out of the garden, lest they should
partake of the tree of life, too, “ and become like
one of us”—us, who?
Why, Gods! So there must have been more
than one of them. And so jealous was he even of
the little knowledge they possessed—knowing that
after man once tastes of knowledge he will not be
satisfied till he has more—so he placed angels with
fiery swords at all the gates to fight poor man off
from the tree of knowledge and of life. Thus poor
man has ever since had to fight, step by step, and
inch by inch, for the little knowledge, happiness,
and life he enjoyed; for everywhere he encountered
the sworn enemy of knowledge and of life—the God
�38
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Of the Bible—with his fiery swords. (Applause.)
Some of those heavenly guardians must have been
here last evening, hence I had to fight pretty hard
for my right to utter my convictions; for by free
dom of speech only do we arrive at knowledge and
truth. (Applause.) Yet Mr. Turner told us that
we have to thank the Bible for the rights and
privileges we enjoy. Indeed! Had your fathers,
before they cast off the British yoke, consulted the
Bible on the subject, they would never have revolted
at all. The Bible does not allow revolt. Revolu
tionists have always been considered as unbelievers
and Infidels by Bible interpreters, whose interest it
is to keep man in subjection and ignorance; for the
Bible injunction is, “Oppose not those in author
ity,” “ Submit to the powers that be, for they are of
God.” Had the people of Boston, when they con
verted their harbor into a tea-pot, because the tax
ation imposed on them was too heavy, gone to the
Bible for advice, they would have paid on and
groaned on to all eternity, for the Bible would have
told them, “ Give unto Caesar the things that be
long to Caesar.”
What a fallacy, then, to talk about the freedom
that comes from the Bible! The little knowledge
and freedom we possess we have in opposition to
and in spite of the Bible, and particularly we, my
sisters.
The Bible and the priests have done
enough to keep us down; it is high time to rise
above both of them. My very appearing here to
raise my voice in behalf of freedom and humanity
is contrary to the Bible; but the desire Nature has
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
39
implanted in me for knowledge and freedom is mor e
powerful than the injunctions of a superstitious
book. Humanity is older than the Bible, and
human rights are as old as humanity. (Applause.)
And therefore I claim for woman equal rights with
man. I claim them, not as a grant, or charity, bu
as our birthright. (Applause.) Humanity has
not come into existence with chains and shackles
but free as the breath of heaven (applause), to
develop human nature as it ought to be—free to
think, feel, and act, always keeping in mind not to
interfere with the same rights in others. Human
rights in elude the rights of all, not only man, bu
woman, not only white, but black; wherever there
is a being called human, his rights are as full and
expansive as his existence, and ought to be without
limits or distinction of sex, country, or color. (Ap
plause.) And only ignorance, superstition, and
tyranny—both the basis and influence of the Bible
—deprive him of it. Mr. Turner, in alluding to my
remark of belief, said I found fault with the Bible
because it said, “ He that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” and
that I said the writer of that sentiment was utterly
ignorant of the nature of man and the formation of
belief. Yes, I did; and I illustrated my position
by showing how easy it is to make a child believe
that what we call black is white, or any other false
hood as truth, and that he could die in support of
it; and black would not be white, nor falsehood truth.
“ But” said Mr. Turner, “ you could not make a
child believe that black was white, if you had told
�40
MRS, E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
him first that it was black?’ No, certainly not,
because you have already made him believe it is
black, which just proves my position. The child
being ignorant of it, will believe whatever you call it
first, and if you teach it a falsehood before it had a
chance to know any thing about the truth, it will
call that falsehood truth. Thus Mohammedans do
not teach their children Christianity before Moham
medanism, nor do Christians teach their children
Mohammedanism, or any other ism, before Christi
anity, so as to give them a chance to judge for
themselves. Oh! no! each of them teaches his
children to believe in his ism only, as truth, and in
every other other ism only, as truth, and in every
other ism as false; and if they never have a chance
to examine, compare notes, and judge for them
selves, each may die in support of the truth of his
ism. And yet one of these isms must be false, or
both may be false, and both sincerely defended as
truth. And therefore there can be no merit in a
belief, nor demerit in disbelief; and he who wrote
that irrational sentence, “He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned,” was utterly ignorant of the formation of
the human mind. Mr. Turner agreed with me that
in after-life, when we are able to compare and
judge, belief depends on evidence. “ But,” said he,
“evidence of Christianity was given to every one,
for Christ told his disciples to go and preach the
gospel to every creature.” But suppose Moses, Mo
hammed, Christ, and the nine thousand nine hun
dred and ninety-nine other Christs that have existed,
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
41
each had said the same to his disciples, Go and preach
my gospel, and he that believeth in it shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned, and yet
the evidence can at best be in favor only of one, and
most probably of none. What, then, must they
damn each other all around?
(Laughter.) As
rational beings they ought to say, If the evidence
brought to bear on any subject is strong enough to
convince the mind, it elicits an assent or belief; if it
is not strong enough to convince the mind, it elicits
no assent, and we cannot believe; and the evidence
that is strong enough to convince one mind may not
be strong enough to convince another, and every
one has a right to judge for himself whether an
evidence is strong enough or not, and no one has
a right to judge for him. (Cries of hear, hear.)
How irrational and unjust it is to punish for
belief at all, and still more so to punish eternally for
a fault of a moment! For what is life to eternity ?
Who of you, for the disobedience of a child, who
would not believe in something you told him, even
if you thought he could believe, but would not,
would have the inhumanity to punish it, not only
for life, but (had you the power) for all eternity ?
No, not the lowest and the meanest in the scale of
humanity. (Applause.) Yet this is the Bible ac
count of the justice and mercy of its God. (Cries
of hear, hear.)
In Revelation we have some glorious accounts
of the happiness the saints will enjoy in singing
hymns of praise while the smoke of those in hell
will rise up to their nostrils. (A little disturbance in
�42
MBS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
the gallery and—A Voice—That is correct.) Mak
ing some little mistake in pronouncing a word, Mrs.
Rose, in correcting herself, said—I hope you will
have charity for any little mistake I may make in
the language, remembering that I am speaking in a
foreign language. (Hissing, and a Voice called out,
“I hope Mrs. Rose will assume the name of Man,
for she will be an honor to our sex.”)
My friends, no one can fathom the depths of the
pernicious effect, the incalculable mischief of this
false, this horrid doctrine, that man can be happy
while he sees another man in misery. Nature has
indelibly written it on the heart of man, in language
not to be misunderstood, “that no man can be
happy while he sees another man in misery.”
(Applause.) This is a truism that changes not
with age, climate, or condition; the idea that man
could be happy in heaven while he would be con
scious of the torments and miseries his fellow-man
was suffering, is a libel on human nature, for man
cannot be happy while he sees another in misery.
The little comparative happiness we enjoy is owing
to the fact that we can, hi a great measure, shut
out the miseries of others by shutting our doors
and sitting down by our own comfortable firesides,
and for the time being forget every thing connected
with others. But place man in a condition here or
hereafter where he shall not be able to close his
doors and shut misery out—where he shall have
constant consciousness of every thing that exists,
and see his brother man—Ah! “ the flesh of his
flesh, and the bone of his bone”—suffering unspeak
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
43
able torments, and he, with his human feelings and
sympathies, unable to help him, and think you he
could enjoy happiness ? Would he feel like sing
ing hymns of praise ? No! it is as false as it is
obnoxious to every better feeling—(applause)—and
the writer of this sentence, I care not who he was,
from above or below, was utterly ignorant of the
nature of man, and the principles of humanity. (A
V oice—“ True.”)
Upon such a principle is based the system of iso
lation, and all the evils that man has inflicted on
man, and he will have to come back from that false
idea—for if happiness is ever to be enjoyed by man,
he must endeavor to form a state of society where
misery, sin, and suffering shall be done away,
where all shall enjoy happiness or none will; for it
is the nature of man, that as long as misery comes
within his sight or his hearing so long must he feel
it. (Applause.) Could you listen to the recital of
the sufferings in Rome and in Hungary—the in
justice, and cruelties, and tyranny perpetrated on
your fellow-man, in far distant lands, without feel
ing every nerve stirred within you with indigna
tion against the perpetrators, and a strong desire to
assist the poor sufferers ? And,for the time being
could you be happy ? No! for the sympathy that
unites man to man would not permit it. (Ap
plause.) It did not last long, it is true, for in our
isolated state we can shut all these things out,
because they are painful to us, and this very fact
proves my assertion. But if we had the miseries
and sufferings of others ever before our eyes, life
�44
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
would become a burden, and we would not wish to
live. And yet the Bible doctrine is, that the spirit
of man—the refined, the purified, the divine part of
his nature—can enjoy happiness, while those near
est and dearest to him in life, perhaps his friend,
brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife, or
child, will suffer endless torments, and he know it
and unable to help them, and yet enjoy happiness.
Every principle of humanity proclaims it a false
hood. In such a position he would be a thousand
times more miserable than he is here, unless his
nature should be changed, and then he would no
longer be man. (Great applause.)
There is that horrible parable of Lazarus and
Dives.
I don’t know any particular fault of
Dives, for we are told he had not committed any
great sin; it is true, he was rich, but all riches, we
are told, come from God. (Laughter.) Nor are we
told of any great virtues in Lazarus, except that he
was poor and sick, and I am sure he would not
have been so, if he could have helped it. (Laugh
ter.) Yet Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom—what
a bosom Abraham must have, to accommodate all the
poor and sick!—while poor Dives was in torments
and agony, and when he asked for one drop of
water to cool his parched tongue, it was refused
him. Nay, he begged to send a message to his
brother to induce him to be a better man, so as to
avoid a similar fate; but this, too, was refused to
him. Oh! what glad tidings the Bible doctrine is
to man ! (Applause.)
To a sensitive human
nature such a heaven would be worse than any hell
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
45
that has ever been described—(applause)-and as long
as man is deluded into the belief of such a heaven,
will we be prevented from forming a real heaven
here, for it has all but stifled every kindly feeling
and sensation within us.
It has cramped and
crippled us, mentally and morally; it has prevented
us from inquiring into the laws best adapted for the
well-training and well-governing of man. The
eternal law of kindness should be the only law,
sympathy the only bond, the great seal of humanity
the only compact, between man and man. No
other gospel is required to bind man to his brother.
This simple law is deduced directly from the in
herent laws of human nature, which some call God.
The Friends call it the light within; I call it the
principle, or law of humanity, which, if man were
not perverted by false creeds and doctrines, would
teach every man that natural golden rule, Do unto
others as you would they should do unto you.
(Applause.) This is my faith! Is that not broad
enough ? Give me a broader, and I will accept it.
(Applause.) Humanity! Oh! that I had words to
express my feelings at the contemplation of it! I
feel a gushing of love within me beyond the power
of utterance, not only for mankind, but for all that
are capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Human
ity’s laws only can ever make man a high and noble
being—higher, more elevated, and nobler far than we
have ever yet conceived the gods to be. (Great
applause.)
The President moved a vote of thanks to Mrs.
Rose for her address, when she said,
I thank you for the attention you have paid to
�46
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
my views and feelings, and without a vote of
thanks I deem myself richly paid for my coining
here, and my efforts in the cause of humanity. In
the pleasure I received in being able to speak the
thoughts that have pressed upon me for utterance,
I am richly paid in being able to do what I deem
my highest duty to do. (Applause.)
The President repeated the motion, and a vote of
thanks was given to Mrs. Rose.
�THE INVESTIGATOR.
THE OLDEST OF THE REFORM JOURNALS.
The “Investigator” is devoted to Universal Mental
Liberty. Independent in all its discussions, discarding
superstitious theories of what never can be known, it
devotes its columns to things of this world alone, and
leaves the next, if there be one, to those who have entered
its unknown shores. Believing it is the duty of mortals
to work for the interests of f/n's tcorZd, it confines itself to
things of this life entirely.
PRICE, $3.00 PER YEAR.
THOMAS PAINE’S WRITINGS.
For sale at the Office of the Boston Investigator, Paine Memorial
Building, Appleton Street, Boston, Mass.
Sent free of postage on receipt of price.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, Secre
tary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the
American Revolution. Three volumes, consisting
of his Political, Theological, and Miscella
neous Writings. To which is added a Sketch of
his Life.
Price, $7.00
THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE,
with a Brief Sketch of the Author’s Life. A new
edition with additions. 2 vols.
Price, $5.00
THEOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS
OF THOMAS PAINE. The most complete edition
ever published, — containing his Age of Reason,
and all his writings on Theology, with many Mis
cellaneous and Political Pieces, and his Letters to
Washington.
Price, $2.50
COMMON SENSE, a Revolutionary Pamphlet, ad
dressed to the inhabitants of America, 1776, by
Thomas Paine.
Price, paper, .20
RIGHTS OF MAN: being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s
Attack on the French Revolution, By Thomas
Paine.
Price, $1.00
�STANDARD LIBERAL WORKS.
THE LETTERS TO EUGENIA; or, A Preservative against
Religious Prejudice. By Baron D’Holbacii, author of
the “System of Nature,” etc. Translated from the
French by Anthony C. Middleton, M.D. Price,
$1.00; postage, 16 cts.
GOOD SENSE. By Baron D’Holbach. A new edition
of this truly valuable book has just been issued, and is
now ready for purchasers. Friends who want “Good
Sense’’ (and who does not?) can have a supply sent
by mail and by forwarding their orders. Priced post
paid, $1.00.
A LEGACY TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE DISCUSSION;
being a Review of the Principles, Historical Facts, and
Personages of the Books known as the Old and New
Testaments; with remarks on the Morality of Nature.
By Benjamin Offen, formerly Lecturer of the Society
of Moral Philanthropists, at Tammany Hall, New York.
Price, 75 cts. ; postage, 16 cts.
LETTERS TO THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BOSTON.
Proving that the Roman Catholic Religion is opposed
to a Republican form of Government. By an Indepen
dent Irishman. Price, 15 cts.
INTEMPERATE DRINKING ; An Expose of the Crimes of
this Vice, and the means by which it may be obviated.
By Thomas Herttell, of New York City. Published
by order of the New York Society for the Promotion of
Internal Improvement, 1819. Republished by order
of the will of Mrs. Barbara Amelia Herttell, 1867.
Price, 15 cts.
ANTIQUITY AND DURATION OF THE WORLD. By the
learned Dr. G. Toulmin. Price, 25 cts.
EQUALITY ; or, a History of Lithconia. Price, 15 cts.
ELEGANT EXTRACTS from the Holy Bible. Price, 10 cts.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 46, [2] p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Running title: Mrs E.L. Rose on the Bible. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.P Mendum
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N558
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Bible-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/813328f7b560c0e08032b299151ce3e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uyIgni2q7jZIufvvyfnKJ2qbep7Txrd4ssasPIvNx3q5AICf6KCgl408mwBo5LBlx5Zfl1u-B0eXYHCng3R%7EAIQJiEAECeGOup8W54zexu5jUVfwJzekrxKAXAID9kSNYdtzno1ucpskqWQWfi5diGKLIZ1v1Qm2vdhLsGLn%7Eo9yXi0e1SfUQpJ5ruqbe5KnVDEpA%7Eucim4f4Sq8JbtRdxC7z-9DVJbl1NDd2Iem2IpMBKqxVzQPxPpnrLKgGn%7EU5UQqDY8JJW29vBiIs-4UO3kO3odMNgReTiAo%7EFAwUHd%7Eo9WFb0GyPzPcUN9-eKCkUA67in9fWYD3ZBzWB5gNUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7177df8420581f21fc352b63fff4298a
PDF Text
Text
k)C>5*
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHRIST’S TEMPTATION.
BY
“ HUMANITAS.”
Author of “ Is God the First Cause ? ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed,”
‘'Thoughts on Heaven,” “Jacob the Wrestler,” “Mr. Bradlaugh and the
Oath Question,” “ Mow the British House of Commons treated Charles
Bradlaugh, M.P.,” “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation,”
“Socialism a Curse,” “Jonah and the Whale,” etc.
\ U)
C Ì AjH
Lf
LONDON:
EREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63 FLEET STREET E.C.
18 8 8
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63 FLEET STREET, E.O.
�MY REASON FOR WRITING THIS
PAMPHLET.
Were I asked why I wrote this pamphlet, I should reply,
in self-defence. I should say that the intolerance and in
justice practised in the name of the religion it assails
forced the task upon me. I should say that, as those who
like myself cannot accept the religion it attacks, are every
day and upon all sides, politically and socially, deprived
of their common citizenship, it becomes my duty to do
what in me lies to remove or at least lessen its power.
And this, I think, can best be done by exposing the mon
strous fables and delusions upon which it is built.
With regard to the matter here dealt with, I challenge
and defy any person, lay or clerical, and especially those
coming under the term Trinitarian, to put a reasonable or
common-sense construction upon it, as set forth in the
Testament. If this can be done, let it be shown.
Perhaps the Rev. G. F. Handel Rowe—to whom I must
grant the quality of courage in essaying to grapple with a
thinker of Annie Besant’s powers—could say something
for his two friends, Christ and the Devil, as set out in the
text in question. He doubtless makes both of them do
duty for him as occasion may require. Especially may he
be encouraged to do so, seeing that it is a New Testament
business—having specific references to the Old, and there
fore, according to him, pure Christianity.1
I notice that he more than once sorely laments the non
adoption—or, at least, the only partial adoption—of the
1 It is instructive to observe the wholesome dread with which your
modern Christian champions regard the Old Testament—not to men
tion the Thirty-nine Articles. If Annie Besant’s able debate with the
rev. gentleman in question did nothing more than force the exposition
of this repugnance, it would do a great deal. “ Holy Bible, book
divine,” etc., etc., is rapidly losing all meaning.
�iv
principles of Christianity. The lament is to he found in.
his first article, and in his last. In his first, he remarks:
“ Were these Christian teachings put into practice, society
would be speedily reformed ”, etc. And he repeats it with
more or less change throughout. It is quite possible that
he intends the lament to apply to the teachings and pre
cepts which immediately precede it when made. But I
take it that if we are to adopt Christianity, or judge of its
teachings and results, we must do so as a whole; in
which case, whilst I admit that he is so far right as to
society being speedily reformed, I contend that it would
be a kind of reforming not “ devoutly to be wished ”.
We had a fairly close application of Christian principles»
during the early and middle ages—especially the latter—
when nearly the whole of Europe was literally saturated
with it, and which culminated in the truly awful power:
(bloodily used) of the Church. It is likely the Rev. Mr.
Rowe will hold that only to have been Romanism, and not
Christianity. In that case, and without stopping for an
answer to the question: Where then was Christianity
during these centuries of ecclesiastical tyranny and suffer
ing practised in its name ? I will simply remind him that
most people regard it as the history of the Christian
Religion. Perhaps he can find another name for it..
Mosheim may be all wrong. But in reference to hislamentations as to the non-adoption of Christian teachings,
what a wretched case he makes out for God and Chris
tianity ! Christianity, according to the gospel of the Rev.
Mr. Rowe, is a “Divine arrangement” forced upon God
by the “faff” and consequent collapse of his original
plans—which he “ discerned beforehand”—and which now,
after being before the world nearly two thousand years, is
likewise a failure [which again he “ discerned before
hand”!]. It is quite possible that he, God, may be at
this moment concocting some other “Divine arrange
ment ” to counterbalance the failure of the latest; and
which he may also “ discern beforehand ” will likewise be
unsuccessful. I, for one, fear I shall need a great many
lessons in the teachings of Christianity, as given by the
Rev. Mr. Rowe, before I shall profit much thereby. I
also think the History of the Christian Religion would
have to be reversed and re-written in order to be read in
the light of his remarks, and to make sense of very many
�■of them. Does he think the fearful record—written in
letters of blood and fire, of hate and intolerance, including
the work of his own Church during its comparatively short
existence—can be wiped out by a few quotations and
platitudes about Christians contravening their religious
professions ? But perhaps I intrude my remarks, for, with
out a doubt, he is in far more able hands than mine. I
may, however, be tempted to mention him again before I
am throogh with this paper.
In dealing with my present subject, I shall adopt the
pretention put forward by Christians generally, that the
Gospels are the “ Word of God”; that, although they pur
port to be—with the exception of that ascribed to Luke—
but the written testimony or narrative of what the writers
experienced, and as such needed not to be inspired, they
were yet written under inspiration, and are to be regarded
“ as the work of Jesus Christ himself ”?
Of course it is hardly necessary to state that I do not
adopt this as the truth ; but simply as a ground-work or
condition upon which to found my obj ections and conten
tions.
My object will be to show the complete unreasonableness
of the story ; to demonstrate that it bears the stamp of
folly on the face of it, and that it is not worthy the credence
of rational beings.
I shall follow the text as given in the New Testament,
forming part of what is known as the Douay Bible;
although, indeed, there is no material difference in the
story as there told, and in that given in the Authorised
Version.
I shall also notice the critical and explanatory notes
made by the compilers in reference to the text, and in
dealing with which I shall probably have much to say.
Perhaps I ought to explain that, as a number of these
learned and rev. compilers have taken part in the produc
tion of this edition, and as each in his turn has something'
to say for himself, or unsay for the Bible—some of the
motes also being only in the shape of quotations from other
authors, saints, etc.—I therefore desire when using the
word expounder to be understood as referring to that par1 Preface to “New Testament ” in “Douay Bible
�vi
ticular one whose note is in question, without necessarilyparticularising him.
It is remarkable that these notes of so-called explanation
have been found to be so necessary as to actually occupy,
in very small type, almost as much space as the Gospel
itself. I think this argues badly for the pretended simpli
city and completeness, or sufficiency, of the Gospels. Simple
—in a certain sense—they undoubtedly are; but your
modern compilers find it much more necessary to illume,
or put, or try to put something like commonsense into the
“Word of God” than did your ancient ones. The rack
and the stake were the all-sufficient reply to doubts and
objections in those too much Christian times. But now-adays, even Christians themselves crave for better things.
Hence half the matter to be found between the covers of
God’s modern book is not what he put there, nor what he
said (as anciently held), but what is put there and said for
him—the thing said frequently being either by way of
extenuation or downright falsification. I had occasion to
notice this rather largely in a former and more important
.work.1 Indeed, I should be within the limits of the truth
if I said your present Bibles are written by your Darwins,
your Ingersolls, your Huxleys, your Bradlaughs, your
Büchners, your Besants, and your Footes. These and such
as these it is who now practically write your “Inspired
Word”.. Of course, what is supposed to be the original
text is given, but the meaning of it is now fixed by those
I have mentioned. The Bible is by no means now to be
taken as saying or meaning what it really does say and
mean—and for daring to doubt which unhappy wretcheswere, without regard to age or sex, made to “taste the fire”
—but is, rather, a set of puzzles and pegs upon which to hang
new and varied renderings to suit the demands of the ago
and the march of science. And this is as true of theBoman Church, which “ cannot err ”, as it is of tho
“ erring” and changing sects of all ages.
. To give some idea of what the “Inspired Scriptures”
are worth at the present day, I will crave patience whilst.
I quote a passage or two from the Preface—I call it
apology—which the revisers of the Bible as by law estab
lished, in its latest and most fashionable attire, thought fit
1 “ Jacob the Wrestler.”
�vii
and necessary to make. I allude to what I have else
where called the newly cobbled Word of God, by which I
mean the “ Parallel Bible ”.
The revisers of this latest proof that there can be no
book containing the truth for all time, in speaking of the
difficulties attending their task, after stating that the first
portion of their work was to revise the Greek text—which
they only seem to have done in part—say that “ a suffi
ciently laborious task remained in deciding between the
rival claims of various readings ” [italics mine in this and
following quotations] 11 which might properly affect the
translation” (p. 8). Again, on the same page: “Many
places still remain in which, for the present, it would not be
safe to accept one reading, to the absolute exclusion of
others ” ! They then go on to state that, in these cases,
they have given the various readings where they thought
them sufficiently important”! This is reading between the
lines with a vengeance! It is reading between the lines
and all round the margin too ! But is it compatible with
inspiration, with a book written by God, or “as the work
of Jesus Christ himself ” ? I think I may safely say that
it is fairly free from any such compatibility. And may
we hope that the time will arrive when it will be “ safe ”
to accept some “ one reading ” as the true one, and thus
be able to finally purge “God’s word” of its false read
ings ? The notion, though, perchance and alas I hopeless,
is still a logical one.
We are further told that the alterations which they have
made in the authorised version “may be roughly grouped
in five principal classes”. The classes are then given.
“ First, alterations positively required by change of read
ing in the Greek text. Secondly, alterations made where
the authorised version appeared either to be incorrect, or to
have chosen the less probable of the two readings. Thirdly,
alterations of obscure or ambiguous renderings into such
as are clear and express in their import. . . . Fifthly,
alterations rendered necessary by consequence ”, [italics in
this case not mine], “that is, arising out of changes
already made. . . . ”. Add to this another statement
on the same page, which says: “ Our task was revision,
not re-translation”, wonder what the result might have
been had their task been re-translation, and then exclaim
with me, So much for inspiration!
�viii
But these few quotations only give the faintest idea of
the difficulties which stand in the way of the doctrine of
inspiration. They will, however, serve ; and are valuable
as being admissions made by those who have doubtless
done their uttermost to meet and overcome those.difficulties.
It would further appear, from other parts of this damag
ing apology, that what I will call knotty and troublesome
points were decided by a majority; in which case, if the
majority did not chance to be the wisest—which some
times happens—we may still have the wrong reading.
If my readers will pardon the plebeian comparison, I would
say that this old-time book is like a very old pair of boots,
and, metaphorically speaking, is not only in constant need
of being newly soled and heeled, but of being furnished
with fresh uppers. It also resembles the boy’s knife
which had been furnished with new blades many times,
and also newly hafted, but which he stoutly maintained
was still the same knife.
I shall possibly, upon a future occasion, have a good
deal to say upon this question of inspiration. In the
meantime it appears to me that God, in order to make a.
thorough and lasting job of it, would have not only to
inspire the first medium or writer, but all those who took
part, or who ever will take part in its production, down
almost to the “ printer’s devil ”. This, of course, in
every language in which it is or may be produced for
all time, because it would be obviously foolish for him to
impart to one individual what is intended for mankind,
without making certain that it shall not be blurred, changed,
or rendered obscure by those who have to manipulate it.
Further: it would be necessary for all peoples to be in
a state of preparedness to receive it. Inspired matter is
as any other matter to those who cannot regard it as in
spired. A revelation is not a revelation to those who can
not receive it. If God in his “ Divine Providence ”, or by
reason of its absence—which amounts to the same thing—
has decreed or allowed millions of people to grow up and
be grounded in certain principles which forbid or preclude
the possibility of the acceptance of his Inspired or Revealed
Word, then, so far as they are concerned, it is no revela
tion. Or, in other words, he has decreed that such shall
be the case : that is, he decrees one set of conditions which
annul another. And, if all be true, he has decreed that
�ix
countless millions shall be eternally damned by reason of
such result.
I will, before taking up my subject proper, just notice
one or two of the concluding remarks of these revising
apologisers, made partly by way of extenuation for their
own shortcomings, and partly for that they did have to
mend God’s word.
They say, amongst other foolish things addressed to
“ Almighty God”, “that such a work can never be accom
plished by organised efforts of scholarship and criticism,
unless assisted by Divine help ”. To which I will but add:
such a work “assisted by Divine help ” ought to be easy
and sure without the aid of scholarship, or even the power
of criticism. But they further tell God—although they
did not mean to do so—that in spite of the “ Divine help ”,
“blemishes and imperfections will assuredly be found” in
their work; and that all their endeavors “must fall short
■of their aim ”! Why must they, when assisted by “ Divine
help ” ? Is not God, God? And will he not help in the
work of mending his own book, when implored to do so by
those upon whom he has “providentially” put the task?
Truly, gentlemen, you are very inconsistent; you speak of
your failings and your imperfections in the fulfilment of
your task, and call your God, upon whom you have called
for assistance, “Almighty God”, in one and the same
breath, forgetting that, according to your own prayerfully
written and deliberate statements, he is either unwilling or
unable to help you! I really do not know, reverend and
learned gentlemen, whether to be more sorry for you or for
your God.
Let me now, after this slight bout with the revisers, make
-a fair beginning with my subject.
�*
�CHRIST’S TEMPTATION.
The story, in its naked and un-expounded simplicity, is to
be found in the fourth chapter of Matthew, from the first
to the eleventh verses. Its calls upon the reader’s faith
are something enormous. It is of that kind of reading
which must be read absolutely without the aid of reason.
There is no room in the story for anything but pure and
unleavened child-like faith. It is so supremely ridiculous
as to be almost beyond discussing. The Devil tempts
God ! That is the key-note. 0 wonderful story I 0 marvel
lous, devil-tempted Omnipotence ! 0 most self-sacrificing
Almightiness, who wouldst not deign to accept at th©
hands of thine arch enemy that which it was not in his
power to give ! Let us, proud and grasping mortals, bow
our heads to the dust in face of this sublime self-abnega
tion. Let it be trumpeted forth to the “four corners of
the earth”, and dinned into the ears of the “poor heathen”,
that our God—the Christian God (or a part of him, if you.
choose)—actually refused to throw himself off a pinnacle,
and to accept the earth as a gift from the Devil! Get
behind me, Devil, whilst I tell from “ Holy Writ ” what
is at once the story of your own discomfiture and a God
like example of not accepting as the price of an unpleasant
job that which you already own.
The story runs thus :—
“1. Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be
tempted by the Devil.
“2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he
was afterwards hungry.
�12
CHRIST’S TEMPTATION.
“ 3. And the tempter coming, said to him: If thou be the
Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
“ 4. But he answered: It is written: Man liveth not by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God.
“5. Then the Devil took him up into the Holy City, and set
him on the pinnacle of the temple.
“6. And said to him : If thou be the Son of God, cast thy
self down. For it is written: That he hath given his angels
charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest
perhaps thou hurt thy foot against a stone.
“7. Jesus said unto him: It is written again : Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God.
“ 8. Again the Devil took him up into a very high mountain :
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them.
‘ ‘ 9. And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling
down thou wilt adore me.
“10. Then Jesus said to him: Begone, Satan, for it is
written : The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only
shalt thou serve.
“11. Then the Devil left him; and behold angels came and
ministered to him.”
It is worthy of note that Mark, in his account, makes
no mention of the fasting. He does mention Christ having
been driven into the wilderness by the Spirit, and also
speaks of the pretended temptations, and of angels having
ministered to him; but he seems to have been quite
ignorant of the feat of fasting. According to his account,
the reader is bound to suppose that Christ did not fast
during the forty days, but that he was simply driven into
the wilderness by the Spirit; that he kept company with
wild beasts ; that he humbugged the Devil; and that, by
reason of all this, he was under the necessity of being
waited upon by ministering angels. That, in all con
science, is sufficiently grotesque without the introduction
of the fasting business! But it is really amazing what
queer things these Divinely chosen people are made to do
and to say!
John the Baptist, who is put down as the immediate
precursor of Jesus Christ, had a liking for the deserts.
His clothing must needs be of camel’s hair, and his food
locusts and wild honey. Of course, he may have possessed
a “sweet tooth”, and so have had a predilection for
honey, but it is difficult to suppose that, even by the aid
�Christ’s temptation.
IS
of the grasshoppers, he could have satisfied the cravings
of hunger upon it. His Master, coming after him, does
not exactly take to the desert on his own account, but gets
pushed or driven into it by the Spirit (i.e., the third person
of himself), takes to wild beasts, and, according to two of
his inspired biographers, eats nothing, humbugs the Devil,
and gets himself ministered to by angels.
In a kind of preface to S. Mark’s Gospel, he is said to
have been “ the abridger of S. Matthew ”, but to have
added “ several particular circumstances ”, and to have
“ changed the order of narration, in which he agrees with.
S. Luke and S. John ”. Likewise to have “narrated two
histories not mentioned by S. Matthew”; also “some
miraculous cures”; and to have “omitted many things
noticed by Matthew ”.
Now, without stopping to compare and examine all this
minutely, I will remark that it is very like saying he wrote
a different account of the same supposed circumstances.
But it is more odd when you are told that these differences
from Matthew make him agree with Luke and John ; and
still more so when you are further told that “ most com
mentators follow the order of S. Matthew ”.
It is further admitted that it is not known at what
period, and in what language, Mark wrote his gospel, nor
that the oldest copy must have been written in the sixth
century. They go further in making their uncertainty
manifest by admitting that they are not agreed as to who
he really was; and also go very near admitting that there
are grounds for supposing that he made use of Matthew’s
gospel. Well, if he did, he certainly took great liberties
with it. All, however, appears to be pretty much guess
and supposition. Nevertheless, it must be regarded as
of “Divine authority”, and “written by inspiration”!
Guessing and supposing is all very well in its way, but to
be damned for not guessing right, or because somebody
else guessed wrong, is quite too much.
In referring to Luke, it is singular to find the second
temptation—that of sticking Christ on the top of a pinnacle
—is given as the third. The expounder gets over the difficulty by coolly making use of the remark which I have
already noticed:—“Most commentators follow the order of
Saint Matthew”. I believe he only intended that to apply
to the order of the temptations; but after his other state
�14
CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
ments, that. Mark’s differences from Matthew make him
agree with Luke and John, I think I am entitled to use it
as muddling the whole. These commentators and ex
pounders—under the grace of God—consider they are at
liberty to pick and choose in the matter, using this portion
and rejecting that; or even to suppose that both may
possibly mean something other than the thing stated.
They vainly hope that by so acting they will succeed in
producing some sort of harmonious whole which shall be
acceptable; and think that, while killing the principle of
inspiration in detail, they can show that it lives in general.
But they, good souls, may do as they please: they may muti
late their book; but woe betide the “contumacious heretic”
who does but dare to doubt or change one tittle of it!
What a bad case for inspiration! If, however, when the
inspired writers differ, the faithful may have their choice,
I claim that, in the same spirit, the non-faithful may also
have theirs; and, if needs be, reject both.
We are told by the same authorities that Luke only
wrote his gospel as he heard it. So that, so far as Luke is
concerned, his gospel must be hear-say only. But seeing
that they hold all to have been inspired, we are bound to
suppose that it is inspired hear-say; and that it differs
from other inspired matter—or rather, from other inspired
accounts of the same matter which are not hear-say! I do
not think the Boman Church can object to this view, be
cause it holds tradition to be equally as true and sacred as
Holy Writ itself. Tradition frequently becomes doctrine,
which you must accept as the truth—the doctrine of the
“immaculate conception” to wit: which means that Christ
was not only born without the taint of “original sin ”, but
his “ virgin mother ” was also conceived and born without
such sin!
Let us, in passing, look for an instant at that doctrine.
It appears to me that if it, and the reasoning it implies,
were driven to their legitimate end, it would kill the notion
of original sin altogether ; because if it becomes necessary
to make Christ's mother immaculate—free from all sin,
original and otherwise—it becomes more necessary to make
her parents—both mother and father—free also; and so on
down to the “ beginning ”. Thus, in order to give logical
birth to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, you must
murder that of original sin. Of course the miracle-monger
�Christ’s
temptation.
15
can say no : it was an easy matter for God to produce
Mary from her tainted parents without herself partaking
of the taint. This is in fact what the Church of Rome does
teach. But there is a nicety about it that is well worth
looking at—some really superb theological reasoning. It
is held that the immaculate conception, or the conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary “ without the stain of original
sin, refers to her soul, not to her body ”, for the reason
that a “ human body is not in itself capable of guilt ”. The
Catholic Church teaches that in all other human beings,
the soul, when united to the infant body—yet unborn—
necessarily contracts the stain of original sin. I do not
think it is made quite clear as to when this union—or
fusion, as it is elsewhere called—of the body and soul takes
place. It is commonly held that the soul is the life ; but in
a work which I have before me,1 Mary is said to have had
sanctifying grace, etc. bestowed upon her at the very
instant her soul was infused into her body, which it further
states was “in the very first instant of her existence ”. It
would appear from this that the fusion spoken of takes
place at the time of conception. The question as to what
precise moment may be set down for the infusion opens up
some curious considerations. In any case we have the
body, which is material and cannot sin, so affecting the
soul, which is immaterial, pure, and immortal, as to con
taminate it with original sin. A lump of “ clay ”, incapa
ble by “ itself ” of sin, but charged with enough of the
original stuff to blast a pure soul—which, by the way, is
held to control the body ! It would thus appear that man
is a kind of human Seidlitz powder, and does not effervesce
into a regular original-sin-being, as per God, until pro
perly mixed. And this it is which did not take place in the
case of the Blessed Virgin. God so contrived her mixing—
11 through the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ”—that the fusion
of her body and soul did not produce the regular result,.
i.e., “ a child of sin ”. According to this teaching—which
is Catholic—God, in his great mercy, gave the soul of one
woman a pure tenement, and blasted the souls of every
other human being with foul ones !
Passing that by, we come back to what I said the miracle
mongers might plead, viz., that it was an easy matter
1 “Catholic Belief,” by the Very Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D.D.
�16
Christ’s
temptation.
for God to produce Mary through, the medium of her
tainted parents without herself being tainted. But upon
the same line of argument, he could have done a Like
thing with regard to Christ and his parents, and therefore
the doctrine of the immaculate conception becomes a meresuperfluity. It is simply an endeavor to get over one
difficulty by proposing a greater. Apart from this, how
ever, can it be contended that Christ, who, being God, was
necessarily pure, became more than pure by being brought
into the world through the body of a specially-manufac
tured immaculate virgin wife ? Out upon such vile trashI
The plain fact is, the immaculateness of Mary was mani
festly an afterthought. This foolish church thought it
could produce what it conceived to be purity, through an
impure medium, i.e., a pure “ Christ child ” through the
medium of an impure woman—by which I mean a woman
1 ‘tainted with original sin”—providing always that her
husband took neither hand nor part in the matter! The
Church first drew the line at poor inoffensive Joseph.
Later on it dawned upon the Church that Christ’s mother,,
whose flesh and blood he had become, should also be pure.
Being committed to her, it thought it was in a dilemma;
something must be done: what more easy than to work, or
assume, a miracle? Hence the “Immaculate Mary” rubbish.
I suppose that, had Christ been under the necessity of having
an earthly father, in the same sense as ordinary mortals,,
the Church would have had to manufacture some sort of an
immaculate conception on behalf of unlucky Joseph. Asit is, they insist upon his wife remaining a virgin both
before and after marriage, in order that his only child
should not be contaminated! And to cap all, Christ’s
genealogy is traced through Joseph and his house down to
Abraham, capital (of the humility type) actually being
made out of the supposed fact that two out of four of his
female progenitors mentioned were adultressesI
I feel that I have digressed very considerably from my
subject, but really every line is so suggestive of thought,
that I find a difficulty in confining myself strictly to it.
Turning again to the gospels and to that “ according to
Saint John ”, we find that writer to be more ignorant upon
the matter of the temptations than Mark. He not only
knows nothing about the temptations themselves, but is
altogether oblivious of his Master having been either
�CHRIST’S TEMPTATION.
17
“driven” or “led” for forty days and nights into the
wilderness. This oversight or oblivion on the part
of John is most singular. Sis gospel is not set down as
being mere hearsay; on the contrary, he was, upon the
authority of those whom I will take the liberty of calling
the learned and reverend editors of the Bible, one of the
most loved and constant companions of Christ. So much
so, that Christ is said to have confided the care of his
mother to John at his own death. (It maybe remarked
that, according to all the gospels, he paid her but scant
attention himself during life.) But surely this particular
evangelist should have known something of what happened
to his “Divine Lord” during his forty days and nights
absence in the wilderness, instead of being quite unaware of
such absence—he does not appear to have so much as dr earned
of it! So far as John’s gospel informs us, we are bound to
assume that he not only did not know of its occurrence,
but that it did not, and could not, have occurred; for he
actually carries the history of Christ’s doings right on with
out a break; telling how John the Baptist and certain
disciples saw and conversed with him the day after the
baptism; how they followed him, and many other things
leading up to the “ marriage feast ”, at which the feat of
changing the water into wine is said to have been per
formed. Whereas, according to Matthew and Luke—Luke
most emphatically—Jesus was led into the wilderness to
be tempted immediately after baptism. This is evidently
another case in which the faithful may take their choice.
It is a case of abridgment of one evangelist by another
Muth a vengeance. John not only abridges Matthew, but
allows less than no time wherein to do forty days and
nights fasting, to say nothing of the three mighty tempta
tions at the hands of Old Nick.
It is true that these Bible compilers and expounders
give John but a poor character as to his learning and
scholarship generally—admit that he was not a lettered
man, etc.—but of course show how he more than made up
for his ignorance in this respect, by his great and “ super
natural light ”, “by the depth of the mysteries ”, “by th©
super-excellency of the matter ”, “ the solidity of his
thoughts ”, “ by the infused wisdom with which the Holy
Ghost filled him”, and much more. This is all very pretty,
and, taken in a lump, might be devoutly supposed to mean;
�18
Christ’s
temptation.
something very marvellous, serving of course as a counter
balance for lack of learning ; but it does not fill up a, gap
of forty days and nights, nor give space for that period of
time where none is allowed.
If Smith said that his master went out on a certain day
right away into the wilderness or woods, to begin a large
and special piece of work, and was not seen for forty days
and nights, during which time certain things happened to
him; and if Brown said that the said master was at home
during the same period, doing certain other things; and if
then Jones explained the difference between the two state
ments by saying that Brown abridged Smith; we should
probably funk that Smith and Brown were fools, and that
Jones was a liar. But this is exactly what happens
between Matthew, John, and the expounder. We will,
however, leave this portion of the case by simply asking
the thoughtful if it recommends itself to their understand
ing—is it worthy of their belief ? Will they take upon
trust, matters professing to touch what is called . their
eternal salvation, but which are so loose and . contradictory
as to be a mere joke when applied to the ordinary business
of fife ?
#
Let us continue the careful examination of the subject,
as given in Matthew and already quoted in full, comment
ing upon it as we proceed.
The first verse announces that u Jesus was led by the
spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil ”.
Now, bearing in mind.that Jesus was one portion of the
“ Godhead ”, or the “ second person of the Holy Trinity ”
—in short, was, and is God—the question, How then
could he be tempted ? forces itself upon us. Can God be
tempted ? especially by the vilest of his vile subordinates ?
The supposition involved is sq stupendously foolish as to
be beneath argument I The idea of subordinate.or limited
power tempting all power is, indeed, a sublime joke I
Why, the expounder himself (foolishly) admits—or, rather,
points out—in a note that, 11 so restrained is the devils
power, that he could not go into the swine till Christ per
mitted it”. And yet, in another, he childishly talks
of Christ’s “ victory over the enemy of our Salvation”*
that is, the victory of the source of all power, over
limited and restrained portion thereof! A holder
restrained power tempting the fountain of power I Well
�CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
1»
might Mr. Bradlaugh1 ask the question which I have
repeated:—
“Can God be tempted?”. That, reverend sirs, is a
problem for you to solve; that, clerical mice, is a nut for
you to crack, and one, I promise you, that will not be
easily disposed of.
I am, of course, aware that some—the Unitarians, for
instance—hold that Christ not having been God, but
simply a man—a chosen human instrument, might, and
could be tempted; although I doubt if they would now
seriously hold that he was tempted, as set forth in the
Testament. But even taking their view, the temptation
is a mere farce ; it can be nothing more ; because Christ,
whether God or man, being God’s medium and intended
Savior of the world, would, or certainly ought to, be some
thing more than a mere shuttlecock in the hands of the
devil, otherwise, how shall he accomplish his task ? How
shall he overthrow the power he is sent to combat, if he is
in danger of being overthrown by that power ? I presume
it was not a matter of chance or experiment as to whether
he really became the Saviour or not ? And if there were
no danger of overthrow, where the temptation? It is a
joke, whichever way you look at it. On one hand, we have
a temptation which directly supposes the possibility of
succumbing; and on the other, we are bound to suppose
that there could be no possibility of his being made to
succumb ; because in the latter case God would be simply
blasting his own desires. Of course, a Trinitarian cannot
hold that Christ might have failed; and I doubt if a
Unitarian will be found to do so. Hence, according to
both, the temptation is as I have called it—a farce. All
Christians must, I think, hold that Christ was above
temptation. If not, they would, as I have pointed out,
have to hold that he might, by succumbing to the devil,
have turned the stones into bread, or have worshipped
him at the price mentioned; or have thrown himself off
the pinnacle and broken his neck, thus cheating the Jews
of their crucifixion, and the world of its salvation.
^Referring for a moment to the wretch whom the
expounder—not I—dragged in, and who carried in his
own person enough devils to drive mad and drown “two
1 See his excellent pamphlet, “Our Gospels, Whence and How? ”
�20
Christ’s temptation.
thousand ” inoffensive pigs ; I ask: Is it not degrading at
this time of day to be under the necessity of discussing for
one single instant the question of a legion of devils—called
by the expounder Satan—leaving the body of a man and
entering those of pigs ! Lo I the pigs “ were stifled in thesea ”. But I presume the devils, who were possibly good
swimmers were saved. Being devils, we cannot well
suppose they were drowned. Possibly God, or Satan,
their more immediate master—which amounts to the same
thing—had further need of them. But of what conse
quence are the lives of a herd of swine, compared with the
whim of a legion of devils who had a sudden fancy for
pork? But seriously; what monstrously far-fetched fable
is it we have before us. Legion of devils in one man
—a herd of swine peaceably feeding; devils howl to
Christ—not to the pigs—and say they know him;
devils crave permission to enter the pigs, which is granted;
pigs rush into the sea; bubble and squeak! and all is
over! Let us cross ourselves!
I have a picture before me of this truly sublime and
very much Christian subject. It ought to do the Eev. G.
P. H. Bowe’s heart good; especially if he, like the devils
in question, should have a weakness for pork. Every
feature is founded upon New Testament authority. Christ
is represented as if in the act of accommodating the legion
of devils, by granting their prayer:—“ Send us into the
herd of swine.” Some of his followers who are in the back
ground appear a little uneasy at what is going on; they
do not seem to quite relish the looks of the lately
“possessed” one, who is crawling at Christ’s feet in a
partially nude and bewildered fashion. I may remark
that to be suddenly delivered of two thousand devils—
which is giving each devil a pig—is no joke; and would
be quite enough to bewilder any man. The now mad and
be-devilled pigs, which, after the devils had entered into
them, were “with great violence carried into the sea”,
are represented toppling over the distant cliffs into tho
water like a swarm of mice. The picture is one of a series
intended to instruct the young in the “ Divine truths ” as
contained in the New Testament. Therefore I, as one of
those whom the above-mentioned rev. gentleman has in
vited “to study afresh the teachings of Christianity”, in
return, and with much gratitude, invite him to study this
�Christ’s temptation.
21
particular portion, thereof. I should like to ask him if the
pigs were providentially disposed of, or whether pigs are
outside the range of providence ? and if so, why ? Perhaps
it would be better if I used his own phraseology, and
asked him if the suffocation of the herd of swine was the
result of one of God’s “ Divine arrangements ” ? And if the
wretch who dwelt for an indefinite period “ in the tombs ”,
and whom “ no man was able to bind, .... not even
with chains ”, and who “ was always day and night in the
monuments and mountains, crying and cutting himself
with stones”, etc., was excluded by ‘‘Divine arrange
ments ” from the exercise of his free will? And if not by
“Divine arrangements”, by what arrangements? The
■entire happening was either by reason of the “Divine
■arrangements ”, or in spite of them. And so with all
happenings, including the “results of the exercise” of
what is called free will. And, in either case, exit the ideal
•Christian God. The Dev. Mr. Powe’s theory of “Free
will” and “Divine arrangements” would compel God to
be eternally dancing attendance upon the devil, in order to
block him with new “Divine arrangements ”, as occasion
might require or circumstances permit—with the proviso
that, by reason of his omniscience, he is enabled to do
much of his dancing beforehand. How very God-like !
The discussion of the question of free will and predestina
tion, although enticing, is plainly beyond the scope and
intention of this pamphlet; perhaps we may, so far as it.
relates to this particular demoniac and the swine, harmlessly
allow what would very likely be Mr. Rowe’s own view to
stand: viz., that he, God, had no hand in the matter, but
simply “ discerned beforehand ” that the man would be pos
sessed as described, that he made his arrangements accord
ingly, and thus had the pigs at hand ready to have the devils
popped into them, which he knew beforehand would please
them—I mean the devils, the pigs don’t count. The sea
likewise being there was also handy in turn to pop the
pigs into. That is a very nice and comfortable arrange
ment for everybody—except the pigs—and I have no
•doubt is fraught with deep and sublime meaning, and is,
•of course, and above all, deeply Christian. I admit there
is just a little difficulty involved in this view, because it
forces you to hold that God of his own choice, created the
■earth and all its creatures, having power to produce it
�22
Christ’s
temptation.
upon any plan or fashion he pleased; but that he isnevertheless not responsible for the result of such creation.
I will further admit that one might be tempted to think
that it would be easier—though not always so held by the
law—to hold that a human being who cannot discern all
things beforehand, and whose work must necessarily par
take more or less of the nature of experiment, might not
be responsible for the result of his work. I will even
admit that some might be tempted to profanely regard
applying such a principle to God as a joke. But then wemust remember that a little faith judiciously mixed with
prayer will make all this right.
Of Christ’s temptation, I have seen it urged—indeed it
is the common Christian cant of the matter, and is held
more or less from the hoary old Church of Rome {gory
would be a better word), down through all the shades and
grades of the white-chokered fraternity generally, that,
although Christ was God, he was also man : and that it
was in his character and nature of man, that he suffered
and was tempted. God suffered as man and not as God ?
That, in reality, is saying he was God, and that he was not
God. It is contending that, because God is God, therefore
he can be God and not God at one and the same time. If
you hold that God can do all things, even to the annulling
his own Godship, and still remain God, argument must
cease; the matter becomes pure nonsense. But it is
nevertheless being consequently urged. Indeed, the folly
and contradiction involved in the Christian faith, especially
in connection with its God, is something unspeakable. In
this matter of Christ’s temptation it is held that God, in
one form, not only permitted, but willed that God in
another form—which at the same time was not God—
should be tempted by a power which God in either form
could have easily crushed 1 Where then, “in the name of'
God”—excuse the borrowed phrase—was the temptation?
If God is God he can be nothing else; no matter what
form he may assume, whether it be that of a supposed
maker of a world,, or a Savior of one. Of course, I am
not contending for any such thing as the existence of a
God: I am simply showing the folly of the Christian con
ception, and the impossibility of his being tempted. My
contention is that God must necessarily be God—his
ALmightiness notwithstanding—in any guise; whether it
�Christ’s temptation.
23
be that of a man, a fish, or any other thing. Hence the
“ God-man” was God; and hence his temptation was all
fudge. But we will leave the supposed fact, and go to the
manner of it.
The second verse innocently tells that, “when he had
fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards
hungry ”. (!)
The difference between Christ and an
ordinary mortal who persevered in the attempt would be
that he would not be hungry: he would be defunct.
Foolish people have from time to time, humbly or pre
sumptuously—whichever you like—endeavoured to imitate
him. As far as I know, the celebrated Dr. Tanner came
nearest to performing the feat. But after all, fasting in
specially tempered apartments, with careful watching by
skilful doctors, is only a feather-bed kind of fasting, and
can in no way be compared with a fast performed out in
the open desert, and watched only by wild beasts. Christ
may be fairly said to have beaten all comers in the matter
of fasting. And it must be borne in mind that he could
have accomplished another forty days and nights as easily
as those which he had already got through, had he been
so minded. Nevertheless, it seems—regarding bim as a
man—not to be surprising that he “was afterwards
hungry”.. But taking the other view—that held by nearly
all Christians, viz., that he was God—it really does become
a little surprising. I venture to think that a hungry God
is something of a novelty. The idea is quite worthy of
being Christian. And the expounder to some extent
adopts it—that is, he gives the God character to Christ.
In another note on the subject, he innocently remarks that
“Jesus wished to manifest a certain corporeal weakness
arising out of his continued fast, that the devil might
venture to tempt him,” etc. So that he really was hungry;
and his hunger was the result of his fasting. You see that
although he desired to cheat the devil into what he knew
would be a fruitless attempt at temptation, he nevertheless
desired it should be a fair kind of cheat. The weakness
manifested should arise from the continued fast, that the
devil might venture to tempt him. Here we have, upon
the expounder’s authority, a temptation within a tempta
tion. Christ actually tempting the devil to tempt Christ I
■‘"Very God and very man”—as the Church hath it—
tempting the very devil to tempt, through him, the entire
�24
Christ’s
temptation.
Trinity! for one portion could not be tempted without the
other.
Look a little deeper into the picture here presented, and
what have we? We have God No. 1 in heaven—well, he
is there when at home ; or, as the expounder elsewhere
puts it, he is there particularly, and everywhere else
generally, and, I presume, not hungry. And we have God
No. 2, who is not a separate God, but part and parcel of
God No. 1, “led” or “driven” into the wilderness by
God No. 3 (who is portion of Gods Nos. 1 and 2),
being either hungry, or pretending hunger, in order to
induce the vilest enemy and subordinate of Gods 1, 2, and
3 to tempt the entire trio ! And it was to maintain “the
truth ” of this God-twaddle “inviolable ”, that the fiendish
Inquisition raised its black head, and fires were lit up in
all parts of the Christian world, to be fed by the noblest
and best of the human race.
The expounder, in one of his notes, takes occasion to
recommend fasting as being good by way of mortifying
the flesh in order to strengthen the spirit against tempta
tion, etc., forgetting that he had just previously pointed
out that it was by the appearance of the weakness—
whether real or pretended-—occasioned by the fasting that
Christ hoped, and succeeded in inducing poor Old Nick to
tempt him. Truly these opposite statements are quite fit
to be considered inspired.
Now, whether Christ was really hungry or not, and
whether fasting in general is good or not, one thing is
quite certain. The good people of the Church, particularly
the clergy, mostly manage to make theii* fasts come as
near being feasts as their means will allow. If I, or you,
gentle reader, chanced to be a Catholic, and felt a desire to
taste a bit of flesh meat—felt that a cut from the joint
would be relishable—and partook of it, say a few minutes
before the hour of twelve on the night of what is known
as a fast day, we should thereby commit mortal sin. But
if our more discreet, and of course more obedient neigh
bour waited till the clock struck the hour, and then
satisfied his craving, he would be free of the sin : thus
perchance escaping hell by a few minutes. I don’t think
the fact of the clock being wrong—unless he knew it—
would count against him ; the Church in that case would
be satisfied with the intent. It simply requires implicit
�CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
25
obedience. Again:—If it happened to be a fast day, or
day of abstinence, on which only one full meal is allowed,
■every means are taken to make that meal as full as possi
ble ; thus making the fast or abstinence as near a sham as
may be. But, although on these days you may not take
two full meals, you may, in addition to the one allowed,
take a collation. This of course makes it very comfortable
for those of collation means. One full meal, and a colla
tion, in reality means, one fairly good meal, and—to
be vulgar—one “good blow out”. But with the poor
folk the matter is different. The collation allowed would
most likely be a treat for “Sunday’s dinner”. I have
seen many eating their red herring, and taking their tea—
if it deserved that name—without either milk or sugar,
and their bread without butter, on these days of fast and
abstinence. True, they mostly do it with a bad grace, but
they dare not for their very souls, if genuine Catholics,
break the fast, unless specially permitted to do so by the
priest. I do not exactly condemn these poor folks, either
rich or needy, for this: they are bred up to it, and made
to act in this inconsistent and shuffling manner whether
they will or not. The poor and needy at any rate must
not be blamed if hunger tempt them to act inconsistently.
They, in all conscience, fast, to their sorrow. Yet, ac
cording to the tenets of this fasting Church, we are bound
to suppose that many a poor and un-contrite wretch finds
his way into hell with nothing but a bit of dry bread and
reasty bacon “ on his stomach ”, whilst his more devout
and well-to-do fellow-believer floats mellifluously into
heaven upon his choice fish and sauce, with all those other
•condiments in which the souls of your fat and oily
ecclesiastics delight, and which go to make up a dinner as
served at the table of my Lord Bishop of Holy Church.
In verse 3, we learn that, “ the tempter coming, said to
him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these
stones be made bread”; thus showing the hungry ruse
to have been quite successful. It is in connection with
this verse that the expounder remarks that Christ wished
to display this particular “ corporeal weakness.” Of course
every verse and every line teems with the folly of God
being tempted by the devil. But taking what may be
termed an infernal view of the matter, and which ought to
• some extent be a Christian view—because Hell and
�26
Christ’s
temptation.
Heaven may be said to be the two ends of Christianity—
it is only natural that the devil should be anxious to put
some kind of test upon Christ in order to satisfy himself'
that the real “ Simon Pure ” had come. It is only reason
able to suppose that he should be anxious to know with
whom he had to contend, so as to be in a position to judgeas to how far his doings on the earth were to be affected.
He was naturally solicitous for his kingdom here, as well
as the one below; and thought it not amiss to try this
newcomer’s skill as a necromancer and miracle-worker, in
order to see if he could pit his own powers against him.
It is quite clear that Satan had not seen nor heard any
thing of the opening of the heavens, and the loud voice
proclaiming “this is my beloved son,” etc., together with
the dove business. Neither had any of his imps ; or, if
they had, the duty of reporting to headquarters had been
sadly neglected—which circumstance I do think rather
unaccountable; because, having so many devils at his
command that he was able shortly after to tell off an
entire legion for the benefit, and to do duty on the
person of one man, it is only reasonable to think that he,
if too busy himself, would have had some one or two
on duty at the river Jordan upon such an important
occasion. However this may have been, Christ did not
satisfy him by doing the miracle required; but replied:
(verse 4) “It is written: Man liveth not by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God.” Here we evidently have the man part of God
telling the devil that he could live pretty much without
food, providing he could procure enough of words out of the
mouth of the God part of himself! Well, the idea is
certainly novel; but it does not satisfy us poor mortals.
Words are but a windy diet. So far, I think the devil
had the best of the argument.
The expounder has a very curious note in reference tothis statement that the words which proceed out of God’s
mouth form part of man’s diet; which shows I was not
so far from orthodoxy, in speaking of Christ’s ability to
live on them, as some might be inclined to suppose. He
says, “the words were spoken of the manna,” and refers the
reader to Duet. viii. 3, which certainly does mix the manna
and the statement about the words strangely up together.
But does the expounder really mean that this miraculous
�Christ’s
temptation.
27
bread came out of (rod’s mouth ? If he does not, I do not see
how the statement made by Christ can have reference to
it. Bear in mind, the text does not say one word about
manna, nor anything else edible : it speaks of words, or,
“ every word ”. I admit that the statement in Matthew
might be held to have reference to the latter part of that
referred to in Deuteronomy: indeed it is simply a repeti
tion of it; but it is difficult to see how either refers tomanna.
The expounder goes on to say that the passage also
means—in fact, its sense in this place is—“ that man’s life
can be supported by anything, or in any manner, as it
pleaseth God ”. It is rather difficult to quite catch the
meaning of the note as a whole ; but if it means that man’slife can be supported upon anything, or in any manner, and
sustained in any fashion which pleaseth God, I cannot
help being profanely surprised that it has not pleased him
to support the lives of those who in thousands, and in tens,
and in ones, have sunk into the grave of starvation with
all its accompanying horrors and woe; and the lives of
those who have perished wholesale by flood, pestilence, and
earthquake.
Will the Rev. Mr. Rowe hold that God’s “ divine
arrangements” do not interfere with the free will of such
as these ?
The only rejoinder to my amazement is that it “pleaseth
God” not to support their lives, but to massacre them.
This he sometimes does by sudden upheavals, shocks,
rushings, and displacements of what has, in mock humility,
been called his footstool; and sometimes by slow and pain
ful processes.
Mark, I am not saying these things : therefore do not
take shelter under what you will presumptuously call my
profanity. It is you, reverend and non-reverend snufflers,
who prate of what “ pleaseth God ” and the rest. I but
apply y°Kr own preaching. If it pleased God to feed by
miraculous means a horde of the worst and most inconsis
tant butchers that even fable tells of, it also pleases him,
to allow countless thousands to perish who are bent on
noble enterprise. If it pleaseth him to bless this creature,
it also pleaseth him to blast this other. If it pleaseth him
to feed this man, it also pleaseth him to starve this poor
little shivering and helpless child, or that heart-broken
�28
Christ’s
temptation.
woman. If it pleaseth him to save from fire or wreck
such a man or woman, it likewise pleaseth him that such
another man or woman shall perish in their endeavour to
rescue their wife, their husband, their children. If it
pleaseth your God that an animal shall bound with life
and vigor, it also pleaseth him that another shall gore and
rend it with tooth, horn, and fang, and that all shall be
infested with its own parasite, and that each in turn shall
succumb to disease and death in more or less painful form.
If it pleaseth him to warm into life and beauty by means
of the sun, it also pleaseth him to scorch up and kill by an
excess of its heat, or to shrivel and perish by reason of its
absence. If it pleaseth him to moisten the earth with the
“dew of heaven”, it at the same time pleaseth him to
deluge portions of it with flood and storm, and to afflict, to
•choke with sore and ulcer, the young, the innocent, the old,
the weak and helpless, either by an excess or by the quality
of this same dew. And so on ad infinitum. These are the
deductions which must be drawn from your own premises.
If your God scatters light and peace and joy with one
hand, he deals out misery, darkness, wrong, disease, and
death with the other. And just as the sun must shine on
all, so must the black cloud envelope all.1 God smites the
weak and the deserving as ruthlessly as he does the strong
and the guilty, The lines which say that “ God tempers
the wind to the shorn lamb,” are a delusion. They are
the out-pourings of a benevolent but unobservant mind.
Our “shorn lambs ” die of exposure and want.
To put it into blunt language : either God is God all
round ; or he is not God. Making the devil do duty for
the dark side of the world is but a poor device. And the
wretched begging of the question which finds utterance in
the miserable plea that “ God does all for a wise end,” etc.,
etc., is even worse. Nor will your “ good tidings of great
joy ” serve as a plaster for the world’s sores. Up to the
present moment only a few of the world’s inhabitants have
had an opportunity of embracing it, and many millions of
those who have had the opportunity, are unable to do so,
while millions more practically ignore it. When it did
, I really think I go too far when I admit that the sun shines upon
ail. Thousands there are at all times into whose hovels the sup’s rays
never penetrate. There the black cloud always reigns.
�CHRIST'S TEMPTATION.
29
reign supreme it became a scourge. Iu short, it is a failure,
which, of course, your God “discerned beforehand.” For
myself, I say that your God, and your “ pleaseth God”
theory is for the most part cant and pretence; or it
is a blind belief in the remnant of an exploded theory
which was the outcome of dark and ignorant times.
It is really difficult to say, going back to the text, which
portion is most heavily laden with folly. It is perhaps
impossible to conceive anything more supremely ridiculous
than the matter related in the next verse (5). It says
that, ‘ ‘ the devil took him up into the holy city, and set
him upon the pinnacle of the temple.”
The devil is evidently becoming impatient. If his devil
ship could not induce God to work a miracle for the devil;
why, the devil will work a miracle for God ! And so the
devil took God up bodily and set him upon the pinnacle of
the temple. Did he dowel him on; or did Christ accom
modatingly assist the devil by sitting quietly and miracul
ously upon the pinnacle ? Or was it by the power of the
devil, pure and simple, that he, God, thus sat ? Truly a
real live God in the flesh must have formed a novel and
curious finial to a pinnacle I But what did the devil sit
upon ? His thumb, or another pinnacle ? Or did he
potter about the roof and shout up to Christ as he sat upon
his lofty perch ? Or again, did the devil remain in mid
air standing upon nothing ? Evidence is lacking.
Forgive me, or at least bear with me, Christian friend,
when I express my contempt for such vile rubbish. I donot wish to be what you term profane for the mere sake of
profanity—a charge frequently brought against such as
myself. If something truly God-like were submitted to
me, I should perforce have to give to it such devotion as
my intelligence demanded. But to be asked to worship
a God stuck upon a pinnacle like some kind of steeple
jack, accommodatingly holding on in order to go through
the farce and mockery of being tempted by a power which
your “ ordained ” instructors in the same breath assert
had no power to tempt him, is too supremely ridiculous,
and can only awaken my pity for those who are sufficiently
imbecile to do so.
If I am to worship, it must not be a God whom you have
manufactured and endowed with all the follies, the hates
and jealousies which afflict yourselves. Pardon me when,
�30
Christ’s
temptation.
I say you have disfigured your God with your own imper
fections—nay, you have done more : you have made him
the personification of all the worst and most foolish parts
of yourselves gone mad. You will make him wade through
oceans of blood to please a favorite, or a favored people ;
you will make him change the laws of nature, and his own
will, to please yourselves; and you will stick him upon a
pinnacle to please the devil. Then you will curse and
smite me because I cannot worship your incongruous
monstrosity, which is but a night-mare—a creature of your
own disordered brain.
Pay attention for a moment to what our good friend and
guide—the man of notes—has to say about the pinnacle
item. He says that, “ it was probably upon the parapet
that the devil conveyed Jesus ” 1 But why probably upon
the parapet ? If Christ chose to be placed upon the top of
a pinnacle assisting the devil in the performance, or
permitting the devil to do it without his assistance, I
think the modern expounder, Christ’s humble priest as he
is, should be content to let it be so. Why should he
suggest something different from that which is stated in
what he elsewhere affirms is “ God’s word ” ? The reason
is not far to seek: the pinnacle looks just “ a wee bit ” too
II unco ”, and he is ashamed of it—as well he might be—
and thinks the job could be better done on the parapet.
He may have which he likes. If he thinks his God looks
less ridiculous on the parapet than on the pinnacle, why
let him not mount the pinnacle. If he chooses to unsay the
“written Word,” by all means let him do so. The folly
of the entire story makes the mere detail as nothing.
He further remarks that, if we ask in what way the
taking up was done, St. Gregory answers “that Christ might
suffer himself to be taken up and transported in the air by
the devil,” etc. Well, if Gregory said so, that ought to be
quite sufficient. St. Gregory was styled one of the Four
Doctors of the church, by reason of his great wisdom;
and he is, moreover, represented as having divine truth
whispered into his ear by a dove. [Do not smile, “ye
scoffers,” parrots can talk, and why not Gregory’s dove
whisper?] It is highly probable that the said dove
whispered, amongst other things, this particular bit of in
formation anent Christ and the pinnacle. But if I remem
ber rightly, St. Gregory was, as well as being cruel, an
�Christ’s
temptation.
qt
oJL
unscrupulous zealot, and therefore what he says upon the
subject need not necessarily have much weight. Besides,
it did not need a Gregory to say anything so foolish: your
modern saints could have said it quite as well as he did.
We learn from verse 6, that Satan, after setting Christ
upon the pinnacle as related, began to tempt him a second,
time, and to quote Scripture to him by way of cajoling him
into doing the thing asked.
Beader, and especially Christian reader — if I am
sufficiently fortunate to have such—do try and realize this
picture. Imagine your God, or the “ Son ” of your God,
your il Redeemer”, perched upon the point of a pinnacle,
with the devil perched upon some other point; and each
pelting the other with quotations from Scripture. Is it
not sublime ? Can you call to mind anything culled from
any sort of heathen mythology more ridiculous ? Do you
honestly and candidly, as reasonable creatures, believe that
it occurred ? Come, shake the priest off your backs and
answer: do you think that your God went through the
mockery of being tempted by the devil on the top of either
parapet or pinnacle? Nay, is it not an insult to your
intelligence to ask belief in such tomfoolery ? Think of
these things, I beg of you, and the result, if nothing else,
must be less unkindness to those who have thought it their
duty to reject and expose them. I for one have no fear
for Atheists studying afresh the principles of Christianity
as recommended by the Rev. Mr. Rowe; but I urge that
Christians ought also to do the same thing.
I must again say, that I do not think our friend the
devil was altogether to blame for the part he took in the
matter. He was only testing the genuineness of the man
who had the temerity to style himself the “ Son of God ”,
and accordingly told him, if he were such, to cast himself
down, and added (verse 6) “ for it is written : That he hath
given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall
they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou hurt thy foot against
a stone”. God hurt his foot against a stone ! It would
be as reasonable to tell us that he was in danger of hurt
ing his mouth against a black pudding ! Bear in mind we
&re not to ignore the folly just because the devil happens
to be spokesman.
1 God, however, was not to be persuaded to do anything'
so foolish as to pitch himself off the pinnacle in order to
�32
CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
please the devil, for we are told in the next verse (7) that,
“ Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God ”. (I shall use that reply as my
authority for speaking of the man on the pinnacle as God.)
You see, God may tempt the devil, and fool him by his
hungry appearance to essay his (God’s) temptation, and
tell him whilst, so engaged that he must “ not tempt the
Lord thy God ” I This is surely a wonderfully dove-tailed
piece of business, and quite beyond our frail comprehension;
therefore if I get a little mixed in dealing with this threesided deity, I may fairly claim to be pardoned.
I think the reply given to the devil sounds, at least, very
like the God portion of the man Christ speaking. It also
appears to me that there is considerable advantage in thus
being able to assume the character of God. or man, which
this triple-headed divinity has bestowed upon himself;
because if the God-man is not equal to the emergency, the
God-god comes to the rescue. However that may be, the
answer was a good one, and showed that if the devil could
quote scripture against God, God could also quote scripture
against the devil. It reads very like a game at scripture
“ tit for tat ” played “ sky high ” between the “King of
Kings ” and “ Old Nick ”.
Before going to the third and last temptation, I must
just wonder for a moment how the devil got Christ down
again from the top of the pinnacle. Did he “transport ”
him down? Or, did Christ slide down after having
unhooked himself? Again we do not know,, and the
Scriptures do not tell us. They all seem anxious., from
Gregory down, as to how the devil managed to get him up,
but they don’t seem to care a button how he got down
again.
Verses 8 and 9 inform us that, “ Again the devil took
him up into a very high mountain: and showed him all
the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And
said to him : All these will I give thee, if falling down
thou wilt adore me ”. St. Luke says the thing was done
“ in a moment of time ”.
Now these verses, constituting as they do what is called
the third temptation, are so completely laden with folly that
one scarcely knows where to begin pointing it out. The
folly is all over them. The whole idea teems with it. The
notion of God Almighty being bothered about in this
�Christ’s
temptation.
33
fashion by the devil to undergo a mock temptation s so
excessively ridiculous, that I nearly repent me for having
spent my time in seriously contraverting it. But having
gone so far, I will continue to the end.
We must suppose, then, that in this instance the devil
did not “ transport” Christ. As the journey was only to
the summit of a very high mountain, one was as well able
to foot it as the other. Mark, the mountain had to be a
very high one, or it would not have served the purpose.
Having arrived there the devil became showman, and
actually showed Christ all the kingdoms of the earth at one time!
and offered to give them to him in return for his adoration!
Now, the idea of the devil offering to give to God what
he already possessed as an inducement to worship him, is
so utterly preposterous as to make difficult any serious
treatment of it. The folly is so intense that it is well-nigh
overwhelming. Indeed the idea of Satan showing Christ
all the kingdoms of the earth at one time—in a lump as
it were—to tempt him, is worthy of a schoolboy showing
his fellow schoolboy a large heap of gooseberries or big
apples in order to induce him to do something he did not
wish to do. Nay, the idea set forth in the text is even
worse, because, to make it a parallel, the boy to whom
the gooseberries were offered would have to already possess
them ; and would be further required to know that it was
his own property which was being offered to him as an
inducement to do something he had no intention of doing.
Can folly go further than this? And yet it is “Holy
Writ ”. It is a portion of what God did, and put up with,
in furtherance of his great scheme of salvation. Christ
at that time may be said to have been in training, with Old
Nick as his trainer, for the heavy work which he had cut
out for himself. The expounder shows in many ways that
he takes a similar view to this, although his wording is
naturally somewhat different.
Now, if the devil showed—or rather, endeavored to show
—to the man Christ all the kingdoms, etc., it would neces
sarily be a failure. If Christ looked or tried to look at
them with his corporeal or man eyes, he could not see
them. In fact, the higher the mountain, after reaching a
certain altitude, the less his chance, because human eyes
are limited organs. So that, had the world been flat, I
think it will be conceded that Christ would have required
�Christ’s
temptation.
or/ powerful vision, and an extremely fine day, and very
' • Orable atmospheric conditions generally, to have accom
plis1.ed the feat. But, unfortunately for the story, the
wc .Id is round : how, then, did the devil manage to show
m the whole of its surface at one time ? The text says
ie did it ! Did he, the devil, work a miracle to that end ?
Or did God again work one on the devil’s behalf ? How
people can be sufficiently imbecile to bow their heads to this,
and express a belief in it because snuffled out in weary
and monotonous tones by a priest, or by a soapy and
white-chokered young fop, is truly beyond my compre
hension.
But suppose we take the other view of the case, and
adopt the idea that Christ, being God, could of course see
round corners, and was therefore in a position to be
shown all the kingdoms of the earth at one time : what
have the miracle-mongers gained ? Nothing. The folly
is simply heightened, because, being God, there was no
occasion for the “ very high mountain” at all. What a
piece of sublime—or rather infernal—superfluity for the devil
to make God tramp to the top of a high mountain, when
he could have shown him all he desired at the bottom of it!
And this is leaving out of sight the foolishness of the
supposed necessity of the showing, either with or without
the aid of a mountain.
It is, of course, possible that the devil did not know
with whom he was dealing, and that, despite his inexhaustable fund of deceit and cunning, God succeeded in
hoodwinking him: indeed, this is, I think, the correct
reading. God, I presume, in his “inscrutable wisdom”,
and for the better salvation of the world, divinely arranged
to humor the devil (and amuse mankind) by allowing him
to think that it was by his own power and will that he
stuck him—God—upon a pinnacle, and trotted him up a
mountain, so as to offer him what could in reality be no
inducement to him to do something he had no intention
whatever of doing. And this is the rubbish, for openly
denouncing and refusing credence to which, a man in the
nineteenth century is imprisoned and practically outlawed.
Before quitting these two verses, we must see what our
friend the expounder has to say upon the matter contained
in them. It would seem that he, poor fellow, fully recog
nizes the difficulty of the position; for, in a note in refer-
�Christ’s temptation.
35
ence to “ all the kingdoms,” etc., he actually says: “We
cannot comprehend how this could be done from any
mountain, or seen with human eyes." (Italics mine in both
cases.) ‘ ‘ Therefore many think that it was by some kind of
representation, or that the devil showing a part, by words
set forth the rest.” To this I may first remark that, if you
reject every statement which your Bible makes because it
cannot be comprehended, and is at variance with common
sense, you will not have much of it left. But why could
they not be seen from “ any mountain ”, or by Christ’s
eyes ? Is not God, God ? Can he not see the zenith and
the nadir at one and the same time ? Could he not have
made his vision to travel round the plane of the earth, and
so have taken in every kingdom and its glory at one
glance ? Or, could he not have made his sight to pierce
the globe, and, coming out of its crust at every point so
have taken in the spectacle of all the kingdoms at one
time ? Or again, could not the devil who had the power
of transporting Christ through the air, etc., have done the
business for him ? Both one and the other are said to
have done many much more wonderful things. Really,
reverend sirs, I am surprised at you ; and am inclined
to bestow upon you some scriptural admonition:—“ O
ye of little faith”. How dare you place your “some
think" and your 11 probably" before the plain statements
of Holy Writ! Your notes, Sirs, taken as a whole, are
simply very weak attempts to make your inspired Bible
fit in with, the lesser faith of to-day. Why do you
not stick to your text and enforce it as you did when your
grim and merciless church did to death such men as
Galileo, Bruno, Servetus, and hosts of others ? Or, if you
cannot do that—which, thanks to the march of science
and the spread of learning amongst the people, you
cannot—and feel yourselves to be wrong, why not he
honest, and frankly admit your error ? Why do you not
candidly say that this foolish story was written when the
world was thought to be a flat plane; that a mere
speck of it only was known to the writers and that they
erroneously thought it possible by means of a high
mountain to see all over it at one time. Such a method
would certainly have the merit of candour, and be more
honorable than giving a few verses in large type of what you
have called 11 revealed truth ”, and then explaining it away
�36
Christ’s
temptation.
by means of columns of closely printed notes of so-called
explanation. Take the present case as an instance. The
text says in so many words that the devil took Christ—
who is held to be God—up into a very high mountain, and
showed him all the kingdoms of the earth at one time;
and the priestly expounders—some of them ranking as
saints, say point blank that the thing could not be done,
but persist in holding that it is nevertheless the “ divine
truth,” “ God’s word”, etc., etc. And perchance, in the
next breath will tell you of the necessity of faith, without
which you must be damned. So much for priestly con
sistency. But after all, they do but bow to the inexorable
necessity: they do but put God and his book aside, to do
homage to the teachings and the power of the Infidelity
of modern times. Albeit, they do their bowing awkwardly,
and push their deity aside quite unceremoniously, but
they do it, and do it in the vain hope of retaining their hold
upon the people, whom they can no longer keep in slavish
ignorance.
But to return to the thread of the story. Christ did
not do the thing asked of him. He did not fall down and
worship the devil, but knocked him down with another
quotation from his own book. (It is worth remembering
that all these quotations were written by himself when in
shape No. 1.) He said (verse 10): “Begone, Satan, for it
is written : The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him
only shalt thou serve”. This final quotation seems to
have finished Mr. Devil, for the next verse tells us: “Then
the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered
to him
We are not told what the angels did for him—
how they ministered to him. Had it been simply a man
who had been suffering hunger and temptation, and ex
posure for such a period, there could be no surprise felt at
his need of help. Regarding him as such, we can readily
understand that he sorely needed some kind of minis
tration : possibly a warm bath and some beef tea, with
just a “tint” of whiskey or some other description of
stimulant, judiciously administered, would have been a
wise treatment. After his long fast, his three bouts with
the Infernal one, consisting in the first instance of the men
tal and bodily anguish consequent upon the cravings of
hunger, coupled with the knowledge of the possibility of
surrendering and eating stones in the shape of bread
�CHRIST ’S TEMPTATION.
37
{without the possibility there could be no temptation] ; and
in the second place, of being taken up in a rush—trans
ported—through mid-air, and made to balance himself upon
a pole—pardon me, I mean pinnacle; and thirdly, being
brought down again and, without breathing time, made
to tramp up a very high mountain, etc., etc. ; it is only
reasonable, as I say, to suppose that he did stand in sore
need of some sort of refreshment, and some rest. The
suffering of body and mind consequent upon all this
violent and novel exertion, made upon an empty stomach
of forty days standing, must have been no joke, and would
have told heavily upon any ordinary constitution. We are
not informed, however, how it affected Christ, beyond the
remark that he was hungry. Perhaps it is possible for a
■God-man to be hungry only, and not otherwise affected
under the circumstances related. Be that as it may, the
Scriptures do not tell us whether he got anything to eat or
not, but simply that angels came and ministered to him.
I am inclined to think—and I have the extreme satis
faction of knowing that for once the expounder will agree
with me—the ministry mentioned hints at something much
less substantial than a good meal, the hunger mentioned
notwithstanding. But why should it ? If he suffered in a
corporeal form, he, of course, had his corporeal functions
and wants, which must have sadly needed attention.
But if he is to be regarded as God, the matter becomes
very different. It is difficult to see how in that case the
services of the ministering angels were needed. They,
like the very high mountain, would be a superfluity. And
this brings to my mind another very curious reflection,
which, it must be borne in mind, is founded strictly upon
Testament and Church teaching:—Wh either have Christ,
who was God No. 2 (called “the second person of the Holy
Trinity”), being ministered unto through the medium of
angels by God No. 1 (called “ the first person of the Holy
Trinity ”) ; or, we have God pure and simple under the
form of Christ (who was also “Very Man”, as well
as “Very God”), ministering to himself through the
medium of aforesaid angels ! What can be said for such
astounding trumpery ? Small wonder that your modern
Bible-makers twist and contort the text in order the Jess
to affright the ever-growing intelligence with which it is
confronted.
�38
Christ’s
temptation.
Whatever part God may have taken in writing the Bible
of old, he certainly has little to do with fixing the meaning
of the modern ones. That work is practically done for
him by what are called his avowed enemies, and sealed
find said amen to by his ordained ministers when further
resistance becomes useless. True, they will damn said
enemies for their pains, but themselves being ordained
ministers—and ministers not ordained—stand in no need
of being consistent in such matters. It is enough that
they are, in some fashion, ministers.
The expounder informs his readers that the three
temptations with which we have been dealing, “ comprise
the three principle sources of sin : 1, sensuality ; 2, pride;
and 3, concupiscence ” ; and says we may hope to conquer
the first by “ fasting and confidence in Divine providence;
the second by humility; the third by despising all sub
lunary things as unworthy a Christian’s solicitude”. Now,
I am bound to admit that these sins, as he calls them, are
defects of character, more or less noticeable, developed
in various individuals, and that they should be curbed
and kept within reasonable bounds, or even completely
subdued, although I much doubt his method of doing so.
Of course it must be borne in mind that it is an excess of
these traits in man—such as what are known as the animal
passions, pride, and love of dominion, which are known
by the above designations, and which ought to be curbed.
Without a reasonable amount of these traits, the excess of
which is pernicious, we should not be human beings.
High feeding is doubtless calculated to inflame the
passions; but this, if necessary, can be regulated by a
generally judicious and temperate diet; not by a glut
to-day and a fast to-morrow; nor by a prescribed regulation
fast, whether required or not. And to talk of having
“ confidence in Divine providence ” as a cure for sensuality
is to talk nonsense. It has no meaning; and, moreover,
according to Bible authority, some of the greatest sensualists
were the greatest believers in “Divine providence”. Ac
cording to the testimony of the Church itself, its own
clergy were eaten up with the “sin of concupiscence ”—if,
indeed, they are not so at the present day.
Humility, reasonably practised, is good, but there is
such a thing as the pride of humility ; and, without advo
cating the excessive love of pleasure and power, it is
�Christ’s temptation.
39
possible and right to go through life, enjoying as
much of both as is reasonable; holding yoiir head erect,
and asserting yourself with becoming dignity, rather
than praying and crawling through it—but still acting
the tyrant with those who differ from you, as I have
seen done by those who profess to be , governed .by
this praying church, which, nevertheless, is itself as brim
ful of the “ sin of pride ” as it can possibly be. The
pride of power is stamped on it in letters of blood. It
sticks out all over the meanest official, and is blazoned
upon the tinsel trappings of every priest as he overawes
his credulous devotees when officiating at the altar, or on
his face as he sternly or superciliously looks for homage
from those who are under his control, as they pass on their
way in the public places. If this church is to be held, as
an example in this case, it is an example not to be fol
lowed. And these remarks apply with more, or less force
to every church. They are all saturated with a certain
sacerdotal pride, which, to those who are not of them, is
quite fulsome. There is as much pride in the white cnoker,
the clerical billycock, or the tall hat and thin umbrella of
the “ heretical” and canting Methodist preacher,, as there
is in the gaudy mitre and crosier of the Roman bishop, or
the curled and broad-leaved hat and orthodox gaiters worn
by the bishops of the Church as by law established. A
monk is as proud of his shaven pate as was a fop of his
ringlets in the last generation, or as is the same genius of
to-day of his closely-cut and centrally parted bit of hair.
I myself have been in frequent contact with the clergy
of both churches and many sects, and have found them as
anxious to look their best—especially before ladies as the
greatest “ mashers ” of the day. Bear in mind, I am not
condemning the reasonable desire to look well in any class
or calling, but the pretence and cant and professed humility,
which is mostly but a cloak worn along with the other
clerical garments.
But of all cant, I think that which deals with what the
expounder would make out to be a lesson in the wisdom
and necessity of despising all sublunary things is possibly
the worst and most bare-faced. It is certainly very mad
talk. Do Christians despise sublunary matters ? Take
something which they either singly or collectively think
belongs to them, or to which they can lay claim, and you
�40
Christ’s
temptation.
will quickly receive your answer. There is not much
of the giving-your-cloak-to-the-man-who-steals-your-coat
doctrine about their practice. But should they, intellect
ually and morally speaking, hold worldly things in con
tempt ? Ought mankind in general to do so ? Christians
as well as others know they should and ought not. Then
why endeavour to explain a foolish passage of Scripture by
such pretence ? No ascertained good thing in the world
is beneath a good man’s solicitude. Everything in Nature,
from a pebble up to the mightiest rock, sea, or mountain,
from the simplest form of life up to the noblest and best
organisation, is fit matter for the solicitude of all good
men. From the simplest thing made up to the latest
result of human ingenuity, all is worthy of the solicitude of
a Christian. And be it noted, none set a higher value upon
the good things of the world than do Christians them
selves. They may despise them by profession, but they
hold fast to them in practice.
Talk of Christians setting no value upon sublunary
matters I Why, if you have a house of business in
a Catholic country, or are known to be a Catholic,
you are literally besieged with priest, nun, and lay
brother, all begging for money. You have sheaves of
bazaar and lottery tickets regularly sent you, and price
demanded whether you will or not. Some functionary—
often a paid professional beggar—from every church in
the city or town, makes his regular call for his “ dues ” or
his 11 rent ”. The parish priest in every town and village
levies his charges upon his parishioners in a most inquisi
torial manner; none can escape. He contrives to make
himself acquainted with everybody’s means, and does not
allow the poorest to escape. If you go to chapel—which
you must do, or be damned—you are compelled to pay the
(practically) fixed price for sanctuary, reserved seats, body
of' church, etc., according to position or occasion, just in
opera or music hall fashion. The money box is shaken
in your face as you enter the porch by a man who, from
long practice, can make it say : Go in without paying if you
dare. The sums of money taken from the rich and poor
alike, of all countries, and annually sent to Rome and laid
at the feet of the Pope, in the shape of Peter's pence, is
something enormous : of which more presently.
It is worthy of note, too, that their religious houses,
�Christ’s
temptation.
41
many of which I myself have visited, are as a rule chosen
with an eye to taking advantage of all sublunary con
siderations. They are generally built in the best and most
beautiful parts of the town or city in which they are
situated. They are not, of course, blameable for this, but
for the cant and pretence as to despising things sublunary.
If you went back to the church and its doings in the days
of its luxury and power, as it existed in the early and
middle ages, you would lie better able to form an idea of
its estimate of things belonging to the world. And if you
turn to the Episcopal, or state Church of England, matters
are in these days even worse: the enormous sum of
£135,900 being annually swallowed up as salaries alone,
by twenty-seven bishops!
But outside all these considerations, I fail to see how
God’s pretending to be tempted by the devil can teach any
such lesson. If the entire order of the temptations were
reversed, there would be some reason for supposing the
lessons were set out. If God, who held the things offered
and also the power to give, had told the devil that as the
price of his worship and obedience they should all be his,
and the devil indignantly refused the offer, and so despised
these sublunary things as being unworthy his solicitude ;
then we should—bar the folly of the thing occurring
between a God and a devil—have had something in the
shape of a lesson of self-abnegation and contempt for
things sublunary. But to suppose that any such lesson
was taught as put in the text, is simply to admit that you
have not the smallest power of reasoning. To show the
utter folly of the idea, we will suppose the expounder
himself to be possessed of a fairly large share of the loaves
and fishes—which is indeed probable—that it has “pleased
God ” to make him lord and master of a large domain. (I
have myself known even parish priests to possess not
only funded property, but large and well-stocked farms,
with young and good looking house-keepers to help
to look after them. Indeed your parish priest all
the world over has a weakness for the latter.) And
let us further suppose that one of his servants—-we
do not mind whether it be the highest or lowest in
authority—should induce him to go to the top of a very
high hill, and, pointing to his estate, his houses, his cattle;,
parks, etc., should say: “All these will I give thee, if
�42
Christ’s
temptation.
falling down thou wilt adore me ” ; or, “ all these will I
give thee, if thou wilt acknowledge me to be lord and
master ”. Would he hold that he was thereby tempted;
and that his refusal to take his own estate at the hands of
his servant, taught a lesson to surrounding owners of
estates that he held such things beneath his solicitude, and
that they ought therefore to do the same ? And, if the
idea is preposterous when applied to two men, how much
more so must it be when applied to a God and a devil ?
Nor am I forgetting the wretched and contradictory subter
fuge, that as well as being “ very god ” he was also “ very
man”, and could be tempted in the latter form. All that
is simply juggling with words. I say that to suppose God,
who, according to your own authority could blast the devil
with a breath—but does not—could either in the shape of
a Christ, or in any other shape, be tempted by the devil
is the extreme of folly; and I solemnly affirm that to
seek to foist such folly upon man is to insult his intelli
gence. The thing is simply beneath contempt. And I
say further, that the man who would brand me with the
term “blasphemer” for so affirming, is either too idiotic
or too vile to bear the form and name of man.
These may be strong words: I admit they are; but when I
am scouted and held in contempt, and robbed and wronged
by those who for the most part have not taken the trouble
to enquire into their own belief but who nevertheless
hound me down for not accepting it, my indignation breaks
its bounds, and I must express myself.
Before quitting the sublunary aspect of the case, I will
glance for a moment at some remarks made by his
Eminence, Cardinal Archbishop Manning—[a large cog
nomen, that, for a humble (?) follower of Peter the fisher
man!]—in a sermon preached by him in the Pro Cathedral,
Kensington, upon the present Pope and his immediate
predecessor.
The occasion, was a begging one. After painting the sub
jects in true orthodox fashion, and reminding his faithful
hearers that on the 10th of January, 1888, the English pil
grims, led by the English bishops, would lay at the feet of
the Pope the offerings made in the last month of the year;
and stating that it would grieve his heart if they—the
offerings—implied what he called “any want of heart or
of love on their part ”, he went into the history of giving
�cubist’s temptation.
43
alms to the Pontificial Chair, and lamentingly made use of
the following words: “Now that the world was falling
away from Christianity, and largely it was, it was begin
ning to rob the Church ”, etc., etc. It is pleasant to have
it upon such high authority that the world is falling away
from Christianity. But he further went on to say : “ Dur
ing the last three hundred years, the world had been strip
ping the Church, until, at the present moment, all the
majestic cathedrals their forefathers built were in the
hands of those who could not use them ”. And he pointed
to France and Ireland as examples.
In the main, I will grant him that he is so far right.
But then, that is simply one set of Christians robbing
another—a thing done ever since Christianity became
Christianity, and which throws a strong light upon liow
Christians hold earthly matters beneath their contempt.
But it is in some of his further remarks that we get the
true cant—the genuine ring and manner of the Church
and its begging box. He says : “If the Church had again
entered the lot of its Master, he thought they ought even
to thank God. Moreover, where poverty was, Jesus Christ
was, and there came trust in the providence of God.”
Now, it does seem extremely odd to me that a man of
the rank, learning, and authority of the Cardinal should
give forth such foolish and even dangetous nonsense.
Passing by for the moment his pretended thankfulness
to God for the present poverty of his Church—which the
whole tone of his speech deplores—and the contradiction
involved in thanking God that wrong and robbery has
been done by the falling away from the “true Church”
I ask, is not his statement an admission that, previous to
the three hundred years mentioned—which embraces the
period of its wealth and prosperity—his Church had de
parted from the “ lot of its Master ”, that Jesus Christ
was not with it, and that it had no “trust in the provi
dence of God ” ?
The Cardinal, with all his astuteness, could not have
seen the force of the language he was using. He must
have fancied he was addressing geese. But after thanking
God for the wrong, the heresies, and the schisms, which
were, of course, duly anathemised as they arose, and the
consequent plunder which impoverished his Church, and
brought it back unwillingly to “ the lot of its Master ”, he
�44
Christ’s temptation.
actually concludes by making an appeal to his hearers,
with all the eloquence and power of which a Cardinal is
capable, to give as much as possible, “ to make their offer
ings promptly,gladly, and proportionally ”, in order that
it might be laid at the feet of the Pope I Clearly it is not
his wish nor intention to allow his Church to slip any
further into “ the lot of its Master ”, if he can prevent it.
Nor to allow it to remain in the position of being able
to enj oy the presence of Christ, and to ‘ ‘ trust in the provi
dence of God ”, which he now finds it.
This appeal by the cardinal for money may be taken as
a fair example of the shifty, canting method adopted by
all clerical beggars. They praise poverty and denounce its
absence on one side of their faces, and beg and plead and
threaten with both hands open for money on the other.
If, sir Cardinal, you require money—and all sane people
know you do—why do you not ask for it candidly and
openly ? Why do you place your hands together thank
fully praising God for your poverty in one breath, and
in the next beseech him to fill your coffers ? I can
answer for you, sir; it is because you are a high priest,
and use the language, and move in a way prescribed by a
church which is steeped in pretence.
We will now take the following few facts and figures
which are taken almost at random,1 but which, it must be
admitted by all, throw a strong light—I call it a lurid glare
—upon how Christians of all denominations hold things
sublunary to be beneath their solicitude. It will be found
that all the creeds of the day are steeped to the lips in
what I shall take the liberty of calling the lie sublunary.
In the House of Lords there are 2 archbishops and
24 bishops: altogether 26 spiritual peers, who constitute an
estate of the realm, and whose assent, in theory, is required
to give validity to Acts of Parliament. This doesnot show
that thA heads of the Church of England Christians, at
any rate, are unmindful of matters sublunary. And if we
bear in mind the continued and partly successful efforts of
Catholics, or Church of Some Christians, to have their
fingers in the political pie, and the fierce and bloody
11 am indebted to the “ Financial Reform Almanac ” for these
figures, the substance of which I give; some of the matter being in
the same language.
�CHRIST 'S TEMPTATION.
45
struggle which drove them from it, we shall understand
that they are as fully alive to the value of political power
as their Protestant brethren.
The following are a few votes given by these “ mitred
legislators ” when exercising their functions as law
makers:—
On a Bill to abolish capital punishment for stealing from
shops goods to the value of five shillings, there voted for
it none ; against it, 7 (year 1810). The bishops—forgiving
souls—thought stealing five shillings merited death I
What of the proverbial and Testament coat and cloak ?
On a Bill to authorise magistrates to provide schools
where they were required out of the rates, there voted, 3
for and 15 against (year 1839). The bishops do not like
the idea of educating the poor. On a previous Bill dealing
with the education of the people, they did show their con
tempt for things sublunary by not recording one single
vote either way (year 1807).
On a Bill to render Roman Catholic peers eligible to sit
in Parliament, there voted: for, 2, against, 25 (year 1821).
Por a similar Bill in the following year, there voted:
for, 1, and against, 23.
Another and similar Bill was introduced seven years
later, when 10 voted for, and 20 against it.
It is fairly evident that these Church of England ecclesi
astical law makers did not hold Roman Catholic sublunary
matters to be beneath their solicitude.
On the Reform Bill (1831) there voted: for, 2, and
against, 21.
On the same Bill (1832) there voted: for, 12, and
against, 15.
Do these votes show they despise sublunary matters ?
They do show that the bishops, though always to be found
on the wrong side, yet stand squeezing fairly well;
for, although more than one-half still voted against
progress, the number for it rose in twelve months from
2 to 12.
The following votes will give some idea of the tolerance
in sublunary matters which Christians mete out not only
to each other, but to such as Jews and others who differ
from them.
On a Bill to enable Jews to sit in Parliament, there
voted: for, 3, and against, 20 (1833).
�46
Christ’s
temptation.
On a Bill to give Dissenters admission to the universi
ties, there voted: for 2, and against, 22 (year 1834).
On a Bill to abolish ecclesiastical tests and restrictions
which prevented Nonconformists from the rights and
privileges of the universities, there voted: for, 2,. against
4 (year 1867). This Bill was tried again two years later,
when the voting was : for, 0, and against, 3.
We now come to a Bill which I take to be a crucial one.
It directly touches one of the sources of their enormous
revenue, and is a good test as to what store these
luxurious followers of Joseph the carpenter and Peter the
fisherman set upon the ££ filthy lucre ”.
The Church Bate Abolition Bill was introduced three
times, viz., in the years 1858, 1860, and 1867. How did
these shepherds who teach that it is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven, vote? Their combined
votes for the Bill amounted to—not one ! Whilst their
votes against it were : 24, 16, and 7. In this matter they
showed their marvellous self-abnegation. They were
determined to retain the money, and, if needs be, the
damnation along with it.
In the year 1876 a motion was introduced to permit
in church-yards ££ Christian and orderly” funeral services
other than that of the Church of England. There voted
for that motion only 1, and against it 16. In the follow
ing year it was introduced three times with the following
results: for, 1, 3, and 4, against, 15, 11, and 8.
You see, these mitred scoundrels are so indifferent as to
matters sublunary, that they will not give to those who
differ from them—whether Christian or otherwise—a few
yards of mother earth for the purposes of a decent
burying.
The last vote which I shall notice is one in which they
did once again show their contempt and indifference for
worldly matters. But then it was not indifference as to
their pockets, their bellies, nor their power. It was in
difference as to the wanton slaughter of tame birds. A
Bill was introduced to abolish pigeon shooting; and, to
their shame be it recorded, not one of these sparrow-fall
and gaitered humbugs but what held the matter as
££ beneath the solicitude of a Christian” ; for not one of
them either spoke or took part in the division (1883).
�Christ’s
temptation.
47
Possibly they considered the wholesale slaughter of these
emblems of the third person of their god-head, specially
ordained pastime for the scions of their own houses, and
of other houses which bask in their sunshine.
I think I hear some of my Catholic friends say : 11 Yes,
but these are Protestant Bishops”. True, they are: but
your Boman ones have done worse and bloodier things.
Passing from these particular men of God, and their
votes, and turning for a moment to matters more particu
larly financial, we find cause for perhaps greater amaze
ment.
It is estimated that the value of the property appropri
ated to the State Church is £2,000,000 a year; that
the annual subsidy of the establishment is £9,500,000 ;
and that the capitalised value of its property is more than
£220,000,000. The Tithe Bevenues alone, which are
public property, bring in £4,054,000 per annum, giving an
average benefit to those clergymen who receive them of
£342 each. These figures, I think, speak for themselves.
Turning for a moment to the sale of livings, we find that
over 8,000 benefices are private property, bought and sold
systematically ; one fourth of the number always being in
the market, and as many as 1,497 having been publicly
advertised at one time in the “Ecclesiastical Gazette”, a
paper specially devoted to Church matters of worldly import I
This idea of trafficking in Church livings—of buying a
situation in which you will be paid more money for pos
sibly saving fewer souls, just as though the said souls
were lumps of pig iron; the more you have to shift the
harder the work—is, from a Christian point of view, very
interesting, and certainly forms a curious comment upon
the teaching which admonishes all to rest satisfied in that
station in which it has pleased God to place them. I have
no doubt but that the great difficulty experienced by these
believers in God is to know when they have reached that
particular station in which it is pleasing to him they should
remain. Be that as it may, all—from the Church of
England and the Boman Church, through every
mongrel creed down to the Salvation Army—are perpetu
ally moving Heaven and earth in order to draw into their
coffers as much as possible of this “ source of all evil ”.
The following, taken from a very interesting table, will
show with what success they ply this portion of their craft.
�48
Christ’s temptation.
The table is headed; “ Religious provisions made in
London, 1851 to 1884,” and amongst other matter states
that there was pocketed during that period:
For sittings in the Church of England .. £677,645
,,
in the Roman Catholic Church 51,190
,,
all other denominations.. .. 507,421
Total 1,236,256
That, it will be admitted, is not a bad sum for all the
breeds and half-breeds of the gay denouncers of this
world and its vanities to net in the course of a few years
in one city alone. And this for the mere privilege of
sitting in the “House of God” !
It is noticeable that the highly paid State Church has in
this way netted more than all the other sects put together.
It is not content with its enormous State endowments, but
must exact additional fees from its followers for their sitting
to hear its teachings. And bear in mind that all, whether
able to benefit by its teachings or not, are compelled to
pay to its support. This I think is one of the most
monstrous scandals of the time. The State Church as it
now exists is a crying shame, and if the electors of Great
Britain do not make it a test question, they will have
themselves to blame.
Turning our attention to Wales for a moment, we find
that the Episcopal Church holds public property to the
value of £300,000 per year, which it pretends to spend in
saving the souls of only (according to itself) one-fourth of
the population!
In Scotland matters are, if possible, still worse. The
National revenues of the State Church of Scotland are
about £385,000 per annum, in addition to which it is
computed that, since 1845, something like £2,000,000 of
voluntary endowments have gone into it, whilst it has by
its own showing only 42 per cent, of the population.
It is further stated that in five parishes where the aver
age communicants are 4£, the average endowment of
living is £210 per annum. So that it costs the country
£210 per year to parson 4-|- people ! and in one parish the
minister gets £400 a year for preaching to the “Laird and
his boy”. Truly these parsons hold on to the loaves and
fishes with much tenacity I
�ciibist’s temptation.
49
With, regard to the cost of parsoning the
people just
alluded to, it may be pointed out that, if they live their
11 allotted time”, their journey to heaven, as per Church
of Scotland, costs the nation for piloting alone the sum of
about £3,300 each. You have then the chances, which
are a million to nothing, that they will never reach any
such port.
In addition to the National revenues, the Free Pres
byterians have in a period of nine years raised the sum of
£8,224,132 for religious objects, and the State Church
Presbyterians a further sum of £2,588,702 in the same
period. And this leaves out of the question what may
have been raised by the Roman Catholic clergy and others.
It is more than evident that none of them regard sublunary
matters—especially in the form of money—as being very
much beneath their solicitude.
We will, in conclusion, take just a glance at a little of
what was done to smooth the ruffled plumage of the Irish
“ sky pilots ” when the Irish Church was disestablished.
It would appear that all their churches, school-houses,
burying grounds, etc., with their liabilities, were vested
in a Church Body. Building charges, and a debt of
£198,104 on the glebe houses, together with a ten or
twelve years’ purchase, had to be paid by the Church
Body. About £8,000,000 were paid by the State to those
of the clergy who wished to commute, and about £500,000
were handed to the Church Body in lieu of private endow
ments. The sum of £819,000 was given in compensation
to officials, and £780,000 to patrons. £30,000 were given
to the Commissioners of Public works, to maintain some
137 ecclesiastical structures which were placed in their
hands. The sum of £765,813 was paid to Presbyterian
ministers and their college in Belfast as compensation for
the Regium Donum. And a sum of £372,331 was paid to
Maynooth College in compensation for deprivation of their
Parliamentary grant.
After all these vast sums and many others had been paid
over, there still remained a huge surplus. And bear in
mind that whilst this almost fabulous wealth had accumu
lated, and been held by the Protestant Episcopal Church
and used for its own special benefit, the vast majority—
something like four-fifths of the -populaion—could not make
use of it, nor be benefited by it, save of course the Regium
�50 '
cheist’s temptation.
Donum and the Maynooth grant. The history of the
country during the period referred to is written in two
wards : “Famine ” and “ wretchedness ”. It is an histori
cal fact that wherever the Church—either Catholic or
Protestant—rears its head, it manages to become exceed
ingly rich, notwithstanding the poverty and squalor with
which it is. ever surrounded. The name of the interests,
the monies, the worldly gains and considerations of these
churches is like their devils, “legion”.
Now, in regard to these vast sums of money, especially
those given voluntarily, it may be urged that there must
after all be a something in this religion, to partake
of and support which, people are willing to pay so
heavily ; indeed I have seen the matter so put. But, losing
sight of the means resorted to by all priests for obtaining
these monies, I would reply, first, that you must not always
measure the merits of a thing—least of all religion—by the
amount paid for it. If you do, you will have to hold some
of the worst and most nefarious callings and professions to
be highly meritorious. The sum paid for the article Religion
does not prove the truth of its fundamentals. If it did, it
would prove the truth of many other religions besides the
one known as Christian. Secondly : religion being purely
speculative, and therefore incapable of being made right or
wrong, true or false by Act of Parliament: no state or govern
ment should have the power of imposing the support of
it in any form whatsoever upon the people : most cer
tainly not in a form in which the majority cannot receive
it. That this principle is thoroughly endorsed is shewn in
a vast number of ways by the general revolt against com
pulsory payment towards the State Church. Looking at
the matter in this light, it will be seen that the great bulk
of the vast revenues of the Church—Scotch and Welsh, as
well as English—is not willingly given, but is extorted by
process of law. Of course, these particular remarks do not
apply to voluntary payments made by various believers in
this, that, or the other. With regard to them I will only
further say that they prove the cant and pretence generally
of-the recipients, who, whilst holding fast to the money,
preach the merits of poverty; and it was in this light
principally that I introduced the subj'ect.
I have at the risk of being irksome dwelt somewhat
upon these enormous sums of money, because I think they
H
�CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
51
are, although not perhaps having direct reference to the text,
yet a complete answer to the cant of poverty peculiar to
Christian churches in general, and to the lesson which this
particular Church, through its expounder, says the text
teaches.
I will, in continuation of this view, troublé my readers
by giving them in full, a short—but as I consider it—a most
timely and interesting account of the income of the Pope
himself. I shall insist upon holding it to have come to my
hand in quite a providential manner. It is headed, “ The
Pope’s income, and. what he does with it ”, and is as
follows:—
‘ ‘ A foreign diplomatist accredited to Rome gives the follow
ing account of the Pope’s revenue, and of the way in which it
is spent. It is derived from three sources. First, the interest
of an enormous sum left by Pio Nono to the Pontificial treasury,
and invested in the English Public Funds. This interest
amounts to about three millions of lire, or about £125,000.
Leo XIII. is a great speculator, and subscribes to the Italian
Loans in order to sell when the value rises, and invest the profits
in the English Consolidated Fund. 2. The proceeds of Peter’s
Pence. This branch has suffered greatly in recent years, but,
nevertheless, the average amounts to about two millions of lire,
or about £83,000 per year. These two sums, which represent
£208,000 per year, constitute the ordinary income of his
Holiness. It is distributed by the Chamberlain among the
Cardinals residing in Rome—about £1,050 per annum for each
Cardinal—among the prelates of the Papal Court, the secre
taries, the nuncios, the guards of the Pontiff’s body, etc. The
extraordinary part of the Papal revenue is derived from the
receipts of the Apostolic Chancery. The items include sums
received for titles of nobility, Papal decorations, benedictions
in the article of death, privileges of the altar, private chapels,
dispensations, ecclesiastical titles, and many other things. This
department yields about two and a half millions of lire, or
£104,000 pci- annum. The whole annual income of Leo XIII.,
therefore, reaches the enormous sum of about three hundred
thousand pounds.”
This is a pretty statement of the financial matters of the
Pope, or head of a Church which teaches that its God and
founder, by means of a pretended refusal of what he
already possessed, taught a lesson in the necessity of holding
things sublunary as beneath solicitude. It is quite plain
that he holds nothing of the sort. He, at least, has no
liking for that particular lesson : nor for that other pre
�52
Christ’s
temptation.
cept of liis “ Divine Master ”, which bids him to “take
no thought of to-morrow”, but to “behold the lilies of
the field ”, etc., etc.
Perhaps it is only fair to mention that Cardinal Manning,
in the sermon from which I have quoted, denies that his
master at Rome is rich, and states that the sum left him
by the late Pope is not so great as is represented. Perhaps
it is not. But I think all will admit that “ Christ’s
ambassador on earth ” is a much richer man than Christ
himself is said to have been. And bear in mind that
the cardinal has, as I have pointed out, shown that the
Pope is, by means of said riches, proportionally removed
from the presence of their Lord and master ; and also bear
in mind that he has shown a most earnest desire to further
remove him from such presence, by adding all in his
power to his present riches. As a matter of course, he is
not in this altogether unmindful of his own interests. He
is not cardinal without knowing how much it will serve
him to do all he can to keep the Papal pot boiling.
Dwelling for a moment longer upon the subject of the
Pope, I see by the daily papers there will be high jinks
at Rome upon the occasion of the jubilee. He does not
intend to be outdone in the matter of jubileeing by our
nominal and female head of State and Church. Well,
jubilees are becoming fashionable, and why not the Pope
of Rome have his innings as well as the Queen of Eng
land ? Her’s was pretty much State and political; and his
is considered sacerdotal, although there is to be much
State attending it. The successor of St. Peter must not be
behind-hand in these matters. Amongst other things it is
stated that there is to be a special mass for the benefit of
the select, i.e., the most favored of the visitors and others,
at which the Pope himself will officiate. The mass will be
held with closed doors, and admission is to be by ticket. The
price of the tickets is not given, but they are called tickets
of invitation. The favored and the rich will know how to
possess themselves of those tickets, and will, without a
doubt, pay heavily in return for the kind invitation. Gold
is the key that will unlock those closed doors, and buy for its
fortunate possessors the untold advantages peculiar to a
Pope’s Jubilee Mass I Well, this may not be going quite
all the way to heaven by ticket, but it is certain to be held
equivalent to a good start on the journey. One of these de
�CHRIST S TEMPTATION.
53
voted and faithful geese who lay golden eggs for Popes to
suck-—his Grace, the Duke of Norfolk—is, it appears, to
represent her Majesty the Queen in some fashion or other ;
but according to report he will lay no less a sum than £10,000
at the feet of the Pope, as his own Jubilee gift—a very
large sum to pay for the pleasure of kissing a man’s big
toe; although, truth to tell, the noble devotee hopes to
obtain full value for his money in the shape of Spiritual
advantages, so that, after all, it is but a mere bargain. It
is one of those peculiar bargains made between the rich
believer and the astute ecclesiastic, in which the former
innocently—nay, ignorantly—but greedily barters his
money for untold advantages beyond the grave. "Wise
Pope to thus remove thyself from the lot of thy Master.
Truly, thou wouldst bear the ancient Lombardian sign
(three golden balls) upon thy brow, with as much dignity
as thou dost the triple crown. The Pope’s tiara becomes
thee about as well as would the badge of the money
lender.
I must confess to a belief that these popes and
cardinals must hold their God in much contempt; or
they would not act in matters directly concerning him in
such contrary fashion. Indeed, nothing appears too con
tradictory nor foolish to do, or to suppose, in connexion
with the Bible God, which, being somewhat Christianised,
i.e., made to conform to the new law, is their God. I have
elsewhere called this a man-made God : I now further say
that it is the essence of all the worst materials which go to
make up poor humanity, and the personification of its
follies ; and that he is shewn to be such by his Popes,
his Cardinals, his Bishops, his Parsons, his Salvation
Army, and amen people of all sorts and kinds.
Beader, if I speak irreverently of names and things you.
hold in reverence, it is because I cannot conscientiously
avoid doing so. If I cannot revere what you have set
up for me, it is because I hold it to be unworthy the
reverence of a moral and intellectual being. This I con
tend is fully shown by your Bible, which you affirm was
written by God himself, but which is only the reflex of
ignorant and barbarous ages. Therefore, you must not
be surprised at my want of reverence ; neither should you
blame me for it. The foolish fable we have been dis
cussing in these pages awakens in my mind feelings of
�54
Christ’s temptation.
ridicule and contempt. Your old time Bible as it existed
in the early and middle ages, exists no more, and you
must not wonder if the larger intelligence which now
prevails scouts both your book and yourselves in your vain
and painful endeavors to make it fit into the theories and
facts, for maintaining which your church decreed death
when in its dark and gory days of power.
In conclusion, I earnestly and affectionately beg of my
fellow-man to read the “ sacred writings ” ; but to remem
ber that reading them with bated breath or with up-turned
eyes, and in professional and weary fashion, will not make
them other than they are. Nor will frantically screeching
the name of Jesus, and howling in frenzied passion non
sense about having the Savior, any more than will mutter
ings in Latin concerning his flesh and blood make the
story of his dangling upon the top of a pinnacle, or trotting
up a mountain with the devil, whilst going through the
farce of being tempted by him, anything but a farce.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christ's temptation, by "Humanitas"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ball, William Platt [1844-1917]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 54 p. ; 17 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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N055
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
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 (Christ's temptation, by "Humanitas"), 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
Jesus Christ-Temptation
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c79ef029d4d886277e4bca1ffc3eee2f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AooGkGexfYD3mrl6QojRHhDQKCA8CnazM6r45DEpMJeuSrhmCJSmH0alkutwhacpbT%7E7gD0XKKivCl%7EjOXQsayfanZrkqpZI-0WJDo7Zlb2jgDkDYRmRz1M-6jSLatMhROljUbA7yFY1yjpap05cKKdBVVmlYMGwOo9b1RtlEWUvez3ADEo2LIDfxmW0vWGuoV1kePBQzvAdnDwGDD8qq8B9ZFyTMWQ6rJW914RQ7PgRdQSHjLyYZwDWOdZtp94on-GaTradkIwBPxGF5-iuwkIUeR6K%7EzR%7EXcnmaRDGH4Lt-brzwnBpaWjjmSNKgTAiHEKuf1oyKrkOKeNzW-CjUA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7e86938ab58770f86fa71f55469021e
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECU'
" "''CIETY
ROME OR REASON?
A
REPLY
TO
Cardinal Manning
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED EROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
■ October and November, 1888.
^onirou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�J ONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.,
�ROME, OR REASON?
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
Superstition Nias ears more deaf than adders to the voice
of any true decision.”
A REPLY TO
Cardinal Manning has stated the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church with great clearness, and apparently
without reserve. The age, position and learning of this
man give a certain weight to his words, apart from their
worth. He represents the oldest of the Christian churches
The questions involved are among the most important
that can engage the human mind. No one having the
slightest regard for that superb thing known as intel
lectual honesty, will avoid the issues tendered, or seek in
any way to gain a victory over truth.
. Without candor, discussion, in the highest sense, is
impossible. All have the same interest, whether they
know it or not in the establishment of facts. All have
the same to gain, the same to lose. He loads the dice
against himself who scores a point against the right.
Absolute honesty is to the intellectual perception what
hght is to the eyes. Prejudice and passion cloud the
mind. In each disputant should be blended the advocate
and judge. In this spirit, having in view only the ascertainment
or the truth, let us examine the arguments, or rather the
statements and conclusions, of Cardinal Manning.
The proposition is that “ The Church itself, by its mar
vellous propagation, its eminent sanctity, its inexhaustible
fruitfulness m all good things, its catholic unity and
lnVinC\^e lability, is a vast and perpetual motive of
legationaU irrefragable witness of its own divine
�4
ROME OR REASON.
The reasons given as supporting this proposition are :
That the Catholic Church interpenetrates all the nations
of the civilised world; that it is extra-national and inde
pendent in a supernational unitv ; that it is the same in
every place ; that jt speaks all the languages in the civi
lised world; that it is obedient to one head; that as many
as seven hundred bishops have knelt before the pope ;
that pilgrims from all nations have brought gifts to Rome,
and that all these things set forth in the most self-evident
way the unity and universality of the Roman Church.
It is also asserted that “ men see the Head of the
Church year by year speaking to the nations of the world,
treating with empires, republics and governments ; ” that
“ there is no other man on earth that can so bear him
self,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from Con
stantinople can such a voice go forth to which rulers and
people listen.”
It is also claimed that the Catholic Church has enlight
ened and purified the world ; that it has given us the
peace and purity of domestic life ; that it has destroyed
idolatry and demonology ; that it gave us a body of law
from a higher source than man ; that it has produced
the civilisation of Christendom ; that the popes were the
greatest of statesmen and rulers ; that celibacy is better
than marriage, and that the revolutions and reformations
of the last three hundred years have been destructive
and calamitous.
We will examine these assertions as well as some
others.
No one will dispute that the Catholic Church is the
best witness of its own existence. The same is true of
every thing that exists; of every church, great and small,
of every man, and of every insect.
But it is contended that the marvellous growth or
propagation of the Church is evidence of its divine
origin. Can it be said that success is supernatural ? All
success in this world is relative. Majorities are not
necessarily right. If anything is known—if anything
can be known—we are sure that very large bodies of men
have frequently been wrong. We believe in what is
called the progress of mankind. Progress, for the most
part, consists in finding new truths and getting rid of old
errors—that is to say, getting nearer and nearer in har
�ROME OR REASON.
5
mony with the facts of nature, seeing with greater clear
ness the conditions of well-being.
There is no nation in which a majority leads the way.
In the progress of mankind, the few have been the nearest
right. There have been centuries in which the light
seemed to emanate only from a handful of men, while
the rest of the world was enveloped in darkness. Some,
great man leads the way—he becomes the morning star,
the prophet of a coming day. Afterwards, many millions
accept his views. But there are still heights above and
beyond ; there are other pioneers, and the old day, in
comparison with the new, becomes a night. So, we can
not say that success demonstrates either divine origin or
supernatural aid.
~
We know, if we know anything, that wisdom has often
been trampled beneath the feet of the multitude. We
know that the torch of science has been blown out by
the breath of the hydra-headed. We know that the
whole intellectual heaven has been darkened again. The
truth or falsity of a proposition cannot be determined by
ascertaining the number of those who assert, or of those
who deny.
If the marvellous propagation of the Catholic Church
proves its divine origin, What shall we say of the mar
vellous propagation of Mohammedanism ?
Nothing can be clearer than that Christianity arose
out of the ruins of the Roman Empire—that is to say,
the rums of Paganism. And it is equally clear that
Mohammedanism arose out of the wreck and ruin of
Catholicism.
- After Mohammed came upon the stage, “ Christianity
was forever expelled from its most glorious seat—from
Palestine, the scene of its most sacred recollections ; from
Asia Minor, that of its first churches; from Egypt
whence issued the great doctrine of Trinitarian Ortho
doxy, and from Carthage, who imposed her belief on
Europe.” Before that time “the ecclesiastical chiefs of
Rome,, of Constantinople, and of Alexandria were en
gaged in a desperate struggle for supremacy, carrying out
their purposes by weapons and in ways revolting to the
Conscience of .man. Bishops were concerned in assassina10ns, poisonings, adulteries, blindings, riots, treasons,
civil war. Patriarchs and primates were excommuni
�6
ROME OR REASON.
eating and anathematizing one another in their rivalries
for earthly power ; bribing eunuchs with gold and
courtesans and royal females with concessions of epis
copal love. Among legions of monks who carried terror
into the imperial armies and riot into the great cities
arose hideous clamors for theological dogmas, but never a
voice for intellectual liberty or the outraged rights of man.
“ Under these circumstances, amid these atrocities and
crimes, Mohammed arose, and raised his own nation from
Fetichism, the adoration of the meteoric stone, and from
the basest idol worship, and irrevocably wrenched from
Christianity more than half—and that by far the best
half—of her possessions, since it included, the Holy Land,
the birth-place of the Christian faith, and Africa, which
had imparted to it its Latin form ; and now, after a lapse
of more than a thousand years, that continent, and a very
large part of Asia, remain permanently attached to the
Arabian doctrine.”
It may be interesting in this connection to say that the
Mohammedan now proves the divine mission of his
Apostle by appealing to the marvellous propagation of
the faith. If the argument is good in the mouth of a
Catholic, is it not good in the mouth of a Moslem ? Let
us see if it is not better.
According to Cardinal Manning, the Catholic Church
triumphed only over the institutions of men, triumphed
only over religions that had been established by men, by
wicked and ignorant men. But Mohammed triumphed
not only over the religions of men, but over the religion
of God. This ignorant driver of camels, this poor,
unknown, unlettered boy, unassisted by God, unen
lightened by supernatural means, drove the armies of the
true cross before him as the winter’s storm drives withered
leaves. At his name, priests, bishops and cardinals fled
with white faces, popes trembled, and the armies of God,
fighting for the true faith, were conquered on a thousand
fields.
If the success of a church proves its divinity, and after
that anothei’ church arises and defeats the first, what does
that prove ?
Let us put this question in a milder form : Suppose the
second church lives and flourishes in spite of the first,
what does that prove ?
�ROME OR REASON.
7
As a matter of fact, however, no church rises with
everything against it. Something is favorable to it, or it
could not exist. If it succeeds and grows, it is absolutely
certain that the conditions are favorable. If it spreads
rapidly, it simply shows that the conditions are exceed
ingly favorable, and that the forces in opposition are weak
and easily overcome.
Here, in my own country, within a few years, has
arisen a new religion. Its foundations were laid in an
intelligent community, having had the advantages of
what is known as modern civilisation. Yet this new
faith—founded on the grossest absurdities, as gross as we
find in the Scriptures—in spite of all opposition began to
grow, and kept growing. It was subjected to persecution,
and the persecution increased its strength. It was driven
from State to State by the believers in universal love,
until it left what was called civilisation, crossed the wide
plains, and took up its abode on the shores of the Great
Salt Lake. It continued to grow. Its founder, as he
declared, had frequent conversations with God, and
received directions from that source.
Hundreds of
miracles were performed, multitudes upon the desert
were miraculously fed, the sick were cured—the dead
were raised, and the Mormon Church continued to grow,
until now, less than half a century after the death of its
founder, there are several hundred thousand believers in
the new faith.
Do you think that men enough could join this church
to prove the truth of its creed ?
Joseph Smith said that he found certain golden plates
that had been buried for many generations, and upon
these plates, in some unknown language, had been
engraved this new revelation, and I think he insisted
that by the use of miraculous mirrors this language was
translated. If there should be Mormon bishops in the
countries of the world, eighteen hundred years from now,
do you think a cardinal of that faith could prove the
truth of the golden plates simply by the fact that the
faith had spread and that seven hundred bishops had
knelt before the head of that church ?
It seems to me that a “ supernatural ” religion—that it
to say, a religion that is claimed to have been divinely
founded and to be authenticated by miracle, is much
�8
ROME OR REASON.
easier to establish among an ignorant people than any
other, and the more ignorant the people, the easier such
a religion could be established. The reason for this is
plain. All ignorant tribes, all savage men, believe in the
miraculous, in the supernatural.
The conception of
uniformity, of what may be called the eternal consistency
of nature, is an idea far above their comprehension.
They are forced to think in accordance with their minds,
and as a consequence they account for all phenomena by
the acts of superior beings—that is to say, by the super
natural. In other words, that religion having most in
common with the savage, having most that was satis
factory to his mind, or to his lack of mind, would stand
the best chance of success.
It is probably safe to say that at one time, or during
one phase of the development of man, everything was
miraculous. After a time, the mind slowly developing,
certain phenomena, always happening under like con
ditions, were called “natural,” and none suspected any
special interference. The domain of the miraculous grew
less and less—the domain of the natural larger ; that is
to say, the common became the natural, but the uncom
mon was still regarded as the miraculous. The rising
and setting of the sun ceased to excite the wonder of
mankind—there was no miracle about that ; but an
eclipse of the sun was miraculous. Men did not then
know that eclipses are periodical, that they happen with
the same certainty that the sun rises. It took many
observations through many generations to arrive at this
conclusion. Ordinary rains became “ natural,” floods
remained “ miraculous.”
But it can all be summed up in this : The average man
regards the common as natural, the uncommon as super
natural. The educated man—and by that I mean the
developed man—is satisfied that all phenomena are
natural, and that the supernatural does not and can not
exist.
As a rule, an individual is egotistic in the proportion
that he lacks intelligence. The same is true of nations
and races. The barbarian is egotistic enough to suppose
that an Infinite Being is constantly doing something, or
failing to do something, on his account. But as man
rises in the scale of civilisation, as he becomes really
�BOMB OR BEASON.
9
great, he comes to the conclusion that nothing in Nature
happens on his account—that he is hardly great enough
to disturb the motions of the planets.
Let us make an application of this : To me, the success
of Mormonism is no evidence of its truth, because it has
succeeded only with the superstitious. It has been
recruited from communities brutalised by other forms of
superstition. To me, the success of Mohammed does not
tend to show that he was right—for the reason that he
triumphed only over the ignorant, over the superstitious.
The same is true of the Catholic Church. Its seeds were
planted in darkness. It was accepted by the credulous,
by men incapable of reasoning upon such questions. It
did not, it has not, it cannot triumph over the intellectual
world. To count its many millions does not tend to
prove the truth of its creed. On the contrary, a creed
that delights the credulous gives evidence against itself.
Questions of fact or philosophy cannot be settled
simply by numbers. There was a time when the Coper
nican system of astronomy had but few supporters—the
multitude being on. the other side. There was a time
when the rotation of the earth was not believed by the
majority.
Let us press this idea further. There was a time when
Christianity was not in the majority, anywhere. Let us
suppose that the first Christian missionary had met a pre
late of the Pagan faith, and suppose this prelate had
used against the Christian missionary the Cardinal’s
argument—how could the missionary have answered if
the Cardinal’s argument is good ?
But, after all, is the success of the Catholic Church a
marvel ? If this Church is of divine origin, if it has
been under the especial care, protection, and guidance
of an Infinite Being, is not its failure far more wonderful
than its success ? For eighteen centuries it has persecuted
and preached, and the salvation of the world is still
remote.
This is the result, and it may be asked
whether it is worth while to try to convert the word to
Catholicism.
Are Catholics better than Protestants ? Are they nearer
honest, nearer just, more charitable ? Are Catholic
nations better than Protestant ? Do the Catholic nations
move in the van of progress? Withintheir jurisdiction
�10
ROME OR REASON.
are life, liberty and property safer than anywhere else ?
Is Spain the first nation of the world ?
Let me ask another question : Are Catholics or Pro
testants better than Freethinkers ? Has the Catholic
Church produced a greater man than Humboldt ? Has
the Protestant produced a greater than Darwin ? Was
not Emerson, so far as purity of life is concerned, the
equal to any true believer? Was Pius IX., or any other
Vicar of Christ, superior to Abraham Lincoln ?
But it is claimed that the Catholic Church is universal,
and that its universality demonstrates its divine origin.
According to the Bible, the Apostles were ordered to go
into all the world to preach the gospel—yet not one of
them, nor one of their con verts at any time, nor one of the
Vicars of God, for fifteen hundred years afterward, knew
of the existence of the Western Hemisphere. During all
that time, can it be said that the Catholic Church was
universal ? At the close of the fifteenth century, there
was one-half of the world in which the Catholic faith had
never been preached, and in the other half not one person
in ten had ever heard of it, and of those who had heard
of it, not one in ten believed it. Certainly the Catholic
Church was not then universal.
Is it universal now ? What impression has Catholicism
made upon the many millions of China, of Japan, of
India, of Africa ? Can it truthfully be said that the
Catholic Church is now universal ? When any church
becomes universal, it will be the only church. There
cannot be two universal churches, neither can there be
one universal church and any other.
The Cardinal next tries to prove that the Catholic
Church is divine, “ by its eminent sanctity and its inex
haustible fruitfulness in all good things.”
And here let me admit that there are many millions of
good Catholics—that is, of good men and women who
are Catholics. It is unnecessary to charge universal
dishonesty or hypocrisy, for the reason that this would
be only a kind of personalitv. Many thousands of heroes
have died in defence of the faith, and millions of Catholics
have killed and been killed for the sake of their religion.
And here it may be well enough to say that martyrdom
does not even tend to prove the truth of a religion. The
man who dies in flames, standing by what he believes to
�ROME OR REASON.
11
be true, establishes, not the truth of what he believes, but
his sincerity.
Without calling in question the intentions of the
Catholic Church, we can ascertain whether it has been
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things,” and whether
it has been “ eminent for its sanctity.”
In the first place, nothing can be better than goodness.
Nothing is more sacred, or can be more sacred, than the
well-being of man. All things that tend to increase or
preserve the happiness of the human race are good—that
is to say, they are sacred. All things that tend to the
destruction of man’s well-being, that tend to his unhappi
ness, are bad, no matter by whom they are taught or
done.
It is perfectly certain that the Catholic Church has
taught, and still teaches, that intellectual liberty is dan
gerous—that it should not be allowed. It was driven to
take this position because it had taken another. It
taught, and still teaches, that a certain belief is necessary
to salvation. It has always known that investigation and
inquiry led, oi’ might lead, to doubt ; that doubt leads, or
may lead, to heresy, and that heresy leads to hell. In
other words, the Catholic Church has something more
important than this world, more important than the well
being of man here. It regards this life as an opportunity
for joining that Church, for accepting that creed, and for
the saving of your soul.
If the Catholic Church is right in its premises, it is
right in its conclusion. If it is necessary to believe the
Catholic creed in ordei’ to obtain eternal joy, then, of
course nothing else in this world is, comparatively
speaking, of the slightest importance. Consequently, the
Catholic Church has been, and still is, the enemy of
intellectual freedom, of investigation, of inquiry—in
other words, the enemy of progress in secular things.
The result of this was an effort to compel all men to
accept the belief necessary to salvation. This effort
naturally divided itself into persuasion and persecution.
It will be admitted that the good man is kind, merciful,
charitable, forgiving and just. A church must be judged
by the same standard. Has the Church been merciful ?
Has it been “ fruitful in the good things ” of justice,
charity, and forgiveness ? Can a good man, believing a
�12
ROME OR REASON.
good doctrine, persecute for opinion’s sake ? If the
Church imprisons a man for the expression of an honest
opinion, is it not certain, either that the doctrine of the
Church is wrong, or that the Church is bad ? Both can
not be good. “ Sanctity ” without goodness is impossible.
Thousands of “ saints ” have been the most malicious of
the human race. If the history of the world proves
anything, it proves that the Catholic Church was for many
centuries the most merciless institution that ever existed
among men. I cannot believe that the instruments of
persecution were made and used by the eminently good ;
neither can I believe that honest people were imprisoned,
tortured, and burned at the stake by a Church that was
“ inexhaustibly fruitful in all good things.”
And let me say here that I have no Protestant prejudices
against Catholicism, and have no Catholic prejudices
against.Protestantism. I regard all religions either with
out prejudice or with the same prejudice. They were all,
according to my belief, devised by men, and all have for
a foundation ignorance of this world and fear of the next.
All the gods have been made by men. They are all
equally powerful and equally useless. I like some of
them better than I do others, for the same reason that I
admire some characters in fiction more than I do others.
I prefer Miranda to Caliban, but have not the slightest
idea that either of them existed. So I prefer Jupiter to
Jehovah, although perfectly satisfied that both are myths.
I believe myself to be in a frame of mind to justly and
fairly consider the claims of different religions, believing
as I do that all are wrong, and admitting as I do that there
is some good in all.
When one speaks of the “ inexhaustible fruitfulness in
all good things ” of the Catholic Church, we remember
the horrors and atrocities of the Inquisition—the rewards
offered by the Roman Church for the capture and murder
of honest men. We remember the Dominican Order, the
members of which, upheld by the Vicar of Christ,
pursued the heretics like sleuth hounds, through many
centuries.
The Church, “ inexhaustible in fruitfulness in all good
things,” not only imprisoned and branded and burned the
living, but violated the dead. It robbed graves, to the
-end that it might convict corpses of heresy—to the end
�ROME OR REASON.
13
that it might take from widows their portions and from
orphans their patrimony.
We remember the millions in the darkness of dungeons
—the millions who perished by the sword—the vast
multitudes destroyed in flames—those who were flayed
alive—those who were blinded—those whose tongues
were cut out—those into whose ears were poured molten
lead—those whose eyes were deprived of their lids—
those who were tortured and tormented in every way by
which pain could be inflicted and human nature over
come.
And we remember, too, the exultant cry of the Church
over the bodies of her victims : “Their bodies were
burned here, but their souls are now tortured in hell.”
We remember that the Church, by treachery, bribery,
perjury, and the commission of every possible crime, got
possession and control of Christendom, and we know the
use that was made of this power—that it was used to
brutalise, degrade, stupefy, and “ sanctify ” the children
of men. We know also that the Vicars of Christ were
persecutors for opinion’s sake—that they sought to
destroy the liberty of thought through fear—that they
endeavored to make every brain a Bastille in which the
mind should be a convict—that they endeavored to make
every tongue a prisoner, watched by a familiar of the
Inquisition—and that they threatened punishment here,
imprisonment here, burnings here, and, in the name of
their God, eternal imprisonment and eternal burnings
hereafter.
We know, too, that the Catholic Church was, during all
the years of its power, the enemy of every science. It
preferred magic to medicine, relics to remedies, priests to
physicians. It thought more of astrologers than of
astronomers.
It hated geologists—it persecuted the
chemist, and imprisoned the naturalist, and opposed
every discovery calculated to improve the condition of
mankind.
It is impossible to foi-get the persecutions of the Cathari,
the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Hugue
nots, and of every sect that had the courage to think just
a little for itself. Think of a woman—the mother of a
family—taken from her children and burned, on account
of her view as to the three natures of Jesus Christ. Think
�HOME OR REASON.
14
of the Catholic Church—an institution with a Divine
FonX presided over by the agent of God-punisbmg
a woman for giving a cup of cold water to a
who had been anathematised. Think of this Church,
“ fruitful in all good things,” launching its curse at an
honest man—not only cursing him from the crown of his
head to the soles of his feet with a fiendish
but having at the same time the impudence to call on
God, and the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ, and the Virgin
Marv to join in the curse ; and to curse him no _ y
herey’but forever hereafter—calling upon all the saints
and’upon all the redeemed to join in a hallelujah of
cursesP so that earth and heaven should reverbrate with
countless curses launched at a human being simply or
having expressed an honest thought.
,
This Church, so “fruitful in all good things " invented
crimes that it might punish, This Church tried men or
a “suspicion of heresy’’—imprisoned themfoi ^e vice
of being suspected—stripped them of all they bad_ on
earth and allowed them to rot in dungeons, because they
were guilty of the crime of having been suspected. This
W It Vtoo late^to talk about the “invincible stability ” of
the Seventh, in the Eighth, or
in the Ninth centuries. It was not invincible m Germany
in T other’s day. It was not invincible m the Low
Countries. It was not invincible in Scotland, or in
England It was not invincible in France. It is not
invincible in Italy. It is not supreme m any intellectual
centre of the world. It does not .triumph m Paris, or
Berlin • it is not dominant m London, m England ,
neither’ is it triumphant in the United States. It has not
within its fold the philosophers, the statesmen, and the
thinkers who are the leaders of the human race.
It is claimed that Catholicism “ interpenetrates all the
nations of the civilised world,” and that m some it holds
the whole nation in its unity.
.
in
I suppose the Catholic Church is more powerful 1
Spain than in any other nation. The history of this
nation demonstrates the result of Catholic supremacy, the
result of an acknowledgment by a people that a certain
religion is too sacred to be examined.
�ROME OR REASOK.
15
Without attempting in an article of this character to
point out the many causes that contributed to the adoption
of Catholicism by the Spanish people, it is enough to say
that Spain, of all nations, has been and is the most
thoroughly Catholic, and the most thoroughly inter
penetrated and dominated by the spirit of the Church of
Rome.
Spain used the sword of the Church. In the name of
religion it endeavored to conquer the infidel world. It
drove from its territory the Moors, not because they were
bad, not because they were idle and dishonest, but because
they were infidels. It expelled the Jews, not because
they were ignorant or vicious, but because they were
unbelievers. It drove out the Moriscoes, and deliberately
made outcasts of the intelligent, the industrious, the
honest and the useful, because they were not Catholics.
It leaped like a wild beast upon the Low Countries, for
the destruction of Protestantism. It covered the seas
with its fleets, to destroy the intellectual liberty of man.
And not only so—it established the Inquisition within its
borders. It imprisoned the honest, it burned the noble,
and succeeded after many years of devotion to the true
faith, in destroying the industry, the intelligence, the
usefulness, the genius, the nobility and the wealth of a
nation. It became a wreck, a jest of the conquered, and
excited the pity of its former victims.
In this period of degradation, the Catholic Church held
“ the whole nation in its unity.”
At last Spain began to deviate from the path of the
Church. It made a treaty with an infidel power. In 1782
it became humble enough, and wise enough, to be friends
with Turkey. It made treaties with Tripoli and Algiers
and the Barbary States.
It had become too poor to
ransom the prisoners taken by these powers. It began to
appreciate the fact that it could neither conquer nor
convert the world by the sword.
Spain has progressed in the arts and sciences, in all
that tends to enrich and ennoble a nation, in the precise
proportion that she has lost faith in the Catholic Church.
This may be said of every other nation in Christendom'
Torquemada is dead; Castelar is alive. The dungeons of
the Inquisition are empty, and a little light has penetrated
the clouds and mists—not much, but a little. Spain is
�16
ROME OR REASON.
not yet clothed and in her right mind. A few years ago
the cholera visited Madrid and other cities.. Physicians
were mobbed. Processions of saints carried the host
through the streets for the purpose of staying the plague.
The streets were not cleaned ; the sewers were filled.
Filth and faith, old partners, reigned supreme. The
Church, “eminent for its sanctity,” stood in the light and
cast its shadow on the ignorant and the prostrate. The
Church, in its “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
things,” allowed its children to perish through ignorance,
and used the diseases it had produced as an instrument
ality to further enslave its votaries and its victims.
No one will deny that many of its priests exhibited
heroism of the highest order in visiting the sick and
administering what are called the consolations of religion
to the dying, and in burying the dead. It i§ necessary
neither to deny nor disparage the self-denial and goodness
of these men. But their religion did more than all other
causes to produce the very evils that called. for the
exhibition of self-denial and heroism. One scientist in
control of Madrid could have prevented the plague. In
such cases, cleanliness is far better than “godliness”;
science is superior to superstition ; drainage much better
than divinity ; therapeutics more excellent than theology.
Goodness is not enough—intelligence is necessary.
Faith is not sufficient, creeds are helpless, and prayers
fmitloss*
It is admitted that the Catholic Church exists in many
nations; that it is dominated, at least in a great degree, by
the Bishop of Rome—that it is international in that sense,
and that in that sense it has what may be. called a
supernationai
xiw same,
“ supernational unity.” The muj-c, however, is true of
the Masonic fraternity. It exists in many nations, but it
is not a national body. It is in the same sense extra
national, in the same sense international, and has in t e
same sense a supernational unity. So the same may be
said of other societies. This, however, does not tend to
prove that anything supernational is supernatural.
It is also admitted that in. faith, worship, ceremonial,
discipline and government, that the Catholic Church is
substantially the same wherever it exists. . This estab
lishes the unity, but not the divinity of the institution.
The church that does not allow investigation, that
�ROME OR REASON.
17
teaches that all doubts are wicked, attains unity through
tyranny—that is, monotony by repression. Wherever
man has had something like freedom differences have
appeared, heresies have taken root, and the divisions have
become permanent. New sects have been born and the
Catholic Church has been weakened. The boast of unity
is the confession of tyranny.
It is insisted that the unity of the Church substantiates
its claim to divine origin. This is asserted over and over
again, in many ways ; and yet in the Cardinal’s article is
found this strange mingling of boast and confession :
Was it only by the human power of man that the unity,
external and internal, which for fourteen hundred years
had been supreme, was once more restored in the Council
of Constance, never to be broken again ? ”
By this it is admitted that the internal and external
unity of the Catholic Church has been broken, and that
it required more than human power to restore it. Then
the boast is made that it will never be broken again. Yet
it is asserted that the internal and external unity of the
Catholic Church is the great fact that demonstrates its
divine origin.
Now if this internal and external unity was broken,
and remained broken for years, there was an interval
during which the Church had no internal or external
unity, and during which the evidence of divine origin
failed. The unity was broken in spite of the Divine
Founder. This is admitted by the use of the word
“ again.” The unbroken unity of the Church is asserted,
and upon this assertion is based the claim of divine
origin ; it is then admitted that the unity was broken.
The argument is then shifted, and the claim is made that
it required more than human power to restore the internal
and external unity of the Church, and that the restora
tion, not the unity, is proof of the divine origin. Is there
any contradiction beyond this ?
Let us state the case in another way. Let us suppose
that a man has a sword which he claims was made by
God, stating that the reason he knows that God made the
sword is that it never had been and never could be
broken. Now if it was afterwards ascertained that it had
been broken, and the owner admitted that it had been,
what would be thought of him if he then took the ground
B
�18
ROME OR REASON.
that it had been welded, and that the welding was the
evidence that it was of divine origin ?
A prophecy is then indulged in, to the effect that the
internal and external unity of the Church can never be
broken again. It is admitted that it was broken, it is
asserted that it was divinely restored, and then’ it is
declared that it is never to be broken again. No reason
is given for this prophecy ; it must be born of the facts
already stated. Put in a form to be easily understood it
is this :
’
We know that the unity of the Church can never be
broken, because the Church is of divine origin.
We know that it was broken; but this does not weaken
the argument, because it was restored by God, and it has
not been broken since.
Therefore, it never can be broken again.
It is stated that the Catholic Church is immutable, and
that its immutability establishes its claim to divine origin.
Was it immutable when its unity, internal and external,
was broken ? Was it precisely the same after its unity
was broken that it was before ? Was it precisely the same
after its unity was divinely restored that it was while
broken? Was it universal while it was without unity?
Which of the fragments was universal—which was
immutable ?
The fact that the Catholic Church is obedient to the
pope, establishes, not the supernatural origin of the
Church, but the mental slavery of its members. It estab
lishes the fact that it is a successful organisation ; that it
is cunningly devised ; that it destroys the mental inde
pendence, and that whoever absolutely submits to its
authority loses the jewel of his soul.
The fact that Catholics are to a great extent obedient to
the pope, establishes nothing except the thoroughness of
the organisation.
.. How was the Roman empire formed ? By what means
did that Great Power hold in bondage the then known
world ? How is it that a despotism is established? How
is it that the few enslave the many ? How is it that the
nobility live on the labor of the peasants ? The answer
is in one word, Organisation. The organised few
triumph over the unorganised many. The few hold the
�ROME OR REASON,
19
sword and the purse. The unorganised are overcome in
detail—terrorised, brutalised, robbed, conquered.
We must remember that when Christianity was estab
lished the world was ignorant, credulous and cruel. The
gospel with its idea of forgiveness, with its heaven and
hell, was suited to the barbarians among whom it was
preached. Let it be understood, once for all, that Christ
had but little to do with Christianity. The people
became convinced—being ignorant, stupid and credulous
—that the Church held the keys of heaven and hell..
The foundation for the most terrible mental tyranny that
has existed among men was in this way laid. The
Catholic Church enslaved to the extent of its power. It
resorted to every possible form of fraud ; it perverted
every good instinct of the human heart ; it rewarded
every vice ; it resorted to every artifice that ingenuity
could devise, to reach the highest round of power. It
tortured the accused to make them confess; it tortured wit
nesses to compel the commission of perjury ; it tortured
children for the purpose of making them convict their
parents; it compelled men to establish their own innocence;
it imprisoned without limit; it had the malicious patience
to wait; it left the accused without trial, and left them
in dungeons until released by death. There is no crime
that the Catholic Church did not commit, no cruelty that
it did not practice, no form of treachery that it did not
reward, and no virtue that it did not persecute. It was
the greatest and most powerful enemy of human rights.
It did all that organisation, cunning, piety, self-denial,
heroism, treachery, zeal and brute force could do to
enslave the children of men. It was the enemy of
intelligence, the assassin of liberty, and the destroyer of
progress. It loaded the noble with chains and-th©
infamous with honors. In one hand it carried the alms
dish, in the other a dagger. It argued with the sword,
persuaded with poison, and convinced with the faggot.
It is impossible to see how the divine origin of a Church
can be established by showing that hundreds of bishops
have visited the pope.
Does the fact that millions of the faithful visit Mecca
establish the truth of the Koran ? Is it a scene for
congratulation when the bishops of thirty nations kneel
before a man ? Is it not humiliating to know that man
�20
ROME OR REASON.
is willing to kneel at the feet of man ? Could a noble
man demand, or joyfully receive, the humiliation of his
fellows ?
As a rule, arrogance and humility go together. He
who in power compels his fellow man to kneel, wili him
self kneel when weak. The tyrant is a cringer in power;
■a cringer is a tyrant out of power. Great men stand face
to face. They meet on equal terms. The cardinal who
kneels in the presence of the pope, wants the bishop to
kneel in his presence ; and the bishop who kneels
■demands that the priest shall kneel to him ; and the priest
who kneels demands that they in lower orders shall
kneel ; and all, from pope to the lowest—that is to say,
from pope to exorcist, from pope to the one in charge of
the bones of saints—all demand that the people, the lay
men, those upon whom they live, shall kneel to them.
The man of free and noble spirit will not kneel.
'Courage has no knees. Fear kneels, or falls upon its
•ashen face.
The cardinal insists that the pope is the Vicar of
Christ, and that all popes have been. What is a Vicar
of Jesus Christ ? He is a substitute in office. He stands
in the place, or occupies the position in relation to the
Church, in relation to the world, that Jesus Christ would
occupy were he the pope at Rome. In other words, he
takes Christ’s place ; so that, according to the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ himself is present in
the person of the pope.
We all know that a good man may employ a bad agent.
A good king might leave his realm and put in his place a
tyrant and a wretch. The good man, and the good king,
■cannot certainly know what manner of man the agent is
—what kind of person the vicar is—consequently the bad
may be chosen. But if the king appointed a bad vicar,
knowing him to be bad, knowing that he would oppress
the people, knowing that he would imprison and burn
the noble and generous, what excuse can be imagined for
such a king ?
Now if the Church is of divine origin, and if each pope
is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he must have been chosen
by Jesus Christ ; and when he was chosen, Christ must
have known exactly what* his Vicar would do. Can we
believe that an infinitely wise and good Being would
�ROME OR REASON.
21
choose immoral, dishonest, ignorant, malicious, heartless,
fiendish and inhuman vicars ?
The Cardinal admits that “ the history of Christianity
is the history of the Church, and that the history of the
Church is the history of the Pontiffs,” and he then de
clares that “the greatest statesmen and rulers that the
world has ever seen are the Popes of Rome.”
Let me call attention to a few passages in Draper’s
History of the Intellectual Development of Europe.
“ Constantine was one of the Vicars of Christ. After
wards, Stephen IV. was chosen. The eyes of Constantine
were then put out by Stephen, acting in Christ’s place.
The tongue of the Bishop Theodoras was amputated by
the man who had been substituted for God. This bishop
was left in a dungeon to perish of thirst. Pope Leo III.
was seized in the street and forced into a church, where
the nephews of Pope Adrian attempted to put out his
eyes and cut off his tongue. His successor, Stephen V
was driven ignominiously from Rome. His successor,
Paschal I., was accused of blinding and murdering two
ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII., unable
to resist the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them
tribute.
“At this time, the Bishop of Naples was in secret
alliance with the Mohammedans, and they divided with
this Catholic bishop the plunder they collected from other
Catholics. This bishop was excommunicated by the
pope ; afterwards he gave him absolution because he be
trayed the chief Mohammedans, and assassinated others.
There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the pope,
and some of the treasures of the Church were seized, and
the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys to
admit the Saracens. Pormosus, who had been engaged
in these transactions, who had been excommunicated as
a conspirator for the murder of Pope John, was himself
elected pope in 891. Boniface VI. was his successor.
He had been deposed from the diaconate and from the
priesthood for his immoral and lewd life. Stephen VII.
was the next pope, and he had the dead body of Formosus
taken from the grave, clothed in papal habiliments,
propped up in a chair and tried before a Council. The
corpse was found guilty, three fingers were cut off
and the body cast into the Tiber. Afterwards Stephen
�'22
ROME OR REASON.
VII., this Vicar of Christ, was thrown into prison and
strangled.
“ From 896 to 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo V.,
in less than two months after he became pope, was cast
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains. This
Christopher usurped his place, and in a little while was
expelled from Rome by Sergius III., who became pope
in 905. This pope lived in criminal intercourse with the
celebrated Theodora, who with her daughters Marozia
and Theodora, both prostitutes, exercised an extraordi
nary control over him. The love of Theodora was also
shared by John X. She gave him the Archbishopric of
Ravenna, and made him pope in 915. The daughter
of Theodora overthrew this pope. She surprised him
in the Lateran Palace. His brother, Peter, was killed;
the pope was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
murdered. Afterward, this Marozia, daughter of Theo
dora, made her own son pope, John XI. Many affirmed
that Pope Sergius was his father, but his mother inclined
to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose brother
Guido she afterwards married. Another of her sons,
Alberic, jealous of his brother, John the Pope, cast him
and their mother into prison. Alberic’s son was then
elected pope as John XII.
“ John was nineteen years old when he became the
Vicar of Christ. His reign was characterised by the most
shocking immoralities, so that the Emperor Otho I. was
compelled by the German clergy to interfere. He was
tried. It appeared that John had received bribes for the
consecration of bishops ; that he had ordained one who
was only ten years old ; that he was charged
with incest, and with so many adulteries that the
Lateran Palace had become a brothel.
He put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic; he maimed another
—both dying in consequence of their injuries. He was
given to drunkeness and to gambling.
He*was de
posed at last, and Leo VII. elected in his stead. Subse
quently he got the upper hand. He seized his an
tagonists ; he cut off the hand of one, the nose, the finger,
and the tongue of others. His life was eventually
brought to an end by the vengeance of a man whose wife
he had seduced.”
And yet, I admit that the most infamous popes, the
�ROME OR REASON.
S3
most heartless and fiendish bishops, friars, and priests
were models of mercy, charity, and justice when compared
with the orthodox God—with the God they worshipped.
These popes, these bishops, these priests could persecute
only for a few years—they could burn only for a few
moments—but their God threatened to imprison and burn
forever ; and their God is as much worse than they were,
as hell is worse than the Inquisition.
“ John XIII. was strangled in prison. Boniface VII.
imprisoned Benedict VII., and starved him to death.
John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons of
the castle of St. Angelo. The corpse of Boniface was
dragged by the populace through the streets.”
It must be remembered that the popes were assassinated
by Catholics—murdered by the faithful—that one Vicar
of Christ strangled another Vicar of Christ, and that these
men were “ the greatest rulers and the greatest statesmen
of the earth.”
“ Pope John XVI. was seized, his eyes put out, his nose
cut off, his tongue torn from his mouth, and he was sent
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to
the tail. Benedict IX., a boy of less than twelve years of
age, was raised to the apostolic throne. One of his suc
cessors, Victor III., declared that the life of Benedict was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to
describe it. He ruled like a captain of banditti. The
people, unable to bear longer his adulteries, his homicides
and his abominations, rose against him, and in despair of
maintaining his position, he put up his papacy to auction,
and it was bought by a Presbyter named John, who
became Gregory VI., in the year of grace 1045. Well
may we ask, Were these the Vicegerents of God upon
earth—these, who had truly reached that goal beyond
which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass ?”
It may be sufficient to say that there is no crime that
man can commit that has not been committed by the
Vicars of Christ. They have inflicted every possible
torture, violated every natural right. Greater monsters
the human race has not produced.
Among the “ some two hundred and fifty-eight ” Vicars
of Christ there were probably some good men. This
would have happened even if the intention had been to
get all bad men, for the reason that man reaches perfec
�24
ROME OR REASON.
tion neither in good nor in evil; but if they were selected
by Christ himself, if they were selected by a Church with
a divine origin and under divine guidance, then there is
no way to account for the selection of a bad one. If one
hypocrite was duly elected pope—one murderer, one
strangler, one starver—this demonstrates that all the popes
were selected by men, and by men only, that the claim
of divine guidance is born of zeal and uttered without
knowledge.
But who were the Vicars of Christ ? How many have
there been ? Cardinal Manning himself does not know.
He is not sure. He says : “ Starting from St. Peter to
Leo XIII., there have been some two hundred and fifty
eight Pontiffs claiming to be recognised by the whole
Catholic unity as successors of St. Peter and Vicars of
Jesus Christ.” Why did he use the word “some"?
Why “ claiming ” ? Does he positively know ? Is it
possible that the present Vicar of Christ is not certain as
to the number of his predecessors ? Is he infallible in
faith and fallible in fact ?
PART II.
“ If we live thus tamely,—
To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet,—
Farewell nobility.”
No one will deny that “the pope speaks to many people
in many nations : that he treats with empires and govern
ments,” and that “ neither from Canterbury nor from
Constantinople such a voice goes forth.”
How does the pope speak ? What does he say ?
He speaks against the liberty of man—against the
progress of the human race. He speaks to calumniate
thinkers, and to warn the faithful against the discoveries
of science. He speaks for the destruction of civilisation.
Who listens ? Do astronomers, geologists and scientists
put the hand to the ear fearing that an accent may be
lost ? Does France listen ? Does Italy hear ? Is not the
Church weakest at its centre ? Do those who have raised
�ROME OR REASON.
25
Italy from the dead, and placed her again among the
great nations, pay attention ? Does Great Britain care for
this voice—this moan, this groan—of the Middle Ages ?
Do the words of Leo XIII. impress the intelligence of the
Great Republic ? Can anything be more absurd than for
the vicar of Christ to attack a demonstration of science
with a passage of Scripture, or a quotation from one of
the “ Fathers ” ?
Compare the popes with the kings and queens of
England. Infinite wisdom had but little to do with the
selection of these monarchs, and yet they were far better
than any equal number of consecutive popes. This is
faint praise, even for kings and queens, but it shows that
chance succeeded in getting better rulers for England
than “ Infinite Wisdom ” did for the Church of Rome.
Compare the popes with the presidents of the Republic
elected by the people.
If Adams had murdered
Washington, and Jefferson had imprisoned Adams, and if
Madison had cut out Jefferson’s tongue, and Monroe had
assassinated Madison, and John Quincy Adams had
poisoned Monroe, and General Jackson had hung Adams
and his Cabinet, we might say that presidents had been as
virtuous as popes. But if this had happened, the verdict
of the world would be that the people are not capable of
selecting their presidents.
But this voice from Rome is growing feebler day by
day ; so feeble that the Cardinal admits that the vicar of
God, and the supernatural Church, “ are being tormented
by Falck laws, by Mancini laws and by Crispi laws.” In
other words, this representative of God, this substitute of
Christ, this Church of divine origin, this supernatural
institution—pervaded by the Holy Ghost—are being
“ tormented ” by three politicians. Is it possible that
this patriotic trinity is more powerful than the other ?*
It is claimed that if the Catholic Church “ be only a
human system, built up by the intellect, will and energy
of men, the adversaries must prove it—that the burden is
upon them.”
As a general thing, institutions are natural. If this
Church is supernatural, it is the one exception. The
affirmative is with those who claim that it is of divine
origin. So far as we know, all governments and all
creeds are the work of man. No one believes that Rome
�26
ROME OR REASON.
was a supernatural production, and yet its beginnings
were as small as those of the Catholic Church. Commenc
ing in weakness, Rome grew, and fought, and conquered,
until it was believed that the sky bent above a subjugated
world. And yet all was natural. For every effect there
was an efficient cause.
The Catholic asserts that all other religions have been
produced by man—that Brahminism and Buddhism, the
religion of Isis and Osiris, the marvellous mythologies of
Greece and Rome, were the work of the human mind.
From these religions Catholicism has borrowed. Long
before Catholicism was born, it was believed that women
had borne children whose fathers were gods. The Trinity
was promulgated in Egypt centuries before the birth of
Moses. Celibacy was taught by the ancient Nazarenes
and Essenes, by the priests of Egypt and India, by
mendicant monks, and by the piously insane of many
countries long before the Apostles lived. The Chinese
tell us that “ when there were but one man and one
woman upon the earth, the woman refused to sacrifice
her virginity even to people the globe ; and the gods,
honoring her purity, granted that she should conceive
beneath the gaze of her lover’s eyes, and a virgin mother
became the parent of humanity.
The founders of many religions have insisted that it
was the duty of man to renounce the pleasures of sense,
and millions before our era took the vows of chastity,
poverty and obedience, and most cheerfully lived upon
the labor of others.
The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are far
(older than the Church of Rome. The Eucharist is pagan.
Long before popes began to murder each other, pagans ate
cakes—the flesh of Ceres, and drank wine—the blood of
Bacchus. Holy water flowed in the Ganges and Nile,
priests interceded for the people, and anointed the dying.
It will not do to say that every successful religion that
has taught unnatural doctrines, unnatural practices, must
of necessity have been of divine origin. In most religions
there has been a strange mingling of the good and bad,
of the merciful and cruel, of the loving and malicious.
Buddhism taught the universal brotherhood of man,
insisted on the development of the mind, and this religion
was propagated not by the sword, but by preaching, by
�ROME OR REASON.
27
persuasion and by kindness—yet in many things it wag
contrary to the human will, contrary to the human pas
sions, and contrary to good sense. Buddhism succeeded.
Can we, for this reason, say that it is a supernatural
religion ? Is the unnatural the supernatural ?
It is insisted that, while other churches have changed,
the Catholic Church alone has remained the same, and
that this fact demonstrates its divine origin.
Has the creed of Buddhism changed in three thousand
years ? Is intellectual stagnation a demonstration of
divine origin ? When anything refuses to grow, are we
certain that the seed was planted by God ? If the
Catholic Church is the same to-day that it has been for
many centuries, this proves that there has been no intel
lectual development. If men do not differ upon religious
subjects, it is because they do not think.
Differentiation is the law of growth, of progress. Every
Church must gain or lose ; it cannot remain the same ; it
must decay or grow. The fact that the Catholic Church
has not grown—that it has been petrified from the first—
does not establish divine origin ; itsimply establishes the
fact that it retards the progress of man. Everything in
nature changes—every atom is in motion—every star
moves. Nations, institutions and individuals have youth,
manhood, old age, death. This is and will be true of the
Catholic Church. It was once weak—it grew stronger—
it reached its climax of power—it began to decay—it
never can rise again. It is confronted by the dawn of
Science. In the presence of the nineteenth century it
cowers.
It is not true that “ All natural causes run to disinte
gration.”
Natural causes run to integration as well as to disinte
gration. All growth is integration, and all growth is
natural. All decay is disintegration, and all decay is
natural. Nature builds and nature destroys. When the
acorn grows—when the sunlight and rain fall upon it and
the oak rises—so far as the oak is concerned “ all natural
causes ” do not “ run to disintegration.” But there comes
a time when the oak has reached its limit, and then the
forces of nature run towards disintegration, and finally
the old oak falls. But if the Cardinal is right—if “ all
natural causes run to disintegration,” then every success
�28
ROME OR REASON.
must have been of divine origin, and nothing is natural
but destruction. This is Catholic science : “ All natural
causes run to disintegration.” What do these causes find
to disintegrate ? Nothing that is natural. The fact that
the thing is not disintegrated shows that it was and is of
supernatural origin. According to the Cardinal, the only
business of nature is to disintegrate the supernatural.
To prevent this, the supernatural needs the protection of
the Infinite. According to this doctrine, if anything
lives and grows, it does so in spite of nature. Growth,
then, is not in accordance with, but in opposition to
nature. Every plant is supernatural—it defeats the dis
integrating influences of rain and light. The generalisa
tion of the Cardinal is half the truth. It would be
equally true to say : All natural causes run to integration.
But the whole truth is that growth and decay are equal.
The Cardinal asserts that “ Christendom was created by
the world-wide Church as we see it before our eyes at
this day. Philosophers and statesmen believe it to be the
work of their own hands ; they did not make it, but they
have for three hundred years been unmaking it by refor
mations and revolutions.”
The meaning of this is that Christendom was far better
three hundred years ago than now ; that during these
three centuries Christendom has been going towards
barbarism. It means that the supernatural Church of
God has been a failure for three hundred years ; that it
has been unable to withstand the attacks of philosophers
and statesmen, and that it has been helpless in the midst
of “ reformations and revolutions.”
What was the condition of the world three hundred
years ago, the period, according to the Cardinal, in which
the Church reached the height of its influence and since
which it has been unable to withstand the rising tide of
reformation and the whirlwind of revolution ?
In that blessed time, Phillip II. was king of Spain—he
with the cramped head and the monstrous jaw. Heretics
were hunted like wild and poisonous beasts ; the in?
quisition was firmly established, and priests were busy
with rack and fire. With a zeal born of the hatred of
man and the love of God, the Church with every
instrument of torture, touched every nerve in the human
body.
�ROME OR REASON.
29
In those happy clays the Duke qf Alva was devastating
the homes of Holland ; heretics were buried alive—their
tongues were torn from their mouths, their lids from
their eyes; the Armada was on the sea for the destruction
of the heretics of England, and the Moriscoes—a million
and a half of industrious people—were being driven by
Sword and flame from their homes. The dews had been
expelled from Spain. This Catholic country had suc
ceeded in driving intelligence and industry from its
territory ; and this had been done with cruelty, with a
ferocity, unequalled in the*annals of crime. Nothing
was left but ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, credulity, the
Inquisition, the seven sacraments and the seven deadly
Sins. And yet a Cardinal of the nineteenth century,
living in the land of Shakespeare, regrets the change that
has been wrought by the intellectual efforts, by the dis
coveries, by the inventions and heroism of three hundred
years.
Three hundred years ago, Charles IX., in France, son
of Catherine de Medici, in the year of grace 1572—after
nearly sixteen centuries of Catholic Christianity—after
hundreds of vicars of ^Christ had sat in St. Peter’s chair—
after the’natural passions of man had been “ softened ” by
the creed of Rome—came the Massacre of St. Bartholo
mew, the result of a conspiracy between the Vicar of
Christ, Philip II., Charles IX., and his fiendish mother.
Let the Cardinal read the account of this massacre once
more, and after reading it, imagine that he sees the
gashed and mutilated bodies of thousands of men and
women, and then let him say that he regrets the revolu
tions and reformations of three hundred years.
About three hundred years ago Clement VIII., Vicar of
Christ, acting in God’s place, substitute of the Infinite,
persecuted Giordano Bruno even unto death. This great’
this sublime man, was tried for heresy. He had ventured
to assert the rotary motion of the earth ; he had hazarded
the conjecture that there were in the fields of infinite
space worlds larger and more glorious than ours. For
these low and groveling thoughts, for this contradiction
of the word and vicar of God, this man was imprisoned
for many years. But his noble spirit was not broken,
and finally in the year 1600, by the orders of the infam
ous Vicar, he was chained to the stake. Priests believing
�30
ROME OR REASON.
in the doctrine of universal forgiveness—priests who
when smitten upon one cheek turned the other—carried
with a kind of ferocious joy faggots to the feet of this
incomparable man. These disciples of “Our Lord” were
made joyous as the flames, like serpents, climbed around
the body of Bruno. In a few moments the brave thinker
was dead, and the priests who had burned him fell upon
their knees and asked the infinite God to continue the
blessed work for ever in hell.
There are two things that cannot exist in the same
universe—an infinite God and a martyr.
Does the Cardinal regret that kings and emperors are
not now engaged in the extermination of Protestants ?
Does he regret that dungeons of the Inquisition are no
longer crowded with the best and bravest? Does he
long for the fires of the auto da fe1
?
In coming to a conclusion as to the origin of the
Catholic Church—in determining the truth of the claim
of infallibility—we are not restricted to the physical
achievements of that Church, or to the history of its
propagation, or to the rapidity of its growth.
This Church has a creed ; and if this Church is of
divine origin—if its head is the Vicar of Christ, and, as
such, infallible in matters of faith and morals, this creed
must be true. Let us start with the supposition that God
exists, and that he is infinitely wise, powerful and good—
and this is only a supposition. Now, if the creed is
foolish, absurd and cruel, it cannot be of divine origin.
We find in this creed the following :
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the Catholic faith.”
It is not necessary, before all things, that he be good,,
honest, merciful, charitable and just. Creed is more im
portant than conduct. The most important of all things
is, that he hold the Catholic faith. There were thousands
of years during which it was not necessary to hold that
faith, because that faith did not exist; and yet during
that time the virtues were just as important as now, just
as important as they ever can be. Millions of the noblest
of the human race never heard of this creed. Millions
of the bravest and best have heard of it, examined, and
rejected it. Millions of the most infamous have believed
it, and because of their belief, or notwithstanding their
�ROME OR REASON.
31
belief^ have murdered millions of their fellows. We
know that men can be, have been, and are just as wicked
with it as without it. We know that it is not necessary
to believe it to be good, loving, tender, noble and self
denying. We admit that millions who have believed it
have also been self-denying and heroic, and that millions,
by such belief, were not prevented from torturing and
destroying the helpless.
Now if all who believed it were good, and all who
rejected it were bad, then there might be some propriety
in saying that “ whoever will be saved, before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” But as
the experience of mankind is otherwise, the declaration
becomes absurd, ignorant and cruel.
There is still another clause :
u Which faith, except every one do keep entire and
inviolate, without doubt he shall everlastingly perish.”
We now have both sides of this wonderful truth : The
believer will be saved, the unbeliever will be lost. We
know that faith is not the child or servant of the will.
We know that belief is a conclusion based upon what the
mind supposes to be true. We know that it is not an act
of the will. Nothing can be more absurd than to save a
man because he is not intelligent enough to accept the
truth, and nothing can be more infamous than to damn
a man because he is intelligent enough to reject the false.
It resolves itself into a question of intelligence. If the
creed is true, then a man rejects it because he lacks
intelligence. Is this a crime for which a man should
everlastingly perish ? If the creed is false, then a man
accepts it because he lacks intelligence. In both cases
the crime is exactly the same. If a man is to be damned
for rejecting the truth, certainly he should not be saved
for accepting the false. This one clause demonstrates
that a being of infinite wisdom and goodness did not
write it. It also demonstrates that it was the work of
men who had neither wisdom nor a sense of justice.
What is this Catholic faith that must be held ? It is
this :
■“ That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the
substance.”
Why should an Infinite Being demand worship ? Why
�32
ROME OR REASON.
should one God wish to be worshipped as three ? Why
should three Gods wish to be worshipped as one ? Why
should we pray to one God and think of three, or pray to
three Gods and think of one ? Can this increase the
happiness of the one or of the three ? Is it possible to
think of one as three, or of three as one ? If you think
of three as one, can you think of one as none, or of none
as one ? When you think of three as one, what do you
do with the other two ? You must not “ confound the
persons ”—they must be kept separate. When you think
of one as three, how do you get the other two ? You
must not “divide the substance.” Is it possible to write
greater contradictions than these ?
This creed demonstrates the human origin of the
Catholic Church. Nothing could be more unjust than to
punish man for unbelief—for the expression of honest
thought—for having been guided by his reason—for
having acted in accordance with his best judgment.
Another claim is made, to the effect “ that the Catholic
Church has filled the world with the true knowledge of
the one true God, and that it has destroyed all idols by
light instead of by fire.”
The Catholic Church described the true God as a being
who would inflict eternal pain on his weak and erring
children ; described him as a fickle, quick-tempered,
unreasonable deity, whom honesty enraged, and whom
flattery governed ; one who loved to see fear upon its
knees, ignorance with closed eyes and open mouth ; one
who delighted in useless self-denial, who loved to hear
the sighs and sobs of suffering nuns, as they lay prostrate
on dungeon floors ; one who was delighted when the
husband deserted his family and lived alone in some cave
in the far wilderness, tormented by dreams and driven
to insanity by prayer and penance, by fasting and faith.
According the Catholic Church, the true God enjoyed
the agonies of heretics. He loved the smell of their
burning flesh ; he applauded with wide palms when
philosophers were flayed alive, and to him the auto da fe
was a divine comedy.
The shrieks of wives, the
cries of babes when fathers were being burned,
gave contrast, heightened the effect and filled his cup
with joy. This true God did not know the shape of the
earth he had made, and had forgotten the orbits of the
�BOMB OR REASON.
33
stars. > “ The stream of light which descended from the
beginning” was propagated by faggot to faggot, until
Christendom was filled with the devouring fires of
faith.
It may also be said that the Catholic Church filled the
world with the true knowledge of the one true Devil. It
filled the air with malicious phantoms, crowded innocent
Sleep with leering fiends, and gave the world to the
domination of witches and wizards, spirits and spooks,
goblins and ghosts, and butchered and burned thousandsfor the commission of impossible crimes.
It is contended that: “ In this true knowledge of the
Divine Nature was revealed to man their own relation toa Creator as sons to a Father.”
This tender relation was revealed by the Catholics tothe Pagans, the Arians, the Cathari, the Waldenses, the
Albigenses, the heretics, the Jews, the Moriscoes, the
Protestants—to the natives of the West Indies, of Mexico,
of Peru—to philosophers, patriots and thinkers. All these
victims were taught to regard the true God as a loving
Father, and this lesson was taught with every instrument
of torture—with brandings and burnings, with Sayings and
flames. The world was filled with cruelty and credulity,
ignorance and intolerance and the soil in which all these
horrors grew was the true knowledge of the one true God,,
and the true knowledge of the one true Devil. And yet,
we are compelled to say, that the one true Devil described
by the Catholic Church was not as malevolent as the one
true God.
Is it true that the Catholic Church overthrew idolatry ?
What is idolatry ? What shall we say of the worship of
popes—of the doctrine of the Real presence, of divine
honors paid to saints, of sacred vestments, of holy water,
of consecrated cups and plates, of images and relics, of
amulets and charms ?
The Catholic Church filled the world with the spirit of
idolatry. It abandoned the idea of continuit5r in nature,
it denied the integrity of cause and effect. The govern
ment of the world was the composite result of the caprice
of God, the malice of Satan, the prayers of the faithfulsoftened, it may be, by the charity of Chance. Yet the
Cardinal asserts, without the preface of a smile, that
“ Demonology was overthrown by the Church, with the
•
c
�34
ROME OR REASON,
assistance of forces that were above nature; ” and in the
same breath gives birth to this enlightened statement :
“Beelzebub is not divided against himself.” Is a belief
in Beelzebub a belief in demonology ? Has the Cardinal
forgotten the Council of Nice, held in the year of grace
787, that declared the worship of images to be lawful ?
Did that infallible Council, under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost, destroy idolatry ?
The Cardinal takes the ground that marriage is a sacra
ment, and therefore indissoluble, and he also insists that
celibacy is far better than marriage—holier than a sacra
ment—that marriage is not the highest state, but that
« the state of virginity unto death is thejhighest condition
of man and woman.”
The highest ideal of a family is where all are equal—
where love has superseded authority—where each seeks
the good of all, and where none obey—where no religion
can sunder hearts, and with which no church can in
terfere.
The real marriage is based on mutual affection—the
ceremony is but the outward evidence of the inward
flame. To this contract there are but two parties. The
Church is an impudent intruder. Marriage is made public
to the end that the real contract may be known, so that
the world can see that the parties have been actuated by
the highest and holiest motives that find expression in
the acts of human beings. The man and woman are not
joined together by God, or by the Church, or by the
State. The Church and State may prescribe certain
•ceremonies, certain formalities—but all these are only
•evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the heaits of
the wedded. The indissolubility of marriage is a dogma
that has filled the lives of millions with agony and tears.
It has given a perpetual excuse for vice and immorality.
Fear has borne children begotten by brutality. ^Countless
women have endured the insults, indignities and cruelties
■of fiendish husbands, because they thought that it was
the will of God. The contract of marriage is the most
important that human beings can make ; but no contract
can be so important as to release one of the parties from
the obligation of performance ; and no contract, whether
made between man and woman, or between them and
God, after a failure of consideration caused by the wilful
�HOME OR REASON.
35
act of the man or woman, can hold and bind the innocent
and honest.
Do the believers in indissoluble marriage treat their
wives better than others ? A little while ago, a woman
said to a man who had raised his hand to strike her :
“ Do not touch me ; you have no right to beat me ; I am
not your wife.”
About a year ago, a husband, whom God in his infinite
wisdom had joined to a loving and patient woman in the
indissoluble sacrament of marriage, becoming enraged,
seized the helpless wife and tore out one of her eyes.
She forgave him. A few weeks ago he deliberately
repeated this frightful crime, leaving his victim totally
blind. Would it not have been better if man, before
the poor woman was blinded, had put asunder whom
God had joined together? Thousands of husbands,
who insist that marriage is indissoluble, are the b eaters
of wives.
The Law of the Church has created neither the purity
nor the peace of domestic life. Back of all churches is
human affection. Back of all theologies is the love of
the human heart. Back of all your priests and creeds is
the adoration of the one woman by the one man, and of
the one man by the one wom'an. Back of your faith is
the fireside, back of your folly is the family • and back
of all your holy mistakes and your sacred absurdities is
the love of husband and wife, of parent and child.
It is not true that neither the Greek nor the Roman
world had any true conception of a home. The splendid
story of Ulysses and Penelope, the parting of Hector and
Andromache, demonstrate that a true conception of
home existed among the Greeks. Before the establish
ment of. Christianity, the Roman matron commanded the
admiration of the then known world. She was free and
noble. The Church degraded woman ; made her the
property of the husband, and trampled her beneath its
brutal feet. The “ fathers ” denounced woman as a perpetual temptation, as the cause of all evil. The Church
worshipped a God who had upheld polygamy, and had
pronounced his curse on woman, and had declared
that she should be the serf of the husband. This Church
followed the teachings of St. Paul. It taught the un
cleanness of marriage, and insisted that all children were
�36
' ROME OR REASON.
conceived in sin. This Church pretended to have been
founded by one who offered a reward in this world, and
eternal joy in the next, to husbands who would forsake
their wives and children and follow him. Did this tend
to the elevation of woman ? Did this detestable doctrine
“create the purity and peace of domestic life’ ? Is it
true that a monk is purer than a good and noble father .
that a nun is holier than a loving mother ?
?
Is there anything deeper and stronger than a mother 8
love ? Is there anything purer, holier than a mother
holding her dimpled babe against her billowed breast ?
The good man is useful, the best man is the most use
ful. Those who fill the nights with barren prayers and
holy hunger, torture themselves for their own good and
not for the benefit of others. They are earning eternal
glory for themselves ; they do not fast for their fellow
men, their selfishness is only equalled by their foolish
ness. Compare the monk in his selfish cell, counting
beads and saying prayers for the purpose of saving his
barren soul, with a husband and father sitting by his
fireside with wife and children. Compare the nun with
the mother and her babe.
Celibacy is the essence of vulgarity. It tries to put a
stain upon motherhood, upon marriage, upon love—that
is to say, upon all that is holiest in the human heart
Take love from the world, and there is nothing left worth
livino- for. The Church has treated this great, this
sublime, this unspeakably holy passion, as though it
polluted the heart. They have placed the love of God
above the love of woman, above the love of man. Human
love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish,
because man does not love God for God’s sake but for
his own. •
,
i 4.
Yet the Cardinal asserts “ that the change wrought by
Christianity in the social, political and international
relations of the world’’-“that the root of this ethical,
change, private and public, is the Christian home.
A
moment afterwards, this prelate insists that celibacy is
far better than marriage. If the world could be induced
to live in accordance with the “ highest state, this gene
ration would be the last. Why were men and women
created ? Why did not the Catholic God commence with
the sinless and sexless ? The Cardinal ought to take the
�ROME OR REASON.
37
ground that to talk well is good, but that to be dumb is
the highest condition; that hearing is a pleasure, but that
deafness is ecstasy ; and that to think, to reason, is very
well, but that to be a Catholic is far better.
Why should we desire the destruction of human
passions ? Take passions from human beings and what
is left ? The great object should be not to destroy
passions, but to make them obedient to the intellect. To
indulge passion to the utmost is one form of intemper
ance, to destroy passion is another. The reasonable
gratification of passion under the domination of the
intellect is true wisdom and perfect virtue.
The goodness, the sympathy, the self-denial of the nun,
of the monk, all come from the mother instinct, the
father instinct—all were produced by human affection,
by the love of man for woman, of woman for man. Love
is a transfiguration. It ennobles, purifies and glorifies.
In true marriage two hearts burst into flower. Two lives
unite. They melt in music. Every moment is a melody.
Love is a revelation, a creation. From love the world
borrows its beauty and the heavens their glory. Justice,
self-denial, charity and pity are the children of love.
Jjover, wife, mother, husband, father, child, home—these
words shed light—they are the gems of human speech.
Without love all glory fades, the noble falls from life, art
dies, music loses meaning and becomes mere motions of
the air, and virtue ceases to exist.
It is asserted that this life of celibacy is above and
against the tendencies of human nature; and the Cardinal
then asks : “ Who will ascribe this to natural causes,
and, if so, why did it not appear in the first four thousand
years ? ”
If there is in a system of religion a doctrine, a dogma,
or a practice against the tendencies of human nature—if
this religion succeeds, then it is claimed by the Cardinal
that such religion must be of divine origin. Is it “against
the tendencies of human nature ” for a mother to throw
her child into the Ganges to please a supposed God? Yet
a religion that insisted on that sacrifice succeeded, and
has, to-day, more believers than the Catholic Church can
boast.
Religions, like nations and individuals, have always
.gone along the line of least resistance. Nothing has
�38
ROME OR REASON.
“ascended the stream of human license by a power
mightier than nature.” There is no such power. There
never was, there never can be, a miracle. We know that
man is a conditioned being. We know that he is affected
by a change of conditions. If he is ignorant he is super
stitious—that is natural. If his brain is developed, if
he perceives clearly that all things are naturally produced,
he ceases to be superstitious and becomes scientific. He
is not a saint, but a savant—not a priest, but a philo
sopher. He does not worship, he works; he investigates ;
he thinks ; he takes advantage, through intelligence, of
the forces of nature. He is no longer the victim of
appearances, the dupe of his own ignorance, and the
persecutor of his fellow men.
He then knows that it is far better to love his wife
and children than to love God. He then knows that the
love of man for woman, of woman for man, of parent
for child, of child for parent, is far better, far holier
than the love of man for any phantom born of ignorance
and fear.
It is illogical to take the ground that the world was
cruel and ignorant and idolatrous when the Catholic
Church was established, and that because the world is
better now than then, the Church is of divine origin.
What was the world when science came ?
What
was it in the days of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler ?
What was it when printing was invented ? What was it
when the Western World was found ? Would it not be
much easier to prove that science is of divine origin ?
Science does not persecute. It does not shed blood—
it fills the world with light. It cares nothing for heresy;
it developes the mind, and enables man to answer his
own prayers.
Cardinal Manning takes the ground that Jehovah prac
tically abandoned the children of men for four thousand
years, and gave them over to every abomination. He
claims that Christianity came “ in the fulness of time,
and it is then admitted that “ what the fulness of time
may mean is one of the mysteries of times and seasons,
that it is not for us to know.” Having declared that it is
a mystery, and one that we are not to know, the Cardinal
explains it : “ One motive for the long delay of four
thousand years is not far to seek—it gave time, full and
�ROME OR REASON.
39
ample, for the utmost development and consolidation of
all the falsehood and evil of which the intellect and will
of man is capable.”
Is it possible to imagine why an infinitely good and
wise being “ gave time full and ample for the utmost
development and consolidation of falsehood and evil ” ?
Why should an infinitely wise God desire this development
and consolidation ? What would be thought of a father
who should refuse to teach his son and deliberately
allow him to go into every possible excess, to the end
that he might “ develop all the falsehood and evil of
which his intellect and will were capable ”? If a super
natural religion is a necessity, and if without it all men
simply develop and consolidate falsehood and evil, why
was not a supernatural religion given to the first man ?
The Catholic Church, if this be true, should have been
founded in the garden of Eden. Was it not cruel to drown
a world just for the want of a supernatural religion—a
religion that man, by no possibility, could furnish ? Was
there “ husbandry in heaven ” ?
But the Cardinal contradicts himself by not only
admitting, but declaring, that the world had never seen
a legislation so just, so equitable, as that of Rome. Is it
possible that a nation in which falsehood and evil had
reached their highest development was, after all, so wise,
so just, and so equitable ? Was not the civil law far
better than the Mosaic—more philosophical, nearer just?
The civil law was produced without the assistance of God.
According to the Cardinal, it was produced by men in
whom all the falsehood and evil of which they were
capable had been developed and consolidated, while the
cruel and ignorant Mosaic code came from the lips of
infinite wisdom and compassion.
It is declared that the history of Rome shows what man
can do without God, and I assert that the history of the
Inquisition shows what man can do when assisted by a
church of divine origin, presided over by the infallible
vicars of God.
The fact that the early Christians not only believed
incredible things, but persuaded others of their truth, is
regarded by the Cardinal as a miracle. This is only
another phase of the old argument that success is the test
of divine origin. All supernatural religions have been
�40
ROME OR REASON.
founded in precisely the same way. The credulity of
eighteen hundred years ago believed everything except
the truth.
A religion is a growth, and is of necessity adapted in
some degree to the people among whom it grows. It is
shaped and moulded by the general ignorance, the
superstition and credulity of the age in which it lives.
The key is fashioned by the lock. Every religion that
has succeeded has in some way supplied the wants of its
votaries, and has to a certain extent harmonised with
their hopes, their fears, their vices, and their virtues.
If, as the Cardinal says, the religion of Christ is in
absolute harmony with nature, how can it be super
natural ? The Cardinal also declares that. “ the religion
of Christ is in harmony with the reason and moral nature
in all nations and all ages to this day.” What becomes of
the argument that Catholicism must be of divine origin
because “ it has ascended the stream of human licence,
contra ictum fluminis, by a power mightier than
nature ” ? If “ it is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations and all ages to this day,” it
has gone with the stream, and not against it. If “ the
religion of Christ is in harmony with the reason and
moral nature of all nations,” then the men who have
rejected it are unnatural, and these men have gone against
the stream. How then can it be said that Christianity
has been in changeless opposition to nature as man has
marred it ? To what extent has man marred it ? In spite
of the marring by man, we are told that the reason and
moral nature of all nations in all ages to this day is in
harmony with the religion of Jesus Christ.
Are we justified in saying that the' Catholic Church is
of divine origin because the Pagans failed to destroy it
by persecution ?
We will put the Cardinal’s statement in form :
Paganism failed to destroy.Catholicism by persecutions
therefore Catholicism is of divine origin.
Let us make an application of this logic :
Paganism failed to destroy Catholicism by persecution ;
therefore, Catholicism is of divine origin.
Catholicism failed to destroy Protestantism by persecu
tion ; therefore, Protestantism is of divine origin.
�ROME OR REASON.
41
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity; therefore, Infidelity is of divine
origin.
Let us make another application :
Paganism did not succeed in destroying Catholicism ;
therefore, Paganism was a false religion.
Catholicism did not succeed in destroying Protestant
ism ; therefore, Catholicism is a false religion.
Catholicism and Protestantism combined failed to
destroy Infidelity ; therefore, both Catholicism and
Protestantism are false religions.
The Cardinal has another reason for believing the
Catholic Church of divine origin. He declares that the
Canon Law is a creation of wisdom and justice to which
no statutes at large or imperial pandects can bear com
parison “ that the world-wide and secular legislation of
the Church was of a higher character, and that as water
cannot rise above its source, the Church could not, by
mere human wisdom, have corrected and perfected the
imperial law, and therefore its source must have been
higher than the sources of the world.”
When Europe was the most ignorant, the Canon Law
was supreme. As a matter of fact, the good in the Canon
Law was borrowed—the bad was, for the most part,
original. In my judgment, the legislation of the Repub
lic of the United States is in many respects superior to
that of Rome, and yet we are greatly indebted to the
Common Law ; but it never occurred to me that our
Statutes at Large are divinely inspired.
If the Canon Law is, in fact, the legislation of infinite
wisdom, then it should be a perfect code. Yet, the Canon
Law made it a crime next to robbery and theft to take
interest for money. Without the right to take interest
the business of the world would, to a large extent, cease
and the prosperity of mankind end. There are railways
enough in the United States to make six tracks around
the globe, and every mile was built with borrowed money
on which interest was paid or promised. In no other
way could the savings of many thousands have been
brought together and a capital great enough formed to
construct works of such vast and continental import
ance.
�42
ROME OR REASON.
It was provided in this same wonderful Canon Law
that a heretic could not be a witness against a Catholic.
The Catholic was at liberty to rob and wrong his fellow
man, provided the fellow man was not a fellow Catholic,
and in a court established by the Vicar of Christ, the man
who had been robbed was not allowed to open his mouth.
A Catholic could enter the house of an unbeliever, of a
Jew, of a heretic, of a Moor, and before the eyes of the
husband and father murder his wife and children, and
the father could not pronounce in the hearing of a judge
the name of the murderer. The world is wiser now, and
the Canon Law, given to us by infinite wisdom, has been
repealed by the common sense of man.
In this divine code it was provided that to convict a
cardinal bishop, seventy-two witnesses were required ; a
cardinal presbyter, forty-four ; a cardinal deacon, twentyfour ;' a sub-deacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, ostiarus,
seven ; and in the purgation of a bishop, twelve witnesses
were invariably required; of a presbyter, seven ; of a
deacon, three. These laws, in my judgment, were made,
not by God, but by the clergy.
So, too, in this cruel code it was provided that those
who gave aid, favor, or counsel, to excommunicated per
sons should be anathema, and that those who talked
with, consulted, or sat at the same table with, or gave
anything in charity to the excommunicated, should be
anathema.
Is it possible that a being of infinite wisdom made
hospitality a crime ? Did he say : “ Whoso giveth a cup
of cold water to the excommunicated shall wear forever a
garment of fire”? Were not the laws of the Romans
much better ? Besides all this, under the Canon Law the
dead could be tried for heresy, and their estates confiscated
—that is to say, their widows and orphans robbed. The
most brutal part of the common law of England is that in
relation to the right of women—all of which was taken
from the Corpus Juris Canonist, “ the law that came
from a higher source than man.”
The only cause of absolute divorce as laid down by the
pious canonists was propter infidelitatem, which was
when one of the parties became Catholic, and would not
live with the other who continued still an unbeliever.
Under this divine statute, a pagan wishing to be rid of
�ROME OR REASON.
43:
his wife had only to join the Catholic Church, provided
she remained faithful to the religion of her fathers.
Under this divine law, a man marrying a widow was
declared to be a bigamist.
It would require volumes to point out the cruelties,
absurdities and inconsistencies of the Canon Law. It'
has been thrown away by the world. Every civilised
nation has a code of its own, and the Canon Law is of
interest only to the historian, the antiquarian, and the
enemy of theological government.
Under the Canon Law, people were convicted of being
witches and wizards, of holding intercourse with devils.
Thousands perished at the stake, having been convicted
of these impossible crimes. Under the Canon Law, there
was such a crime as the suspicion of heresy. A man or
woman could be arrested, charged with being suspected,,
and under this Canon Law, flowing from the intellect of
infinite wisdom, the presumption was in favor of guilt.
The suspected had to prove themselves innocent. In all
civilised courts, the presumption of innocence is theshield of the indicted, but the Canon Law took away this
shield, and put in the hand of the priest the sword of
presumptive guilt.
If the real pope is the vicar of Christ, the true shepherd
of the sheep, this fact should be known not only to the
vicar, but to the sheep. A divinely founded and guarded
church ought to know its own shepherd, and yet the
Catholic sheep have not always been certain who theshepherd was.
The Council of Pisa, held in 1409, deposed two popes—
rivals—Gregory and Benedict—that is to say, deposed
the actual vicar of Christ and the pretended. This action
was taken because a council, enlightened by the Holy
Ghost, could not tell the genuine from the counterfeit.
The council then elected another vicar, whose authority
was afterwards denied. Alexander V. died, and John
XXIII. took his place ; Gregory XII. insisted that he
was the lawful pope ; John resigned, then he was de
posed, and afterwards imprisoned; then Gregory XII.
resigned, and Martin V. was elected. The whole thing
reads like the annals of a South American Revolution.
The Council of Constance restored, as the Cardinal
declares, the unity of the Church, and brought back the
�44
ROME OR REASON.
consolation of the Holy Ghost. Before this great council
John Huss appeared and maintained his own tenets.
The council declared that the Church was not bound to
keep its promise with a heretic. Huss was condemned
and executed on the 6th of July, 1415. His disciple,
Jerome of Prague, recanted, but having relapsed, was put
to death, May 30th, 1416. This cursed council shed the
blood of Huss and Jerome.
The Cardinal appeals to the author of Ecce Homo for
the purpose of showing that Christianity is above nature,
and the following passages, among others, are quoted :
“ Who can describe that which unites men ? Who has
entered into the formation of speech, which is the symbol
of their union ? Who can describe exhaustively the
origin of civil society ? He who can do these things can
explain the origin of the Christian Church.”
These passages should not have been quoted by the
Cardinal. The author of these passages simply says that
the origin of the Christian Church is no harder to find
and describe than that which unites men—than that
which has entered into the formation of speech, the
symbol of their union—no harder to describe than th®
origin of civil society—because he says that one who can
describe these can describe the other.
Certainly none of these things are above nature. We
do not need the assistance of the Holy Ghost in these
matters. We know that men are united by common
interests, common purposes, common dangers—by race,
■climate, and education. It is no more wonderful that
people live in families, tribes, communities and nations,
than that birds, ants, and bees live in flocks and
swarms.
If we know anything we know that language is natural
—that it is a physical science. But if we take the ground
occupied by the Cardinal, then we insist that everything
that cannot be accounted for by man, is supernatural.
Let me ask, by what man ? What man must we take as
the standard ? Cosmas or Humboldt, St. Irenaeus or
Darwin ? If everything that we cannot account for is
above nature, then ignorance is the test of the super
natural. The man who is mentally honest, stops where
his knowledge stops. At that point he says that he does
not know. JSuch a man is a philosopher. Then the
�ROME OR REASON.
45
theologian steps forward, denounces the modesty of the
philosopher as blasphemy, and proceeds to tell what is
beyond the horizon of the human intellect.
■ Could a savage account for the telegraph, or the tele
phone by natural causes? How would he account for
these wonders ? He would account for them precisely
as the Cardinal accounts for the Catholic Church.
Belonging to no rival church, I have not the slightest
interest "in the primacy of Leo XIII., and yet it is to be
regretted that this primacy rests upon such a narrow and
insecure foundation.
The Cardinal says that “ it will appear almost certain
that the original Greek of St. Irenaeus, which is un
fortunately lost, contained either to. 7rpcoTeia, or some
inflection of 7rp<DTeva>, which signifies primacy.”
From this it appears that the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome rests on some “ inflection ” of a Greek word—and
that this supposed inflection was in a letter supposed to
have been written by St. Irenaeus, which has certainly
been lost. Is it possible that the vast fabric of papal
power has this, and only this, for its foundation ? To
this “ inflection ” has it come at last ?
The Cardinal’s case depends upon the intelligence and
veracity of his witnesses. The Fathers of the Church
were utterly incapable of examining a question of fact.
They were all believers in the miraculous. The same is
true of the apostles. If St. John was the author of the
Apocalypse, he was undoubtedly insane. If Polycarp
said the things attributed to him by Catholic writers, he
was certainly in the condition of his master. What is
the testimony of St. John worth in the light of the
following ? “ Cerinthus, the heretic, was in a bath-house.
St. John and another Christian were about to enter. St.
John cried out: ‘ Let us run away, lest the house fall
upon us while the enemy of truth is in it.’ ”
Is it
possible that St. John thought that God would kill two
eminent Christians for the purpose of getting even with
one heretic ?
Let us see who Polycarp was. He seems to have been
a prototype of the Catholic Church, as will be seen from
the following statement concerning this Father: “When
any heretical doctrine was spoken in his presence he
would stop his ears.” After this, there can be no question
�46
ROME OR,REASON.
of his orthodoxy. It is claimed that Polycarp was a
martyr—that a spear was run through his body and
that from the wound his soul, in the shape of a bird, flew
away. The history of his death is just as true as the
history of his life.
Irenaeus, another witness, took the ground that there
was to be a millennium, a thousand years of enjoyment
in which celibacy would not be the highest form of
virtue. If he is called as a witness for the purpose of
establishing the divine origin of the Church, and if oneof his inflections ” is the basis of papal supremacy, is
the Cardinal also willing to take his testimony as to the
nature of the millennium ?
All the Fathers were infinitely credulous. Every one
of them believed, not only in the miracles said to have
been wrought by Christ, by the apostles, and by other
Christians, but every one of them believed in the Pagan
miracles. . All of these Fathers were familiar with won
ders and impossibilities. Nothing was so common with
them as to work miracles, and on many occasions they
not only cured diseases, not only reversed the order of
nature, but succeeded in raising the dead.
It is very hard, indeed, to prove what the apostles said,
or what the Fathers of the Church wrote. There were
many centuries filled with forgeries, many generations in
which the cunning hands of ecclesiastics erased, oblite
rated and interpolated the records of the past, during
which they invented books, invented authors, and quoted
from works that never existed.
The testimony of the “Fathers” is without the slightest
value. They believed everything, they examined nothing.
They received as a waste-basket receives.
Whoever
accepts their testimony will exclaim with the Cardinal :
“ Happily, men are not saved by logic.”
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning
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: 46 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Oct. and Nov. 1888. No. 65a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N390
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Rome or reason? : a reply to Cardinal Manning), 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
Catholic Church
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Henry Edward Manning
Marriage
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/346964536df4bd3860d5bd04fd9c928f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=p%7EOf2YiAjKI0Ys36jD0e-Kf2fUkk%7EMwNPSeuY67ywOAY0rF-lMefV%7EFJdz%7EmHYJ6ph%7ExSaoNO-bZ-lckxmUKrm0lOh4SUpGsHRi43TFc4xgDvJ7wjWrTg9DNs4-DlXOpZ5vHi6pmDkspiWOaD5IsbF5A8C60Nce7pfa7JVSYa55HeLszy8ODy%7EUKQLparPo5SpNDRXb7Mfn7dSZsCfdMASl6uQey0kMeB%7ErkYZB%7EPyLhL30ilx%7Eodcz84OllRQfo8RCRK0hnnNaxMerT-dDy2CT-RiF1-H7CZdRcYT2UoqHCOZxvHVU%7ESv1%7Er8gkcf7ivwT5i6K0N1TjMJicTdwIEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e57aa501f82d608743dc4b0f8e4b300a
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
<♦»»
AAA
«■AAA AAAAAA X
ft)
GOD AND MAN
Second-Letter to
• jr.vrg i' ?..
U. .
The Rev. Henry ' M. Field, D.D.
■ OH VI I
i./vlbw
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
Y- ,o t.'b
,>
REPRINTED EROM
^fjjvÌL
'i Hr ? :: , .
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
l
(Janvary 1888),
r
’
r
r
Price Twopence.
f
LONDON :
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1888.
�GOD AND MAN.
My Dear Mr. Field,—With great pleasure I have read 'your
second letter, in which you seem to admit that men may differ even
about religion without being responsible for that difference ; that
every man has the right to read the Bible for himself, state freely
the conclusion at which he arrives, and that it is not only his
privilege, but his duty, to speak the truth; that Christians can
hardly be happy in heaven while those they loved on earth are
suffering with the lost; that it is not a crime to investigate, to
think, to reason, to observe, and to be governed by evidence ; that
credulity is not a virtue, and that the open mouth of ignorant
wonder is not the only entrance to paradise ; that belief is not
necessary to salvation, and that no man can justly be made to suffer
eternal pain for having expressed an intellectual conviction.
You seem to admit that no man cam justly be held responsible
for his thoughts ; that the brain thinks without asking our consent,
and that we believe or disbelieve without an effort of the will.
I congratulate you upon the advance that you have made. You
not only "admit that we have the right to think, but that we have
the right to express our honest thoughts. You admit that the
Christian world no longer believes in the fagot, the dungeon, and
the thumb-screw. Has the Christian world outgrown its God ?
Has man become more merciful than his maker ? If man will not
torture his fellow-man on account of a difference of opinion, will a
God of infinite love torture one of his children for what is called
the sin of unbelief ? Has man outgrown the Inquisition, and will
God forever b’e the warden of a penitentiary ? The walls of the
old dungeons have fallen, and light now visits the cell where brave
men perished in darkness. Is Jehovah to keep the cells of perdition
in repair forever, and are his children to be the eternal prisoners ?
It seems hard for you to appreciate the mental condition of one
who regards all gods as substantially the same ; that is to say, who
thinks of them all as myths and phantoms born of the imagination,
�^350-
( 3 )
characters in the religious fictions of the race. To you it probably
seems strange that a man should think far more of Jupiter than
Jehovah. Regarding them both as creations of the mind, I choose
between them, and I prefer the God of the Greeks, on the same
principle that I prefer Portia to Iago; and yet I regard them, one
and all, as children of the imagination, as phantoms born of human
fears and human hopes.
Surely nothing was further from my mind than to hurt the
feelings of any one by speaking of the Presbyterian God. I simply
intended to speak of the God of the Presbyterians. Certainly the
God of the Presbyterian is not the God of the Catholic, nor is he
the God of the Mohammedan or Hindoo. He is a special creation
suited only to certain minds. These minds have naturally come
together, and they form what we call the Presbyterian Church.
As a matter of fact, no two Churches can by any possibility have
precisely the same God ; neither can any two human beings conceive
of precisely the same Deity. In every man’s God there is, to say
the least, a part of that man. The lower the man, the lower his
conception of God. The higher the man, the grander his Deity
must be. The savage who adorns his body with a belt from which
hang the scalps of enemies slain in battle, has no conception of a
loving, of a forgiving God ; his God, of necessity, must be as
revengeful, as heartless, as infamous as the God of John Calvin.
You do not exactly appreciate my feeling. I do not hate Presby
terians ; I hate Presbyterianism. I hate with all my heart th'e
creed of that Church, and I most heartily despise the God described
in the Confession of Faith. But some of the best friends I have in
the world are afflicted with the mental malady known as Presby
terianism. They are victims of the consolation growing out of the
belief that a vast majority of their fellow-men are doomed to suffer
eternal torment, to the end that their Creator may be eternally
glorified. I have said many times, and I say again, that I do
not despise a man because he has the rheumatism ; I despise the
rheumatism because it has a man.
But I do insist that the Presbyterians have assumed to appro
priate to themselves their Supreme Being, and that they have
claimed, and that they do claim, to be the “ special objects of his
favor.” They do claim to be the very elect, and they do insist that
God looks upon them as the objects of his special care. They do
claim that the light of Nature, without the torch of the Presby
terian creed, is insufficient to guide any soul to the gate of heaven.
They do insist that even those who never heard of Christ, or never
heard of the God of the Presbyterians, will be eternally lost; and
�( 4 )
they not only claim this, but that their fate will illustrate not only
the justice but the mercy of G-od. Not only so, but they insist that
the morality of an unbeliever is displeasing to God, and that the
love of an unconverted mother for her helpless child is nothing
less than sin.
When I meet a man who really believes the Presbyterian creed,
I think of the Laocoon. I feel as though looking upon a human
being helpless in the coils of an immense and poisonous serpent.
But I congratulate you with all my heart that you have repudiated
this infamous, this savage creed; that you now admit that reason
was given us to be exercised ; that God will not torture any man
for entertaining an honest doubt, and that in the world to come
“every man will be judged according to the deeds done in the
body.”
Let me quote your exact language : “I believe that in the future
world every man will be judged according to the deeds done in the
body.” Do you not see that you have bidden farewell to the Pres
byterian Church ? In that sentence, you have thrown away the
atonement, you have denied the efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ,
and you have denied the necessity of belief. If we are to be judged
by the deeds done in the body, that is the end of the Presbyterian
scheme of salvation. I sincerely congratulate you for having re
pudiated the savagery of Calvinism.
It also gave me a great pleasure to find that you have thrown
away, with a kind of glad shudder, that infamy of infamies, the
dogma of eternal pain. I have denounced that inhuman belief; I
have denounced every creed that had coiled within it that -viper ;
I have denounced every man who preached it, the book that contains
it, and with all my heart the God who threatens it; and at last I
have the happiness of seeing the editor of the New York Evangelist
admit that devout Christians do not believe that lie, and quote with
approbation the words of a minister of the Church of England to
the effect that all men will be finally recovered and made happy.
Do you find this doctrine of hope in the Presbyterian creed ? Is
this star, that sheds light on every grave, found in your Bible ? Did
Christ have in his mind the shining truth that all the children of
men will at last be filled with joy, when he uttered these comfort
ing words, “ Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil and his angels ” ? Do you find in this flame the bud
of hope, or the flower of promise ?
You suggest that it is possible that “the incurably bad will be
annihilated,” and you say that such a fate can have no terrors for
me, as I look upon annihilation as the common lot of all. Let us
�( 5 )
examine this position. Why should a God of infinite wisdom
create men and women whom he knew would be “ incurably bad ” ?
What would you say of a mechanic who was found to destroy his
own produciaons on the ground that they were li incurably bad?”
Would you say that he was an infinitely wise mechanic ? Does
infinite justice annihilate the work of infinite wisdom ? Does God,
like an ignorant doctor, bury his mistakes ?
Besides, what right have you to say that “ I look upon annihila
tion as the common lot of all” ? Was there any such thought in
my Reply ? Did you find it in any published words of mine ? Do
you find anything in what I have written tending to show that I
believe in annihilation ? Is it not true that I say now, and that I
have always said, that I do not know ? Does a lack of knowledge
as to the fate of the human soul imply a belief in annihilation ?
Does it not equally imply a belief in immortality ?
You have been—at least until recently—a believer in the inspi
ration of the Bible and in the truth of its every word. What do
you say to the following: “For that which befalleth the sons of
men befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth them : as the one
dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath ; so that a
man hath no pre-eminence above a beast.” You will see that the
inspired writer is not satisfied with admitting that he does not
know. “ As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away ; so he
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.” Was it not
cruel for an inspired man to attack a sacred belief ?
You seem surprised that I should speak of the doctrine of
eternal pain as. “ the black thunder-cloud that darkens all the
horizon, pasting its mighty shadows over the life that now is and
that which is to come.” If that doctrine be true, what else is
there worthy of engaging the attention of the human mind ? It
is the blackness that extinguishes every star. It is the abyss in
which every hope must perish. It leaves a universe without justice
and without mercy—a future without one ray of light, and a
present with nothing but fear. It makes heaven an impossibility,
God an infinite monster, and man an eternal victim. Nothing can
redeem a religion in which this dogma is found. Clustered about
it are all the snakes of the Furies.
But you have abandoned this infamy, and you have admitted
that we are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body.
Nothing can be nearer self-evident than the fact that a finite being
cannot commit an infinite sin; neither can a finite being do an
infinitely good deed. That is to say, no one can deserve for any
act eternal pain, and no one for any deed can deserve eternal joy.
�( 6 )
If we are to be judged by the deeds done in the body, the old
orthodox hell and heaven both become impossible.
So, too, you have recognised the great and splendid truth that
sin cannot be predicated of an intellectual conviction. This is the
first great step toward the liberty of soul. You admit that there
is no morality and no immorality in belief—that is to say, in the
simple operation of the mind in weighing evidence, in observing
facts, and in drawing conclusions. You admit that all these things
are without sin and without guilt. Had all men so believed there
never could have been religious persecution—the Inquisition could
not have been built, and the idea of eternal pain never could have
polluted the human heart.
You have been driven to the passions for the purpose of finding
what you are pleased to call “ sin ” and “ responsibility ” ; and you
say, speaking of a human being, “ but if he is warped by passion
so that he cannot see things truly, then is he responsible.” One
would suppose that the use of the word “ cannot ” is inconsistent
with the idea of responsibility. What is passion ? There are
certain desires, swift, thrilling, that quicken the action of the heart
—desires that fill the brain with blood, with fire and flame—desires
that bear the same relation to judgment that storms and waves
bear to the compass on a ship. Is passion necessarily produced ?
Is there an adequate cause for every effect ? Can you by any pos
sibility think of an effect without a cause, and can you by any
possibility think of an effect that is not a cause, or can ( you think
of a cause that is not an effect ? Is not the history of real civilisa
tion the slow and gradual emancipation of the intellect, of the
judgment, from the mastery of passion ? Is not that man civilised
whose reason sits the crowned monarch of his brain—whose passions
are his servants ?
Who knows the strength of the temptation to another? Who
knows how little has been resisted by those who stand, how much
has been resisted by those who fall ? Who knows whether the
victor or the victim made the bravest and the most gallant fight ?
In judging of our fellow-men we must take into consideration the
circumstances of ancestry, of race, of nationality, of employment, of
opportunity, of education, and of the thousand influences that tend
to mould or mar the character of man. Such a view is the mother
of charity and makes the G-od of the Presbyterians impossible.
At last you have seen the impossibility of forgiveness. That is
to say, you perceive that after forgiveness the crime remains, and
its children, called consequences, still live. You recognise the
lack of philosophy in that doctrine. You still believe in what you
�( 7 )
call “ the forgiveness of sins,” but you admit that forgiveness can
not reverse the course of nature, and cannot prevent the operation
of natural law. You also admit that if a man lives after death, he
preserves his personal identity, his memory, and that the conse
quences of his actions will follow him through all the eternal years.
You admit that consequences are immortal. After making this
admission, of what use is the old idea of the forgiveness of sins ?
How can the criminal be washed clean and pure in the blood of
another ? In spite of this forgiveness, in spite of this blood, you
have taken the ground that consequenaes, like the dogs of Actaeon,
follow even a Presbyterian, even one of the elect, within the
heavenly gates. If you wish to be logical, you must also admit that
the consequences of good deeds, like winged angels, follow even the
Atheist within the gates of hell.
You have had the courage of your convictions, and you have said
that we are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body.
By that judgment I am willing to abide. But, whether willing or
not, I must abide, because there is no power, no God, that can step
between me and the consequences of my acts. I wish no heaven
that I have not earned, no happiness to which I am not entitled.
I do not wish to become an immortal pauper ; neither am I willing
to extend unworthy hands for alms.
My dear Mr. Field, you have outgrown your creed—as every
Presbyterian must who grows at all. You are far better than the
spirit of the Old Testament: far better, in my judgment, even than
the spirit of the New. The creed that you have left behind, that
you have repudiated, teaches that a man may be guilty of every
crime—that he may have driven his wife to insanity, that his
example may have led his children to the penitentiary, or to the
gallows, and that yet, at the eleventh hour, he may, by what is
called “repentance,” be washed absolutely pure by the blood of
another, and receive and wear upon his brow the laurels of eternal
peace. Not only so, but that creed has taught that this wretch in
heaven could look back on the poor earth and see the wife, whom
he swore to love and cherish, in the mad-house, surrounded by
imaginary serpents, struggling in the darknesss of night, made
insane by his heartlessness—that creed has taught and teaches that
he could look back and see his children in prison cells, or on the
scaffold with the noose about their necks, and that these visions
would not bring a shade of sadness to his redeemed and happy face.
It is this doctrine, it is this dogma—so bestial, so savage, as to
beggar all the languages of men—that I have denounced. All the
words of hatred, loathing, and contempt, found in all the dialects
�( 8 )
and tongues of men, are not sufficient to express my hatred, my
contempt, and my loathing of this creed.
You say that it is impossible for you not to believe in the
existence of God. With this statement I find no fault. Your
mind is so that a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being gives
satisfaction and content. Of course, you are entitled to no credit
for this belief, as you ought not to be rewarded for believing that
which you cannot help believing ; neither should I be punished for
failing to believe that which I cannot believe.
You believe because you see in the world around you such an
adaptation ci means to ends that you are satisfied there is design.
I admit that when Robinson Crusoe saw in the sand the print of a
human foot, like and yet unlike his own, he was justified in drawing
the conclusion that a human being had been there. The inference
was drawn from his own experience, and was within the scope of
his own mind. But I do not agree with you that he “knew” a
human being had been there ; he had only sufficient evidence npon
which to found a belief. He did not know the footsteps of all
animals ; he could not have known that no animal except man
could have made that footprint. In order to have known that it
was the foot of a man, he must have known that no other animal
was capable of making it, and he must have known that no other
being had produced in the sand the likeness of this human foot.
You see what you call evidences of intelligence in the universe,
and you draw the conclusion that there must be an infinite intelli
gence. Your conclusion is far wider than your premiss. Let us
suppose, as Mr. Hume supposed, that there is a pair of scales, one
end of which is in darkness, and you find that a pound weight, or a
ten*-pound weight, placed upon that end of the scale in the light is
raised ; have you the right to say that there is an infinite weight
on the end in darkness, or are you compelled to say only that there
is weight enough on the end in darkness to raise the weight on the
end in light ?
It is illogical to say, because of the existence of this earth and of
what you can see in and about it, that there must be an infinite
intelligence. You do not know that even the creation of this
world, and of all planets discovered, required an infinite power,
or infinite wisdom. I admit that it is impossible for me to look at
a watch and draw the inference that there was no design in its
construction, or that it only happened. I could not regard it as a
product of some freak of nature, neither could I imagine that its
various parts were brought together and set in motion by chance.
I am not a believer in chance. But there is a vast difference
�( 9 )
between what naan has made and the materials of which he has
constructed the things he has made. You find a watch, and you
say that it exhibits or shows design. You insist that it is so won
derful it must have had a designer—in other words, that it is too
wonderful not to have been constructed. You then find the watch
maker, and you say with regard to him that he too must have had
a designer, for he is more wonderful than the watch. In imagin
ation you go from the watchmaker to the being you call God, and
you say he designed the watchmaker, but he himself was not
designed, because he is too wonderful to have been designed. And
‘yet in the qase of the watch and of the watchmaker, it was the wonder
that suggested design, while in the case of the maker of the watch
maker the wonder denied a designer. Do you not see that this
argument devours itself ? If wonder suggests a designer, can it go
on increasing until it denies that which it suggested ?
You must remember, too, that the argument of design is applic
able to all. You are not at liberty to stop at sunrise and sunset
and all that adds to the happiness of man ; you must go further.
You must admit that an infinitely wise and merciful God designed
the fangs of serpents, the machinery by which the poison is dis
tilled, the ducts by which it is carried to the fang, and that the
same intelligence impressed this serpent with a desire to deposit
this deadly virus in the flesh of man. You must believe that an
infinitely wise God so constructed this world that, in the process,
of cooling, earthquakes would be caused—earthquakes that devour
and overwhelm cities and states. Do you see any design in the
volcano that sends its rivers of lava over the fields and the homes
of men ? Do you really think that a perfectly good being designed
the invisible parasites that infest the air, that inhabit the water,
and that finally attack and destroy the health and life of man ?
Do you see the same design in cancers that you do in wheat and
corn ? Did God invent tumors for the brain ? Was it his
ingenuity that so designed the human race that millions of people
should be born deaf and dumb—-that millions should be idiotic ?
Did he knowingly plant in the blood or brain the seeds of insanity ?
Did he cultivate those seeds ? Do you see any design in this ?
Man calls that good which increases his happiness, and that evil
which gives him pain. In the olden time, back of the good he
placed a God; back of the evil a devil; but now the orthodox
world is driven to admit that the God is the author of all.
For my part, I see no goodness in the pestilence—no mercy in
the bolt that leaps from the cloud and leaves the mark of death
on the breast of a loving mother. I see no generosity in famine
�( 10 )
no goodness in disease, no mercy in want and agony. And yet you
say that the being who created parasites that live only by inflicting
pain—the being responsible for all the sufferings of mankind—you
say that he has “ a tenderness compared to which all human love
is faint and cold.” Yet according to the doctrine of the orthodox
world, this being of infinite love and tenderness so created nature
that its light misleads, and left a vast majority of the human race
to blindly grope their way to endless pain.
You insist that a knowledge of G-od—a belief in G-od—is the
foundation of social order; and yet this G-od of infinite tenderness
has left for thousands and thousands of years nearly all of his children ’
without a revelation. Why should infinite goodness leave the
existence of G-od in doubt ? Why should he see millions in savagery
destroying the lives of each other, eating the flesh of each other, and
keep his existence a secret from man ? Why did he allow the
savages to depend on sunrise and sunset and clouds ? Why did he
leave this great truth to a few half-crazed prophets, or to a cruel,
heartless, and ignorant Church ? The sentence, “ There is a G-od,”
could have been imprinted on every blade of grass, on every leaf, on
every star. An infinite G-od has no excuse for leaving his children
in doubt and darkness.
There is still another point. You know that for thousands of
ages men worshipped wild beasts as G-od. You know that for
countless generations they knelt by coiled serpents, believing those
serpents to be G-ods. Why did the real G-od secrete himself and
allow his poor, ignorant, savage children to imagine that he was a
beast, a serpent? Why did this God allow mothers to sacrifice
their babes ? Why did he not emerge from the darkness ? Why
did he not say to the poor mother, “ Do not sacrifice your babe ;
keep it in your arms ; press it to your bosom; let it be the solace of
your declining years. I take no delight in the death of children ;
I am not what you suppose me to be ; I am not a beast; I am not a
serpent; I am full of love, and kindness, and mercy, and I want my
children to be happy in this world ?” Did the God who allowed a
mother to sacrifice her babe through the mistaken idea that he, the
God, demanded the sacrifice, feel a tenderness toward that mother
“ compared to which all human love is faint and cold ”? Would a
good father allow some of his children to kill others of his children
to please him ?
There is still another question. Why should G-od, a being of
infinite tenderness, leave the question of immortality in doubt ?
How is it that there is nothing in the Old Testament on this sub
ject ? Why is it that he who made all the constellations did not
�(11)
put in his heaven the star of hope ? How do you account for the
fact that you do not find in the Old Testament, from the first
mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi, a funeral service ?
Is it not strange that some one in the Old Testament did not stand
by an open grave of father or mother and say, “We shall meet
again ”? Was it because the divinely-inspired men did not know ?
You taunt me by saying that I know no more of the immortality
of the soul than Cicero knew. I admit it. I know no more than
the lowest savage, no more than a doctor of divinity—that is to
say, nothing.
Is it not, however, a curious fact that there is less belief in the
immortality of the soul in Christian countries than in heathen lands
—that the belief in immortality in an orthodox Church is faint,
and cold, and speculative, compared with that belief in India, in
China, or in the Pacific Isles ? Compare the belief in immortality
in America, of Christians, with that of the followers of Mohammed.
Do not Christians weep above their dead ? Does a belief in immor
tality keep back their tears ? After all the promises are so far
away, and the dead are so near—the echoes of words said to have
been spoken more than eighteen centuries ago are lost in the sounds
of the clods that fall on the coffin. And yet, compared with the
orthodox hell, compared with the prison-house of God, how ecstatic
is the grave—the grave without a sigh, without a tear, without a
dream, without a fear ! Compared with the immortality promised
by the Presbyterian creed, how beautiful annihilation seems ! To
be nothing—how much better than to be a convict for ever ? To
be unconscious dust—how much better than to be a heartless angel I
There is not, there never has been, there never will be, any con
solation in orthodox Christianity. It offers no consolation to any
good and loving man. I prefer the consolation of Nature, the
consolation of hope, the consolation springing from human affection.
I prefer the simple desire to live and love forever.
Of course, it would be a consolation to know that we have an
“ Almighty Friend ” in heaven ; but an Almighty Friend who
cares nothing for us, who allows us to be stricken by his lightning,
frozen by his winter, starved by his famine, and at last imprisoned
in his hell, is a friend I do not care to have.
I remember “ the poor slave mother who sat alone in her cabin,
having been robbed of her children ” ; and, my dear Mr. Field, I
also remember that the people who robbed her justified the robbery
by reading passages from the sacred scriptures. I remember that
while the mother wept, the robbers, some of whom were Christians,
read this “ Buy of the heathen round about, and they shall be
�( 12 )
your bondmen and bondwomen for ever.” I remember, too, that
the robbers read : “ Servants be obedient» unto your masters ” ; and
they said this passage is the only message from the heart of God
to the scarred back of the slave. I remember this, and I remember,
also, that the poor slave mother upon her knees in wild and wailing
accents called on the “ Almighty Friend,” and I remember that her
prayer was never heard, and that her sobs died in the negligent air.
You ask me whether I would “ rob this poor woman of such a
friend ” ? My answer is this t I would give her liberty ; I would
break her chains. But let me ask you, did an “ Almighty Friend ”
see the woman he loved “ with a tenderness compared to which all
human love is faint and cold,” and the woman who loved him,
robbed of her children ? What was the “ Almighty Friend ” worth
to her ? She preferred her babe.
How could the “ Almighty Friend ” see his poor chillren pursued
by hounds—his children whose only crime was the love of liberty
—how could he see that, and take sides with the hounds ? Do you
believe that the “ Almighty Friend ” then governed the world ?
Do you really think that he
Bade the slave-ship speed from coast to coast,
Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost ?
Do you believe that the “ Almighty Friend ” saw all of the
tragedies that were enacted in the jungles of Africa—that he
watched the wretched slave-ships, saw the miseries of the middle
passage, heard the blows of all the whips, saw all the streams of
blood, all the agonised faces of women, all the tears that were
shed ? Do you believe that he saw and knew all these things, and
that he, the “ Almighty Friend,” looked coldly down and stretched
no hand to save ?
You persist, however, in endeavoring to account for the miseries
of the world by taking the ground that happiness is not the end of
life. You say that “the real end of life is character, and that no
discipline can be too severe which leads us to suffer and be strong.”
Upon this subject you use the following language : “If you could
have your way you would make everybody happy; there would be
no more poverty, and no more sickness or pain.” And this, you
say, is “a child’s picture, hardly worthy of a stalwart man.” Let
me read you another “ child’s picture,” which you will find in the
twenty-first chapter of Revelation, supposed to have been written
by St. John the Divine : “ And I heard a great voice out of
heaven saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he
will dwell with them, and they shall be his- people, and God him
self shall be with them, and be their God ; and God shall wipe
�( 13 )
away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.”
If you visited some woman living in a tenement, supporting by
her poor labor a little family—a poor woman on the edge of famine,
sewing, it may be, her eyes blinded by tears—would you tell her
that “ the world is not a playground in which men are to be petted
and indulged like children ”? • Would you tell her that to think of
a world without poverty, without tears, without pain, is a “ child’s
picture ” ? If she asked you for a little assistance, would you
refuse it on the ground that by being helped she might lose cha
racter? Would you tell her£ “God does not wish to have you
happy; happiness is a very foolish end; character is what you
want, and God has put you here with thete helpless, starving babes,
and he has put this burden on your young life simply that yoif may
suffer and be strong. I would help you gladly, but I do not wish
• to defeat the plans of your Almighty Friend ” $ You can reason one
way, but you would act the other.
I agree with you that work is good, that struggle ft ‘essential ;
that men are made manly by contending with each other.and. with
the forces of nature £ but there is- a point beyond which struggle
does not make character ; there is a pointât which struggle becomes
failure.
Can you conceive of an “ Almighty Friend ” deforming his children
because he loves them ? Did he alloy? the innocent to languish in
dungeons because he was their friend ? Did'he allow the noble to
perish upon the scaffold, the great and the self-denying to be burnt
at the stake, because he had the power to save ? "Was he restrained
■by love ? Did this “ Almighty Friend ” allow millions of his children
to be enslaved to the end that “ the splendor of virtue might have a
dark background? ” You insist that “suffering patiently borne is
a means of the greatest elevation of character and in the end of the
highest enjoyment.” Do you not then see that your “ Almighty
Friend ” has been unjust to the happy—that he is cruel to those
whom we call the fortunate—that he is indifferent to the men who
do not suffer—that he leaves all the happy and prosperous and
joyous without character, and that in the end, according to your
doctrine, they are all losers ?
But, after all, there is no need of arguing this question further.
There is one fact that destroys forever your theory—and that is the
fact that millions upon millions die in infancy. Where do they
get “ elevation of character ” ? What opportunity is given to them
to “ suffer and be strong ” ? Let us admit that we do not know.
Let us say that the mysteries of life, of good and evil, of joy and
�(14)
pain, have never been explained. Is character of no importance in
heaven ? How is it possible for angels, living in “a child’s picture,”
to “ suffer and be strong ” ? Do you not see that, according to
your philosophy, only the damned can grow great—only the lost
can become sublime ?
You do not seem to understand what I say with regard to what
I call the higher philosophy. When that philosophy is accepted
of course there will be good in the world, there will be evil, there
will still be right and wrong. What is good ? That which tends
to the happiness of sentient beings. What is evil ? That which
tends to the misery, or tends to lessen the happiness of sentient
beings. What is right ? The best thing to be done under the
circumstances—that is to say, the thing that will increase or pre
serve the happiness of man. What is wrong ? That which tends
to the misery of man.
What you call liberty, choice, morality, responsibility, have
nothing whatever to do with this. There is no difference hetween
necessity and liberty. He who is free acts from choice. What is
the foundation of his choice ? What we really mean by liberty is
freedom from personal dictation—we do not wish to be controlled
by the will of others. To us the nature of things does not seem
to be a master—Nature has no will.
Society has the right to protect itself by imprisoning those who
prey upon its interests ; but it has no right to punish. It may have
the right to destroy the life of one dangerous to the community ; but
what has freedom to do with this ? Do you kill the poisonous serpent
because he knew better than to bite ? Do you chain a wild beast
because he is morally responsible ? Do you not think that the
criminal deserves the pity of the virtuous ?
I was looking forward to the time when the individual might
feel justified—when the convict who had worn the garment of dis
grace might know and feel that he had acted as he must.
There is an old Hindoo prayer to which I call your attention :
“ Have mercy, God, upon the vicious ; thou hast already had mercy
upon the just by making them just.”
Is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
necessarily produced? This, of course, would end in the justifica
tion of men. Is not that a desirable thing ? Is it not possible
that intelligence may at last raise the human race to that sublime
and philosophic height ?
You insist, however, that this is Calvinism. I take it for granted
that you understand Calvinism—but let me tell you what it is.
Calvinism asserts that man does as he must, and that, notwith
�( 15 )
?
standing this fact, he is responsible for what he does—that is to
say, for what he is compelled to do—that is to say, for what God
does with him ; and that, for doing that which he must, an infinite
God, who compelled him to do it, is justified in punishing the man
in eternal fire ; this, not because the man ought to be damned, but
simply for the glory of God.
Starting from the same declaration, that man does as he must,. I
reach the conclusion that we shall finally perceive in this fact
justification for every individual. And yet you see no difference
between my doctrine and Calvinism. You insist that damnation
and justification are substantially the same ; and yet the difference
is as great as human language can express, You call the justifica
tion of all the world “the gospel of despair,” and the damnation of
nearly all the human race the “ consolation of religion.”
After all, my dear friend, do you not see that when you come tospeak of that which is really good, you are compelled to describe
your ideal human being ? It is the human in Christ, and only the
human, that you, by any possibility, can understand. You speak
of one who was born among the poor, who went about doing good,
who sympathised with those who suffered. You have described,
not only one, but many millions of the human race. Millions of
others have carried light to those sitting in darkness ; millions and
millions have taken children in their arms ; millions have wept that
those they loved might smile. No language can express the good
ness, the heroism, the patience and self-denial of the many millions,
dead and living, who have preserved in the family of man the jewels
of the heart. You have clad one being in all the virtues of the
race, in all the attributes of gentleness, patience, goodness, and love,
and yet that being, according to the New Testament, had to his
character another side. True he said, “ Come unto me and I will
give you rest;” but what did he say to those who failed to come?
You pour out your whole heart in thankfulness to this one man
who suffered for the right, while I thank not only this one, but all
the rest. My heart goes out to all the great, the self-denying and
the good—to the founders of nations, singers of songs, builders of
homes ; to the inventors, to the artists who have filled the world
with beauty, to the composers of music, to the soldiers of the right,
to the makers of mirth, to honest men, and to all the loving mothers
of the race.
Compare, for one moment, all that the Savior did, all the pain
and suffering that he relieved ; compare all this with the discovery
of ansesthetics. Compare your prophets with the inventors, your
apostles with the Keplers, the Humboldts, and the Darwins.
�I belong to the great church that holds the world within its starlit
aisles ; that claims the great and good of every race and clime ; that
finds with joy the grain of gold in every creed, and floods with light
and love the germs of good in every soul.
Most-men are provincial, narrow, one-sided, only partially
developed. In a new country we often see a little patch of land, a
clearing in which the pioneer has built his cabin. This little clear
ing is just large enough to support a family, and the remainder of
the farm is still forest, in which snakes crawl and wild beasts occa
sionally crouch. It is thus with the brain of the average man.
There is a little clearing, a little patch, just large enough to practi'ce medicine with, or sell goods, or practice law, or preach with,
or to do some kind of business, sufficient to obtain bread and food
and shelter for a family, while all the rest of the brain is covered
with primeval forest, in which lie coiled the serpents of superstition
and from which spring the wild beasts of orthodox religion.
Neither in the interest of truth, nor for the benefit of man, is it
necessary to assert what we do not know. No cause is great enough
to demand a« sacrifice of candor. The mysteries of life and deathj
of good and evil, have never yet been solved.
I coinbat those only who, knowing nothing of the future, pro
phecy an eternity of pain—those only who sow the seeds of fear
in the hearts of men—those only who poison all the springs of
life, and seat a skeleton at every feast.
Let us banish the shrivelled'iiags of superstition.; let us welcome
the beautiful daughters of Truth and Joy.
G. INGERSOLL.
'
' <:
■ I '
v
f i.d
cr:
’ n rucO ”
..*'.• ‘Z
¿¿cb ad o.uT
r.'. o 1/r esoi'f of
< ill ( '
8
,
■
.
ir.il-,7
h
niljlicdl Hi STtSOii t.OJ. W J’.t? '.I'"- '
1
r "o r’-r'-J.f o. .4o3 ¿nrdhl eli.JTT J ' *» era&. i I" '.■? ■
,'i
Ha bt in- g Q-1
s-T< 1'.
•
* . .
. f ')
•
/ L.*j mi .
Id
*' :? .**10.*' :t
■•••’)<
1
..
’ ’’
\ ■
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
God and man : second letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Field, Henry M. (Henry Martyn) [1822-1907]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the North American Review, Jan. 1888. No. 22c in Stein checklist, but with different date. Printed 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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N352
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (God and man : second 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
God
Man
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2c7233677cfc0e14a428118d92c2e090.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lzjMgzComgLiCILOOZpgvzhBCnI%7EPyqNO9lqZlc7XQbM2R3yqtTiZVXSlW1lhCdx4hQAtJ5Qfu%7EWRiFQ20-kVEnNZuVNWdNmEeFvcCNvEO7XBL2FH-UoppjuJpk1CaH6xRMnXMDS-4u3h5VqHmYb%7EiWCuL7SSW8B8q%7EaWCNGx2i%7ErYUm0NeD1zefUG58JIaar81D4fQau7qWk8d9I-KKTY8pvL0hRrhhoRyzoazjENHwjRemgZX3emFEsaqRLVcpV7quHn2pH%7EYfrm8TdMdQKXEhZKxWopf-oXUUgSqnTeWBt6lCpykXMevOYkKGBxQS1DVavO8aePsLlTmAO6P4rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bb741d165dc405fc5c24bdb2315558af
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
Reprintedfrom the “ North American Review
June, 1888.
With Publisher’s Note, and
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR
By J. M. Wheeler.
PROGRESSIVE
PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1888.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�PUBLISHER’S PREFACE.
Mr. Gladstone, in his old age, has lost none of his versatil ity
Besides leading the Liberal party, he writes magazine articles on a
variety of topics. He even aspires to add a new role to his reper
tory, that of Defender of the Faith. On the eve of the last general
elections—perhaps the occasion was well timed—he burst upon
the world with a vindication of the Mosaic cosmogony.
This
led him into a controversy with Professor Huxley, in which he
displayed his usual ability as a rhetorician, with a surprising igno
rance of the very rudiments of physical science. Recently he has
championed Christianity against the scepticism of Robert Elsmere,
and now he defends his creed against the attacks of Colonel Inger
soll in the North American Review.
Colonel Ingersoll’s reply to Mr. Gladstone is here presented to
the English reader. It was desirable that Mr. Gladstone’s criticism
should be presented with it, so that the reader might command a
full view of the discussion.
He has been communicated with, but
he replies that he has made other arrangements ; and whatever may
be legally possible it would be unjust, or at least unmannerly, to
reprint his part of the debate without his permission. Fortunately
Colonel Ingersoll is a controversialist who always puts his opponent’s
case carefully before refuting it, and therefore the disadvantage of
the absence of Mr. Gladstone’s article from this brochure is reduced
to a minimum.
This debate has a history. Six years ago Colonel Ingersoll,
whose fame as a Freethought orator had become universal in
.America, was invited by Mr. Allen Thorndike Rice, the editor of
the North, American Review, to contribute an article on the Chris
tian Religion. This was replied to by Judge Black, who relished
the rejoinder so little that nothing could induce him to renew the
�( 4 )
contest. During the autumn of last year the Bev. Dr Field con
tributed to the same Review an “ Open Letter to Colonel Inger
soll.” This was replied to in an “ Open Letter to Dr. Field.” Dr.
Field rejoined, and Colonel Ingersoll replied again. The great
Freethinker s letters sent up the circulation of the Review to an
unprecedented extent. Both are reprinted for English readers by
the Progressive Publishing Co. under the respective titles of Faith
and Fact and God and Man.
Whether Mr. Gladstone took pity on poor Dr. Field and
chivalrously rushed to his rescue, or whether he was tempted by a,
very handsome cheque, is a question which he alone can answer.
Be that as it may, , the Review announced a forthcoming article by
Mr. Gladstone on the religious opinions of Colonel Ingersoll. It
duly appeared in the May number, and the Review went through
a large number of editions. Probably half the ministers in the
States bought a copy, hoping to find fresh “ points ” for their own
answers to “the infidel.”
Colonel Ingersoll lost no time in replying. His letter to Mr.
Gladstone appeared in the June number. It will be highly relished
by the Freethought party in England. The writer is in his very
best form. Dialectically speaking, he flays his opponent; yet he
does it with perfect courtesy, and pays him compliments while
rubbing in the Attic salt. Mr. Gladstone tried to be equally
urbane, though he did not always succeed. Sometimes he fell into
a supercilious vein, and at others he petulantly quarrelled with the
great Freethinker’s “ tone,” as though all men should be as solemn
as himself. But candor and good-nature predominated, and it was
while under the influence of his better genius that Mr. Gladstone
made the admission, which is at once true and well expressed, that
“ Colonel Ingersoll writes with a rare and enviable brilliancy.”
It only remains to add that this seems a favorable opportunity
for presenting a brief biography of Colonel Ingersoll. Mr. J. M,
Wheeler had the materials already collected for another purpose,
and he was able to draw up a narrative of facts and dates which
will interest all admirers of the great Freethought orator.
�LIFE OF COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
The proud title of Liberator is not only his due who, sword in
nana, delivers his country from its oppressors. The shackles of
bigotry and superstition are no less injurious than the dominion of
a 01 eign foe, and the thinker who from his study combats the
prejudices of ages, the orator who from the platform asserts the
rights oí the oppressed, or stirs men’s minds from the lethargy of
blind belief, deserve to be enrolled among the emancipators and
benefactors of humanity. Such a Liberator is the subject of the
present brief biography.
J
Robert Green Ingersoll, the greatest living American orator,
and one of the most remarkable men of the day, was born in the
township of Dresden, in the State of New York, on the 11th of
August, 1832. He is thus a little more than one year older than
the man with whom he has been most frequently compared, Charles
Bradlaugh. He was of Puritan stock. His father was a Congre
gational minister and Bob, as he was called by his comrades, was
educated m accordance with the straitest opinions of the sect. But
the trammels of theology never enmeshed his mind. He was a
natural Pagan, fond of fun and adventure. He says in one of his
lectures that he could never remember the time when he believed
in eternal punishment, though he sometimes used to wonder God
11 *
d not burn him to a cinder for playing truant from
school, from such acknowledgments as these some sage religion
ists have concluded that Bob was a wild and forward youth. His
brother, John L. Ingersoll, has, however, given his testimony, in
answer toi some calumnies from Talmage, that “ As for Robert, I
will say that he was as good and obedient a boy as I ever knew.”
ihe boy, too, seems to have educated his father, for, like so many
other ministers he came to give up the doctrine of eternal torments,
though so clearly taught in the Bible. His liberal views raised
dissensions among his flock, which gave his family some insight
into the true inward spirit of religion.
s
Robert’s boyhood was spent in Wisconsin and Illinois, where the
iamily removed m 1843.
The keeness of his mind and the propensity which he displayed for
arguing matters out with his father doubtless induced that parent
to set him to the study of the law. When his term had expired he
opened a law office in Shawneetown, Illinois, in conjunction with
his brother, Eben C. Ingersoll. Political discussions occupied some
share of their time, and his brother subsequently became a member
�( e )
of Congress. In 1857 they removed to Peoria, and here Ingersoll
was married. It was a most blissful union. Politics still occupied
much of his attention, and in 1860 he put up, for the first and only
time, for the House of Uongress. His religious heresy, which he
never concealed, was used against-him, and he was defeated.
Upon the outbreak of the civil war in 1862 he entered into the
Union and Anti-Slavery cause with enthusiasm. He raised the 11th
Regiment of Illinois Cavalry, of which he was appointed colonel.
Eminently capable of infusing his own spirit into others, he was
beloved by his men, and numerous anecdotes are told of his
generosity and bravery. One soldier loves to tell how, when
wounded, he was covered with the colonel’s own cloak during the
severity of winter, and stuck to the colonel’s whisky flask. He
was in the battle of Shiloh and other engagements. Although
earnestly convinced of the righteousness of the Unionist cause, he
was too sensitive for the brutal trade of war. He says : “ I never
saw oui’ men fire but I thought of the widows and orphans they
would make, and wished they would miss.” The fortune of war
made him prisoner to the Confederates, but his eloquence on the
anti-slavery side proved so “ corrupting ” to his captors that he
was gladly exchanged. Returned to the North, he still fought
with his tongue for the political rights of the black. Renowned for
his legal advocacy, he was in 1866 appointed Attorney-General for
Illinois. But for religious bigotry he would also have been made
governor of that State. Asked once how much his fine copy of
Voltaire cost him, he replied, “I believe it cost me the governor
ship of the State of Illinois.” His private practice became large,
and his generosity increased with his wealth. Ingersoll's money
has always been at the service of those he loves. He has long had
the custom of keeping a drawer where all his family go and. take
whatevei’ they please. Asked concerning this by one of his inter
viewers, he replied, “ I desire my children to have the same freedom
as myself.”
Ingersoll’s home is a model one. Those who have the pleasure
of visiting it come away with the observation, “ See how these
Freethinkers love one another.” Perfect freedom reigns, yet each
delights in sharing the pleasures of others. Ingersoll has never in
his life beaten his children. He stigmatises the man who does so
as a brute. He believes in the power of kindness. Shakespeare,
“ the inspired word,” is on his table, and near it is a copy of Burns,
“ the family hymn book.” His favorite modern author is George
Eliot, but Darwin, Huxley, Humboldt, and all the best writers are
in his library, not for show but for use. “ What a grand house you
live in!” a caller on Colonel Ingersoll is quoted as saying. “I
wish,” the Colonel replied, “ that I lived in the poorest house in
New York.” “ What do you mean by saying that?” the visitor
asked. “I mean that I wish that every man in New York had a
better house than I have.” He is full of the milk of human kind
ness. A characteristic of the man is his refusal to buy articles
�( 7 )
unless lie knows the makers have been adequately paid. He has
been known to keep an important client waiting while he has run
from his office to pick up a fallen child, coming back with the
remark that he never misses such a chance.
Ingersoll stands over six feet in height and is massive in propor
tion? His broad shoulders and chest capacity tell of strong vitality
and lung power, improved by use. His head shows keen and bright
intellectual power, his features are animated with frank good,
humor. Upon the platform he is full of action. He walks about
and is emphatic in his gestures. But he is always easy and at
home with his audience. He laughs at his own jokes, and seizes,
the moment when he is closest togethei’ with his hearers to lift
them above themselves in some stream of noble thought or glowing
feeling. He is one of the most natural of orators, never at a loss
for a pregnant word, though he will occasionally pause, half
hesitatingly, to give full effect to some telling phrase. He has
been known to make a hard-headed jury laugh outright, and then
put their handkerchiefs to their eyes within a few moments.
How great a political power fine oratory may be was seen at the
Republican Convention of June, 1876, when Ingersoll proposed
James Gillespie Blaine for President. The opposition testified to.
his abilities by insisting that the vote should not be taken until the
following day, when the delegates would have recovered from theoverpowering effect of his eloquence. Had it been taken during
the enthusiasm excited by Ingersoll’s speech, no doubt Blaine,
would have been triumphant. As it was, he lacked only 28 votes
out of a total of 754. Prom that time his services as a campaign
orator have been in demand throughout the States. He may be.
said, indeed, to have become the national orator, being continually
selected to speak on any great public occasion.
In 1877 he was offered and refused the post of Minister to.
Germany, a position the United States always assigns to her most
distinguished citizens. But Ingersoll was too busy for posts of
honor. Not only was he employed in the most important law suits,
which compelled his removal to Washington, but he devoted a con
siderable share of time to the advocacy of Preethought. It is
greatly to his honor that one of his first published discourses was
delivered in vindication of Thomas Paine, the rebellious needleman,
to whom the debt of the American Republic can scarcely be exag
gerated, yet whose memory has been assailed with the foulest
malignity because he had the courage to seek to emancipate his
fellows from the tyranny of priestcraft as well as from that of
kings. Ingersoll, too, has been frequently attacked. Men who dare
not meet him face to face malign him from their coward’s castle of
the pulpit. They have reported his conversion several times.
They have made him lose his voice through infidel lectures, and
swear that never again would he attack the Christian religion!
His name is good enough to trade on, and skunks whose own merits
would never insure them a hearing, seek notoriety by attacking
�(8)
the infidel. But Ingersoll lives in the open, and his courage, man
liness and generosity are well known.
Ingersoll is unmistakably the finest orator of the great
liepublic. Henry Ward Beecher, no mean rival, called him “the
most brilliant speaker of the English tongue of all men on this
globe.” Not only does he draw larger audiences than any of his plat
form rivals, but his speeches will bear reading. They all bespeak the
healthy large-hearted man who sees life steadily, and sees it whole.
Occasionally he soars into the finest prose poetry. We always
feel we are in the presence of a man who candidly says what he
thinks and feels what he says. There is no beating about the
bush with Ingersoll. He has seen and read with his eyes open,
and he has the courage to tell the result of his investigations.
The verbiage of sophistry has no effect upon him. He is satisfied
with nothing short of the bed-rock of solid fact. Nothing is too
sacred to be tested by reason. Appreciating the saying of Shaftes
bury, that “ solemnity is of the essence of imposture,” he exposes
the humorous side of the stupidly solemn. Whatever subject he
touches he adorns with wit and vivacity.
Joseph Hatton, in his work entitled To-day in America, says
“ Ingersoll is not like any talker I have ever heard before. He
reminds me a little of Spurgeon, whose Saxon-English and broad
homely similes are akin to the Ingersoll method. He has not the
dignity of Bright nor the polish of Gladstone; but he has the
earnestness of both, coupled with a boldness of metaphor and a
vigor of style that are peculiarly American. ... I have seen
nothing like the enthusiasm which his oratory evokes, not in multi
tudes of thoughtless people, but in vast assemblages of educated
and responsible men and women who have paid four shillings each
for their seats.” Ingersoll has probably a larger personal following
than any man in the States. Men and women feel that in emanci
pating their minds from superstitious fears, he has rendered them
a personal service. Women, for whose equality of rights with man
he is a determined advocate, always form a prominent feature in
his audiences. They admire his manliness, strength, his chivalry
and tenderness for the weak, and his fervent love of the home.
The source of his power, is no less in his emotional and affectional
utterances than in his intellectual courage. He has the true spells
of persuasion, simple and direct speech, strong love of truth, and
firm hold upon nature.
It is the merit of the orator that his language is level with the
ear of the whole of his audience. Seldom in his speeches does he
indulge in classical allusion such as that in the present reply to
the flesh-eating birds fabled to inhabit the lake Stymphalus. His
language is that of the people.
His words are clear, short,
crisp and strong, like that of the best poetry. His speeches are
never wire-drawn. Every blow tells. Moreover, he has an apti
tude of anecdotal illustration which carries all before it. He is
reputed to be the best teller of a good story in America. The joke
�( 9 )
may be an old. one, but it is told with, snch point, hnmoi, and.
evident enjoyment that it is irresistible. And then he passes from
wit to pathos, like a beam of light streaming now on a bed of
flowers and anon into a cavern.
_
All his speeches are animated by the moral sentiment. Take
the following from his oration at the mass meeting on behalf of the
civil rights of the colored people, held at Lincoln Hall, Oct. 22,
1883, which I transcribe because it has not hitherto been published
in England.
“ I am inferior to any man whose rights I trample under foot. Men are
not superior bv reascn of the accidents of race and color. They are superior
who have the best heart, the best brain. Superiority is born of honesty, of
virtue, of charity, and above all, of the love of liberty. Toe superior man
is the providence of the inferior. He is eyes for the blind, strength for the
weak, and a shield for the defenceless. He stands erect by bending above
the fallen. He rises by lifting others.”
At this meeting Frederick Douglass, the slave orator, introduced
Ingersoll by reciting Leigh Hunt’s famous lines on Abou Ben
Adhem, and the ringing cheers of the assembly showed that their
appropriateness was felt.
In his present reply to Mr. Gladstone, Ingersoll alludes to the
Poccasset religious maniac, Freeman, who went a step beyond
Father Abraham and murdered his own child. A yet more cele
brated instance of the fruits of fanaticism came under Ingersoll’s
own observation. It was his fortune to be in President Garfield’s
company on the memorable 2nd of July, 1881, when Guiteau
assassinated the President in the waiting room of the Baltimore
and Potomac Railway. Ingersoll at once threw his own body in
front of Garfield while the assassin was continuing to fire. He
would undoubtedly have been shot had not Guiteau at that moment
been seized and disarmed. His courage and self-devotion was
unavailing. Two rapid shots had already done their murderous
work before any attempt could be made to protect the President,
even by Mr. Blaine, on whose arm he was leaning ; but the effort
of Ingersoll to give his own life for that of his friend will ever
redound to his honor.
Emerson well says there is no true orator who is not a hero. The
orator must ever stand with forward foot in the attitude of ad
vancing. Ingersoll’s defence of Mr. C. B. Reynolds, who was
indicted for blasphemy at Morristown in New Jersey, in 1886, was
characteristic of the true leader. Though suffering from sore
throat, and forced to forego important remunerative engagements,
he personally appeared on behalf of the prisoner at the tinal in
May of last year. His Defence, of Freethought on that occasion, in
a five hours’ speech to the jury, is a noble specimen of oratorical
power. It doubtless had a powerful effect on the bigotry of New
Jersey. Although, thanks to the adverse summing-up of the judge,
he failed to get the prisoner acquitted, Mr. Reynolds was let off
with a slight fine, which, together with all espenses, was met by
�( 10 )
Colonel Ingersoll. Prosecutions for blasphemy will probably never
more be heard of in New Jersey.
It is scarcely necessary to enumerate his published lectures and
writings. They are almost as well-known in England as on the
other side of the herring pond. The title of one of them, Take a
Road of Your Own, illustrates the spirit of his teachings. No more
telling indictments of orthodoxy have been published than his
lectures on Gods, Ghosts, What Must I JDo to Be Saved, Myth and
Miracle, Real Blasphemy and The Dying Greed. The Mistakes of
Moses, his largest work, is brimful of fun and lively argument. His
first contribution to the North American Review was in August,
1881, when he wrote on the subject “Is All the Bible Inspired?”
Since then he has held his own against Judge Black, Professor
G-. P. Fisher, and, more recently, the Rev. H. Field, who, being over
weighted by the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, is doubtless glad
to have Mr. Gladstone come “ to the help of the Lord against the
mighty.”
°
Colonel Ingersoll has also contributed introductory chapters toModern Thinkers, by Prof. Van Denslow; to The Brain and the
Bible, by Edgar C. Beall; and to Men, Women and Gods, by Helen
Gardener, a young lady he introduced to the Freethought platform.
His writings are just like his speeches, and, we should surmise, are
written to dictation. We can imagine we see him marching up
and down, emphasising his points and softly chuckling as his bn mor
occasionally ripples forth.
�REPLY TO GLADSTONE.
To the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, M.P.,
My dear Sir:
At the threshold of this Reply, it gives me pleasure to say that for
your intellect and character I have the greatest respect; and let
me say further, that I shall consider your arguments, assertions,
and inferences entirely apart from your personality apart from
the exalted position that you occupy in the estimation of the
civilised world. I gladly acknowledge the inestimable services that
you have rendered, not only to England, but to mankind. Most
men are chilled and narrowed by the snows of age ; their thoughts
are darkened by the approach of night. But you, for many years,
have hastened toward the light, and your mind has been “ an
autumn that grew the more by reaping.”
Under no circumstances could I feel justified in taking advantage
of the admissions that you have made as to the “ errors,” the
“ misfeasance,” the. “infirmities and the perversity” of the Chris
tian Church.
.
.
It is perfectly apparent that churches, being only aggregations
of people, contain the prejudice, the ignorance, the vices and the
virtues of ordinary human beings. The perfect cannot be made out
of the imperfect.
A man is not necessarily a great mathematician because he
admits the correctness of the multiplication table. The best creed
may be believed by the worst of the human race. Neither the
crimes nor the virtues of the church tend to prove or disprove the
supernatural origin of religion. The massacre of St. Bartholomew
tends no more to establish the inspiration of the Scriptures, than
the bombardment of Alexandria.
But there is one thing that cannot be admitted, and that is your
statement that the constitution of man is in a “warped, impaired,.
�( 12 )
and dislocated condition,” and that - those deformities indispose
men to belief.
Let us examine this.
We say that a thing is “ warped ” that was once nearer level flat
»■■ straight; that it is “ unpaired ” when it was once nearer perfect
and that it is" dislocated when it was once united. Oonsemientlv’
you have said that at some time the human constitution was un
warped, ummpaired and with each part working in harmony with
all, Yon seem to believe m the degeneracy of man, and that our
unfortunate race, starting at perfection, has travelled downward
through all the wasted years.
It is hardly possible that our ancestors were perfect. If historv
proves anything, it establishes the fact that civilisation was not
first and savagery afterwards. Certainly the tendency of man is
not now towards barbarism. There must have been a time when
language was unknown, when lips had never formed a word That
which man knows man must have learned. The victories’ of our
race have been, slowly and painfully won. It is a long distance
from the gibberish of the savage to the sonnets of Shakespeare—a
long and weary road from the pipe of Pan to the great orchestra
voiced with every tone from the glad warble of a mated bird to the
hoarse thunder of the sea. The road is long that lies between the
discordant cnes uttered by the barbarian over the gashed body of
his foe and the marvellous music of Wagner and Beethoven. It is
hardly possible to conceive of the years that lie between the caves
in which crouched our naked ancestors crunching the bones of wild
beasts, and the home of a civilised man with its comforts its
articles of luxury and use,-with its works of art, with its enriched
and illuminated walls. Think of the billowed years that must
have rolled between these shores. Think of the vast distance that
man has slowly groped from the dark dens and lairs of ignorance
and tear to the intellectual conquests of our day.
Is it true that these deformities, these “ warped, impaired, and
dislocated constitutions indispose men to belief ” ? Can we in this
way account for the doubts entertained by the intellectual leaders
■of mankind ?
it will not do, in this age and time, to account for unbelief in
is e ormed and dislocated way. The exact opposite must be
t™e‘ igaorance and credulity sustain the relation of cause and
e ec .
gnorance is satisfied with assertion, with appearance.
As man rises m the scale of intelligence he demands evidence.
He begins to look back of appearance. He asks the priest for
reasons. The most ignorant part of Christendom is the most
orthodox.
�( 13 )
You have simply repeated a favorite assertion of the clergy, to
the effect that man rejects the Gospel because he is naturally
depraved and hard of heart—because, owing to the sin of Adam
and Eve, he has fallen from the perfection and purity of paradise
to that “ impaired ” condition in which he is satisfied with the
filthy rags of reason, observation and experience.
The truth is, that what you call unbelief is only a higher and
holier faith. Millions of men reject Christianity because of its
cruelty. The Bible was never rejected by the cruel. It has been
upheld by countless tyrants—by the dealers in human flesh—by
the destroyers of nations—by the enemies of intelligence—by the
stealers of babes and the whippers of women.
It is also true that it has been held as sacred by the good, the
self-denying, the virtuous and the loving, who clung to the sacred
volume on account of the good it contains and in spite of all its
cruelties and crimes.
You are mistaken when you say that all “ the faults of all the
Christian bodies and subdivisions of bodies have been carefully
raked together,” in my reply to Dr. Field, “ and made part and
parcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of salvation.”
No thoughtful man pretends that any fault of any Christian
body can be used as an argument against what you call the “ divine
scheme of redemption.”
I find in your remarks the frequent charge that I am guilty of
making assertions and leaving them to stand without the assistance
of argument or fact, and it may be proper, at this particular point,
to inquire how you know that there is a divine “ scheme of re
demption.”
My objections to this “ divine scheme of redemption” are:
first, that there is not the slightest evidence that it is divine ;
second, that it is not in any sense a “ scheme,” human or divine ;
and third, that it cannot, by any possibility, result in the redemp
tion of a human being.
It cannot be divine, because it has no foundation in the nature
of things, and is not in accordance with reason. It is based on the
idea that right and wrong are the expression of an arbitrary will,
and not words applied to and descriptive of acts in the light of
consequences. It rests upon the absurdity called “ pardon,” upon
the assumption that when a crime has been committed justice will
be satisfied with the punishment of the innocent. One person may
suffer, or reap a benefit, in consequence of the act of another, but
no man can be justly punished for the crime, or justly rewarded
for the virtues, of another. A “ scheme ” that punishes an inno-
�/
(14)
cent man for the vices of another can hardly be called divine. Can
a murderer find justification in the agonies of his victim ? There
is no vicarious vice; there is no vicarious virtue. For me it is
hard to understand how a just and loving being can charge one o f
his children with the vices, or credit him with the virtues, of
another.
And why should we call anything a “ divine scheme ” that has
been a failure from the “ fall of man” until the present moment?
What race, what nation, has been redeemed through the instru
mentality of this divine scheme ” ? Have not the subjects of
redemption been for the most part the enemies of civilisation ?
Has not almost every valuable book since the invention of printing
been denounced by the believers in the “ divine scheme ” ? In
telligence, the development of the mind, the discoveries of science,
the inventions of genius, the cultivation of the imagination through
art and music, and the practice of virtue will redeem the human
•race. These are the saviors of mankind.
You admit that the “ Christian churches have by their exag
gerations and shortcomings, and by their faults of conduct, con
tributed to bring about a condition of hostility to religious faith.”
If one.wishes to know the worst that man has done, all that
■power guided by cruelty can do, all the excuses that can be framed
for the commission of every crime, the infinite difference that can
exist between that which is professed and that which is practised,
■the marvellous malignity of meekness, the arrogance of humility
and the savagery of what is known as “ universal love,” let him
read the history of the Christian Church.
Yet, I not only admit that millions of Christians have been
honest in the expression of their opinions, but that they have been
among the best and noblest of our race.
And it is further admitted that a creed should be examined
apart from the conduct of those who have assented to its truth.
The Church should be judged as a whole, and its faults should be
accounted for either by the weakness of human nature, or by reason
of some defect or vice in the religion taught—or by both.
Is there anything in the Christian religion—anything in what
you are pleased to call the “ Sacred Scriptures,” tending to cause
the crimes and atrocities that have been committed by the
Church ?
It seems to be natural for man to defend himself and the ones
he loves. The father slays the man who would kill his child—he
defends the body. The Christian father burns the heretic—he
defends the soul.
�( 15 )
If “ orthodox Christianity ” be true, an infidel has not the rigftt
to live. Every book in which the Bible is attacked should be
burned’with its author. Why hesitate to burn a man whose con
stitution is “ warped, impaired, and dislocated,” for a few
moments, when hundreds of others will be saved from eternal
flames ?
In Christianity you will find the cause of persecution. The
idea that belief is essential to salvation—this ignorant and merciless
dogma—accounts for the atrocities of the Church. This absurd
declaration built the dungeons, used the instruments of torture,
erected the scaffolds and lighted the fagots of a thousand years.
What, I pray you, is the •'■'heavenly treasure” in the keeping of
your Church?
Is it a belief in an infinite God? That was
believed thousands of years before the serpent tempted Eve. Is it
the belief in the immortality of the soul? That is far older. Is
it that man should tieat his neighbor as himself ? That is more
ancient. What is the treasure in the keeping of the Church ? Let
me tell you. It is this : That there is but one true religion—
Christianity—and that all others are false; that the prophets, and
Christs, and priests of all others have been and are impostors, or
the victims of insanity; that the Bible is the one inspired book—
the one authentic record of the words of God: that all men are
naturally depraved and deserve to be punished with unspeakable
torments forever : that there is only one path that leads to heaven,
while countless highways lead to hell; that there is only one name
under heaven by which a human being can be saved; that we
must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that this life, with its few
and fleeting years, fixes the fate of man ; that the few will be saved
and the many for ever lost. This is “the heavenly treasure”
within the keeping of your Church.
And this “ treasure ” has been guarded by the cherubim of
persecution, whose flaming swords were wet for many centuries
with the best and bravest blood. It has been guarded by cunning,
by hypocrisy, by mendacity, by honesty, by calumniating the
generous, by maligning the good, by thumbscrews and racks, by
charity and love, by robbery and assassination, by poison and fire,
by the virtues of the ignorant and the vices of the learned, by the
violence of mobs and the whirlwinds of war, by every hope and
every fear, by every cruelty and every crime, and by all there is of
the wild beast in the heart of man.
With great propriety it may be asked : In the keeping of which
Church is this “ heavenly treasure ” ? Did the Catholics have it,
and was it taken by Luther ? Did Henry the VIII. seize it, and
�i 16 )
is it now in the keeping of the Church of England? Which of
the warring sects in America has this treasure ; or have we in this
country only the “ rust and canker ” ? Is it an Episcopal Church,
that refuses to associate with a colored man for whom Christ
died, and who is good enough for the society of the angelic host ?
But wherever this “ heavenly treasure ” has been, about it have
always hovered the Stymphalian birds of superstition, thrusting
their brazen beaks and claws deep into the flesh of honest wen
You were pleased to point out as the particular line justifying
your assertion “that denunciation, sarcasm, and invective con
stitute the staple of my work,” that line in which I speak of those
who expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy, and add: “I take
this as a specimen of the mode of statement which permeates the
whole.”
Dr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying : “lam glad
that I know you, even though some of my brethren look upon you as
a monster y because of your unbelief”
In reply I simply said : “ 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 depraved—that there is no soundness or health in them——can
be so arrogantly 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 receive as alms an eternity of joy.” Is there any denunciation,
sarcasm or invective in this ?
Why should one who admits that he himself is totally depraved
call any other man, by way of reproach, a monster ? Possibly he
might be justified in addressing him as a fellow-monster.
I am not satisfied with your statement that “ the Christian re
ceives as alms all whatsoever he receives at all.” Is it true that
man deserves only punishment ? Does the man who makes the
world better, who works and battles for the right, and dies for the
good of his fellow-men, deserve nothing but pain and anguish ?
Is happiness a gift or a consequence ? Is heaven only a well-con
ducted poorhouse ? Are the angels in their highest estate nothing
but happy paupers ? Must all the redeemed feel that they are in
heaven simply because there was a miscarriage of justice? Will
the lost be the only ones who will know that the right thing has
been done, and will they alone appreciate the “ ethical elements of
religion ” ? Will they repeat the words that you have quoted
�( 17 )
“ Mercy and judgment are met together; righteousness and peace
have kissed each other ” ? or will those words be spoken by the
redeemed as they joyously contemplate the writhings of the lost ?
No one will dispute ■'■'that in the discussion of important ques
tions calmness and sobriety are essential.” But solemnity need not
be carried to the verge of mental paralysis. In the search for
truth—that everything in nature seems to hide—man needs the
assistance of all his faculties. All the senses should be awake.
Humor should carry a torch, Wit should give its sudden light,
Candor should hold the scale s, Reason, the final arbiter, should put
his royal stamp on every fact, and Memory, with a miser’s care,
should keep and guard the mental gold.
The Church has always despised the man of humor, hated
laughter and encouraged the lethargy of solemnity. It is not
willing that the mind should subject its creed to every test of
truth. It wishes to overawe. It does not say, “ He that hath a
mind to think let him think ” ; but, “ He that hath ears to hear
let him hear.” The Church has always abhorred wit—that is to
say, it does not enjoy being struck by the lightning of the soul.
The foundation of wit is logic, and it has always been the enemy
of the supernatural, the solemn and absurd.
You express great regret that no one at the present day is able
to write like Pascal. You admire his wit and tenderness, and the
unique, brilliant and fascinating manner in which he treated the
profoundest and most complex themes. Sharing in your admira
tion and regret, I call your attention to what might be called one
of his religious generalisations : “Disease is the natural state of a
Christian.” Certainly it cannot be said that I have ever mingled
the profound and complex in a more fascinating manner.
Another instance is given of the “ tumultuous method in which
I conduct, not, indeed, my argument, but my case.”
Dr. Field had drawn a distinction between superstition and
religion, to which I replied : “ 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 ?”
These simple questions seem to have excited you to an unusual
degree, and you ask in words of some severity “ Whether this is
the tone in which controversies ought to be carried on ?” And you
say that “ not only is the name of Jehovah encircled in the heart
of every believer with the profoundest reverence and love, but that
the Christian religion teaches, through the incarnation, a personal
relation with God so lofty that it can only be approached in
�(1*)
deep, reverential calm.” You admit that “a person who deems a
given religion to be wicked, may be led onward by logical consis
tency to impugn in strong terms the character of the author and
object of that religion,” but you insist that such person is “ bound
by the laws of social morality and decency to consider well the
terms and meaning of his indictment.”
Was there any lack of “ reverential calm ” in my question ? I
gave no opinion, drew no indictment, but simply asked for the
•opinion of another. Was that a violation of the “ laws of social
morality and decency ” ?
It is not necessary for me to discuss this question with you.
It has been decided by Jehovah himself. You probably remember
the account given in the eighteenth chapter of 1 Kings, of a
contest between the prophets of Baal and rhe prophets of Jehovah.
There were four hundred and fifty prophets of the false God who
■endeavored to induce their deity to consume with fire from heaven
the sacrifice upon his altar. According to the account, they were
greatly in earnest. They certainly appeared to have some hope of
■success, but the fire did not descend.
“ And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘ Ory
aloud, for he is a god ; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a
journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.’”
Do you consider that the proper way to attack the God of
another? Did not Elijah know that the name of Baal ‘‘was
encircled in the heart of every believer with the profoundest
reverence and love ” ? Did he “ violate the laws of social morality
and decency ” ?
But Jehovah and Elijah did not stop at this point. They were
not satisfied with mocking the prophets of Baal, but they brought
them down to the brook Kishon—four hundred and fifty of them
—and there they murdered every one.
Does it appear to you that on that occasion, on the banks of the
brook Kishon, “ Mercy and judgment met together, and that
righteousness and peace kissed each other ” ?
The question arises: Has everyone who reads the Old Testa
ment the right to express his thought as to the character of
• Jehovah ? You will admit that as he reads his mind will receive
¡some impression, and that when he finishes the “ inspired volume ”
•he will have some opinion as to the character of Jehovah. Has
Ke the right to express that opinion ? Is the Bible a revelation
from God to man ? Is it a revelation to the man who reads it, or
'to the man who does not read it? If to the man who reads it,
has he the right to give to others the revelation that God has
�( 19 )
given to him ? If he comes to the conclusion at which you have
arrived, that Jehovah is' God, has he the right to express that
-opinion ?
If he concludes, as I have done, that Jehovah is a myth, must
he refrain from giving, his honest thought ? Christians do not
hesitate to give their opinion of heretics, philosophers, and
infidels. They are not restrained by the “laws of social morality
and decency.” They have persecuted to the extent of their power,
and their Jehovah pronounced upon unbelievers every curse
capable of being expressed in the Hebrew dialect. At this moment
thousands of missionaries are attacking the gods of the heathen
world, and heaping contempt on the religion of others.
But as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a
moment examine this deity of the ancient Jews.
. There are several tests of character. It may be that all the
virtues can be expressed in the word “ kindness,” and that nearly
all the vices are gathered together in the word “ cruelty.”
Laughter is a test of character. When we know what a man
laughs at, we know what he really is. Does he laugh at misfor
tune, at poverty, at honesty in rags, at industry without food at
the agonies of his fellow-men? Does he laugh when he sees’the
eonvict clothed in the garments of shame, at the criminal on the
scaffold ? Does he rub his hands with glee over the embers of an
enemy s home ?
Think of a man capable of laughing while
looking at Marguerite in the prison cell with her dead babe by her
side. What must be the real character of a God who laughs at
rhe calamities ©f his children, mocks at their fears, their desola
tion their distress and anguish ? Would an infinitely loving God
hold his ignorant children in derision ? Would he pity, or mock ?
have, or destroy ? Educate, or exterminate ? Would he lead
them with gentle hands toward the light, or lie in wait for them I
like a wild beast ? Think of the echoes of Jehovah’s laughter in I
the rayless caverns of the eternal prison. Can a good man mock 1
at the children of deformity? Will he deride the misshapen? ’
Your Jehovah deformed some of his own children, and then held
em up to scorn and hatred. These divine mistakes, these
blunders of the infinite, were not allowed to enter the temple
erected m honor of him who had dishonored them. Does a kind
father mock his deformed child ? What would you think of a
mother who would deride and taunt her misshapen babe ?
t here is another test. How does a man use power ? Is he
gentle, or cruel ? Does he defend the weak, succor the oppressed
or trample on the fallen ?
’
�( 20 )
If you. will read again the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuter
onomy, you will find how Jehovah, the compassionate, whose name
js enshrined in so many hearts, threatened to use his power.
“ The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and
with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword,
and with blasting and mildew. And thy heaven which is over thy head
shall be brass, and the earth which is under thee shall be iron. The Lord
shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust.” . . . “ And thy carcass
shall be meat unto all fowls of the air and unto the beasts of the earth.” . .
“ The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness. And thou shalt
eat of the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters.
The tender and delicate woman among you, .... her eye shall be
evil . . . toward her young one . . and toward her children which she shall
bear; for she shall eat them.”
Should it be found that these curses were in fact uttered by the
God of hell, and that the translators had made a mistake in at
tributing them to Jehovah, could you say that the sentiments
expressed are inconsistent with the supposed character of the
Infinite Fiend ?
A nation is judged by its laws—by the punishment it inflicts.
The nation that punishes ordinary offences with death is regarded
as barbarous, and the nation that tortures before it kills is denounced
as savage.
What can you say of the government of Jehovah, in which death
was the penalty for hundreds of offences ?—death for the expression
of an honest thought—death for touching with a good intention a
sacred ark—death for making hair oil—for eating shew bread—for
imitating incense and perfumery ?
In the history of the world a more cruel code cannot be found.
Crimes seem to have been invented to gratify a fiendish desire to
shed the blood of men.
There is another test: How does a man treat the animals in his
power—his faithful horse—his patient ox—his loving dog ?
How did Jehovah treat the animals in Egypt ? Would a loving
God, with fierce hail from heaven, bruise and kill the innocent
cattle for the crimes of their owners ? Would he torment, torture
and destroy them for the sins of men ?
Jehovah was a God of blood. His altar was adorned with the
horns of a beast. He established a religion in which every tempi©’
was a slaughter house, and every priest a butcher—a religion that
demanded the death of the first-born, and delighted in the destruc
tion of life.
There is still another test : The civilised man gives to others
the rights that he claims for himself. He believes in the liberty
�( 21 )
of thought and expression, and abhors persecution for conscience’
sake.
Did Jehovah believe in the innocence of thought and the liberty
of expression ? Kindness is found with true greatness. Tyranny
lodges only in the breast of the small, the narrow, the shrivelled
and the selfish. Did Jehovah teach and practice generosity ? Was
he a believer in religious liberty ? If he was and is, in fact, God,
he must have known, even four thousand years ago, that worship
must be free, and that he who is forced upon his knees cannot, by
any possibility, have the spirit of prayer.
Let me call your attention to a few passages in the thirteenth
chapter of Deuteronomy :
“ If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee
secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods. . . . thou shaltnot consent
unto him, nor hearken unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither
shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him : but thou shalt surely kill
him ; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards
the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he
die.”
Is it possible for you to find in the literature of this world more
awful passages than these ? Did ever savagery, with strange and
uncouth marks, with awkward forms of beast and bird, pollute the
dripping walls of caves with such commands ? Are these the words
of infinite mercy ? When they were uttered, did “ righteousness
and peace kiss each other ” ? How can any loving man or woman
“ encircle the name of Jehovah ”—author of these words—“ with
profoundest reverence and love ’’ ? Do I rebel because my “ con
stitution is warped, impaired and dislocated ” ? Is it because of
“ total depravity ” that I denounce the brutality of Jehovah ? If
my heart were only good—if I loved my neighbor as myself, should
I then see infinite mercy in these hideous words ? Do I lack
“ reverential calm ’’ ?
These frightful passages, like coiled adders, were in the hearts
of Jehovah’s chosen people when they crucified “• the Sinless Man.”
Jehovah did not tell the husband to reason with his wife. She
was to be answered only with death. She was to be bruised and
mangled to a bleeding, shapeless mass of quivering flesh, for having
breathed an honest thought.
If there is anything of importance in this world, it is the family,
the home, the marriage of true souls, the equality of husband and
wife, the true republicanism of the heart, the real democracy of
the fireside.
Let us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis :
�( 22 )
“ Unto the woman he said. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception ; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Never will I worship any being who added to the sorrows and
agonies of maternity. Never will I bow to any God who intro
duced slavery into every home—who made the wife a slave and
the husband a tyrant.
The Old Testament shows that Jehovah, like his creators, held
women in contempt. They were regarded as property : “ Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife—nor his ox.”
Why should a pure woman worship a God who upheld polygamy?
Let us finish this subject: The institution of slavery involves all
crimes. Jehovah was a believer in slavery. This is enough. Why
should any civilised man worship him ? Why should his name
be “.encircled with love and tenderness ” in any human heart ?
He believed that man could become the property of man—that
it was right for his chosen people to deal in human flesh—to buy
and sell mothers and babes. He taught that the captives were the
property of the captors and directed his chosen people to kill, to
enslave, or to pollute.
In the presence of these commandments, what becomes of the
fine saying “ Love thy neighbor as thyself ” ? What shall we say
of a God who established slavery, and then had the effrontery to
say “ Thou shalt not steal ” ?
It may be insisted that Jehovah is the Father of all—and that
he has “made of one blood all the nations of the earth.” How
then can we account for the wars of extermination ? Does not thecommandment “ Love thy neighbor as thyself,” apply to nations
precisely the same as to individuals ? Nations, like individuals,,
become great by the practice of virtue. How did Jehovah com
mand his people to treat their neighbors ?
He commanded his generals to destroy all—men, women and
babes : “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.”
“I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and mv sword shall devour
flesh.”
J
“ That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the
tongue of thy dogs in the same.”
“ • • • I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of
serpents of the dust. ...”
*• The sword without and terror within shall destroy both the young man
and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of grey hairs.”
Is it possible that these words fell from the lips of the Most
Merciful ?
You may reply that the inhabitants of Canaan were unfit to
live—that they were ignorant and cruel. Why did not Jehovah,
�the “ Father of all, ’ give them the Ten Commandments ? Why
did he leave them without a Bible, without prophets and priests ?
Why did he shower all the blessings of revelation on one poor and
wretched tribe, and leave the great world in ignorance and crime
—and why did he order his favorite children to murder those whom
he had neglected ?
By the question I asked of Dr. Field, the intention was to show
that Jephthah, when he sacrificed his daughter to Jehovah, was as
much the slave of superstition as is the Hindoo mother when she
throws her babe into the yellow waves of the Ganges.
It seems that this savage Jephthah was in direct communication
with Jehovah at Mizpeh, and that he made a vow unto the Lord
and said :
“ If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine
hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my
house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall
surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
In the first place, it is perfectly clear that the sacrifice intended'
was a human sacrifice, from the words : “ that whatsoever cometh
forth of the doors of my house to meet me.” Some human being
—wife, daughter, friend—was expected to come. According tn
the account, his daughter—his only daughter, his only child—came
first.
If Jephthah was in communication with God, why did God
allow this man to make this vow ; and why did he allow the daughter
that he loved to be first, and why did he keep silent and allow the
vow to be kept, while flames devoured the daughter’s flesh ?
St. Paul is not authority. He praises Samuel, the man who
hewed Agag in pieces ; David, who compelled hundreds to pass
under the saws and harrows of death ; and many others who shed
the blood of the innocent and helpless. Paul is an unsafe guide.
He who commends the brutalities of the past, sows the seeds of
future crimes.
If “ believers are not obliged to approve of the conduct of
Jephthah ” are they free to condemn the conduct of Jehovah ? If
you will read the account you will see that the “ spirit of the Lord
was upon Jephthah ” when he made the cruel vow. If Paul did
not commend Jephthah for keeping this vow, what was the act that
excited his admiration ? Was it because Jephthah slew on the
banks of the Jordan “ forty and two thousand ” of the sons of
Ephraim ?
In regard to Abraham, the argument is precisely the same,
�( 24 )
except that Jehovah is said to have interfered, and allowed an
animal to be slain instead.
One of the answers given by you is that “ it may be allowed
that the narrative is not within our comprehension : ” and for that
reason you say that “ it behoves us to tread cautiously in ap
proaching it.” Why cautiously ?
These stories of Abraham and Jephthah have cost many an
innocent life. Only a few years ago, here in my country, a man
by the name of Freeman, believing that God demanded at least
the show of obedience—believing what he had read in the Old Testa
ment that ‘'without the shedding of blood there is no remission,”
and so believing, touched with insanity, sacrificed his little girl—
plunged into her innocent breast the dagger, believing it to be
God’s will, and thinking that if it were not God’s will his hand
would be stayed.
I know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime
told by this man.
Nothing can be more monstrous than the conception of a God
who demands sacrifice—of a God who would ask of a father that
he murder his son—of a father that he would burn his daughter.
It is far beyond my comprehension how any man ever could ha^e
believed such an infinite, such a cruel absurdity.
At the command of the real God—if there be one—I would not
sacrifice my child, I would not murder my wife. But as long as
there are people in the world whose minds are so that they can
believe the stories of Abraham and Jephthah, just so long there
will be men who will take the lives of the ones they love best.
You have taken the position that the conditions are different;
and you say that: “ A ccording to the book of Genesis, Adam and
Eve were placed under a law, not of consciously perceived right
and wrong, but of simple obedience. The tree of which alone they
were forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil; duty lay for them in following the command of the Most
High, before and until they became capable of appreciating it by
an ethical standard. Their knowledge was but that of an infant
who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that
he is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the things
so ordered.”
If Adam and Eve could not “ consciously perceive right and
wrong,” how is it possible for you to say that “ duty lay for them
in following the command of the Most High ” ? How can a person
“ incapable of perceiving right and wrong ” have an idea of duty ?
You are driven to say that Adam and Eve had no moral sense.
�How under such circumstances could they have the sense of guilt,
or of obligation ? And why should such persons be punished ?
And why should the whole human race become tainted by the
■offence of those who had no moral sense ?
Do you intend to be understood as saying that Jehovah allowed
his children to enslave each other because “ duty lay for them in
following the command of the Most High ” ? Was it for this
reason that he caused them to exterminate each other ? Do you
account for the severity of his punishments by the fact that the
poor creatures punished were not aware of the enormity of the
■offences they had committed ? What shall we say of a God who
has one of his children stoned to death for picking up sticks on
Sunday, and allows another to enslave his fellow man ? Have you
discovered any theory that will account for both of these facts ?
Another word as to Abraham :—You defend his willingness to
kill his son because “ the estimate of human life at the time was
different ”—because “ the position of the father in the family was
different; its members were regarded as in some sense his pro
perty ; ” and because “ there is every reason to suppose that around
Abraham in the ‘ land of Moriah ’ the practice of human sacrifice
as an act of religion was in full vigor.”
Let us examine these three excuses : Was Jehovah justified in
putting a low estimate on human life ? Was he in earnest when
he said “ that whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood
be shed ’’ ? Did he pander to the barbarian view of the worth
lessness of life ? If the estimate of human life was low, what was
the sacrifice worth ?
Was the son the property of the father ? Did Jehovah uphold
this savage view ? Had the father the right to sell or kill his
child ?
Do you defend Jehovah and Abraham because the ignorant
wretches in the “ land of Moriah,” knowing, nothing of the true
God, cut the throats of their babes “ as an act of religion ” ?
Was Jehovah led away by the example of the Gods of Moriah ?
Do you not see that your excuses are simply the suggestions of
other crimes ?
You see clearly that the Hindoo mother, when she throws her
babe into the Ganges at the command of her God, “ sins against
first principles ”; but you excuse Abraham because he lived in the
childhood of the race. Can Jehovah be excused because of his
youth ? Not satisfied with your explanation, your defences and
excuses, you take the ground that when Abraham said : “ My son,
God will provide a lamb for a burnt offering,” he may have “ be-
�( ¿6 )
lieved implicitly that a way of rescue would be found for his son.”-1
In other words, that Abraham did not believe that he would be
required to shed the blood of Isaac. So that, after all, the faith
of Abraham consisted in “ believing implicitly ” that Jehovah was
not in earnest.
You have discovered a way by which, as you think, the neck of
orthodoxy can escape the noose of Darwin, and in that connection
you use this remarkable language :
“ I should reply that the moral history of man, in its principal
stream, has been distinctly an evolution from the first until
now.”
It is hard to see how this statement agrees with the one in the
begining of your Remarks, in which you speak of the human con
stitution in its “ warped, impaired and dislocated ” condition.
When you wrote that line you were certainly a theologian—a
believer in the Episcopal creed—and your mind, by mere force of
habit, was at that moment contemplating man as he is supposed to
have been created—perfect in every part. At that time you were
endeavoring to account for the unbelief now in the world, and you
did this by stating that the human constitution is “ warped,
impaired and dislocated ” ; but the moment you are brought face
to face with the great truths uttered by Darwin, you admit “ that
the moral history of man has been distinctly an evolution from thefirst until now.” Is this not a fountain that brings forth sweet
and bitter waters ?
I insist, that the discoveries of Darwin do away absolutely with
the inspiration of the Scriptures—with the account of creation in
Genesis, and demonstrate not simply the falsity, not simply the
wickedness, but the foolishness of the “ sacred volume.”
There is nothing in Darwin to show that all has been evolved
from “ primal night and from chaos.” There is no evidence of
“ primal night.” There is no proof of universal chaos. Did your
Jehovah spend an eternity in “primal night,” with no companioni
but chaos ?
It makes no difference how long a lower form may require to'
reach a higher. It makes no difference whether forms can be
simply modified, or absolutely changed. These facts have not the
slightest tendency to throw the slightest light on the beginning or
on the destiny of things.
I most cheerfully admit that gods have the right to create swiftly
or slowly. The reptile may become a bird in one day, or in a
thousand billion years—this fact has nothing to do with the
existence or non-existence of a first cause, but it has something to
�( 27 )
do with the truth of the Bible, and with the existence of a personal
God of infinite power and wisdom.
Does not a gradual improvement in the thing created show acorresponding improvement in the creator ? The Church demon
strated the falsity and folly of Darwin’s theories by showing that
they contradicted the Mosaic account of creation, and now the
theories of Darwin having been fairly established, the Church says
that the Mosaic account is true because it is in harmony with
Darwin. Now if it was to turn out that Darwin was mistaken,
what then?
To me it is somewhat difficult to understand the mental processes
of one who really feels that “ the gap between man and the inferior
animals or their relationship was stated, perhaps, even more em
phatically by Bishop Butler than by Darwin.”
Butler answered Deists, who objected to the cruelties of the
Bible and yet lauded the G-od of Nature, by showing that the G-od
of Nature is as cruel as the G-od of the Bible. That is to say, he
succeeded in showing that both Gods are bad. He had no possible
conception of the splendid generalisations of Darwin—the great
truths that have revolutionised the thought of the world.
But there was one question asked by Bishop Butler that throws
a flame of light upon the probable origin of most, if not all,
religions : “ Why might not whole communities and public bodies
be seized with fits of insanity as well as individuals ? ”
If you are convinced that Moses and Darwin are in exact accord,
will you be good enough to tell who, in your judgment, were the
parents of Adam and Eve ? Do you find in Darwin any theory
that satisfactorily accounts for the “ inspired fact ” that a Bib,
commencing with Monogenic Propagation—falling into halves by
a contraction in the middle—reaching, after many ages of Evolution,
the Amphigenic stage, and then, by the Survival of the Fittest,
assisted by Natural Selection, moulded and modified by Environ
ment, became at last, the mother of the human race ?
Here is a world in which there are countless varieties of life—
these varieties in all probability related to each other—all living
upon each other—everything devouring something, and in its turn
devoured by something else—everywhere claw and beak, hoof and
tooth,—everything seeking the life of something else—every drop
of water a battle field, every atom being for some wild beast a
jungle—every place a golgotha—and such a world is declared to be
the work of the infinitely wise and compassionate.
According to your idea, Jehovah prepared a home for his children
—first a garden in which they should be tempted and from which
�(M )
they should be driven ; then a world filled with briars and thorns
and wild and poisonous beasts—a world in which the air should be
filled with the enemies of human' life—a world in which disease
should be contagious, and in which it was impossible to tell, except
by actual experiment, the poisonous from the nutritious. And
these children were allowed to live in dens and holes and fight
their way against monstrous serpents and crouching beasts—were
allowed to live in ignorance and fear—to have false ideas of this
good and loving God—ideas so false that they made of him a fiend
—ideas so false, that they sacrificed their wives and babes to
appease the imaginary wrath of this' monster. And this God gave
to different nations different ideas of himself, knowing that in
consequence of that these nations would meet upon countless fields
of death and drain each other’s veins.
Would it not have been better had the world been so that parents
would transmit only their virtues—only their perfections, physical and
mental, allowing their diseases and their vices to perish with them ?
In my reply to Dr. Field I had asked : Why should God demand
a sacrifice from man ? Why should the infinite ask anything from
the finite ? Should the sun beg from the glow-worm, and should
the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light ?
Upon which you remark, “ that if the infinite is to make no
demands upon the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and
■strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small.”
Can this be called reasoning ? Why should the infinite demand
a sacrifice from man ? In the first place, the infinite is condition
less—the infinite cannot want—the infinite has. A conditioned
being may want; but the gratification of a want involves a change
of condition. If God be conditionless, he can have ho wants—
consequently, no human being can gratify the infinite.
But you insist that “ if the infinite is to make no demands upon
the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong should
■scarcely make them on the weak and small.”
The great have wants. The strong are often in need, in peril,
.and the great and strong often need the services of the small and
weak. It was the mouse that freed the lion. England is a great
.and powerful nation—yet she may need the assistance of the
weakest of her citizens. The world is filled with illustrations.
The lack of logic is in this: The infinite cannot want anything ;
the strong and the great may, and as a fact always do. The great
and the strong cannot help the infinite—they can help the small
and the weak, and the small and the weak can often help the great
and strong.
�( 29 )
You ask: “ Why then should the father make demands of love,
obedience, and sacrifice from his young child ?
No sensible father ever demanded love from his child, Every
civilised father knows that love rises like the perfume from a
flower. You cannot command it by simple authority. It cannot
obey A father demands obedience from a child for the good ot
the child and for the good of himself. But suppose the father to
be infinite—why should the child sacrifice anything for him ?
But it may be that you answer all these questions, all these
difficulties, by admitting, as you have in your Remarks, “ that these
problems are insoluble by our understanding.’
Why, then, do you accept them? Why do you defend that
which you cannot understand ? Why does your reason volunteer
as a soldier under the flag of the incomprehensible ?
I asked of Dr. Field, and I ask again, this question : Why should
and infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve
the vile ?
,
What do I mean by this question ? Simply this : The earth
quake, the lightning, the pestilence, are no respecters of persons.
The vile are not always destroyed, the good are not always saved.
I asked: Why should God treat all alike in this world, and m
another make an infinite difference ? This, I suppose, is “ insoluble
to our understanding.”
_
.
Why should Jehovah allow his worshippers, his. adorers, to be
destroyed by his enemies ? Can you by any possibility answer this
question ?
You may account for all these inconsistencies, these cruel con
tradictions, as John Wesley accounted for earthquakes when he
insisted that they were produced by the wickedness of men, and
that the only way to prevent them was for everybody to believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ. And you may have some way of showing
that Mr. Wesley’s idea is entirely'consistent with the theories of Mr.
Darwin.
You seem to think that’as long as there is more goodness than
evil in the world, as long as there is more joy than sadness., we
are compelled to infer that the author of the world is infinitely
good, powerful and wise, and as long as a majority are out of
gutters and prisons, the “ divine scheme ” is a success.
According to this system of logic, if there weie a few more
unfortunates, if there was just a little more evil than good, then
we should be driven to acknowledge that the world was created by
an infinite malevolent being.
As a matter of fact, the history of the world has been such that
�( 30 )
not only your theologians but your apostles, and not only your
apostles but your prophets, and not only your prophets but your
Jehovah, have all been forced to account for the evil, the injustice
and the suffering, by the wickedness of man, the natural depravity
of the human heart and the wiles and machinations of a malevo
lent being second only in power to Jehovah himself,
Again and again you have called me to account for “ mere sug
gestions and assertions without proof ” and yet your remarks'’ are
filled with assertions and mere suggestions without proof.
You admit that “great believers are not able to explain the
inequalities of adjustment between human beings and the conditions
in which they have been set down to work out their destiny.”
How do you know “ that they have been set down to work out
their destiny ? If that was so, and is, the purpose, then the
being who settled the “ destiny,” and the means by which it was
to be “ worked out,” is responsible for all that happens.’
And is this the end of your argument, “ That you are not able
to explain the inequalities of adjustment between human beings ” p
Is the solution of this problem beyond your power ? Does the
Bible shed no light ? Is the Christian in the presence of this
question as dumb as the Agnostic ? When the injustice of this
world is so flagrant that you cannot harmonise that awful fact
with the wisdom and goodness of an infinite God, do you not see
that you have surrendered, or at least that you have raised a flag
of truce beneath which your adversary accepts as final your stated
ment that you do not know and that your imagination is not suffi
cient to frame an excuse for God ?
It gave me great pleasure to find that at last even you have been
driven to say that ‘‘ it is a duty incumbent upon us respectively,
according to our means and opportunities, to decide by the use of
the faculty of reason given us, the great questions of natural and
revealed religion.”
You admit “that I am to decide for myself, by the use of my
reason,” whether the Bible is the word of God or not, whether
there is any revealed religion, and whether there be or be not an
infinite being who created and who governs this world.
You also admit that we are to decide these questions according
to the balance of the evidence.
Is this in accordance with the doctrine of Jehovah ? Did
Jehovah say to the husband that if his wife became convinced,
according to her means and her opportunities, and decided accord
ing to her reason, that it was better to worship some other God
than Jehovah, then that he was to say to her : “ You are entitled
�( 31. )
to decide according to the balance of the evidence as it seems to
you ”?
Have you abandoned Jehovah?
Is man more just than he?
Have you appealed from him to the standard of reason ? Is it
possible that the leader of the English Liberals is nearer civilised
than Jehovah ?
Do you know that in this sentence you demonstrate the existence
of a dawn in your mind ? This sentence makes it certain that in
the East of the midnight of Episcopal superstition there is. the
Herald of the coming day. And if this sentence shows a dawn,
what shall I say of the next:
“ We are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in
this province any rule of investigation except such as common sense
teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life ” ?
This certainly is a morning star. Let me take this statement,
let me hold it as a torch, and by its light I beg of you to read the
Bible once again.
Is it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and loving
■God would drown a world that he had taken no means to civilise—
to whom he had given no Bible, no gospel, taught no scientific
fact, and in which the seeds of art had not been sown ; that he
would create a world that ought to be drowned ? That a being
of infinite wisdom would create a rival, knowing that the rival
would fill perdition with countless souls destined to suffer eternal
pain ? Is it according to common sense that an infinitely good
■God would order some of his children to kill others ? That he
would command soldiers to rip open with the sword of war the
bodies of women—wreaking vengeance on babes unborn? Is it
according to reason that a good, loving, compassionate, and just
■God would establish slavery among men, and that a pure God
would uphold polygamy ? Is it according to common sense that
he who wished to make men merciful and loving would demand
the sacrifice of animals, so that his altars would be wet with the
blood of oxen, sheep, and doves ? Is it according to reason that a
good God would inflict tortures upon his ignorant children—that
he would torture animals to death : and is it in accordance with
common sense and reason that this God would create countless
billions of people knowing that they would be eternally damned ?
What is common sense ? Is it the result of observation, reason,
and experience, or is it the child of credulity ?
There is this curious fact: The far past and the far future seem
to belong to the miraculous and the monstrous. The present, as
a rule, is the realm of common sense. If you say to a man :
�( 32 )
“Eighteen hundred years ago the dead were raised,” he will
reply : “Yes, I know that.” And if you say : “A hundred thou
sand years from now all the dead will be raised,” he will pro
bably reply : “ I presume so.” But if you tell him : “ I saw a
dead man raised to-day,” he will ask, “ From what madhouse haveyou escaped ? ”
The moment we decide “ according to reason,” “ according to
the balance of evidence,” we are charged with having “ violated
the laws of social morality and decency,” and the defender of the
miraculous and the incomprehensible takes another position.
The theologian has a city of refuge to which he flies—an old
breastwork behind which he kneels—a rifle-pit into which he
crawls. You have described this city, this breastwork, this riflepit, and also the leaf under which the ostrich of theology thrusts
its head. Let me quote :
“ Our demands for evidence must be limited by the general
reason of the case. Does that general reason of the case make it
probable that a finite being, with a finite place in a comprehensive
scheme devised and administered by a being who is infinite, would'
be able even to embrace within his view, or rightly to appreciate
all the motives or aims that there may have been in the mind of
the divine disposer ? ”
And this is what you call “ deciding by the use of the faculty
of reason,” “ according to the evidence,” or at least “'according to
the balance of evidence.” This is a conclusion reached by a “ rule
of investigation such as common sense teaches us to use in the
ordinary conduct of life.” Will you have the kindness to explain
what it is to act contrary to evidence, or contrary to common
sense ? Can you imagine a superstition so gross that it cannot be
defended by that argument ?
Nothing, it seems to me, could have been easier than for Jehovah
to have reasonably explained his scheme. You may answer that
the human intellect is not sufficient to understand the explanation.
Why then do not theologians stop explaining ? Why do they feel
it incumbent upon them to explain that which they admit God
would have explained had the human mind been capable of under
standing it ?
How much better would it have been if Jehovah had said a few
things on these subjects. It always seemed wonderful to me that
he spent several days and nights on Mount Sinai explaining toMoses how he could detect the presence of leprosy, without once
thinking to give him a prescription for its cure.
There were thousands and thousands of opportunities for this-
�( 33 )
God to withdraw from these questions the shadow and the cloud.
When Jehovah out of the whirlwind asked questions of Job, how
much better it would have been if Job had asked and Jehovah
had answered.
You say that we should be governed by evidence and by common
sense. Then you tell us that the questions are beyond the reach
of reason, and with which common sense has nothing to do. If we
then ask for an explanation, you reply in the scornful challenge of
Dante.
You seem to imagine that every man who gives an opinion,
takes his solemn oath that the opinion is the absolute end of all
investigation on that subject.
In my opinion, Shakespeare was, intellectually, the greatest of
the human race, and my intention was simply to express that view.
It never occurred to me that any one would suppose that I thought
Shakespeare a greater actor than Garrick, a more wonderful com
poser than Wagner, a better violinist than Remenyi, or a heavier
man than Daniel Lambert. It is to be regretted that you were
misled by my words and really supposed that I intended to say
that Shakespeare was a greater general than Caesar.
But, after
all, your criticism has no possible bearing on the point at issue.
Is it an effort to avoid that which cannot be met? The real ques
tion is this : If we cannot account for Christ without a miracle,
how can we account for Shakespeare ? Dr. Field took the ground
that Christ himself was a miracle ; that it was impossible toaccount for such a being in any natural way; and, guided by com
mon sense, guided by the rule of investigation such as common
sense teaches, I called attention to Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius,
and Shakespeare.
In another place in your remarks, when my statement about,
Shakespeare was not in your mind, you say : “ All is done by
steps—nothing by strides, leaps or bounds—all from protoplasm
up to Shakespeare.” Why did you end the series with Shake
speare ? Did you intend to say Dante or Bishop Butler ?
It is curious to see how much ingenuity a great man exercisea
when guided by what he calls “ the rule of investigation as sug
gested by common sense.” I pointed out some things that Christ?
did not teach—among others, that he said nothing with regard to.
the family relation, nothing against slavery, nothing about educa
tion, nothing as to the rights and duties of nations, nothing as to.
any scientific truth. And this is answered by saying that “ I am
quite able to point out the way in which the Savior of the world
might have been much greater as a teacher than he actually was.”
B
�( 34 )
Is this an answer, or is it simply taking refuge behind a name ?
Would it not have been better if Christ had told his disciples that
they must not persecute; that they had no right to destroy their
fellow men ; that they must not put heretics in dungeons, or destroy
them with flames ; that they must not invent and use instruments
of torture ; that they must not appeal to brutality, nor endeavor to
sow with bloody hands the seeds of peace ? Would it not have
been far better had he said : “ I come not to bring a sword, 'but
peace ” ? Would not this have saved countless cruelties and count
less lives ?
You seem to think that you have fully answered my objection
when you say that Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of
marriage.
Why should a husband and wife be compelled to live with each
ether after love is dead ? Why should the wife still be bound in
indissoluble chains to a husband who is cruel, infamous and false ?
Why should her life be destroyed because of his ? Why should
she be chained to a criminal and an outcast ? Nothing can be
more unphilosophic than this. Why fill the world with the chil
dren of indifference and hatred ?
The marriage contract is the most important, the most sacred,
that human beings can make. It will be sacredly kept by good
men and by good women. But if a loving woman—tender, noble,
and true—makes this contract with a man whom she believed to
be worthy of all respect and love, and who is found to be a cruel,
worthless wretch, why should her life be lost ?
Do you not know that the indissolubility of the marriage contract
leads to its violation, forms an excuse for immorality, eats out the
very heart of truth, and gives to vice that which alone belongs to
love ?
But in order that you may know why the objection was raised,
1 call your attention to the fact that Christ offered a reward, not
•only in this world, but in another, to any husband who would
desert his wife. And do you know that this hideous offer caused
millions to desert their wives and children ?
Theologians have the habit of using names instead of arguments,
-of appealing to some man, great in some direction, to establish
■their creed ; but we all know that no man is great enough to be
■an authority, except in that particular domain in which he won his
-eminence ; and we all know that great men are not great in all
-directions. Bacon died a believer in the Ptolemaic system of
■astronomy. Tycho Brahe kept an imbecile in his service, putting
down with great care the words that fell from the hanging lip of
�( 35 )
idiocy, and then endeavored to put them together in a way to form
prophecies. Sir Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft not only, but
in its lowest and most vulgar forms;. and some of the greatest men
of antiquity examined the entrails of birds to find the secrets of
the future.
It has always seemed to me that reasons are better than names.
After taking the ground that Christ could not have been a
greater teacher than he actually was, you ask: “ Where would
have been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed population
of a particular age a codified religion which was to serve for all
nations, all ages, all states of civilisation ?”
Does not this question admit that the teachings of Christ will
not serve for all nations, all ages and all states of civilisation ?
But let me ask : If it was necessary for Christ “ to deliver to an
uninstructed population of a particular age a certain religion suited
only for that particular age,” why should a civilised and scientific
age eighteen hundred years afterwards be absolutely bound by that
religion ? Do you not see that your position cannot be defended,
and that you have provided no way for retreat ? If the religion of
Christ was for that age, is it for this ? Are you 'willing to admit
that the Ten Commandments are not for all time ? If, then, four
thousand years before Christ, commandments were given not
simply for “ an uninstructed population of a particular age, but for
all time,” can you give a reason why the religion of Christ should
not have been of the same character ?
In the first place you say that God has revealed himself to the
world—that he has revealed a religion; and in the next place, that
“ he has not revealed a perfect religion, for the reason that no room
would be left for the career of human thought.”
Why did not God reveal this imperfect religion to all people
instead of to a small and insignificant tribe, a tribe without
commerce and without influence among the nations of the world ?
Why did he hide this imperfect light under a bushel ? If the light
was necessary for one, was it not necessary for all ? And why did
he drown a world to whom he had not even given that light ?
According to your reasoning, would there not have been left
greater room for the career of human thought, had no revelation
been made ?
You say that “you have known a person who, after studying the
old classical or Olympian religion for a third part of a century, at
length began to hope that he had some partial comprehension of it,
some inkling of what it meant.” You say this for the purpose of
showing how impossible it is to understand the Bible. If it is so
�( 36 )
difficult, why do you call it a revelation ? And yet, according to
your creed, the man who does not understand the revelation and
believe it, or who does not believe it, whether he understands it or
not, is to reap the harvest of everlasting pain. Ought not the
revelation to be revealed ?
In order to escape from the fact that Christ denounced the
chosen people of God as “ a generation of vipers ” and as “ whited
sepulchres,” you take the ground that the scribes and pharisees
It ..111
were not the chosen people. Of what blood were they ? IL will
not do to say that they were not the people. Can you deny that
Christ addressed the chosen people when he said : “ Jerusalem,
which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto
thee ” ?
You have called me to an account for what I said in regard to
Ananias and Sapphira. First, I am charged with having said
that the apostles conceived the idea of having all things in common,
and you denounce this as an interpolation; second, “ that motives
of prudence are stated as a matter of fact to have influenced the
offending couple,” and this is charged as an interpolation ; and,
third, that I stated that the apostles sent for the wife of Ananias ;
and this is characterised as a pure invention.
To me it seems reasonable to suppose that the idea of having all
things in common was conceived by those who had nothing, or had
the least, and not by those who had plenty. In the last verses of
the fourth chapter of the Acts, you will find this :
“ Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were
possessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things
that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet : and distribution
was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by
the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the son of
consolation), a Levite and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it,
and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Now it occurred to me that the idea was in all probability sug
gested by the men at whose feet the property was laid. It never
entered my mind that the idea originated with those who had land
for sale. There may be a different standard by which human
nature is measured in your country, than in mine ; but if. the
thing had happened in the United States, I feel absolutely positive
that it would have been at the suggestion of the apostles.
“ Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession and kept back part
of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part and
laid it at the apostles feet.”
In my Letter to Dr. Field I stated—not at the time pretending
�( 37 )
to quote from the New Testament—that Ananias and Sapphira,
after talking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the
collaterals, probably concluded to keep a little, just enough to keep
them from starvation if the good and pious bankers should abscond.
It never occurred to me that any man would imagine that this was
a quotation, and I feel like asking your pardon for having led you
into this error. We are informed in the Bible that “ they kept
back a part of the price.” It occurred to me, “judging by the
rule of investigation according to common sense,” that there was a
reason for this, and I could think of no reason except that they did
not care to trust the apostles with all, and that they kept back just
a little, thinking it might be useful if the rest should be lost.
According to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks
to Ananias,
“ Ananias fell down and gave up the ghost; . . . and the young men
arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was
about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was
done, came in.”
Whereupon Peter said :
“ Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for
so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together
to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have
buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she
down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost; and the young men
came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her
husband.”
The only objection found to this is, that I inferred that the
apostles had sent for her. Sending for her was not the offence.
The failure to tell her what had happened to her husband was the
offence—keeping his fate a secret from her in order that she might
be caught in the same net that had been set for her husband by
Jehovah. This was the offence. This was the mean and cruel
thing to which I objected. Have you answered that ?
Of course, I feel sure that the thing never occurred ; the proba
bility being that Ananias and Sapphira never lived and never died.
It is probably a story invented by the early Church to make the
collection of subscriptions somewhat easier.
And yet we find a man in the nineteenth century, foremost of
his fellow-citizens in the affairs of a great nation, upholding this
barbaric view of God.
Let me beg of you to use your reason “ according to the rule
suggested by common sense.” Let us do what little we can to
rescue the reputation, even of a Jewish myth, from the calumnies
of Ignorance and Fear.
�( 38 )
So, again, I am charged with having given certain words as a
quotation from the Bible in which two passages are combined:
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who
believe not shall be damned. And these shall go away into ever
lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
They were given as two passages. No one for a moment sup
posed that they would be read together as one, and no one imagined
that any one in answering the argument would be led to "believe
that they were intended as one. Neither was there in this the
slightest negligence, as I was answering a man who is perfectly
familiar with the Bible. The objection was too small to make. It
is hardly large enough to answer—and had it not been made by
you it would not have been answered.
You are not satisfied with what I have said upon the subject
of immortality. What I said was this: 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.
You answer this by saying that “ the Egyptians were believers
in immortality, but were not a people of high intellectual develop
ment.”
How such a statement tends to answer what I have said, is
beyond my powers of discernment. Is there the slightest con
nection between my statement and your objection ?
You may make still another answer, and say that “ the ancient
Greeks were a race of perhaps unparalleled intellectual capacity,
and that notwithstanding that, the most powerful mind of the
Greek philosophy, that of Aristotle, had no clear conception of a
personal existence in a future state ?” May I be allowed to ask
this simple question : Who has ?
Are you urging an objection to the dogma of immortality, when
you say that a race of unparalleled ‘ intellectual capacity had no
confidence in it ? Is that a doctrine believed only by people who
lack intellectual capacity ? I stated that the idea of immortality
was born of love. You reply, “The Egyptians believed it, but
they were not intellectual.” Is not this a non sequitur ? The
question is : Were they a loving people ?
Does history show that there is a moral governor of the world ?
What witnesses shall we call ? The billions of slaves who were
paid with blows ?—the countless mothers whose babes were sold ?
�( 39 )
Have we time to examine the Waldenses, the Covenanters of Scot
land, the Catholics of Ireland, the victims of St. Bartholomew, of
the Spanish Inquisition, all those who have died in flames ? Shall
we hear the story of Bruno ? Shall we ask Servetus ? Shall we
ask the millions slaughtered by Christian swords in America—all
the victims of ambition, of perjury, of ignorance, of superstition and
revenge, of storm and earthquake, of famine, flood and fire ?
Can all the agonies and crimes, can all the inequalities of the
world be answered by reading the “ noble Psalm ” in which are
found the words : “ Call upon me in the day of trouble, so I will
hear thee, and thou shalt praise me ?” Do you prove the truth of
these fine words, this honey of Trebizond, by the victims of reli
gious persecution ? Shall we hear the sighs and sobs of Siberia ?
Another thing. Why should you, from the page of Greek
history, with the sponge of your judgment, wipe out all names but
one, and tell us that the most powerful mind of the Greek philo
sophy was that of Aristotle ? How did you ascertain this fact ?
Is it not fair to suppose that you merely intended to say that,
according to your view, Aristotle had the most powerful mind
among all the philosophers of Greece ? I should not call attention
to this, except for your criticism on a like remark of mine as to the
intellectual superiority of Shakespeare. But if you knew the
trouble I have had in finding out your meaning, from your words,
you would pardon me for calling attention to a single line from
Aristotle : “ Clearness is the virtue of style.”
To me Epicurus seems far greater than Aristotle. He had
clearer vision. His cheek was closer to the breast of Nature, and
he planted his philosophy nearer to the bed-rock of fact. He was
practical enough to know that virtue is the means and happiness
the end ; that the highest philosophy is the art of living. He
was wise enough to say that nothing is of the slightest value to
man that does not increase or preserve his well-being, and he was
great enough to know and courageous enough to declare that all
the gods and ghosts were monstrous phantoms born of ignorance
and fear.
I still insist that human affection is the foundation of the idea of
immortality; that love was the first to speak that word, no matter
whether they who spoke it were savage or civilised, Egyptian or
Greek. But if we are immortal, if there be another world, why
was it not clearly set forth in the Old Testament ? Certainly, the
authors of that book had an opportunity to learn it from the
Egyptians. Why was it not revealed by Jehovah ? Why did he
waste his time in giving orders for the consecration of priests—in
�( 40 )
saying that they must have sheep’s blood put on their right ears
and on their right thumbs and on their right big toes ? Could a
God with any sense of humor give such directions, or watch without
huge laughter the performance of such a ceremony ? In order to
see the beauty, the depth and tenderness of such a consecration,
is it essential to be in a state of “ reverential calm ” ?
Is it not strange that Chist did not tell of another world dis
tinctly, clearly, without parable, and without the mist of 'meta
phor ?
The fact is that the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and
the Romans taught the immortality of the soul, not as a glittering
guess—a possible perhaps—but as a clear and demonstrated truth,
for many centuries before the birth of Christ.
If the Old Testament proves anything, it is that death ends all.
And the New Testament, by basing immortality on the resurrection
of the body, but “keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks
it to oui‘ hope.”
In my reply to Dr. Field, I said: “ The truth is, that no one
can justly be held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks
without asking our consent; we believe, or 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 for
mation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of
desire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we
wish.”
Does the brain think without our consent ? Can we control our
thought ? Can we tell what we are going to think to-morrow ?
Can we stop thinking ?
Is belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a
product of the will ? Can the scales in which reason weighs
evidence be turned by the will ? Why then should evidence be
weighed ? If it all depends on the will, what is evidence ? Is
there any opportunity of being dishonest in the formation of an
opinion ? Must not the man who forms the opinion know what it
is ? He cannot knowingly cheat himself. He cannot be deceived
with dice that he loads. He cannot play unfairly at solitaire
without knowing that he has lost the game. He cannot knowingly
weigh with false scales and believe in the correctness of the result.
You have not even attempted to answer my arguments upon
these points, but you have unconsciously avoided them. You did
not attack the citadel. In military parlance, you proceeded to
“ shell the woods.” The noise is precisely the same as though
�( 41 )
•every shot had been directed against the enemy’s position, but the
result is not. You do not seem willing to implicitly trust the
correctness of your aim. You prefer to place the target after the
shot.
Tke question is whether the will knowingly can change evidence,
and whether there is any opportunity of being dishonest in the
formation of an opinion. You have changed the issue. You have
erased the word formation and interpolated the word expression.
Let us suppose that a man has given an opinion, knowing that
it is not based on any fact. Can you say that he has given his
opinion ? The moment a prejudice is known to be a prejudice, it
disappears. Ignorance is the soil in which prejudice must grow.
Touched by a ray of light, it dies. The judgment of man may be
warped by prejudice and passion, but it cannot be consciously
warped. It is impossible for any man to be influenced by a known
prejudice, because a known prejudice cannot exist.
I am not contending that all opinions have been honestly ex
pressed. What I contend is that when a dishonest opinion has
been expressed it is not the opinion that was formed.
The cases suggested by you are not in point. Fathers are hon
estly swayed, if really swayed, by love; and queens and judges
have pretended to be swayed by the highest motives, by the clearest
evidence, in order that they might kill rivals, reap rewards, and
gratify revenge. But what has all this to do with the fact that he
who watches the scales in which evidence is weighed knows the
actual result ?
Let us examine your case : If a father is consciously swayed by
his love for his son, and for that reason says that his son is
innocent, then he has not expressed his opinion. If he is uncon
sciously swayed and says that his son is innocent, then he has
expressed his opinion. In both instances his opinion was inde
pendent of his will; but in the first instance he did not express
his opinion. You will certainly see this distinction between the
formation and the expression of an opinion.
The same argument applies to the man who consciously has a
desire to condemn. Such a conscious desire cannot affect the.
testimony—cannot affect the opinion. Queen Elizabeth undoubt
edly desired the death of Mary Stuart, but this conscious desire
could not have been the foundation on which rested Elizabeth’s
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of her rival. It is barely
possible that Elizabeth did not express her real opinion. Do you
believe that the English judges in the matter of the Popish Plot
gave judgment in accordance with their opinions ? Are you satisfied
�( 42 )
that Napoleon expressed his real opinion, when he justified himself
for the assassination of the Due d’Enghien ?
If you answer these questions in the affirmative, you admit that
I am right. If you answer in the negative, you admit that you are
wrong. The moment you admit that the opinion formed cannot
be changed by expressing a pretended opinion, your argument is
turned against yourself.
It is admitted that prejudice strengthens, weakens and colors
evidence ; but prejudice is honest. And when one acts knowingly
against the evidence, that is not by reason of prejudice.
According to my views of propriety, it would be unbecoming for
me to say that your argument on these questions is a a piece of plausible shallowness.” Such language might be regarded as lack
ing “ reverential calm,” and I therefore refrain from even
characterising it as plausible.
Is it not perfectly apparent that you have changed the issue, and
that instead of showing that opinions are creatures of the will, you
have discussed the quality of actions ? What have corrupt and
cruel judgments pronounced by corrupt and cruel judges to do with
their real opinions ? When a judge forms one opinion and renders
another he is called corrupt. The corruption does not consist in
forming his opinion, but in rendering one that he did not form.
Does a dishonest creditor, who incorrectly adds a number of items
making the aggregate too large, necessarily change his opinion as
to. the relations of numbers ? When an error is known, it is not a
mistake ; but a conclusion reached by a mistake, or by a prejudice,
or by both, is a necessary conclusion. He who pretends to come
to a conclusion by a mistake which he knows is not a mistake,
knows that he has not expressed his real opinion.
Can anything be more illogical than the assertion that because
a boy reaches, through negligence in adding figures, a wrong result,
that he is accountable for his opinion of the result ? If he knew
he was negligent what must his opinion of the result have been ?
So with the man who boldly announces that he has discovered
the numerical expression of the relation sustained by the diameter
to the circumference of a circle. If he is honest in the announce
ment, then the announcement was caused not by his will but by
his ignorance. His will cannot make the announcement true, and
he could not by any possibility have supposed that his will could
affect the correctness of his announcement. The will of one who
thinks that he has invented or discovered what is called perpetual
motion, is not at fault. The man, if honest, has been misled; if
not honest, he endeavors to mislead others. There is prejudice,
�( 43 )
and prejudice does raise a clamor, and the intellect is affected and
the judgment is darkened and the opinion is deformed; but th©
prejudice is real and the clamor is sincere and the judgment is
upright and the opinion is honest.
The intellect is not always supreme. It is surrounded by clouds.
It sometimes sits in darkness. It is often misled—sometimes, in
superstitious fear, it abdicates. It is not always a white light.
The passions and prejudices are prismatic—they color thoughts.
Desires betray the judgment and cunningly mislead the will.
You seem to think that the fact of responsibility is in danger
unless it rests upon the will, and this will you regard as something
without a cause, springing into being in some mysterious way
without father or mother, without seed or soil, or rain or light.
You must admit that man is a conditioned being—that he has
wants, objects, ends, and aims, and that these are gratified and
attained only by the use of means. Do not these wants and these
objects have something to do with the will, and does not the intellect
have something to do with the means ? Is not the will a product ?
Independently of conditions, can it exist ? Is it not necessarily
produced? Behind every wish and thought, every dream and
fancy, every fear and hope, are there not countless causes ? Man
feels shame. What does this prove ? He pities himself. What
does this demonstrate ?
The dark continent of motive and desire has never been explored.
In the brain, that wondrous world with one inhabitant, there are
recesses dim and dark, treacherous sands and dangerous shores,
where seeming sirens tempt and fade ; streams that rise in unknown
lands from hidden springs, strange seas with ebb and flow of tides,
resistless billows urged by storms of flame, profound and awful
depths hidden by mist of dreams, obscure and phantom realms
where vague and fearful things are half revealed, jungles where
passion’s tigers crouch, and skies of cloud and blue where fancies
fly with painted wings that dazzle and mislead ; and the poor
sovereign of this pictured world is led by old desires and ancient
hates, and stained by crimes of many vanished years, and pushed
by hands that long ago were dust, until he feels like some bewildered
slave that Mockery has throned and crowned.
No one pretends that the mind of man is perfect—that it is not
affected by desires, colored by hopes, weakened by fears, deformed
by ignorance and distorted by superstition. But all this has nothing
to do with the innocence of opinion.
It may be that the Thugs were taught that murder is innocent;
but did the teachers believe what they taught ? Did the pupils
�( 44 )
believe the teachers ? Did not Jehovah teach that the act that
we describe as murder was a duty ? Were not his teachings prac
ticed by Moses and Joshua and Jephthah and Samuel and David ?
Were they honest ? But what has all this to do with the point at
issue ?
Society has the right to protect itself, even from honest murderers
and conscientious thieves. The belief of a criminal does not disarm
society; it protects itself from him as from a poisonous serpent, or
from a beast that lives on human flesh. We are under no obligation
to stand still and allow ourselves to be murdered by one who
honestly thinks that it is his duty to take our lives. And yet accords
ing to your argument, we have no right to defend ourselves from
honest Thugs. Was Saul of Tarsus a Thug when he persecuted
Christians “ even unto strange cities ” ? Is the Thug of India more
ferocious than Torquemada, the Thug of Spain ?
If belief depends upon the will, can all men have correct opinions
who will to have them ? Acts are good, or bad, according to
their consequences, and not according to the intentions of the actors.
Honest opinions may be wrong, and opinions dishonestly expressed
may be right.
Do you mean to say that because passion and prejudice, the
reckless “ pilots ’twixt the dangerous shores of will and judgment,”
sway the mind, that the opinions which you have expressed in youi’
Demarks to me are not your opinions ? Certainly you will admit
that in all probability you have prejudices and passions, and if so,
can the opinions that you have expressed, according to your argu
ment, be honest ? My lack of confidence in your argument
gives me perfect confidence in your candor. You may remember
the philosopher who retained his reputation for veracity, in spite
of the fact that he kept saying : “ There is no truth in man.”
Are only those opinions honest that are formed without any
interference of passion, affection, habit or fancy ? What would
the opinion of a man without passions, affections, or fancies be
worth ? The alchemist gave up his search for a universal solvent
upon being asked in what kind of a vessel he expected to keep it
when found.
It may be admitted that Biel “ shows us how the life of Dante
co-operated with his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities to
make him what he was,” but does this tend to show that Dante
changed his opinions by an act of his will, or that he reached
honest opinions by knowingly using false weight and measures ?
You must admit that the opinions, habits and religions of men
depend, at least in some degree, on race, occupation, training and
�capacity. Is not every thoughtful man compelled to agree with
Edgar Fawcett, in whose brain are united the beauty of the poet
and the subtlety of the logician—
“ Who sees how vice her venom wreaks
On the frail babe before it speaks,
And how heredity enslaves
With ghostly hands that reach from graves ” ?
Why do you hold the intellect criminally responsible for opinions,
when you admit that it is controlled by the will ? And why do you
hold the will responsible, when you insist that it is swayed by the
passions and affections ? But all this has nothing to do with the
fact that every opinion has been honestly formed, whether honestly
expressed or not.
No one pretends that all governments have been honestly formed
and honestly administered. All vices, and some virtues, are re
presented in most nations. In my opinion a republic is far better
than a monarchy. The legally expressed will of the people is the
only rightful sovereign. This sovereignty, however, does not
embrace the realm of thought or opinion, In that world, each
human being is a sovereign—throned and crowned : One is a
majority. The good citizens of that realm give to others all rights
that they claim for themselves, and those who appeal to force are
the only traitors.
The existence of theological despotisms, of God-anointed kings,
does not tend to prove that a known prejudice can determine the
weight of evidence. When men were so ignorant as to suppose
that God would destroy them unless they burnt heretics, they
lighted the fagots in self-defence.
Feeling as I do that man is not responsible for his opinions, I
characterised persecution for opinion’s sake as infamous. So it
is perfectly clear to me, that it would be the infamy of infamies
for an infinite being to create vast numbers of men knowing that
they would suffei' eternal pain. If an infinite God creates a man
on purpose to damn him, or creates him knowing that he will be
damned, is not the crime the same ? We make mistakes and
failures because we are finite ; but can you conceive of any excuse
for an infinite being who creates failures ? If you had the power
to change, by a wish, a statue into a human being, and you knew
that this being would die without a “ change of heart ” and suffer
endless pain, what would you do ?
Can you think of any excuse for an earthly father, who, having
wealth, learning, and leisure, leaves his own children in ignorance
and darkness ? Do you believe that a God of infinite wisdom,
�( 46 )
justice, and love, called countless generations of men into being,
knowing that they would be used as fuel for the eternal fire ?
Many will regret that you did not give your views upon the
main questions—the principal issues—involved, instead of calling
attention, for the most part, to the unimportant. If men were
discussing the causes and results of the Franco-Prussian war, it
would hardly be worth while for a third person to interrupt the
argument for the purpose of calling attention to a misspelled word
in the terms of surrender.
If we admit that man is responsible for his opinions and his
thoughts,, and that his will is perfectly free, still these admissions
do not even tend to prove the inspiration of the Bible, or the
“ divine scheme of redemption.”
In my judgment, the days of the supernatural are numbered.
The dogma of inspiration must be abandoned. As man advances
—as his intellect enlarges, as his knowledge increases, as his ideals
become nobler, the Bibles and creeds will lose their authority—the
miraculous will be classed with the impossible, and the idea of
special providence will be discarded. Thousands of religions have
perished, innumerable gods have died, and why should the religion
of our time be exempt from the common fate ?
Creeds cannot remain permanent in a world in which know
ledge increases.
Science and superstition cannot peaceably
occupy the same brain. This is an age of investigation, of dis
covery and thought. Science destroys the dogmas that mislead
the mind and waste the energies of man. It points out the ends
that can be accomplished; takes into consideration the limits of
our faculties ; fixes our attention on the affairs of this world, and
erects beacons of warning on the dangerous shores. It seeks to
ascertain the conditions of health, to the end that life may be
enriched and lengthened, and it reads with a smile this passage :
11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from
his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons,, and the
diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Science is the enemy of fear and credulity. It invites investiga
tion, challenges the reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the
uubeliever. It seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, educa
tion and liberty to the human race. It welcomes every fact and
every truth.
It has furnished a foundation for morals, a
philosophy for the guidance of man. From all books it selects the
good, and from all theories, the true. It seeks to civilise the
human race by the cultivation of the intellect and heart.
It
refines through art, music, and the drama, giving voice and ex-
�( 47 )
pression to every noble thought. The mysterious does not excite
the feeling of worship, but the ambition to understand. It does
not pray—it works. It does not answer inquiry with the malicious
cry of “ blasphemy.” Its feelings are not hurt by contradiction,
neither does it ask to be protected by law from the laughter of
heretics. It has taught man that he cannot walk beyond the
horizon, that the questions of origin and destiny cannot be
answered, that an infinite personality cannot be comprehended by
a finite being, and that the truth of any system of religion based
on the supernatural cannot by any possibility be established, such
a religion not being within the domain of evidence. And, above
all, it teaches that all our duties are here—that all our obligations
are to sentient beings; that intelligence, guided by kindness, is
the highest possible wisdom ; and that “ man believes not what he
would, but what he can.”
And after all it may be that “ to ride an unbroken horse with
the reins thrown upon his neck,” as you charge me with doing,
gives a greater variety of sensations, a keener delight, and a better
prospect of winning the race, than to sit solemnly astride of a
dead one, in “ a deep reverential calm,” with the bridle firmly in
your hand.
Again assuring you of my profound respect, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Robert G-. Ingersoll.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reply to Gladstone
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Wheeler, J. M. (Joseph Mazzini) [1850-1898]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 47 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: No. 43d in Stein checklist. Reprinted from the North American Review June,1888, with publisher's note and biography of the author by J.M. Wheeler. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N389
G5777
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Free Thought
NSS
William Ewert Gladstone
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9f18a6acd154bc921ebf9aa6e64aa5c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qEhhSrKwe8WScN6YWtzztkiyXWt-QRJCzUH3PoVUnGpP0lZj2FnajVTooXkUrSOGaVW%7EtWHPdSLZHH7naOZTTOSY8R4wy1tzuU7sZgGb4CvOLtoFKyaweMj6Pfcs2SJADpHSfmE-q7k558AhdfSXP04OemHbGcim4MJrzLzb3nBz8U9XJvMdE71VFHzh6QWn-Zt%7EkuCxZtbcweM28plySflTLhteeOrKmHdyhkKtVUaPU9Zem6XlKOlFiD%7EQlVj0BCqU2eHPYZLysaOhwk61HK2R%7EMnWQRVB7faoDB3b4V%7ErMjt0gZgx5TfPMm-o8EV3%7E495CidWAi8W0PGZO9yKnw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ad100fa724fab3a3760cfa21ad381675
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM.
tyw Jhorau
ratones.
BY
ROBERT FORDER.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
«
LONDON :
B. FORDER,
28
STONECUTTER STREET,
1 8 8 8.
E.C,
�PRINTED BY
-ARTHUR BONNER, 34 BOUVERIE STREET,
’LONDON, E.C.
�PREFACE.
'The following pages are the substance of a lecture given
by me from many platforms in London and the Provinces,
and which also has appeared in the National Reformer.
Mr. Bradlaugh has kindly given me permission to reprint
the articles, to which there are some slight alterations
-and a few additions.
I venture to hope that the facts here stated may be
useful for our friends to lend or give to enquirers whose
.minds are open to the reception of truth.
�6
tions at trials in place of oaths, had precedence over
consuls and chief magistrates, and even had power to
pardon condemned criminals. So ancient was the worship
that Ovid says it was brought to Italy from Troy by
2Eneas (“Fasti”, book iii). We are at once enabled to
trace this myth to its origin, for Butler says that St.
Ambrose declares that agues in Greek means chastity, and
in Latin, lamb. “ The parents of St. Agnes, who escaped
her fate, were, after her decease, blessed with a vision
while praying at her tomb, in which she appeared to them,
in a garment of glory, and a lamb standing by her side of
the purest white, a companion which the painters havevery appropriately given to her, not only for that cause,
but upon a consideration of a lamb being the universallyacknowledged emblem of innocence with which her name
so fortunately accords, and to preserve which coincidenceshe was no doubt, so miraculously saved from all impurity”
(Brady, “ Clavis Calendaria ”, vol. i., p. 168). St Agneshaving been transferred into the Church of England
calendar at the lieformation, a proceeding somewhat
puzzling to Brady, who was a staunch Protestant, it wasnecessary for him to present the legend of her in a piousand decorous manner.
This story, like all the others, has been turned to excellent
account by the Church. The Pope is often figuratively
called the shepherd. “ Ego sum Pastor Sonus ” is the state
ment made of himself by Innocent XI. in a medal
described by Bonanni, a title that Hartwell Horne regarded
as absolutely blasphemous. But we shall see that the
popes have been careful and business-like in their sheep
dealing. There is in Pome a magnificent church dedicated,
to St. Agnes, to which the popes were wont to repair on
St. Agnes day. Two white lambs were brought to the
high altar and solemnly blessed by his holiness; beingsheared, the wool was handed over to the nuns of St.
Agnes. By these it was woven, and of the cloth palls
were made which fetched high prices from newly-made
archbishops who were compelled to purchase them. “ That
the Pope sheared the Christian sheep is allegory ; but it is
fact also that he is a breeder of real four-legged ewes and.
rams, and knows how to sell his wool at a price that would
astonish all our farmers. He keeps a little flock of lambs,
which have been consecrated over the graves of the-
�Apostles, and. from the wool of which the bishops’ palls
are woven............ The price set'on a pall was very high
indeed ; the revenue got from this source pleased the popes
well, and John VIII. ordained that every Archbishop who*
had not obtaind his pall from Rome after three months’
time was to be considered as deposed. The popes gave,
however, in the cloak some little for the treasure of a price
they set upon it; this was yet to be saved, so the cloak
dwindled away into a worsted ribbon, a few inches wide,
with a red cross for its ornament. Such ribbons are
woven by nuns from the consecrated wool, and weigh about
three ounces. The wool of the Pope’s little flock would
fetch about three millions of florins ” {AU The Year
Hound, vol. iii., p. 431). The writer of the above tells us
that Arnold, Archbishop of Treves, was very much at a
loss when he received two palls, with the bills, from two
opposing popes, and that Marculph, Archbishop of
Mayence was compelled to sell the left leg of a golden
Christ to pay for his. Barnaby Googe, an old English
poet, has these lines :
For in St. Agnes’ church this day, the while the Mass
they sing
Two Lambs as white as snow the Nuns do yearly use
to bring.
I should hesitate to quote the following ode, which is a
long, long way after Horace, did I not And it in a Roman
Catholic author, Forster, on page 25 of his “Perennial
Calendar
It is headed “Verses on St. Agnes’ Shrine
“ Where each pretty Ba-lamb most gaily appears,
With ribbons stuck round on its tail and its ears,
On gold fringed cushions they’re stretched out to eat,
And piously ba, and to church music bleat.
Yet to me they seem crying, Alack, and Alas ’
What’s all this white damask to daisies and grass !
Then they’re brought to the Pope, and with transport
z they’re kissed,
And receive consecration from sanctity’s fist;
To chaste Nuns he consigns them, instead of their dams,
And orders the Friars to keep them from rams.”
From the Pagan deification of one of the most sacred of
human virtues there can be no doubt was evolved this
myth of Agnes. Vesta was invoked by the Roman women;
childless matrons implored her intervention in their behalf;
�8
young girls sought her aid to complement their lives ; thy
priests received their common offerings and grew rich on
the credulity of the votaries of the Goddess. As with the
heathen myth, so with its Christian successor; numberless
superstitions grew and flourished among Christian women,
artfully counselled by their priests to regard Agnes as
their patron and protectress. Our own Keats has immortalised one of these legends as only poets can. His
“Eve of St. Agnes” was being read by Shelley when that
sudden squall deprived the world of his genius and him of
life, for when his body was found he was holding in his
hand the poems of Keats opened at this very piece. Of
Madeline, Keats says :—
‘ ‘ They told her liow^ upon St. Agnes’ Eve,
Young virgins might have visions of delight,
And soft adoiings from their loves receive
Upon the honeyed middle of the night,
If ceremonies due they did aright.”
Paine rightly said that the heathens having had gods for
everything, the Christians have saints for everything. The
Church has, therefore, canonised Agnes again under her
' other name of Pudentiana, and she is remembered in the
calendar under that title on May 19th. On the door of the
church dedicated to her at Rome “ is a Lamb of God in a
medallion with the following inscription: ‘ Dead and living
I am but one ; I am at once the shepherd and the lamb ’ ”
(Didron, “ Christian Iconography”, p. 338). Every symbol
connected with the myth is Pagan too, but we reserve
observations on the “lamb” cult for Corpus Christi day.
Didron, who was an ardent Christian, has this admission
in connexion with the figure of the good shepherd: “In
conclusion, it has been affirmed at least by Pagan
antiquaries, that the subject of the Good Shepherd does
not belong properly, and as an invention of its own, to
Christianity; according to them, Christians borrowed that
idea, as they.had done the nimbus, from Pagan art”.
This contention he does not controvert, contenting himself
with saying (p. 341), “ the subject was one of love, which
had strayed into Paganism”; but that the religion of
Christ being emphatically that of love, it was entitled to
claim it as its own. Strange logic this; but the fact is
op.e to be remembered, especially in reading the Fourth
�9
’Gospel, in which the Galilean legend is presented in its
Platonic dress.
Hone, in his “ Book of Days ”, 1825 (p. 143), quotes a
'•curious story from Stopford’s “ Pagano-Papismus ” of
sheep being driven into churches and blessed by the priests
after being sprinkled with holy water. It concludes:
“Then he signed all the sheep with'the sign of the cross,
repeated thrice some Latin verses, with the Paternostei’
and some Ave Maria, sung the mass of the Holy Ghost,
and at the conclusions an offering of fourpence was for him
self and another of threepence for the poor. This cere
mony was adopted by the Romish Church from certain
customs of the ancient Romans in their worship of Pales,
tue Goddess of sheepfolds and pastures. They prayed her
to bless the sheep, and sprinkled them with water. The
-chief difference seems to have consisted in this, that the
ancient Romans let the sheep remain in their folds, while
the moderns drove them into the Church.”
SAINT
BRIDGET.
Prom Italy to Ireland is a far cry, but there is a very close
resemblance between the two countries and the two
peoples. A volume might be written on the tempers,
prejudices, sufferings and aspirations of these nations,
both having experienced the same mental and political
bondage and from precisely the same causes. Italy,
thanks to Garibaldi, Mazzini, and the band of stainless
patriots who gave or risked their lives for freedom, has at
least rid herself of Bourbon despotism and political serf
dom ; although the abject ignorance of the masses and the
accursed militarism of her present rulers—a disease that
infects the whole of Europe—still keep her poor. But let
us turn to Ireland and observe the misery, the utter
�10
hopelessness, and the dense ignorance that envelope the
peasantry of that land, keeping in remembrance that this
wretchedness is not of recent growth, but the outcome of
nearly a thousand years of misrule and centuries of super
stitious teaching. “God save Ireland” has been the
prayer of millions of patriots, but God has hithero refused
•or been unable to do so. Periodic famine has devastated
it, and removed a fourth of its population ; myriads of its
sons and daughters have fled its shores to escape starva
tion; pestilence has followed in the footsteps of want
and claimed its victims in turn. Is it not on record that
even sea-weed has to furnish life-giving sustenance on
which landlords claim their royalty ? Yet with this ever
accumulating load of horror and misery it has boasted for
a dozen centuries that it has possessed a blessing and a
jewel that more fortunate peoples have lacked—the True
Church, Ireland has reared magnificent cathedrals, built
churches in every hamlet; abbeys, convents, retreats, and
chapels have overspread its fertile valleys and its barren
hills; gold and silver ornaments have been given by its
faithful children to deck the shrines of dead men and
women, and of mythical men and women too. Rich
vestments of the finest linen is furnished for its great
black army; tithes and church dues have been paid wiih
the utmost regularity; shiploads of luscious wines have
been imported at the cost of its votaries from Spain and
Portugal, to be miraculously transformed into the blood of
their .God, not one drop of which comes to their share. In
addition to all this faith and liberality, this suffering and
credulous people subscribes largely to Peter’s Pence for the'
Pope, to Foreign Missions and other causes to enable
heathen and heretic to share in their good fortune; and
thousands of its stalwart sons have enlisted under the flag
of foreign despots to crush liberty and heresy—pouring
out their blood under the blessings of their church on a
hundred battlefields from Fontenoy to Mentana. And
what has the church in return for all this, given to the
people ? Did the priests ever teach the people self-reliance '
or prudence ? Did they ever recommend them to restrict
their numbers to the measure of capacity of the land to
support them ? Have they ever initiated either productive
or distributive co-operation ? Did they when their power
was paramount, and their faith unchallenged in pre-
�11
\
Reformation days, give education to their devoted flocks ?
The priest to-day frequently boasts of the seminaries and
colleges founded by pious Catholics of ages past; institu
tions that were reserved for the priests to manufacture his
successor, or for the rich few whose wealth was the only
passport to knowledge.
But they have given something to Ireland. Heaven
and hell I Purgatory I St. Patrick and hundreds of other
legendary male and female saints, among whom are St.Bridget. Even this is doubtful; for the probability is
that Bridget was stolen from the old Pagan religion of
Ireland. Let us go to her priestly historian to see who
the Church alleges she was, what she did, and where shecame from.
Butler (“Lives,” vol. ii, p. 28) says she was born at
Pochard, but gives no date or particulars. She received
the veil from St. Mel, nephew of St. Patrick, flourished in
the beginning of the sixth century, and “her five modern
lives mention little else but wonderful miracles. . Thisis the usual story. Ages after the assumed period when
the saint lived, fiction supplied what is deemed essential
for the ignorant and the credulous. In a note Butler says
that her name occurs in most copies of the martyrology
which bears the name of St. Jerome, which in itself wouldi
be sufficient to prove her a Goddess, considering that that
holy saint lived in, the preceding century to herself. Her
body with those <ff St. Patrick and St. Columba, were
found in a triple vault at Downpatrick in 1185,.“ but their
monument was destroyed in the reign of King Henry
VIII. ”. The Jesuits, however, are fortunate in having
her head in their church at Lisbon, but Butler, who states
this, and also that she was buried in Downpatrick Cathe
dral, does not tell us where these lucky Jesuits got the
extra head from. But, seriously, was there ever such a
woman as St. Bridget or such men as Saints Mel and
Patrick? Was Ireland a Christian country in the fifth
century, with nunneries and kindred institutions ? History
—real history—is against such an assumption; but there
was a Bridget—Pagan, not Papal. Ireland, centuries
before the time under consideration, had a religion,
priests, temples, ritual, holy books, hymns, heaven, hell,
and Bridget. The Irish language bears ample proof that
the Phaenicians had traded on its shores, and left behind.
�12
the impress of their speech and faith. Lieutenant-Colonel
oft«1 oqTa
de Rebus Hibernicix, no. 8, p.
. -91): To those who, do not trace the origin of the
ancient Celtes and their language from the Orientals, it
is matter of wonder how the worship of Baal should be
known to the Iberno - Celts or Irish”. Again “ Bal
>nhairth ort and Bal Shia Shall the good Bal, and the
God Bal to you, are to this day common salutations in
Munster, and particularly about Waterford”. Further
he says “Ceres or Beres was worshipped as the moon ?
m Irish signifies clouds, vapors, and Be is the moon,
which compounded form Ceore. She was also named '
^eolestis and AioZerZzs, and was invoked in droughts to '
obtain ram ipsa virgo Ceolistis pluviarum pollicitatrix ;
Mertullian Apol., c. xxiii). M. Bolin thinks this deity was
Ae same Queen of Heaven, to whom the Jewish women
incense, poured out drink offerings, and made cakes
with their own hands. Ut facit placentas regince Ceadi.
I he children gathered the wood, the fathers kindled the
fire, and the women kneaded the dough to make cakes for
the Queen of Heaven1 (Jer. vii, 18). This Pagan custom
is still preserved m Ireland on the eve of St. Bridget, and
it was probably transposed to this date from the festival
of a tamed poetess of that name in the time of Paganism,
i
ailcien^ glossary now before me she is thus
■described : Brighid ban shileadh ingheau aeu Bagha ; beau dhe
Bu-inn ; 1 e Brigit, a poetess, the daughter of Dagha ; a
.goddess of Ireland. On St. Bridget’s Eve every farmer’s
wife m Ireland makes a cake called Bairin-breac; the
neighbours are invited, the madder of ale and the pipe
go round, and the evening concludes with mirth and
festivity.”
Here, then, we have the fact that, just as in all the
aeligions of the ancients the sun and the moon were
personified, and eventually had divine honors paid to them
m pre-Christian Ireland, and Ceres or Brighed was their
<Queen of Heaven. When the latter was transformed into
a Christian saint it is exceeding doubtful if the worship of
Mary had found a footing in that country. Valiancy is
not the only authority who proves the legendary character
1
is the exact rendering of the revised version : the authorised
version having’ their Queen of Heaven.
�13
*
.
of this Christian saint. Even Moore, good Catholic as hewas, is compelled to admit that “ by one of those violations
of chronology not unfrequently hazarded for the purpose
of bringing extraordinary personages together, an intimate
friendship is supposed to have existed between St. Bridget
and St. Patrick, and she is even said to have woven, at the
apostle’s own request, the shroud in which he was buried..
But with this imagined intercourse between the two saints,.
the dates of the respective lives are inconsistent: and it is
but just possible that Brigid might have seen the great
apostle of her country as she was a child of about twelve
years old when he died.” Of course Moore has no evidencefor the date of the birth or death of either, but it would
not have done for the faithful to have been apprised of
tin's difficulty. Giraldus Cambrensus says that at her cell
at Kildare—Kill dara, Cell of the Oak, there was an altar
on which perpetual fire kept ablaze, and in his time six
hundred years after Brigid’s supposed death it was still:
burning. Moore, in noticing this heathen practice, seeksto extenuate the force of our and other writers’ contention,
that the Christian Brigid was manufactured from the
Pagan Brigha.
‘ ‘ Whether this rite formed any part of the Saint’s original'
institution, or is to be considered as an innovation of later
times, it is, at all events, certain that when Kildare wasfounded, the policy of converting to the purposes of the
new faith those ancient forms and usages which had so
long been made to serve as instruments of error, was very
generally acted upon.” Exactly, even to the creation of .'
the saint out of the goddess. Moore goes on to say, “ and,
in the very choice of a site for St. Brigid’s Monastery, the
same principle is manifest, the old venerable oak, already
invested with the solemnity of druidical associations,
having, in this, as in most other instances of religiousfoundation, suggested the selection of the spot where the •
Christian temple was to rise.”
Here, then, we have four indisputable facts (1) the name
of the saint corresponds with the name of the Pagan
goddess; (2) the shrine is erected at a spot where a
druidical temple stood, which name it has since con
tinued to bear; (3) the rites attendant upon her worship'
were a continuation of the old fire-worship of the Pagan
Irish; and (4) that this was the usual course of procedure-
�14
in converting heathen rites and festivals into Christian
ones.
Another curious parallel allied to this subject is to be
found in its Priapean aspect. Payne Knight has indu
bitably shown that indecent rites were an accompaniment
of the worship of Mylitta of the Assyrians, and of Aphro
dite of the Greeks; and “while the temples of the Hindoos
possessed their establishments, most of them had bands of
-consecrated prostitutes, called the Women of the Idol, se
lected in their infancy by the Brahmas for the beauty of
their persons”. Brand, Popular Antiquities, vol. i., p. 357,
Bohn’s Edition, says: “In imitation of heathenism, the
Romanists assigned tutelar gods to distinct professions
and ranks of people (some of them not of the best sort), to
different trades, etc............... It is observable in this place
how closely Popery has in this respect copied the heathen
mythology. She has the Supreme Being for Jupiter;
■ she has substituted angels for genii, and the souls of saints
for heroes, retaining all kinds of demons ”. Then follows
a list of the saints, and the diseases and trades they pre
side over, common women having for their patrons “ St.
Magdalen, St. Afra (Aphra or Aphrodite), and St. Brigit”.
In Payne Knight’s great work on “the Worship of
Priapus ” there are engravings of most disgusting figures
of women taken from Irish churches, which the natives
•call “bad Bridgets”.
It may therefore be taken as an established fact that
this saint, honored in many lands on the 1st of February,
is no other than the Pagan concept which honored a
passion and a vice now happily regarded with abhorence.
Much as the writer desires to see self-rule in Ireland, he
-cannot conceal the fact that real progress and prosperity is
unattainable there until legends like this of St. Bridget
•and many others are exploded, and the inhabitants of that
• over-religious country are indoctrinated with Freethought.
>
*
-.1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity and paganism: St. Agnes and St. Bridget, and their pagan prototypes
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Forder, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 'The following pages are the substance of a lecture ....which has also appeared in the National Reformer' [Preface]. Printed by Arthur Bonner, London.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N273
G5081
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 (Christianity and paganism: St. Agnes and St. Bridget, and their pagan prototypes), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Christianity
NSS
Paganism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6b0420998c11500a228ef8c145e1ee52.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qQpj7BqDdcAD-FKclUxGdtT1T%7Eb2FxnGaJqwIK-IwZN1MSAbmwiff-E5G9755X4eAHONPmFFDsL-6WuU0UjQM7rty-3AqjGW7e-fGcThuoYJtvF9BztJ0PNtTSFBgAvmb1wqluKtiQuPUBM09EPF79c2lXaE6m%7EHmKH9CSOFaptd0ab43e9gB2oKfvmC%7EqgT0zrmNm8fmXb0OMKaIwzePaiLN3ogrXHzB6ObRcHBVQ4%7Euj-RLiHUmNlyb2htLBrJh8NpN2IPMpMgJS0iriZeqqsYow-6XIqbxYutKM14z511qFiWTvhG1tIHqcJN02uc6pEoaubD8rxDSpfQbDGBZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b3379561eedefc75101ed102b6600143
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECUL^SOCIETf
ART
AND
MORALITY
>
I
BY
F
COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
1
”1!
c
REPRINTED FROM
AMERICAN REVIEW.
THE
£
Price Twopence.
--------------------- _—.
■
bonbon:
* PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
J
j
1888,
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�^332-
ART AND MORALITY.
Art is the highest form of expression, and exists for
the sake of expression. Through art thoughts become
visible. Back of the forms is the desire, the longing,
the brooding, creative instinct, the maternity of mind,
the passion that gives pose and swell, outline and
color.
Of course there is no such thing as absolute beauty
or absolute morality. We now clearly perceive that
beauty and conduct are relative. We have outgrown
the provincialism that thought is back of substance, as
well as the old Platonic absurdity, that ideas existed
before the subjects of thought. So far, at least, as
man is concerned, his thoughts have been produced by
his surroundings, by the action and inter-action of
things upon his mind; and so far as man is concerned,
things have preceded thoughts. The impressions that
these things make upon us are what we know of them.
The absolute is beyond the human mind. Our know
ledge is confined to the relations that exist between the
totality of things that we call the universe and the
effect upon ourselves.
�4
Art and Morality.
Actions are deemed right or wrong according to ex
perience and the conclusions of reason. Things are
beautiful by the relation that certain forms, colors, and
modes of expression bear to us. At the foundation of
the beautiful will be found the fact of happiness, the
gratification of the senses, the delight of intellectual
discovery and the surprise and thrill of appreciation.
That which we call the beautiful wakens into life
through the association of ideas, of memories, of ex
periences—through suggestions of pleasure past and
the perception that the prophecies of the ideal have
been fulfilled.
Art cultivates and kindles the imagination, and
quickens the conscience. It is by imagination that we
put ourselves in the place of another. When the
wings of that faculty are folded, the master does not
put himself in the place of the slave ; the tyrant is not
locked in the dungeon, chained with his victim. The
inquisitor did not feel the flames that devoured the
martyr. The imaginative man, giving to the beggar,
gives to himself. Those who feel indignant at the
perpetration of wrong, feel for the instant that they are
the victims ; and when they attack the aggressor they
feel that they are defending themselves. Love and
pity are the children of the imagination.
A little while ago I heard a discussion, in regard to
the genius of George Eliot. The gentleman who
appeared as her champion took the ground that she was
a very great novelist, a most wonderful writer, and
gave as a reason that her books were written with a
distinct moral purpose; that she was endeavoring to
inculcate the value of character, of integrity, of an
�Art and Morality.
5
absolute, and utter devotion to duty, to the glory and
heroism of self-denial; that she did not create charac
ters for the sake of Art, but that under all, and in all,
and over all, was the desire to teach and enforce some
moral truth.
Upon this very question George Eliot has given her
views with great force and beauty : “ On its theoretic
and perceptive side, morality touches science; on its
■emotional side, art. Now, the products of art are
.great in proportion as they result, from that immediate
prompting of innate power which we call genius, and
not from labored obedience to a theory or rule; and
the presence of genius, or innate prompting, is directly
■opposed to the perpetual consciousness of a rule. The
.action of faculty is imperious, and excludes the reflec
tion why it should act. In the same way, in proportion
as morality is emotional, i.e., has affinity with art, it
will exhibit itself in direct sympathetic feeling and
action, and not as the recognition of a rule. Love does
not say, ‘ I ought to love ’; it loves. Pity does not
say, ‘ It is right to be pitiful ’; it pities. Justice does
not say, ‘ I am bound to be just’; it feels justly. It
is only where moral emotion is comparatively weak»
that the contemplation of a rule or theory mingles with
its action, and in accordance with this we think experi
ence, both in literature and life, has shown that the
minds which are pre-eminently didactic, which insist
■on a ‘lesson/ and despise everything that will not
•convey a moral, are deficient in sympathetic emo
tion.” ....
“ A certain poet is recorded to have said that he
'4 wished everything of his burned that did not impress
�6
Art and Morality.
some moral; even in love-verses it might be flung in
by the way/
What poet was it who took this medicinal
view of poetry ? Dr. Watts, or James Montgomery,
or some other singer of spotless life and ardent piety ?
Not at all. It was Waller. A significant fact in
relation to our position, that the predominant didactic
tendency proceeds rather from the poet’s perception
that it is good for other men to be moral, than from
any overflow of moral feeling in himself. A man who
is perpetually thinking in apothegms, who has an unintermittent flux of admonition, can have little energy
left for simple emotion/'’
This tendency, this “ disposition to see a rebuke or a
yarning in every natural object,” was called by George
Eliot the “ pedagogic fallacy ” ; and yet a gentleman
well acquainted with her writings gives a reason for the
admiration he entertains for her genius that she would
have repudiated with the greatest warmth.
Nothing to the true artist, to the real genius, is so
contemptible as the “ medicinal view.”
John Quincy Adams had the goodness to write his
views about some of the plays of Shakespeare. He read
6‘ Othello,” and read it for the purpose of finding out
what lesson Shakespeare was endeavoring to teach.
Mr. Adams gravely tells us that the play was written
for two purposes ; first, to impress upon the minds of
men and maidens that no one should marry out of his
or her blood; and second, that where a girl married
contrary to the wishes of her parents she rarely ever
came to any good. He regarded Shakespeare very
much as he did a New England minister, and supposed
�Art and Morality.
7
that he wrote “ those plays ” for the purpose of inducing
children to mind their mothers.
Probably Mr. Adams believed that “ Romeo and
Juliet” was written for the one purpose of bringing
vividly before the mind the danger of love at first sight,
and that “ Lear,” the greatest tragedy in human speech»
was produced to show that fathers could not safely
divide their property among their children.
Our fathers read with great approbation the mechani
cal sermons in rhyme written by Milton, Young and
Pollok. Those theological poets wrote for the purpose
of convincing their readers that the mind of man is
diseased, filled with infirmities, and that poetic poultices
and plasters tend to purify and strengthen the moral
nature of the human race.
Poems were written to prove that the practice df
virtue was an investment for another world, and that
whoever followed the advice found in those solemn,
insincere and lugubrious rhymes, although he might
be exceedingly unhappy in this world, would with
great certainty be rewarded in the next.
These
writers assumed that there was a kind of relation
between rhyme and religion, between verse and virtue;
and that it was their duty to call the attention of the
world to all the snares and pitfalls of pleasure. They
wrote with a purpose. They had a distinct moral end
in view. They had a plan. They were missionaries,
and their object was to show the world how wicked it
was and how good they, the writers, were. They could
not conceive of a man being so happy that everything
in nature partook of his feeling; that all the birds
were singing for him, and singing by reason of his joy;
�8
Art and Morality.
that everything sparkleci ancl shone and moved in the
glad rhythm of his heart. They could not appreciate
this feeling. They could not think of this joy guiding
the artist’s hand, seeking expression in form and color.
They did not look upon poems, pictures, and statues as
results, as children of the brain fathered by sea and
sky, by flower and star, by love and light. They were
not moved by gladness. They felt the responsibility
of perpetual duty. They had a desire to teach, to
sermonise, to point out and exaggerate the faults of
others and to describe the virtues practised by them
selves. Art became a colporteur, a distributor of tracts,
a mendicant missionary whose highest ambition was to
suppress all heathen joy.
Happy people were supposed to 'have forgotten, in a
reckless moment, duty and responsibility.
True
poetry would call them back to a realisation of their
meanness and their misery. It was the skeleton at the
feast, the rattle of whose bones had a rhythmic sound.
It was the forefinger of warning and doom held up in
presence of a smile.
These moral poets taught the unwelcome truths, and
by the paths of life put posts on which they painted
hands pointing at graves. They loved to see the pallor
on the cheek of youth, while they talked, in solemn
tones, of age, decrepitude,' and lifeless clay.
Before the eyes of love they thrust, with eager hands,
the skull of death. They crushed the flowers beneath
their feet and plaited crowns of thorns for every brow.
According to these poets, happiness was inconsistent
with virtue. The sense of infinite obligation should be
perpetually present. They assumed an attitude of
�Art and Morality.
9
■superiority.
They denounced and calumniated the
reader. They enjoyed his confusion when charged
with total depravity. They loved to paint the sufferings
of the lost, the worthlessness of human life, the little
ness of mankind, and the beauties of an unknown
world. They knew but little of the heart. They
did not know that without passion there is no virtue
and that the really passionate are the virtuous.
Art has nothing to do directly with morality or
immorality. It is its own excuse for being; it exists
for itself.
The artist who endeavors to enforce a lesson becomes
a preacher ; and the artist who tries by hint and sug
gestion to enforce the immoral, becomes a pander.
There is an infinite difference between the nude and
the naked, between the natural and the undressed.
In the presence of the pure, unconscious nude, nothing
can be more contemptible than those forms in which
are the hints and suggestions of drapery, the pretence
of exposure, and the failure to conceal. The undressed
is vulgar, the nude is pure.
The old Greek statues, frankly, proudly nude, whose
free and perfect limbs have never known the sacrilege
of clothes, were and are as free from taint, as pure, as
stainless, as the image of the morning star trembling
in a drop of perfumed dew.
Morality is the harmony between act and circum
stance. It is the melody of conduct. A wonderful
statue is the melody of proportion. A great picture
is the melody of form and- color. A great statue does
not suggest labor; it seems to have been created as a
joy. A great painting suggests no weariness and no
�10
Art and Morality.
effort; the greater, the easier it seems. So a great and
splendid life seems to have been without effort. There
is in it no idea of obligation, no idea of responsibility or
of duty. The idea of duty changes to a kind of drudgery
that which should be, in the perfect man, a perfect
pleasure.
The artist, working simply for the sake of enforcing
a moral, becomes a laborer. The freedom of genius is
lost, and the artist is absorbed in the citizen. The
soul of the real artist should be moved by this melody
of proportion as the body is unconsciously swayed by
the rhythm of symphony. No one can imagine that
the great men who chiselled the statues of antiquity
intended to teach the youth of Greece to be obedient to
their parents. We cannot believe that Michael Angelo
painted his grotesque and somewhat vulgar “ Day of
Judgment” for the purpose of reforming Italian
thieves. The subject was in all probability selected by
his employer, and the treatment was a question of art,
without the slightest reference to the moral effect, even
upon priests. We are perfectly certain that Corot
painted those infinitely poetic landscapes, those cottages,
those sad poplars, those leafless vines on weather-tinted
walls, those quiet pools, those contented cattle, those
fields flecked with light, over which bend the skies,
tender as the breast of a mother, without once thinking
of the ten commandments. There is the same difference
between moral art and the product of true genius, that
there is between prudery and virtue.
The novelists who endeavor to enforce what they
are pleased to call “ moral truth,” cease to be artists.
They create two kinds of characters—types and cari
�Art and Morality.
11
catures. The first never has lived, and the second
never will. The real artist produces neither. In his
pages you will find individuals, natural people, who
have the contradictions and inconsistencies inseparable
from humanity. The great artists “ hold the .mirror
up to nature,” and this mirror reflects with absolute
accuracy. The moral and the immoral writers that
is to say, those who have some object besides that of
art—use convex or concave mirrors, or those with un
even surfaces, and the result is that the images are
monstrous and deformed. The little novelist and the
little artist deal either in the impossible or the excep
tional. The men of genius touch the universal. Their
words and works throb in unison with the great ebb
and flow of things. They write and work for all races
and for all time.
It has been the object of thousands of reformers to
destroy the passions, to do away with desires; and could
this object be accomplished, life would become a burden,
with but one desire; that is to say, the desire for ex
tinction. Art in its highest forms increases passion,
gives tone and color and zest to life. But, while it
increases passion, it refines. It extends the horizon.
The bare necessities of life constitute a prison, a dimgeon. Under the influence of art the walls expand,
the roof rises, and it becomes a temple.
Art is not a sermon, and the artist is not a preacher.
Art accomplishes by indirection. The beautiful refines.
The perfect in art suggests the perfect in conduct. The
harmony in music teaches without intention the lesson
of proportion in life. The bird in his song has no
moral purpose, and yet the influence is humanising.
�12
Ari and Morality.
The beautiful in nature acts through appreciation and
sympathy. It does not browbeat, neither does it
humiliate. It is beautiful without regard to you.
Roses would be unbearable if in their red and per
fumed hearts were mottoes to the effect that bears eat
bad boys and that honesty is the best policy.
Art creates an atmosphere in which the proprieties,
the amenities, and the virtues unconsciously grow. The
rain does not lecture the seed. The light does not
make rules for the vine and flower.
The heart is softened by the pathos of the perfect.
The world is a dictionary of the mind, and in this
dictionary of things genius discovers analogies, resem
blances, and parallels amid opposites, likeness in differ
ence, and corroboration in contradiction. Language is
but a multitude of pictures. Nearly every work is a
work of art, a picture represented by a sound, and this
sound represented by a mark, and this mark gives not
only the sound, but the picture of something in the
outward world and the picture of something within the
mind, and with these words which were once pictures,
other pictures are made.
The greatest pictures and the greatest statues, the
most wonderful and marvellous groups, have been
painted and chiselled with words. They are as fresh
to-day as when they fell from human lips. Penelope
still ravels, weaves, and waits; Ulysses’ bow is bent,
and through the level rings the eager arrow flies; Cor
delia’s tears are falling now. The greatest gallery of
the world is found in Shakespeare’s book. The pictures
and the marbles of the Vatican and Louvre are faded,
crumbling things, compared with his, in which perfect
�Art and Morality.
13
color gives to perfect form the glow and movement of
passion’s highest life.
Everything except the truth wears, and needs to
wear, a mask. Little souls are ashamed of nature.
Prudery pretends to have only those passions that it
cannot feel. Moral poetry is like a respectable canal
that never overflows its banks. It has weirs through
which slowly and without damage any excess of feeling
is allowed to flow. It makes excuses for nature, and
regards love as an interesting convict. Moral art
paints or chisels feet, faces and rags. It hides with
drapery what it has not the genius purely to portray.
Mediocrity becomes moral from a necessity which it
has the impudence to call virtue. It pretends to regard
ignorance as the foundation of purity and insists that
virtue seeks the companionship of the blind.
Art creates, combines, and reveals. It is the highest
manifestation of thought, of passion, of love, of intui
tion. It is the highest form of expression, of history
and prophecy. It allows us to look at an unmasked
soul, to fathom the abysses of passion, to understand
the heights and depths of love.
Compared with what is in the mind of man, 'the
outward world almost ceases to excite our wonder. The
impression produced by mountains, seas, and stars is
not so great, so thrilling, as the music of Wagner.
The constellations themselves grow small when we read
« Troilus and Cressida/’ “ Hamlet ” or “ Lear.” What
are seas and stars in the presence of a heroism that
holds pain and death as naught ? W^hat are seas and
stars compared with human hearts 1 What is the
quarry compared with the statue 1
�14
Art and Morality.
Art civilises because it enlightens, develops,
strengthens, and ennobles. It deals with the beautiful,
with the passionate, with the ideal. It is the child of
the heart. To be great it must deal with the human.
It must be in accordance with the experience, with the
hopes, with the fears, and with the possibilities of man.
No one cares to paint a palace, because there is nothing
in such a picture to touch the heart. It tells of
responsibility, of the prison of the conventional. It
suggests a load, it tells of apprehension, of weariness
and ennui. The picture of a cottage, over which runs
a vine, a little home thatched with content, with its
simple life, its natural sunshine and shadow, its trees
bending with fruit, its hollyhocks and pinks, its happy
children, its hum of bees, is a poem—a smile in the
desert of this world.
The great lady, in velvet and jewels, makes but a
poor picture. There is not freedom enough in her life,
She is constrained. She is too far away from the sim
plicity of happiness. In her thought there is too much
of the mathematical. In all art you will find a touch
of chaos, of liberty; and there is in all artists a little
of the vagabond—that is to say, genius.
The nude in art has rendered holy the beauty of
woman.
Every Greek statue pleads for mothers and
sisters. From these marbles came strains of music.
They have filled the heart of man with tenderness and
worship. They have kindled reverence, admiration,
and love. The Venus de Milo, that even mutilation
cannot mar, tends only to the elevation of our race.
It is a miracle of majesty and beauty, the supreme idea
of the supreme woman. It is a melody in marble. All
�Art and Morality.
15
the lines meet in a kind of voluptuous and glad content.
The pose is rest itself. The eyes are filled with
thoughts of love. The breast seems dreaming of a child.
The prudent is not the poetic ; it is the mathemati
cal. Genius is the spirit of abandon ; it is joyous, irre
sponsible. It moves in the swell and curve of billows ;
it is careless of conduct and consequence. For a
moment the chain of cause and effect seems broken;
the soul is free. It gives an account not even to itself.
Limitations are forgotten ; nature seems obedient to the
will; the ideal alone exists; the universe is a symphony.
Every brain is a gallery of art, and every soul is, to
a greater or less degree, an artist. The pictures and
statues that now enrich and adorn the walls and
niches of the world, as well as those that illuminate the
pages of its literature, were taken originally from the
private galleries of the brain.
The soul—that is to say the artist—compares the
pictures in its own brain with the pictures that have
been taken from the galleries of others and made visible.
This soul, this artist, selects that which is nearest per
fection in each, takes such parts as it deems perfect,
puts them together, forms new pictures, new statues,
and in this way creates the ideal.
To express desires, longings, ecstacies, prophecies, and
passions in form and color; to put love, hope, heroism,
and triumph in marble ; to paint dreams and memories
with words ; to portray the purity of dawn, the inten
sity and glory of noon, the tenderness of twilight, the
splendor and mystery of night, with sounds ; to give
the invisible to sight and touch, and to enrich the com
mon things of earth with gems and jewels of the mind—
this is Art.
�MISTAKES of MOSES
By Colonel R, G. Ingersoll,
The only Complete Edition Published *i,n*
Enqland.
17
a
_ Reprinted Verbatim from the Author's Edition '
Accurate as Colenso, and fascinating
as a Novel.
136pp.
Price Is.
In Cloth Is. 6d.
L » INGERSOLL’S
ORATIONS AND ESSAY
Live Topics
*r ¡Myth and Miracle
mReal Blasphemy Social Salvation The Dying Creed
Faith and Fact ' God and Alan
Defence of Freethought
Id..
Id. «
Id. :
Id/ r
2d.
2d. ‘ ,
2d.
6d.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPA’p
‘ 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.O,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Art and morality
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: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Not in Stein checklist, but cf his Nos. 183 and 194. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N332
Subject
The topic of the resource
Art
Ethics
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 (Art and morality), 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
Art and Morals
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d913cd9ebff095abb94061b3f5fc899.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BiHVOSL9OIOHGEwpl243qfDxx4sApnuPBiYpx41eu4XHUQ0yoflvj4N4wjJW8WEm1jqhV%7Ej09I%7EeXYqDEmR6YQ-F0MusaJiF8BMOgzfJ7nL5HU3PiFUDWVhaByna2mJhd83l2%7EIwaHTJac-RgugSSsBqts9sD%7E6ZHEycYgpluS8n4H4rVDVStKYEtL6wzU9Ymv7u9GkWYPZzv-JNz7AZaQGe4wsltkRvv4b9w-RVxi2oOba9RQsKd7YfgONYXWxqUZFwnYoW5ihSma5ktHxyBVGzow2q2SskJwn3MFoZ-cNAliAbOj-GeErXH0zBMyBQLmyIn8uQJ3UaN9-0L0J%7Egw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9670b765126071aea0152887033a5a6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
K
K1
L
THE
| HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH {
8
4
<
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL
Reprinted Verbatim from the “ North American Review,”
August, 1888.
Price Twopence,
LONDON
/ PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
<■
1888.
i
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C..
�B2-6J5
35?
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.
There is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony
that he knows must exist between all known facts. It is hard for the
scientist to implicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsis
tent with a known fact. He feels that every fact is a key "to many
mysteries—that every fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual
witness. He knows that a fact has a countless number of sides, and
that all these sides will match all other facts; and he also suspects
that to understand one fact perfectly—like the fact of the attraction
of gravitation—would involve a knowledge of the universe.
It requires not only candor but courage to accept a fact. When a
new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by
the conservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept
it with the statement that they always supposed it was true.
The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree
and respectability ; it is filled with the spirit of caste ; it is associated
with great events and with great names; it is intrenched, it has an
income—it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the
parasites always defend themselves.
Long ago frightened wretches, who had by tyranny or piracy amassed
great fortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise
with God, and to let their inoney fall from their stiffening hands into
the greedy palms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries
were endowed, and in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known
as religious truths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead
hypocrites have propagated and supported their kind.
Most religions—no matter how honestly they originated—have
been established by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them
as a means to enslave, to degrade, and rob. The priest, consciously
and unconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers.
Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle—twenty
or thirty at a time—are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox
�4
The Household of Faith.
leads the way—the others follow. When the place is reached, this
Bishop Dupanloup turns and goes back for other victims.
This is the worst side : There is a better.
Honest men, believing that they have found the whole truth—the
real and only faith—filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of
propagating the “ divine creed.” They found colleges and universities,
and in perfect pious, ignorant, sincerity provide that the creed,
and nothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any pro
fessor teaches anything contrary to that, he must be instantly dis
missed—that is to say, the children must be beaten with the bones of
the dead.
These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision
to the effect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads
are changed or not, and with the further provision that the professors
who keep and repair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads
have not been changed.
There is still another side.
Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. ■ They love their
families and have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise
between their bread and their brain. On pay-day they believe—at
other times they have their doubts. They settle with their own con
sciences by giving old words new meanings. They take refuge in
allegory, hide behind parables, and barricade themselves with oriental
imagery. They give to the most frightful passages a spiritual meaning
—and while they teach the old creed to their followers, they speak a
uew philosophy to their equals.
There is still another side.
A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied.
They have no doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did.
The “ scheme of salvation ” suits them because they are satisfied that
they are embraced within its terms. They give themselves no troubleThey believe because they do not understand. They have no doubts
b ecause they do not think. They regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow
of orthodox slumber. Their souls are asleep, and they hate only those
who disturb their dreams. These people keep their creeds for future
use. They intend to have them ready at the moment of dissolution.
They sustain about the same relation to daily life that the small boats
earned by steamers do to ordinary navigation—they are for the
moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like life-preservers, are to be used
’n disaster.
�The Household of Faith.
5
We must remember that everything in nature—bad as well as good—
has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and all mis
takes carry concealed weapons.. Driven to the last corner, even nonresistance appeals to the dagger.
Vast interests—political, social, artistic, and individual—are inter
woven with all craeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been
invested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the pro
pagation and support of certain religious doctrines, and many milions
have been educated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is
more natural than that they should defend themselves—that they should
cling to a creed that gives them roof and raiment.
Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It
included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy
satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of
jts own; it answered all questions with the same readiness and the
same inaccuracy; it had within its sacred volumes the history of the
past, and the prophecies of all the future ; it pretended to know all that
was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being of the human race,
here and hereafter.
When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of
everything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his
system. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake
of the accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything
and everything that does not endanger its success.
The writers of all sacred books—the inspired prophets—had no
reason for disagreeing with the common people about the origin of
things, the creation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and
the uses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages
have endorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred
books the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of
the ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his
foundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For
many centuries the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our
bible were accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that
the world was too ignorant to question.
A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world
was discovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The
arts were born again. The world was filled with adventure ; millions
became self-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old theories were put
aside—and suddenly the old leaders of thought were found to be
�6
The Household of Faith.
ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The literature of the classic world
was discovered and translated into modern languages. The world was
circumnatigated; Copernicus discovered the true relation sustained
by our earth to the solar system, and about the beginning of the seven
teenth century many other wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609,
a Hollander found that two lenses placed in a certain relation to each
other magnified objects seen through them. This discovery was the
foundation of astronomy. In a little while it came to the knowledge
of Galileo; the result was a telescope, with which man has read the
volume of the sides.
On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his
three laws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchise
ment of the human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient
Hebrews were not astronomers. From that moment the Church became
the enemy of Science. In every possible way the inspired ignorance
was defended—the lash, the sword, the chain, the fagot and the dun
geon were the arguments used by the infuriated Church.
To such an extent was the Church prejudiced against the new
philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused to look through
the telescope of Galileo.
At last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired
writings, literally translated, did not contain the truth—the Bible was
in danger of being driven from the heavens.
The Church also had its geology. The time when the earth was
created had been definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact
had not only been stated by inspired writers, but their statement had
been endorsed by priests, but bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical
councils ; that was settled.
But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes
not always closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them ;
they observed channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams ;
they saw the vast territories that had been deposited by rivers ; their
attention was called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas—to the
deposits by volcanoes—to the sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that
had been built by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of
the lapse of time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had
been pursuing.its course about the sun for millions and millions of
ages.
The Church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every
device that cunning could suggest or ingenuityjexecute, but the conflict
�The Household oj Faith.
7
could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerend,
was in danger of being driven from the earth.
Beaten in the open field, the Church began to equivocate, to evade,
and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having
failed to harmonise the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of
genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written
to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was
not a scientific book, but that it was written in the language of the
people, and that as to unimportant things it contained the general
beliefs of its time.
The ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its
science, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its account of
the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that it had to say
on the subject of religion.
The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in
everything within it lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest
became less arrogant. The Church was forced to explain. The pulpit
had one language for the faithful and another for the philosophical
i.e., it became dishonest -with both.
The next question that arose was as to the origin of man.
The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the
stars was against the sacred volume. The Church had also been
forced to admit that the world was not created at the time mentioned
in the Bible—so that the very stones of the earth rose and united with
the stars in giving testimony against the sacred volume.
As to the creation of the world, the Church resorted to the artifice
of saying that “ days ” in reality meant long periods of time ; so that
no matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six
periods—in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to
be divided by six.
But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion or artifice was .
impossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because
jt gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the gene
rations from Adam to the Flood, and from the Flood to the birth of
Christ, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor
is given. So that, according to this account—according to the inspired
figures—man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years.
There is no room left for any people beyond Adam.
If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man ; consequently,
�8
The Household oj Faith.
we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived
and labored and suffered on this earth.
The Church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation
of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the
man. The Church cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden—
the Serpent, the Fall, and the Expulsion: these must be defended
because they are vital. Without these absurdities the system known
as Christianity cannot exist. Without the Fall, the Atonement is a
non sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were discovered and
discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck,
Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, Darwin, not only asserted, but
demonstrated, that man is not a special creation. If anything can be
established by observation, by reason, then the fact has been estab
lished that man is related to all life below him —that he has been slowly
produced through countless years ; that the story of Eden is a childish
myth ; that the Fall of Man is an infinite absurdity.
If anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has
existed upon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if
we know anything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that
they existed in a highly civilised state ; that thousands of years before
the Garden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other
their ideas by language, and that artists clothed the marble with
thoughts and passions.
This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old
Testament is untrue ; that the account was written by the ignoranc e,
the prejudice, and the egotism of the olden time.
So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that
civilisation is a growth ; that man did not commence a perfect being,
and then degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen
to the intellectual height he now occupies.
The Church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths,
because they contradict the Sacred Word. Some of the most ig-<
genious of the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that
there is no conflict—that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony
with the theories of Charles Darwin ; and these clergymen in some way
manage to retain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly
destroys it.
But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that
the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its
anthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of
�The Household oj Faith.
9
the sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the
origin of man—in other words, nothing of any particular value to the
human race.
It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its morality.
Let us examine this question.
We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if con
science is more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such
a thing as wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must admit that
slavery is immoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old
Testament upholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that
Jehovah was opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew by another.
Christians may quote the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” as
being opposed to human slavery, but after that commandment was given
Jehovah himself told his chosen people that they might “ buy their
bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen round about, and that they
should be their bondmen and their bondwomen for ever.” So all that
Jehovah meant by the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” was that
one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but that all
Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed.
It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made
only for the Jews, not for the world, because the author of these com
mandments commanded the people to whom they were given to violate
them nearly all as against the surrounding people.
A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery
was wrong. It was upheld by the Church. Ministers bought and sold
the very people for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergy
man of the English Church owned stock in slave ships, and the man
whp denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and
thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ.
Churches were built with the results of labor stolen from colored
Christians. Babes were sold from mothers and a part of the money
given to send missionaries from America to heathen lands with the
tidings of great joy. Now, every intelligent man on the earth, every
decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human slavery.
■ So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is im
moral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do
away with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to'oover the
hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The
Jehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution.
Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality ? Consider
�10
The Household of Faith.
for a moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah,
wars were waged. Remember the atrocities that were committed.
Think of a war where everything was the food of the sword. Think
for a moment of a deity capable of committing the crimes that are
described and gloated over in the Old Testament. The civilised man
has outgrown the sacred cruelties and absurdities.
There is still another side to this question.
A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural.
Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days,
that which actually occurred was not regarded as of sufficient importance
to be recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited
derision. A creed that did not fill the horizon—that did not account
for everything—that could not answer every question, would have
been regarded as worthless.
After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the
leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the
power of working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in
partnership with God, what excuse could have been made for the Re
formation ? The Protestants took the ground that the age of miracles
had passed. This was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could
not say that miracles had never been performed, because that would
take the foundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves;
consequently, they were compelled to admit that miracles were per
formed in the Apostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man
must rely upon the facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to
carry on two kinds of war: they had to contend -with those who
insisted that miracles had never been performed; and in that argu
ment they were forced to insist upon the necessity for miracles, on the
probability that they were performed, and upon the truthfulness of the
Apostles. A moment afterward, they had to answer those who con
tended that miracles were performed at that time; then they brought
forward against the Catholics the same arguments that their first
opponents had brought against them.
This has made every Protestant brain “a house divided against
itself.” This planted in the Reformation the “ irrepressible conflict.”
But we have learned more and more about what we call Nature—
about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force
is indestructible—that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from
matter—that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from force
—that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an
�The, Household of Faith.
11
effect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also a cause.
We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a miracle.
We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that it
can have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an impossibility
The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous. Most ministers
are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain miracles,
and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few congrega
tions could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously assert the
truth of the Old Testament miracles.
Miracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the
religious world. The evidence accumulates every day, in every pos
sible direction in which the human mind can investigate, that the
miraculous is simply the impossible.
Confidence in the eternal constancy ol Nature increases day by day
The scientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation—
in chemical affinities—rin the great fact of evolution, and feels abso
lutely certain that the nature of things ■will remain for ever the same.
We have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly under
stood ; that there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are
simply transparent falsehoods.
The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the
attraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light
become the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water
runs, or why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in
nature are the eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange
about the miracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes
of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to
live on the labor of others.
In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take
the exact ground occupied by the deists. They dare not defend in the
open field the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdi
ties of the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent
was still there. They have nothing to say about the Fall of Man.
They are silent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They
are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk about these things
to Sunday-schools and to the elderly members of their congregations ;
but when doing battle for the faith, they mis-state the position of their
opponents and then insist that there must be a God, and that the soul
is immortal.
We may admit the existence of an infinite being; we may admit the
�12
The Household of Faith.
immortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures
and the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or
these dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in
God and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older
than Christianity, and they have been almost universal.
Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration
of the Bible, on the Fall of Man, on the Atonement, on the dogma of
the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from
the dead, on his ascension into heaven.
Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul—not
simply the immortality of joy—but it teaches the immortality of pain,
the eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that im
morality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated
forever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and
in a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a
curse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope
of the human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most
infamous of men.
Let us see what the Church, within a few years, has been compelled
substantially to abandon—that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed
to defend.
First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures ; second, the geology ;
third, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine of
original sin, the fall of the human race ; fifth, the mathematical con
tradiction known as the Trinity ; sixth, the atonement—because it was
only on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another, that
he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another; seventh,
that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the impossible;
eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that
slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermina
tion are not merciful, 'and that nothing can be more immoral than to
punish the innocent on account of the sins of the guilty ; and, ninth,
the divinity of Christ.
All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not
afraid to think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and
the candor to express their thoughts. What then is left ?
Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true is left; it still
remains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the truth *
needs no inspiration ; neither can it be said too often that inspiration
cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment uttered in the
�The Household oj Faith.
13
Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All that is good in
the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord’s Prayer is not
affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of forgiveness, and
the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And besides, there
remains the great hope for all the human race.
What is lost ? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdi
ties, all the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures.
We have almost lost the “ hope ” of eternal pain—the “ consolation,”
of perdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has
fallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.
The great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the
clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old
creed. They have been educated in the Universities of the Sacred
Mistake—Universities that Bruno would call “ the widows of true
learning.” They have been taught to measure with a false standard
they have weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became
convinced of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them
by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe.
The
enthusiasm of life’s morning was misdirected. They went out into the
world knowing nothing of value. They preached a creed outgrown.
Having been for so many years entirely certain of their position, they
met doubt with a spirit of irritation—afterwards with hatred. They
are hardly courageous enough to admit that they are wrong.
Once the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By its side
was the sword of the State, with the hilt toward its hand. Now, it is
apologised for—it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to
whom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has
not accepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality
cannot live except in partnership with the sanctified follies and false
hoods of the past.
The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not
-within the circumference of reason—they are not embraced in any of
the facts within the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been
exposed; all the excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at
last the Church must meet, and fairly meet, the objections of ou
time.
Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred.
People are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is
- more important than belief—far better than creeds, vastly more useful
than superstitions. The Church must accept the truths of the present.
�14
The Household of Faith.
must admit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the
mental museums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past.
The time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be
determined by ascertaining the character of the disputants ; epithets
are no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the Church pro
duces laughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon ; argument
must be answered with argument, and the Church must appeal to
reason, and by that standard it must stand or fall. The theories and
discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods,
or by quotations from the Old Testament.
The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We
must go back to the book—it cannot come to us—or we must leave it
forever. In order to remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries,
the inventions, the intellectual efforts of many centuries ; we must go
back until our knowledge—or rather our ignorance—will harmonise
with the barbaric creeds.
It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally pro
duced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same
religions would again ensnare the human rac£. It is also admitted that
under the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the
great and intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition.
There is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat error.
We should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite—larceny, but not the
thief—superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our
power to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow men.
There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in
punishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kind
ness, in the sunlight of intelligence.
We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions
of our reason.
For many centuries the Church has insisted that man is totally
depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are
contrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly
asserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but
having been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars;
that they constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were
traps and snares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses,
or upon his reason ;—he must simply rely upon faith; in other words
that the only way for man to really see was to put out his eyes.
There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The
�The Household of Faith.
15
improvement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that
religion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by preju
dice and by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its
truth in question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal;
whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer,
a scoffer, a moral leper.
The Church defended its mistakes by every means within its power.
But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are
enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure
the distance that has been travelled by sensible people.
The world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher,
and that “ he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of
dogmas, but to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.’’
As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not
“ spiritual ”; that they are “ of the earth, earthy ” ; that they cannot
perceive that which is spiritual. They insist that “ God is a spirit,
and must be worshipped in spirit.”
But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual ? In order to be really
spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another?
Were the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for the
miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual ? Were
those who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the
stake on account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did
John Calvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus ?
Were they spiritual people who invented and used instruments of tor
ture, who denied the liberty of thought and expression, who waged
wars for the propagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who
insisted that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children for
ever? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the
meaning of the word spiritual ? Is it necessary to hate those who
disagree with you, and to calumniate those whose argument you cannot
answer, in order to be spiritual ? Must you hold a demonstrated fact
in contempt; must you deny or avoid what you know to be true, in
order to substantiate the fact that you are spiritual ?
What is it to be spiritual ? Is the man spiritual who searches for
the truth ; who lives in accordance with his highest ideal; who loves
his wife and children ; who discharges his obligations; who makes a
happy fireside for the ones he loves; who succors the oppressed : who
gives his honest opinions; who is guided by principle ; who is merciful
and just ?
�16
The Household of Faith.
. Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful; who is thrilled by
music, and touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic,
and the self-denying ? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought
and deed to ennoble the hunian race ?
The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that
the foundations are insecure*
They should hav£the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon*
If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders
must admit that Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but
about the stars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about
geology and astronomy even four thousand years ago'
The champions'of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the
truth about the Creation of Man, the Garden of Eden, the Tempta
tion, the Fall, and the Flood. They must take the ground that the
sacred book is historically correct; that the events related really hap
pened ; that the miracles were actually performed,; that the laws pro
mulgated from Sinai were and are wise and just, and that nothing ig
upheld, commanded, endorsed, or in any way approved or sustained
that is not absolutely right. In other words, if they insist that a being
of infinite goodness and intelligence is the author,of the Bible, they
must be ready to show that it is absolutely perfect. They must defend
its astronomy, geology, history, miracle, and morality.
If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special
creation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago, to
deceive the scientific world of to-day.
If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back
to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible is true, polygamy
is the highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, Nature has a master,,
and the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect.
If the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer
eternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a
collection of mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is a
luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is»
false and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.
The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to
candidly answer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired?»
Second, Is the Bible true? And when they answer these questions,
they should remember that if the Bible is true, it meeds no inspiration,,
and that if not true; inspiration can do it no good.
4
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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 household of faith
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: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted verbatim from the North American Review, August, 1888." No. 35a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N359
G5775
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The household of faith), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Faith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a52dc71f43d7d17759bd9de6af72584f.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aO3G6YbC3IjyUr4bGZNCxqFfFe4GkQjCiOUNQ7cvfMN%7EsWKW4oThhxm6Rgr1NpHBhy2RbXrenraIC9a-RvDTy5ObFrbfpaeT3xw8vHjF%7E5DpWuQQF3Tzxou1mZ2IhRHrGh-Fd-y5U97Pi%7EJzIuNS5TIAGLQ05t8RR37d-5xec6OhtQbfu5qovlj3CA5djP-dsmrAJN%7EoZD7ey-kKTf2FvkMsbDdjZ4uENAy5fjWcsEbTd5Sv1zutpEHFc86b92M-C7RfYi%7EXvc6skiQHGjUNEprLjRjGipIZF6zo2lNEAr-Rvn73CgULFJwRUQHUv2Oq-MGWHG9cSwNcOWvhLn0FEg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
713414b3276d61ce962e9e37831ea650
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53e34c28f4d4edeace911b8cf8f54b33.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XDgI-ILDq5%7EgbZ8T0LwInP8NvxYV-EJFAzdR7sUy5%7ElGn1yr89F1O0STKWZaBEW%7ErH1I5O8%7Ec3PUJEJsJ0zDDQtg8iZZtYaN6IEMegvG6Sc6eQ7c9Lc8a9nJAOR16EhU-8WJEWEzIbf6tVhvC4ZXY6WKgGxqZT5s3Q9IrxQumQyK38w-SE27ChGkTz-dCtBvrZAW6jepjVvGG-VuGCaIFxztVTKEHrHnna%7E1FdfsME88b4PDM2QEXdYGOWIW9ScouB%7EgYUomrMGi9v-Xft2GL%7EJDBe2LSOdaT2v8DLKYHQ1TDV-J8NUXS1a24HXU6U652D115efahe555XDW8H1nIA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3cc0f8db83c9669849d4dd76ba732fa2
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/96d1ba27e1af9866e8fc488f7c30290d.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BCHhe3PxHhedcouQptFbFW6zzx8gI7XoCiBtK7nQY7y-e8omtRShDF7ca5FjJO9f7tsvRYc7RgRMu95Bd0fZNCo4yDKxwrVUQcQI4Gxp%7EknTYwJt9J0ZImDsHoAcjZrrXDEID1OFagA-fGok-0Y8mJREKsed-4Ebc9uttDjnRGOMJ-SgVdlbYC2NFDgUkhYJKM0IApk%7EmJNa6z1dmiQeunq0F4%7ErN3t0rXSFcrxzDh7r9VrP3zTxbcGfaIk3SpItCS8MPgXtUFPgD9FL7nHSDoEFfjodJaJ-6ch2HtUJi5UFDNhRFwvHo17w6uYc-7g%7E-Sx0d-teizB5yVdO1C1EMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
427a14e4a52fa20dcfdf23e82d1b1978
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bd92552621d68f198fad7607c98b07bd.jpg?Expires=1712793600&Signature=rZAp6IkL-eezMzABgmRKuBylknAXY1zkkZ5dIfzV8%7EI9ptk1Bk3-xj31BGtTXp%7EuwR5OBbYA08F%7EU7aaFImdRjQebYx1ETR0-v3bkhtzQ9SLGvG1akg7O97LpPsrWluUwDGT4QIXbDV7zHh8vgTc0-bo-rdJjo-pEM%7EODW-wSeuK07IZxe8Gk3QnQUHRWyHAgt5-ZG76YOln7fcfA9LFdodOixwXxmdzX2PJ7Vxpq9mc8ZpW9%7Esk6KhgKoGTSPVcSU-uGFLJDnWJgIdGAs98Ii1s77GeemVZjcZxYQD1NaBEzdgkKd-bQhc6OmnnsX4NOGh28Vgm0JVCSjpCy9GYWg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2d5c05fb39696c97502426a7741f5771
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Architecture and Place
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Humanist Library and Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2016
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised items from the Humanist Library and Archives telling the story of buildings and spaces occupied by the Conway Hall Ethical Society (formerly the South Place Ethical Society). Also includes several born digital items.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Architecture
Conway Hall (London, England)
South Place Chapel, Finsbury
Mansford, Frederick Herbert (1871-1946)
Language
A language of the resource
English
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Parchment
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Counterpart lease of 17, 18, 19 and 20 Lambs Conduit Passage, 27 September 1888
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Counterpart lease of 17,18,19,20 Lambs Conduit Passage, (27 September 1888).</p>
<ul><li>(1) John Henry Strickland of Wye House, Buxton, Derbs, esq, a person of unsound mind, by the committees of his estate: Algernon Augustus de Lisle Strickland of Eccleston Square, Middx, and 37 Fleet St, City of London, banker, and Walter Cecil Strickland of Beckenham, Kent, esq</li>
<li>(2) Robert Howe of 84 Upper Tollington Park, Hornsey, Middx, gent</li>
</ul><p>Pursuant to order of Masters in Lunacy, (1)-(2) 4 messuages, nos.17, 18, 19 and 20 Lambs Conduit Passage, now or late in occupation of executors of William Howse [sic], deceased.</p>
<p>Term: 21 years</p>
<p>Rent: £200 pa</p>
<p>(2) to insure premises for minimum of £2350.</p>
<p>Includes detailed floor plan of premises and detailed schedule of landlord's fixtures and furniture.</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Unknown
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Subject
The topic of the resource
Leases
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
SPES/3/1/1/20
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p>Licenced for digitisation by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works" target="_blank">Intellectual Property Office</a> under Orphan Works Licence <a href="https://www.orphanworkslicensing.service.gov.uk/view-register/details?owlsNumber=OWLS000075-8" target="_blank">OWLS000075-8</a>.</p>
Lamb's Conduit Passage, Holborn
Strickland, Algernon Augustus de Lille
Strickland, John Henry
Strickland, Walter Cecil