1
10
16
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/766c992c7367fd258c2886385c4817f5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=FDuAXQHZR%7ELnehEoR4OtBCJrqn6XkLAUn72%7EcteL%7EWEa9myiywMKvkjpKXSHi7KBJzsosug9-G3x6xZoxeejt4zeq4N2WYWI9KhQz1r1LACD8GNJUlTwRHdqH8IVk3Tj028tBjT6IvvWYumaY9tIfq4Wjv5OSMXpnGIQKIhvLc9puih7DuHyOgmcwpiuTm6i6XwwZqMsTY4lqoiM04OJ1pbBh2fo2%7EwNmer7UgubGFx1dsso4HwmgcXr1Tica%7E9HsESSnw03gdWAoc8mvhmVLQlU%7EY8LseCfZ-Sn-hi1fsYCijcU8uNYRFegAp5cdNwk-AKVqPmDQD0Y2Pd5%7EmBTGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
06f0914b1689e1b8c66e3756aadfd6a9
PDF Text
Text
nauonalsecularsoc^
BETWEEN
COLONEL
G.
R.
INGERSOLL
THE
HONORABLE F. D. COUDERT
AND
GOVERNOR S.
L. WOODFORD
AT THE
Nineteenth Century Club, New York.
VERBATIM REPORT.
\
</
PRICE TWOPENCE.
^Tnnlron:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�LONDON :
PAINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTB
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�£>1/710
Nj37°
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION;
The points for discussion, as submitted in advance were
the following propositions:
First. Thought is a necessary natural product—the
result of what is called impressions made through the
medium of the senses upon the brain, not forgetting the
fact of heredity.
Second. No human being is accountable to any being
< —human or divine—for his thoughts.
Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the
thoughts of each other, and one who undertakes to tell
his thoughts should be honest.
Fourth. All have an equal right to express their
thoughts upon all subjects.
Fifth. For one man to say to another, “ I tolerate
you,” is an assumption of authority—not a disclaimer, but
a waiver, of the right to persecute.
Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the
whole world his ideas that the rest of the world have to
express their thoughts to him.
THE PROCEEDINGS.
Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in
introducing Mr. Ingersoll, among other things said :
The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to
be that of the great Victor Hugo, who uttered the august
saying, “ There shall be no slavery of the mind.”
�4
Limits of Toleration.
When I was in Paris, about a year ago, I visited the
tomb of Victor Hugo. It was placed in a recess in the
crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite it was the tomb of
Jean Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another re.cess, was
the memorial statue of Voltaire; and I felt, as I looked
at these three monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been
born in France, and had he passed in his long life account,,
the acclaim of the liberal culture of France would have
enlarged that trio into a quartette.
Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important
debates in print, notably with Judge Jeremiah S. Black,
formerly Attorney-General of the United States; lately
in the pages of the North American Review with the Rev.
Dr. Henry M. Field ; and last but not least the Right
Hon. William E. Gladstone, England’s Greatest citizen,
has taken up the cudgel against him in behalf of his
view of Orthodoxy. To-night, I believe for the first
time, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial
discussion. I have now the honor to introduce this dis
tinguished orator.
COLONEL INGERSOLL’S OPENING.
Ladies, Mr. President, and Gentlemen,—I am here, to
night for the purpose of defending your right to differ
with me. I want to convince you that you are under no
compulsion to accept my creed ; that you are, so far as I
am concerned, absolutely free t< follow the torch of your
reason according to your consc ence ; and I believe that
you are civilised io that degree that you will extend to
me the right that you claim for yourselves.
I admit, at the very threshold, that every human being
thinks as he must; and the first proposition really is,
whether man has the right to think. It will bear but
little discussion, for the reason that no man can control
his thought. If you think you can, what are you going
to think to-morrow ? What are you going to think
next year 1 If you can absolutely control your thought,
can you stop thinking ?
The question is, Has the will any power over the
thought I What is thought ? It is the result of nature
�Limits of Toleration.
5
—of the outer world—first upon the senses—those im
pressions left upon the brain as pictures of things in the
outward world, and these pictures are transformed into,
or produce, thought; and as long as the doors of the
senses are open, thoughts will be produced. Whoever
looks at anything in nature, thinks. Whoever hears any
sound—or any symphony—no matter what—thinks.
Whoever looks upon the sea, or on a star, or on a flower,
or on the face of a fellow-man, thinks, and the result of
that look is an absolute necessity. The thought producer
will depend upon your brain, upon your experience, upei
the history of your life.
One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the one hr
loved the best had been devoured by its hungry waves
will have certain thoughts ; and he who sees it for the
first time, will have different thoughts. In other words,
^io two brains are alike ; no two lives have been or are or
ever will be the same. Consequently, nature cannot pro
duce the same effect upon any two brains, or upon any
two hearts.
The only reason why we wish to exchange thoughts is
that we are different. If we were all the same, we should
die dumb. No thought would be expressed after we
found that our thoughts were precisely alike. We differ
—our thoughts are different. Therefore the commerce
that we call conversation.
Back of language is thought. Back of language is
the desire to express our thought to another. This desire
not only gave us language—this desire has given us the
libraries of the world. And not only the libraries : this
desire to express thought, to show to others the splendid
children of the brain, has written every book, formed
every language, painted every picture, and chiseled every
statue—this desire to express our thought to others, to
reap the harvest of the brain.
If, then, thought is a necessity, “ it follows as the night
the day ” that there is, there can be, no responsibility for
thought to any being, human or divine.
A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light flashes
upon it, and the sensitive plate receives a picture. Is
�6
Limits of Toleration.
it in fault ? Is it responsible for the picture ? So
with the brain. An image is left on it, a picture is im
printed there. The plate may not be perfectly level—it
may be too concave, or too convex, and the picture may
be a deformity; so with the brain. But the man does
not make his own brain, and the consequefice is, if the
picture is distorted it is not the fault of the brain.
We take then these two steps: first, thought is a
necessity; and second, the thought depends upon the
brain.
Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows with
careless hands the seeds of thought. Some brains are
poor and barren fields, producing weeds and thorns, and
some are like the tropic world where grow the palm and
pine—children of the sun and soil.
You read Shakespeare. What do you get out of •
Shakespeare 1 All that your brain is able to hold. It
depends upon your brain. If you are great—if you have
been cultivated—if the wings of youi’ imagination have
been spread—if you have had great, free, and splendid
thoughts—if you have stood upon the edge of things—if you
have had the courage to meet all that can come—you get an
immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived nobly—
if you have loved with every drop of your blood and every
fibre of your being—if you have suffered—if you have
enjoyed—then you get an immensity from Shakespeare.
But if you have lived a poor, little, mean, wasted, barren,
weedy life—you get very little from that immortal man.
So it is from every source in nature—what you get
depends upon what you are.
Take then the second step. If thought is a necessity,
there can be no responsibility for thought. And why has
man ever believed that his fellow-man was responsible for
his thought ?
Everything that is, everything that has been, has been
naturally produced. Man has acted as under the same
circumstances we would have acted; because when you
say “ under the circumstances,” it is the same as to say
that you would do exactly as they have done.
�Limits of Toleration.
7
There has always been in men the instinct of self
preservation. There wras a time when men believed, and
honestly believed, that there was above them a God.
Sometimes they believed in many, but it will be sufficient
for my illustration to say, one. Mau believed that there
was in the sky above him a God who attended to the
affairs of men. He believed that that God, sitting
upon his throne, rewarded virtue and punished vice. He
believed also that that God held the community respon
sible for the sins of individuals. He honestly believed»it.
When the flood came, or when the earthquake devoured,
he really believed that some God w’as filled with anger—
with holy indignation—at his children. He believed it,
and so he looked about among his neighbors to see who
was in fault, and if there was any man who had failed to
bring his sacrifice to the altar, had failed to kneel, it may
be to the priest, failed to be present in the temple, or had
given it as his opinion that the God of that tribe or of that
nation was of no use, then, in order to placate the God
they seized the neighbor and sacrificed him on the altar
of theii’ ignorance and of their fear.
They believed when the lightning leaped from the
cloud and left its blackened mark upon the man that he
had done something—that he had excited the wrath of the
gods. And while man so believed—while he believed
that it was necessary, in order to defend himself, to kill
his neighbor—he acted simply according to the dictates of
his nature.
What I claim is that we have now advanced far enough
not only to think, but to know, that the conduct of man
has nothing to do with the phenomena of nature. We
are nOw advanced far enough to absolutely know that no
man can be bad enough and no nation infamous enough
to cause an earthquake. I think we have got to that
point that we absolutely know that no man can be wicked
enough to entice one of the bolts from heaven—that no
man can be cruel enough to cause a drouth—and that you
could not have infidels enough on the earth to cause
another flood. I think we have advanced far enough
not only to say that, but to absolutely know it—I mean
�8
Limits of Toleration.
people who have thought, and in whose minds there is
something like reasoning.
We know, if we know anything, that the lightning is
just as apt to hit a good man as a bad man. We know
it. We know that the earthquake is just as liable to
swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And you know just as
well as I do that a ship loaded with pirates is just as apt
to outride the storm as one crowded with missionaries.
You know it.
I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I
believe, as much as I believe that I live, that the reason a
thing is right is because it tends to the happiness of man
kind. I believe, as much as I believe that I live, that on
the average the good man is not only the happier man,
but that no man is happy who is not good.
If, then, we have gotten over that frightful, that awful
superstition—we are ready to enjoy hearing the thoughts
of each other.
I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood as
saying, that there is no God. All I intend to say is, that
so far as we can see, no man is punished, no nation is
punished by lightning, or famine, or storm. Everything
happens to the one as to the other.
Now let us admit that there is an infinite God. That
has nothing to do with the sinlessness of thought—nothing
to do with the fact that no man is accountable to any
being, human or divine, for what he thinks. And let me
tell you why.
If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with men
who sin against him. You can trust him, if you believe
in him. He has the power. He has a heaven full of
bolts. Trust him. And now that you are satisfied that
the earthquake will not swallow you, nor the lightning
strike you, simply because you tell your thoughts, if one
of your neighbors differs with you, and acts improperly or
thinks or speaks improperly of your God, leave him with
your God—he can attend to him a thousand times better
than you can. He has the time. He lives from eternity
to eternity. More than that, he has the means. So
�Limits of Toleration.
9
that, whether there be this Being or not, you have no
right to interfere with your neighbor.
The next proposition is, that I have the same right to
express my thought to the whole world, that the whole
world has to express its thought to me.
I believe that this realm of thought is not a democracy,
where the majority rule : it is not a republic. It is a
country with one inhabitant. The brain is the world in
which my mind lives, and my mind is the sovereign of
that realm. We are all kings, and one man balances the
rest of the world as one drop of water balances the sea.
Each soul is crowned. Each soul wears the purple dud
the tiara; and only those are good citizens of the intellentual world who give to every other human being every
right that they claim for themselves, and only those are
traitors in the great realm of thought who abandon reason
and appeal to force.
If now I have got out of your minds the idea that you
have to abuse your neighbors to keep on good terms with
God, then the question of religion is exactly like every
question—I mean of thought, of mind—I have nothing to
say now about action.
Is there authority in the world of art ? Can a legis
lature pass a law that a certain picture is beautiful, and
can it pass a law putting in the penitentiary any impudent
artistic wretch who says that to him it is not beautiful ?
Precisely the same with music. Our ears are not all the
same ; we are not touched by the same sounds—the same
beautiful memories do not arise.
Suppose, you have
an authority in music ? You may make men, it may be,
bv offering them office or by threatening them with
punishment, swear that they all like that tune—but you
never will know till tbe day of your death whether they
do or not! The moment you introduce a despotism in
the world of thought, you succeed in making hypocrites
—and you get in such a position that you never know
what your neighbor thinks.
So in the great realm of religion, there can be no force.
No one can be compelled to pray. No matter how you
tie him down, or crush him down on his face or on his
�10
Limits of Toleration.
knees, it. is above the power of the human race to put in
that man, by force, the spirit of prayer. You cannot do
t. Neither can you compel anybody to worship a God.
Worship rises from the heart like perfume from a flower.
It cannot obey; it cannot do that which some one else
commands. It must be absolutely true to the law of its
own nature. And do you think any God would be satisfied
with compulsory worship ? Would he like to see long
rows of poor, ignorant slaves on their terrified knees
repeating words without a soul—giving him what you
might call the shucks of sound ? Will any God be
satisfied with that? And so I say we must be as free in
one department of thought as another.
Now I take the next step, and that is, that the rights
of all are absolutely equal.
I have the same right to give you my opinion that you
have to give me yours. I have no right to compel you to
hear, if you do not want to. I have no right to compel
you to speak if you don’t want to. If you do not wish to
know my thought, I have no right to force it upon you.
The next thing is, that this liberty of thought, this
liberty of expression, is of more, value than any other
thing beneath the stars. Of more value than any religion,
of more value than any government, of more value than
all the constitutions that man has written and all the laws
that he has passed, is this liberty—the absolute liberty of
the human mind. Take away that word from language,
and all other words become meaningless sounds, and there
is then no reason for a man being and living upon the
earth.
So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hospitality
—that is all. You come to me with a new idea. I invite
you into the house. Let us see what you have. Let us
talk it over. If I do not like your thought, I will bid it
a polite “ good day.” If I do like it, I will say : “ Sit
down; stay with me, and become a part of the intellectual
wealth of my world.” That is all.
And how any human being ever has had the impudence
to speak against the right to speak is beyond the power
of my imagination. Here is a man who speaks—who
�Limits of Toleration.
11
exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can
liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration
possible beyond the liberty to speak against liberty—-the
real believer in free speech allowing others to speak against
the right to speak ? Is there any limitation beyond that ?
So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak has
admitted that he violated his own doctrine. No man can
open his mouth against the freedom of speech without
denying every argument he may put forward. Why ?
He is exercising the right that he denies. How did he
get it ? Suppose there is one man on an island. You
will all admit now that he would have the right to do his
own thinking. You will all admit that he has the right
to express his thought. Now will somebody tell me how
many men would have to immigrate to that island before
the original settler would lose his right to think and his
right to express himself ?
If there be an infinite Being—and it is a question that
I know nothing about—you would be perfectly astonished
to know how little I do know on that subject, and yet I
know as much as the aggregated world knows, and as little
as the smallest insect that ever fanned with happy wings
the summer air—if there be such a Being, I have the
same right to think that he has, simply because it is a
necessity of my nature—because I cannot help it. And
the Infinite would be just as responsible to the sjnallest
intelligence living in the infinite spaces—he would be just
as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence can
be to him, provided that intelligence thinks as a necessity
of his nature.
There is another phrase to which I object—“ tolera
tion.” “ The limits of toleration.” Why say “ toleration T
I will tell you why. When the thinkers were in the
minority—when the philosophers were vagabonds—when
the men with brains furnished fuel for bonfires—when
the majority were ignorantly orthodox—when they hated
the heretic as a last year’s leaf hates a this year’s bud—in
that delightful time these poor people in the minority had
to say to ignorant power, to conscientious rascality, to
cruelty born of universal love : “ Don^t kill us : don’t be
�12
Limits of Toleration.
so arrogantly meek as to burn us ; tolerate us.” At that
time the minority was too small to talk about rights, and
the great big ignorant majority when tired of shedding
blood, said : “ Well, we will tolerate you ; we can afford
to wait; you will not live long, and when the Being of
infinite compassion gets h*old of you we will glut our re
venge through an eternity of joy; we will ask you every
now and then, ‘What is your opinion now?’ ”
Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness
would have his revenge, they “ tolerated ” these thinkers,
and that word finally took the place almost of liberty.
But 1 do not like it. When you say “ I tolerate,” you
do not say you have no right to punish, no right to perse
cute. It is only a disclaimer for a few moments and for
a few years, but you retain the right. I deny it.
And let me say here to-night—it is your experience, it
is mine—that the bigger a man is the more charitable he
is; you know it. The more brain he has, the more
excuses he finds for all the world; you know it. And if
there be in heaven an infinite Being, he must be grander .
than any man; he must have a thousand times more
charity than the human heart can hold, and is it possible
that he is going to hold his ignorant children responsible
for the impressions made by nature upon their brain?
Let us have some sense.
ThSre is another side to this question, and that is with
regard to the freedom of thought and expression in mat
ters pertaining to this world.
No man has a right to hurt the character of a neighbor.
He has no right to utter slander. He has no right to
bear false witness. He has no right to be actuated by
any motive except for the general good—but the things
he does here to his neighbor—these are easily defined and
easily punished. All that I object to is setting up a stan
dard of authority in the world of art, the world of beauty,
the world of poetry, the world of worship, the world of
religion, and the world of metaphysics. That is what I object
to ; and if the old doctrines had been carried out, every
human being that has benefited this world would have
been destroyed. If the people who believe that a certain
�Limits of Toleration.
13
belief is necessary to insure salvation had had control of
this world, we would have been as ignorant to-night as
wild beasts. Every step in advance has been made in
spite of them. There has not been a book of any value
printed since the invention of that art—and when I say
“ of value,” I mean that contained new and splendid
truths—that was not anathematised by the gentlemen
who believed that man is responsible for his thought.
Every step has been taken in spite of that doctrine.
Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty of
mind. And I have no fear about any other world—not
the slightest. When I get there, I will give my honest
opinion of that country; I will give my honest thought
there; and if for that I lose my soul, I will keep at least
my self-respect.
A man tells me a story. I believe it, or disbelieve it.
I cannot help it. I read a story—no matter whether in
the original Hewbrew, or whether it has been translated.
I believe it or I disbelieve it. No matter whether it is
written in a very solemn or a very flippant manner—I
have my idea about its truth. And I insist that each
man has the right to judge that for himself, and for that
reason, as I have already said, I am defending your right
to differ with me—that is all. And if you do differ with
me, all that proves is that I do not agree with you. There
is no man that lives to-night beneath the stars—there is
no being—that can force my soul upon its knees, unless
the reason is given. I will be no slave. I do not care how
big my master is, I am just as small, if a slave, as though
the mastei’ were small. It is not the greatness of the
master that can honor the slave. In other words, I am
going to act according to my right, as I understand it,
without any other human being.
And now, if you think—any of you, that you can
control your thought, I want you try it. There is not
one here who can by any possibil ty think, only as he
must
You remember the story of the Methodist minister
who insisted that he could control his thoughts. A. man
said to him, “ Nobody can control his own mind.” “ Oh,
�14
Limits of Toleration.
yes, he can,” the preacher replied. “ My dear sir,” said
the man, “ you cannot even say the Lord’s Prayer with
out thinking of something else.” “ Oh, yes, I can.”
“ Well, if you will do it, I will give you that horse, the
best riding horse in this county.”
“Well who is to
judge ? ” said the preacher. “ I will take your own word
for it, and if you say the Lord’s Prayer through without
thinking of anything else, I will give you that horse.”
So the minister shut his eyes and began : “ Our father
who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom
come, thy will be done------ ” “ I suppose you will throw
in the saddle and bridle ? ”
I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that I feel
more interest in the freedom of thought and speech than
in all other questions, knowing, as I do, that it is the con
dition of great and splendid progress for the race ; remem
bering, as I do, that the opposite idea has covered the
cheek of the world with tears ; remembering, and knowing
as I do, that the enemies of free thought and free
speech have covered this world with blood. These men
have filled the heavens with an infinite monster; they
have filled the future with fire and flame, and they have
made the present, when they have had the power, a per
dition. These men, these doctrines, have carried faggots
to the feet of philosophy. These men, these doctrines,
have hated to see the dawn of an intellectual day. These
men, these doctrines, have denied every science, and de
nounced and killed every philosopher they could lay their
bloody, cruel, ignorant hands upon.
And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of thought,
everywhere, in every department, domain, and realm of the
human mind.
PRESIDENT PALMER.
In the very amusing sketch of “Father Tom and the
Pope,” Father Tom is represented as saying that “ every
sensible man is a man who judges by his senses; but we all
know that these seven senses are seven deluders, and that if
we want to know anything about mysteries, we call in the
�Limits of Toleration.
15
eighth sense—the only sense to be depended upon—which
is the sense of the Church/’
Mr. Kernan was to have attended to-night, to give us
“ the sense of the Church —the Roman Catholic—but he,
unfortunately, has been forced to go to Chicago. Mr.
Coudert, however, is one of the few men who I know who
could take his place in such an emergency, has kindly
consented to appear.
REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.
Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President,—It is not
only “the sense of the Church” that I am lacking
now, I am afraid it is any sense at all; and I am only won
dering how a reasonably intelligent human being—meaning
myself—could in view of the misfortune that befell Mr.
Kernan, have undertaken to speak to-night.
This is a new experience. I have never sang in any of
Verdi’s operas—I have never listened to one through—but
I think I would prefer to try all three of these perform
ances rather than go on with this duty which in a vain
moment of deluded vanity I’ heedlessly undertook.
I am in a new field here. I feel very much like the
master of a ship who thinks that he can safely guide his
bark. . (I am not alluding to the traditional bark of St.
Peter, in which I hope that I am and will always be, but the
ordinary bark that requires a compass and a rudder and a
guide.) And I find that all these ordinary things, which
we generally take for granted, and which are as necessary
to our safety as the air which we breathe, or the sunshine
that we enjoy, have been quietly, pleasantly, and smilingly
thrown overboard by the gentleman who has just preceded
me.
Carlyle once said—and the thought came to me as the
gentleman was speaking—A Comic History of England !
—for some wretch had just written such a book—talk of
free thought and free speech when men do such things 1
—A Comic History of England ! The next thing we shali
hear of will be “ A Comic History of the Bible II think
�16
Limits of Toleration.
we have heard the first chapter of that comic history to
night; and the only comfort that I have—and possibly
some other antiquated and superannuated persons of either
sex, if such there be within my hearing—is that such
things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake of the
order of blasphemy, have been uttered with such charming
bonhomie, and received with such enthusiastic admiration,
that I have wondered whether we are in a Christian audi
ence of the nineteenth century, or in a possible Ingersollian audience of the Twenty-third.
And let me first, before I enter upon the very few and
desultory remarks which are the only ones that I can make
now and with which I may claim- your polite attention—
let me say a word about the comparison with which your
worthy President opened these proceedings.
There are two or three things upon which I am a little
sensitive : One, aspersions upon the land of my birth—the
city of New York; the next, the land of my fathers; and
the next, the bark that I was just speaking of.
Now your worthy President, in his well-meant efforts to
exhibit in the best possible style the new actor upon his
stage, said that he had seen Victor Hugo’s remains, and
Voltaire’s and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s, and that he
thought the niche might well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll.
If that had been merely the expression of a natural desire
to see him speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the
interests of the Christian community have thought, but
not said, “ Amen! ” (Here you will at once observe
the distinction I make between free thought and free
speech!)
I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and par
ticularly the eloquent rhetorician who preceded me, will
think, that in anything I may say I intend any personal
discourtesy, for I do believe to some extent in freedom of
speech upon a platform like this. Such a debate as tins
rises entirely above and beyond the plane of personali
ties.
I suppose that your President intended to compare
Colonel Ingersoll to Voltaire, to Hugo and to Rousseau.
I have no retainer from either of those gentlemen, but for
�Limits of Toleration.
17
the reason that I just gave you, I wish to defend their
memory from what I consider a great wrong. And so I
do not think—with all respect to the eloquent and learned
gentleman—that he is entitled to a place in that niche.
Voltaire did many wrong things. He did them for many
reasons, and chiefly because he was human. But Voltaire
did a great deal to build up. Leaving aside his noble
tragedies, which charmed and delighted his audiences, and
dignified the stage, throughout his work was some effort
to ameliorate the condition of the human race. He fought
against torture ; he fought against persecution ; he fought
against bigotry ; he clamored and wrote against littleness
and fanaticism in every way, and he was not ashamed
when he entered Upon his domains at Femay, to erect a
church to the Gr^d of whom the most oui friend can say
is, “ I do not knoxy whether he exists or not.”
Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a madman,
and in our day would probably have been locked, up in an
asylum and treated by intelligent doctors. His works,
however, bear the impress of a religious education, and if
there be in his works tor sayings anything to parallel what
we have heard to-night—whether a parody on divine
revelation, or a parody upon the prayer of prayers—I have
not seen it.
Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day with
prose- and poetry that have made him the Shakespeare of
the nineteenth century—poems as deeply imbued with a
devout sense of responsibility to the Almighty as the
writings of an archbishop or a cardinal. He has left
the traces of his beneficent action all over the literature
of his day, of his country, and of his race.
All these men, then, have built up something. Will
anyone, the most ardent admirer of Colonel Ingersoll, tell
me what he has built up ?
To go now to the argument. The learned gentleman
says that freedom of thought is a grand thing. Unfor
tunately, freedom of thought exists. What one of us
would not put manacles and fetters upon his thoughts,
if he only could? What persecution have any of us
suffered to compare with the involuntary recurrence of
�18
Limits of Toleration.
these demons that enter our brain—that bring back past
events that we would wipe out with our tears, or even
with our blood—and make us slaves of a power unseen but
uncontrollable and uncontrolled ? Is it not unworthy of
so eloquent and intelligent a man to preach before you
here to-night that thought must always be free ?
When in the history of the world has thought ever
been fettered ? If there be a page in history upon which
such an absurdity is written, I have failed to find it.
Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most
cruel and arbitrary ruler can no more penetrate into your
bosom and mine and extract the inner workings of our
brain, than he can scale the stars or pull down the sun
from its seat. Thought must be free. Thought is un
seen, unhandled and untouched, and no despot has yet
been able to reach it, except when the thoughts burst
into words. And therefore, may we not consider now,
and say that liberty of word is what he wants, and not
liberty of thought, which no one has ever gainsaid or
disputed?
•'
Liberty of speeeh ;—and the gentleman generously tells
us, “ Why I only ask for myself what I would cheerfully
extend to you. I wish you to be free ; and you can even
entertain those old delusions which your mothers taught,
and look with envious admiratioA upon me while I scale
the giddy heights of Olympus, gather the honey and
approach the stars and tell y^u how pure the air is in
those upper regions which you are unable to reach/’’
Thanks for his kindness ! But I think that it is one
thing for us to extend to him that liberty that he asks for
—the liberty to destroy—and another thing for him to
give us the liberty which we claim, the liberty to con
serve.
Oh! destruction is so ea^y, destruction is so pleasant!
It marks the footsteps all through our life. The baby
begins by destroying his bib ; the older child by destroying
his . horse, and when the man is grown up he joins the
legiment with the latent instinct that when he gets a
chance he will destroy human life.
This building cost many thousand days* work. It was
�Limits of Toleration.
19
planned by more or less skilful architects ignorant of
ventilation, but well-meaning.
Men lavished their
thought, and men lavished their sweat for a pittance, upon
this building. It took months and possibly years to
build it and to adorn it and to beautify it. And yet, as it
stands complete to-night with all of you here in the vigor
of your life and in the enjoyment of such entertainment
as you may get here this evening, I will find a dozen men
who, with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it and all
of us to instant destruction.
The dynamite man may say to me, “I give you all
liberty to build and occupy and insure, if you will give
me liberty to blow up.” Is that a fair bargain ! Am I
bound in conscience and in good sense to accept it.
Liberty of speech I Tell me where liberty of speech has
ever existed. There have been free societies. England
was a free country. France has struggled through crisis
after crisis to obtain liberty of speech. We think we have
liberty of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would
undertake to say that our society could live with liberty
of speech ? We have gone through many crises in our
short history, and we know that thought is nothing before
the law, but the word is an act—as guilty at.times as the
act of killing, or burglary, or any of the violent crimes
that disgrace humanity and require the police.
A word is an act—an act of the tongue ; and why
should my tongue go unpunished, and I who wield it
mercilessly toward those who are weaker than I, escape,
if my arm is to be punished when I use it tyrannously .
Whom would you punish for the murder of Desdemona—
is it Iago or Othello ? Who was the villain, who was the
criminal, who deserved the scaffold—who but free speech ..
Iago exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of
Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the murderer
—but Iago went scot free. That was a word.
“Oh!” says the counsel, “ but that does not apply to
individuals; be tender and charitable to individuals.
Tender and charitable to men if they endeavor to destroy
all that you love and venerate and respect!
Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter my
�20
Limits of Toleration.
house, my castle, and debauch my children from the faith
that, they have been taught? Are you tender and
charitable to them and to me when you teach them that
I have instructed them in falsehood, that their mother
has rocked them in blasphemy; and that they are now
among the fools and the witlings of the world because
they believe in my precepts ? Is that the charity that
you speak of? Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such
as that should ever invade my home or yours!
We all understand, and the learned gentleman will
admit, that his discourse is but an eloquent apology for
blasphemy. And when I say this, I beg you to believe
me incapable of resorting to the cheap artifice of strong
words to give points to a pointless argument, or to offend
a courteous adversary. I think if I put it to him he
would, with characteristic candor, say, “ Yes, that is what
I claim the liberty to blaspheme; the world has out
grown these things ; and I claim to-day, as I claimed a
few months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of
New Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your
tongue is free to revile and insult man’s maker.” New
Jersey was behind in the race for progress, and did not
accept his argument. His unfortunate client was con
victed and had to pay the fine which the press—which is
seldom mistaken—says came from the pocket of his
generous counsel.
The argument was a strong one; the argument was
brilliant, and was able ; and I say now, with all my pre
dilections for the church of my fathers, and for your
church (because it is not a question of oui’ differences, but
it is a question whether the tree shall be torn up by the
roots, not what branches may bear richer fruit or deserve
to be lopped off) —I say, why has every Christian State
passed these statutes against blasphemy? Turning into
ridicule sacred things—-firing off the Lord’s Prayer as you
would a joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem—that is
what I mean by blasphemy. If there be any other or
better definition, give it me, and I will use it.
Now understand. All these States of ours care not one
fig what our religion is. Behave ourselves properly, obey
�Limits of Toleration.
21
the laws, do not require the intervention of the police,
and the majesty of your conscience will be as exalted as
the sun. But the wisest men and the best men-—possibly
not so eloquent as the orator, but I may say it without
offence to him—other names that shine brightly in the
galaxy of our best men, have insisted and maintained
that the Christian faith was the ligament that kept our
modern society together, and our laws have said, and the
laws of most of our States say, to this day, “ Think what
- you like, but do not, like Sainson, pull the pillars down
upon us all.”
. .
If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it is
time that I should say it now. My exordium has been
very long, but it was no longer than the dignity of the
subject, perhaps, demanded.
Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of speech
we never had. Did we have it before the war ? Many of
us here remember that if you crossed an imaginary line
and went among some of thd noblest and best men that
ever adorned this continent, one word against slavery
meant death. And if you say that that was the influence
of slavery, I will carry you to Boston, that city which
numbers within its walls as many intelligent people to the
acre as any city on the globe—-was it different there ?
Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave, when he
got there, was seized and turned back; and when a few
good and brave men, in defence of free speech, undertook
to defend the slave and to try and give him liberty, they
were mobbed and pelted and driven through the city.
You may say, “ That proves there was no liberty of
speech.” No ; it proves this : that wherever, and where
soever, and whenever, liberty of speech is incompatible
with the safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall
back and give way, in order that the State may be pre
served.
First, above everything, above all things, the safety
of the people is the supreme law. And if rhetoricians,
anxious to tear down, anxious to pluck the faith from
the young ones who are unable to defend it, come for
ward with nickel-plated platitudes and commonplaces
�22
Limits of Toleration.
clothed in second-hand purple and tinsel, and try to tear
down the temple, then it is time, I shall not say for good
men—for I know so few they make a small battalion—
but for good women, to come to the rescue.
PRESIDENT PALMER.
In what I said, ladies and gentlemen, I tried to sink
my personality. I did not say, in introducing Colonel
Ingersoll, that in case he had been bom in France, and
in case he had passed away, I thought that a fourth niche
should be prepared for him with the three worthies I
mentioned; but that I thought the acclaim of the liberal
culture of France—the same free thought that had
erected these monuments, would have erected a fourth for
Colonel Ingersoll had he lived among them. But perhaps
even in saying that I was led away from the impartiality
I desired to show, in my admiration and love for the man.
I now have the honor to introduce to you that accom
plished gentleman and scholar, my friend, our neighbor
from the goodly city of Brooklyn, General Stewart L.
Woodford.
GENERAL WOODFORD’S SPEECH.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,—At this late
hour I could not attempt—even if I would—the elo
quence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll; nor the wit and
rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued friend Mr, Coudert.
But there are some things so serious about this subject
that we discuss to-night, that I crave your pardon if,
without preface, and without rhetoric, I get at once to
what from my Protestant standpoint seems the fatal logical
error of Mr. Ingersoll’s position.
Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement—and that I
may not, for I could not, do him injustice, nor myself in
justice, in the quotation, I will give it as he stated it—he
starts with this statement: that thought is a necessary
natural product, the result of what we call impressions
made through the medium of the senses upon the brain.
�Limits of Toleration.
23
Do you think that is thought ? Now stop—turn right
into your own minds—is that thought? Does not will
power take hold? Does not reason take hold? Doesnot
memory take hold, and is not thought the action of the
brain based upon the impression and assisted or directed
by manifold and varying influences ?
Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no human
being is accountable to any being, human or divine, for
his thought.
.
He starts with the assumption that thought is the
inevitable impression burnt upon the mind at once, . and
then jumps to the conclusion that there is no responsibility.
Now is not that a fair logical analysis of what he has
said?
.
,
.
My senses leave upon my mind an impression, and then
my mind, out of that impression, works good or evil. The
glass of brandy, being presented to my physical sense,
inspires thirst—inspires the thought of thirst inspires
the instinct of debauchery. Am I not accountable for
the result of the mind given me, whether I yield to the
debauch, or rise to the dignity of self-control ?
Every thing, of sense, leaves its impression upon the
mind. If there be no responsibility anywhere, then is
this world blind chance. If there be no responsibility
anywhere, then my friend deserves no credit if he
be guiding you in the path of truth, and I deserve
no censure if I be carrying you back into the path
of superstition. Why, admit for a moment that a
man has no control over his thought, and you destroy
absolutely the power of regenerating the. world, the power
of improving the world. The world swings one way, or
it swings the other. If it be true that in all these ages
we have come nearer and nearer to a perfect liberty, that
is true simply and alone because the mind of man, through
reason, through memory, through a thousand inspirations
and desires and hopes, has ever tended toward better
results and higher achievements.
.
No accountability? I speak not for my friend, but I
recognise that I am accountable to myself; I recognise
that whether I rise or fall, that whether my life goes
�24
Limits of Toleration.
upward or downward, I am responsible to myself. And
so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite of all dream, so in
spite of all eloquence, each woman, each man within this
audience is responsible—first of all to herself and himself
—whether when bad thoughts, when passion, when
murder, when evil come into the heart or brain he harbors
them there or he casts them out.
I am responsible further—I am responsible to my
neighbor. I know that I am my neighbor’s keeper. I
know that as I touch your life, as you touch mine, I am
responsible every moment, every hour, every day, for my
influence upon you. I am either helping you up, or I am
dragging you down ; you are either helping me up or you
are dragging me down—and you know it. Sophistry
cannot get away from this; eloquence cannot seduce us
from it. You know that if you look back through the
record of your life, there are lives that you have helped
and lives that you have hurt. You know that there are
lives on the downward plane that went down because in
an evil hour you pushed them; you know, perhaps with
blessing, lives that have gone up because you have reached
out to them a helping hand. That responsibility for your
neighbor is a responsibility and an accountability that you
and I cannot avoid or evade.
I believe one thing further : that because there is a
creation there is a Creator. I believe that because there
is force, there is a Projector of force ; because there is
matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe these things.
I am not angry with my neighbor because he does not;
it may be that he is right, that I am wrong ; but if there
be a Power that sent me into this world, so far as that
Power has given me wrong direction, or permitted wrong
direction, that Power will judge me justly. So far as 1
disregard the light that I have, whatever it may be—
whether it be light of reason, light of conscience, light of
history—so far as I do that which my judgment tells me
is wrong, I am responsible and I am accountable.
Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is simply
this : It would vary from the theory as taught by the
mother Church—it certainly swings far away from the
�Limits of Toleration.
25
theory as suggested by my friend—I understand the
Protestant theory to be this : That every man is respon
sible to himself, to his neighbor, and to his God, for his
thought. Not for the first impression—but for that im
pression, for that direction and result which he intel
ligently gives to the first impression or deduces from it.
I understand that the Protestant idea is this : That man
may think—we know he will think—for himself ; but that
he is responsible for it. That a man may speak his
thought, so long as he does not hurt his neighbor. He
must use his own liberty so that he shall not injure the
well-being of any other one—so that when using this
liberty, when exercising this freedom, he is accountable
at the last to his God. And so Protestantism sends me
into the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.
It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at the
bar of his conscience, before the bar of his fellow-man,
but it holds him in the inevitable grip of absolute re
sponsibility for every light word idly spoken. God grant
that he may use that power so that he can face that re
sponsibility at the last!
It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe and
stand by his church according to his own conviction. It
stands for this : the absolute liberty to each individual
man to think, to write, to speak, to act, according to the
best light within him ; limited as to his fellows, by the
condition that he shall not use that liberty so as to injure
them ; limited in the other direction, by those tremendous
laws which are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in spite of
all logic.
If I put my finger into the. fire, that fire burns. If I
do a wrong, that wrong remains. If I hurt my neighbor,
the wrong reacts upon myself. If I would try to escape
what you call judgment, what you, call penalty, I cannot
escape the working of the inevitable law that follows a
cause by an effect; I cannot escape that inevitable law—
not the creation of some dark monster flashing through
the skies—but, asL I believe, the beneficent creation which
puts into the spiritual life, the same control of law that
guides the material life, which wisely makes me re-
�26
Limits of Toleration.
sponsible, that in the solemnity of that responsibility I
am bound to lift my brother up and never to drag my
brother down.
REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.
The first gentleman who replied to me took the ground
boldly that expression is not free—that no man has the
right to express his real thoughts—and I suppose that
he acted in accordance with that idea. How are you
to know whether he thought a solitary thing that he
said or not ? How is it possible for us to ascertain
whether he is simply the mouthpiece of some other ?
Whether he is a free man, or whether he says that which
he does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascertain.
He tells you that I am about to take away the religion
of your mothers. I have heard that said a great many
times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has the religion of his
mother, and judging from the argument he made, his
mother knew at least as much about these questiohs as
her son. I believe that every good father and good
mother wants to see the son and the daughter climb higher
upon the great and splendid mount of thought than they
reached. You never can honor your father by going
around swearing to his mistakes. You never can honor
your mother by saying that ignorance is blessed because
she did not know everything. I want to honor my parents
by finding out more than they did.
' There is another thing that I was a little astonished at
—that Mr. Coudert, knowing that he would be in eter
nal felicity with his harp in his hand seeing me in the
world of the damned, could yet grow envious here to-night
at my imaginary monument.
And he tells you—this Catholic—that Voltaire was an
exceedingly good Christian compared with me. Do you
know I am glad that I have compelled a Catholic—one
who does not believe he has the right to express his honest
thoughts—to pay a compliment to Voltaire simply because
he thought it was at my expense ?
1 have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire; and
�Limits of Toleration.
27
when 1 hear that name pronounced, I think of a plume
floating over a mailed knight—I think of a man that rode
to the beleaguecl City of Catholicism and demanded a
surrender—I think of a great man who thrust the dagger
eof assassination into your Mother Church, and from that
wound she never will recover.
One word more. This gentleman says that children
are destructive—that the first thing they do is to destroy
their bibs. The gentleman, I should think from his talk,
has preserved his !
They talk about blasphemy.
What is blasphemy?
Let us be honest with each other. Whoever lives upon
the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.. Whoever
slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blasphemer. . Whoever
denies to others the rights that he claims for himself is a
blasphemer.
Who is a worshipper ? One who makes a happy home
—one who fills the lives of wives and children with sun
light—one who has a heart where the flowers of kindness
burst into blossom and fill the air with perfume—the man
who sits beside his wife, prematurely old and wasted, and
holds her thin hands in his and kisses them as passionately
and loves her as truly and as rapturously as when she was
a bride—he is a worshipper—that is worship.
And the gentleman brought forward as a reason why
we should not have free speech, that only a few years ago
some of the best men in the world, if you said a word in
favor of liberty, would shoot you down. What an argu
ment was that 1 They were not good men. They were
the whippers of women and the stealers of babes—robbers
of the trundle-bed—assassins of human liberty. They
knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the
example of a barbarian because he was honestly a bar
barian.
So much for debauching his family by telling them
that his precepts are false. If he has taught them as he
has taught us to-night, he has debauched their minds. . I
would be honest at the cradle. I would not tell a child
ariything as a certainty that I did not know. I would be
absolutely honest.
�28
Limits of Toleration.
But he says that thought is absolutely free—nobody
can control thought. Let me tell him: Superstition is
the jailer of the mind. You can so stuff a child with
superstition that its poor little brain is a bastile and its
poor little soul a convict. Fear is the jailer of the mind,
and superstition is the assassin of liberty.
So when anybody goes into his family and tells these
great and shining truths, instead of debauching his children
they will kill the snakes that crawl in their cradles. Let
us be honest and free.
And now, coming to the second gentleman. He is a
Protestant. The Catholic Church says : “ Don’t think ;
pay your fare ! this is a through ticket, and we will look
out for your baggage.” The Protestant Church says :
“ Read that Bible for yourselves; think for yourselves ;
but if you do not come to a right conclusion you will be
eternally damned.” Any sensible man will say, “ Then
I won’t read it—I’ll believe it without reading it.” And
that is the only way you can be sure you will believe it:
don’t read it.
Governor Woodford says that we are responsible for our
thoughts. Why ? Could you help thinking as you did
on this subject? No. Could you help believing the
Bible ? I suppose not. Could you help believing that
story of Jonah ? Certainly not—it looks reasonable in
Brooklyn.
I stated that thought was the result of the impressions
of nature upon the mind through the medium of the
senses. He says you cannot have thought without
memory. How did you get the first one ?
Of course I intended to be understood—and the language
is clear—that there could be no thought except through
the impressions made upon the brain by nature through
the avenue called the senses. Take away the senses, how
would vou think then ? If you thought at all, I think
you would agree with Mr. Coudert.
Now I admit—so we need never have a contradiction
about it—I admit that every human being is responsible
' to the person he injures; if he injures any man, woman or
child, or any dog, or the lowest animal that crawls, he is
�Limits of Toleration.
29
responsible to that animal, to that being—in other words,
he is responsible to any being that he has injured.
But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there be one.
I will tell you why. You cannot help him, and you can
not hurt him.. If there be an infinite Being he is condition
less—he does not want anything, he has it. You cannot
help anybody that does not want something—you cannot
help him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a con
ditioned being and you change’ his condition so as to
inflict a harm. But'if God be conditionless, you cannot
hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do not trouble
yourselves about the Infinite. All our duties lie within
reach—all our duties are right here ; and my religion is
simply this :
First—Give to every other human being every right
that you claim for yourself.
Second—If vou tell your thought at all, tell youi
honest thought. Do not be a parrot—do not be an in
strumentality for an organisation. Tell your own thought,
honor bright, what you think.
My next idea is, that the only possible good in the
universe is happiness. The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is
to try and make somebody else so.
My o-ood friend General Woodford—and he is a good
man telling the best he knows—says that I will be
accountable at the bar up yonder. I am ready to settle
that account now, and expect to be, every moment of my
life—and when that settlement comes, if it does come, I
do not believe that a solitary being can rise and say that
I ever injured him or her.
But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a story,
how we will settle if we do get there.
You remember the story told about the Mexican who
believed that his country was the only one in the world,
and said so. The priest told him that there was another
country where a man lived who was eleven 01 twelve feet
high that made the whole world, and if he denied it, when
that man got hold of him he would not leave a whole bone
in his body. But he denied it. He was one of those
�30
Limits of Toleration.
men who would not believe further than his vision
extended.
. So one day in his boat he was rocking away when the
wind suddenly arose and he was blown out of sight of his
home. After several days he was blown so far that he
saw the shore of another country. Then he said, “ My
Lord, I am gone! I have been swearing all my life that
there was no other country, and here it is I ” So he did
his best—paddled with what little strength he had left,
reached the shore and got out of his boat. Sure enough,
there came down a man to meet him about twelve feet
high. The poor little wretch was frightened almost to
death, so he said to the tall man as he saw him coming
down, “Mister, whoever you are, I denied your existence,
I did not believe you lived ; I swore there was no such
country as this; but I see I was mistaken, and I am
gone. You are going to kill me, and the quicker you do
it the better and get me out of my misery. Do it
now I ”
The great man just looked at the little fellow and said
nothing, till he asked “ What are you going to do with
me, because over in that other country I denied your
existence ? ” “ What am I going to do with you ? ” said
the supposed god. “ Now that you have got here, if you
behave yourself I am going to treat you well.”
�Colonel Ingersoll’s Works.
-------- 0------- -
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. Price
-10
In cloth
_
-1,6
The only complete edition published in England.
136 pp.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at Trial of C. B. Reynolds
for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
With a biography.
ROME OR REASON? 0 4
A Reply to Cardinal Manning
FAITH AND FACT. A Reply to Rev. Dr. Field 0 2
GOD AND MAN.
Second Reply to Dr. Field
0
-
2
2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
-
-
THE DYING CREED -
-
-02
-
0
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
-
0.2
ART AND MORALITY
-
-
-
0
2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
-
-
-
0
1
LIVE TOPICS -
-
-
’
-
-
-01
REAL BLASPHEMY -
-
-
-01
SOCIAL SALVATION -
-
-
-01
u MYTH AND MIRACLE
-
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
01
�CRIMES
of
CHRISTIANITY.
By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
VOL. I. Chapters
(1) Christ to Constantine; (2) Constantine
to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pious
Frauds; (6) Rise of the Papacy; (7) Crimes of the Popes;
(8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades.
Hundreds of refeiences are.given to standard authorities. No pains
have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
224 pp., cloth boards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d.
“ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppo
nents of Christianity.”—National Reformer.
“ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—
Weekly Times.
“The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U. S. A.
Two keen writers.”—Truthseeker (London).
“ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity.”—Literary
World.
“ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as we have
been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open Court
(Chicago).
“Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—Weekly Dispatch.
“ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up, low priced,
and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle.
“ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of authorities.”—
Western Figaro,
Vol. II. is in Preparation.
THE “FREETHINKER,”
EDITED BY
G. W. FOOTE.
------- o-------
PUBLISHED
EVERY
THURSDAY
PRICE ONE PENNY.
Progressive Publishing Company, 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
The limits of toleration : a discussion between Colonel R.G. Ingersoll and Honorable F.D. Coudert and Governor S.L. Woodford, at the Nineteenth Century Club, New York: verbatim report
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Coudert, F. D.
Woodford, Stewart L. (Stewart Lyndon) [1835-1913]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements inside and on back cover. No. 48d 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N370
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religious toleration
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 limits of toleration : a discussion between Colonel R.G. Ingersoll and Honorable F.D. Coudert and Governor S.L. Woodford, at the Nineteenth Century Club, New York: verbatim report), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Religious Tolerance
Toleration
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/071a486dec65ed69f8aa33d77aca5988.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PcOMOJJot9FUxC5GEAtCJ6sMlFRkeKknXRl0FCrGRCjfwSl%7EXPw33aQ6q0iT3CrEYzSGN%7E9ViDOwYmsQ1TnbkAmZ%7E4TphArREshaDEgNV-u1UboFaTwiAoBqBcZtY2GBcDit9EOhzQTWjPb0pFE-otvRZ9ZXAs%7E9AjHfPj1UiHw08ImIdGAeO6G9DZ1pO0v%7EShclqs1XQhqjnJ689vqTZjvjWRf1ZKFEzuKe0%7E4LnDfDzYVQZvHhXYjLzXQ4BYUUHWjxn3b8LMk81yRMEc-d9oACgKX46JVmVjd7wziFRCigl9EOuvO1Wtud-YFke3OOeTS3jp18FldBRKv5Tb6dtg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
94debbb13ba624731f04e80f53e086b4
PDF Text
Text
4f»
WHY I BECAME
A THEOSOPHIST.
BY
ANNIE
BESANT.
(Fellow of the Theosophical Society.)
LONDON
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
•
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
�6^"
national secular society
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
---------- >---------Endurance is the crowning quality
And patience all the passion of great hearts ;
These are their stay, and when the leaden world
Sets its hard facs against their fateful thought,
And brute strength, like a scornful conqueror,
Clangs his huge mace down in the other scale,
The inspired soul but flings its patience in,
And slowly that outweighs the ponderous globe.
One faith against a whole world's unbelief,
One soul against the flesh of all mankind.
Growth necessarily implies change, and, provided the
change be sequential and of the nature of development,
it is but the sign of intellectual life. No one blames the
child because it has out-grown its baby-clothes, nor the
man when his lad’s raiment becomes too narrow for him ;
but if the mind grows as well as the body, and the intel
lectual garment of one decade is outgrown in the following,
cries are raised of rebuke and of reproach by those who
regard fossilisation as a proof of mental strength. Just now
from some members of the Freethought party reproaches
are being levelled at me because I have proclaimed myself
■a Theosophist. Yet of all people Freethinkers ought to
be the very last to protest against change of opinion per se ;
for almost every one of them is a Freethinker by virtue of
mental change, and the only hope of success for their
propaganda in a Christian country is that they may persuade others to pass through a similar change. They are
•continually reproaching Christians in that their minds are
not open to argument, will not listen to reason; and yet,
if one of themselves sees a further truth and admits it,
they object as much to the open mind of the Freethinker
as to the closed mind of the Christian. To take up the
�4
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
position assumed by some of my critics is to set up a new
infallibility, as indefensible, and less venerable, than that
of Rome. It is to claim that the summit of human know
ledge has been reached by them, and that all new know
ledge is folly. It is to do what Churches in all ages have
done, to set up their own petty fences round the field of
truth, and in so doing to trace the limits of their own
cemeteries. And for the Freethinker to do this is to be
false to his creed, and to stain himself with the most
flagrant inconsistency; he denounces the immovability of
the Church as obstinacy, while he glorifies the immovability
of the Freethinker as strength ; he blames the one because
it shuts its ears against his new truth, and then promptly
shuts his own ears against new truth from some one else.
Let us distinguish : there is a vacillation of opinion
which is a sign of mental weakness, a change which is a
turning back. When all the available evidence for a
doctrine has been examined, and the doctrine thereupon
has been rejected, it shews a mental fault somewhere if
that doctrine be again accepted, the evidence remaining
the same. It does not, on the other hand, imply any
mental weakness, if, on the bringing forward of new
evidence which supplies the lacking demonstration, the
doctrine previously rejected for lack of such evidence, be
accepted. Nor does it imply mental weakness if a doctrine
accepted on certain given evidence, be later given up on
additions being made to knowledge. Only in this way is
intellectual progress made; only thus, step by step, do we
approach the far-off Truth. A Freethinker, who has
become one by study and has painfully wrought out his
freedom, discarding the various doctrines of Christianity,
could not rebelieve them without confessing either that ho
had been hasty in his rejection or was insecure in his new
adhesion : in either case he would have shewn intellectual
weakness. But not to the Freethinker can be closed any
new fields of mental discovery ; not on his limbs shall be
welded the fresh fetters of a new orthodoxy, after he has
hewn off the links of the elder faith; not round his eyes,
facing the sunshine, shall be bound the bandage of a
cramping creed ; not to him shall Atheism, any more than
Theism, say : “ Thus far shalt thou think, and no further
Atheism has been his deliverer; it must never be his
gaoler: it has freed him; it must never tie him down..
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
5
Grateful for all it has saved him from, for all it has taught
him, for the strength it has given, the energy it has
inspired, the eager spirit of man yet rushes onward,
trying: “ The Light is beyond! ”
I maintain, then, that the Freethinker is bound ever to
keep open a window towards new light, and to refuse to
pull down his mental blinds. Freethought, in fact, is an
intellectual state, not a creed; a mental attitude, not a
series of dogmas. No one turns his back on Freethought
who subjects every new doctrine to the light of reason,
who weighs its claims without prejudice, and accepts or
rejects it out of loyalty to truth alone. It seems necessary
to recall this fundamental truth about Freethought, in
protest against the position taken up by some of my critics,
who would fain identify a universal principle with a special
phase of nineteenth century Materialism. The temple of
Freethought is not identical with the particular niche in
which they stand.
Nor is the Freethought platform so narrow a stage as
Mr. Foote would make out in his recent attack on me. He
accuses me of using the Freethought platform “ in an un
justifiable manner ”, because I have lectured on Socialism
from it, and he is afraid that I may lecture on Theosophy
from it and 11 lead Freethinkers astray ”. I have hitherto
regarded Freethinkers as persons competent to form their
own judgment, not mere sheep to be led one way or the
other. There is a curious clerical ring in the phrase, as
though free ventilation of all opinions were not the very
life-blood of Freethought. It is a new thing to seek to
exclude from the Freethought platform any subject which
concerns human progress. In his younger and broader
days, Mr. Foote lectured from the Freethought platform
on Monarchy, Republicanism, the Land Question, and
Literature, and no one rebuked him for unjustifiable use of
it; now he apparently desires to restrict it to attacks on
theology alone. I protest against this new-fangled narrow
ing of the grand old platform, from which Carlile, Watson,
Hetherington, and many another fought for the right of
Free Speech on every subject that concerned human wel
fare, a noble tradition carried on in our own time by
Charles Bradlaugh, who has always used the Freethought
platform for political and social, as well as for anti-theological, work. I know that of late years Mr. Foote has
�6
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
narrowed his own advocacy, but that gives him no claim to
enforce on others a similar narrowness, and to denounce
their action as unjustifiable when they carry on the use of
the platform which has always been customary. For my
own part, I have so used it since I joined the Freethought
party: I have lectured on Radicalism and on Socialism,
on Science and on Literature, as well as on Theology, and
I shall continue to do so. Of course if the National Secular
Society should surrender its motto, “We seek for Truth ”,
and declare, like any other sect, that it has the whole
truth, there are many who would have to reconsider their
position as members of it. If the National Secular Society
should follow Mr. Foote’s recent departure, and seek to
exclude from the platform all non-theological subjects, it
has the right to do so, though it ought then to drop the
name of Secular and call itself merely the Anti-Theological
Society; but until it does, I shall follow the course I have
followed these fifteen years, of using the platform for
lecturing on any subject that seems to me to be useful.
When the National Secular Society excludes me from its
platform I must of course submit, but no one person has a
right to dictate to the Society what matters it shall discuss.
A few weeks ago a Branch of the National Secular Society
wrote asking me to lecture on Theosophy: was I to answer
that the subject was not a suitable one for them to
consider ? Mr. Foote in one breath blames me for not
explaining my position to the Freethought party, and in
the next warns me off the platform from which the
explanation can best be made. I had no paper in which
I could give my reasons for becoming a Theosophist, and
I am told that to use the platform is unjustifiable I Leaving
this, I pass to the special subject of this paper, “Why I
became a Theosophist”.
Mr. Foote writes, with exceeding bitterness, that “amidst
all her changes Mrs. Besant remains quite positive
What are all these changes ? Like Mr. Foote and most of
the rest of us, I passed from Christianity into Atheism.
After fifteen years, I have passed into Pantheism. The
first change I need not here defend; but I desire to say
that in all I have written and said, as Atheist, against
supernaturalism, I have nothing to regret, nothing to
unsay. On the negative side Atheism seems to me to be
unanswerable; its case against supernaturalism is com
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
7
plete. And for some years I found this enough : I was
satisfied, and I have remained satisfied, that the universe is
not explicable on supernatural lines. But I turned then to
scientific work, and for ten years of patient and steadfast
study I sought along the lines of Materialistic. Science, for
answer to the questions on Life and Mind to which Atheism,
as such, gave no answer. During those ten years I learned
both at second hand from books and at first hand from
nature, something of what was known of living organisms,
of their evolution and their functions. Building on a sound
knowledge of Biology I went on to Psychology, still striving
to follow nature into her recesses and to wring some answer
from the Eternal Sphinx. Everywhere I found collecting
of facts, systematising of knowledge, tracing of sequences :
nowhere one gleam of light on the question of questions :
“ What is Life ? what is Thought
Not. only was
Materialism unable to answer the question, but it declared
pretty positively that no answer could ever be given.
While claiming its own methods as the only sound ones,
it declared that those methods could not solve the mystery.
As Professor Lionel Beale says (quoted in “ Secret
Doctrine”, vol. i, p. 540): 11 There is a mystery in life—
a mystery which has never been fathomed, and which
appears greater, the more deeply the pheenomena of life
are studied and contemplated. In living centres—far
more central than the centres seen by the highest magni
fying powers, in centres of living matter, where the eye
cannot penetrate, but towards which the understanding
may tend—proceed changes of the nature of which the
most advanced physicists and chemists fail to afford, us
the conception: nor is there the slightest reason to think
that the nature of these changes will ever be ascertained
by physical investigation, inasmuch as they are certainly
of an order or nature totally distinct from that to which
any other phsenomenon known to us can be relegated.”
Elsewhere he remarks: “Between the living state of matter
and its non-living state there is an absolute and irrecon
cilable difference; that, so far from our being able to
demonstrate that the non-living passes by gradations into,
or gradually assumes the state or condition of, the living,
the transition is sudden and abrupt.; and that matter
already in the living state may pass into the non-living
condition in the same sudden and complete manner. . . .
�8
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
The formation of bioplasm direct from non-living mafter
is impossible even in thought, except to one who sets
absolutely at nought the facts of physics and chemistry”
(“Bioplasm,” pp. 3 and 13). Under these circumstances,
it was no longer a matter of suspending judgment until
knowledge made the judgment possible, but the positive
assurance that no knowledge could be attained on the
problem posited. The instrument was confessedly un
suitable, and it became a question of resigning all search
into the essence of things, or finding some new road. It
may be said : “Why seek to solve the insoluble? ” But
such phrase begs the question. Is it insoluble because
one method will not solve it ? Is light incomprehensible
because instruments suitable for acoustics do not reveal its
nature ? If from the blind clash of atoms and the hurtling
of forces there comes no explanation of Life and of Mind,
if these remain sui generis, if they loom larger and larger
as causes rather than as effects, who shall blame the
searcher after Truth, when failing to find how Life can
spring from force and matter, he seeks whether Life be
not itself the Centre, and whether every form of matter
may not be the garment wherewith veils itself an Eternal
and Universal Life ?
Riddles in Psychology.
No one, least of all those who have tried to understand
something of the “ riddle of this painful universe”, will
pretend that Materialism gives any answer to the question,
“ How do we think ? ”, or throws any light on the nature
of thought. It traces a correlation between living nervous
matter and intellection; it demonstrates a parallelism
between the growing complexity of the nervous system
and the growing complexity of the phenomena of
consciousness; it proves that intellectual manifestations
may be interfered with, stimulated, checked, altogether
stopped, by acting upon cerebral matter; it shows that
certain cerebral activities normally accompany psychical
activities. That is, it proves that on our globe, necessarily
the only place in which its investigations have been carried
on, there is a close connexion between living nervous
matter and thought-processes.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
9
As to the nature of that connexion knowledge is dumb,
and even theory can suggest no hypothesis. Materialism
regards thought as a function of the brain; ‘1 the brain
secretes thought”, says Carl Vogt, “as the liver secretes
bile”. It is a neat phrase, but what does itw&n? In
every other bodily activity organ and function are on the
same plane. The liver has form, color, resistance, it is an
object to the senses; its secretion approves itself to those
same senses, as part of the Object World; the cells of the
liver come in contact with the blood, take from it some
substances, reject others, recombine those they have
selected, pour them out as bile. It is all very wonderful,
very beautiful; but the sequence is unbroken; matter is
acted upon, analysed, synthesised afresh; it can be sub
jected at every step to mechanical processes, inspected,
weighed; it is matter at the beginning, matter all through,
matter at the end; we never leave the objective plane.
But “the brain secretes thought” ? We study the nerve
cells of the brain; we find molecular vibration; we are
still in the Object World, amid form, color, resistance,
motion. Suddenly there is a Thought, and all is changed.
We have passed into a new world, the Subject World;
the thought is formless, colorless, intangible, imponder
able ; it is neither moving nor motionless; it occupies no
space, it has no limits; no processes of the Object World
can touch it, no instrument can inspect. It can be analysed,
but only by Thought: it can be measured, weighed, tested,
but only by its own peers in its own world. Between the
Motion and the Thought, between the Object and the Sub
ject, lies an unspanned gulf, and Vogt’s words but darken
■counsel; they are misleading, a false analogy, pretending
likeness where likeness there is none.
Many perhaps, as I have said, like myself, beginning
with somewhat vague and loose ideas of physical pro
cesses, and then, on passing into careful study, dazzled by
the radiance of physiological discoveries, have hoped to
find the causal nexus, or have, at least, hoped that here
after it might be found by following a road rendered
glorious by so much new light. But I am bound to say,
after the years of close and strenuous study both of
physiology and psychology to which I have alluded, that
the more I have learned of each the more thoroughly do
I realise the impassibility of the gulf between material
�10
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
motion and mental process, that Body and Mind, however
closely intermingled, are twain, not one.
Let us look a little further into the functions of Mind,
as e.g., Memory. How does the Materialist explain the
phenomena of Memory ? A cell, or group of cells, has
been set vibrating • hence a thought. Similar vibrations
are continually being set up, and every cell in the cere
brum must have been set vibrating millions of times
during infancy, youth, and maturity. The man of fifty
remembers a scene of his childhood; that is, a group of
cells—every atom of which has been changed several
times since the scene occurred—sets up a certain series of
vibrations which reproduces the original series, or let us
say the chief of the original series, and so gives rise to the
remembrance, the vibration being prior in time, necessarily,
to the remembrance. I will not press the further diffi
culty, as to the initiation of this motion and the complexi
ties of “Association” in intensifying vibration so as to
bring the thought above the threshold of consciousness..
It will suffice to try and realise what is implied in the
setting up of this series of vibrations, each cell vibrating
in conjunction with its fellows as it vibrated forty years
before, despite the myriad other combinations ^possible,
each one of which would cause other thought. \_A wellstored memory contains thousands of “thought pictures” ;
each of these must have its vibratory cell-series in the- k.
human cerebrum. Is this possible, having regard to the
laws of space and time, to which, be it remembered, cell
vibrations are subject ?
But these difficulties are on the surface ; let us go a stepfurther. In dealing with psychology, we must study the
abnormal as well as the normal. Normally, thought
results from sense-impression ; abnormally, sense-impres
sion may result from thought. Thus, a young officer was
told off to exhume the corpse of a person some time buried ;
as the coffin came into view the effluvium was so over
powering that he fainted. Opened, the coffin was found
to be empty. It was the vivid imagination of the young
man that had created the sense-impression, for which there
was no objective cause. Again, a novelist, absorbed in
his plot, in which one of his characters was killed by
arsenic, showed symptoms of arsenical poisoning. Here
the mouth, oesophagus and stomach were affected by a
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
11
cause that existed only in the mind. I have failed to find
any Materialist explanation of a large group of phsenomena,
of which these are types.
Take again the extraordinary keenness of perception
found in some cases of disease. A patient suffering from
one of certain disorders will hear words spoken at a distance
far beyond that of ordinary audition. It seems as though
the lowering of muscular power and of general vitality
coincided with the intensifying of the perceptive faculties
—a fact difficult to explain from the Materialist stand
point, though the explanation saute aux yeux from the
Theosophical, as will be seen further on.
Or consider the phsenomenaof clairvoyance, clairaudience,
and thought-transference. Here, if a person be thrown
into an abnormal nerve condition, he can see and hear at
distances which preclude normal vision and audition. A
clairvoyant will read with eyes bandaged, or with a board
interposed between reader and book. He will follow the
closed or opened hand of the mesmeriser, and give its
position and condition. Here, I do not give special in
stances, as the cases are legion and are easily accessible to
anyone who desires to investigate. A large number of
careful experiments have put cases of thought-transference
beyond possibility of reasonable denial, and can be referred
to by the student. I cannot burden this short pamphlet
with them, especially as it is merely intended as a tracing
of the road along which I have travelled, not as an
exposition of the whole case against Materialism.
Mesmerism and hypnotism, again, suggest the existence
in man of faculties which are normally latent. All sense
perception in the mesmerised is overcome by the will of
the mesmeriser, who imposes on him “ sense-perceptions ”
antagonistic to facts : e.g., he will drink water with enjoy
ment as wine, with repugnance as vinegar, etc. The body
is mastered by the mind of another, and responds as the
operator wills. Experiments in hypnotism have yielded
the most astounding results; actions commanded by the
hypnotiser being performed by the person hypnotised,
although the two were separated by distance, and though
some time had elapsed since the hypnotic operation had
been performed, and the person hypnotised restored
apparently to the normal conditions. (See the experi
ments of Dr. Charcot and others.) So serious have been
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
‘ the results of these experiments that a society is now in
course of formation in London, which seeks to restrict the
practice of hypnotism to the medical profession and persons
duly and legally qualified to practice it. “For this pur
pose”, says the acting Secretary, “it is proposed to found
8» school of hypnotism in London, at which the science will
be properly taught by the best exponents, scientifically
j demonstrated by lecture and experiment, and its beneficial
uses correctly defined and expounded”. Dr. Charcot has
used hypnotism in the place of anaesthetics, and has
i successfully performed a dangerous operation on a hypnoi tised patient, whose heart was too weak to permit the use
«of chloroform. Dr. Grillot uses it for “ moral cures ”, and
. hypnotises dishonest persons into honesty. A congress on
LiJi
.subject is sitting in Paris, while this pamphlet is
passing through the press.
i Allied to these are the phenomena of double-consciousL ness, many records of which are preserved in medical
K works ; here, in some cases, a double life has been led, no
memory, of one state existing in the other, and each life on
re-entering a state being taken up where it was dropped
on leaving it. With only one brain to function, how can
this duality of consciousness be explained ? Hallucinations,
visions of all kinds, again, do not seem to me to be re
ducible under any purely Materialist hypothesis : “ matter
and motion ” do not solve these phenomena of the psychic
world.
Another riddle in psychology is that of dreams. If
thought be the result only of molecular vibration, how
can dreams occur in which many successive events and
prolonged arguments occupy but a moment of time ?
Vibrations, I again remind the reader, are subject to the
conditions of space and time. Succession of thoughts
must imply succession of vibrations on the Materialist
hypothesis, and vibrations take time; yet thousands of
these, which, waking, would occupy days and weeks, are
compressed into a second in a dream.
Quite another class of phenomena is that in which
abilities are manifested for which no sufficient cause can
be discovered. Infant prodigies, like Hofmann and others,
whence come they ? We know what the brain of a very
young child is like, and we find young Hofmann impro
vising with a scientific knowledge that he has not had
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
13
time to acquire in the ordinary way. “ Genius ”, we say,
with our fashion of pretending to explain by using a
word; but how can Materialism, which will have matter
give birth to thought, find in the newly-made brain of
this child the cerebral modifications necessary for pro
ducing his melodies ? And when a servant in a farmhouse,
ignorant in her waking hours, talks Hebrew in her sleep,
how are we to regard her brain from the Materialist
Standpoint ? Or when the calculating boy answers a com
plex calculation when the words are barely out of the
questioner’s mouth, how have the cells performed their
duties ? a problem that becomes the more puzzling when
we find that the increase of circulation, etc., which
normally accompany brain activity, have not, in his case,
Occurred.
These are only a few riddles out of many, but they are
samples of the bulk. To some of us they are of over
powering interest, because they seem to suggest dimly
new fields of thought, new possibilities of development,
new heights which Humanity shall hereafter scale. We
do not believe that the forces of Evolution are exhausted.
We do not believe that the chapter of Progress is closed.
When a new sense was developing in the past its reports
at first must have been very blundering, often very mis
leading, doubtless very ridiculous at times, but none the
less had it the promise of the future, and was the germ of
a higher capacity. May not some new sense be developing
to-day, of which the many abnormal manifestations around
us are the outcome? Who, with the past behind him,
shall dare to say, “ It cannot be ” ? and who shall dare to
blame those whose longing to know may be but the yearn
ing of the Spirit of Humanity to rise to some higher
plane ?
The Theosophical Society.
Before showing the method suggested in Theosophical
teachings for obtaining light on the above questions, or
sketching the view of the universe given by occult science,
it may be well to remove some misconceptions concerning
the Theosophical Society, my adhesion to which has brought
on my devoted head such voluminous upbraiding. I fear
that the objects of the Society will come somewhat as an
�14
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
anti-climax after the denunciations. They are three in
number, and any one who asks for admittance to the
Society must approve the first of these :
1. To be the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood.
2. To promote the. study of Aryan and other Eastern
literatures, religions, and sciences.
3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the
psychical powers latent in man.
Nothing more! Not a word of any form of belief; no
imposition of any special views as to the universe or man ;
nothing about Mahatmas, cycles, Karma or anything else.’
Atheist and Theist, Christian and Hindu, Mahommedan
and Secularist, all can meet on this one broad platform
and none has the right to look askance at another.
The answer to the inquiry, “Why did you join the
Society ? ” is very simple. There is sore need, it seems to
me, m our unbrotherly, anti-social civilisation, of this dis
tinct affirmation of a brotherhood as broad as Humanity
itself. Granted that it is as yet but a beautiful Ideal, it
is well that such an Ideal should be lifted up before the
eves of men. Not only so, but each who affirms that ideal,
and tries to conform thereto his own life, does something,
however little, to lift mankind towards its realisation, to
hasten the coming of that Day of Man. Again, the third
object is one that much attracts me. The desire for know
ledge is wrought deep into the heart of every earnest
student, and for many years the desire to search out the
forces that lie latent in and around us has been very
present to me. I can see in that desire nothing unworthy
of a Freethinker, nothing to be ashamed of as a searcher
after truth. “We seek for Truth” is the motto of the
National Secular Society, and that motto, to me, has been
no lip-phrase.
Beyond this, the membership of the Theosophical
Society does not bind its Fellows. They can remain
attached to any religious or non-religious views they may
have previously held, without challenge or question from
any. They may become students of Theosophy if they
choose, and develop into Theosophists; but this is above
and beyond the mere membership of the Society.
This fact, well known to all members of the Society,
shows how unjust was the attack on Mdme. Blavatsky,
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOBHIST.
15
accusing her of inconsistency because she said, there was
nothing to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from joining the Theo-sophical Society. There is nothing in the objects to
prevent anyone from joining who believes, as do all
Atheists, I think, in the Brotherhood of Man.
While this pamphlet is passing through the press a
curious judicial decision on the status of the Society
reaches me from America. A Branch Society at St. Louis
applied for a Decree of Incorporation, and in ordinary
•course the Report, based on sworn testimony, was delivered
to the court by its own officer, and on this the decree was
issued. The Report found that the Society was not a
religious but an educational body; it “has no religious
creed, and practises no worship”. The Report then pro
ceeded to deal with the Third Object of the Society, and
found that among the phenomena investigated were
“Spiritualism, mesmerism, clairvoyance, mind-healing,
mind-reading, and the like. I took testimony on this
question, and found that while a belief in any one of
these sorts of manifestations and phsenomena is not re
quired, while each member of the Society is at liberty to
hold his own opinion, yet such questions form topics of
enquiry and discussion, and the members as a mass are
probably believers individually in phenomena that are
abnormal and in powers that are superhuman as far as
science now knows.” Perhaps those Secularists who have
been so eager to credit me with beliefs that I have not
dreamed of holding, will accept this deliverance of a court
of justice, as they evidently refuse to take my word, as to
the conditions of membership in the Theosophical Society.
When, for instance, I find Mr. Foote in the Freethinker
crediting me with belief in the “ transmigration of souls”,
I can but suppose that he is moved rather by a desire to
discredit me than by a desire for truth. Indeed, the head
long jumping at unfavorable conclusions, and the outcry
raised against me, have been a most painful awakening
from the belief that Freethinkers, as such, would be less
bigoted and unjust than the ordinary Christian sectary.
The Report proceeds: “Theobject of this Society, whether
attainable or not, is undeniably laudable. Assuming that
there are physical and psychical phenomena unexplained,
Theosophy seeks to explain them. Assuming that there
are human powers yet latent, it seeks to discover them. It
�16
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
maybe that absurdsties and impostures are in fact incident to
the nascent stage of its development. As to an undertaking
like Occultism, which asserts powers commonly thought
superhuman, and phenomena commonly thought super
natural, it seemed to me that the Court, though not as
suming to determine judicially the question of their verity
would, before granting to Occultism a franchise, enquire
at least whether it had gained the position of being reput
able, or whether its adherents were merely men of narrow
intelligence, mean intellect, and omnivorous credulity. I
accordingly took testimony on that point, and find that a
number of gentlemen in different countries of Europe, and
also in this country, eminent in science, are believers in
Occultism............ The late President Wayland, of Brown
University, writing of abnormal mental operations as shown
in clairvoyance, says : ‘ The subject seems to me well
worthy of the most searching and candid examination. It
is by no means deserving of ridicule, but demands the
attention of the most philosophical enquiry.’ Sir William
Hamilton, probably the most acute, and undeniably the
most learned of English metaphysicians that ever lived,
said at least thirty years ago : ‘ However astonishing, it
is now proved beyond all rational doubt,' that in certain
abnormal states of the nervous organism perceptions are
possible through other than the ordinary channels of
the senses.’ By such testimony Theosophy is at least
placed on the footing of respectability. Whether
by further labor it can make partial truths complete
truths, whether it can eliminate extravagances and
purge itself of impurities, if there are any, are pro
bably questions upon which the Court will not feel called
upon to pass.”
On this official Report the Charter of Incorporation was
granted, and it may be that some, reading this gravely
recorded opinion, will pause ere they join in the ignorant
outcry of “ superstition ” raised against me for joining the
Theosophical Society. Every new truth is born into the
world amid yells of hatred, but it is not Freethinkers
who should swell the outburst, nor ally themselves with
the forces of obscurantism to revile investigation into
nature.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
17
Theosophy.
It may, however, be granted that most of those who •
enter the Theosophical Society do so because they have
some sympathy with the teachings of Theosophy, some
hope of finding new light thrown on the problems that
perplex them. Such members become students of Theo
sophy, and later many become Theosophists.
The first thing they learn is that every idea of the
existence of the supernatural must be surrendered. What- 1
ever forces may be latent in the Universe at large or in
man in particular, they are wholly natural. There is no :
such thing as miracle. Phsenomena may be met with that ar© strange, that seem inexplicable, but they are all
within the realm of law, and it is only our ignorance that
makes them marvellous. This repudiation of the super
natural lies at the very threshold of Theosophy: the
supersensuous, the superhuman, Yes; the supernatural,
No.
[I may here make a momentary digression to remark
that some students quickly fall back disappointed because '
they have come to the study of Theosophy with conceptions ■
drawn from theological religions of supernatural powers to be promptly acquired in some indefinite way. We shall •
see that Theosophy alleges the existence of powers greater
than those normally exercised by man, and alleges further
that these powers can be developed. But just because
there is nothing miraculous, or supernatural, about them
they cannot be suddenly obtained. A student of mathe
matics might as well expect to be able to work out a
problem in the differential calculus as soon as he can
Struggle through a simple equation, as a student of Theo
sophy expect to exercise occult faculties when he has
mastered a few pages of the “Secret Doctrine”. A
beginner may come into contact with someone whose
ordinary life occasionally shows in a perfectly simple and
natural way the possession of abnormal powers ; but he
must himself keep to his ABC for awhile, and possess L
his soul in patience.]
The next matter impressed on the student is the denial '■
of a personal God, and hencej as Mme. Blavatsky has
pointed out, Agnostics and Atheists more easily assimilate ’
�18
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
Theosophic teachings than do believers in orthodox creeds.
In theology, Theosophy is Pantheistic, “ God is all and
all is God”. “It is that which is dissolved, or the illusionary dual aspect of That, the essence of which is
eternally One, that we call eternal matter or substance,
formless, sexless, inconceivable, even to our sixth sense,
or mind, in which, therefore, we refuse to see that which
Monotheists call apersonal anthropomorphic God.” (“Secret
Doctrine ”, vol. i, p. 545.) The essential point is : “ What
lies at the root of things, ‘ blind force and matter or an
existence which manifests itself in ‘ intelligence ’ to use a
very inadequate word ? Is the universe built up by
aggregation of matter acted on by unconscious forces,
finally evolving mind as a function of matter : or is it the
unfolding of a Divine Life, functioning in every form of
living and non-living thing ? Is Life or Non-life at the
core of things ? Is ‘ spirit ’ the flower of ‘ matter or
‘ matter ’ the crystallisation of ‘ spirit ’ ? ” Theosophy
accepts the second of these pairs of alternatives, and this,
among other reasons, because Materialism gives no answer
to the riddles in psychology, of which I gave some samples
above, whereas Pantheism does ; and the hypothesis which
includes most facts under it has the greatest claim for
acceptance. On the plane of matter, materialistic Science
answers many questions and promises to answer more;
on the plane of mind she breaks down, and continually
murmurs “ Insoluble, unknowable ”. On the other hand,
assuming intelligence as primal, the developed and dawn
ing faculties of the human mind fall into intelligible order,
and can be studied with hope of comprehension. At any
rate, where Materialism confesses itself incapable, no blame
can be attached to the student if he seek other method for
solving the problem, and if he test the methods offered to
him by some who claim to have solved it, and who prove,
by actual experiment, that their knowledge of natural
laws in the domain of psychology, and outside it, is greater
than his own. So far, however, as Theosophy is concerned
in its acceptance of the Pantheistic hypothesis, it is not
necessary to make any long defence. Pantheism, for
which Bruno died and Spinoza argued, need not seek to
justify its existence in the intellectual world.
The theory of the Universe which engages the attention
of the student of Theosophy comes to him on the authority
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
19
of certain individuals, as does every other similar theory,
religious or scientific. But while all such theories are put
forward by individuals, there is this broad difference
between the tone of the priest and that of the scientific
teacher: one claims to rest on authority outside verifica
tion; the other submits its authority to verification. One
gays: “Believe, or be damned; you must have faith.”
The other says: “Things are thus; I have investigated
and proved them ; many of my demonstrations are incom
prehensible to you in your present state of ignorance, and
I cannot even make them intelligible to you off-hand ; but
if you will study as I have studied, you can discover for
yourself, and you can personally verify all my statements.”
The Theosophical theory of the Universe comes into the
latter category. The student is not even asked to accept it
any faster than he can verify it. On the other hand, if he
choose to be satisfied with the credentials of its teachers,
pending the growth of his own capacity to investigate, he
can accept the theory and guide his own life by it. In the
latter case his progress will be more rapid than in the
former, but the matter is in his own hands and his freedom
is unfettered.
I have spoken of “ its teachers ”, and it will be well to
explain the phrase at the outset. These teachers belong
to a Brotherhood, composed of men of various nationalities,
who have devoted their lives to the study of Occultism and
have developed certain faculties which are still latent in
ordinary human beings. On such subjects as’the con
stitution of man, they claim to speak with knowledge, as
Huxley would speak on man’s anatomy, and for the same
reason, that they have analysed it. So again as to the
existence of various types of living things, unknown to us:
they allege that they see and know them, as we see and
know the types by which we are surrounded. They say
further that they can train other men and women, and
show them how to acquire similar powers: they cannot
give the powers, but can only help others in developing
them, for they are a part of human nature, and must be
evolved from within, not bestowed from without.
Now it is obvious that, while the teachings of Theosophy
might simply stand before the world on their own feet, to
meet with acceptance or rejection on their inherent merits
And demerits, as they deal largely with questions of fact,
�20
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
they must depend on the evidence whereby they are sup
ported, and, at the outset, very largely on the competenceof the persons who give them to the world. The existence
of these teachers, and their possession of powers beyond
those exercised by ordinary persons, become then of crucial
importance. Were the powers to Be taken as miraculous,
and were they apart from the subject matter of their teach
ings, I cannot see that they would be of any value as
evidence in support of those teachings; but if they depend
on the accuracy of the views enunciated and demonstrate
those views, then they become relevant and evidential, asthe experiments of a skilled electrician elucidate his views
and demonstrate his theories.
We, therefore, are bound to ask, ere going any further:
do these teachers exist ? do they possess these (at present)
exceptional powers ?
The answers to these questions come from different
classes of people with different weight. Those who have
seen the Hindus among them in their own country,
talked with them, been instructed by them, corres
ponded with them, have naturally no more doubt of
their existence than they have of the existence of
other persons whom they have met. Persons who are
interested in the matter can see these people, crossexamine them, and form their own conclusions as to the
value of their evidence. A large number of people, of
whom I am one, believe in the existence of these teachers
on secondhand evidence, that is, on the evidence of those
who know them personally. And this evidence receives a
collateral support when one meets with quiet matter-ofcourse exercise of abnormal faculties, in every day life, on
the part of one alleged to be trained by these very men.
A deception kept up for months with absolute consistency
through all the small details of ordinary intercourse, with
out parade and without concealment, is not a defensible
hypothesis. And it becomes ludicrous to anyone who, in
familiar intercourse, has noted the quick, impulsive, open
character of the much abused and little-known Mdme.
Blavatsky, as frank as a child about herself, and speaking
of her own experiences, her own blunders, her own ad
ventures, with a naive abandon that carries with it a convic
tion of her truth. (I am speaking of her, of course, among
her friends; in face of strangers she can be silent and secret
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
21
■•enough.) It should be added that personal proof of the exist
ence of these teachers is given sooner or later to earnest
«indents, just as, in studying any science, a student after
awhile is able to obtain ocular demonstration of the facts
he learns secondhand. On the other hand, those who feel
that they have attained all possible knowledge and that
. nothing exists of which they are not aware, can deny the
-existence of these teachers and maintain, as stoutly as they
please, that they are a dream, a fancy. 11 The Masters ”,
«8 the students of Theosophy call them, are not anxious
for an introduction, and they are not, like the orthodox
God, angry with any who deny their existence. Shocking
as it may seem to nineteenth century self-sufficiency, they
are indifferent to its declaration that they are non-existent,
a.nd are in no wise eager to demonstrate to all and sundry
that they live. Let it, however, be clearly understood that
these teachers have nothing supernatural about them;
they are men who have studied a particular subj ect and
have become “ masters ” in it—Mahatmas, Great Souls,
tike Hindus call them—and who, because they know, can
do things that ignorant people cannot do.
From these Masters then, say Theosophists, we derive
-our teachings, and you will find, if you examine them,
that they throw light on the nature of man and guide him
along the path to a higher life. Man, according to Theo
sophy, is a compound being, a spark of the Universal
Spirit being prisoned in his body, as a flame in the lamp.
The u higher Triad” in man consists of this spark of the
Universal Spirit, its vehicle the human spirit, and the
v rational principle, the mind or intellectual powers. This
is immortal, indestructible, using the lower Quaternary,
• the body, with its animal life, its passions and appetites,
as its dwelling, its organ. Thus we reach the famous
«even-fold division, or the “seven principles” in man:
Atma, the Universal spirit; Buddhi, the human spirit;
Manas, the rational soul; Kamarupa, the animal soul with
its appetites and passions; Prana, the vitality, the principle
-Of life; Linga Sharira, the vehicle of this life ; Pupa, the
physical body. Theosophy teaches that the higher Triad
and lower Quaternary are not only separable at death, but
may be temporarily separated during life, the intellectual
part of man leaving the body and its attached principles,
and appearing apart from them. This is the much talked
�22
WHY I BECAME A THE030PHIST.
of “astral appearance”, and its reality can only be decided
by evidence, like any other matter of fact. Those whoknow nothing about it will, of course, deride belief in it
as superstition, as people like-minded with them derided
in the past each newly discovered power in nature. Hero
again, after awhile, the student has ocular demonstration,
and, when he reaches a certain stage, personal experience;
but, if he is dissatisfied with second-hand evidence, no
blame will fall on him for suspending his belief until he
obtains personal proof.
Clairvoyance and allied phenomena become intelligibleon this view of man, the projection of the human intelli
gence, while the body is in a state of trance, taking its
place as one of the temporary separations alluded to. The
Ego, thus freed, can exercise its faculties apart from thelimitations of the physical senses, and has escaped from
the time and space limits which are created by our normal
consciousness. It is noteworthy that persons emerging
from the mesmeric state have no memory of what has
occurred during that state; i.e., no impress has been left
on the physical organism by the experiences passed
through. But if the seeing or hearing is by the way
of the external senses, this could not be, for the cere
bral activity would have left its trace on the cerebral
material.
If, on the other hand, the experiences have been
supersensuous, there can be no reason to look for their
record in the sense-centres; and the outcome of the
experiment is merely the fact that, under these conditions,
the Ego is powerless to impress on the physical frame the
memory of its actions. So long, indeed, as the lower
nature is more vigorous than the higher, this impotency of
the Ego will continue ; and it is only as the higher nature
developes and takes the upper hand in the alliance, that
the physical consciousness will become impressible by it.
This stage has been reached by many, and then conscious
ness becomes unified, and higher and lower work in
harmony under the control of the will.
The weakening of tue body by disease sometimes brings
about, but in an undesirable way, a temporary supremacy
of the Higher Self, resulting in that keenness of percep
tion referred to on page 11. To obtain such keennessnormally, without injury to health, it would be necessary
�WHY I BECAME A THEO SOPHIST.
23
to refine and purify the physical organisation, and this,
among other things, may be effected in due course.
On the existence of this separable and indestructible
entity, the Ego, hinge the doctrines of Ee-incarnation and
Karma. Ee-incarnation—ignorantly travestied as transmi
gration of souls—is the rebirth of the Ego, as above defined,
to pass through another human life on earth. . During
its past incarnation it had acquired certain faculties, set in
motion certain causes. The effects of these, causes, and
of causes set in motion in previous incarnations and. not
yet exhausted, are its Karma, and determine the con
ditions into which the Ego is reborn, the conditions being
modified, however, by the national Karma, the outcome of
the collective life. The faculties acquired in previous
incarnations manifest themselves in the new life, and
genius, abnormal capacities of any kind, possession of
knowledge not acquired during the present existence, and
so on, are explained by Theosophy on this theory of re
incarnation. Infant prodigies, calculating boys, et hoc genus
omne, fall into order in quite natural fashion instead , of
rom ni ni ng as inexplicable phænomena. Erom the point
of view of Theosophy, nothing is lost in the Universe, no
force is extinguished. Faculties and capacities painfully
acquired during the long course of years do not perish at
death. When, after long sleep, the time for rebirth
comes, the Ego does not re-enter earth-life as a pauper ;
he returns with the fruits of his past victories, to make
further progress upwards.
The only proof of this doctrine, apart from the explana
tion it gives of the otherwise inexplicable cases of genius,
etc., and its inherent probability—given any intelligent
purpose in human existence—must, in the nature of
things, lie for us in the future if it exist at all; the
Masters allege it on their personal knowledge, having
reached the stage at which memory of past incarnations
revives ; the doctrine comes to us on their authority, and
must be accepted or rejected by each as it approves itself
to his reason.
Similarly the working of the law of Karma cannot be
demonstrated as can a problem in mathematics. The law
of Karma has been defined by Colonel Olcott as the law of
ethical causation ; Theosophists affirm that the harvest
reaped by man is of his own sowing, and that, although
�¡24
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
not always immediately, yet inevitably, every act must
work out its full results. We may argue to this law in
. the mental and moral worlds, by analogy from the physical.
Each force on the physical plane has its own result, and
. where many forces interact, each has, none the less, its
complete effect. On the higher planes, since the Universe
is one, we may reasonably look for similar laws, and one
of these laws is Karma. That it will be difficult to trace
its exact working in any instance lies in the nature of the
case. We may see a body rushing in a given direction,
and we know that the line along which it is travelling is
the resultant of all the forces that have impelled it; but
that resultant may have been caused, by any one of a
thousand combinations, and in default of the knowledge
of the whole history of its motion we cannot select one
combination and say, such and such are the forces. How
then can we expect to perform such a feat in the more
complicated interplay of all the Karmic forces that ultimate
m the character and environment of an individual ? The
general principle can be laid down; for the working out
of a particular case in detail we have not the material.
One. of my critics, Mr. G. W. Foote, asks me how I can
reconcile Karma with Socialism, and he affirms that the
Socialist, and “every social reformer, is fighting against
Karma”.. Not so in any effective sense. To bring fresh
forces to improve , the present is not to deny the effects of
past causes, but is only to introduce new causes which
shall modify present effects and change the future. It
may well be. that the present poverty, misery, and disease
spring inevitably from past evil, and this all scientific
thinkers must admit, whether or not they use the word
Karma; but that is no reason why we should not start
forces of wisdom and love to change them, and create
good Karma for the future instead of continuing to create
bad. By every action we modify the present and mould
the future; that the past has created so evil an heritage
but makes the need the sorer for strenuous effort now.
It must be remembered that Karma is not a personal
Deity, against whose will it might be thought blasphemous
to contend. It is simply a law, like any other law of
nature, and we cannot violate it even if we would. But it
110 more prevents us from aiding our fellow-men than
“the law of gravitation” prevents us from walking up.
�WHY I-BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
25
^■stairs. We. cannot prevent a man from suffering physical
pain if he breaks his leg, but the law of nature that pain
. follows lesion of sensitive tissues does not hinder us from
nursing the sufferer and alleviating the pain as much as
possible. Neither can we save a man from the sway of
Karmic law, but there is nothing to prevent us from
trying to lighten his suffering, and above all from en
deavoring to put an end to the causes which are continually
generating such evil results. Does Mr. Foote deny that
all around us is the outcome of past causes ? or does he
.say that because there is causation we must sit with folded
hands in face of evil ? The true view, it seems to me, is
that as present conditions are the results of past activities,
. so future conditions will be the results of present activities,
and we had better bestir ourselves to the full extent of our
powers to set going causes that will work out happier
results.1
What belief in Karma does is to prevent mere idle and
useless repining, and to teach a dignified and virile accept
ance of inevitable suffering, while bracing the spirit to
sustained endeavor to improve the present and thus inevit
ably improve the future. Nor must it be forgotten that
courage to face pain, and love, and generous self-sacrifice
for others, are all of them Karmic fruits, effects of past
•causes and themselves causes of fature effects. The
religionist, who hopes to escape from the consequences of
his own misdeeds through some side-door of vicarious
atonement, may shrink from the stern enunciation of the
law of Karma, but the Secularist who believes in the
reign of law can have no quarrel on this head with the
Theosophist. Difference can only arise when the Theosophist says: “You must pay every farthing of the debt
run up, either in this or in some future incarnation ”. The
non-Theosophical Secularist would consider that death
cancels all debts. To the Theosophist death merely sus
pends the payment, and the full undischarged account is
, presented to the dead man’s successor, who is himself in a
new dress.
Theosophy further teaches, in connexion with man,
1 See an article, “Karma and Social Improvement”, by the present
writer, in Lucifer for August, 1889. The question is there more
fully worked out.
�26
WHY I BECAME A THE0S0PHI8T.
that he may develope by suitable means not only the
psychic qualities of which glimpses are given in the ab
normal manifestations before alluded to, but power over
matter far. greater than he at present possesses, and
psychic abilities in comparison with which those now
looming before us are but as the capacities of infants to
those of grown men. In the slow evolution of the human
race these qualities will gradually unfold themselves;
further, they may be, so to say, “forced” by any who
choose to take the requisite means. And here comes in
the asceticism to which Mr. Foote so vehemently objects ;
he . declares that the acceptance of celibacy by an
individual for a definite object implies that “ Marriage is
now a mere concession to human weakness. Celibacy is
the counsel of perfection. The sacred names of husband
and wife, father and mother, are to be deposed as usurpers.
At the very best they are only to be tolerated. It is idle
to reply that celibacy is only for the ‘inner circle’. If it
be. the loftiest rule of life, it should be aimed at by all.”
With all due respect to Mr. Foote, his denunciation savors
somewhat of clap-trap, though well calculated to appeal to
the ordinary British Philistine of Mr. Matthew Arnold.
No one wants to depose any names, sacred or otherwise,
as usurpers. It sounds rather small after this tremendous
objurgation, but all the Theosophist says is, if you want to
obtain a certain thing you must use certain means; as who
should say, if you want to swim across that swift current
you must take off your coat. But if it be good, should
not everyone try for it ? Not necessarily. Music is very
good, but I should be a fool to practise eight hours a day
if I had but small talent for it; if I have great talent, and
want to become a great artist, I must sacrifice for it many
of the ordinary j oys of life; but is that to say that every
boy and girl must fling aside every duty of life and practise
incessantly, without the slightest regard to anything else ?
Only one out of millions has the capacity for that swift
development to which allusion is made, and celibacy is one
of the smallest of the sacrifices it demands for its realisa
tion. The spiritual genius, like other geniuses, will have
its way, but Mr. Foote need not fear that it will become
too common, and Theosophy does not advise celibacy to
those not on fire with its flame.
I ought perhaps in passing to say a word as to the
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOEHIST.
27
power over matter spoken of above, because a good deal
of fuss, quite out of proportion to their importance, hasbeen made about the “phenomena” with which Mdme.
Blavatsky’s name has been associated, and many peoplo
assume that it is pretended that they are “miracles ., or
are a phase of “ Spiritualistic manifestations . The bitter
attacks made on Mdme. Blavatsky by Spiritualists ought
to convince unprejudiced people that she has not.much m
common with them. As a matter of fact, her main object
in the greater number of cases, as she said at the time,
was to show that far more remarkable things than were
done among Spiritualists by “spirits” in the dark, could
be done in full daylight without any “ spirits ”, merely by
the utilisation of natural forces. All that she. claimed was
that she knew more about these forces than did the people
about her, and could therefore do things which they could
not. A good many of the apparent miracles turned merely
on the utilisation of magnetic force, a force about the
•marvels of which science is finding out more year after
year. Mdme. Blavatsky is able to utilise this force, which
everyone admits is around us, in us, and in non-living
things, without the apparatus used at the present time by
science for its manipulation. Other of the phenomena
were what she called “psychological tricks , illusions,
conjuring on the mental plane as does the ordinary
conjurer on the material, making people see what you
wish them to see instead of what really is. Others, again,
were cases of thought-transference. Another group, that
including the disintegration and reintegration of material
objects, is more difficult to understand. All I can say
myself as to this is that when I find a person, who leads a
good and most laborious life, and who exercises powers
that I do not possess, telling me that this can be done and
has been done within her own knowledge in a perfectly
natural way, I am not going to say “ deception ”,
“ charlatanry ”, merely because I do not understand; any
more than I should say so if Tyndall told me of one of his
wonderful experiments, as to which I did not understand
the modus operandi.
There remains a great stumbling-block in the minds of
many Freethinkers, which is certain to prejudice them
against Theosophy, and which offers to opponents a cheap
Subject for sarcasm—the assertion that there exist other
�28
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
living beings than the men and animals found on our own
globe. It may be well for people who at once turn away
when such an assertion is made to stop and ask themselves
whether they really and seriously believe that throughout
this mighty universe,. in which our little planet is but as
a. tiny speck of sand in the Sahara, this one planet only is
inhabited by living things ? Is all the Universe dumb
save for our voices ? eyeless, save for our vision ? dead,
save for. our life ? Such a preposterous belief was well
enough in the days when Christianity regarded our world
as the centre of the universe, the human race as the one
for which the creator had deigned to die. But now that
we are placed in our proper position, one among countless
myriads of worlds, what ground is there for the pre
posterous conceit which arrogates as ours all sentient
-existence ? Earth, air, water, all are teeming with living
things suited to their environment; our globe is over
flowing with life. But the moment we pass in thought
beyond our atmosphere everything is to be changed.
Neither reason nor analogy support such a supposition.
It was one of Bruno’s crimes that he dared to teach that
other worlds than ours were inhabited, but he was wiser
than the monks who burned him. All the Theosophist
avers is that each phase of matter has living things suited
to it, and. that all the Universe is pulsing with life.
“Superstition” shriek the bigoted. It is no more super
stition than the belief in Bacteria, or in any other living
thing invisible to the ordinary human eye. “ Spirit ” is a
misleading word, for, historically, it connotes immateriality
and a supernatural kind of existence, and the Theosophist
believes neither in the one nor the other. With him all living
things act in and through a material basis, and “ matter ”
and ‘ ‘ spirit ’ ’ are not found dissociated. But he alleges
that matter exists in states other than those at present
known to science. To deny this is to be about as sensible
as was the Hindu prince who denied the existence of ice,
because water in his experience never became solid.
Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational
position; denial of all outside our own limited experience
is absurd.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
29-
Minute®.
Before closing this explanatory pamphlet I must allude
to the kind of weapons being used against me by one or
two writers in the Freethinker. I speak of it here, because
I have no other way of answering the paragraphs which
appear in that journal week after week, and I will take
two or three as specimens of a kind of controversy which
JS not, I venture to think, worthy of the Freethought cause.
“ Mrs. Besant goes in for the transmigration of souls ”,
then follows an absurd statement about the souls of
ill-behaving Hindu wives passing into various animals.
This assertion is worse than a caricature, it is a misrepre
sentation; and as I am told that Mr. Wheeler “knows
more about Buddhism and Oriental thought generally than
Mrs. Besant is ever likely to learn ”, I cannot suppose
that the misrepresentation springs from ignorance. No
Theosophist believes in the transmigration of souls, or that
the human Ego can enter a lower animal; and a blunder
that might pass from an ignoramus is not excusable where
such great professions of learning are made. I take the
above statement as a type of the caricatures of Theosophy
to be found in the Freethinker.
There are other paragraphs which give a false idea by
suppression of part of the truth. Thus : Mr. Foote states
that si we do not intend to open our columns for the dis
cussion of Theosophy” (although he had attacked it), and
saying that he was going to publish a letter from a
Theosophist, he adds : “ The Theosophists must not expect
to use our columns any further. Mr. Wheeler reviewed
Mdme. Blavatsky’s book on its being sent to him for that
purpose, and it is not customary to discuss reviews.”
Butting aside the fact that Mr. Wheeler’s article was an
attack on Theosophy and on Mdme. Blavatsky personally,
rather than a review of the “ Secret Doctrine”, the above
sentence implies that the criticism of the Freethinker was
challenged by the Theosophists sending the book. This
Was not so: Mr. Wheeler wrote saying that my adhesion
to Theosophy would cause interest in the subject to be felt
by Freethinkers, and asking for a copy of the book for
review. This was an unusual course to take as preface to
a,.bitter personal attack, but, waiving the question oh
�so,
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
literary courtesy, the point is that the initiative came from
the Freethinker, not from the Theosophists. It is not
■consistent with Freethought . traditions to gratuitously
attack a person and then decline discussion. Again, Mr.
Foote writes: “We do not agree with the Medium and
Daybreak that Mr. Foote should have treated Mrs. Besant’s
‘ apostacy with silent contempt.’ A very different treat
ment was called for by her character and past services to
the cause.” The words in inverted commas do occur in
the Medium and Daybreak, but the context considerably
alters the meaning suggested by them as quoted bv Mr.
Foote. The passage runs :
“‘Mrs. Besaxt’s Theosophy’ is the title of a 16-page
two-penny worth by G. W. Foote, in which ‘ the Freethought
party’ is an ominous phrase. Like the ‘Church’ it stands
high above truth, and Mrs. Besant is censured for treating it
so ‘ cavalierly ’. In view of the lady’s new style of propaganda,
Mr. Foote is anxious for the ‘interests of the free-thought
party’. If the ‘philosophy’ of that body be so ‘sound and
bracing.’, why the weakness of Mrs. Besant, and the dangerous
tendencies of her new views ? Mr. Foote would have shown
laudable consistency, and more no-faith, if he had treated her
■apostacy with silent contempt.”
Comment is needless.
Then we have a number of personal attacks on Madame
Blavatsky; has not Mr. Foote suffered enough from the
slanderous statements of opponents to hesitate before he
gives currency to malignant libels on another? What
would he think of me if I soiled these pages with a repeti
tion of the stories told against him by the lecturers of the
Christian Evidence Society? Yet he adopts this foul
weapon, against Madame Blavatsky. “ No case ; abuse
the plaintiff’s attorney.” How utterly careless Mr. Foote
is. in picking up any stone that he thinks may inflict some
slight injury is shown by the following paragraph :
“We learn on the authority of a Theosophist that Madame
Blavatsky is going abroad for a few months, and has confided
the presidentship of the Theosophical Society into the hands of
her new convert, Mrs. Besant.”
The matter is trivial enough—save for the ungenerous
attempt to make out that the Theosophical Society must
be hard up for adherents if it had to fall back on a new
member as acting President—but it happens that Madame
�WHY 1 BECAME A TIIEOSOPHIST.
31
Blavatsky is not the president of the Theosophical Society,
and has never held that position. No “ Theosophist ”
could have made such a blunder, but a sneer was wanted^
so accuracy was thrown to the winds.
My chief reason for drawing attention to these blunders
is to shew that I have some cause to ask Freethinkers not
to adopt, without examination, Mr. Foote’s statements
about the beliefs or the lives of Theosophists, but to
justify their name by making personal investigation before
they decide.
To Members
oe th?
National Secular Society.
One last word to my Secularist friends. If you say to
me, “ Leave our ranks ”, I will leave them ; I force myself
on no party, and the moment I feel myself unwelcome I
will go. It has cost me pain enough and to spare to admit
that the Materialism from which I hoped all has failed
me, and by such admission to bring upon myself the dis
approval of some of my nearest friends. But here, as at
other times in my life, I dare not purchase peace with a
lie. An imperious necessity forces me to speak the truth
as I see it, whether the speech please or displease, whether
it bring praise or blame. That one loyalty to Truth I
must keep stainless, whatever friendships fail me or human
ties be broken. She may lead me into the wilderness,
but I must follow her ; she may strip me of all love, but I
must pursue her; though she slay me, yet will I trust in
her; and I ask no other epitaph on my tomb, but
She tried to follow Truth.
�
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
Why I became a theosophist
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N072
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why I became a theosophist), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e9d251061049dd89e1f0a5108bbb2bdd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qAKVodSlkzRvs5YB4tcMV81dIQqpvx1LfjgoSXb4hozg4AG4F3QuDj79ocNi7LKsESV6RxR9qBqBA5zy%7ET4Bu9gG-jQZ1usHBjoP2AM-0J2-%7EEpuFu6qanXn0HUryrSOelOFvcawaO9-AOrV67Xg49ci%7EGRqv0Cu6xgzn13DKFXoo9kzvSSW%7E1ahxubwdTYzy-c-DO1RBrita7NkSx2-bHujKa9NhjF0p6pbDQMNOLKTp9QwsiLq5k8JTcOKPIw2JNm4onhlCwlCVg%7EbBnP39s7A4uTdok7ntbuEpPeLymbmKFcINVPn%7E4RFpIr%7EC92lIanbJsgWo3Znf3lAVo57Rw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c69a8d9d69e624f857e13aba9b1728b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL secular society
HUMANITY’S GAIN from UNBELIEF.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
[Reprinted from the “North American Review” of March, 1889.J
LONDON:
•FREETHOUGrHT
PUBLISHING-
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
COMPANY,
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63
ELEET STREET, E.C.
�HUMANITY’S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
As an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has
been real gainer from scepticism, and that the gradual
and growing rejection of Christianity—like the rejection
of the faiths which preceded it—has in fact added, and
Will add, to man’s happiness and well being. I maintain
that in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and
that general progress is impossible without scepticism on
matters of religion. I mean by religion every form of
belief which accepts or asserts the supernatural. I write
as a Monist, and use the word “nature ” as meaning all
phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for
the happening of any and every phenomenon. Every
religion is constantly changing, and at any given time is
the measure of the civilisation attained by what Guizot
described as theywszte milieu of those who profess it. Each
religion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and
practice by the gradual development of the peoples amongst
whom it is professed. Each discovery destroys in whole
or part some theretofore cherished belief. No religion is
suddenly rejected by any people ; it is rather gradually
out-grown. None see a religion die ; dead religions are
like dead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is
long and—like the glacier march—is only perceptible to
the careful watcher by comparisons extending over long
periods. A superseded religion may often be traced in the
festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has
replaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be
found in popular customs, in old wives’ stories, and in
children’s tales.
�4
humanity’s GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
It is necessary, in order that my plea should be under
stood, that I should explain what I mean by Christianity ;
and in the very attempt at this explanation there will, I
think, be found strong illustration of the value of unbelief,
Christianity in practice may be gathered from its more
ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the
Greek Churches, or from the various churches which have
grown up in the last few centuries. Each of these churches
calls itself Christian. Some of them deny the right of the
others to use the word Christian. Some Christian churches
treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as heretics
or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants
in Great Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly
cruel one to the other; and the ferocious laws of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, enacted by the
English Protestants against English and Irish Papists, are
a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring
longest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political
mischief and agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the
tolerant indifference of scepticism that, one after the other,
has repealed most of the laws directed by the Established
Christian Church against Papists and Dissenters, and also
against Jews and heretics. Church of England clergymen
have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing non
conformity ; and even in the present day an effective sample
of such denunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of
orthodox catechism written by the Rev. F. A. Gace, of
Great Barling, Essex, the popularity of which is vouched
by the fact that it has gone through ten editions.
This catechism for little children teaches that “ Dissent is
a great sin ”, and that Dissenters “ worship God according
to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not ac
cording to his revealed will, and therefore their worship is
idolatrous ”. Church of England Christians and Dissent
ing Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves,
often publicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively
deny that these have any sort of right to call themselves
Christians.
In the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers
were flogged and imprisoned in England as blasphemers ;
and the early Christian settlers in New England, escaping
from the persecution of Old World Christians, showed
scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is
�humanity’s gain from unbelief.
5
customary, in controversy, for those advocating the claims
of Christianity, to include all good done by men in nomi’
nally Christian countries as if such good were the result of
Christianity, while they contend that the evil which exists
prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out
that the ameliorating march of the last few centuries has
been initiated by the heretics of each age, though I quite
concede that the men and women denounced and per
secuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are fre
quently claimed as saints by the pious of a later genera
tion.
What then is Christianity ? As a system or scheme
of doctrine, Christianity may, I submit, not unfairly be
gathered from the Old and New Testaments. It is true
that some Christians to-day desire to escape from submis
sion to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this
very tendency seems to me to be part of the result of
the beneficial heresy for which I am pleading. Man’s
humanity has revolted against Old Testament barbarism;
and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the Old Testa
ment from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments
are accepted as God’s revelation to man, Christianity has
no higher claim than any other of the world’s many
religions, if no such claim can be made out for it apart
from the Bible. And though it is quite true that some
who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament
completely in the background, this is, I allege, because
they are out-growing their Christianity. Without the
doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity,
as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam’s
fall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences
of that fall cannot be believed. Both in Great Britain
and in the United States the Old and New Testaments
are forced on the people as part of Christianity; for it is
blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority; and
such denial is punishable with fine and imprisonment,
or even worse.
The rejection of Christianity intended
throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the
Old and New Testaments as being of divine revelation.
It is the rejection alike of the authorised teachings of the
Church of Rome and of the Church of England, as these
may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the encyclicals,
�6
HUMANITY S GAIN FKOM UNBELIEJ’.
the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both
of these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity
of Luther, of Calvin, and of Wesley.
A ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is
that the progress and civilisation of the world are due to
Christianity; and the discussion is complicated by the
fact that many eminent servants of humanity have been
nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My
allegation will be that the special services rendered to
human progress by these exceptional men, have not been
in consequence of their adhesion to Christianity, but in
spite of it; and that the specific points of advantage to
human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition
to precise Biblical enactments.
A. S. Farrar says1 that Christianity “ asserts authority
over religious belief in virtue of being a supernatural
communication from God, and claims the right to control
human thought in virtue of possessing sacred books, which
are at once the record and the instrument of the communi
cation, written by men endowed with supernatural inspira
tion ”. Unbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted
authority, and deny this claim of control over human
thought: they allege that every effort at freethinking must
provoke sturdier thought.
Take one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief,
i.e., in the abolition of slavery in some countries, in the
abolition of the slave trade in most civilised countries, and
in the tendency to its total abolition. I am unaware of
any religion in the world which in the past forbade slavery.
The professors of Christianity for ages supported it; the
Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws ; the
New Testament has no repealing declaration. Though we
are at the close of the nineteenth century of the Christian
era, it is only during the past three-quarters of a century
that the battle for freedom has been gradually won. It is
scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous emancipa
tion amendment was carried to the United States Constitu
tion. And it is impossible for any well-informed Christian
to deny that the abolition movement in North America was
most steadily and bitterly opposed by the religious bodies
in the various States. Henry Wilson, in his “Itise and
1 Farrar’s “ Critical History of Fieethought ”,
�humanity’s
GAIN
from unbelief.
7
Fall of the Slave Power in America ” ; Samuel J. May, in
his “Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict ” ; and J.
Greenleaf Whittier, in his poems, alike are witnesses that
the Bible and pulpit, the Church and its great influence,
were used against abolition and in favor of the slave
owner. I know that Christians in the present day often
declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing
about the abolition of slavery, and this because men pro
fessing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these
so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women
whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this
in direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years
since the European Christian powers jointly agreed to
abolish the slave trade. What of the effect of Christianity
on these powers in the centuries which had preceded ?
The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom
whilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many
centuries Christian Spain and Christian Portugal held
slaves. Porto Rico freedom is not of long date; and
Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a Christian
King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in
Spanish America the slave trade between the Old World
and the New. For some 1800 years, almost, Christians kept
slaves, bought slaves, sold slaves, bred slaves, stole slaves.
Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool less than 100 years ago
openly grew rich on the traffic. During the ninth century
Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the
eleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in
Rome, and the profit went to the Church.
It is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was
a Christian. But at any rate his Christianity was strongly
diluted with unbelief. As an abolitionist he did not believe
Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have rejected Exodus xxi,
2-6 ; he could not have accepted the many permissions
and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to
capture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on
18th February, 1796, Wilberforce reminded that Christian
assembly that infidel and anarchic France had given
liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic
England was “obstinately continuing a system of cruelty
and injustice”.
Wilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery,
found the whole influence of the English Court, and the
�8
HUMANITY S GAIN FBOM UNBELIEF.
great weight of the Episcopal Bench, against him. George
III, a most Christian king, regarded abolition theories
with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was
utterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When
Christian missionaries some sixty-two years ago preached
to Demerara negroes under the rule of Christian England,
they were treated by Christian judges, holding commission
from Christian England, as criminals for so preaching. A
Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established
Church of England, signed the auction notices for the sale
of slaves as late as the year 1824. In the evidence before
a Christian court-martial, a missionary is charged with
having tended to make the negroes dissatisfied with their
condition as slaves, and with having promoted discontent
and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful
masters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the
Demerara abolitionist missionary to be hanged by the
neck till he was dead. The judges belonged to the Estab
lished Church ; the missionary was a Methodist. In this
the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no
worse than Christians of other sects : their Boman Catholic
Christian brethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the
Jesuits as criminals because they treated negroes as though
they were men and women, in encouraging “two slaves
to separate their interest and safety from that of the
gang ”, whilst orthodox Christians let them couple pro
miscuously and breed for the benefit of their o wners like
any other of their plantation cattle. In 1823 the Royal
Gazette (Christian) of Demerara said :
“We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by
law our property, till you can demonstrate that when they are
made religious and knowing they will continue to be our
slaves.”
When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and
most earnest abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery
address in Boston, Massachusetts, the only building he
could obtain, in which to speak, was the infidel hall owned
by Abner Kneeland, the “infidel” editor of the Boston
Investigator, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy.
Jlvery Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garri
son the use of the buildings they severally controlled.
|jloyd Garrison told me himself how honored deacons of
�humanity’s GAIN UHOM UNBELIEF.
9
a Christian Church, joined in an actual attempt to hang
him.
When abolition was advocated in the United States in
1790, the representative from South Carolina was able to
plead that the Southern clergy “did not condemn either
slavery or the slave trade ” ; and Mr. Jackson, the repre
sentative from Georgia, pleaded that “from Genesis to
Revelation ” the current was favorable to slavery. Elias
Hicks, the brave Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as
an Atheist, and less than twenty years ago a Hicksite
Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern American
Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these
abolitionist “ Friends ”.
When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in
North America, large numbers of clergymen of nearly
every denomination were found ready to defend this
infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous aboli
tionist, was driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely
because of his attacks on slaveholding. Northern clergy
men tried to induce “silver tongued” Wendell Philips to
abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits rang
with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner.
The slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed
Christian men.
Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the
•Church exerted its influence to restrain slavery, says
(“European Civilisation”, vol. i., p. 110) :
“It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery
among modern people is entirely due to Christians. That, I
think, is saying too much. Slavery existed for a long period
in the heart of Christian society, without its being particularly
astonished or irritated. A multitude of causes, and a great
development in other ideas and principles of civilisation, were
necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all iniquities.”
And my contention is that this “development in other
ideas and principles of civilisation ” was long retarded by
Governments in which the Christian Church was dominant.
The men who advocated liberty were imprisoned, racked,
and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough to
be merciless.
The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his
recent earnest volume1 on the struggles of labor, admits
1 “ Capital and Wages”, p. 19.
�10
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
that “ a few centuries ago slavery was acknowledged
throughout Christendom to have the divine sanction..........
Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the
decline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can
be defined. It was doubtless due to a combination of
causes, one probably being as indirect as the recognition
of the greater economy of free labor. With the decline
of the belief the abolition of slavery took place.”
The institution of slavery was actually existent in
Christian Scotland in the 17th century, where the white
coal workers and salt workers of East Lothian were
chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern
States thirty years since; they “ went to those who
succeeded to the property of the works, and they could be
sold, bartered, or pawned”? “There is”, says J. M.
Robertson, “no trace that the Protestant clergy of Scot
land ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew
up before their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after
republican and irreligious France had set the example,
that it was legally abolished.”
Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the
unbelief, or rather disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry.
Apart from the brutality by Christians towards those
suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to scientific initia
tive or experiment was incalculably great so long as belief
in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries,
and especially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much earlier and much more largely, but
for the foolish belief in witchcraft and the shocking
ferocity exhibited against those suspected of necromancy.
After quoting a large number of cases of trial and punish
ment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J. M.
Robertson says: “The people seem to have passed from
cruelty to cruelty precisely as they became more and more
fanatical, more and more devoted to their Church, till after
many generations the slow spread of human science began
to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy resist
ing reason and humanity to the last ”.
The Rev. Mr. Minton1 concedes that it is “ the advance
2
of knowledge which has rendered the idea of Satanic
1 “ Perversion of Scotland,” p. 197.
2 “ Capital and Wages ”, pp. 15, 16.
�HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
11
agency through the medium of witchcraft grotesquely
ridiculous”. He admits that “ for more than 1500 years
the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom ”,
and that “ the public mind was saturated with the idea of
Satanic agency in the economy of nature ”. He adds:
“ If we ask why the world now rejects what was once so
unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing
knowledge has gradually undermined the belief ”.
In a letter recently sent to the Pall Mall Gazette against
modern Spiritualism, Professor Huxley declares,
“that the older form of the same fundamental delusion—the
belief in possession and in witchcraft—gave rise in the fifteenth,,
sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries to persecutions by Chris
tians of innocent men, women, and children, more extensive,
more cruel, and more murderous than any to which the
Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the
authorities of pagan Borne.”
And Professor Huxley adds :
“No one deserves much blame for being deceived in these
matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in youth by
the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and
witchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The
majority of us are taught nothing which will help us to
observe accurately and to interpret observations with due
caution.”
The English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under
James was disfigured by enactments against witchcraft
passed under pressure from the Christian churches,
which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of the
disbelief in the Christian precept, ‘1 thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live”. The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned
to death “all persons invoking any evil spirits, or con
sulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, feed
ing, or rewarding any evil spirit ”, or generally practising
any “infernal arts”. This was not repealed until the
eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison’s phono
graph would 280 years ago have insured martyrdom for
its inventor; the utilisation of electric force to transmit
messages around the world would have been clearly the
practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that
unbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made
the road free for her upward march.
�12
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
Is it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which
has been apparent in the wiser treatment of the insane,
consequent on the unbelief in the Christian doctrine that
these unfortunates were examples either of demoniacal
possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries
under Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly
treated.
Exorcism, shackles, and the whip were the
penalties rather than the curatives for mental maladies.
From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of
the last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every
step illustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to
humanity in the unbelief not yet complete, but now
largely preponderant, in the dogma that sickness, pesti
lence, and famine were manifestations of divine anger,
the results of which could neither be avoided nor pre
vented. The Christian Churches have done little or
nothing to dispel this superstition. The official and
authorised prayers of the principal denominations, even
to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of health,
experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful
applications of medical knowledge, have proved more
efficacious in preventing or diminishing plagues and
pestilence than have the intervention of the priest or
the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold
the old faith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are
to-day termed “peculiar people”, and are occasionally
indicted for manslaughter when their sick children die,
because the parents have trusted to God instead of
appealing to the resources of science.
It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that
the Church which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the
truth has been overborne by the growing unbelief of the
age, even though our little children are yet taught that
Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for
Hezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle,
arguing for the morality of scepticism, says1 :
“ As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the
immediate finger of God, and as long as they believe that an
eclipse is one of the modes by which the deity expresses his
anger, they will never be guilty of the blasphemous presump
tion of attempting to predict such supernatural appearances.
1 “ History of Civilisation,’’ vol. i, p. 345.
�HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
13
Before . they could dare to investigate the causes of these
mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should believe,
or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena
themselves were capable of being explained by the human
mind.”
As in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge
to . humanity has been almost solely in measure of the
rejection of the Christian theory. A century since it was
almost universally held that the world was created 6,000
years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first man,
Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology
and Anthropology have only been possible in so far as,
adopting the regretful words of Sir W. Jones, “intelligent
and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity
of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the primi
tive world ”.
Surely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has
sprung up. against the divine right of kings, that men no
longer believe that the monarch is “God’s anointed” or
that “the powers that be are ordained of God”. In the
struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church
was mostly thrown on the side of the tyrant. The
homilies of the Church of England declare that “even the
wicked rulers have their power and authority from God ”,
and. that “such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious
against their princes disobey God and procure their own
damnation ”. It can scarcely be necessary to argue to the
citizens of the United States of America that the origin of
their liberties was in the rejection of faith in the divine
right of George III.
Will any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is
not . certain gain to humanity to spread unbelief in the
terrible doctrine that eternal torment is the probable fate
of the great majority of the human family? Is it not
gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of
the wretched and the miserable to be content with the lot
in life which providence had awarded them ?
If it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as
justification for heresy the approach towards equality and
liberty for the utterance of all opinions achieved because
of growing unbelief. At one period in Christendom each
Government acted as though only one religious faith could
be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate the
�14
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
making known, any other opinion was a criminal act
deserving punishment. Under the one word “ infidel”,
even as late as Lord Coke, were classed together all who
were not Christians, even though they were Mahommedans,
Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian
faith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore
//ors de la loi. One hundred and forty-five years since, the
Attorney-General, pleading in our highest court, said1 :
“What is the definition of an infidel? Why, one who
does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a Jew is
an infidel.” And English history for several centuries
prior to the Commonwealth shows how habitually and
most atrociously Christian kings, Christian courts, and
Christian churches, persecuted and harassed these infidel
Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were
such infidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn
as witnesses. In 1740 a legacy left for establishing an
assembly for the reading of the Jewish scriptures was
held to be void2 because it was “ for the propagation of
the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian religion”.
It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have
been accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty
years since they have been allowed to sit in Parliament.
In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate in debate3 objected “that
they should have sitting in that House an individual who
regarded our Redeemer as an impostor”. Lord Chief
Justice Raymond has shown4 how it was that Christian
intolerance was gradually broken down. “A Jew may
sue at this day, but heretofore he could not; for then they
were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce has
taught the world more humanity.”
Lord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no
right of any kind, with whom no contract need be kept, to
whom no debt was payable. The plea of alien infidel as
answer to a claim was actually pleaded in court as late as
1737.5 In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says6: “ All
infidels are in law perpetui inimici; for between them, as
1 Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29.
2 D’Costa v. D’Pays, Arab. 228.
3 3 Hansard cxvi. 381.
4 1 Lord Raymond’s reports 282, Wells v. Williams.
5 Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51.
6 7 Coke’s reports, Calvin’s case.
�humanity’s gain from unbelief.
15
with, the devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian,
there is perpetual hostility ”. Twenty years ago the law
of England required the writer of any periodical publica
tion or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give sureties
for £800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was
the last person prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance
with that law, which was repealed by Mr. Gladstone in
1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an infidel in Scot
land was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court
on condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity.
If he lied and said he was a Christian, he was accepted,
despite his lying. If he told the truth and said he was an
unbeliever, then he was practically an outlaw, incompetent
to give evidence for himself or for any other. Fortunately
all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act
on 24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a
little in this struggle through unbelief ?
For more than a century and a-half the Roman Catholic
had in practice harsher measure dealt out to him by the
English Protestant Christian, than was even during that
period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever. If the
Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation,
which to a sincere Romanist was impossible, he was in
effect an outlaw, and the “jury packing” so much com
plained of to-day in Ireland is one of the habit survivals
of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by
law excluded from the j ury box.
The Scotsman of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860
the Rev. Dr. Robert Lee, of Grey friars, gave a course of
Sunday evening lectures on Biblical Criticism, in which he
showed the absurdity and untenableness of regarding
every word in the Bible as inspired ; and it adds :
“We well remember the awful indignation such opinions
inspired, and it is refreshing to contrast them with the calm
ness with which they are now received. Not only from the
pulpits of the city, but from the press (misnamed religious)
were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P. minister
went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the
students under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress
made since then, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris,
Dr. Lee’s successor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the
Confession of Faith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did,
and yet he is considered supremely orthodox, whereas the
stigma of heresy was attached to the other all his life.”
�16
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
And this change and gain to humanity is due to the
gradual progress of unbelief, alike inside and outside the
Churches.
Take from differing Churches two recent
illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay Alexander,
a strict Calvinist, in his important work on “ Biblical
Theology”, claims that
“ all the statements of Scripture are alike to be deferred to as
presenting to us the mind of God ”.
Yet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says:
“We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred
authors] statements which no ingenuity can reconcile with
what modern research has shown to be the scientific truth—
i.e., we find in them statements which modern science proves
to be erroneous.”
At the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Con
ference at Derby, the Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the
Rev. J. G. Richardson said of the Old Testament that
“ it was no longer honest or even safe to deny that this noble
literature, rich in all the elements of moral or spiritual grandeur,
given—so the Church had always taught, and would always
teach—under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes
mistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history,
and sometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality.
It assumed theories of the physical world which science had
abandoned and could never resume; it contained passages oi
narrative which devout and temperate men pronounced dis
credited, both by external and internal evidence; it praised,
or justified, or approved, or condoned, or tolerated, conduct
which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of the Christian
alike condemned.”
Or, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by un
belief is that “the teaching of Christ ” has been modi
fied, enlarged, widened, and humanised, and that “the
conscience of the Christian ” is in quantity and quality
made fitter for human progress by the ever increasing
additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical
days.
�
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
Humanity's gain from unbelief
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review of March 1889. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N095
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Humanity's gain from unbelief), 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
Atheism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/986d370375cd6fe73de29974fd557c1d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=eZkMM6ETWuCvQHrO7N1qPRVHFlE11rwEdS3nWuu9c1e-deVUPk3tlgpEp5M%7EZ0o%7EiPH3HrbxcckxQvf1uMHduROjARysCZwjvSLA99TLzpHRU6Lal3Uo6VfZcXOfn%7E6jq1iOPHhXY1pMKjyQNOoAq-je9ZiDx%7EO8HEK0tIoBENBecVrFSryTKlZzvKw5zePdHiTXL8Vtfj4gf35sF4HeDSPF0%7EwaV-E9uSJrLbH8qOQwYGWb007h9jtWMTgsvvUksF0atfmEw8DTou0v6P-fwp1vdjGPuyZYB6VRcXspyqoqImTXAFq67r71kuMJhbAiZyEnsIOXSzzcmJyF1IoB8w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e1674ade7c6e93cb8ab12a4cbe10ac19
PDF Text
Text
c /• =-■% z
NATIONAL SECUL^SOOErtZ ft?
Social Salvation
Jag Stttnon
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
(Delivered on Nov. 14th, 1886.)
PRICE TWOPENCE.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
1889.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. POOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�Social Salvation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,—
In the greatest tragedy that has ever been written
by man—in the fourth scene of the third act—is the
best prayer that I have ever read; and when I say “ the
greatest tragedy,” everybody familiar with Shakespeare
will know that I refer to “ King Lear.” After he has
been on the heath, touched with insanity, coming sud
denly to the place of shelter, he says :
I will pray first, and then I will sleep.”
And this prayer is my text :
“ Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your unhoused heads, your unfed sides,
Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend
From seasons such as this ? Oh, I have ta’en
Too little care of this. Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou may’st shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.”
That is one of the noblest prayers that ever fell from
human lips. If nobody has too much, everybody will
have enough I
I propose to say a few words upon subjects that are
near to us all, and in which every human being oughq.
to be interested—and if he is not, it may be that his wife
will be, it may be that his orphans will be ; and I would
like to see this world, at last, so that a man could die
and not feel that he left his wife and children a prey to
the greed, the avarice, or the necessities of mankind.
There is something wrong in our government where they
who do the most have the least. There is something
wrong when honesty wears a rag, and rascality a robe ;
when the loving, the tender, eat a crust, while the in
famous sit at the banquets. I cannot do much, but I can
at least sympathise with those who suffer. There is one
thing that we should remember at the start, and if I can
�4
Social Salvation.
only teach you that, to-night—unless you know it already
—I shall consider the few words I may have to say a
wonderful success.
I want you to remember that everybody is as he must
be. I want you to get out of your minds the old nonsense
of “ free moral agency ” ; then you will have charity for
the whole human race. When you know that they are
not responsible for their dispositions, any more than for
their height; not responsible for their acts, anv more than
they are for their dreams ; when you finally understand
the philosophy that everything exists by an efficient
cause, and that the lightest fancy that ever fluttered its
painted wings in the horizon of hope was as necessarily
produced as the planet that in its orbit wheels about the
sun—when you get to understand this, I believe you will
have charity for all mankind.
Wealth is not a crime; poverty is not a virtue—
although the virtuous have generally been poor. There
is only one good, and that is human happiness ; and he
only is a wise man who makes himself happy.
I have heard all my life about self-denial. There never
was anything more idiotic than that. No man who does
right practises self-denial. To do right is the bud, and
blossom, and fruit of wisdom. To do right should always
be dictated by the highest possible selfishness. No man
practises self-denial unless he does wrong. To inflict an
injury upon yourself is an act of self-denial. To plant
seeds that will forever bear the fruit of joy is not an act
of self-denial. So this idea of doing good to others only
for their sake is absurd. You want to do it, not simply
for their sake, but for your own ; because a perfectly
civilised man can never be perfectly happy while there
is one unhappy being in this universe.
Let us take another step. The barbaric world was
rewarded for acting sensibly. They were promised
rewards in another world if they would only have self
denial enough to be virtuous in this. If they would
forego the pleasures of larceny and murder ; if they
would forego the thrill and bliss of neanness here, they
would be rewarded hereafter for that self-denial. I have
exactly the opposite idea. Do right, not to deny your
self, but because you love yourself, and because you love
others. Be generous, because it is better for you. Be
�Social Salvation.
5
just, because any other course is the suicide of the soul.
Whoever does wrong plagues himself, and when he reaps
that harvest, he will find that he was not practising self
denial when he did right.
Now, then, as I say, if you want to be happy yourself,
if you are truly civilised, you want others to be happy.
Every man ought, to the extent of his ability, to increase
the happiness of mankind, for the reason that that will
increase his own. No one can be really prosperous un
less those with whom he lives share the sunshine and
the joy.
The first thing a man wants to know and be sure of is
when he has got enough. Most people imagine that the
rich are in heaven, but, as a rule, it is gilded hell. There
is not a man in the city of New York with genius enough,
with brains enough, to own five millions of dollars. Why?
The money will own him. He becomes the key to a safe.
That money will get him up at daylight; that money will
separate him from his friends ; that money will fill his
heart with fear ; that money will rob his days of sunshine
and his nights of pleasant dreams. He cannot own it.
He becomes the property of that money. And he goes
right on making more. What for ? He does not know.
It becomes a kind of insanity. No one is happiei’ in a
palace than in a cabin. I love to see a log house. It is
associated in my mind always with pure, unalloyed
happiness. It is the only house in the world that looks
as though it had no mortgage on it. It looks as if you
could spend there long, tranquil autumn days ; the air
filled with serenity ; no trouble, no thoughts about notes,
about interest—nothing of the kind; just breathing free
air, watching the hollyhocks, listening to the birds and
to the music of the spring that comes like a poem from
the earth.
It is an insanity to get more than you want. Imagine
a man in this city, an intelligent man, say, with two or
three millions of coats, eight or ten millions of hats, vast
warehouses full of shoes, billions of neckties, and imagine
that man getting up at four o’clock in the morning, in the
rain and snow and sleet, working like a dog all day to
get another necktie ? Is not that exactly what the man
of twenty or thirty millions, or of five millions, does
to-day ? Wearing his life out that somebody may say,
�6
Social Salvation.
“ How rich he is! ” What can he do with the surplus ?
Nothing. Can he eat it? No, Make friends? No.
Purchase flattery and lies ? Yes. Make all his poor
relations hate him? Yes. And then what worry I
Annoyed, his poor little brain inflamed, you see in the
morning paper “ Died of apoplexy.” This man finally
began to worry for fear he would not have enough to
live clear through.
So we ought to teach our children that great wealth is
a curse. Great wealth is the mother also of crime. On
the other hand are the poor. And let me ask to-night,
Is the world for ever to remain as it was when Lear
made his prayer ? Is it ever to remain as it is now ? I
hope not. Are there always to be millions whose lips
are white with famine ? Is the withered palm to be
always extended, imploring from the stony heart of
respectable charity, alms ? Must every man who sits
down to a decent dinner always think of the starving ?
Must everyone sitting by the fireside think of some poor
mother, with a child strained to her breast, shivering in
the storm ? I hope not. Are the rich always to be
divided from the poor.—not only in fact, but in feeling ?
And that division is growing more and more every day.
The gulf between Lazarus and Dives widens year by
year, only their positions are changed—Lazarus is in
hell, Dives is in the bosom of Abraham.
And there is one thing that helps to widen this gulf.
In nearly every city of the United States you will find
the fashionable part and the poor part. The poor know
nothing of the fashionable part, except the outside splen
dor ; and as they go by the palaces, that poison plant
called envy springs and grows in their poor hearts. The
rich know nothing of the poor, except the squalor and
rags and wretchedness, and what they read in the police
records, and they say, “ Thank God, we are not like
those people ! ” Their hearts are filled with scorn and
contempt, and the hearts of the others with envy and
hatred.
There must be some way devised for the rich
and poor to get acquainted. The poor do not know how
many well-dressed people sympathise with them, and
the rich do not know many noble hearts beat beneath
rags. If we can ever get the loving poor acquainted
�Social Salvation.
7
■with the sympathising rich, this question will be nearly
solved.
, T„
In a hundred other ways they are divided. It any
thing should bring mankind together it ought to be a
conn in on belief. In Catholic countries that does have a
softening influence upon the rich and upon the poor.
They believe the same. So in Mohammedan countries
they can kneel in the same mosque, and pray to the
same God. But how is it with us ? The Church is not
free. There is no welcome in the velvet for the rags.
Poverty does not feel at home there, and the con sequence
is, the rich and poor are kept apart, even by their religion.
I am not saying anything against religion, I am not on
that question, but I would think more of any religion
provided that even for one day in the week, or for one
hour in the day, it allowed wealth to clasp the hand of
poverty, and to have, for one moment even, the thrill of
genuine friendship.
In the olden times, in barbaric life, it was a simple
thing to get a living. A little hunting, a little fishing,
pulling a little fruit, and digging for roots—all simple ;
and they were nearly all on an equality, and comparatively
there were fewer failures. Living has at last become
complex. All the avenues are filled with men struggling
for the accomplishment of the same thing.
(l Emulation hath a thousand sons that
One by one pursue ; and if you hedge from
The direct forthright, they, like an entered tide,
All sweep by and leave you hindmost. Or, like
A gallant horse, fallen in the front rank, „
You become pavement for the abject rear.”
The struggle is so hard. And justjexactly as we have
risen in the scale of being, the per cent of failures has
increased. It is so that all men are not capable of getting
a living.
They have not cunning enough, intellect
enough, muscle enough—they are not strong enough.
They are too generous, or they are too negligent and
then some people seem to have what is called ‘ bad
luck”—that is to say, when anything falls they are
under it; when anything bad happens it happens to them.
And now there is another trouble. Just as life becomes
complex and as everyone is trying to. accomplish
certain objects, all the ingenuity of the brain is at work
�Social Salvation.
to get there by a shorter way, and, in consequence, this
has become an age of invention. Myriads of machines
have been invented—every one of them to save labor.
If these machines helped the laborer, what a blessing
they would be !
But the laborer does not own the
machine ; the machine owns him. That is the trouble.
In the olden time, when I was a boy, even, you know
how it was in the little towns. There was a shoemaker
—two of them—a tailor or two, a blacksmith, a wheel
wright. I remember just how the shops used to look.
I used to go to the blacksmith shop at night, get up on
the forge, and hear them talk about turning horse-shoes.
Many a night have I seen the sparks fly and heard the
stories that were told. There was a great deal of human
nature in those days ! Everybody was known. If times
got hard, the poor little shoemakers made a living
mending, half-soling, straightening up the heels. The
same with the blacksmith ; the same with the tailor.
They could get credit—they did not have to pay till the
next January, and if the could not pay then, they took
another year, and they were happy enough. Now, one
man is not a; shoemaker. There is a great building—
several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of machinery,
three or four thousand people—not a single mechanic in
the whole building. One sews on straps, another greases
the machines, cuts out soles, waxes threads. And what
is the result? When the machines stop, three thousand
men are out of employment. Credit goes. Then come
want and famine, and if they happen to have a little
child .die, it would take them years to save enough of
their earnings to pay the expense of putting away that
little sacred piece of flesh. And yet, by this machinery
we can. produce enough to flood the world. By the
inventions in agricultural machinery the United States
can feed all 'he mouths upon the earth. There is not a
thing that man uses that can not instantly be over
produced to such an extent as to become almost worth
less ; and yet, with all this production, with all this
power to create, there are millions and mHlions in abject
want. Granaries bursting, and famine looking into the
doors of the poor! Millions of everything, and yet
millions wanting everything and having substantially
nothing!
�Social Salvation.
9
Now, there is something wrong there. We have got
into that contest between machines and men, and if ex- .
travagance does not keep pace with ingenuity, it is
going to be the most terrible question that man has ever
settled. I tell you, to-night, that these things are worth
thinking about. Nothing that touches the future of our
race, nothing that touches the happiness of ourselves or
our children, should be beneath our notice. We should
think of these things—must think of them—and we
should endeavor to see what justice is finally done
between man and man.
My sympathies are with the poor. My sympathies
are with the working men of the United States. Under
stand me distinctly. I am not an Anarchist. Anarchy
is the reaction from tyranny. I am not a Socialist. I
am not a Communist. I am an Individualist. I do not
believe in tyranny of government, but I do believe
in justice as between man and man.
What is the remedy ? Or, what can we think of—for
do not imagine that I think I know. It is an immense,
and almost infinite, question, and all we can do is to
guess. You have heard a great deal lately upon the
land subject. Let us say a word or two upon that. In
the first place I do not want to take, and I would not
take, an inch of land from any human being that belongs
to him. If we ever take it, we must pay for it—condemn
it and take it—do not rob anybody. Whenever any man
advocates justice, and robbery as the means, I suspect
him.
No man should be allowed to own any land that he •
does not use. Everybody knows that—I do not care
whether he has thousands or millions. I have owned a
great deal of land, but I know just as well as I know I
am living that I should not be allowed to have it unless
I use it. And why ? Don’t you know that if people
could bottle the air, they would ? Don’t you know that
there would be an American Air-bottling Association ?
And don’t you know that they would allow thousands
and millions to die for want of breath, if they could not
pay for air? I am not blaming anybody. I am just
telling how it is. Now, the land belongs to the children
of Nature. Nature invites every babe that is born into
this world. And what would you think of me, for
�10
Social Salvation.
instance, to-night, if I had invited you here—nobody
had cha rged you anything, but you had been invited—
and when you got here you had found one man pre
tending to occupy a hundred seats, another fifty, and
another seventy-five, and thereupon you were compelled
to stand up—what would you think of the invitation ?
It seems to me that every child of nature is entitled to
his share of the land, and that he should not be compelled
to beg the previlege to work the soil, of a babe that
happened to be born before him. And why do I say
this ? Because it is not to our interest to have a few
landlords and millions of tenants..
The tenement house is the enemy of modesty, the
enemy of virtue, the enemy of patriotism. Home is
where the virtues grow. I would like to see the law so
that every home, to a small amount, should be free, not
only from sale for debts, but should be absolutely free
from taxation,' so that every man could have a home.
Then we will have a nation of patriots.
Now suppose that every man were to have all the
land he is able to buy. The Vanderbilts could buy to
day all the land that is in farms in the state of Ohio—
every foot of it. Would it be for the best interest of that
state to have a few landlords and four or five millions of
serfs ? So, I am in favor of a law finally to be carried
out—not by robbery but by compensation, under the
right, as the lawyers call it, of eminent domain—so that
no person should be allowed to own more land than. he
uses. I am not blaming these rich men for being rich.
I pity the most of them. I had rather be poor with a
little sympathy in my heart, than to be rich as all the
mines of the earth and not have that little flower of pity
in my breast. I do not see how a man can have hundreds
of millions and pass every day people that have not
enough to eat. I do not understand it. I presume I
would be just the same way myself. There is something
in money that dries up the sources of affection, and the
probability is, it is this : the moment a man gets .money,
so many men are trying to get it away from him that
in a little while he regards the whole human race as his
enemy, and he generally thinks that they could be rich,
too, if they would only attend to business as he has.
Understand, I am not blaming these people. There is a
�Social Salvation.
11
good deal of human nature in us all. You. remember
the story of the man who made a speech at a Socialist
meeting, and closed it by saying “ Thank God, I am no
monopolist,” but as he sank to his seat said, But I wish
to the Lord I was I” We must remember that these rich
men are naturally produced. Do not blame them, blame
the system I
Certain privileges have been granted to the few by the
Government, ostensibly for the benefit of the many ,
and whenever that grant is not for the good of the
many, it should be taken from the few—not by force,
not by robbery, but by estimating fairly the value of
that property, and paying to them its value, because
everything should be done according to law and in
order.
What remedy, then, is there ? First, the great weapon
in this country is the ballot. Each voter is a sovereign.
There the poorest is the equal of the richest. His vote
will count just as many as though the hand that cast it
controlled millions. The poor are in the majority in this
country. If there is any law that oppresses them, it is
their fault. They have followed the fife and drum of
some party. They have been misled by others. No
man should go an inch with a party—no matter if. that
party is half the world and has in it the greatest intel
lects of the earth—unless that party is going his way.
No honest man should ever turn round and join any
thing. If it overtakes him, good. If he has to hurry up
a little to get to it, good. But do not go with anything
that is not going your way ; no matter whether they call
it Republican, or Democrat, or Progressive Democracy
—do not go with it unless it goes your way.
The ballot is the power. The law should settle these
questions—between capital and labor—many of them ;
but I expect the greatest good to come from civilisation,
from the growth of a sense of justice ; for I tell you,
to-night, a civilised man will never want anything for
less than it is worth ; a civilised man, when he sells a
thing, will never want more than it is worth ; a really
and truly civilised man would rather be cheated than to
cheat. And yet, in the United States, good as we are,
nearly everybody wants to get everything for a little less
than it is worth, and the man who sells it to him wants
�12
Social Salvation.
to get a little more than it is worth, and this breeds ras
cality on both sides. That ought to be done away with.
There is one step toward it that we will take : we will
finally say that human flesh, human labor, shall not
depend entirely on “supply and demand.” That is
infinitely cruel. Every man should give to another
according to his ability to give, and enough that he may
make his Jiving and lay|something by for the winter of
old age.
Go to England. Civilised country they call it. It is
not. It never was. I am afraid it never will be. Go
to London, the greatest city of this world, where there
is the. most wealth, the greatest glittering piles of gold.
And yet one out of every six in that city dies in a hos
pital, a workhouse, or a prison. Is that the best that we
are ever to know ? Is that the last word that civilisa
tion has to say ? Look at the women in this town sewing
for a living, making cloaks that sell for 45 dollars for
less than 45 cents! Right here—here, amid all the
palaces, amid the thousands of millions of property—
here ! Is that all that civilisation can do ? Must a poor
woman support herself or her child, or her children, by
that kind of labor, and do we call ourselves civilised ?
Did you ever read that wonderful poem about the sewing
woman ? Let me tell you the last verse :
“ Winds that have sainted her, tell ye the story
Of the young life by the needle that bled,
Making a bridge over death’s soundless waters,
Out of a swaying, soul-cutting thread—•
Over it going, all the world knowing
That thousands have trod it, foot-bleeding, before :
God protect all of us, should she look back
From the opposite shore ! ”
I cannot call this civilisation. There must be some
thing nearer a fairer division in this world
You can never get it by strikes. Never. The first
strike that is a great success will be the last strike,
because the people who believe in law and order will put
it down when they think it approaches success.. It is no
remedy. Boycotting is no remedy. Brute force is no
remedy. This has got to be settled by reason, by candor,
by intelligence, by kindness; and nothing is perma
nently settled in this world that has not for its corner
�Social Salvation.
13
Stone justice, and is not protected by the profound
conviction of the human mind.
This is no country for Anarchy, no country for Com
munism, no country for the Socialist. Why ? Because
the political power is equally divided. ‘What other
reason ? Speech is free. What other ? The press is
untrammeled. And that is all that the right should
ever ask—a free press, free speech, and the protection
of person. That is enough. That is all I ask. In a
country like Russia, where every mouth is a bastile and
every tongue a convict, there may be some excuse.
Where the nobles and the best are driven to Siberia,
there may be a reason for the Nihilist. In a country
where no man is allowed to petition for redress, there
is a reason, but not here. This—say what you will
against it—this is the best government ever founded by
the human race I Say what you will of parties, say
what you will of dishonesty, the holiest flag that ever
kissed the air is ours!
Only a few years ago morally we were a low people—
before we abolished slavery—but now, when there is no
chain except that of custom, when every man has an
opportunity, this is the grandest government of the
earth. There is hardly a man in the United States to
day of any importance, whose voice anybody cares to
hear, who was not nursed at the loving breast of poverty.
Look at the children of the rich. My God, what a
punishment for being rich ! So, whatever happens, let
every man say that this government, and this form of
government, shall stand.
“ But,” say some, “ these working men are dangerous.”
I deny it. We are all in their power. They run all the
cars. Our lives are in their hands almost every day.
They are working in all our homes. They do the
labor of this world. We are all at their mercy, and yet
they do not commit more crimes, according to
number, than the rich. Remember that. I am not
afraid of them. Neither am I afraid of the monopolists,
because, under our institutions, when they become hurt
ful to the general good, the people will stand it just to a
certain point, and then comes the end—not in anger,
not in hate, but from a love of liberty and justice.
Now, we have in this country another class. We call
�14
Social Salvation.
them “ criminals.” Let us take another step. It is not
enough to raise the feeble up. We must support them
after. Recollect what I said in the first place—that
every man is as he must be. Every crime is a necessary
product. The seeds were all sown, the land thoroughly
plowed, the crop well attended to, and carefully har
vested. Every crime is born of necessity. If you want
less crime, you must change the conditions. Poverty
makes crime. Want, rags, crusts, failure, misfortune—
all these awake the wild beast in man, and finally he
takes, and takes contrary to law, and becomes a criminal.
And what do you do with him? You punish him.
Why not punish a man for having the consumption ?
The time will come when you will see that that is just
as logical. What do you do with the criminal ? You
send him to the penitentiary. Is he made better ?
Worse. The first thing you do is to try to trample out
his manhood, by putting an indignity upon him. You
mark him.- You put him in stripes. At night you put
him in darkness. His feelings for revenge grow. You
make a wild beast of him, and he comes out of that
place branded in body and soul, and then you won’t Jet
him reform if he wants to. You put on airs above him,
because he has been in the penitentiary. The next time
you try to put on airs over a convict, let me beg of you
to do one thing. Maybe you are not as bad as I am, but
do one thing ; think of all the crimes you have wanted
to commit; think of all the crimes you would have
committed if you had had the opportunity ; think of all
the temptations to which you would have yielded had
nobody been looking ; and then put your hand on your
heart and say whether you can justly look with scorn
and contempt even upon a convict. None but the
noblest should inflict punishment, even on the basest.
Society has no right to punish any man in revenge—no
right to punish any man except for two objects—-one,
the prevention of crime ; the other the reformation of
tne criminal. How can you reform him ? Kindness
is the sunshine in which virtue grows.
Let it be
understood by these men that there is no revenge, let it
be understand too that they can reform. Only a little
while ago I read of a young man who had been in a
penitentiary and came out. He kept* it a secret, and
■
�Social Salvation.
15
went to work for a farmer. He got in love with the
daughter, and wanted to marry her. He had nobility
enough to tell the truth—he told the father that he had
been in the penitentiary. The father said, “ You cannot
have my daughter, because it would stain her life.”
The young man said, “Yes, it would stain her life,
therefore I will not marry her.” In a few moments
afterward they heard the report of a pistol, and he was
dead. He left just a little note, saying, “lam through.
There is no need of my living longer, when I stain with
my life the ones I love.” And yet we call our society
civilised. There is a mistake.
I want that question thought of. I want all my
fellow-citizens to think of it. I want you to do what
you can to do away with all unnecessary cruelty. There
are, of course, some cases that have to be treated with
what might be called almost cruelty ; but if there is the
smallest seed of good in any human heart, let kindness
fall upon it until it grows, and in that way I know, and
so do you, that the world will get better and better day
by day.
Let us, above all things, get acquainted with each
other. Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter,
that labor is honorable. Let us teach our children. It
is your business to see that you never become a burden
on others. Your first duty is to take care of yourselves,
and, if there is a surplus, with that surplus help your
fellow-man ; that you owe it to yourself above all things
not to be a burden upon others. Teach your son
that it is not only his duty, but his highest joy, to
become a home-builder, a home-owner. Teach your
children that by the fireside is the real and true happi
ness of this world. Teach them that whoever is an idler,
whoever lives upon the labor of others, whether he is a
pirate or a king, is a dishonorable person. Teach them
that no civilised man wants anything for nothing, or for
less than it is worth; that he wants to go through this
world paying his way as he goes, and if he gets a little
ahead, an extra joy, it should be divided with another, if
that other is doing something for himself. Help others
to help themselves.
And let us teach that great wealth is not great happi
ness ; that money will not purchase love ; it never did,
�16
Social Salvation.
and never can, purchase respect; it never did, and never
can, purchase the highest happiness. I believe with
Robert Burns :
“ If happiness have not her seat
And centre in the breast,
We may be wise, or rich, or great,
But never can be blest.”
We must teach this, and let our fellow-citizens know that
we give them every right that we claim for ourselves.
We must discuss these questions and have charity, and
we will have it whenever we have the philosophy that all
men are as they must be, and that intelligence and kind
ness are the only levers capable of raising mankind.
Then there is another thing. Let each one be true to
himself. No matter what his class, no matter what his
circumstances, let him tell his thought. Don’t let his
class bribe him. Don’t let him talk like a banker because
he is a banker. Don’t let him talk like the rest of the
merchants, because he is a merchant. Let him be true
to the human race instead of to his little business—be
true to the ideal in his heart and brain, instead of to his
little present and apparent selfishness—let him have a
larger and more intelligent selfishness, not a narrow and
ignorant one.
So far as I am concerned, I have made up my mind
that no organisation, secular or religious, shall own me.
I have made up my mind that no necessity of bread, or
roof, or raiment shall ever put a padlock on my lips. I
have made up my mind that no hope, no preferment, no
honor, no wealth, shall ever make me for one moment
swerve from what I really believe, no matter whether it
is to my immediate interest, as one would think, or not.
And while I live, I am going to do what little I can to
help my fellow-men who have not been as fortunate as
I have been. I shall talk on their side, I shall vote on
their side, and do what little I can to convince men that
happiness does not lie in the direction of great wealth,
but in the direction of achievement for the good of them
selves and for the good of their fellow-men. I shall do
what little I can to hasten the day when this earth shall
be covered with homes, and when by the fireside of the
world shall sit happy fathers and mothers and children.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 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
Social salvation : a lay sermon
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: No. 44e in Stein checklist, but dated 1889. Lecture likely to have been given November 14th, 1886. [Information from WorldCat]. Printed and published 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N396
N397
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social problems
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 (Social salvation : a lay sermon), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Social Problems-United States
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/92c519bee98aed5fa0ed67e0293b5c51.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ig3ydc%7EvET%7E%7E0IRTYJpP6ieyaqatlgtuJP0CW8m7lR8lQf16u%7EJ0eyUlywX4hsIdzN2e4xrE2-ywLB1k4x7d5xdFu4v3FgpWeIiq18U-cutNUyhUFYth%7EE%7Ed32EhXbZTLn15fgwAzjsly5Lu5HVJxEGmNZV8DrbMDCyKVkqhCC9b%7EzIHWQqkF5JTcbjKzxY1fUz2JKDMZKn76-qh%7Eo2R2NkMVFHbxggZB7fgedkF7nlpKrmeWFgJcAMAMIFOt1kdVRBlKpVOXcUupaFf2L-iM4aThIqxfqrug-1djX4tvZYgO3aTLGrptJ%7Ejl9rsfyJW9zqCz7qT2DFWn%7E4K0Rk3XA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
92a637b8785d58ba977567c48a80f82c
PDF Text
Text
National secular sor—v
MRS. BESANT’S
THEOSOPHY
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�MRS. BESANT’S THEOSOPHY.
For a considerable time I have seen that Mrs. Besant
was gradually drifting away from Secularism. I said
nothing, because I had no right to, nor would it have
been useful to do so. I was not in her confidence, so
that I could not speak with her on the subject ; and
my conviction of the change which was coming over
her was not grounded on anything that could be laid
before the public ; it was forced upon me by a hundred
indications, as though a hundred fingers, at different
times and places, all pointed in the same direction.
This conviction filled me with pain for many reasons.
I admired Mrs. Besant’s eloquence and abilities, and
still more her generous and enthusiastic character.
These are naturally of great service to whatever cause
she espouses. She was also a woman, and that fact
weighed even more heavily. There is no other lady of
the first rank on the Freethought platform, and in the
present transition state of society women are the best
missionaries. Until both sexes take an equal part in
public affairs, and in the promotion of principles, and
while audiences chiefly consist of men, a lady speaker
will exercise an influence quite out of proportion to
her intellect and information ; for difference of sex
tells unconsciously, and from the lips of a woman,
especially if young or engaging, even commonplaces are
apt to pass with men as revelations, and faulty logic is
wonderfully convincing.
Buc what I most admired in Mrs. Besant was her
courage. I regard this as the supreme virtue, and by
no means a simple one, for it includes many high
qualities. Mrs. Besant is a brave as well as a good woman.
I have special reasons for saying so, and the writing of
this pamphlet is one of the most painful duties I have
ever undertaken. Much
I respect Mrs. Besant, I
�Mrs. Betant’s Theosophy.
3
have a higher respect for truth ; much as I regard her
feelings, I have a deeper regard for the interests of
the Freethought party. There are times, and this is one
of them, when persons must yield to principles ; and
in such cases it is both honest and merciful to speak
with the utmost plainness.
Although the change I observed in Mrs. Besant gave
me pain, I will now say that it gave me no surprise.
Among all her fine qualities she has not the gift of origi
nality. She seems to me very much at the mercy of her
emotions, and especially at the mercy of her latest friends.
A powerful engine, she runs upon lines laid down for her.
Only on this theory can I account for the suddenness
of her changes. Nothing could exceed the vehemence
with which she attacked Socialism and Socialists after
the Bradlaugh-Hvndman debate, but what a brief time
elapsed before she was a thorough convert to what she
so denounced I Still more sudden is her latest revo
lution. The news fell upon the Freethought party
like a bolt from the blue. Without a word of warning,
without a public sign of change, Mrs. Besant printed
an article in the National Reformer, which, while it
puzzled most of its readers, showed them conclusively
that she had renounced the greater part of her previous
teaching. There was apparently no gradation in the
change. At one leap she left Atheism and materialism
and plunged into the depths of the wildest Pantheism
and spiritualism. Reviewing anonymously Madame
Blavatsky’s “ Secret Doctrine ” in the Pall Mall Gazette
of April 25, she concluded by saying “ Of the truth in it
our superficial examination is insufficient to decide.”
Yet in less than six weeks—or two months at the out
side—she was a Fellow of the Theosophical Society I
Surely no intellect like Mrs. Besant’s could undergo
such rapid changes by itself. Madame Blavatsky on
the one side, and Mr. Herbert Burrows on the other,
may supply the explanation.
Mrs. Besant said nothing on this subject at the
National Secular Society’s Conference on June 9,
although she must have contemplated, and perhaps,
written, her Theosophical article in Lucifer. Appa
rently she did not even take Mr. Bradlaugh into her
�4
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
confidence. He speaks of her conversion to Theosophy
as wrought “ with somewhat of suddenness, and with
out any interchange of ideas with myself.”*
I must also express my opinion that Mrs. Besant has
treated the Freethought party very cavalierly. Men
and women with whom she had worked so long were
entitled to an explanation. Those she had for years
misled, if her new opinions were true, were even
entitled to hear her regret the misfortune. But she
recognised no such obligation. “ It is not possible,”
she simply said, “ for me here to state fully my reasons
for joining the Theosophical Society.”! Yet only a
few days afterwards she wrote “ Why I Became a
Theosophist ” in the Star.
I turned to this article with eagerness ; I read it
with disappointment. The “ Why ” .was a complete
misnomer. Mrs. Besant afforded not the slightest ex
planation. I do not want her to tell me what Theo
sophy is—for that is all she does, and very inadequately,
in the Star article. I do not want her to restate as
though they were true, positions she formerly assailed
as false. Both parties know there is an inside and an
outside of every position. I want to|know why Mrs.
Besant passed over from one side to the other. All she
does is to show me a map.
Suppose, for instance, I went over to Christianity.
Would it explain why /believed in the Resurrection if
I put forward the stock arguments in its favor ? My
friends would be entitled to know what change had
taken place in me. They would expect to be informed
why an argument once looked false and now looks true.
Was something overlooked? Has a new light fallen
upon the subject ? These are questions demanding an
answer, and they might be answered honestly even if
unsatisfactorily.
Amidst all her changes Mrs. Besant remains quite
positive. It does not occur to her that a person who has
been mistaken once may be mistaken twice or thrice.
The fact that she held one thing yesterday, and holds
the opposite to-day, does not shake her self-assurance.
* National Reformer, June 30, 1889 (p. 409).
t Ibid
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
o
She does not pause and let time decide whether her
new views are permanent. Previous mistakes do not
suggest hesitation and self-mistrust. Every time she
changes her course she asks others to follow her with
perfect confidence.
It is unpleasant to write thus, and I would hold my
hand if I were not apprehensive that Mrs. Besant
might lead Freethinkers astray. Her procedure on her
conversion'to Socialism was a warning. She used the
Freethought platform, as I think, in an unjustifiable
manner. Shethad not made it ; none of us made it;
it has been made by hundreds of workers through
more than one generation. Yet Mrs. Besant insisted
on using it to the uttermost for the ventilation of her
new views, on the principle, I suppose, that the end
justifies the means.
She advocated Socialism in
Secular halls, but not Secularism in Socialist meeting
places. I feel, therefore, the danger which now
threatens our party, and I speak out simply from a
desire to guard it, as far as I may, from this deadly
peril. If we are to have a Theosophical agitation
carried on in our midst there will be discord and
division; and I, for one, even at the risk of being mis
understood, or incurring Mrs. Besant’s enmity, prefer
to take time by the forelock on this occasion.
From the terms of her eulogy on Madame Blavatsky,
I infer that this lady is (at present) Mrs. Besant’s
guide, philosopher and friend. She takes Theosophy
on trust from “the most remarkable woman of her
time one\who asks for no reward but “ trust,” which
is what every mystery-monger starts with, and leads to
everything else ; one who has “ left home and country,
social position and wealth,” in order to bring us lessons
from “ the Wise Men of the East.”
Has Mrs. Besant made inquiry into these things, or
has she succumbed, body and soul, to the spell of the
sorceress ? Where is Madame Blavatsky’s home, what
is her country, what was her social position, and what
the extent of her wealth ? Many persons would like
these questions answered.^ Twenty years ago Madame
Blavatsky was practising as a spiritist “ mejum ” in
America. In 1872 she gave seances in Egypt. Three
�6
Mrs. Besa/nt’s Theosophy.
years later she started the Theosophical Society. In
India she was cordially welcomed, and many signs and
wonders attended her steps. None of them, it is true,
were of the slightest use to mankind. Cigarettes and
broken saucers played a leading part in the “ mani
festations.” The miracles were investigated on behalf
of the Society for Psychical Research by Mr. R. Hodg
son, who went out for the purpose, and reported them
as “ part of a huge fraudulent system.”* A fuller
exposure is the pamphlet by Madame Coulomb, one of
Madame Blavatsky’s friends.f This lady reveals the
whole mystery of sliding panels, hidden holes, and
secreted articles whose position was indicated by the
spirits who placed them there! The letters from
Madame Blavatsky to her chere amie are those of a
thorough-paced adventuress. She repudiated them as
forgeries, but she does not vindicate herself in the
law courts, and the letters certainly came from a more
clever and fertile brain than Madame Coulomb’s.
What has passed between Mrs. Besant and Mde.
Blavatsky I know not, nor am I anxious for informa
tion ; but the fact is public that the neophyte has been
greatly influenced by The Secret Doctrine, a bulky
work in two quarto volumes, containing nearly 1500
pages. An admirable review of this ponderous first
half of the new revelation has been written by my
colleague, Mr. J. M. Wheeler, whose knowledge of
Brahminism and Buddhism, as well as of general
“ occult ” literature, it would take Mrs. Besant many
years of close study to rival. For my own part, I
cannot say that I have read these volumes ; but I have
looked through them, and read some portions carefully.
Where it touches upon matters I am more or less
familiar with, the work seems a terrible jumble of
second-hand knowledge and first-hand pretence. How
ever Mrs. Besant could read some of it without a
guffaw at Mde. Blavatsky’s credulity, or disgust at her
arrogance, passes my comprehension. The mysterious
* Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. iii., p. 210.
t Some Account of my Intercourse with Madame Blavatsky from
1872 to ISSp dy Madame Coulomb. London: Eliot Stock.
t Freethinker, July 14, 1889.
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
7
Book of Dzyan, which forms the basis of this revela
tion, and from which seven enigmatic stanzas are
translated as a sample, and as much as the feeble
Western intellect can stand at present, is boldly
declared to be of such antiquity that a later book, 5,000
years old, is juvenile in comparison. We are intro
duced to a Thibetan monastery, far away among hills
that no European foot has ever trodden, with sub
terranean galleries and halls containing books which
£ould not “ find room even in the British Museum.”
This mistress of Theosophy assures us that monsters
are still “ bred from human and animal parents,” and
refers us for proof to unspecified “ medical records.”
She denounces Darwinism, and will not hear of our
ape-like ancestry. Her theory of apes is that they are
the offspring of bestiality between men and animals !
The pineal gland is the atrophied “ third eye,” a fact
apparently not discovered by Theosophists until
scientific speculation had arisen on the subject. But
this third eye was really the first. Man had one eye
to begin with, somewhere at the top or the back of his
head ; the two eyes in front were developed after
wards, and the original optic atrophied away. But if
man had at first only one eye, he was compensated by
Having four arms. Such is the biological wisdom of
this amazing book!
Mde. Blavatsky banters the geologists smartly on
ffieir chronological differences. She could tell them
the true chronology “ an she would.” Meanwhile she
does something safer ; she reveals the chronology of
the future. The Americans are the founders of the
coming race. About 25,000 years hence they will
really begin business. Europe and the whole Aryan
race will be destroyed, and after “ many hundreds of
milleniums ” the Sixth-Root Race will be perfected.
Mde. Blavatsky and Prophet Baxter are in the same
line, but two of that trade never agree.
Natural Selection, we are told, is an exploded doc
trine. Haeckel, Huxley and Btichner, whom Mrs.
Besant has translated, are “ the intellectual and moral
murderers of future generations.” Haeckel, indeed, is
more than wicked ; he is “ idiotic.” Atheists and
�8
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
materialists, if versed in anatomy, are “hopelessly
insane.” This statement, I presume, after Mrs. Besant’s
conversion, will be modified in any future edition.
Mde. Blavatsky speaks of the “materialised forms
which are sometimes seen oozing out of the bodies of
certain mediums.” This was a primeval mode of
sexless procreation, before the race fell into carnality,
and it “ cannot fail to be suggestive to the student.”
Indeed it cannot ! If Mrs. Besant has swallowed this
Wisdom of the East, it is no wonder that Mr. Bradlaugh
“looks to possible developments of her Theosophic
opinions with the very gravest misgiving.”
Leaving Mde. Blavatsky’s book for the present, I
come to what Mrs. Besant herself says about Thesophy.
In the first place it is Oriental. But that is not special,
for all our Western religions came from the East.
Many years ago Mrs. Besant rejected the Oriental
creed in which she was nurtured. She now accepts
another, and I fear just as blindly. Yet she thought
herself out of the first, and perhaps she will think
herself out of the second.
“ The Orient,” Mrs. Besant tells us, “begins to study
the universe just where the Occident ceases to study,”
which is a pretty way of saying that the Orient has an
insatiable appetite for metaphysics, while the Occident
has developed a taste for science and positive methods.
The result is that while the East is searching with the
patience of a million jackasses for hidden wisdom,
the West is master of scientific knowledge and practical
wisdom, and is thus able to rule the East with striking
facility. The grip of fact is the secret of mastery.
All this Eastern philosophy, except in some of its
ethical aspects, is like the German’s account of the
camel, developed from his inner consciousness. Only
the poverty of the human imagination prevents there
being a thousand different theories of the universe, past,
present, and to come, all equally sound, and all equally
hollow. That Theosophy, or Esoteric Buddhism, hangs
together, goes for nothing. Catholicism hangs together,
Calvinism hangs together, Swedenborg’s elaborate
mysticism hangs together; and for the same reason
that a drama, a novel, or a romance hangs together;
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
9
because the imagination has its laws as well as the
intellect, and construction is construction whether the
materials are fancies or facts.
Western positive philosophy discourages the spinning'
of systems, spider-like, out of ourselves. It deals with
the How, not with the Why, and takes its stand on the
relativity of knowledge. Every sentient being learnswhat it does learn by using its intelligence upon the
evidence of its senses. All knowledge, therefore, is
necessarily phenomenal. What noumena, or things in
themselves, may be, or whether they exist at all, are
idle and indifferent questions. Sugar is sweet, and if
we know nothing, and can know nothing of substance,
the sweetness is all the same.
Mrs. Besant has been satisfied with this philosophy
hitherto, but now she yearns for something higher.
She is impatient at the thought that “ the Why
ever eludes us,” that “causes remain enwrapped in
gloom.” She follows a vibration along a nerve until
she comes to a sensation in the brain. Formerly she
was satisfied with the phenomenal succession ; now
she asks for “ the causal link.” She admits that science
cannot give it ; and she might have added that since
the days of David Hume it has been obvious to experientialists that the “causal link” is a figment of
imagination. She regards its absence, or rather its
occultness, as a chasm and as a blank wall ; but the
latter metaphor has her preference, for she presently
sees Theosophy coming down (where from ?) as “ a
fairly long ladder,” and tries hex- “ luck at scaling it.”
I hope she will pardon me for leaving her there.
Scaling the Infinite is a pretty long climb. According
to a more commonplace metaphor, Mrs. Besant is trying
to get out of her own skin.
She admits as much, indeed, for the sublime investi
gation of causal links requires “ further mental equip
ment than that normally afforded by the human body.”
This is enough to daunt common people, but Mrs.
Besant introduces her “ Eastern sages ” who have
superior faculties, and can see through millstones and
into the middle of next week. They wield mysterious
powers “miraculous to the ordinary person.” Mrs.
�10
Mrs. Besant’t Theosophy.
Besant instances clairvoyance, mesmerism, and hypno
tism as abnormal faculties ; but clairvoyance has never
been established as a fact, and nothing has transpired
in mesmerism and hypnotism which goes beyond the
power the operator exerts through the patient’s
imagination.
These “ Eastern sages,” or Mahatmas, dwell on such
lofty planes of thought and power that, like men on
mountains, they have to be very careful what they
drop down. A big truth might floor us all, so they
dribble out a little at a time. “ Ultimately,” says Mrs.
Besant, “ in the course of myriad generations, the
whole race will reach this higher plane.” What an
elevation it must be ! Three hundred thousand years,
at least, must elapse before the mass of us will arrive
there! Theosophy cuts up the cake of Time in
remarkably big slices.
Some of the hidden wisdom of the Initiates, Adepts,
Arhats, Mahatmas, or Masters, has “ filtered out during
the last few years,” and here it is in The Secret
Doctrine. Mr. Wheeler describes it as “ a complete
hodge-podge of Yogi philosophy, Esoteric Buddhism,
Ignatius Donelly, Ragon and Eliphas Levi.” Mde.
Blavatsky is widely read in the barren literature of
occultism, has a good memory, a ready command of
her resources and a facile pen. But we look in vain
for method and lucidity. Dr. Tylor’s Primitive Culture
is a work of scientific genius ; Mde. Blavatsky’s Secret
Doctrine is the work of an accomplished charlatan.
Hidden wisdom is an easy thing to boast of. The
showman may enjoy a boundless reputation who is
never obliged to draw the curtain. Were the Adepts
to speak out, the world would see whether they are so
much wiser than Homer, JEscyhlus, Plato, Aristotle,
Virgil, Lucretius, Dante, Spinoza, Bacon and Shake
speare. The really great and wise men have poured
fourth their wisdom royally, like the sovereign sun
that sheds its glorious rays on all, leaving everything
to profit as it can.
As a matter of fact, except for its pretentious orient
alisms, there is nothing in Theosophy, as Mrs. Besant
has accepted it, which she could not have picked up
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
11
in the benighted West. That man’s Ego is immortal
is the current doctrine of Christendom. That Nature
is the manifestation of intelligence is taught almost
universally. Mesmerism is a commonplace of evening
entertainments Second-sight once abounded in the
Scotch highlands. Materialised spirit forms turn up
at ordinary seances. “ Mejums ” carry on daily commu
nication with the spirit world. The mystic number
seven flourishes in the Bible. Karma itself, with
out the doctrine of transmigration, is taught by
every great moralist; thoughts and deeds become habits,
■and habit is second nature.
Freethinkers will note the immense change in Mrs.
Besant’s views. She has “ no personal God,” but, “ the
universe is essentially Intelligence.” Matter is Maya,
illusion ; the Theosophist, like the Berkleyan idealist,
■“ seeks in the mental and spiritual planes of being the
causes of the material effects.” Mrs. Besant has turned
right about face ; and, once started on this new path,
there is no saying where she will go.
Besides her “ essentially Intelligence ” universe, or
perhaps I should say in it, Mrs. Besant has now a
multitude of “ intelligent beings ” other than mankind,
whose operations we mistake for “ the forces of nature.”
After death our Ego re-incarnates itself, again and again,
until it has purified itself from desire, when re-incarna
tion is no longer neccessary, and “ a man passes on to
higher planes of being.” Those who have thus passed
■on are a part of the “ intelligent beings ” aforesaid.
Spiritism, of course, is the logical issue of this fanci
ful philosophy. Theosophists seem all infected with
this melancholy superstition, which flourishes in gross
luxuriance among savages ; and it is to be feared that
Mrs. Besant will not escape the contagion.
Spiritism was not brought in by Theosophy, nor
was the doctrine of re-incarnation. Mrs Besant might
have learned it without the aid of Mde.' Blavatsky.
The transmigration of souls was a special feature of
the religion of ancient Egypt. It was taught by Plato.
It was received among the Jews ; witness Herod’s
exclamation about Jesus—“This is John the Baptist,
whom I beheaded.” The demons who took up their
�12
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
abode in “ possessed ” persons were also supposed to be
the souls of deceased wicked men. Metempsychosis
was gravely satirised in the seventeenth century by Dr.
Donne in a remarkably learned and powerful poem.
The pre-existence of the soul, which is an aspect of
the same doctrine, is insisted on in Wordsworth’s
great Ode on Immortality, where the poet adopts Plato’s
doctrine of reminiscence. Tennyson refers to the
forgetfulness in one incarnation of our experience in
previous ones.
Some draught of Lethe doth await,
As old mythologies relate,
The slipping through from state to state.
These literary references are not recondite, and I cannot
help feeling surprised at Mrs. Besant’s being struck,
through the agency of the Theosophic sorceress, with
the charming novelty of very ancient doctrines.
Still less do I understand her deception as to the
sacred number seven, which is so frequent in Theoso
phy. Mrs. Besant accepts the “ sevenfold nature of
man ” from the Wise Men of the East through the
prophetess Blavatsky ; and, having swallowed one
seven, I suppose she will not scruple at the rest. This
seven business, like lunacy, comes from the moon.
Early men found out the lunar twenty-eight days ; they
halved that number and found fourteen ; they halved
this and found seven ; they tried to halve that and
failed. This indivisible number was also connected
with sexual periodicities, and thus it became mysterious
and sacred. This accounts for its constant recurrence
in religious systems.
According to Mde. Blavatsky “ the number of
Monads is necessarily finite and limited.” They
arrived on this earth (from somewhere) in emigrant
streams long ago, but in time this planet got stocked.
Mr. Sinnett indulges in an innocent speculation as to
their number. This is still undecided, though it is
agreed that the number is large enough to necessitate
an interval of centuries between one incarnation and
another. Mde. Blavatsky says “ many centuries.” Mr.
Sinnett says “ fifteen hundred years at least.” Theo
�Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
13
sophy, it appears, though, supernally wise, is rather
vague in its arithmetic.
A principal doctrine of Buddhism is Karma, and
this is a leading tenet of Theosophy. “ Karma,” Mrs.
Besant says, “ is the expression of eternal justice,
whereby each reaps exactly as he has sown. It is the
impersonal law of retribution, distributing the fruit of
good and bad actions. During one incarnation is
Wrought the Karma which shall mould the circum
stances of the next, so that each man beautifies or mars
his own future. None can escape from the operation
of Karma, nor modify it save by the creation of fresh.
Karma presides, so to speak, over each re-incarnation,
so that the Ego passes into such physical and mental
'©nvironment as it deserves.”
Thus the problem of evil no longer disturbs Mrs.
Besant. She now sees nothing but “ eternal justice.”
Karma, says Mde. Blavatsky, reconciles us to “ the
terrible and apparent injustice of life.” According to
Mr. Sinnett “ the great inequalities of life ” are per
fectly explained. Each of us gets exactly what he
deserves, aud grumblers should reflect that suffering
and degradation are simply “ a new way to pay old
debts.” The subtle Sinnett relaxes, however, in the
■case of accidents. Cripples, and children injured at
birth, are victims of those little disorders that will
happen in the best regulated families ; but there is
■consolation in the thought that “ the undeserved suffer
ing of one life is amply redressed under the operation
of the Karmic law in the next, or the next.” Beautiful!
“ Blessed are ye that mourn now, for ye shall be com
forted.”
How Mrs. Besant reconciles Karma with Socialism
I leave her to explain. I am not a devotee of Socialism
myself, but I respect its objects if I dissent from its
policy. But if each man “reaps exactly as he has
■sown,” if each Ego goes into “ such physical and mental
environment as it deserves,” the Socialist—and, indeed,
■.every social reformer—is fighting against Karma ;
while denunciation of landlords, capitalists, and all
privileged persons, is silly screaming against “ eternal
justice.” Thus, at least, it appears to me. But I do
�14
Mrs, Besant’s Theosophy.
not dogmatise ; I am open to learn ; and I will listen
to what answer Mrs. Besant brings me from the WiseMen of the East.
Theosophy, of course, like every other system, has
its moral aspects, and Mrs. Besant deems them super
latively beautiful. I do not share her admiration ; on
the contrary, I regard the ethics of Theosophy as
detestable.
Mrs. Besant gravely tells us that Altruism “ differen
tiates ” Theosophy from “ all other systems as though
disinterestedness and self-sacrifice were not heard of
before the gospel of Blavatsky ; as though, indeed, she
had not herself written a pamphlet on Auguste Comte,,
whose maxim was Vivre Pour Autrui—Live For
Others. Altruism has existed in every ethical system.
No sane person thinks of neglecting its august claims.
Religious systems, however, have a knack of carrying
everything to excess, and Theosophy is no exception to
the rule. Mrs. Besant is not satisfied with giving
society as well as the individual its rights. Self is not
only to be subordinated to the general good, it is “ to
be destroyed.” We must be “ wholly selfless,” we
must “ kill out all personal desires.” Could anything
be more grotesque ? Could anything be more perni
cious ? Such a philosophy, if carried out, would reduce
its devotees to the flabbiest sentimentality and the most
hopeless impotence. Fancy, for instance, the attempt
to perpetuate the race, not by sexual desire, but by
altruistic principles! It is individual passion that
moves us. Without it we should stagnate, decay, and
perish. Every individual is necessarily the centre of
his own world. The difference between good and bad
men is a question of circumference. How many are
included in the range of one’s sympathies ? The selfish
man includes few, the unselfish man many, the true
saint all. Even then the imagination, which again is
individual, interposes its limitations. Thus we are
profoundly moved by calamities at home, and read of
calamities in distant, and especially alien countries,
with scarcely a sigh.
We may liken the individual and the social instincts
to the centrifugal and centripetal forces which keep
�Mrs. Besant’s lheosophy.
15
the earth revolving in its orbit. Mrs. Besant would
abolish the centrifugal force and shoot the earth into
the sun. This magnificent imperialism may have its
charms, but the majority of sensible people prefer a
compromise in the shape of Home Bule.
“ Identifying the individual with the all ” is a finesounding phrase. The doctrine, however, is that of
ascetics in all ages and climes. As a mood it has its
value ; it is suicidal as a philosophy. The mystics who
cut themselves off from society, immured themselves
in cells or hermitages, sought for “ purification,”
trampled upon “ self,” and tried to extinguish all
“personal desire,” were identifying themselves with,
God. Theosophy substitutes “ the all ” for God, but it
is the same old process with a new name.
The final ethical developments of Theosophy are
suggested by Mrs. Besant, and they should be carefully
noted. Within the Theosophical Society there is an
“inner circle” of those who desire to enter on “the
Path.” For “obvious reasons” Mrs. Besant says little
about this doubly esoteric circle. The reasons may be
“ obvious ” to her, but twenty people, I venture to say,
would give twenty different guesses. However, we
must take what is vouchsafed. The inner circle, it
appears, must “ abstain from all intoxicants ”—not in
cluding Theosophy ; and “ the use of meat is dis
countenanced.” So far there is nothing very “ occult ”
in the prescription. Teetotalism is at least as old as
the Nazarites, and is a rule of Mohammedanism ; while
Vegetarianism, also a very ancient practice, is spreading
quite independently of Theosophy.
The third point is the critical one. Those who
mean to pursue the Path “ must lead a celibate life.”
That is the centre of gravity of all these “ spiritual,r
systems. The poor flesh is to be mortified, whipped,
and suppressed. The spirit is to be all in all. At a
single bound Mrs Besant reaches the sexual doctrine
of St. Paul. All her old teaching on this pc int is cast
to the winds. Page on page of her pamphlet on Mar
riage must be cancelled to bring it into conformity
with the new doctrine. Marriage is now a mere con
cession to human weakness. Celibacy is the counsel
�16
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy.
of perfection. The sacred names of husband and wife,
father and mother, are to be deposed as usurpers. At
the very best they are only to be tolerated. It is idle
to reply that celibacy is only for the “ inner circle.”
If it be the loftiest rule of life, it should be aimed at
by all.
Celibacy is not the loftiest rule of life. Physically,
mentally, and morally, it is attended with the gravest
dangers. What it has led to in pietist circles is only
too well known. Turned out of doors, nature climbs
in at the window. The frustration of honest instinct
makes men and women flighty and feverish, or fills
them with the malaise of unsatisfied yearning. Dis
used functions avenge themselves, and the body
becomes a hospital or a churchyard of effete, vicious,
nr cadaverous organs.
Spiritism on the one side, and celibacy on the other,
are the evil angels of Theosophy. I will not venture
to speculate on where they may lead an ardent and
devoted nature like Mrs Besant’s. She is not an adven
turess, and is more likely to be the victim than the
mistress of this superstition. Others may be only
partially deluded, and sufficiently free to find influence
and profit in ministering to the credulity of their dupes.
But Mrs Besant is made of different stuff. She will go
on “ the Path ” with perfect confidence ; she will
preach and proselytise. What will be will be ; the
end I cannot foresee or avert. Yet I will cherish a
hope that a lady so gifted, so eloquent, so devoted, and
so brave, may some day see that Theosophy itself is
Maya, or illusion, and return to the sound and bracing
philosophy that once guided and inspired her.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.;
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Mrs Besant's theosophy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N254
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
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 (Mrs Besant's theosophy), 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
Annie Besant
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/144333907e0df5166510fb57b643e074.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=wFPtJl9SGSlcFSFZL-hqEXSPyAkLmXI7dOsc8Pjg0ZMItiQHQ20DtxCaWFI6fvGPUnyaO82mc1KmEI12qn6gA51NJJPUvngCiAfluKtF6elilf1LwCp-ktshez8Lvt%7ELRMtMTUXzuvSSZZpfigtUwKvqOmGeM5j3BAhaif9m-6FxS21KaXka9jbpgc8%7EuaFBpGS3meYH5JJGGurP54PS384B7PL-4mq0nspxa7d28oqDZ-40bfORYx6CIqgjBc56sRf%7ECsGrsRScj35fhiopT9fSegYIwda1PK8dzKs2UYiEtfHLATiyoZcaCATbWy1rReCHt1yAQnm2n0Sotl8c6w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c4fe65c4f321c6538774d95c70ac2a8
PDF Text
Text
B 2a>9
KSt>S£
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD.
Being also a Bsiet Statement ot Arguments
Against agnosticism.
BY
“TIUM ANITAS.”
Author of
“ Is God
Heaven”,
Commons
“ Christ’s Temptation”, “ Jacob the Wrestler”, “Jonah and the Whale”,
the First Cause?”, “Follies of the Lord’s Prayer”, “ Though's on
“Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath Question”, “How the British House of
Treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”, “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish
Nation”, “ Socialism a Curse”, “ Against Socialism”, etc.
QoclIm?
PldxT \
LONDON:
FEEETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
COMPANY,
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BKSANT,
63 ELEET STREET, E;C.
�GOD.
BEING ALSO A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM
The following observations were suggested to me by a
remark—or rather, by a question put to me in the shape
•of an argument—by an intimate and, I believe, a true
friend, under rather peculiar circumstances. He is not
•only a Christian—and I will do him the justice of believing
him to be a sincere one—but a “ minister of the Gospel ”,
having qualified himself in what should have been his
hours of rest from daily toil, under the auspices of Mr.
Spurgeon.
We chanced to be inside a very important Catholic
•church in the City of Dublin. It was upon a Saturday
evening, a favorite time for going to confession amongst
the poorer Catholics. The interior of the place presented the
appearance usual upon such occasions, being only partially
and dimly lit up ; making the small red lamp burning in
front of the high altar [indicating the presence of the
“Host”—i.e., a small piece of God’s “ very flesh ” in the
form of the “ wafer ”, which is made of flour and water]
more remarkable and mysterious. Groups of penitents
kneeled and prayed, beads in hand, in front of one or
other of the numerous altars, either waiting their turn to
disappear into one of the many confessionals, or saying a
few prayers—perhaps a portion of their penance—after
coming out from them. Occasionally a priest would glide
quickly and silently past in that well-known conventional
and prof essional manner peculiar to them and their calling;
bowing to the very ground in solemn fashion as he passed
the “Adorable Host”. Pictures of the “Stations of the
�4
GOD.
Cross”; highly colored and decorated statues of “Our
Saviour”, the “Blessed Virgin”, “ St. Joseph”, and various
other saints ; stained glass windows, looking strangely and
weirdly indistinct in the dim light, and helping the gene
rally mysterious glamor which prevailed; people in various
stations of life, but chiefly the poor, sprinkling themselves
with holy water, blessing themselves and making the sign
of the Cross as they passed, or almost crept, in and out;
the curious odor so dear to the olfactory nerves of the
faithful, caused by the burning of incense, and which
never seems to leave the building: these, together with
many other features peculiar to the Catholic Church, seen
by my friend for perhaps the first time, inspired him with
much curiosity, but withal much contempt. I think it
likely that he experienced some such feelings, as did the
simple honest Scotchman when he, for the first time in his
life, got a glimpse of a bishop in the full blaze of his
glory and paraphernalia, officiating in a Catholic Church
upon the occasion of its being opened for public worship,
and exclaimed : “Ah! mon, but it’s the deil!”. However
that may have been, he is, as I say, a Christian minister,
and of course fervently believes in the existence of God.
In fact, he went so far as to declare—and I believe in all
sincerity—that he did not believe one single human being
existed who thought for a single moment there was no
God. This being so, and whilst we stood opposite the high
altar, he appeared to be suddenly struck with an idea: he
thought he saw a favorable opportunity of driving home
an argument, and thereby eventually saving my soul from
the awful doom which he felt sorrowfully confident was
hanging over it. For, turning to me, with much solici
tude, he asked the question to which I have alluded,
viz., “ Does not that fine piece of work ”—pointing to the
high altar—“ show design ? Does it not bespeak thought,
intelligence: in short, does it not show mind on the part of
the maker ? ” Of course I at once saw at what my friend
was driving; and there, in the centre of mystery and
mummery, with the Faithful, and, as we both thought,
foolish devotees, bowing and scraping, and blessing and
mumbling and crawling about us, we two, a Baptist
minister and an avowed Atheist, held an argument as to
whether there existed a God or- not. Of course it was
held in undertones ; but more than once we were
�GOD.
5
suspiciously glanced at; and, wonderful to relate, the
walls did not fall in upon us, nor did the floor open and
swallow us up! I believe, Atheist as I am, and holding
the Church of Rome—with its host, its mutterings, its
tinsel and trappings, its celibate (?)' priesthood, and its
large and lucrative trade done in departed souls—to be all
delusion and pretence, that my friend’s disgust at what
was passing around us, was greater than mine. Yet he,
in turn, finds no difficulty in subscribing to such things as
the “Trinity”, the “Fall”, and the “Atonement”
(embracing as the latter does, the pre-ordained tragedy of
the murder of God No. 2); the doctrine of eternal torment,
and the usual orthodox miracles ascribed to Christ, etc.,
■etc.
With these few observations as to the origin of the pre
sent paper, I will at once proceed with my task.
In dealing with my subject, I shall hold that “God”
means, not only the “Sovereign Lord”, the “Supreme
Being”, the “Maker of heaven and earth”, etc., which
terms all convey pretty much the same meaning or idea ;
but that it must necessarily mean the beginning of all
things; in fact, the First Cause. I take this to be the
primary meaning of the term; and to be the centre of nearly
all the definitions put forward. [I shall, in concluding
this paper, make some remarks upon the question as to
whether an Atheist can reasonably hold that the term God
conveys no meaning to him. “Creator”, “Maker”,
“First Cause ”, etc., seem to me to be fairly definite, and
to convey the idea that the person who uses them, or the
term (God) for which they stand, holds that he exists.]
Christians generally certainly hold God to be the begin
ning of all things. They all, with perhaps slight varia
tion, teach what is conveyed in : “ Before all things were,
God was ”. And the Theist, pure and simple, holds that
he in some fashion or other made, or caused the universe.
I shall, as a matter of course, endeavor to show that this
is erroneous.
My friend’s contention, as will have been observed,
amounts to nothing more nor less than our old familiar
friend the design argument: that because an altar, a
building, or a piece of machinery, indicates mind on the
part of the constructor, therefore the universe must have
had a constructor who possessed that attribute. I do not,
�6
GOD.
however, think that either he or they who hold the sama
opinion are sufficiently logical to admit that, inasmuch
as the universe, like the objects referred to, showsgreat imperfections, therefore its maker, like theirs, must
necessarily have had only an imperfect mind. To make
this logical confession would defeat the object of the
comparison and inference drawn.
My first objection to the theory that the universe wasconstructed or made is that it pre-supposes a period when
a universal nothing prevailed ; that there was a time when
this world, with its sun and its planets, and the other
millions of worlds, compared with which this is quite
insignificant, did not exist; and when matter in any form
was not. The thing is simply unthinkable. It is pure
assumption. It used to be assumed and enforced—by
death if necessary—before the shape, dimensions, laws,
etc., which govern this world (not to mention the others)
were known, that the very matter of which it is composed
was made—called into existence by this intelligent God,
about 6,000 years ago. But science having rendered that
position untenable, a compromise is made: what was
inspiration then is not inspiration now; and it is therefore
held that the raw material only existed previous to that
period, and that creating simply means fashioning, or
working into shape, which again was not accomplished in
the good old-fashioned six days—upon one of which we
are enjoined to rest from our labor—but perhaps (and
mark the perhaps) took six incalculable lapses of time.
But this latter-day shift does not touch upon the question
of the previous making of the matter. It leaves it exactly
where it was : impossible to suppose, and a most un
necessary assumption.
But it is further contended that the world was not only
made, but that its maker must have possessed intelligence,
must have had a mind. It ought not to be necessary to
point out that intelligence, or mind, is the result of brain
power. It is impossible to conceive or think of mind
except in conjunction with organism. And God is claimed
by those who insist upon his existence to be a pure spirit
without either body or parts. "What can be really known
of a pure spirit ? And how can you couple mind with it ?
Mind is a faculty of, and belonging to, certain animal
organisations, having its seat in the brain; and intelli
�GOD.
7
gence is the result of the greater or lesser supply, quality,
or exercise of that essentially animal organ.
How then
can a pure spirit, which cannot be conceived as having
any functional power or conditions whatever, be said to
possess mind ? As well might you speak of God’s mouth,
or God’s any other part, as speak of his mind. Indeed,
the folly to which I point is actually reached in such
phrases as “his all-seeing eye”, “the finger of God”,
etc., which are the common cant of Christians. I suppose
I shall be told these are but figures of speech ; but I see
no more reason for making them such than for doing a
like thing with God’s intelligence, which is the pivot upon
which the argument for design turns.
There are many Theists who do not venture upon a
description of God, simply contending that he does in some
fashion exist. Well, that is certainly much safer ground,
but of course it does not find favor with those who, whilst
holding him to be pure spirit, yet contend for his personality.
No less a person than Archdeacon Farrar1 is just now
triumphantly asking by way of a death blow to Atheism,
where motion and life came from ‘1 save the finger tips of
omnipotence ? ” It might be remarked, by the way, that
when the venerable Archdeacon is asked, Whence came
omnipotence ? it becomes his turn to take his own advice,
and, giving the “Rabbi’s answer”, say “I do not know”.
But the cream of the joke is, the Archdeacon thinks he
has solved the problem. It is doubtless very pretty and
off-handed, to talk about the world coming from God’s
finger tips: but why did he not say from his toe ends ?
For my own part, I do not think it matters much which
limb or end of omnipotence you make use of, either as
matter of fact, or figure of speech. Omnipotence could,
when he had the world, or worlds, rolled up into round
lumps, as easily have tipped them off with his foot, as
with his hand. I am curious to know upon what he rested
the rough lumps when at work upon them. Did he climb
all over them, or rest them in his lap ? Can God who is
without form, body, or parts, have a lap ? Get behind,
1 See the National Reformer of August 5th, 1888, containing his
seven questions, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s replies. Also Ernest Ferrol’s
reply in Secular Review of August 25th, 1888, and “Julian’s” scath
ing remarks in same journal of a week later.
�8
GOD.
ye of little faith!—or go to Archdeacon Farrar, and he
will tell you that God, being God, can have many laps,
and no lap, at one and the same time. What does the
Archdeacon say to this ? He speaks of the finger tips of
omnipotence : then why not of the nether end ? One were
as foolish as the other : and yet he deemed those who do
not come to the same conclusion as himself, to be talking
“ stupendous nonsense ”.
I believe that the idea of God working upon the worlds
cobbler-fashion is not, however, the orthodox one: a much
more sublime view is taken. God is made more of a
necromancer, or wizard : he did his work by his word :—
“ Heigh presto ! ” and it was done. “ Let there be light ”,
etc. “And it was so”, notwithstanding that there had
already been three mornings and evenings, and, shall I
be profane if I conclude, also nights ? How very omnipotent this God—formless, yet fingered and eyed—must
have been ! And it will not avail to argue that those
terms really are figures of speech, because having refer
ence to the particular attribute—mind—which we are
mainly considering ; it is implicitly believed that he is not
only possessed of intelligence, but is the fountain-head
of all wisdom. And there is logically no more reason why
eyes and fingers, or any other functional condition or term,
should be held to be figurative, than intelligence. . Seeing
is certainly as much the result of function as intelligence,
and intelligence is not less the result of function than see
ing. No doubt this figurative idea is extremely useful.
The inspired Scriptures are held to be both figurative and
literal, as occasion and the needs of this and that particular
doctrine or dogma may require. Of course it goes for
nothing that those who thus ring the changes, do so to
prove each other wrong,—both, too, being under God’s
Divine Providence!
Now, looking the argument fully in the face, that
because work done by man shows him to be possessed of a
mind, therefore the universe shows it must also have been
produced by a personal power—or even power other than
personal—possessing that quality ; I reply that nothing of
the kind necessarily follows, especially when it is contended
that the power or person so acting is pure spirit, producing
its work out of nothing. I think no one will be guilty of
holding cause and effect to be contained in such a pre
�GOD.
9
posterous contention. And the case is even worse when it
is further contended that its work demonstrates supreme
power as well as supreme intelligence.
It does not follow that, because a piece of music or a
steam engine is the result of brains, therefore the universe
is also the result of brains: much less of brains dwelling
in what could not possibly be a dwelling-place for them.
Because in order to produce your power, your brains, your
mind, or your intelligence, you have to travel out of nature
into something indefinable, something in which neither
•one nor the other could exist—in reality into nothing.
Talking of “omnipotence” does not explain anything;
neither does accounting for nature by supernature. Many
shallow Christians besides Archdeacon Farrar have made
•merry over what it is pretended the Atheist believes as
regards chance ; while they themselves maintain that law
and order were produced by miracle, which is a negation
•of all law, and that nature, which is an endless chain of
cause and effect, was caused by an uncaused cause ! This
is less logical than chance. If a cannon ball chanced to come
into contact with a man’s head it would speedily produce
an effect. But your uncaused cause is simply a contradic
tion of terms, or a logically impossible arrangement of
terms, and kills itself. Those who so argue resemble the
poor man who, thinking he had no further use for his
brains, got a friend to knock them out for him; or the
little boy who, having opened all his cockles by means of
•each other, was at a loss how to proceed on coming to the
last one, and so smashed it.
As a matter of fact the materialist is the last to subscribe
to a belief in “ chance ”. He must necessarily hold to
law and order ; it is the corner stone of his position. He
cannot even indulge in the luxury of a temporary reversion
or cessation of law, either through the instrumentality of
prayer or otherwise.
Perhaps the main difference upon this point between,
say, an advanced scientific Christian Theist and an Atheist
is that the former, arguing that the fact of the existence
of the world is insufficient, will insist upon going behind
it to find a cause. But he will then stultify himself and
cut the throat of his own argument by asserting the said
cause to have been itself uncaused: thus of a verity
straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel.
�10
GOD.
The Atheist and Materialist, on the other hand, at once
admits that he knows nothing, and can know nothing,
beyond the universe. He takes it as he finds it. And
one of his highest aims is to become acquainted with it:
to understand the laws which govern and pervade it. But
he cannot suppose a time when it did not exist, nor a
time when it will cease to exist. Change it may, but it
will be in obedience to laws inherent in itself. Nature
perpetually changes, but it does not cease. And there is
no more reason to suppose that it began to be, than that
it will cease to be. Let anyone seriously try to think a
period in which there existed nothing — not even the
atmosphere; that all the millions cf orbs, suns, or systems
—for we cannot confine ourselves to our own comparatively
small system—did not exist, were not made; and that
somewhere out in space there did exist, and always had
existed, an incomprehensible something, formless, brain
less, and without substance, and yet possessing the
intelligence and power to produce all these millions of
worlds out of nothing, as if by magic. Let him attempt
to think it, and he will not only be lost in the folly of the
effort, but also in that of the reasoning it implies.
If the fact be candidly recognised that the world bears
down in its depths, and upon its surface, unmistakable
proofs of its incalculable age; and if it also be admitted
that there cannot be gathered one single scrap of evidence
that it once did not exist—that, as I have pointed out, a
time when it and all nature, of which it is but part, was
not, is unthinkable—the logical conclusion which affirms
the eternity of nature and her laws—by which I mean all
that happens in nature, and that is necessary for the
happening—will have to be conceded : thus shutting out,
or allowing no room for God. Nature therefore being
all-sufficient and eternal, necessarily could not have had
a supernatural beginning, nor indeed any beginning.
If I am told the world bears evidence of having had an
intelligent maker, I reply that such is not the case. It
bears evidence of vast and perpetual change ; of lapse after
lapse of time so great as to almost annul our sense of what
time means; but nowhere does it point to an intelligent
maker, and therefore a beginning. Nor does it give
evidence of an ending. In fact it gives evidence of its
own eternity. And least of all does it give evidence of
�GOI).
11
having had a beginning in a something which of a neces
sity must have been foreign to the laws and principles
which are part and parcel of itself. Of tho intelligence of
the alleged maker, as evidenced by his work, I will speak
presently.
The Theist, in his anxiety to find a beginning for what
it is impossible to conceive as having had one, travels out
of tho universe, beyond the real and knowable into the
regions of fairyland; and seems to havo invented—and
the Christians, with various additions and modifications
to have adopted—a kind of fabulous monster combining
all the good and bad qualities of his predecessors rolled
into one ; with the difference that while as a rule the
Gods which he replaced, or who went before him, took,
and were worshipped in, some particular shape or form,
the Jew-Christian God is said to be entirely without form ;
but is at the same timo capable of assuming all shapes
and forms, and also of assuming no shape or form what
ever, as time and occasion may require. Ho is accredited
with other peculiarities, perhaps not common to his more
savage and less manipulated precursors and contemporaries :
such as being a pure spirit without parts, but nevertheless
able to see, walk, talk, and sit; and possessing memory,
will, and understanding.
According to Dr. Cross, an enlightened and Christian
member of tho Liverpool City Council,1 God actually has
a “ snout ” capable of receiving a “ slap ” “ with tho back
of the” municipal “hand”. Which statement another
even more Christian councillor, not relishing the profanity
of his civic brothor, indignantly interpreted as “giving
the Almighty a bloody noso ” ! But tho most amusing
part of this incident was that the latter gentleman had to
withdraw, whilst the former statement was allowed to
stand unchallenged. So that by the decision of these
exports in Christian and Doistic niceties, it is fail’ enough
to speak of giving tho Almighty a “back-hander” on the
“snout”; but the line must bo drawn at bloodying his
nose. These arc not my vulgarities, bear in mind, but
are those of Christian gentlemen who would not desecrate
the Sabbath by giving their sanction to tho means of
educating working people upon that awful day.
1 See “Summary of News” iu National Reformer, August 12th, 1888.
�12
GOD.
Having regard to the traits and characteristics which go
to make up the Christian Deity, one cannot help thinking
that he would form a most interesting and unique addition
to the God Department of the Exhibition of Religions
newly opened at Paris. The only difficulty I see would
be as to shape. A pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke would
not be quite so tangible, and perhaps God-like, as some of
their divine majesties already placed. The form of man
is, I venture to think, too commonplace; and to give him
his great characteristic, no form at all, is of course quite
cut of the question. Hence the difficulty in representa
tion. It is possible that, if appealed to, he might deign to
signify to the promoters of the Exhibition in what par
ticular guise he would wish to appear amongst his rival
high-and-mighties.
In speaking of the shape or image of God, it is curious
to note that the portion of man which he is said to have
made in his own image and likeness is that particular
portion—?■'.<?., his mind—which is imageless, and which he
possesses, though in a larger degree, in common with all
creatures whose systems include brains. Therefore it
would be quite as true to say that he made cats and dogs
in his own image as to say it of man; or, in other words,
one statement is equally as foolish as the other.
It might not be out of place here to remark what I have
more than once pointed out—viz., the extreme reluctance
displayed nowadays by defenders of Christianity to discuss
or to touch upon the God of the Bible, and his doings as
therein related. They either evade or refuse point blank
to deal with the subject, pretending that it has nothing to
do with Christianity, etc., etc. Well, if not altogether
logical, it is yet good. It is well they are ashamed of the
root of their tree, and it gives hope that they will eventually
entertain a similar feeling with regard to the fruit thereof.
But I ask seriously and pointedly how Christians—and I
allude especially to Trinitarians—can hold Christ the Son
—who is co-equal with God the Father, being not a
separate God, but the second person of the God-head,
practically one and the same—to be innocent, or in any
way not responsible for all the acts said and done, as
related in the Old Testament ? The weak attempt at
evasion anent the New Dispensation, etc., does not
suffice; and cannot make bloodshed, deceit and lying,
�GOD.
13
obscenity, and profligate barbarity, other than they
are.
Whilst admitting that Judaism taken alone is not Chris
tianity, I urge that it is the foundation upon which it is
built, and that a Christian, whilst accepting the super
structure, may not reasonably eschew the foundation.
Man in building up a civilisation may reasonably subscribe
to the present-day result, whilst at the same time admitting
that many of the events which went before were not, as
now viewed, right or moral, man can but use his brains,
and he necessarily and often blunders. Frequently he
knowingly commits crime, which must be condemned,
although future generations are influenced and compelled
to shape their course by reason of it. Indeed the blunders
and crimes, as well as the great achievements and virtues
in the direction of truth and acknowledged right, of those
who go before, shape the course of those who follow.
But a God building up a religion—giving to man the
actual standard of right—is altogether another question.
He is not at liberty to blunder and commit crime, other
wise he is not God. Man cannot conceive (I admit some
men can) a God leading his people through bloodshed,
pillage, and rapine to a righteous goal. Man cannot
conceive a God doing and saying such things, and
establishing for centuries foolish fables regarding natural
facts, as not only to constrain his “ enemies ”, but his very
disciples, either to denounce or evade him. But such is
the case, for it would seem now that God has in part
changed his skin, and that number two portion is much
whiter than number one. Bible Theism is not now deemed
sufficiently respectable to go hand in hand with New
Testament Theism. The Son is ashamed of the Father,
and I look forward to a time when the enlightened will
be ashamed of both ; by which I mean, ashamed of being
—or rather of pretending to be—bound down and ruled
by such books of fable as both the Old and New Testa
ments admittedly are.
Going back again to the folly of hunting for a God, it
really is interesting to note how, in obedience to what he
believes to be a logical necessity, your believer in his
existence, after he has left the land of science and fact,
entered that of imagination and myth, and secured, as he
thinks, his origin for the land he has left, will, without
�14
GOD.
scruple, disregard what he conceived to be the logical
necessity which sent him there. He opines that there must
have been a beginning to all things, falls down before the
indescribable creation of his own brain, damns his brother
if he does not do likewise, proclaims that he has found the
beginning, and thus ignores the very principle which sent
him in search of it. All things must have a beginning,
except, forsooth, his God. That were a child’s method of
solving the difficulty. It is also a child’s method of
shirking it.
It may be contended, in fact it was so put by my friend,
that it is enough if the necessity for a maker of the world
is demonstrated, without going behind that maker : that
it is enough for man to know there is a creator, without
pushing the enquiry as to how be came about. I reply
that it is not enough. First, because that would be a
good argument against his existence, and for the allsufficiency of nature. But I reply further, and principally,
that the argument which insists upon the necessity of a
God, when carried to its fair and legitimate end, simply
annihilates him. If you insist that the universe—all
nature—must have had a cause (of .course an intelligent
one) equal to the effect, you must in common sense admit
that your cause is the effect of an antecedent cause also
equal to the effect. And so on, ad infinitum. Where then
is your first cause? I say that, according to your own
showing, your God is not a respectable half-way house to
the first cause. His very existence, as created by man,
logically kills him. The truth is, he does not, and so far
as we are able to reason, could not exist.
It may be argued that it were as reasonable to hold
that God always was, and therefore had no beginning, as
to hold the same thing of the universe and of nature. But
I reply again: first, that the God theory, whilst being in
no way a solution of the real difficulty, merely aggravates
it. It is a large and a gratuitous addition, and simply
piles difficulty upon difficulty. It assumes as a basis of its
existence, what the need for its existence says is impossible;
and so either evades or strangles the principle it evokes.
And I reply secondly: that man cannot travel beyond
nature. If ever he finds a first cause it must be a natural
one. To him super-nature is nil, he can know nothing of
it; and, therefore, to endeavor to account for nature upon
�GOD.
15
what must necessarily be not only pure assumption, but
the assumption of something to which you have no means
of applying a test, is simply nonsense. Let us suppose
that it is admitted that the beginning of nature is an im
penetrable mystery. Do we gain anything by creating
another and a more impenetrable mystery ? We know
the universe exists, but we do not know how it came to
exist; and in our simplicity we create a Aow, which must
be logically beset with the same impenetrable mystery and
necessity for an origin as that for which it is made to
account. Thus, whilst going very cunningly round the
smaller pit, we fall headlong into the larger one, com
placently belauding ourselves the while for our great
sagacity.1
When a person argues that, inasmuch as the world
could not have made itself, it must therefore have had a
maker ; but that the said maker—let it or him be what
soever you please—is free from such necessity, he does but
shift from what he considers one insurmountable barrier
to another and a more insurmountable one. It is like
saying ten must be composed of a sufficient number of
units, or their equivalent, but that twenty need not. But
such a method of reasoning brings you no nearer the
beginning : You are no nearer the First Cause.
This method of arguing back to Grod, and then killing
your argument, is very like that contained in the following
dialogue :—
“ Mother, who or what made that little gooseberry ? ”
“ That big one, my child.”
“ But mother, who made the big one ? ”
“My dear child” (this rather severely), “the big one
never was made ; it always existed.”
“ But mother, how could a big gooseberry exist without
having been made, any more than a little one ? ”
“ Hush I child ” (this time quite sternly); “ that is a
foolish and a wicked question.”
But why is it foolish ? Why does the Theist strain at
1 If those who believe in the mystery called God, did nothing worse
than pat themselves on the back, there would be very little harm
done. But they have ostracised and even burned alive their brother,
for but saying or doing something which pointed in a contrary direc
tion.
�16
GOD.
the smaller difficulty and swallow the larger one ? Why
endeavor to account for a seeming impossibility by accepting,
without question, a greater ?
Materialists see in this universe an endless chain of
cause and effect; and are not only willing but anxious ta
investigate these changes and conditions, down to the
remotest and most minute data. To them there is no
dread of encountering some awful nightmare in scientific
study, which will possibly shatter the fabric upon which
they build their theory. That such fear does exist amongst
Christians is evidenced by such statements as the following:
“How can we expect men of science, who do not neces
sarily believe in God, to be impressed by us, if we, who
do profess to believe in a spiritual creator, recoil from
much they tell us about the creative methods as if it would
undermine our faith1? ”1 (Italics mine). And, “why does
the scientific dread of first causes alarm us, if we heartily
believe ? ” etc.
Why, indeed! The non-supernaturalist—who does not
11 believe in a spiritual creator”—can have no fear or
alarm in unveiling nature; it is his interest and desire to
study her laws, and to become familiar with them, and,
when proven, to admit them as facts, preconceived doctrines
and revealed religion notwithstanding. But he is not
prepared to travel out of nature in order to find a super
natural origin for her existence. There is indeed no reason
for such a proceeding, nor necessity for it. Mother nature
is sufficient, is all in all. You cannot go beyond her, nor
get outside her influence. Super-nature is not. And this
fact is painfully evident in the efforts made by men to
dabble in the supernatural. Their gods, who may always
be regarded as the personification of their particular myth,
are generally disfigured with the passions, loves, and
hates which sway themselves. They are, physiologically
—if I may so misapply the word—made up of the legs and
wings of the animal world, after the manner of your
approved nondescript, which, whilst being unlike anything
in “the heavens above” or in “the earth beneath”, must
necessarily be built of such limbs and parts—no matter
how uncouthly thrown together—as are familiar to man.
’ See J. R. Hutton’s address upon “Atheism” at the Church
Congress, held at Manchester, October 3rd, 18S8.
�GOD.
17
The Gods always reflect the physiological and intellectual
condition of the people, for the time being, who set them
up; but must necessarily change as man’s condition and
surroundings change. They are at once the idols of the
age which gives them birth, and the laughing stock of
succeeding ages. Being ever made by man, they ever
bear man’s impress. Trie Christian God is no exception
to the rule. He is perhaps the biggest oddity of them
all, and before being Christianised simply revelled in
blood. Indeed, the Christian Church has done some
bloody and revolting work in his name. But he is now
less ferocious, and is satisfied with much milder holocausts
than of old. This change is, however, due to the fact
that ‘‘heretics” and “Atheists” have, either in con
formity with his will or in defiance of it, curtailed the
power of his priests. They may not now do what, under
God, was as holy as it was horrible and infamous.
I have elsewhere dealt more fully with God’s charac
teristics—his composition, his tripleness, his mother, his
father (poor Joseph), etc., etc. I have also said that it
would be more correct to say man made God than to say
God made man. I will now supplement that statement
by another, made by the some-time Bev. Parker Pillsbury,
who said : “ An honest God is the noblest work of man ”.
But I would further add that man has not yet produced
him. Gods indeed he has produced in abundance and
variety ; but as far as I know an honest one has yet to
appear. All Gods are jugglers ; or perhaps it would be
more correct to say all priests juggle in the name of their
Gods, which is practically the same thing. It would appear
to me that man’s failure in the art and craft of God-making
necessarily arises from two causes. First, his own im
perfections and his natural and inevitable tendency to
endow his creation with them; and, secondly, the materials
upon which he has to work—taken, of course, as showing
the character of the God he is manipulating. The world
as we find it does not bespeak an honest God; the folly
lies in the attempt to manufacture one. If any Christian
Theist objects to this, I ask him if it was honest to foreknowingly curse the human race with corrupt souls, or, if
he prefers, with corrupt natures, and then to damn it for
eternity because it either will not or cannot accept the
proffered salvation by reason of its corruption ? And I
�18
GOD.
ask the ordinary Theist, who may or may not believe in
the existence of hell—mostly, I think, they do not, although
I believe nearly all hold to a belief in some sort of future
existence—whether it is just or honest to curse millions of
living bodies with horrible diseases and imperfections,
inherited or not ?
As regards the making of Gods, doubtless our friends
the Christians think they have succeeded in producing the
genuine article, forgetting that they are under the neces
sity of supplementing him with the devil, and of counter
balancing his wondrous home of superlative bliss with the
dismal abode of unutterable woe in which the devil is, by
way of contrast, located. This, although I will give them
the credit of not knowing it, is the only possible outcome
of the conditions under which they must labor. Black
and white, sunshine and storm, joy and misery, peace and
love, hatred, war, and revenge, fair justice and benign
mercy, crushed innocence, and unmerited suffering, etc.,
accounted for upon the God theory, naturally give birth
to twins, one fair and the other foul, one good and the
other its antithesis—in a word, God and the Devil, or their
equivalents.
The great difficulty from the Christian point of view,
consists in God having to share his sceptre with his black
and discredited brother ; having to wield one end, as it
were, leaving the other to the devil—who, indeed, fre
quently annuls his co-partner’s God-ship most completely
by wielding both ends. God is not God all round. It
is at best a case of turn about between himself and the
devil. God is God to-day, but the devil is God to-morrow
—and very often the day after. God makes the world
to-day, declaring it to be good ; and the devil damns it
the next. God later on sends a Savior (one-third of
himself I don’t smile) to repair the mischief ; but the
devil so contrives matters1 that, after the lapse of nearly
2,000 years, a mere handful have heard his name; and
the bulk of those who have heard it, either fail to accept
him, or to be influenced for good by him. And so on to
1 You may hold that God does this—which, indeed, to be consistent
you ought to do—and so make him do the devil’s work if you please.
In which case, make your exit, Mr. Devil; God can do his own dirty
work without your assistance.
�GOD.
19
the end of the piece. God, the creator of heaven and
earth, and of all things, the Sovereign Lord, etc. etc., is
■so limited, thwarted, and hopelessly circumvented by a
power which he either purposely created, or which exists*
without having been created, and in spite of him, that he
■can. in no sense be held to be God : the very term becomes
a misnomer.
To glance again for a moment at what is called creation
—and I think I am justified in making these occasional
digressions, because they bear upon most important matters,
•said to have been done by God, or at least by what may
be termed the nowaday most important personification of
the idea. It is the common belief and tradition of the
Christian Churches that this particular planet was called
into existence by God, to be a kind of nursery ground
for a large quantity of angels whom he required to fill
up the gaps in the heavenly ranks, caused by the rebellion
and consequent expulsion of Satan and his confederates.
(Note the idea of coming to grief even in heaven.} But
Satan,1 although hurled into the bottomless pit, found
1 It might be worth remarking that the Bible, in its account of the
■creation does not say one single word to lead you to suppose that the
devil took hand or part in the apple-tree fable. It speaks of “ the
tree of knowledge of good and evil ”, and says (Genesis iii, 1) : “Now
the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which
God had made ”, etc., and is actually headed “The Serpent’s Graft ”,
and further states (verse 4) that God curses the serpent ‘ ‘ because
thou”—the serpent—“hast done this thing”. If the unfortunate
.serpent was in Satan’s hands, where the necessity of his superior
■cunning ? And why curse it for being made use of ? Is it held that
the serpent, being a reptile, was yet morally responsible for the part
the devil made it play, or that he himself played through its instru
mentality ? It would appear to me that in this case the devil was
the monkey, the serpent the cat, Adam and Eve the chestnuts, and
the Garden of Eden the fire. And bear in mind, if you take away
the Christian gloss, and rely upon the ‘1 unvarnished tale ’ ’ as given
in the text, the case is no better. You are bound to conclude that the
serpent as such, took an active intelligent part in the business, even
to the extent of making use of its powers of speech, etc., for w’hich
God held it morally responsible, and for which he deliberately cursed
it. What villanous trash it assuredly is, take it which way you will!
I am here deliberately ignoring the idea which seems to be held by
some of my critics (see Watts's Literary Guide, May, 1888), viz., that
■one should read the Scriptures, disregarding the common meaning of
language, and fishing, as it were, for renderings which might perhaps
completely metamorphose the entire text or story. Or as they put it,
■one ought to take note of the different aspect which these “ miraculous
�20
GOD.
occasion by means of the first couple of intended angel
progenitors, to convert the world into a regular market
garden of devils; a huge cradle for blasted souls I So
that God—otherwise he is not God—is, by the instru
mentality of the devil, filling up the ranks in hell, rather
than in heaven ! Passing by the singular notion of putting
pure souls through this worldly ordeal, with a fore
knowledge of its fatal consequences, I cannot but think
that God, every time he places these pure souls into his
now vile and be-devilled bodies, must feel sadly humbled
and disappointed at the continued success of the cast-out
rebel, and at his own impotency. That he will finally
assert himself and be revenged, battening the devil and
his victims down for ever in an eternal stew-pan, is, whilst
being a melancholy outcome of omnipotence, one of the
most ferocious and relentless intentions that any sane set
of people could dream of imputing even to a God. Besides
which, if God be God, it is but another way of saying that
it was ever his will and intention that this dire conflict
between good and evil should drag its sad and awful length
through ages upon ages, with the shocking consummation
of eternal and unmixed woe for nine-tenths of the creatures
created. (I am here referring exclusively to man.)
So far we have almost entirely dealt with that part of
the question which has reference to the supposed necessity
of a world maker. We have principally confined ourselves
to the consideration as to whether a God can logically be
held by man to exist; and have endeavored to show that
he cannot.
Now, leaving that portion of the case, and surveying
the world as it exists, what kind of a maker should we
have to judge him by the evidence of his work ? All
powerful, all wise and good—or even just? Most certainly
legends bear, when considered as indications of religious and mental
evolution, and as crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart ”,
etc. The Scriptures are not put forward as “ miraculous legends ”,
nor as “imperfect endeavors of the pious heart”, etc., but as God’sdirect word to man. I conceive it to be right and best to tight the
Bible as being what it is put forward to be. If it were placed in the
same category as other books of fable and legend, there would be no
need of fighting it. It is because it is not so, but is held to be God's
truth, permitting of no doubt, that the necessity of opposing it arises.
And to fight Christianity by means of a rendering of the Scriptures
which Christians do not hold, appears to me to be the height of folly.
�GOD.
21
not. The world as we find it and know it teems with
misery, wrong, pain, suffering and death. Nay, further:
it is full of unmerited and unpreventable suffering; and
this applies to all living creatures. It often applies with
more force to what is called the brute creation than to
man. Life, throughout nearly all classes of the animal
world, is an endless chain of destruction and consequent
suffering. Life for one creature means death to many
others ; each in turn falling a victim to the general
slaughter, or ending its existence in the painful throes
of a prolonged death from disease or starvation. Out in
the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, down in its
depths, and in the seas and oceans, the work of destruction
goes unceasingly on. Talon, tooth, claw, and poisoned
fang are ever doing their deadly work; and, in addition,
each creature is tormented with a parasite peculiar to its
kind. Is this the work of a perfect being? I do not
mind whether he can sit without the wherewithal to sit
upon, walk without legs, or see without eyes. Neither do
I mind whether he tipped them off with his fingers or
kicked them off with his foot. I am entitled to ask why,
if he be perfect, he did not at least make the helpless
brutes free from the suffering they endure. Countless
thousands of birds annually die of starvation alone,
because the almighty designer has covered the food upon
which he designed them to subsist with frost and snow
bound it up hard and fast with an atmosphere by the
inclemency of which they must perish, even should they
escape the starvation which it heralds. Does this show
intelligence of design? Would it do so on the part of
man ? How then can it do so on the part of a God ?
Must man annihilate his own sense of justice and mercy
as well as his intelligence, to discover them in a deity ?
Every stroke of the spade, every plunge of the plough,
means mutilation and death to numberless insects. And
if you do not kill the insects, the snails, slugs, and lice,
they will disfigure and kill your plants and your crops.
In fact, to kill is a necessary condition of life.
I would fain dwell upon the unpreventable, and what
may be called natural sufferings which the lower order of
creatures must endure, because they are not considered
responsible creatures, nor to be so suffering by reason of
fault committed: but space will not permit. They are
�22
GOD.
precisely creatures of nature; nothing' else. I am not;
now alluding to those which have been brought under the
sway of man; their sufferings are simply unspeakable;
which fact, though degrading to man in the highest degree,
does not help God’s case as the designer of the whole.
My remarks have reference to the animal kingdom at large.
They are, in the language of the deist, exactly what God
made them ; and, as such, stamp him as being, if
Almighty, most heartless and ferocious.
Do I hear some miserable apologist repeating the
wretched question-begging cant, that it is necessary, and
that he does all for the best ? Does he ? Does he set two
creatures which he has already made savage, to deadly
combat, sometimes by reason of their passions—as in the
rutting and breeding season—and sometimes by reason of
their prolonged hunger, all for the best ? Does he set
fire to vast tracts of land and burn all before him, scorch
ing and flaying alive all living creatures who cannot escape
the sea of fire as it is swept irresistibly onward by the
wind, all for the lest ? This point could be persisted in
to an almost unlimited extent, but I think enough has
been said to show that, even in the matter of the animal
world, God either would not or could not avoid the misery
which prevails.1
Turning to the elements and to the surface of the globe,
where do we find evidence of this wonderful combination
of power, wisdom, and love ? Does the world and its
surroundings display the perfect work of a perfect mind ?
Do storm, hurricane, landslip, or deluge—devastating
large sections of country ; destroying homes and lives by
the hundred; and dealing out want, sickness, and number
less consequent horrors wholesale; smiting the infant and
the old and helpless, the good and brave, as well as the
undeserving—evidence a good and mighty creator ? Are
the recent blizzards which perished and shrivelled up the
people as they plied their daily toil, marks of perfect
design ? Were the many hundreds of people’s heads
1 It may be remarked by the way, that in either case it is difficult
to see how he comes up to the God standard ; and the same remark
applies to the sin and misery existing all over the world. And bear
in .mind, I have but touched the subject, as it were, with my pen’s
point. The full measure of what I am but pointing to, must remain,
for ever untold.
�GOD.
23
which have been recently crushed in various parts of the
world by the weight of the hail-stones falling upon them,
designed to be so crushed ? And in any case, how does it
show the love and wisdom of the designer ? Did the
lightning which awoke the poor little affrighted child, as
she lay sleeping upon the sofa, and injuring her so much
that she died from the effects a few moments after in her
sorrowing father’s arms, show the exquisite perfection of
design which is urged ?
I am not giving day and date for these things; indeed
it is not necessary ; they are the daily record of what has
not unfitly been called, ilie tear of the elements. But here is
a brief and graphic account, taken from a newspaper,1 of
some of the horrors of the recent volcanic eruptions in
Japan, which comes to my hand altogether unsought, and
which I will give in full, as showing how truly awful are
some of the results of this design, which is said to denote
perfect power and wisdom. It runs as follows :
“ Advices received yesterday from Japan, via Honolulu and
San Francisco, bring additional particulars regarding the recent
volcanic eruptions in Japan, which resulted in the loss of
several hundred lives. The villages of Kishizarve, Arkimolo,
and Hosno, in Hinok-Hara, Mura, were covered with sand and
ashes, and the sites on which they stood thrown into a mountain,
the inhabitants, numbering 400, being buried alive, none
escaping. At Alina, forty-five residences were destroyed, and
twelve persons were killed. At Shibuza, seventeen residences
were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Nagazaka,
twenty-five residences were destroyed, and ninety-eight persons
killed. And at Horekel, thirty-seven residences were destroyed,
but no one was killed. The people fled.”
This, I think, needs no comment. But worse follows.
The account goes on :
“The Datlii News Yokohama Correspondent telegraphs:
Further details have now reached here of the eruption of Bandal
Sau. The place where the disaster occurred has been and is
greatly changing, mountains having arisen where there were
none before, and large lakes appearing where once there were
only rich corn-fields. Landmarks are obliterated. The con
dition of the wounded is terrible : some have fractured skulls,
the majority broken limbs, while others are fearfully burned.
The state of the bodies recovered resembles the appearance of
1 Evening Mail.
�24
GOD.
victims of a large boiler explosion. Many of them are cut to
pieces, and others are par-boiled, so that it is difficult to
distinguish sex. But the most ghastly sights which met the
eye of the helpers were bodies dangling on the branches of
blackened and charred trees, thrown into the air by the awful
violence of the eruption. Their descent had in many cases been
arrested by the trees, and there the victims hung, their bodies
exposed to the cruel and well-nigh ceaseless rain of hot cinders
and burning ashes. From appearances, death speedily relieved
them from their agony; yet, short as the time was, their
sufferings must have been past belief. In other places the flesh
hangs from the branches of the trees, as paper from telegraph
wires. In one case a woman fled from the eruption with her
child upon her back, and while flying, a red-hot stone fell upon
the infant’s head, killing the little one and deluging the mother
in her child’s blood. She escaped, and reached Wakamutsu,
where she fell exhausted, with the mangled remains of her
child still tied to her back.”
This graphic and most appalling account may he truly
said to be written in letters of blood. And yet it must be
claimed by the design advocate as showing the fitness of
his design.
It would perhaps appear superfluous to comment upon
the above awful refutation of the fitness of things as
displayed by the universe, upon which the design argu
ment is mainly built. But awful and calamitous as it
assuredly is, it is a very small affair compared with very
many events of a similar nature which have preceded it.
I only mention it here because it comes to my hand as
I write. It is indeed a bit of touching up and remodelling
of the old “ design ” with a vengeance. One would think
that if the almighty architect desired lakes and mountains
to appear where stood cornfields, gardens, meadows, and
homesteads, he would have removed—or at least have
mercifully killed by painless process—those whom his own
providence had placed in his way. But he did not. He
saw fit to burn, scald, suffocate, and mutilate them in the
shocking manner stated. OhI the perfection of design
here displayed is most exquisite ! Yet would I ask if the
burning stone which crashed into the head of the little
creature, covering its wretched mother with its life blood
as it clung to her back, was designedly hurled? Had the
“finger tips of omnipotence” anything to do with it?
Or did the unhappy mother’s run for life carry her little
�GOD.
25
one beyond providence ? If you say that the mother had
a providential escape you must also admit that the child
met a providential death. Those who believe in Provi
dence cannot get outside of it; neithei’ can they find room
in it for accidents. God accidentally knocking the brains
out of a child cannot be thought of. Therefore it must
be admitted by those who believe in his providence that
he not only providentially shattered the head of this
particular little creature, but that he equally providentially
burned, boiled and mangled the life out of the other
victims.
These questions and considerations are part and parcel
■of the God question ; and need much answering.
I am tempted to ask if Mr. Balfour had some of these
horrors in his mind, when at Manchester, in his new
•character of semi-cleric he said: “There is no human
being so insignificant as not to be of infinite worth to the
maker of the heavens”, etc. Did the “infinite worth”
of these particular human beings consist of their fitness
for decorating charred trees with their livid and literally
living flesh ? What grim and hideous satires these pious
inanities become when contrasted with actual occurrences !
Drop the orthodox snuffle, and the thing said becomes
meaningless. Atheists are twitted by Theists, and es
pecially Christian Theists, with holding a belief in “blind
•chance ” ; but here we have something worse than “ blind
chance”: we have blind brutality, especially and design
edly so; and yet of a most undiscriminating kind. We
have pain and suffering inflicted without reference to
age, sex, innocence, or guilt.
I make the inventors and patentees of “ Blind Chance ”
. a present of this, and all other calamities, as work especially
and designedly done by their God to whom they childishly
pray : “ deliver us from all evil ”.
The Rev. Dr. A. W. Momerie, speaking at the Church
■Congress upon the subject of Pessimism, contended that
pain is necessary both for “men and animals” ; and this
notwithstanding God’s superiority to law, and his admission
that pain is the result of law which God made. He also
gave some reasons (?) why it is necessary, one being that
“ if pain had not been attached to injurious habits, animals
. and men would long ago have passed out of existence ”.
This, if true, is only another way of saying that God made
�26
GOD.
the necessity for pain, which is the very kernel of the com
plaint. He further says : “ If tire did not hurt, we might
easily be burnt to death before we knew we were in any
danger ” ! Does he forget, or ignore, the fact that we are
frequently burnt to death before we know we are in danger,
notwithstanding that fire hurts ? Does he mean that we
should be more easily burnt to death only for this wise
precaution of God’s in making fire hurt ? If that be his
meaning, I make free to tell him, it is but a poor crutch
for himself and God to hobble upon; for, as I have pointed
out, it frequently does hurt us to death; and therefore, at
best, the warning but partially succeeds. But will he
drive his argument fairly home, and affirm that the pain
by fire and boiling water to which I have been referring,
was necessary ? Or does he mean that some pain existing
by necessity, these dire results of excessive pain could not
be avoided ? And if so, what sort of an almighty God does
he believe in ? Is it necessary that the human race must
not only taste small pain in order to avoid greater, but
must also perish frequently in maddening and unendurable
pain ?
Does this rev. philosopher mean that it is necessary for
“men and animals” to actually pass out of existence in
most intense pain as a preventive, by means of small
pain, to their passing out of existence? Because this,
viewed in the light of what does occur, is about what his
contention comes to. To give him the greatest possible
latitude of which his contention will admit, he can but
claim that it is by means of what I am calling smaller
pain—-which frequently outgrows itself—that the animal
world (including man) is enabled to exist, and eventually
perish in greater or lesser pain as the case may be. Well,
that is poor enough, but poor as it is it leaves all pain
caused by sudden and unexpected convulsions of nature
completely out of the question. Take lightning for in
stance, which often does such sudden and fearful injury
that no forethought—not even aided by the knowledge
that it hurts—could possibly prevent. From the doctor's
mode of reasoning it would seem that it is necessary for
the electric fluid when disturbed to blast and shrivel up
11 men and animals ” instantaneously, so that they may know
it will blast and shrivel them up, before they know they are
in danger. May I ask this rev. and learned doctor to
�GOD.
27
show how the pain, which is meant not only to the victims
but to those who hold them dear, in the premature death
of one half the people born, before they reach the age of
seventeen years, is necessary ? Is it to prevent them from
passing out of existence? “To form character”? Or
to teach them that fire burns ? This arguing for the
necessity of pain is only another form of arguing for the
necessity of evil, and therefore—from the parson point of
view—of the devil. But does the Rev. Dr. Momerie forget
or ignore the creation and fall' as told in the opening
chapters of his Bible ? Or does he agree with me in
regarding them as amusing fables ? And if he does, has
he taken his flock into his confidence ? For my own part,
I am curious to know how God considered pain necessary
to keep “men and animals” from destruction, and from
passing out of existence when he bade them to be fruitful
and to multiply before pain came into the world. If he
thought pain necessary why did he tell Adam and Eve not
to do the thing which brought it about ? And why were
the poor serpent’s legs conjured off for doing what was
necessary ?
Of course this is all figurative. I will do the learned
doctor the justice of believing him to so regard it; but
then he ought not to be a Church of England parson. I
1 I have frequently marvelled at the tremendous dilemma God
would have been placed in had these first parents have partaken of the
“ tree of life ” as well as that of “ good and evil ”. Well might he
hurry them out of paradise exclaiming “lest perhaps he put forth
his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever”. It must be admitted that it would have been most unfortu
nate and awkward for the. almighty to have had a world on his hands
teeming with sin-struck immortals upon whom he had pronounced
death (both of body and soul), but who would not, nor could not, die
by reason of the charm contained in a particular tree which he had
planted in their midst. But there is another curious point: if it be
a fact that death came into the world by sin there was, previous to
the fall, practically no use nor need for this particular tree, except
perhaps as a kind of temptation, and even that is not made quite
clear, as Adam and Eve do not appear to have been forbidden to eat
of it. The people .were already immortal, and would, bar accidents,
“ go up ” without tasting death. And when the occasion for its use
might be fairly thought to have arrived, by reason of their having
incurred the penalty of death, they were, as we have seen, hurried
out of its presence.
And what about the animals ? Did Eve’s sin bring pain and death
upon them, or were they to die in any case ? And would they have
�28
GOD.
admit I have not read his book upon the “ Origin of Evil ”,
in which it is possible he may clear these matters up. In
the meantime I would fain tell him that, if God be the
origin of all things, evil must come in with the rest, and
certainly be put down to his account. The fact that pain
and evil do exist is indisputable, and, whilst fully
admitting this fact will not increase it; the tortuous
efforts to reconcile its existence with that of a good
and Almighty God will not remove nor lessen it.
Neither will dubbing those “ Pessimist ” who cannot shut
their eyes to it. The so-called Pessimist does not point
out the existence of pain and evil, with a view—as I take
if of sitting down and crying; but rather, with the view
of removing or lessening their power and scope. In this
he is certainly more logical than he who, whilst admitting
them to be deplorable, not only insists upon their necessity,
but caps all by affirming that an all-powerful creator could
not order it otherwise.
I will, before proceeding with my main contention,
trouble my readers with another very short, but shock
ing account of what I will call—if not intended—a
serious and awful hitch in the divine machinery. It is
taken from a daily paper of about the same date as
both lived and died free of pain ? And if so, what about the carnivora
and their victims? Were they originally to be all herb-eating
creatures (this would also apply to man), but completely meta
morphised into what they now are by God at the time he chopped
off the serpent’s legs? Perhaps there were no carnivora at that
period. In truth nothing whatever is known as to what time it is
said to have occurred. Modern believers in the fable are willing to
place it in any period, varying by millions of years, to which infidel
or scientist may drive them. Take again the case of whales ; are we
to suppose they were not originally intended to feed upon small fish ?
What of sharks, and, indeed, of fish generally ? Are we to suppose
they were not, till after the fall, intended to prey upon each other ?
The same may also be asked of birds preying upon insects, not to
mention those which prey upon their own species. Was this all to
be so, or are these creatures an afterthought, and so “made” by
God to suit the altered circumstances in which he found himself ?
Taken altogether it certainly does form a most curious instance of
the “ crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart to express its
sense of the tragedy and solemnity of human experience”. Fables
and legends indeed these things are, but they are not put forward as
such ; they are forced into children’s minds as truths, and kept there
by fear of hell. Hence, I say, it becomes necessary to completely
break down such pernicious nonsense.
�GOD.
29
the others from which I have quoted upon similar catas
trophes :
“ Mail advices have now been received from Cuba,
giving particulars of the recent cyclone in the island. It
appears that it raged on the 4th and 5th, over the whole
length of the province of Santa Clara, causing damage
amounting to millions of dollars. At Sogna, scarcely
twenty houses escaped injury. The desolation and ruin
was complete. The rivers overflowed their banks, and
vessels foundered or stranded, while in some cases they
were driven into the streets of the town. Fatalities are
reported everywhere. A hundred persons perished at
Cardenas, and seventy at Caibarien; the total number of
deaths in the island being estimated at one thousand.”
Now I ask: did these poor people, their homesteads,
their ships and commerce, and industries, mar the general
design ? Or, did they become part and parcel of it against
the intention and desire of the almighty architect, and
was it therefore that he thus cruelly wiped them out? And
in any case, do this and the other calamitous results of the
workings of nature—to which I have but pointed—demon
strate the fitness-of-all-things which is said to pervade the
universe ? Do they not rather demonstrate the unfitness
of all things ? Bear in mind, they are no mere theorisings :
nor are they isolated cases : they could be multiplied
without end. They are the daily lessons, bloody and
awful, which nature reads out to her children without
cessation. The world, every journey round the sun, pro
duces and chronicles in awful manner its yearly record
of calamities over which man has no control, but of which
he is the helpless victim : and which if held to be the work
of an almighty designer, would stamp him as being a
fiend.
The elements, under certain conditions, smite furiously
and indiscriminately all things which lie in their course.
They will blast the innocent lamb, or scorch up the poor
cow, as readily as they will topple over a church steeple,
or shrivel up a little child. They are but the blind forces
of nature, and could do no other than they do.
The Christian Theist is at liberty to hold these blind
forces of nature to be directed by an “ All-seeing eye”;
in which case I am at liberty to ask: To what kind of
monster does this all-seeing eye belong ? The sea, if lashed
�30
GOD.
into fury by wind or storm, will as readily engulph. the
little boat of heroes as they nobly face death in order to
rescue their fellow creatures, as it will the blood-stained
pirate craft which preys upon the helpless and the unwary.
The ill-fated emigrant ship—with its cargo of entire
families; its wives and children going to join the father
who waits with tender longing for their coming to the
home he has with love and industrious labor prepared for
them; its sons and daughters going to seek on foreign
shores the sustenance and comfort for parents and younger
children, which they fail to obtain at home—is as mercilessly
wrecked and submerged, as is the infamous slaver, with
or without its living freight of wailing and outraged
humanity.1 But I fail to see in what way this demonstrates
perfection of design—design as emanating from one who
is all-good and all-mighty.
Do you suppose, reader, that you could procure a patent
for your design after showing that it produced such un
toward and disastrous results as are produced by the
elements ? And if you did obtain your patent, do you
think after twelve months experience of its work, you could
sell it for much money ? Of course it must always be
remembered that man is in no sense perfect; consequently
his works must at most be but efforts in the direction of
perfection: the highest and best only excelling those
which they succeed. But this reasoning cannot be applied
to God. He deliberately, with all power and all knowledge
—present and to come—made things as they are; and is
therefore responsible for the world as it exists at this
.1 When I reflect upon the awful sufferings of every conceivable
kind which all living creatures must, by the nature and conditions of
their existence endure, and try to understand what it means, I become
appalled : my efforts to express myself fail me ; and I am over
whelmed. Let therefore no self-satisfied quibbler, holding a cut-anddried read to Heaven—whether upon the degrading plan of the agony
and death of an enthusiast, or upon the farce of a mangled and
crucified third portion of a God—point the finger of scorn at me.
My reason and my better feelings, which at times well-nigh unman
me, will not suffer me to worship anything so ignoble as their
butcher-God, whom they themselves have set up. And I deliberately
avow that I cast my measure of scorn, although utterly inadequate
—well, I will not say upon those who hold it; but certainly upon
the brutal and degrading idea that the same God, or indeed any God,
will, after this world and its woes are ended, doom the vast bulk, or
even one of the creatures he has created, to eternal torture !
�GOD.
31
instant: either this, or the word God loses its meaning.
A curtailed and changing immutable and omniscient
omnipotence is simply an impossibility, and ought to be
too ridiculous even for Christians to pin their faith to.
The idea of inventing an almighty God, and then killing
him, or annulling his almightiness by another, and calling
that other devil, is, to my thinking, excessively foolish.
Almighty God must, under pain of damnation, be held to
be good and just, even though we invent a devil to stand
sponsor for what we know to be evil and unjust. Nay,
further : our invention of the devil involves the idea that
God himself produced him as a kind of scape-goat, as a
something upon which to charge the existence of that evil
which he, although omnipotent, either could not or would
not avert. This is the reasoning involved—but I digress
somewhat.
It appears to me that, wherever you look, you are con
fronted with a mixture of good and evil; or they exist
side by side. I think the former is more generally
correct, although it is often difficult to determine which
really preponderates.
Take, for instance, the sun, which is the vastest and most
wonderful body of all those that go to make up our
special system, and whose rays are full of life-giving heat.
Yet there are some portions of the globe which are never
touched by them, whilst other portions are literally scorched
up. In some of the deserts, by reason of the heat, and the
absence of water, the suffering of man and beast is extreme.
So .with water. In some parts of the earth it is abundant,
and in others so scarce as to render life almost insupport
able. At some seasons of the year, rivers are dried up;
and at others they rise and overflow their banks, inundating
the surrounding country, and doing much injury to life
and property, perhaps sweeping away entire communities.
Some portions of the globe—especially at particular seasons,
are a. perpetual swamp, and are the source of constant
malaria, fever, ague, and death.
Can all this be held as evidence of perfect wisdom and
power on the part of a maker ? Bear in mind, I am not
speaking of nature and its wondrous revelations in a
mocking or disparaging sense. I am simply pointing out
its imperfections, and trying to combat the puny idea that
it had its origin in a ghost.
�32
GOD.
As another practical illustration of the complete failure
of the design argument, as evidenced by what actually
occurs, I will give, in full, the following from a daily paper,
the Freeman's Journal, of September 1st, 1888 :
“ What is one poor country’s meat, is another poor country’s
poison. While we are threatened with ruin by rain here, and
are praying for dry weather, they are face to face with famine
in Egypt by reason of the drought, and they are praying
for the Nile to inundate the lands. ‘Yesterday,’ says the
Correspondent of the Standard, ‘I had an opportunity of con
versing with two large landed proprietors, whose opinions may
be quoted as authoritative. One of these is a Bey, owning
immense fields, of which the yearly land-tax amounts to a small
fortune. He had come to Cairo in order to complain to Biaz
Pasha of the scarcity of water. His fields had now, he said,
been dry for sixty days, and under these circumstances it was,
he affirmed, quite impossible to pay the taxes. The other
proprietor, a well-known Pasha, whose land-tax amounts to
about two thousand pounds a year, declared that unless the
Nile should rise two metres within the next ten days, the whole
maize crop of Lower Egypt would be lost. There are out of
every six hundred acres, no less than one hundred and fifty
under maize, and the failure of this crop would mean financial
ruin and starvation for the fellaheen population, w’ith whom
maize is the staple food. As to cotton, my informant stated
that he had in one field a hundred men picking off the worms.
For some time past there had been no water, and unless there
was a speedy improvement, he, too, did not see any way of
paying the taxes.’ ”
Come nearer home. Take a glance at agriculture amongst
ourselves, and what do we find? We find the farmer’s
life one long struggle with the elements and against the
disasters resulting from them. True, he manages to live,
but often very badly. The weather is generally so unpropitious as to cause him, in a fit of despair—and always as
a last resource—to join with his Church, and take part in
offering up set petitions and special pleadings that God
will, for the sake of poor humanity in general, and himself
in particular, avert the calamitous results which would
follow a continuation or a fulfilment of what would appear
to be God’s present intentions.
It is quite clear that the majority of those who express
belief in “him who rules all things ”, and who talk much
of his providence—including his own ordained ministers—
do not always agree with him as to the wisdom and
�GOD.
\
33
humanity of the course he happens to be pursuing.
Indeed, bearing in mind their daily beggings and pray
ings, it would be more correct to say they never agree.
Practically they have much more faith in the seasonable
and desirable weather which they know will facilitate the
growth of their crops or ripen them into maturity than
they have in the deity whom they inconsistently believe is
providentially blighting them. Practically, I say, they
prefer to have a big finger in their own providential pie.
They pretend that God is all-wise, but go on their bended
knees to the end that he may drop his all-wisdom, which
means ruin to them, and adopt theirs. That their petitions
are not heeded is quite certain. Nature sweeps right on.
She always prevails, the mutterings to an imaginary
“throne on high ” notwithstanding. The marvel to me is
that intellectual people should engage in such childish forms.1
It might not be altogether amiss in speaking of prayer
to note that one of the bishops (him of Wakefield) at the
late Manchester Congress, whilst professing very frequently
that he had no fear of law, was yet very much staggered
at its immutability. The tenor and aim of his entire
speech was to tone down what he called the “splendid
paper read by Mr. Momerie ” ; because it contained
“ certain words ” which struck him “ very forcibly ”, and
made him “feel a certain amount of doubt with regard
to them”. The “doubt”, or fear, as I think it should be
called, is fully explained in the following passage which
comes immediately after: “What I felt at the moment
was this—may not some of those who form this audience
go away from here and say: ‘ Why, then, should I pray ?
Why should I ask God to restore a friend from a bed of
sickness? Why should I ever join in the church’s prayers
for a blessing on the harvest and the like?’.” Common
sense echoes : Why indeed !
. The Bishop, in his further remarks, whilst still depre
ciating the immutability of law, admits we cannot “alter”
the laws by which the universe is governed; but hastens
to point out that we can “interfere” with them. He
illustrates his meaning by asserting that we interfere with
the law of gravitation every time we pick up a stone and
1 See “ The Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed
Publishing Company.
Freethought
�34
GOD.
throw it into the air, or catch it as it falls. This is of
course to keep law from barring the way to miracle and
the utility of prayer. But it is wide of the mark; because
if it means that miracles can happen, there can be neither
sense nor utility in showing that one law may counteract
another. And if it does not mean that miracles may
happen, it means (from the Bishop’s point of view)
nothing. AVhat the statement, taken as a whole, actually
does mean—whether his lordship intended it so or not, is
another matter—is that, inasmuch as that law, as applied
to nature, is unalterable, but can be interfered (!) with;
therefore man, by means of prayer, can induce immutable
God to interfere with what he has decreed to be un
alterable! Poor Bishop of Wakefield. But it is only
another and a very weak edition of the Bev. Octavious
Walton’s “Swallowed Miracle”; wherein that philosophic
divine childishly contends that because there are other
laws, which, under given circumstances counterbalance
that of gravitation; therefore miracles are occurring every
moment of time ! The law of gravitation seems quite a
favorite sugar-stick to suck, with these clerical nincompoops.
Albeit, they do their sucking prayerfully; but they are
sure to suck it at the wrong end.
It would appear, so far, from this right rev. gentleman’s
utterances, that he holds law to be good all the while you
hold that it can be annulled by God, at the will or whim of
his creatures. He fears that if its immutability be but
once admitted, the efficacy of prayer is done for. He would
seem to recommend just enough law; but not too much.
Judging, however, by another passage in his speech, he
would appear to go even farther still, and throw law
entirely to the dogs; for he says: “I am not content to
accept that view of answers to prayer which tells us that
God may move the spirit of man to act upon outward
things by which he is surrounded; I say I want something
more direct.” If man is not going to act upon the things
by which he is surrounded, what is he going to act upon ?
It is evident that nothing less than the total cessation or
reversion of law will satisfy his lordship. But he is a
curious and quite an amusing description of Bishop. He
concludes his remarks by saying he believes that “he ”—
God—“governs and directs his own laws, and that the
whole world everywhere is bound with gold chains about
�GOD.
35
his feet”. By governing and controlling his own laws, I
presume he means that God decrees when fire shall burn
—or, as one of his colleagues puts it—“hurt,” and when
it shall not; and when water shall be wet, and when it
shall not; and also when man shall have too much of one,
or both; or not enough of either, as God may see fit—
always subject of course to the superior wisdom and
control of man, as exemplified by prayer.
I think there was an error of about 300 years made in
the date of this particular Bishop’s birth. He is living in
the wrong age.
With regard to the “world everywhere ” being chained
with gold chain about God’s feet: should I spoil the great
sublimity of the metaphor if I suggested brass or nickel
silver as being good material for the chain ? and that a
whole string of worlds chained about his neck would not
look amiss as a necklace, and that perhaps two fine large
planets would come in very well as droppers to his ear
rings ? I can appreciate a truly sublime or beautiful
metaphor, thought, or figure of speech, as such, even
though it embody an idea to which I demui’; but to talk
of binding the world everywhere with gold chain to the feet
of a footless ghost, with a view, as I take it, of teaching
that natural law may be effaced or reversed by means of
man’s supplications—for that is the Bishop’s great con
tention—is not to be sublime, but ridiculous. Clerical
inanity is a better term for such nonsense.
Speaking of prayer, and as an example of the mode in
which it is made use of, and, principally as an example of
its always non-success, I will for a moment direct attention
to an incident of the kind which has, whilst I write, been
forced upon my notice. When I say tho always non-success
of prayer, I mean that the happenings would have occurred
whether the petitions wore offered up or not; and that
whether they seem to be propitious or otherwise, they
have no reference whatever to the prayer. But beyond
that, it is really remarkable how the hopes of tho prayerful,
who of course hold their hopes to bo founded upon the
direct promises of him to whom they pray, are continually
falsified by daily events. I like to place these every-day
facts before the notice of my readers, bocause, being
indisputable, they most effectually answer and expose the
sacerdotal pretence which I hold to be so abominable and
�36
GOD.
so transparent. The wild Indian, who, whilst offering
incantations to the Great Spirit, patiently shooting arrow
after arrow into the clouds, till one floats and bursts over
his village, is not more foolish nor arrogant, and I might
add cunning, in claiming the result as being due to the
strength of his medicine, than is the mitred and tinselled
prelate, who offers up his incantations and mutterings,
and claims the ordinary and inevitable happenings of
nature as the result of his particular action. Indeed I find
it difficult to believe that thinking and intelligent men do
believe that there is a power of any kind waiting to fashion
his, or its, actions upon the supplications and cravings of this,
that, or the other people, or sect, or clan: the desires being
mostly in contradiction and at variance one with another.
I scout such an idea as being too absurd for serious argu
ment. But to go to the case mentioned; and in which
case, for the complete failure of the prayers, I will not ask
belief in my own words, but will give evidence out of the
mouths of Christians themselves. The paper I shall
principally quote is in no sense favorable to unorthodox
views, but is the recognised political organ of the Catholic
Church in the country (Ireland) in which it is published.
During the latter portion of the summer of 1888, and
far into the autumn, the weather had been extremely wet
and cold; continuous rain, with frequent very heavy down
falls, had prevailed. AVe were getting cold soaking rain
instead of genial sunshine. Great complaints and murmurings were heard on all sides, and general fears were
entertained that we should have a bad harvest with all its
dire results. In a word, and from a Christian Theist’s
point of view, God, nothwithstanding his all-wisdom, and
the perfection of his design, was going wrong: he was
rotting with excess of cold moisture, what his humble
subjects presumed to think he should have been browning
and ripening with heat. In this extremity my Lord Bishop
of Dublin, the Most Bev. Dr. Walsh, in the interests of
his faithful flock, came to the. rescue,1 and ordered special
1 lie came to their rescue upon a more important occasion—that of
their eSort to obtain self-government, but completely changed front,
directly his master, the Pope, spoke. What was political at once
became non-political in the Doctor's mouth. Only some two or three
dared openly allude to this ; the majority, including the National
Press—notably the Freeman—belauded him for the shuffle.
�GOD.
37
prayers for fine weather to be said throughout his diocese.
The prayers, as a matter of course, were of the usual
orthodox type. The petitioners were made to crawl into the
presence of their supposed offended tormentor by admitting,
as I think in grave satire, their complete unworthiness ;
and then craving as a favor that he might see fit to
change his mind by removing the kind of weather he was
putting upon them, and replacing it with the kind they
required ; and finally telling him not to mind what they
were asking, but to do as he thought best. What he did
think best, shall be told by the daily papers.
There are always three cardinal points which must be
existent in your orthodox petitioner; his total degradation
and unworthiness, his strong sense of what he considers
essential to his well-being, and his desire to obtain it; and
his total lack of the sense of the ludicrous, as displayed in
his telling God not to do as he is asked, but as he chooses.
What God really chose to do upon this particular occasion,
although quite usual, forms a very amusing and instructive
comment upon the petition itself, and upon special prayers
in general.
The announcement of the order for saying these special
prayers, I take from the Freeman’s Journal of August 11th,
1888, as follows :
“His Grace the Archbishop and the Weather.—In
consequence of the continued unsettled state of the weather,
and the precarious condition of the crops, his Grace the Arch
bishop of Dublin has issued directions to the clergy of his
diocese for the saying of special prayers in the Mass for a
favorable change. The prayers to be said from and after
to-morrow, till further notice.”
The weather upon that particular Sunday, and for hours
after the offering up of the special prayers, was perhaps
the worst we had yet experienced. Possibly it took some
little time to duly receive and consider the humble petition.
However that may have been, there was no improvement,
“no favorable change”; indeed matters became very
much worse. But the papers evidently held on as long as
they could in the hope that they would be able to score a
victory for the Archbishop. At length the editorial
patience of one, the Evening Telegraph of August 20th,
gave way ; the following item of news being the cause :
“Yesterday’s rain and storm. — A heavy rainfall took
�38
GOD.
place in many parts of Ireland yesterday. In West Cork much
damage is reported to have been caused to the grain and potato'
crops. The potatoes are in places affected with the blight.”
It would have been more correct to have said that it had
scarcely ceased to rain since the offering up of the prayers ;
but it is perhaps near enough. The same paper of four
days later, in referring to further storms said :
“ Great damage (says a telegram this afternoon) has been
caused in the lower Shannon valley by the heavy rains of
Tuesday. Hundreds'of tons of hay have been carried into the
river, and turf has been carried long distances. The corn crop
is lost. The potato crop is injured, and many roads are torn
up.”
The prayers were being answered very tardily ; or were
being answered in a reverse direction to that prayed for.
The Freeman's Journal of August 28th, under the heading
of “ The Rain and the Crops ”, gave a list of woes resulting
from the former, which came in from nearly all quarters,
and from which I will give a few quotations :
“ Kilrush, Monday.-—Such a destructive deluge of rain
has not been witnessed in West Clare for a quarter of a century,
as that experienced last night. All the rivers have inundated
the country around, and large quantities of hay in meadow
cocks have been carried seaward. In low lying districts the
houses have been flooded, and many were in danger of falling.
The oat and wheat crops have been laid in vast tracts. The
amount of damage caused by last night’s continued downpour
is incalculable in the country, as testified by various reports
to-day.”
Surely there could not have been one single grain of
faith amongst the hundreds of thousands of petitioners—
including the Archbishop himself-—or their prayers would
not have produced such lamentable results. But tho
accounts from all parts are the same.
“ Navan, Monday.—The prospects of a good or middling
harvest are again darkened by the incessant rains. All work
has been retarded.”
“ Castlewhelan, Monday.—The severe weather of the past
week has exercised a most dispiriting effect on the harvesting
prospects in the large districts of the County Down, of which
this town is the centre. Great fears are entertained for the
potato crops. The tubers, which are in abundance, remain still
very soft; and now reports from all sides signify that the spots-
�GOD.
39
which so surely indicate the approach of disease to the germ
have made their appearance,” etc. Sorrow is then expressed
for the partial failure of the oat, wheat, and flax crops.
“F-ERMOY, Monday.—-The hopes which were entertained here
some time ago of a bountiful harvest are now almost completely
blasted in consequence of the late incessant rains which have
fallen with the most destructive results to almost every descrip
tion of growing crops.” [This is certainly a trifle unco after
the Archbishop’s special prayers for their safety.] “The mis
chief done since last Sunday is incalculable, and should there
be a continuance of the present unsettled state of the weather
the consequences will be disastrous to the farmers of the dis
trict,” etc.
After giving a similar dismal account from Newry and
Banbridge, the list for that day closes with the following:
“ Lokgford.—-There can no longer be a doubt on the subject
that the crops in this county are a complete failure owing to
the recent rains. Every day for the last month [italics mine]
there have fallen heavy showers completely paralysing the
farmer’s efforts to save ’his crops. Turf, hay, and oats are all
bad. The potatoes, too, are failing rapidly. Nothing could
be much worse looking than the existing prospect.”
In reference to the above, it may be remarked that the
“showers” must have been “heavy” indeed to have
completely paralysed the farmers’ efforts for a whole
month. But be it noted that “the past month” spoken
of comprises at least three weeks which had elapsed since
His Grace’s special prayers were muttered ; and yet he
actually had the audacity to claim that his prayers were
answered !
This list of woes collected together for me by Christian
and God-fearing journalists (?) may be taken as a kind
of supplement to my own remarks upon the work of the
ejements, as illustrating the general unfitness of things.
Now, it will not be wondered at, after the above
leugthened spell of disastrous work done by the weather,
flat it did eventually and in natural course change for the
better. But what did this astute Archbishop do ? Did
he admit that he had ordered his special prayers just one
month too soon for an immediate response ? Not at all.
D:d he candidly admit that from beginning to end they
were a total failure ? Nothing of the kind. Then what
dil he do ? Why he actually insulted his God, and the
intellects (if they possessed any) of his flock, by ordering
�40
GOD.
fresh prayers—this time—of thanks to God for having
lent a favorable ear to their former ones, and so vouch
safing them fine weather ! Thus imposing upon the ig
norance and stupid credulity of his people, by making
clerical capital out of the ordinary workings of nature,
which if they, from his own stand-point, meant anything,
meant a complete failure. He asked that the rain might
cease, and the sun shine, in order that the crops might be
saved. The rain did not cease, the sun did not shine, and
the crops were not saved. Upon the showing of his own
people the destruction was general. Whereupon he
orders these same people—I should dearly like to call
them geese—to thank God for not destroying these very
crops I This of course is priest-like. These are the tricks
and trade devices of the priest’s calling; they are what
he lives by. But what can be said—how infantile, nay,
imbecile—or, to be orthodox, truly child-like—must those
be who kneel and pray and smite their breasts, making
offerings and crying “Amen” to such transparent chic
anery.
I was, previous to giving the foregoing Christian evi
dence against Christian Theism, dwelling upon the frequent
unfitness of the weather for the work it is insisted it was
designed to perform ; and will now in continuation of that
idea offer some further remarks, taking it up at the point
at which I broke off.
Now, it frequently happens that in spite of the prayers
(of the efficacy of which we have just had an example)
and all the care and precaution a farmer can bestow upon his
lands, his crops are blighted by unseasonable weather, by cold
winds, storms, droughts, hail and frost; and thus a who.e
year’s toil, expenditure, and anxiety is sacrificed. At
times, the failure of crops—often a particular crop which
forms the main subsistence of a people, or section of a
people—is so complete as to leave them without fool;
and gaunt famine with its hideous train of horrors stalks
through the land. In what way, I must continue to ask,
does all this show perfect order and design? Why the
best kept garden you meet with may become a mass of
blight and pest, the attention bestowed upon it notwith
standing. You will see a rose tree grow and bud forth
almost into flower, and wake up some morning to find it
blighted by the atmosphere, or covered with vermin; )r,
�GOD.
41
perhaps the centres of the yet unopened blooms become
cradles for destructive insects. (“ The worm i’ the bud”,
taken in the wide sense, is no mere poetic figure, as those
who cultivate and live by the land know to their dear cost.)
The same can be said of perhaps every plant that grows.
Your cabbages will be literally riddled and eaten to the
bare stalks immediately the larvse deposited by the butter
flies assume the caterpillar form. What nature, aided by
science and labor does to-day, she undoes to-morrow.
Entire orchards of fruit, gardens of hops, fields of corn,
potatoes, hay, etc., are yearly sacrificed to the elements.
And yet all this means perfect and exquisite design on the
part of a maker ! What it really does mean is simply that
nature is as we find her, and that there is no maker in the
case. All-wisdom and all-power, could not result in failure,
nor in disaster sometimes so hideous as to curdle the blood
as the tale is told.
Turning to man himself, can he, taken for all in all, be
considered to show evidence of having had a perfect
maker1 ? Is he is in any sense the work of perfection ?
For his own physical perfection, let the hospitals,
asylums, and houses for incurables all over the world
speak. For his mental and moral perfection, his doings
as recorded in history must answer. The penal settle
ments and gaols of to-day must also give their evidence.
It is held that God made man in his own image, and,
curiously enough, it is man’s mind, or spirit, as it is
termed—which is imageless—which is held to be so made.
But that by the way. It follows that, either God himself
was a depraved pattern, or he blasted man after the
making. Indeed the latter is claimed to be the true solu
tion. If I might be allowed to judge of “ God the
Father” by applying to him one of the standards claimed
as emanating from “God the Son”, anent judging the
tree by its fruit—more especially if man be the depraved
wretch Christian theists contend he is—I should have to
come to the conclusion that the tree in question was a
most corrupt and imperfect one.
I suppose there is not one single human being, sound
1 When I speak of man as having had a maker, I do so in the sense
generally accepted by Christians, and therefore the statement itself,
and any observations made upon it do not necessarily apply to those
Theists who believe otherwise.
�42
GOD.
in body and mind, brought into the world in a century,
though there are many millions of defective ones. Take
for example—and they are but a small item in the general
failure—the deaf mutes, the blind, and the idiotic from
birth. I suppose it would fill a fair-sized volume simply
to enumerate all the diseases peculiar to man. Those
peculiar to children alone are something appalling.
Take the average duration of life as a test of the
design argument. It is estimated that of all who are
born, one-fifth die within a year after birth, and onethird before the completion of the fifth yeai'; whilst
one half do not reach seventeen years ; and only six per
cent reach seventy-five years. So that, whilst one-fifth go
to the grave before they can be said to be well into the
world, one half never reach the age of maturity, and only
in every hundred reach what has been foolishly called
“ man’s allotted time ” I I think comment upon these
crushing figures is superfluous. I will but add that these
premature deaths are brought about, for the most part,
by painful, lingering, and dreary process ; and sometimes
by such shocking mutilations as we have previously
glanced at. And if you take the Christian theory, in
addition to his natural woes, every human being that ever
came into the world, or ever will come into it—-save the
first pair, who were themselves so defective as to succumb
at the first test—is literally damned with a soul whose
natural (i.e., unnatural) corruption is, upon the same
authority, certain to carry the vast majority into eternal
suffering.1
Man, like all other portions of the universe, is a mix
ture of good and evil. He has noble parts and degrading
passions, high aims and selfish fears, hates and jealousies.
He is capable of the highest deeds of known right and
self-sacrifice, and of the lowest deeds of cunning and
cowardice. He is capable of experiencing the highest
pleasure and the deepest woe. Man was not put upon
the earth cut and dried. His progress from savagery to
civilisation has been long and painful. And his further
progression onward and upward must needs partake of
1 It is explained by the Roman Church, that the soul is originally
pure, but becomes corrupted the moment it fuses with the body. I
claim that, whether the body blasts the soul, or the soul the body,
the result is still the same.
�GOD.
43
the same tedious nature. The evolution of man, from the
lowest to the highest type—without going further down
in the scale than man himself—does not argue for a
perfect maker. Man’s existence is one long struggle to
free himself from his grosser nature; and to develop into
a higher state. If it is contended that he had an Almighty
maker, in the sense in which the phrase is commonly
applied, then I am justified in asking why he should have
been made of such base material, and beset with such
untoward conditions. His maker, being Almighty, could
have made man upon any other plan, or with any set of
conditions, that he saw fit. Indeed, it is contended that
God did make man upon such conditions as he saw fit;
and behold the result!
I hold that man’s weaknesses, his infirmities, his
passions and sufferings—sometimes caused by himself,
sometimes by others, and sometimes inherited in spite of
himself—do not point to an intelligent, a just, and an
almighty maker. A child born blind, or lame, or covered
with some loathsome disease, would show the maker either
to be impotent or a monster. A perfect creator would not
blast what he had created with imperfections most shock
ing. And I will push my contention to man’s passions;
because God must be held responsible for the results of
his own work : especially when he is accredited with
having been cognisant of those results when he began it.
. Man is bound to hold man responsible to man, for his
right doing : hence the existence of courts of law and
justice throughout the civilised world. But if you are to
hold to the doctrine of a personal all-powerful maker and
superintender—especially the latter—of the world, you are
bound to lay to his charge the sorrow and suffering of all
living creatures, including man. And with regard to him,
I will add, sin likewise. As I have said, God must be
held, responsible for his own work. He is, from the
Theistic point of view, the primary mover, maker, and
first cause; or he is nothing. He either could not, or
would not, order it otherwise; and in either case it is
difficult to recognise the God-ship.
It is—and that most assuredly from what I will call the
God-maker’s point of view^-somewhat idle to talk of man
bringing all the misery upon himself ; that he knows
right from wrong, etc. That contention certainly cannot
�44
GOD.
apply to those who are born into the world with bodies
unfit for life, and in such manner and conditions as must
necessarily render their lives a grievious burden. Nor
will it apply to the innocent victims of those who do
wrong. Indeed it is inapplicable to four-fifths of the
wrong and misery endured by man—not to mention again
that endured by the lower order of animals. In fact, if
the all-ruling argument be brought in, it cannot apply
at all; else, where the «A-ruling ?
It must also be borne in mind that man does not always
know right from wrong. He frequently does the most
criminal things under the impression that he is doing
right. The conscience standard, or test of right and
wrong, which is generally put forward by Christian apolo
gists is not necessarily a true one. In a vast number of
cases it is no test at all. Conscience can only be a test of
right, in the sense that it is right to do what one believes
to be so ; but it is no test as to whether the thing done is
right or wrong. The truth or falsity of positions, theories,
and acts, must rest upon evidence, upon facts and con
siderations in connexion with themselves; and not upon
what a number of persons — or, rather, each individual
person, three parts of whom may be quite uninformed—
might conscientiously think or believe about them. One
man’s conscience will acquit him of doing things at which
another’s revolts. In Africa, a man’s conscience will acquit
him of sacrificing his brother man to the Fetish. In the
middle ages the highest consciences in the Christian world
sanctioned the burning alive of those whose consciences
forced them to differ from their executioners. Till recently,
the Christian conscience, even in Great Britain, sanctioned
upon Bible authority the burning of unhappy enthusiasts
or half-witted creatures as witches.1 And to-day, the
Christian will sanction the outlawry of the Atheist-—right
or wrong-—as per conscience. Conscience, to a far greater
extent than is usually admitted by those who urge it as a
1 At the present time, as a rule, the Christian advocate’s conscience
will not permit him to include the Bible a,s part of his creed. “ Bible
smashers” have doubtless had much to do in shaping the modern
Christian conscience. It is now a' matter of history that Christian
legislators have, under the guidance of the “ Infidel Advocate ”, con
scientiously passed into law what they but yesterday conscientiously
affirmed would insult their maker and bring ruin to their country.
�GOD.
45
standard, is only another name for intelligence, and must
always depend upon circumstances : upon creed, birth,
and surroundings.1 God must not, therefore, under the
plea of conscience, be freed from the consequences (which
he fore-knew) of what he has created; and which from
their very nature proclaim that he is not good and
omnipotent.
Some such ideas and considerations have doubtless been
in the minds of peoples at all times. The human race have
at all periods recognised the fact of the existence, in many
shapes, of good and evil; hence their many Gods, some
good and some bad.
The Christian has dethroned
and banished all the Gods but one, which he holds to be
the Z/w God. But he has balanced the case by inventing
the devil, who is a kind of concentrated essence of all the
old and bad Gods squeezed into one; and is made to do
duty for what I will call the black side of “ Creation”.
All the shortcomings, slips, and can’t-help-its of the good
or white God are saddled upon the black one—whose
presumed existence is thought to make that of his rival
more feasible.
The existence or non-existence of the devil may be
thought to be somewhat outside the question; but I
venture to introduce his sable majesty entirely upon the
authority of his friends—indeed I might say his patentees
—who have, I believe, not intentionally made him
co-equal, and frequently more than co-equal, with his
white brother in the management of the world. By far
the largest number, in fact by nearly all Theists, he
(the devil), or something equal to him, is held to be a
necessary antithesis to God proper. You see God is greatly
hampered : all over the world, at all times, he has been
heavily weighted, either by devils or devil, in some shape
or guise, which indeed is not to be wondered at; for,
taking a Bible and a Christian view, and, I think I would
be justified in saying, a Theistic view generally, he has
only himself to thank, because if he is the beginning, the
author and creator of all things, he is the author and creator
of the evils these devils and devil-Gods personify. Indeed
1 I think a better definition for conscience than the usually accepted
one, would be : The sense.of approval or sanction which we accord
or withhold to our actions.
�46
GOD.
the existence of evil is so patent to all as to have become
proverbial, and amongst us finds expression in such sayings
as : “ There is never a good without an evil ” ; and vice
versa. Why Giod does not see fit to uncreate the source of
evil—if he can do so without uncreating himself—is of
course beyond our ken.
Before finally quitting the design argument I will for
a moment or two longer dwell upon this personification
of evil, or rather, upon some of his doings as chronicled in
God’s book. I feel justified in doing so, because the
remarks I am about to make have direct reference to what
Christian and Jew alike assert God to have performed and
suffered, whilst working out what (under God) for many
centuries was held to be the very beginning of the work
of creation, but which is now held by Christians (of course
still under God) to be any period or stage of the work
which Science and Infidelity may ascribe to it. And I
would here submit that those who hold to a belief in the
doctrine of eternal punishment, ought to be the last to
dabble in the design idea.
According, then, to the opening chapters of the Bible,
the Almighty began his work in what may be termed the
Garden-of-Eden fashion, but finished it—well, very much
otherwise. Heaven will answer as denoting the beginning,
but Hell is the word which applies to the ending. God
had no sooner completed his work and blessed it, and
pronounced all things to be good, when, by the superior
cunning of a reptile—made by his own hands—he found
his design working so badly that he had at once to blast
everything he had made, and to introduce pain, labor,
thorns, thistles, disease, and death—not only for man, but
for beasts likewise. Thus Omniscience and Immutability
succumbed at the first bite of the apple. The serpent
obliterated Paradise, and deprived Omnipotence of its
meaning. And bear in mind the weak argument as to
free will does not affect the question—except in a detri
mental sense—of an Omniscient designer. If there be any
truth in the theory, you are bound to believe that the
serpent was designed to beguile the woman and so damn
mankind, and this, whilst adding nothing in the shape of
perfection to the general muddle, simply converts your
God into worse than a devil.
According to the prevailing Christian belief—certainly
�GOD.
47
the Roman Catholic belief—God created the world as a
means of replacing those angels who were expelled from
heaven for disobedience and rebellion; and the result,
according to the same authority, is simply becoming an
overflowing hell. God thought by means of this world
to recruit his celestial army, but the devil stole his recruits
before they were yet ripe, and made fuel of them to feed
his eternal stew-pan. Talk of design : it is really a worse
case than that of the painter who was not sure till he had
finished his picture whether it would turn out to be a
“ cow in the meadow ” or a “ ship in a storm ” ! If I am
asked for a justification for these remarks, I refer my
interrogator to the Bible account of the transaction, in
which he will see how the serpent, getting his own way in
the matter of Eve and the forbidden fruit, put God to
another and most disastrous shift—i.e., damning creation,
followed, if you will, by a confessedly futile scheme of
salvation.
If it were not so far away from my immediate subject, I
should like to go into the question as to where the Serpent’s
great wisdom came from ; and whether he had already
stolen a few apples upon his own account ? However that
may have been, God took summary vengeance upon him,
and at once either conjured or chopped off his legs, and
made him go upon his belly—although I presume he
was under the necessity of supplying him with a new
set of muscles to enable him to get along in his
new and strange method of locomotion. Or, has he—
the serpent—to some extent proved the truth of evolution
by acquiring for himself these organs since his fall ?
But what a childish fable for grown people to hold as
God’s truth.
Of course these observations are not founded upon any
thing better than the teachings and dogmas of men who
hold in various ways the position I am attacking. But in
such an enquiry as this, the things said for God, and of
God, by those who maintain his existence, are fair matters
for comment. And this applies to many other comments
in this pamphlet.
I have before me a scrap of what I take to be a portion
of a sermon upon the canonisation of St. Alphonsus
Rodriguez, in which the following passage appears. My
excuse for giving it is that it applies to God, inasmuch as
�48
GOD.
it shows God’s method, or one of his methods, of utilising'
defunct saints :
“ They ” (saints in general) “were a shield of protection not
only for those who invoked them, but also, through the super
abounding mercy of God, even to those who were ignorant of
their very names. Just as a range of mountains in the distance
frequently breaks the violence of the elements, so do the accu
mulated merits of the saints act as a barrier against the fury of
God’s vengeance, shielding even the unworthy from his wrath”,
etc.
Now this, divested of its oratorical and sacerdotal coloring,
means that one of God’s occupations is to providentially
raise up barriers in the shape of departed saints, against
his own wrath, so as to prevent himself from taking as
much vengeance as he otherwise would upon the beings he
has providentially created. What a dreadful character he
most assuredly would be if he were let alone—or rather, if
he let himself alone I Just imagine mountains of buffers
against the “fury of God’s vengeance” in the shape of
defunct saints I Under the circumstances mentioned, one
can scarcely help wondering how heaven can really be
heaven to them. Think of the picture here presented.
Shoals of departed saints dwelling in perfect bliss, but
nevertheless perpetually on the watch, both, in heaven and
out of it, so as to be ready at any instant to throw them
selves between God’s fury and his intended victims. I
don’t think I should care to be a saint under the circum
stances. But the saints were ever a queer lot, and it is
possible their work in the next world is quite as unco1
as in this. If we are to believe those who are authorised
to speak for them, they are, though dead, still used as a
kind of supernatural cement to patch up the design which
they preached, but which I nevertheless think they marred
when in the flesh.
It has just dawned upon me that possibly I have failed
to interpret aright the meaning of this highly-colored
statement of supernatural-natural nonsense and incredi
bility ; which indeed would be excusable. It is possible
that it is not the saints’ bodies which we are to understand
as acting as barriers and buffers, but their merits. These
merits would in that case stand in the same relationship to
God’s wrath and vengeance as the mountains do to the
fury of the elements, and thus prevent him, as I before
�GOD.
49
remarked, from doing such dire and dreadful things as he
■otherwise would do. He spends the fury of his vengeance
upon these mountains of virtues—after the manner of the
elements—rather than upon those who (presumably) de
serve it!
There is a most curious theological fact—it could only be
a fact theologically—peeping out from behind this mountain
■of sacerdotal nonsense, i.e., that God is so mighty, and so
wonderful as to be able to suffer his power and his inten
tions to be broken and scattered as are the elements
against mountains which successfully withstand their force,
and disperse them; without for an instant lessening his
omnipotence or his immutability. What a very wonderful
God these nineteenth century Christians must have !
The observations I am now about to make, although not
perhaps strictly pertinent to the subject, are yet bearing
upon it, being still in reference to the God question. I
make them with great respect, and with much diffidence:
respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer
and closer application to the question and better means of
studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion
than myself; and diffidence, because I know the conclusion
at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion.
Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself.
But I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I
shall put forward seem to me to be real difficulties. If I
should appear dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater
thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty
in finding a method of conveying the thoughts I wish to
express. And I ask Christians to apply these remarks, in
so far as they are able, to what has preceded them (what
immediately follows does not touch them1); for, if in
arguing this subject I have not shown enough respect for
their feelings, have spoken harshly or irreverently of their
accepted doctrines and dogmas, I desire to say that I have
not intended to be wittingly offensive; although I will
confess I have not endeavored to hide feelings of con
tempt for certain beliefs and ideas which appeared to be
contemptible as they came before my mind. This I could
not avoid; it were false to act otherwise. And I must
1 This has reference to the argument which I am about to venture
upon, and not to the remarks I am now making.
�50
GOD.
also admit that I do not feel in any way bound to be
extremely tender with the doctrine of Christianity, as a
doctrine, and taken as a whole. Some things which have
happened, and which show even at this day a dangerous
smouldering of the awful Smithfield fires, have made a
deep impression upon me. To travel no further than
three of the foremost English Freethinkers of to-day: (a)
Mrs. Annie Besant was, by process of Christian law,
ruthlessly separated from all a woman holds dear, and
cast without means upon the world, because she, being a
Christian minister’s wife, dared to think, and was not
hypocrite enough to hide her conclusions, (#) Later on
Christian legislators actually endeavored to prevent her
and her fellow-students, the Misses Bradlaugh, from
teaching Science, pure and simple, to their fellow beings.
(0) Charles Bradlaugh was persistently treated with insult
and contumely, the sanctity of his person was outraged,
and he was robbed of his legitimate status as a citizen and
duly elected representative of the people, and all but
ruined—the struggle continuing for six years—by a Chris
tian House of Parliament, because he was an avowed
Atheist.1
Mr. G. W. Foote, in company with Mr. W. J. Ramsey,
was incarcerated in a felon’s gaol, treated as a criminal,
and made to suffer all the indignities of a convicted rogue
and thief, or perjurer, because he would not belie his
sense of right and liberty in matters of freedom of
thought.
Christians, now as ever, trample on those who differ
from them, and I do confess there is that within me which
will not permit me to kiss the hand that smites me; nor
lick the foot which spurns and kicks me. Christians
profess to do these things ; but their practice belies their
professions. For my own part, until I am allowed toexist upon equal terms in all respects, I will fight. I will
not prostrate my individuality before the Christian Jug
gernaut, and say : “ Trample out my existence, I am only
1 I am happy to know that a vast number of Christians have since
joined with others in contributing to clear off the debt incurred by
above six years’ struggle. Nevertheless Christians did the thing I
complain of in the name of Christianity. Any other man than
Charles Bradlaugh would scarcely have survived to afford the con
science-mongers an opportunity of thus easing their consciences.
�GOD.
51
an infidel ” ; but will, if need be, take my “ tomahawk”,
which a not altogether unfriendly critic has put into my
hand, and, striking right and left, hope it may never
alight upon the head of a friend, nor miss that of an
enemy.
Having said thus much, because I thought the occasion
opportune, I will proceed with the remarks to which I
have referred.
In this paper I have said that God is not, nor could he
be. . And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus
distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to
make a few observations.
I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is
put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the
whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his
existence.. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings.
But I think I see very marked signs of what may be
considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism.
Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take
up this position, but what is considered the safer and more
moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean
that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to
mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him;
and that therefore he should neither affirm nor deny his
existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos
ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with
Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence. Mr.
Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of
Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of the
Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we
cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a
first cause, and a personal God; equally, we cannot prove
a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the
Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further
saying: “Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what
we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned”. I
would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all
practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull
ing the statement. But he further holds that if the
existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of
1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone.
�52
GOD.
course to illustrate the idea he is expounding) be asserted
in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos
sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be
admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible
in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist
an uncaused cause of all things ? If it, as well as the
existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc.,—
which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so
on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not
three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ?
It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr.
Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible
in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which
is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned,
the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned.
If anything which is inconsistent with what we really
know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a
beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—i.e., God
—stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a
term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot
be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of
the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct
issue.
The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr.
Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face
of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One
would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five
thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till
tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is,
as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the
non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously,
forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it
grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice
it denies it.
Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible
that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary
methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then
it is, so far Atheism : because the Atheist does but say
what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis
1 I notice that “D” (of the National Reformer) takes exception to
the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, hut I do not think that affects
the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God.
�GOD.
53
able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus
Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but
be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of
the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of
luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not,
physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but
who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical
ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility
of something about the Unknowable ; although that admis
sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions
superbly ridiculous.
Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the
possibility of what both practically say is impossible.1
It would appear to me that what is unknowable is not.
Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there
may be some points and niceties about it which pass my
comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some
very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all
things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an
individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra
ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with
what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you
prove to the contrary? ” Of course one could shake one’s
head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the
extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the
closure will come in again with quite as much force against
1 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journal (J March 30th,
remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over
which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic
ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and
Atheism is no more.”
Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than
Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am
startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of
reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is
assured. ‘ God ’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic
basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.”
With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be
difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and
if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God
being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults.
If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the
better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists
who believe in God.
�54
GOD.
improbable as it did against the impossible, when
used in reference to the Unknowable.
It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold
a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty.
But surely
it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no
matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general
way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside
the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend
the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or
idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing
spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding
that it may be this, that, or the other. The whole idea
seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely
wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically,
no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall
be completely outside or free from considerations which
are in connexion with the universe, or which are not based
upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos
ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which
assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or,
what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories
so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure,
rather than to throw more light upon what is already
sufficiently difficult.
As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach
ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This
may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre
sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it
as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism.
I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples
we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got
to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of
course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist
becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism,
or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve
further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other
hand if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist
has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says
no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says
perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution
till he arrives at Theism, which says yes.
Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house
between the two extremes, there will at all times probably
the
�GOD.
55
be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It
will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism,
and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become
a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of
faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a
time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being
neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose
minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded
as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who
are either going forward or returning, as the case may be.
I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point
■out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to
say there is no God.
I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs,
Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the
Bev. W. T. Lee, and the. definition of Agnosticism quoted
from the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan
guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at
the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear
to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of
Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally
follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only
a very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi
fying the boast made by many, that there is no living
person who really believes there is no God. Of course this
boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when
they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those
whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything,
mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to
a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed,
and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and
teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind
of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would,
I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a
weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a
similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in
mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate
in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave
the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position
should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and
logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues,
which may contain no principle.
The question then arises which is the most logical
�56
GOD.
position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimateend and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at
the last gate by refraining from making such direct
declaration ?
At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part
of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may
not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what hisname implies-—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves:
m the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God.
Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he
remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he
do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi
tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula ‘ ‘ we do not
and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does
he not in reality say “ there is no God ” ? If you venture
as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not
logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean
that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps
after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the
hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict ? It
appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I
do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the
common and consequent result of investigation should not
be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other
enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we
cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we
must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an
open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves
Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of
to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who
professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that
neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not
withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi
bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with
the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for
him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra
dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume
the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in
supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot
assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore
its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded
then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that
ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible.
�GOD.
57
you venture one whit further in the shape of denial
than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the
extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put
out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who
do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be
true.
I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is
a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And
that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for
giving direct form to his verdict, or result of his investigation.
I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse
declared it contained no money, would not be held to be
illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin
ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con
tained money, but would not venture upon saying out
right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it
did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near
being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in
mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn,
and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all
possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the
wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi
tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use
in dropping one term and picking up another, which,
whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing?
If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean
one other thing: the possibility of the existence of God,
which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and
denial of Atheism.
Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I
think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with
approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had
with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism,
as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the
time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps
to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ?
But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility
If
1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a
purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to methat the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature is an
admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still
an admission that perhaps it (supernature) is; to the shutting out of
the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism.
�58
GOD.
of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean
that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact;
thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the
Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con
ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils,
ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms
with which the regions of supernature are peopled.
I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to
admit of a may-be, which the whole universe proclaims may
not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly
say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond
it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those
calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grate
ful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is
certainly more difficult to argue against a position the
possible correctness of which you have already conceded,
than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate.
It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction
in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quite
savoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is
not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I
thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that
Agnosticism is safer because it tells you neither to affirm
nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means
of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you
there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If
that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes
nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say
perhaps yes ? Do I then doubt, or half believe ? What
logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into
myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond
Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as
think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non
admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with
its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not.
The “ New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded,
and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. Wace, states that “ an
Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything
behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and,
as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially
that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know
nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good enough for
the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant
�GOD.
59
for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows
the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism.
Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good;
although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous
position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in
a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that
the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who
claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable
God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late
bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said
that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”.
He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist,
nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take
a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own
part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I
1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National
Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The
correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following
quotation, given in the Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition
of the word, be correct: ‘ ‘ As the inventor of the word, I am entitled
to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence
of science whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man
shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly
is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley
to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to
God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the
existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such
belief. So far it is Atheistic ; but if it further means that man has
no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not
therefore to state his disbelief, then it is not Atheistic. And if
meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it
means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then
it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes
half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as
here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist
should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove.
But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean
ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege
that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi
cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny
the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss him.
Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is
scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to
the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their
accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to
deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance,
the Trinity.
�60
GOD.
think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com
patible with the position now apparently assumed by
leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements
taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti
mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in thebelief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and
safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in
Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case.
To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is,
at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between
the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not
demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no
God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic
doing so.
It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least
illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that,
while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out
side natural phenomena, nor of the first cause—which is
the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may
exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as
though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though
he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would
seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and
act Atheism.
I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we
are bound to have great respect, that the word God,
undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the
work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no
idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will
remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no
reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a
nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But
is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ?
It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It
is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and
earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin
ning and the End, and many other things. But the
cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the
supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is
meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist,
knowing what is broadly meant and held as to God by
those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the
word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no
�G01).
61
meaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can
yon not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to
convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can
know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined.
I recognise the difficulty; but reply : Would an Atheist
subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary
—I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would
not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no
inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or
asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning
only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to
convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to
convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli
gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his
existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the
universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to
whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories
of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question
of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a
matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning
is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist
to say yes or no to such general meaning.
If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean
the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently
clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I
presume in every scientifically arranged language in the
world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their derivatives.
If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion
arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and
Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and
therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does
exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will
—put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing
room for variations of definition) holds that he does not
exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ?
I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to
his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then
1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words
defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas they
are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular
word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put
forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either
accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence.
�62
GOD.
he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon
him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may
without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is
not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in thia
particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he
must not venture upon making the logical and consequent
avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic
tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear
upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to
affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to
deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its
existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results.
It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that
it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity.
I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not,
it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed
an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that
he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an
Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter
pret his position.
I could understand taking up the position that, because
we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what
mighty or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos
sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable
and improbable; although I should be strongly tempted
to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I
should consider beyond the improbable and to be im
possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round
and include all questions, and not be confined to that of
the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility
or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my
thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended
lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con
cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence.
I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving
expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving
expression to his conviction that a moon made of green
cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being
“ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis
belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus
be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither
affirming nor denying ” : it is the embodiment of denial
�GOD.
63
and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into
another position; but in the meantime, I must again say
that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it
that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare
the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis
believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name,
and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it
or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and
teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi
tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the
weak avowal he makes when he says “the Atheist does not
say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so
term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions
based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It
stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of
God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words,
he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not
be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate
to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much
reason be regarded as a loop-hole.
But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to
thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming
in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet
evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future
are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do
not know God — and forgive me if I once more say—
thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought,
I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow
to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all
its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other
terms as shall better define our position. In that case
we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature
Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the
term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto
accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic
one.
For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or
otherwise, I have.no hesitation in asserting that, so far
as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other
wise, I could not be an Atheist.
Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles
in the National JR&former, “In Defence of Agnosticism”.
They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and
�64
GOD.
profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them.
But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have
confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to
Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an
Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue
the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when
considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question”
being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”. But he
further says that some argument is admissible when he is
taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it:
“ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it
is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on
to explain, such assertions include statements with regard
to the order of nature ; as, for instance: “We may argue
from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence
of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”.
This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but
to my mind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to
leave the person awkwardly situated, who does not believe
in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his
God forward as being supernatural only, and as having
nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be
dumb; or limit one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at
most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put
forward in conjunction with our phaenomenal universe (as
indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled
to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him.
But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify
what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirmstively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we
know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be
verified either way without full discussion ? And why
should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the
other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only
discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ?
And finally, is that Agnosticism ?
But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade
the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward.
Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced
except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of
authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is
generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time
the cause and author or creator of the universe and of
�GOD.
65
all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone
who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the
enabling position, above all others, I take to be that
of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion
of the statement only, discussion upon the question
of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because
all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super
natural being. But the qualification comes in as a
kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to
discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at
once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that
even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of
the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega
tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say,
“ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must
not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not
know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis
factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos
ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s”
further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when
a Christian states that “three times one God are one
God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in
the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the
following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as
logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the
possibility, as to say the subject matter is beyond the
reach of my faculties, and that the assertion conveys no
meaning to my mind. These seem to be quite distinct
statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and
I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct
form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro
fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed.
I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”,
but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that
an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon
common sense and science, “does not, or needs not,
deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three
days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and
the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that
if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are
one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it;
but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor
disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be
�66
GOD.
hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming
nor denying.
The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored
to give form have been in my mind for a considerable
period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting
them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps,
in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them
more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other.
The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of
some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small
space here at my command I have not been able to much
more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned
works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do
but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as
occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My
observations are possibly better calculated to induce the
ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and
to look for larger and more complete investigations than
they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the
great of learning.
The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We
can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and
our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method
and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are
worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating
humanity, and building up a people who shall consider
their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry,
but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry,
rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches
and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought.
�
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: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, 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: 66 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N056
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Agnosticism
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: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, 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
Agnosticism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/beae9e13b142a64f2281a3ce30fddfb5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PQ4HM7nHM3NZcbMr8J-KIBtYlAcVvaA0uCF3lD8atqr63SSYhbtMr7deWUnVH4TTDOQEbfrAuIVdSEoQIZwYyxWtw6RkN9YPnGMDdCFBo6w42nXFOuJfvGfofr7FBjlJj1UurCCAoYL4sxnupDzz2n-m65VkRhGmYvGdDqM4FZmapYVOlqnR8dW6xwoQsMMh4QUNX1e8K%7EMupmRjqVQbhM8qVEbPjaAXEZf0mqyG2-3gAkBUirnw2xAJY%7E9l9TUciodwiGZy-fRSxdIj0cpX4SJc6dZIwRoFsE1TgrauE8jGJ9-TAg2ann0mBB2nhhfsEZx7zewTLle2tOvaNP5NmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1a0c132fe7880897ecb9589b1658d081
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
DEFENCE
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH
BEFORE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL gj, 1.883,
BY
W.
ZE1 O O T ZE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”')
New Edition
with
Intboduction
and
Footnotes.
5<rnbon:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING
COMPANY, )
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
��DEFENCE
OF
FREE
SPEECH
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS RENCIT
BEFOBE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL S4, 1883,
BY
CG.
NET.
FOOTE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”j
New Edition
PROGRESSIVE
.
with
Introduction
and
gLinbnn:
PUBLISHING
Footnotes.
COMPANY
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
Me. Bradlaugh has introduced a Bill in the House of
Commons for the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. That
Bill has been rejected by a majority of 141 to 46
votes. This is sufficiently decisive as to the immedi
ate prospects of such a measure. The speeches of
straightforward bigots like Colonel Sandys, and of
. canting bigots like Mr. Samuel Smith, reveal the sort
of opposition Mr. Bradlaugh’s bill will have to over
come before it passes into law.
In these circumstances I have thought it advisable
to reprint my defence before Lord Coleridge on the
occasion of my second trial for blasphemy in the Court
of the Queen’s Bench. My first trjal was at the Old
Bailey before Mr. Justice North. This judge played
the part of a prosecuting counsel; he treated me with
the grossest incivility, and the scandal of his conduct
elicited protests from the Liberal section of the public
Press. On Thursday, March 1, 1883, the case was first
heard. I addressed the jury in a speech of three hours*
duration, and the result was a disagreement. On
the following Monday, March 5, the case was heard
again. This time the jury, which had the appearance
of being carefully selected, returned a verdict of Guilty
without leaving the box ; and I was sentenced to
twelve months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal.
A previous indictment, which also included Mr.
Bradlaugh, as well as Mr. Ramsey, had been hanging
�Introduction.
over me for several months. It had been removed by
a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench,
where it- was placed in the Crown List and did not
come on for hearing until two months after my
sentence on the second indictment.
My defence was therefore prepared in a prison cell.
The conditions were in one sense unfavourable,
although I was supplied with books and papers for
the purpose, and certain relaxations were allowed me
in the matter of visits through the kindness of Lord
Coleridge, whose generosity will ever live in my
memory.
But the situation had its compensations.
The dreary monotony of prison life was broken, its
darkness was relieved by light from the great world
outside, my spirits were cheered by intellectual occu
pation, and I enjoyed the advantage of preparing my
defence without the distractions of ordinary daily life.
During the delivery of my speech to the jury Lord
Coleridge listened with rapt attention. When it closed
he adjourned the court until the next morning, and
“that,” he said to the jury, “will give you a full
opportunity of reflecting calmly on the very striking
and able speech you have just heard.”
Let me not be suspected of vanity. My object in
quoting his lordship’s words is not to air my own ac
complishments, of whose limitations no one is more
sensible than myself. I simply desire to remove an
impression which is less injurious to me than to the
cause I have the honor to advocate. Lord Coleridge’s
praise, of my speech is an exalted testimony to the
truth that “ blasphemers ” are not necessarily an abject
species, and that Christianity may be fiercely and
contemptuously assailed by men who are many degrees
removed from the condition of vulgar brawlers.
�Introduction.
*
v.
It would have given me pleasure to include his
lordship’s Judgment in this reprint, but as he has pub
lished it himself in the form of a pamphlet, I did not
feel at liberty to do so. I have, however, givefl some
extracts in the footnotes, the object of which is to
elucidate my speech without the reader’s having to
peruse other publications. Those who care to pursue
the subject will find a full account of my trials and
imprisonment in a volume entitled Prisoner for
Blasphemy.
The leading counsel for the prosecution at my trials
was Sir Hardinge Giffard, now Lord Halsbury. This
gentleman is a Tory, and a bigot of the first water. He
believes, or affects to believe, that there are no honest
men in the world but those of his own Church. He
conducted the long litigation against Mr. Bradlaugh
with signal unsuccess, and he succeeded in sending me
to prison. This is the extent of his services to the
Tory cause, and it must be admitted that he has reaped
a handsome reward. As Lord Chancellor he enjoys a
salary of £10,000 a year, with a retiring pension of
£5,000 as long as he lingers in this vale of tears.
It only remains to add that the jury, after being
locked up for three hours, found it impossible to agree
I have since ascertained that three jurymen held out
obstinately against a verdict of Guilty. This was more
than sufficient. While one juryman holds out, bigotry
has fingers to grasp with, but no thumb. Sir Hardinge
Giffaxd saw this, and the prosecution was abandoned.
May 25, lRl...
G. W. FOOTE.
�COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH.
April 24, 1883.
Lord Coleridge presiding.
MR. FOOTE'S SPEECH IN DEFENCE.
My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury,—
I am very happy, not to stand in this position, but to
learn what I had not learned before—how a criminal
trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before
another judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who
are Conducting this prosecution have not now a judge
who will allow them to walk out of court while he
argues their brief for them in their absence.1
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson,
Mr. Foote, and that is, that one judge cannot hear
another judge censured or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction,
and I will simply, therefore, confine what observations
I might have made on that head to the emphatic state
ment that I have learnt to-day, for the first time—
although this is the second time I have had to answer
a criminal charge—how a criminal trial should be
conducted.
Notwithstanding the terrible natKe of jmy posi
tion, there is some consolation in being able,
1 Judge North, who presided at my trial at the Old Bailey,
practically held Sir Hardinge Giffard’s brief. After his opening
speech the counsel walked out of court and never returned,
knowing the case was in very good hands.
�Defence of Free Speech.
7
for the first time in two months, to talk to twelve
honest men. Two months ago I fell amongst fMeves,
and have had to remain in their society ever aajice, so
long as I have been in any society at all. Ifife not my
intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the ground
which was traversed by my co-defendent in his pathetic
account of the mental difficulties which attended
the preparation of his defence ; but I will add, that
although we have profited—I may say in especial by
the facilities which his lordship so kindly ordered for
us, and by the kind consideration of the governor of
Holloway Gaol—yet it has been altogether impossible,
in the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a
man to do any justice to such a case as I have to main
tain.
Prison diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a
material item—is not of the most invigorating character.
(Laughter.) My blood is to some extent impoverished,
my faculties are to a large extent weakened, and it is
only with considerable difficulty that I shall be able to
make them obey the mandate of my will.2 The mental
circumstances, how depressing have they been I In
looking over a law book I saw something about solitary
confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year.
What the nature of the confinement is I am unable to
ascertain, but it strikes me that twenty-three hours’
confinement out of twenty-four, in a small cell about
six feet wide, comes as close as possible to any reason
able definition of solitary confinement.3 Still it is no
2 I had been treated in prison like an ordinary criminal, wearing
prison clothes and eating prison food. The sudden and complete
change of diet disordered my stomach, and I suffered severely
from diarrhoea, Lord Coleridge was shocked on learning of my
treatment. “ I have,” he said in open court, “ just been informed,
and I hardly knewTt before, what such imprisonment as yours
means, and what in the form it has been inflicted upon you it
must meaa®MWHBj|that I do know of it, I will take care that
the proper amthori uW know of it also.”
3 1 had befen locked up in a brick cell twelve feet by six, with
no books to read. One hour in every twenty-four was allowed for
exercise^rBwmfeonsisted in walking round a ring with other pri
soners. After this abortive trial I was allowed two hours, one in
the morning and one in the afternoon. It was a most welcome
relief.
�8
Defence of Free Speech.
use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much,
however, must be said in connection with it>; that a
change has come over the method of treating those who
are found guilty and sentenced to punishment under
these laws. Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, an indis
putable matter of fact, I and my co-defendants are
undergoing essentially the severest punishment that
has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the
last 120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in
Clerkenwell Gaol with twelve month’s hard labor, in
the year 1763, there has been no punishment meted out
to a, Freethought publisher or writer at all approxi
mating to what we have to undergo. The sentence,
even before the law practically fell into disuse, from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six,
four, and three months. My sentence, gentlemen, was
twelve months. Again, prisoners were nearly all
treated as first-class misdemeanants —as far as I can
ascertain, all were—they were not sentenced to twelve
months—not merely of intellectual death—but of
conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even
carried on their literary work, and supported those
near and dear to them. We have to depend on the
charity of those who, notwithstanding the position in
which we stood two months ago, and stand now, do
not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a
great vital principle struck at through us, however
unworthy we may be to defend it, and who in lending
their aid to see that our interests do not suffer so much
as they otherwise would, are actuated by more than
friendship for us, by their love of that principle which
has been assailed by our conviction,^ sentence, and
committal to gaol, and is again assailed in ,the prose
cution which is being conducted here to-day.
A change, gentlemen, has come over the public
mind with respect to heresy and blasphefli^ which
every reader of history finds intelligibly Religious
bigotry is nevei’ more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their
cause can be defended by argument they are ready to.
�Defence of Free Speech.
9
defend it by those means. While they feel that super
natural power is maintaining their creed they are to a
large extent content in trusting their cause to the deity
in whom they believe. But when they feel that the
ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet ; when they feel that the major portion
of the intellectual power of their day and generation
is arrayed against their creed, when it is not scornful
or indifferent to it ; when, in short, the creed is not
only losing its members’ brains, but its own wits ; then
it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics who
are striking week after week the most deadly blow’s at
the creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe,
but at those who happen to be poor and comparatively
obscure. These poorer and more pronounced Free
thinkers are made the scapegoats for the more respect
able Agnosticism of the day, which is more cultured,
but infinitely more hypocritical. The martyrdom of
olden times had something of the heroic in it. A man
was led out to death. He could summon courage for
the minutes or hours during which he still had to face
his enemies. They placed faggots round his funeral
pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life ended ;
and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst
under such circumstances. Then also the persecutors
had the courage of the principles on which they pro
ceeded, and said, “ We do this to the heretic in the
name of God; we do it because he has outraged the
dignity of God, and because he has preached ideas that
are leading others. to eternal destruction with him.”
But now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ;
like Pilate, it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all
its pretences will be discounted, I believe, by you.
When it is said, “ We don’t do this in the interests of
outraged Omnipotence, and we, the finite, are not
arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying
out a measure of social sanitation, and preventing men
from making indecent attacks on the feelings of
others
you will agree with me in believing that this
is hypocrisy and cowardice too. Looked at clearly, it
is utterly impossible that you can draw any line of
�10
Defence of Free Speech.
demarcation between the manner of controversy in
religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference
as to the matter, unless you go the full length of the
principle which is implied, and logically say: “ We
do so because religion is not as these. There is matter
as well as manner, and we protect the feelings of men
with respect to these subjects, because there is invul
nerable truth somewhere imbedded in the'ir belief, and
we will not allow it to be assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more import
ance, and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that
fell from the lips of the junior counsel for the prose
cution in what he called the temporary absence of his
leader—a temporary absence which has turned out to
be considerably protracted. One remark he made use
of was that we had attempted to make a wicked and
nefarious profit out of the trade in these blasphemous
libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked andnefarious, there was no need to say anything about the
nature of the profit. But he himself ought to know—
at any rate his leader would have known—that a pas
sage was read at our previous trial, and used as
evidence against me in particlar—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—
and a large sale is always a comparative term, for what
may be a large sale for the Freethinker would not be
large for the Times—the proprietor was many pounds
out of pocket. The learned counsel for the prosecution,
I daresay, knew that, but then it suited his denuncia
tory style to talk about wicked and nefarious profit.
(Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of
the prosecution—it is his business. You can get any
quantity of that sort of thing by ordering it, provided
you at the same time give some guarantee that, after
ordering, it will be paid for. He spoke of a blustering
challenge which was thrown out in one of the alleged
libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said
that a man at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted
i
�Defence of Dree Speech.
11
for blasphemy.4 The learned counsel omitted to tell
you what you will find by referring to the Indictment,,
that the word “ blasphemy ’’ is between inverted
commas, which shows it was employed there, not in
the sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which
he might not attach the same meaning as those using
it. So much for that.
And now one word more as to his introduction
before I proceed. The word “licentiousness” was
introduced. The word “decency” was introduced.
I have to complain of all this. I propose to follow the'
method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s trial
some days ago in this court, and had the full approval
of his lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior
counsel for the prosecution did, notwithstanding he
said he would not, and read to you any passages from
those alleged libels. Although I do that, I feel what
an immense disadvantage results to me because the
words “ indecency,” “ licentiousness,” are bandied
about outside before the great jury of public opinion';
and we may in this way be pronounced guilty and
sentenced for offences which people outside have never
had properly explained to them. Thus we are brought
in guilty of blasphemy, and people say we should have
been so sentenced and and punished because our.
attack was indecent. Now, the word “ indecency,” as
you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un
becoming or obscene.5 People will take which meaning
best suits their purpose, and so we are at this great
disadvantage when none of these libels are read out,
4 Mr. Seymour had been prosecuted for Blasphemy at Tunbridge
Wells, found guilty, and bound over to come up for judgment. I
had denounced the cowardice of attacking obscure Freethinkers
and leaving their leaders unmolested.
5 Lord Coleridge very handsomely assisted me on this point.
In his summing-up he said to the jury:—“Mr. Foote is anxious
to have it impressed on you that he is not a licentious writer, and
that this word does not fairly apply to his publications. You will
have the documents before you, and you must judge for your
selves. I should say that he is right. He may be blasphemous,
but he certainly is not licentious, in the ordinary sense of the
■word, and you do not find him pandering to the bad passions of
mankind.”
�12
Defence of Free Speech.
that we may be brought in guilty of one charge and sent
to prison on it, and people outside may think that we
are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence.
I leave the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of
these prosecutions. I wish to say a word or two on
that head. They have one great disadvantage from the
point of view of the prosecution—they advertise and
disseminate widely the very opinions which they try
to suppress ; and it seems to me if our prosecutors
were honest and had the interests of their professed
principles at heart, they would shrink from taking any
such steps. Then again, history shows us that no work
that was ever prosecuted was successfully put down.
There was only one method of persecution that
succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre
of the Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian
llteresies—the very names of which read as the names
of some old fossil things that belonged to a different
era of the world’s history—you will find wherever a
sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of
holding the objectionable opinion : but when books
and pamphlets have been prosecuted they have never
been put down. Unless you can seize and secure
everybody infected with heresy, naturally you arouse
theii* indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and
consequently they fight all the harder for the cause
attacked. Paine’s Age of Reason was a prose'cuted
work. Richard Carlile was sent to gaol for nine
years for selling it ; his wife and sister were sent to
gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You
would have thought that would have suppressed the
Age of Reason; yet, as a matter of fact, that work still
has a large circulation, and a Sale all the larger because
of the prosecutions instituted against it fifty or sixty
years ago. Take the case of a prosecuted work
belonging to another class of literature—a pamphlet
published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, the pro
�Defence of Free Speech.
13
sedition of which, was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a
work that had been circulated at the rsjte of one
hundred per year for forty years, was run up to a sale
of one hundred and seventy-five thousand. It is per
fectly clear, therefore, that in that case the prosecutors
had defeated their own object.
When a question as to the Freethinker was asked
in the House of Commons, so far back as February in
last year, Sir William Harcourt replied that it was the
opinion of all persons who had to do with these matters,
that it was not politic to proceed legally against such a
publication. That answer was made to Mr. Freshfield.
A few days afterwards he made a similar answer to
Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who
rush in “ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecu
tion has unfortunately done that. It is a curious thing,
gentlemen, that all those who have been moving
against the persons who are alleged to be responsible
for the Freethinker, belong to one political party. The
junior counsel for the prosecution told you that no
doubt one of the two defendants would ask you to
believe this was a political move. Every person con
nected with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield
represents the immaculate borough of Dover, and Mr.
Redmond is the representative of a small Irish con
stituency, the whole of whose voters could be conveyed
to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of
London that secured a verdict against myself and my
co-defendant two months ago. I need not tell you
what the politics of the Corporation of the City of
London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy what
they will be when brought into something like accord
with the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to
be introduced. The prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, is also a Tory. I don’t mean to say that he is
the worse for that. Every man has a right to belong
to which political party he pleases. Tory, Whig, Con
servative and Liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on
both sides. But it is a curious thing that this prosecu-
�■K
14
Dejence of Free Speech.
tion should be conducted so entirely by men of one
political persuasion, while those struck at belong to
the extreme opposite political persuasion. These two
things should operate in your minds, and influence
your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry
it out. And last, though not least, we have sir Henry
Tyler, also a Tory of the deepest dye, who has been the
pronounced and bitter public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh,»
one of my co-defendants who is released from his
position of danger by a verdict of acquittal. At my
previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen.
I am very glad indeed to be able to rely on the
authority of his lord ship in saying that the nominal
prosecutor in this case is the Queen, and the actual
prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is Sir Henry
Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason for
Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir
Henry Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in
financial pursuits. He was known to be a dexterous
financier and an experienced director of public com
panies. He was known to be not so much loved by
shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would
receive an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler
had an enemy in Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had
been rebuked in the House of Commons by a minister
of the Crown for his mad antagonism to Mr. Bradlaugh.
It is he who has found all the funds for this prosecu
tion, and I ask you to believe that this prosecution was
initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and his
political friends for a purely political purpose; to
cripple, if possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win
through religious prejudice what could not be won by
open political warfare. As I said before, men of genius
and high character are to be found in the two great
political camps, but this is a miserable descent for a
great historic party, which once had its Peels and its
Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its
Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
„ ’
't
�Defence of Free Speech.
15
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ”
has a theological meaning as well as a moral <and legal
one ; and directly you put the question theologically,
What is blasphemy ? you are stunned by a babel of
contradictory answers. In our own country the Chris
tian says Jesus Christ is God, and it is blasphemy to
say he is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit
in our national legislature, says Jesus Christ was not
God, and it is blasphemy to say he was. In short, one
might say, theologically, that blasphemy is entirely a
question of geography ; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time
you put the question. It is a matter of longitude and
latitude, and if we are to rely upon the very loose
view of the law I shall have to refer to, as given by
Starkie, it is a matter of very considerable latitude.
The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to (n
the Old Testament is simply that of cursing God,
which I suppose no one would do, if even he had a e
monitress like Job’s wife, except his proper position
was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and
it is unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in
the judicial murder of Jesus Christ. And you have
the spirit of the blasphemy law brought out in the
prosecution of Jesus of Nazareth, and, as related in
the Acts of the Apostles, the proceedings for blasphemy
against St. Paul. With the Jews a man was soon
found guilty, and very often after they had stoned him
to death they settled at leisure the question ■whether
he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate,
who represented the majesty of the law, that stood
between the bigotry of the Jews and their victim.
And you will remember that it was the Roman power,
the secular power, which cared for none of these
things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his life
from his J ewish enemies, who would have put him to
death as a blasphemer.
Morally, blasphemy can only be committed by a
person who believes in the existence of the Deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that
�16
Defence of Free Speech.
on record in his Life of Voltaire. He says that ridicule
or abuse of deities in -whom he doesn't believe is only
ridicule and abuse of ideas which have no meaning to
him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy unless he
believes in the being whom he blasphemes.
In
practice, blasphemy means, always did and always will,
a strong attack upon what we happen to believe. The
early Christain used to blaspheme before he gained a
victory over Paganism, and he was put to death. The
Protestant used to blaspheme before he triumphed in
England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blasphemed
before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned ; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they
were tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became
blasphemers. It is particularly necessary you should
bear this in mind, because you must consider the very
unfair position in which a man stands who is brought
before a tribunal believing in the existence of the deity
and the attributes of the deity, who is said to be blasbhemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible; and when at the same time they have
to adjudicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the
manner of it. If they dislike the matter they are sure
to object to the manner; and so a man in my position
stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means
a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it happens to
be—that is, our religous belief; and, curiously enough,
I have noticed many publications which urged that
the blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should
be made a crime to insult any form of religous belief.
I should not oppose any such amendment as that,
because it would very soon reduce the whole thing to
an absurdity; for every sect would be prosecuting
every other sect ; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have
to be abolished, and every form of opinion would be
equal in the eye of the law, and I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or
�Defence of Free Speech.
17
hiurder—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And
it really comes to this—that no man can know
thoroughly what a blasphemous libel is ; and no man
can be sure whether he is penning a blasphemous libel
or not ; and the only way to find out what the offence
is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve months, which
is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of this
kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the
matter is put into their hands ; and if they don’t like
it, that is sufficient for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very
unfortunate thing that any man should be tried for
such an offence at common law. Recently, when I
was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in bis
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the exist
ence of deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the
jury, would not bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to
i)e discharged ; and I was kept in prison until the next
trial took place. Mr. Justice North told the jury on
the second trial nothing of the sort. He left out
altogether the words as to denying the existence
of deity. What made the change in three days ?
It is impossible for me to say. It may be he
thought a conviction easier with such an interpretation
of the law ; or it may be that he had read the comments
in the daily press, and that some alteration had been
made, perhaps for the better. The view which was
entertained by Mr. Justice North does not seem to be
the view entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, in
whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I may
judge by nis summing-up on the trial of one of my
co-defendants in this action last week. Then, again,
we. have Mr. Justice Stephen, who is practically at
variance, not only with Mr. Justice North, but with the
still higher authority of his lordship ; so that it would
largely depend, in being tried at common law, whether
one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited, one
jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; but another jury
four days before-^—although the evidence was exactly
the same—declined to. So that you have a double
uncertainty—your fate depends upon the view of
the law entertained by the judge who presides at
�18
Defence of Free Speech.
the trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the
jury. I submit, gentlemen, that is a very grave defect,
and puts at great disadvantage men who stand in my
position. If a man is to be sent to gaol for twelve
months, blasphemous libel should be defined by statute.
The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of
Queen’s Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash
the indictment, on which I am now being tried, that
this statute was aimed at specific offenders, and only
laid down so much law as referred to them. No doubt
that is true enough ; but still, if the statute does not
fully define blasphemy, yet everything included within
the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a word
about ridicule, abuse or contumely. The statute says
anybody who has professed, the Christian religion
within these realms, shall, for denying the existence
of God, or saying there are more gods than one, or
denying the truth of Christianity, be subject to certain
penalties. The law was called “ferocious” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens
us as to the nature of the age in which those Blas
phemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute
appears to contain a view of the law, which the Lord
Chief Justice so considerately said he should not feel
justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than
it seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and
dwelt on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law ?
Common law is judge-made law and jury-made law.
Mr. Justice Stephen on this point has some very notable
remarks in the introduction to his Digest of the
Criminal Law:
“ It is not until a very late stage in its history that law is
regarded as a series of commands issued by the sovereign
power of the state. Indeed, even in our own time and
country that conception of it is gaining ground very slowly.
An earlier and, to some extent, a still prevailing view of it is,
that it is more like an art or science, the principles of which
are first enunciated vaguely, and are gradually reduced to
a precision by their application to particular circumstances.
Somehow, no one can say precisely how, though more or less
plausible and instructive conjectures upon the subject may
�Defence of Jbree Speech.
19
beSiade, certain principles came to be accepted as the law of
tn® land, The judges held themselves bound to decide the
eases which came before them according to those principles,
and as new combinations of circumstances threw light on the
way in which they operated, the principles were, in some
cases, more fully developed and qualified, and in others evaded
or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case.
I ask you to consider that this common law is merely
old common usage, altogether alien to the spirit of our
age ; and that it cannot be enforced without making
invidious, unfair, and infamous distinctions between
one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to say
that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
‘power to prevent it.
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent ? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy,
my co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime.
I urge that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our
age. The junior counsel for the prosecution said blas
phemy was prosecuted very seldom ; it had not been
prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and he urged
as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years I” That is not true. From my slight
knowledge of literature, which is not, as one of the
journals gtlid, entirely confined to Tom Paine and the
writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I could undertake to furnish
the junior counsel for the prosecution with some tons
of blasphemy published during that fifty years ;
although I probably could not find the prosecution
such a powerful motive as they have recently had for
for proceeding against these blasphemous libels. The
law against blasphemy is practically obsolete—the fact
that there have been no such prosecutions for fifty
years ought tn settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which
includes the whole of the offences against religion,
says : “ The whole of this law is practically obsolete,
and might be repealed with advantage.” And he further
says it would be sufficient as to blasphemy if the power
of prosecution were confined to the Attorney-General.
In this case the Attorney-General has had nothing to
�Defence of Dree Speech.
do with the prosecution. The j ury were told in another
court that the Public Prosecutor had instituted it. As a
matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule,
and I submit that his allowance or disallowance is
scarcely equivalent to the allowance or disallowance
of the Attorney-General, and certainly not equivalent
to the institution cf proceedings by the AttorneyGeneral. Mr. Justice Stephen says : “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought
not to be made the subject of temporal punishment at
all, though, if it tended to produce a breach of the
peace, it might be dealt with on those grounds.” I shall
have a few words to say about breach of the peace
shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephen says : “ This law is
practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal
punishment should be inflicted for it.
You. are made the entire judges of this question,
under the very clear language of the celebrated Libel
Act, called “ Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate
libel trials. When issue was joined between the Crown
and one or more defendants, it was there laid down
that the jury were not bound to bring in a verdict of
guilty merely on the proof of the publication by such
defendants of a paper, and of the sense ascribed to the
same in the indictment. So that I hold yoti are the
complete judges ; there is no power on earth that can
go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give
a reason for your verdict ; you are simply called upon
to say guilty or not guilty ; and I submit you have a
perfect right to say guilty or not—especially not guilty
—on the broad issue of the question; and thus to
declare that this blasphemy law is utterly alien to the
spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be
enforced now. The old common law was never put in
force against persons who only ridiculed the Christian
religion. Our indictment charges us with bringing
the Christian religion into disbelief ; so that bringing
it into disbelief is blasphemy. That is logical—bring
ing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross contempt.
All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
�Defence of Free Speech.
21
forty years ago, and as far down as tlie year 1867, turn
upon the right of a man to question and oppose
publicly the truth of the Christian religion. Peter
Annett stated in the Free Inquirer his disbelief in the
inspiration of the Pentateuch, and was punished foi’ it ;
Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in seven big
volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop of the
English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold, rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. Woolston languished in Newgate
for years, and died there. For what? For saying
that the miracles of the New Testament should
not be taken literally but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy
tales, and are all doomed, and that educated and
intelligent men treat them as portions of the world’s
superstition. Nobody now thinks of prosecuting Mr.
Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same offence as
Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same offence
as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentleman, the common law is
more humane now, it is only because the spirit of the
age is more humane. That you are bound to take into
consideration, and that should influence you in giving
a verdict of not guilty to me and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has
always held that it is a crime to call in question the
truth of the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the
case of Cowan v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of
Exchequer ; it originally arose in Liverpool. The
secretary of the Liverpool Secular Society had engaged
the assembly room for the purpose of two lectures.
The lectrtrfes were entitled, “ The character and teaching
of Christ; the former defective, the latter misleading
and the second, “ The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of
ridicule, sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet
when the owner of the rooms, after the expense of
advertising had been incurred, refused the use of them
for the lectures, and declined to compensate the per
sons who had rented for those two nights, it was held
�22
Defence of Free Speech.
by the Court of Exchequer that it was au illegal act to
deliver such lectures with such titles, and that no
damages could be recovered, because the rooms had
been declined for the perpetration of an illegal
act.
Acting on this case, some solicitors at Southampton
last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly
Room for a lecture by myself, on the ground that the
lecture would be an illegal act. The lady who owned
the room was pious, although she had not the honesty
to recompense my friends for damages they had in
curred on the strength of her own agent’s written con
tract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any
impugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal
act, and my contention therefore holds good, that
bringing Christianity into disbelief is as much a part of
blasphemy as bringing it into contempt.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the
law of England, and, as such, it must not be attacked.
We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of this
by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it,
that if Christianity were part and parcel of the law of
the land, in the sense in which the words are generally
used, then it would be impossible to bring about any
reform of law, because no law could be criticised, much
less ridiculed, on the same ground that Christianity,
which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or criti
cised. Something occurred to me which seems to go
even further than that; and that is, that if Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, then the
prosecution for blasphemy would be an absurdity.
There is no crime in criticising any law, or j&iiculing
any law, in the pages of Punch. If Christianity were
part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be
no crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the
Royal Commissioners in 18-11. In their report they
went into it at great length. The Royal Commission
endorsed that view, and pointed out fully that if Chris
tianity were part of the law of the land, still the law
could be criticised and ridiculed, and, therefore, no
�Defence of Free Speech.
23
•blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds.
Sir Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first
said that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of
the country. He was a man of great intellectual ability,
and a most upright judge ; but if he lived in our age,
would he endorse such ridiculous language now ? He
was infected by the superstition of his age. This same
judge sentenced two women to be hung for witchcraft,
an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “ Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live.” The time will come when it
it will be thought quite as absurd to prosecute people
for the crime of blasphemy as we think it now to hang
people for witchcraft. If blasphemy be a crime at all,
it is only a crime against God, who, if he be omni
scient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great
alterations in the State and in Society, alterations which
will justify you in setting this old barbarous law aside.
To begin with, compulsory oaths have been abolished
in our courts of justice. Evidence can now be
given by Freethinkers on affirmation. Mr. Bradlaugh
last week was acquitted on the evidence of people,
every one of whom affirmed, and not one of
whom took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to
Parliament. I don’t wish to enter into a religious dis
cussion, or to provoke a dying bigotry, but I do say,
that if with the views the Jews are known to entertain
of the founder of Christianity, and if with the acts of
their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people,
they canube admitted in our national legislature, and
help to make laws which are stupidly said to be pro
tective of Christianity, then it is absurd for Christians
to prosecute Freethinkers for carrying on honest
criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t believe, and
which they think they are bound to oppose and attack.
Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used
to be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now
the House of Commons simply cling to a narrow theistic
ledge. I have heard not only counsel but a judge
�24
Drfence of Dree Speech.
speaking to a jury about Jesus Christ as our Lord and
savior, when they ought to have known—perhaps did
know, but didn’t remember in the heat of enthusiasm
—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might be some among them who knew Chris
tianity and rejected it. That shows you, still further,
that the principles and opinions which lie at the base
of these proceedings are not universal as they once
were : and that it is time all invidious distinctions
were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to stand
on their own bottom ; and if they cannot stand on their
own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them
fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more
particularly shown in the writings of our principal
men. Mr. Leslie Stephen, for instance, in answering
the question, “ Are we Christians ?” says :
c,No. I should reply we are not Christians; a few try to
pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially
men of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old
charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming
social symptoms; a great number call themselves Christians,
because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and
the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of
respectability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men
have ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased
avowedly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the
name.”
No one who has any knowledge of the kind of lan
guage held by intelligent men will doubt that such
sentiments are exceedingly common. You all know
the great and honored name of Darwin, who spent his
whole life in undermining the very foundations of
Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know when
the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prosti
tuted name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go,
and no further,” saw it was evident he was victor, it
professed to honor him, and had him buried in West
minster Abbey ; but the world is beginning to know
if the Church has Darwin’s corpse, it is all of Darwin
that the Church has had or ever will have.
�’ 1
▼
Detence of Free Speech.
25
A g^at scientist who does not confine himself to mere
qcience^ as for the most part Darwin did, says :
“The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris and Zeus,
Shdthe man who should revive them would be justly laughed
to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the
rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very
name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown,
have fortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this
day, are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the
authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the justice
of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of
things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the sem'barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until,
now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name
blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? Who shall
count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been
destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose
life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new
wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by
the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if
philosophers have suffered their cause has been amply avenged.
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science
as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules, and history
records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly
opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists,
bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated, scotched if not slain.
But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It
learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present,
bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist
that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and
end of sound science, and to visit, with such petty thunder
bolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those whorefuse to
degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand
here on the charge I have to answer. And why? One is
the language of a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other
the language of a penny paper.
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsley
says in his work on “ Responsibility in Mental Disease,”
that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all
three mad. (Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why ?
Because it would not be safe to attack a man like that.
�26
Defence of Free Speech.
He is part of a powerful corporation that wonltWp.lly
round any of its members attacked, and therefore he is
left unmolested.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his Study of Sociology,
speaks thus of the Christian Trinity :
“ Here we have theologians who believe that our national
welfare will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an
enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, are each of them almighty; and yet there are not three
almighties but one almighty; that one of the almighties
suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another
of them; and that whosoever does not believe this ‘without
doubt shall perish everlastingly.’ ”
That is language which is, perhaps, as scornful as any
a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could use. There is
no essential difference between that and language of
the most militant Freethought.6
Mr. John Stuart Mill, who was a writer with a world
wide reputation, and occupied a seat in the House of
Commons, said that his father looked upon religion as
the greatest enemy of morality; first by setting up
“ flotations excellencies, belief in creeds’, devotional feel
ings and ceremonies not connected with the good of human
kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes
for genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating
the standard of morals, making it consist in doing the
will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the
phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts
as eminently hateful. I have a hundred times heard
him say, that all ages and nations have represented
their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression,
that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till they
reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra of wicked
* Lord Coleridge honestly confessed, with regard to many of
the heretical passages I read from leading writers, that he had
“ a difficulty in distinguishing them from the incriminated publi
cation.” “They do appear to me,” he added “to be open to
exactly the same charge and the same grounds of observation that
Mr. Foote's publications are.” Later on he said, “I admit as far
as I can judge some of them, that they are strong, shall I say
coarse, expressions of contempt and hatred for the recognised
truths of Christianity.”
�Defence of Free Speech.
27
ness he considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.”
In one of those alleged libels, the only passage I
shall refer to, there is a statement to the effect—a state
ment not in my handwriting—(unfortunately I am in
the position of having not only to defend my own
right but the right of others to be heard) in one of
those libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity
of the Old Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. What
is the difference between a phrase like that and the
extract I have read from the writings of John Stuart
Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that the God of Chris
tianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nineshilling book, and the other the language of a penny
paper. Writers and publishers of nine-shilling books
should not be allowed to go scot free and the writers
of penny papers be made the scape-goat of the cultured
agnostics of the day.
John Stuart Mill’s great friend George Grote, the author
of the History of Greece is commonly admitted to be
the author of a little book, An Analysis of the In
fluence of Natural Religion, which he put together
from the notes of that great jurisprudist, Jeremy
Bentham, in which natural religion is described as one
historic craze, the foe of the human race, and its
doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another
writer. Lord Derby—who has given his support to a
movement for the abolition of the blasphemy laws—
some months ago, presiding at a meeting at Liverpool,
said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the few men who
had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker. He
is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is
a writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In hi's fine
and delicate way he ridicules the Christian Trinity.
He says :
“ In imagining a sort of infinitely magnified and improved
Lord Shaftesbury, with a race of vile offenders to deal with
whom his natural goodness would incline him to let off, only
his sense of justice will not allow it; then a younger Lord
Shaftesbury, on tho scale of his fathei’ and very dear to him,
�28
Defence oj Erec Speech.
who might live in grandeur and splendor if he liked, but who
prefers to leave his home, to go and live among the race of
offenders, and to be put to an ignominious death, on condition
that his merits shall be counted against their demerits, and
that his father’s goodness shall be restrained no longer from
taking effect, but any offender shall be admitted to the benefit
of it on simply pleading the satisfaction made by the son; and
then, finally, a third Lord Shaftesbury, still on the same
high scale, who keeps very much in the background, and
works in a very occult manner, but very efficaciously never
theless, and who is busy in applying everywhere the benefits
of the son's satisfaction and the father’s goodness.”
The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians them
selves have run, a long and learned discussion which
took place at the University of Paris nearly three
centuries ago, as to whether Jesus at his ascension had
his clothes on, or appeared naked before his disciples ;
and if he did, what became of his clothes ? (Laughter.)
If such a thing had appeared in the Freethinker, the
junior counsel for the prosecution would have said
“ they are bringing our Savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and , we
bring them before you that they may be handed over
to the tender mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew
Arnold is in no fear of prosecution ; it is only the
poorer and humbler Freethinkers who are to be
attacked.7
Mr. John Morley—who has thrown his great influence
in the scale against me—in his book on “Voltaire.”
says, “ That a religion which has shed more blood than
any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if
published in England now, would be made the subject
of a prosecution, if there was any honesty in conducting
these prosecutions. Mr. Morley now joins the chorus
of those who howl the false word “indecent” at me ;
but no living person, no sentence under this old law,
7 Mr. Matthew Arnold subsequently issued a new edition of
literature and, Dogma in which this passage was omitted. Curiously,
at abou: the same time, he became tlie recipient of a Government
pension of £250 a year. His blasphemy and mine met with very
different rewards.
�nee of Free Speech.
29
can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval
of my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would
rather be sitting down in my cell, or meditatively
walking up and down with racking anxiety at my
breast, than walk into the House of Commons throwmy past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor
of a renegade.s
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament:
‘•Such a catalogue of crimes would be sufficient to destroy
the character of any Pagan divinity whatever. I fail to per
ceive any reason why the Jews alone should be privileged to
represent their god as guilty of such actions without suffer
ing the inference which in other cases would undoubtedly
be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of deity were not
of an exalted order, nor their principles of morals of a very
admirable kind There is, indeed, nothing extraordinary in
the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient Hebrew
should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would rather
be suprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their savage
deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their god,
should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in the
one case from the commands, in the other, from the immedi
ate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindus
relate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all
the standards of morality, no such conciousness is ever appar
ent in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far
worse offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his
character of the grace of shame ”
8 Mr. John Morley was then editing the Pall Mall Gazette, in
which I was furiously denounced and my sentence justified.
After my trial before Lord Coleridge, M ■. Morley found my sen
tence “monstrous.” Subsequently, when a me norial for my
release had been signed by suci men as Herbert Spencer, Professor
Tyndall, Professor Huxley, Frederic Harrison, and a large number
of eminent write's, scholars, scientists and artists, Mr. Morley
declared I was “ suffering from a scandalously excessive punish
ment.” But he did not put his own signature to the memorial.
He was approached early, and his fLst question wag “Who’s
signed ? ’ Mr. Morley, says one < f his constituents, has “ the theory
of courage.”
�30
Defence of Dree Speech.
If that had appeared in the Freethinker it would
have formed one of the counts of my indictment. But
no one has interfered with Lord Amberley.9 A ques
tion was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution
of one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of
the numbers was meant to caricature Almighty God.
The question was stopped by his lordship. With Lord
Amberley’s words before us, it is easy to understand
that could not be meant to’represent Almighty God.
A man who after careful reflection, after weighing
evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and
moral faculties upon the question, has arrived at*the
conclusion that there is an infinite spirit of the uni
verse akin to ours, though greater—such a man would
never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my lips, or
from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or
attack. It is not Almighty God who could be ridiculed
in a picture like that- It is the Hebrew deity—the
deity of semi-barbarous people who lived 3,000 years
ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who told
them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they
had never built, to take possession of them in his name,
and brutally murder every man, woman, and chiln
found in them. Can it be a crime to ridicule or even
to caricature a my liological personage like this ? It is
not Almighty God who is ridiculed, it is simply the
deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become
decent and civilised now. The influences of culture
and humanity are at work, and although we utter the
same old shibboleths, we have different ideas, different
tastes, and I hope different aspirations.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the
Christian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus,
and criticises in a hostile manner the Holy Scripture.
If the law were put in force fairly, it would be put in
force there. Shelley has been referred to. Shelley
0 Lord Amberley’s will was set aside. ITe left his Little son t'>
be educated by a Freethinker named Spalding; but, as a Free
thinker has no rights bat those which ne enjovs on sufferance,
Lord Amberley’s father^ Earl Russell, had the child taken away
and brought up ns a Christian.
.
■
J
j
J
■
�Defence of Tree Speech.
31
wrote, among other poems, one called “ Queen Mab.”
He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a vengeful,
pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for
blood. As Jjhe rest of this extract is couched in similar
language, I forbear, out of consideration for the feel
ings of those who may differ from me, from reading
further. But what I have read is sufficient to show
that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous is anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And
in one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to
Liberty,” he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean ser
pent ”—
“The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s
works now,1 and even the leading counsel for the prose
cution could actually accept office under a Ministry, of
which the First Lord of the Admiralty, on whose book
stalls. Shelley’s works are exposed for sale, was a
member.
Of the poets of our day, it may be said, threefourths of them write quite as blasphemously, accord
ing to the language of the prosecution, as any one in
the Freethinker. Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest,
if not our greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I
don’t think so—uses in a poetical form the same
language that was used by Elijah to the priests of Baal.
You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah had
a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test. They built altars
and they cried respectively on their gods. The priests
of Baal cut and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but
the fire would not come. What did Elijah do ? Did
he call them to a kind of theological discussion, and
say: “Now there is a mistake somewhere, and we
must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with
1 Lord Coleridge pointed out that Shelley’s Qaeen Mab had been
prosecuted, and his children taken from him by Lord Eldon. I
was aware of it, and therefore I said that no one thinks of prose
cuting “those who sell Shelley’s works now.”
�32
Defence of Free Speech.
what Rabelais would call sanglante derision, and he
said, in the language of to-day : “ Where is your god,
what is he doing, why doesn’t he answer you, has he
gone on a journey, what is the matter with him ?”
That is the language of irony, and the deadliest sarcasm,
and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had
had one tithe of the religious bigotry of our prosecutors
they would have done so.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “ Hymn to Man,” turns
the same kind of derision on the priests of Christendom.
He represents them as calling upon their deity, and
says, “ Cry aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then
he says, by way of finish :—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, n'or warmth
in his breath;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him
and men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he comes to show
judgment again?
Shall god then die as the beast die? whois it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself
god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward,
whose faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of thy tyrants, they call thee, their god
by thy name.
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword.
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten; thy death is
upon thee, 0 lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through
the wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
Iu his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he
says :
“ 0 hidden face of man, wherover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
�Defence of Free Speech.
33
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride.
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou liadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars, lo
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell's worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb?
No soul ’that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Though shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Free
thinkers would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a
mythological deity ; they may ridicule miracles ; but
they will never ridicule the tragic and pathetic sub
limities of human life, which are sacred, whether
enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know how to
draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations I have read you had appeared in the
Freethinker they would have formed one of the counts
of the indictment. The only difference between them
is, that one is in a twelve-shilling book, and the other
in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised
as possessing the highest excellence by the greatest
critics, whose writings have been praised in the
Athenceum and the Fortnightly Review. I am refering to Mr. James Thomson. He says :
�34
Defence of Free Speech.
11 If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed,
To everlasting torments doomed j.
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there1) bow Adieu !
Almighty Devil damn me too.'”
If that language had appeared in the Freethinker, it
would have formed one of the counts of the indictment.
What is the difference ? Again, I say, the difference
is between a five-shilling book and a penny paper.
When those books were reviewed, did men point out
those passages and condemn them ? Not at all. They
simply praised the poet’s genius; blasphemy is not taken
into consideration by men who write for papers of such
standing.
George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm,
aimed at the popular idols of the day. She translated
Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity and Strauss’ Life of
Jesus, both of which are indictable at common law,
though they have never been attacked. Renan, in his
Life of Jesus, supposes that the raising of Lazarus took
place at a time, when under the messianic delusion the
mind of Jesus had become perverted, and that he had
arranged the thing with Lazarus.
Anonymous books are pouring from the press.
Here is one published by Williams and Norgate. It is
called the Evolution of Christianity. Speaking of the
Hebrew scriptures, it says :
“ Truly, if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the
genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god.
of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly
true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of
divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting
details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.”
Only one other instance of ridicule. The same
writer, referring to the sudden and mysterious death
of Ananias and Sapphira, as narraced in the Acts of the
Apostles, says :
�Defence of Free Speech.
35
“Anafllas an^apphijB.his wife sold some property, and kept
back amortion of the price. Perhaps Aananias was a shrewd
practical man, distrustful of socialism and desirous of holding
«something in reserve for possible contingencies. Or Sapphira
may have hinted that, if anything should happen to her
busband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds, she would
not IHfe the position of a pauper scrambling among the other
’ widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have been the
jnotivefcA the doomed couple, if they had been arraigned
‘before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so trivial an
offence; but under the new regime of the Holy Ghost, this
^tahappy husband and wife were condemned to instant exe
cution.” 2
That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the freethinker, it might have formed one of the
counts of our present indictment.
I have referred you to great living writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; I have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one in my
hand which is circulated over the country and bears
the imprint of popular publishers like Messrs. John
and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way of Chris
tianity :
“ Buddhism is the only religion which has made its way by
sheer moral strength; it has become the vast religion that it
is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to propagate its
tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with blood
from keystone to battlements; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood. that its poets are never tired of
hymning.. Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fireBuddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.”
That is being circulated wholesale by respectable pub
lishers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of
the counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the
Freethinker. Yet we know these publishers will never
be molested, because they are not poor, and especially
because they don’t happen to be friendly with a poli. 2 Mr. A. G-ill was the author of this work. A new edition,
since published, bears his name on the title-page. Mr. Grill has
nlso written a pamphlet on the Blasphemy Laws with reference
to my prosecution.
' *
'
\
�36
Defence of Free Speech.
■ tician, whose enemies want to strike . him with a
religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
political .sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised,
that we have dealt too' freely in ridicule. What is it ?
You will remember the ending of some of the problems
of Euclid, which is what is called a reductio ad absurdwm, that is reducing a thing to an absurdity. That
is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of arguifrent. The
comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why
may it not be used in religious matters also ? Refer!
ence was made to a caricature, in one of our political
journals, which shall be nameless here. Mr. Gladstone
is represented as “No. 1
and morally the Conclusion
is that he was the murderer of one of his dearest friends.
Nobody thinks of prosecuting that paper—the idea
would be laughed at. We may caricature living states
men, but not dead dogmas! Surely, you will not give
youi’ warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr. Buckle
says that every man should have a right to treat opinion
as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule it,
however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than
Buckle, John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the
Westminster Tieview, on the Richard Carlile prosecu
tions, in the year 1824 ; and speaking of ridicule in
that article, he says : “ If the proposition that Chris
tianity is untrue can legally be conveyed to the mind,
what can be more absurd than to condemn it, when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon
of ridicule has been used by a very large proportion of
the great intellectual emancipators of mankind.
Socrates used it ; at the risk of offending some, I
may say that Jesus used it; Lucian used it; the early
Christian Fathers used it unsparingly against their
Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as
would throw into the shade anything that ever appeared
in the Freethinker. Luther used it, and used it well;
Erasmus used it ; the Lollards use it; and it was
freely used in the Catholic and Protestant controversy
that raged through and after the reign of Henry VIII.
It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
�Defence of Free Speech.
37
I know some may thitak that it is impolitic to introduce
the name*or Voltaire here ; but Lord Brougham says
that Vbltaire was the greatest spiritual emancipator
sincfe the dayscjtf Luther. The only difference between
such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, was
his iHhnitable wit. He had wit and his enemies hated
him forut. Ridicule has been used in all times. To
take ridicule from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and pruning process that
you would destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his
ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be 1 Ridicule is
a weapon which has been used by so many great
emancipators of mankind ; if we have used it, even in
a coarser manner than they, it is the same weapon;
and if the weapon is a legal one there can be no
illegality in the mere method of using it, and there has
been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it
illegal. I say that it is a dangerous thing to make men
amenable to criminal prosecution simply on a question
of opinion and taste. Really if you are to eliminate
ridicule from religious controversy, you hand it over
entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don't want to become
asinine or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seems to me, if I
may make a pun, that the gravest thing in the world is
the grave ; and if gentlemen want the world to be
utterly grave they will turn it into a graveyard, and
that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to do
for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet
them by subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which
means slow murder ; which cannot kill a strong man
in two or three months, but which may, in twelve
months, convert him into a physical and mental wreck,
a byword and a scorn ; another evidence forsooth of the
truth and mercy of their creed !
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a
minute or two to the argument about outraging people’s
feelings. You never hear it proposed that this should
be mutual; it is always a one-sided thing. As Mill
says in his great essay on “ Liberty
�38
Defence of Free Speech.
“ With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate
discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the
like, the denunciation of those weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally
to both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment
of them against the prevailing opinion; against the unprevail
ing they may not only be used without general diflrpproval,
but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise
of honest zeal and righteous indignation.”
I should regard this argument with more favor if it
were attempted to be made mutual. Suppose I were
to put into your hands a book like that of Father Pinamonti’s Hell Open to Christians, which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It con
tains a picture of the torments of hell for*every day in
the week. That is repulsive to my mind. In my
opinion it would debauch the minds of children into
whose hands it fell, but I should not think of calling
in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such
a question is the great outside jury of public opinion.
Indecent attacks on religion, it is said, must be put
down. I want you to cast out of your minds altogether
the absurd talk of indecency or licentiousness. If we
are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blasphemy
if you will ; and don’t by confusing the real nature of
our alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be
punished for blasphemy, we ought to be punished for
indecency, of which I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I
have looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t
think there is anything in it to which this libel can
approximate. If a man starts chemical works close to
you, and poisons the atmosphere you breathe, you have
no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or else remove
your business and residence. That is trenching on
your rights. But in a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no act of Parliament to compel any
person to purchase a copy of the Freethinker. The
copies that will be placed in your hands were pur
chased, not to be read, but for the purposes of prosecu
tion. It was not a surreptitious thing ; it was not a
publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
�Defen<^ of Free Speech.
39
fraethought of the most insidious kind in every line.
It is called the Freethinker; the man who purchased it
must h$ve done so deliberately, and gone into the shop
to do it. As it was not a paper freely exposed in the
shop windows in London, a man must have meant,
before he went into the shop, to purchase that very
thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before he purchased it. I submit that as a man
is not forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he
can do is to allow other people to exercise their rights.
It appears now that liberty is to be taken in the sense
of the rough Yankee, who defined it as the right to do
as he pleased and to make everybody else do so too.
Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be protected
from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to
dislike!
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we
have been told is the proper view of this question.
Starkie on Libel has been quoted. I have not got
Starkie’s work, but I have got Folkard’s edition of the
Lazo of Libel and T must quote from that. The fact
that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie shows
in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution.
That a man should be in peril of losing his liberty on
the dictum of “ the late Mr. Starkie ” is a most dreadful
thing. I hope that won’t continue. He says :
“ A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equiva
lent to such an intention in law, as well as in morals—a state
of apathy and indifference to the interests of society—is the
broad boundary between right and wrong.”
I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
the broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be
alleged that I am apathetic to the interests of society,
I give it the most emphatic denial. When “ nefarious
profit ” is talked about, I tell the learned gentlemen for
the prosecution that they get far more out of their
advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause
must not count on profit; he can only count on the
satisfaction of what to him is duty done. There is no
such thing as apathy here to the interests of society.
�40
Defence of Free Speech.
I have given of my time and means, for great political
and social causes, as much as these men. I am no more
apathetic to the interests of society than they are. All
these w >rds mean very little. The contention that has
been rai ted is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of aljectives. These are not questi >ns of fact, and
when the prosecution talk about “ maliciously insult
ing,” “ wickedly doing so and so,” they simply use a
string of adjectives which every man may interpret
differently from every other man, a string of adjectives
which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind
of law by which a man is to be tried. It seems to me
that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a
noose put round the neck of every man who writes or
speaks on the subject of religion ; and if he happens to
be on the unpopular side somebody will pull the string,
and without being worse than those in the race before
him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled. I hope
I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I
want to say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Renan says he has seachedthe whole Roman
law before the time of Constantine, without finding a
single edict against any opinions. Professor Hunter
says practically the same thing. Blasphemy and heresy
were originally not tried by secular courts like these at
all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the t-ubject
of law, said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesi
astical law ; and when the writ de heretico comburendd’
was abolished in the reign of Charles II., there was
still special reservation made for ecclesiastical courts to
3 This was the writ for burning heretics aliv ■. It was only
abolish-d after the Res’oration, although it had fallen into
d suetude for half a century. Daring the Protectorate, hovever,
the Parliame it gravely discusse I whether poor Nayler—a much
maligned eccentric—should be burnt or not. and the Lord only
knows how far they wouli have carried out the “reign of the
saints if Cromwell had not sent them packing.”
�Defence of 'Free Speech.
41
try offences. But when the clergy began to lose their
power over the people, the judges brought in the very
heresy law tBat had been abolished; the same heresy with
another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain
that in bad old times, when judges depended so much
upon the favor of the Crown and the privileged classes,
and when the Church of England was held necessary
to the maintainance of the constitution, it was not
wonderful that they should deliver judgments on the
question of blasphemy, which really made it heresy
as against the State Church. I say that blasphemy
meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on
controverted points of religion if decently conducted.
That was not the language of those great judges of the
past. They said we might discuss controverted points
of the Christian religion—those that were controverted
amongst learned Christians ; but that the great dogmas
that lay at the base of the articles of the Established
Church could not be called in question ; and I could
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you
one case that happened in this century. In the case of
the Queen against Gathercole, in which the defendant
libtlled the Scorton Nunnery, Baron Alderson laid it
down : “ That a person may, without being liable to
prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the
only reasou why the latter is in a different situation
from the other is, because it is the form established by
law, and it is therefore a part of the constitution of the
country.” Russell on Crimes, volume 3, page 196,
gives the case a little more fully. He says :
“ When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecu
tion for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any
sect of the Christian religion save the established religion of
the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a
different situation from the other is, because it is the form
established by law, and is therefore part of the constitution
of the country.”
�42
Fefence of Free Speech.
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that
heresy and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought
to mean, simply ridicule of the State Church or denial
of its doctrine ; that where religious sects differ from
the State Church, no matter what sect of Noncbnformity
it be, whether it be a section of the great Roman
Catholic Church itself, or a Jewish body or Mahomedan
believing in the existence of a deity, yet on those
grounds where they differ from the Established Church,
they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and
invidious right to the Established Church ? If any of
you are Dissenters, remember the murders, the robberies,
and the indignities, inflicted on your ancestors by the
State Chilrch. If any one of you are Quakers, remem
ber that the gaols of London were full of your ancestors
who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen, remem
ber that, and don’t give this State Church any protection.
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm or
argument, or other forms of attack? It has its livings
worth ten or twelve millions a year ; it has its edifices
for worship in every parish of the country ; it has its
funds for the purposes of propaganda and defence
apart from its State connections. It has had until
very recently, practically all the educational appliances
in its own hands ; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected
against the onslaughts of a few comparatively poor
men ? If a Church with such advantages cannot hold
its own, in the name of truth let it go down. To pro
secute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of God, is to prostitute whatever
is sacred in religion, and to degrade what should be a
great spiritual power, into a mere police agent, a
haunter of criminal courts, and an instructor of Old
Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection
for person, property, and character, and all that can be
legitimately derived from these. The ordinary law of
libel gives a man protection for his character, but it is
surely monstrous that he should claim protection for
his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that
his tastes shall not be violently outraged against his
�Defence of Free Speech.
43
will, I hope, gentlemen, you -will take that rational
view -of the question. We have libelled no man’s
character, we have invaded no man’s person or property.
This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order
to put down dissent and heresy. It now lingers
amongst us as a legacy utterly alien to the spirit of our
age, which unfortunately we have not had resolution
enough to cast among those absurdities which time
holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr.
Justice Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment
Should be inflicted for blasphemy unless it led to a
breach of the peace. I have no objection to that, pro
vided we are indicted for a breach of the peace. Very
little breach of the peace might make a good case of
blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like this
shall not be constructive ; it shall be actual. They
might have put somebody in the witness-box who
could have said that reading the Freethinker had
impaired his digestion and disturbed his sleep.
(Laughter.) They might have even found somebody
who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
Induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentle
men, they have not attempted to prove that any special
publicity was given to it outside the circle of the people
who approved it. They have not even been shown
there was an advertisement of it in any Christian or
religious paper. They have not even told you that any
extravagant display was made of it; and I undertake
to say that you might never have known of it if the
prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this
be construed as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment
says we have done all this, to the great displeasure of
almighty god, and to the danger of our Lady the Queen
her crown and dignity. You must bear that in mind.
The law books say again and again that a blasphemous
libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy on the
Deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is prepos
terous to say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace.
If you want that you must go to the Salvation Army.
�44
efence of Free Speech.
They have a perfect right to their ideas—I have nothing
to say about them ; but their policy has led to actual
breaches of the peace ; and even in India, where,
according to the law, no prosecution could be started
against a paper like the Freethinker, many are sent to
gaol because they will insist upon processions in the
street. We have not caused tumult in the streets. We
have not sent out men with banners and bands in which
' each musician plays more or less his own tune. (Laughter)
We have not sent out men who make hideous discord
and commit a common nuisance. Nothing of the sort
is alleged. A paper like this had to be bought and oar
utterances had to be sought. We have not done any
thing against the peace. I give the indictment an absolute
denial. To talked of danger to the peace is only a mask
tn hide the hideous and repulsive features of intoler
ance and persecution. They don’t want to punish us
decause we have assailed religion, but because w*e have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentle
men. Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and
uot if we have assailed religion ; and as you know we
have not endangered the peace, you will of course bring
in a verdict of Not Guilty. Gentlemen, I hope you will
by your verdict to-day champion that great law of
liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty which
implies the equal right of everyman, so long as he does
not trench upon the equal right of every other man, to
print what he pleases for people who choose to buy
and read it, so long as he does not libel men’s characters
■or incite people to the commission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in
the result of this trial. I am anxious for the rights
and liberties of thousands of my countrymen. Young
as I am, I have for many years fought for my principles,
taken soldier’s wages when there were any, and gone
cheerfully without when there were none, and fought
on all the same, as I mean to do to the end ; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment
by the verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose
sacrifices for conviction may not equal mine. The bit
terness of my fate can scarcely be enhanced by your
<yerdict. Yet this does not diminish my solicitude as to
�Defence of Free Speech.
45
its character. If, after the recent scandalous proceedings
in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate
a new era of persecution, in which no advantage can
accrue to truth or morality, but in which fierce passions
will be kindled, oppression and resistance matched
against each other, and the land perhaps disgraced
with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I hope,
you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused
and eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work ;
you will close a melancholy and discreditable chapter
of history ; you will proclaim that henceforth the press
shall be absolutely free, unless it libel men’s characters
or contain incitements to crime, and that all offences
against belief and taste shall be left to the great jury of
public opinion ; you will earn the gratitude of all who
value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and inde
pendence as the crown of their manhood ; you will
save your country from becoming ridiculous in the
eyes of nations that we are accustomed to consider as
less enlightened and free ; and you will earn for your
selves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its
progress, and its glory.
��G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL.
Bible Contradictions ...
...
...
...
0 4
Part I. of the Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. The Contradiction's are printed inparallel columns.
Bible Absurdities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part IL All the chief Absurdities from Genesis to Revelation,
conveniently and strikingly arranged, with appropriate headlines,
giving the point of each absurdity in a sentence.
Bible Atrocities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part III. Containing all the godly wickedness from Genesis to
Revelation. Each infamy has a separate headline for easy
reference.
Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities,
Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. Part IV.
of the Bible Handbook ...
...
...
...
BIBLE HANDBOOK(complete). Above 4 parts in 1 vol.
In paper covers...
...
...
...
...
Better edition, in cloth
...
...
...
...
DR. E. B. AVELING.
Darwin Made Easy. 144pp., cloth
...
...
0 4
1 4
2 0
1
0
Th® best popular exposition of Darwinism ever published.
NOW
ISSUING.
A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS
OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
ZEW CT. XL. WHEELER.
Parts I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Paper Covers, Sixpence each.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY A FRESH PART EVERY MONTH.
“The Die ionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Ereethought party. These sixpenny parts
Should be widely subscribed for.”—National Reformer.
‘ The work will be of the greatest val e.’—Freethouglit (San Franciseo).
“ At last we have the long wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, and asserting that all
great men have been on the side of Christianity. . . . Freethinkers
would do well to get this woik part by part. ’—Truthseelcer (New York).
�CRIMES
of
CHRISTIANITY.
By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
VOL. I. Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine ; (2) Constantins
to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pioui
Frauds ; (6) Rise of the Papacy ; (7) Crimes of the Popes^g
(8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades.
Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities.
No pains
have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, un
answerable Indictment of Christianity.
The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
224 pp., cloth hoards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d.
“The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppjd
nents of Christianity.”—TVatzonaZ Reformer.
“ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—
Weekly Times.
“ The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U.S.A.
“ Two keen writers.”-—Truthseeker ("London).
“ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity^—Lz’Zeraz’tf
World.
“ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as We hay®
been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open
(Chicago).
“Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—-Weekly Dispatch.
“ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up.^ow pfj&fed,
and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle.
“ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of auMorlties.”—Western Figaro.
Vol. II. is in Preparation.
JEWISH LIFEEOF CHRIST
An Extraordinary Work. Edited by
G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER
Cheap Edition, 6d.
Superior Edition, printed on fine paper and bound in cloth, Is.
“ Messrs. G-. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the Freethought party
under great obligation by the careful manner in which they have collected
and stated the information on a very doubtful and difficult subject. . . .
We have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and
sometimes very erudite notes.”—National Reformer.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
��MR, FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS
PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth .............
2
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Months’ Imprisonment. Copies in paper covers,
soiled, 6d,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. I.
...
„. 2
In collaboration witli J. M. Wheeler.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?................................................... 1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besant.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with the Bev. Dr, James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d,
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
......................................... 0
Second edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..................................................................... 1
DARWIN ON GOD ............................................................... 0
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
............................. 0
Three Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Colei idge.
PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM............................. 0
LETTERS TO JESUS GHRIST
......................... 0
THE BIBLE GOD ............................................................... 0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
........................................ 0
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS............................. 0
v
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
WHAT WAS CHRIST ?................................................... 0
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
WAS JESUS INSANE ?................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Nazareth.
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD............................. 0
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
�
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
Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 45, [2] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: New edition, with author's introduction signed May 25,1889, and footnotes. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N237
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Freedom of speech
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 (Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883), 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
Blasphemy-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Freedom of Speech
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc94e4861475a38701984125c78daffc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BTcHvjqPGvQ1s5L3MHY7CSvmoGfJIlE08gFfg1QTBhAkVkTAxPg0KeIUOUdcPSrc6ncH4xAKB-FVNcXGBexXoO%7EITE6u6qHo9FBJTT0eqvlF7t72NhrCCapddKgUxuEdI1zdv8grtMwV1PmwwfHGnhb8at6ciLa%7ElG56NhdTBpqxuWLvdU9eBAxA4h3osnrg4b09CXEIooLzrm2u3yKXvSbiTa3FKk2zq5pzgsW%7EJw1xQOu649dJ3NhocNLizP1eC8SoH2QRQFE4YI2TnqS0hUpgJ1qfiWgkacVs72NKFNmKVmg3JIHjV7Re4UBzQqOv5yE9Q9k-cssggkHLd6uZog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
35cfcd1e262d7fd08a5847bc0a390fc6
PDF Text
Text
/S/%
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
PHILOSOPHY
OF
SECULARISM
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
«
1889.
�The major portion of this pamphlet was
published under a slightly different title in
1879. I have revised, that portion carefully
and added some pages of new matter.
G-. W. Foote.
�£ >500
W2-5?
THE PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM.
----- *----The present age is one of theological tliaw.
The
Reformation is by some regarded as the most remark
able and important religious movement of modern
times; while others consider as still more portentous
that sceptical movement of last century, which culmi
nated in the lightnings and thunders of the Revolution,
and finally cleared the intellectual atmosphere of its
densest and most oppressive clouds of superstition.
Butprobably it will befound that this nineteenth century,
which is not, as some writers seem to imagine, rudely
severed from its predecessor, has continued less tumul
tuously, because amidst fewer impediments, the critical
work of the eighteenth, and is no less a period of reli
gious disintegration and reconstruction. Traditional
beliefs are being silently subverted by new agencies.
Science, instead of critically attacking supernatural
religion, has surely and irretrievably sapped its founda
tions. The educated intelligence of to-day is not
required to discuss minor points of doctrine and ritual,
or the internal discrepancies of revelation, but finds
itself confronted with the supreme all-subsuming
question of whether the very essentials of faith can be
maintained in presence of the indubitable truths of
science, and of the rigorous habit of mind it engenders.
Heretics, too, are less vigorously cursed fontheir wicked
�4
Philosophy of Secularism.
obstinacy, a sure sign of theological decadence. On
the contrary, when they happen to be eminent in
science or literature they are usually treated with
marked respect; and the apologetic tone, which heresy
has long discarded, is now assumed by those who have
hitherto claimed to speak with authority. Christian
Evidence Societies invite sceptics to fashionable West
end halls to hear celebrated religious doctors show that
the popular faith is after all not so very unreasonable,
yet sceptics can hardly be induced to attend; and
when these discourses are published sceptics can hardly
be induced to read them; the real secret of all this
being that such addresses are designed, not so much to
meet the objections of those outside the Churches, as
to soothe the doubts and allay the misgivings of those
inside them. Even in the days of Voltaire, Buffon
was obliged to recant what he knew to be true; and
doubtless the Patriarch of Ferney himself would have
paid a severe penalty for his scepticism, had he not
eluded the vigilant malice of his foes by acting on his
professed opinion that a philosopher, like a fox, should
have plenty of holes to run to when the priests are on
his track. But in our days no name commands greater
respect than that of Darwin, whose biological theories
reverse all time-honored notions of man’s origin and
history, as the Copernican astronomy reversed the geo
centric theory of the universe, so flattering to man’s
complacent egotism. Huxley, Tyndall and Clifford1 are
1 Professor Clifford’s death was a sad blow to the cause of
Freethought. We have to mourn the loss of a most valiant
soldier of progress, fallen prematurely before a tithe of his
work was done.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
5
becoming quite fashionable; Air. Swinburne, whom
the daintiest young ladies may read with parental
consent if they eschew certain proscribed pieces in
Poems and Ballads, publishes fiery lyrical impeach
ments of Christianity, which a century or two ago
would have commended him to a fiery death; and even
Mr. Carlyle, the noble prophet of our time, was allowed
without protest to write scornfully of Hebrew OldClothes. These are a few remarkable signs of our
religious state in England, and by general admission
the educated classes on the Continent are still more
“ irreligious ” than our own.
If the Reformation
broke the infallibility of the Pope, and secured liberty
and progress for Protestants ; if the Revolution drove
feudalism and mental tyranny from their strongholds
n France, and enlisted the bright quick French intel
lect once for all in the service of reason and freedom
it is no less true that the scientific movement of our
age, which is co-extensive with civilisation, is doing a
vaster though not more necessary work, and is slowly
but surely preparing for that great Future, whose
lineaments none of us can presume to trace, although
here and there an aspect flashes on some straining
vision.
The old faiths ruin and rend, and the air is vocal
with the clamour of new systems, each protesting itself
the Religion of the Future. Sweet sentimental Deism
claims first attention, because it retains what is thought
to be the essence of old beliefs after discarding their
reality. Next perhaps comes Positivism,2 far nobler
2 Positivism is exceedingly well represented in England. Al
though numerically the smallest of sects, it has four very able
�6
Philosophy of Secularism.
and more vital, which manages to make itself well
heard, having a few strong and skilful pleaders, who
never lose sight of their creed whatever subject they
happen to be treating. But Secularism, which in
England at least is numerically far more important
than Positivism, although gladly heard by thousands
of common people, is scarcely known at all in circles
of highest education where its principles are most
powerfully operant. Mr. Gladstone, indeed, in his
paper on “ The Courses of Religious Thought/’3 pub
lished many years ago, thought it worth serious notice ;
but with that exception I am not aware that Secu
larism has received attention in any first-class pub
lication. Yet the word secular is entering more
and more into our general vocabulary, and in especial
has become associated with that view of national edu
cation which denies the propriety of religious teaching
in Board Schools. This use of the word points to tile
principle on which Secularism is based. The interests
of this world and life are smtZar, and can be estimated
and furthered by our unaided intellects; the interests
of another life and world can be dealt with only by
appealing to Revelation. Secularism proposes to culti
vate the splendid provinces of Time, leaving the
advocates in Dr. Congreve, Professor Beesley, Dr. Brydges, and
Mr. Frederick Harrison. There are many points of resemblance
between Positivism and Secularism. Indeed the resemblance
would be almost complete if the Positivists in ignoring theology
did not make a god of Comte, and with amazing disregard of
that historic development they so emphasize, venerate all his
later aberrations, as though he or any man could justly assume
to prescribe the ways in which, through all succeeding genera
tions, a great idea shall realise itself in practice.
3 Contemporary Review, June, 1876.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
7
theologians to care for the realms of Eternity, and
meaning to interfere with them only while their
pursuit of salvation in another life hinders the attain
ment of real welfare in this.
Mr. Gladstone’s conception of Secularism, derived
of course from its literature, may here be cited. After
describing the Sceptic, the Atheist, and the Agnostic,
he proceeds :—
“ Then comes the Secularist. Him I understand to
stop short of the three former schools in that he does not
of necessity assert anything but the positive and exclusive
claims of the purposes, the enjoyments, and the needs pre
sented to us in the world of sight and experience. He
does not require in principle even the universal suspense of
Scepticism ; but, putting the two worlds into two scales of
value, he finds that the one weighs much, the ofher either
nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated. At the
utmost he is like a chemist who, in a testing analysis, after
putting into percentage all that he can measure, if he finds
something behind so minute as to refuse any quantitative
estimate, calls it by the name of ‘ trace.’ ”
This account of Secularism is on the whole very fair,
but evidently it requires much amplification before it
can be perfectly understood by those who have not,
pke Mr. Gladstone, read Secular literature for them
selves. As Mr. Gladstone quoted words of mine in
corroboration of his view of Secularism, I may with
out immodesty undertake to give a fuller explanation
of it; and this can best be done, not dogmatically, but
popularly, allowing principles as it were to unfold
themselves.
Were I obliged to give an approximate definition of
Secularism in one sentence I should say that it is
�8
1 hilosoplnj of Secularism.
naturalism in morals as distinguished from super
naturalism ; meaning by this that the criterion of
morality is derivable from reason and experience, and
that its ground and guarantee exist in human nature
independently of any theological belief. Mr. G. J.
Holyoake, whose name is inseparably associated with
Secularism, says: “ Secularism relates to the present
existence of man and to actions the issue of which can
be tested by the experience of this life.-” And again :
“ Secularism means the moral duty of man deduced
from considerations which pertain to this life alone.
Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by con
siderations purely human.” The second of these
quotations is clearly more comprehensive than the first,
and is certainly a better expression of the view enter
tained by the vast majority of Secularists. It dismisses
theology from all control over the practical affairs of
this life, and banishes it to the region of speculation.
The commonest intelligence may see that this doctiine,
however innocent it looks on paper, is in essence and
practice revolutionary. It makes clean sweep of all
that theologians regard as most significant and precious,
'Dr. Newman, in his Grammar of Assent, writes: “By
Religion I mean the knowledge of God, of h:s will,
and of our duties towards him; ” and he adds that
the channels which Nature furnishes for our acquiring
this knowledge “ teach us the Being and Attributes of
God, our responsibility to him, our dependence on him,
our prospect of reward or punishment, to be somehow
brought about, according as we obey or disobey him.’
A better definition of what is generally deemed reli
gion could not be found, and such religion as this
�Philosophy of Secularism.
9
Secularism will have no concern with. From their
point of view orthodox teachers are justified in calling
it irreligious ; but those Secularists who agree with
Carlyle that whoever believes in the infinite nature of
Duty has a religion, repudiate the epithet irreligious
just as they repudiate the epithet infidel, for the popu
lar connotation of both includes something utterly
inapplicable to Secularism as they understand it.
Properly speaking, they assert, Secularism is not
irreligious, but untheological; yet, as it entirely
excludes from the sphere of human duty what most
people regard as religion, it must explain and justify
itself.
Secularism rejects theology as a guide and authority
in the affairs of this life because its pretensions are
not warranted by its evidence. Natural Theology, to
use a common but half-paradoxical phrase, never has
been nor can be aught but a body of speculation, admir
able enough in its way perhaps, but quite irreducible to
the level of experience. Indeed, one’s strongest impres
sion in reading treatises on that branch of metaphysics
is that they are not so much proofs as excuses of faith,
and would never have been written if the ideas sought to
be verified had not already been enounced in Revela
tion. As for Revealed Religion, it is based upon miracles,
and these to the scientific mind are altogether in
admissible, being trebly discredited. In the first place,
they are at variance with the general fact of order in
nature, the largest vessel or conception into which all
our experiences flow ; adverse to that law of Universal
Causation which underlies all scientific theories and
guides all scientific research. Next, the natural
�10
Philosophy of Secularism.
history of miracles show us how they arise, and makes
us view them as phenomena of superstition, manifest
ing a certain coherence and order because the human
Imagination which gave birth to them is subject to
laws however baffling and subtle. All miracles had
their origin from one and the same natural source.
The belief in their occurrence invariably characterises
certain stages of mental development, and gradually
fades away as these are left farther and farther behind.
They are not historical but psychological phenomena,
not actual but merely mental, not proofs but results of
faith.4 The miracles of Christianity are no exception
to this rule; they stand in the same category as all
others. As Mr. Arnold aptly observes : “ The time
has come when the minds of men no longer put as a
matter of course the Bible miracles in a class by them
selves. Now, from the moment this time commences,
from the moment that the comparative history of all
miracles is a conception entertained, and a study
admitted, the conclusion is certain, the reign of the
Bible miracles is doomed/’ Lastly, miracles are dis
credited for the reason insisted on by Mr. Greg—
namely, that if we admit them, they prove nothing but
the fact of their occurrence. If God is our author,
4 I do not say that miracles are impossible, an audacious and
quite unscientific assertion rightly stigmatised as such by Professor
Huxley in his admirable booklet on Hume. The region of “ may
be ’’ is infinite, and finite minds blessed with sanity leave it alone,
confining themselves to the certain and the probable. A miracle,
as Huxley says, is no more impossible than a centuar, but it is
just as improbable, and equally requires a tremendous array of
unimpeachable evidence to support it. Every scholar knows
that no such evidence is extant in the case of Christian or any
other miracles.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
11
he has endowed us with reason, and to the bar of that
reason the utterances of the most astounding miracle
workers must ultimately come; if condemned there,
the miracles will afford them no aid; if approved there?
the miracles will be to them useless. Miracles, then,
are fatally discredited in every way. Yet upon them
all Revelations are founded, and even Christianity, as
Dr. Newman urged against the orators of the Tamworth Reading-Room, “ is a history supernatural, and
almost scenic.” Thus if Natural Theology is merely
speculative and irreducible to the level of experience,
Revealed Religion, though more substantial, is erected
upon a basis which modern science and criticism have
hopeless undermined.
Now if we relinquish belief in miracles we cannot
letain belief in Special Providence and the Efficacy of
Prayer, for these are simply aspects of the miraculous.5
Good-natured Adolf Naumann, the young German
artist m Middlemarch, was not inaccurate though
facetious in assuring Will Ladislaw that through him,
as through a particular hook or claw, the universe was
straining towards a certain picture yet to be painted ;
for every present phenomenon, whether trivial or im
portant, occurs here and now, rather than elsewhere
and at some other time, by virtue of the whole universal
past. All the forces of nature have conspired to place
Y e often hear Prayer defended on emotional grounds not
as a practical request but as a spiritual aspiration. This however
merely proves the potency of habit. The “ Lord’s Prayer ” con
tains a distinct request for daily bread. The practice of prayer
originated when people believed that something could be got by
IXdoHMrWeX°W 'Vith “° SUOh belief " slaT“t0 the
�12
Philosophy of Secularism.
where it is the smallest grain of sancl on the sea-shore,
just as much as their interplay has strewn the aetherfloated constellations of illimitable space. The slightest
interference with natural sequence implies a disruption
of the whole economy of things. Who suspends one
law of nature suspends them all. The pious supplicator for just a little rain in time of drought really asks
for a world-wide revolution in meteorology. And the
dullest intellects, even of the clerical order, are begin
ning to see this. As a consequence prayers for
rain in fine weather, or for fine weather in time of
rain, have fallen almost entirely into disuse; and
the most orthodox can now enjoy that joke about the
clerk who asked his rector what was the good of pray
ing for rain with the wind in that quarter. Nay more,
so far has belief in the efficacy of prayer died out, that
misguided simpletons who persist in conforming to
apostolic injunction and practice, and in taking certain
very explicit passages in the Gospels to mean what the
words express, are regarded as Peculiar People, in the
fullest sense of the term; and if through their primi
tive pathology children should die under their hands,
they run a serious risk of imprisonment for man
slaughter, notwithstanding that the book which has
misled them is declared to be God’s word by the law
of the land. Occasionally, indeed, old habits assert
themselves, and the nation suffers a recrudescence of
superstition. When the life of the Prince of Wales
was threatened by a malignant fever, prayers for his
recovery were publicly offered up, and the wildest
religious excitement mingled -with the most loyal
anxiety. But the newspapers were largely responsible
�Philosophy of Secularism.
13
for this ; they fanned the excitement daily until many
people grew almost as feverish as the Prince himself,
and “ irreligious ’’ persons who preserved their sanity
intact smiled when they read in the most unblushingly
mendacious of those papers exclamations of piety and
saintly allusions to the great national wave of prayer
surging against the Throne of Grace. The Prince’s
life was spared, thanks to a good constitution and the
highest medical skill, and a national thanksgiving was
offered up in St. Paul’s. Yet the doctors were not
forgotten ; the chief of them was made a knight, and
the nation demanded a rectification of the drainage in
the Prince’s palace, probably thinking that although
prayer had been found efficacious there might be danger
in tempting Providence a second time.
Soon after that interesting event Mr. Spurgeon
modestly observed that the philosophers were ' noisy
enough in peaceful times, but shrank into their
holes like mice when imminent calamity threatened the
nation; which may be true without derogation to the
philosophers, who, like wise men, do not bawl against
popular madness, but reserve their admonitions until
the heated multitude is calm and repentant. Professor
Tyndall has invited the religious world to test the
alleged efficacy of prayer by a practical experiment,
such as allotting a ward in some hospital to be specially
prayed for, and inquiring whether more cures are re
corded in it than elsewhere. But this invitation has
not been and never will be accepted. Superstitions
always dislike contact with science and fact; they
prefer to float about in the vague of sentiment, where
pursuit is hopeless and no obstacles impede. If there
�14
Philosophy of Secularism.
is any efficacy in prayer, how can we account for the
disastrous and repeated failures of righteous causes and
the triumph of bad ? The voice of human supplication
has ascended heavenwards in all ages from all parts of
the earth, but when has a hand been extended from
behind the veil ? The thoughtful poor have besought
appeasement of their terrible hunger for some nobler
life than is possible while poverty deadens every fine
impulse and frustrates every unselfish thought, but
whenever did prayer bring them aid ? The miserable
have cried for comfort, sufferers for some mitigation of
their pain, captives for deliverance, the oppressed for
freedom, and those who have fought the great fight of
good against ill for some ray of hope to lighten despair.
but what answer has been vouchsafed •?
What hope, what light
Falls from the farthest starriest way
On you that pray ?
*
*
*
*
Can ye beat off one wave with prayer,
Can ye move mountains ? bid the flower
Take flight and turn to a bird in the air ?
Can ye hold fast for shine or shower
One wingless hour ?6
The dying words of Mr. Tennyson’s Arthur—“ More
things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams
of ”—are a weak solace to those who recognise its
futility, and find life too stern for optimistic dreamsSalvation, in this life at least, cometh not by prayer,
but by valiant effort under the guidance of wisdom and
the inspiration of love. Knowledge alone is power.
0 A. 0. Swinburne, Felise.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
la
Ignorant of Nature's laws, we are broken to pieces
and ground to dust; knowing them, we win an empire
of enduring civilisation within her borders. Recog
nising the universal reign of law and the vanity of
supplicating its reversal, and finding no special clause
in the statutes of the universe for man’s behoof, Secu
larism dismisses as merely superstitious the idea of an
arbitrary special providence, and affirms Science to be
the only available Providence of Man.
Thus theological conceptions obtruded upon the
sphere of secular interests are one by one expelled.
We now come to the last, and, as the majority of
people think, the most serious and important—namely,
the doctrine of a Future life and of Future Reward
and Punishment. Mr. Gladstone says that, putting
this world and the next into two scales of value, the
Secularist finds that the one weighs much, the other
either nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated.
This is very near the truth. Secularism, • as such,
neither affirms nor denies a future life; it simply pro
fesses no knowledge of such a state, no information re
specting it which might serve as a guide in the affairs
of this life. The first question to be asked concerning
the alleged life beyond the grave is, Do we fenowr aught
about it ? If there were indisputably a future life in
store for us all, and that life immortal, and if we could
obtain precise information of its actualities and require
ments, then indeed the transcendence of eternal over
temporal interests would impel us to live here with a
view to the great Hereafter. But have we any know
ledge of this future life ? Mere conjectures will not
suffice; they may be true, but more probably false, and
�16
Philosophy of Secularism.
we cannot sacrifice the certain to the uncertain, or
forego the smallest present happiness for the sake of
some imagined future compensation. Have we any
knowledge of a life beyond the grave 1 The Secularist
answers decisively No.
Whatever the progress of science or philosophy may
hereafter reveal, at present we know nothing of per
sonal immortality. The mystery of Death, if such
there be, is yet unveiled, and inviolate still are the
secrets of the grave. Science knows nothing of another
life than this. When we are dead she sees but decom
posing matter, and while we live she regards us but as
the highest order of animal life, differentiated from
other orders by clearly defined characteristics, but
separated from them by no infinite impassable chasm.
Neithei' can Philosophy enlighten us. She reveals to
us the laws of what we call mind, but cannot acquaint
us with any second entity called soul. Even if we
accept Schopenhauer’s7 theory of will, and regard man
as a conscious manifestation of the one supreme force,
we are no nearer to personal immortality; for, if our
soul emerged at birth from the unconscious infinite, it
will probably immerge therein at death, just as a wave
rises and flashes foam-crested in the sun, and plunges
back into the ocean for ever. Indeed, the doctrine of
man’s natural immortality is so incapable of proof that
7 Schopenhauer was one of the most powerful and original
thinkers of this century, and his intellectual honesty is surprising
in such a flaccid and insincere age. A physical fact worthy of
notice is that his brain was the largest on record, not even ex
cepting Kant’s. Those who cannot read his works in the German
may find a capital exposition of his main ideas in Ribot’s La
Philosophie de Schopenhauer.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
17
many eminent Christians even are abandoning it in
favor of the doctrine that everlasting life is a gift
specially conferred by God upon the faithful elect.
Their appeal is to Revelation, by which they mean the
New Testament, all other Scriptures being to them
gross impositions. But can Revelation satisfy the
critical modern spirit ? When we can interrogate her,
discord deafens us. Every religion—nay, every sect
of religion—draws from Revelation its own peculiar
answer, and accepts it as infallibly true, although
widely at variance with others derived from the same
source. These answers cannot all be true, and their
very discord discredits each. The voice of God should
give forth no such uncertain tidings. If he had indeed
spoken, the universe would surely be convinced, and
the same conviction fill every breast. Even, however,
if Revelation proclaimed but one message concerning
the future, and that message were similarly interpreted
by all religions, we could not admit it as quite trust
worthy, although we might regard it as a vague fore
shadowing of the truth. For Revelation, unless every
genius be considered an instrument through which
eternal music is conveyed, must ultimately rely on
miracles, and these the modern spirit has decisively
rejected. Thus, then, it appears that neither Science,
Philosophy, nor Revelation, affords us any knowledge
of a future life. Yet, in order to guide our present
life with a view to the future, such knowledge is indis
pensable. In the absence of it we must live in the
light of the present, basing our conduct on Secular
reason, and working for Secular ends. How far this
is compatible with elevated morality and noble idealism
�18
Philosophy of Secularism.
we shall presently inquire ancl decide. Intellectually,
Secularism is at one with the most advanced thought
of our age, and no immutable dogmas preclude it from
accepting and incorporating any new truth. Science
being the only providence it recognises, it is ever
desirous to see and to welcome fresh developments
thereof, assured that new knowledge must harmonise
with the old, and deepen and broaden the civilisation
of our race.
In morals Secularism is utilitarian. In this world
only two ethical methods are possible. Either we
must take some supposed revelation of God’s will as
the measure of our duties, or we must determine our
actions with a view to the general good. The former
course may be very pious, but is assuredly unphilosophical. As Feuerbach8 insists, to derive morality from
God “ is nothing more than to withdraw it from the
test of reason, to institute it as indubitable, unassail
able, sacred, without rendering an account why.”
Stout old Chapman’s9 protest against confound
8 Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, from which I quote, was
translated form the German by Marian Evans (George Eliot).
This remarkable work deserves and will amply requite a careful
study. The thoroughness with which Feuerbach applied his
subtle psychological method to the dogmas of Christianity,
accounts for the hatred of him more than once expressed by
Mansel in his notes to the famous Bampton Lectures.
9 George Chapman was one of those lofty austere natures that
put to scorn the flabbiness which a sentimental Christianity does
so much to foster ; as it were, some fine old Pagan spirit rein
carnate in an Englishman of the great Elizabethan age. His
“ Byron’s Conspiracy” furnished Shelley with the magnificent
motto of The Revolt of Islam:—
There is no danger to a man that knows
What life and death is: there’s not any law
Exceeds his knowledge ; neither is it lawful
That he should stoop to any other law.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
ing the inherent nature of good is also memor
able :—
“ Should heaven turn hell
For deeds well done, I would do ever well.”
Secularism adopts the latter course. Were it necessary,
a defence of utilitarian morality against theological
abuse might here be made; but an ethical system
which can boast so many noble and illustrious adherents
may well be excused from vindicating its right to
recognition and respect. Nevertheless it may be
observed that, however fervid are theoretical objections
to utilitarianism, its criterion of morality is the only
one admitted in practice. Our jurisprudence is not
required to justify itself before any theological bar,
nor to show its conformity with the maxims uttered by
Jesus and his disciples; and he would be thought a
strange legislator who should insist on testing the value
of a Parliamentary Bill by appealing to the New
Testament. Secularism holds that whatever actions
conduce to the general good are right, and that what
ever have an opposite tendency are wrong. Manifold
objections are urged against this simple rule on the
ground of its impracticability; but as all of them apply
with equal force to every conceivable rule, they may
be peremptorily dismissed. The imperfections of
human nature must affect the practicability of any
moral law, however conceived or expressed. Chris
tians who wrote before Secularism had to be combated
never thought of maintaining that reason and expe
rience are inefficient guides, although they did some
times impugn the efficacy of natural motives to good.i
1 Darwin, Spencer, and nearly all the rest of our modernEvolu-
�Philosophy of Secularism.
So thoughtful ancl cautious a preacher as Barrow,
whom Mr. Arnold accounts the best moral divine of
our English Church, plainly says that “ wisdom is, in
effect, the genuine parent of all moral and political
virtue, justice, and honesty.”2 But some theologicallyminded persons, whose appearance betrays no remark
able signs of asceticism, wax eloquent in reprobation
of happiness as a sanction of morality at all. Duty,
say they, is what all should strive after. Good; but
the Secularist conceives it his duty to promote the
general welfare. Happiness is not a degrading thing,
but a source of elevation. We have all enjoyed that
wonderful catechism of Pig-Philosophy in Latter-Day
Pamphlets. What a scathing satire on the wretched
Jesuitism abounding within and without the Churches,
and bearing such malign and malodorous fruit! But
it is not the necessary antithesis to the Religion of
Sorrow. It is the mongrel makeshift of those “ whose
gospel is their maw,” whose swinish egotism makes
t’lem contemplate Nature as a universal Swine’sTrough, with plenty of pig’s wash for those who can
thrust their fellows aside and get their paw in it. The
Religion of Gladness is a different thing from this.
Let us hear its great prophet Spinoza, one of the
purest and noblest of modern minds : “Joy is the
passage from a less to a greater perfection; sorrow is
tionists, believe morality to have had a natural origin. Mr.
Wake, however, in his valuable work, The Evolution of Morality,
while admitting and powerfully illustrating its natural develop
ment, apparently holds that its origin was supernatural, the germs
of all the virtues having been divinely implanted in our primitive
ancestors! Evidently the old superstition about '‘the meat
roasting power of the meat-jack ” is not yet altogether extinct.
2 Sermon on “ The Pleasantness of Religion.’’
�Philosophy of Secularism.
21
the passage from a greater to a less perfection.” No ;
suffering only tries, it does not nourish us; it proves
our capacity, but does not produce it. What, after all,
is happiness ? It consists in the fullest healthy exer
cise of all our faculties, and is as various as they. Far
from ignoble, it implies the highest normal develop
ment of- our nature, the dream of Utopists from Plato
downwards. And therefore, in affirming happiness to
be the great purpose of social life, Secularism makes
its moral law coincident with the law of man’s progress
towards attainable perfection.
Motives to righteousness Secularism finds m human
nature.
Since the evolution of morality has been
traced by scientific thinkers the idea of our moral sense
having had a supernatural origin has vanished into the
limbo of superstitions. Our social sympathies are a
natural growth, and may be indefinitely developed in
the future by the same means which have developed
them in the past. Morality and theology are essentially
distinct. The ground and guarantee of morality are
independent of any theological belief. When we are
in earnest about the right we need no incitement from
above. Morality has its natural ground in experience
and reason, in the common nature and common wants
of mankind. Wherever sentient beings live together
in a social state, simple or complex, laws of morality
must arise, for they are simply the permanent condi
tions of social health ; and even if men entertained no
belief in any supernatural power, they would still
recognise and submit to the laws upon which societary
welfare depends. “ Even,” says Dr. Martineau,3
3 Nineteenth Century, April, 1877.
�22
Philosophy of Secularism.
“ though we came out of nothing, and returned to
nothing, we should be subject to the claim of righteous
ness so long as we are what we are: morals have their
own base, and are second to nothing.” Emerson, a
religious transcendentalist, also admits that “ Truth,
frankness, courage, love, humility, and all the virtues,
range themselves on the side of prudence, or the aid
of securing a present well-being.”4 The love professed
by piety to God is the same feeling, though differently
directed, which prompts the commonest generosities
and succors of daily life. All moral appeals must
ultimately be made to our human sympathies. Theo
logical appeals are essentially not moral, but immoral.
The hope of heaven and the fear of hell are motives
purely personal and selfish. Their tendency is rather
to make men worse than better. They may secure a
grudging compliance with prescribed rules, but they
must depress character instead of elevating it. They
tend to concentrate a man’s whole attention on himself,
and thus to develope and intensify his selfish propensi
ties. No man, as Dr. Martineau many years ago
observed, can faithfully follow his highest moral con
ceptions who is continually casting side glances at the
prospects of his own soul. Secularism appeals to no
lust after posthumous rewards or dread of posthumous
terrors, but to that fraternal feeling which is the vital
essence of all true religion and has prompted heroic
self-sacrifice in all ages and climes. It removes moral
causation from the next world to this. It teaches that
the harvest of our sowing will be reaped here, and to
4 Essay on Prudence.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
23
the last grain eaten, by ourselves or others. Every
act of our lives affects the whole subsequent history of
our race. Our mental and moral like our bodily lungs
have their appropriate atmospheres, of which every
thought, word, and act, becomes a constituent atom.5
Incessantly around us goes on the conflict of good and
evil, which a word, a gesture, a look of ours changes.
And we cannot tell how great may be the influence of
the least of these, for in nature all things hang together,
and the greatest effects may flow from causes seeminglv
slight and inconsiderable/’ When we thoroughly lay
this to heart, and reflect that no contrition or remorse
5 Wherever men are gathered, all the air
Is charged with human feeling, human thought;
Each shout and cry and laugh, each curse and prayer
Are into its vibrations surely wrought;
Unspoken passion, wordless meditation,
Are breathed into it with our respiration ;
It is with our life fraught and overfraught.
So that no man there breathes earth’s simple breath
As if alone on mountains or wide seas ;
But nourishes warm life or hastens death
With joys and sorrows, health and foul disease,
Wisdom and folly, good and evil labors
Incessant of his multitudinous neighbors ;
He in his turn affecting all of these.
James Thomson, City of Dreadful Night.
G The importance of individual action, even on the part of the
meanest, is well expressed by George Eliot in the concluding
sentence of Middlemarch :—
" The growing good of the wor’d is partly dependent on unhistoric acts ;
and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is
half owing to the numbers who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
unvisited tombs.”
Even more memorable is the great saying attributed to Krishna,
—“ He who does nothing stays the progress of the world.”
�24
Philosophy of Secularism.
can undo the past or efface the slightest record from the
everlasting Book of Fate, we shall be more strongly re
strained from evil and impelled to good than we could
be by supernatural promises or threats. The promises
may be mistrusted, the threats nullified by a late
repentance; but the natural issues of conduct are in
evitable and must be faced. Whatever the future
may hold in store, Secularism bids us be true to our
selves and our opportunities now. It does not under
take to determine the vexed question of God’s exist
ence, which it leaves each to decide for himself
according to what light he has; nor does it dog
matically deny the possibility of a future life. But it
insists on utilising to the highest the possibilities that
lie before us, and realising as far as may be by prac
tical agencies that Earthly Paradise which would now
be less remote if one-tithe of the time, the energy, the
ability, the enthusiasm and the wealth devoted to
making men fit candidates for another life had been
devoted to making them fit citizens of this. If theie
be a future life, this must be the best preparation for
it; and if not, the consciousness of humane work
achieved and duty done, will tint with rainbow and
orient colors the mists of death more surely than
expected glories from the vague and mystic land of
dreams.
There are those who cannot believe in any effective
morality, much less any devotion to disinterested aims,
without the positive certainty of immortal life. Under
a pretence of piety they cloak the most grovelling
estimate of human nature, which, with all its faults
is infinitely better than their conception of it. Even
�Philosophy of Secularism.
25
their love and reverence of God would seem foolish
ness unless they were assured of living for ever.
Withdraw posthumous hopes and fears, say they, and
“ let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die ” would be
the sanest philosophy. In his grave way Spinoza
satirises this “ vulgar opinion,” which enjoins a regu
lation of life according to the passions by those who have
“ persuaded themselves that the souls perish with the
bodies, and that there is not a second life for the
miserable who have borne the crushing weight of piety ” ;
“ a conduct,” he adds, “ as absurd, in my opinion, as
that of a man who should fill his body with poisons
and deadly food, for the fine reason that he had no
hope to enjoy wholesome nourishment for all eternity,
or who, seeing that the soul is not eternal or immortal,
should renounce his reason, and wish to become insane ;
things so proposterous that they are scarcely worth
mention.”
Others, again, deny that a philosophy which ignores
the Infinite can have any grand ideal capable of lifting
us above the petty tumults and sordid passions of life.
But surely the idea of service to the great Humanity,
whose past and future are to us practically infinite, is
a conception vast enough for our finite minds. The
instincts of Love, Reverence, and Service may be fully
exercised and satisfied by devotion to a purely human
ideal, without resort to unverifiable dogmas and inscrutible mysteries; and Secularism, which bids us
think and act so that the great Human Family may
profit by our lives, which exhorts us to labor for human
progress and elevation here on earth, where effort may
be effective and sacrifices must be real, is more pro
�26
Philosophy of Secularism.
foundly noble than any supernatural creed, and holds
the promise of a wider and loftier beneficence.
Secularism is often said to be atheistic. It is, how
ever, neither atheistic nor theistic. It ignores the
problem of God’s existence, which seems insoluble to
finite intellects, and confines itself to the practical
world of experience, without commending or forbidding
speculation on matters that transcend it. Unquestion
ably many Secularists are Atheists, but others are
Theists, and this shows the compatibility of Secularism
with either a positive or a negative attitude towards
the hypothesis of a supreme universal intelligence.
There is no atheistic declaration in the principles of
any existing Secular society, although all are unanimous
in opposing theology, which is at best an elaborate
conjecture, and at the worst an elaborate and pernicious
imposture.
Educated humanity has now arrived at the positive
stage of culture. Imagination, it is true, will ever
holds its legitimate province; but it is the kindling and
not the guiding element in our nature. When exer
cising its proper influence it invests all things with “ a
light that never was on sea or land ” ; it transforms
lust into love, it creates the ideal, it nurtures enthu
siasm, it produces heroism, it suggests all the glories of
art, and even lends wings to the intellect of the
scientist. But when it is substituted for knowledge,
when it aims at becoming the leader instead of the
kindler, it is a Phaeton who drives to disaster and ruin.
It is degrading, or at any rate perilous, to be the dupe
of fancy, however beautiful or magnificent. Reason
should always hold sovereign sway in our minds, and
�Philosophy of Secularism.
reason tells us that we live in a universe of cause and
effect, where ends must be accomplished by means, and
where man himself is largely fashioned by circum
stances. Reason tells us that our faculties are limited
and that our knowledge is relative ; it enjoins us to
believe what is ascertained, to give assent to no pro
position of whose truth we are not assured, and to
walk in the light of facts. This may seem a humble
philosophy, but it is sound and not uncheerful, and it
stands the wear and tear of life when prouder philoso
phies are often reduced to rags and tatters. Nor is it
just to call this philosophy “ negative.” Every system,
indeed, is negative to every other system which it in
anywise contradicts ; but in what other sense can a
system be called negative, which leaves men all science
to study, all art to pursue and enjoy, and all humanity
to love and serve? It declines to traffic in supernatural
hopes and fears, but it preserves all the sacred things
of civilisation, and gives a deeper meaning to such
words as husband and wife, father and mother, brother
and sister, lover and friend.
Incidentally, however, Secularism has what some
will always persist in regarding as negative work. It
finds noxious superstitions impeding its path, and
must oppose them. It cannot ignore orthodoxy,
although it would be glad to do so, for the dogmas and
pretensions of the popular creed hinder its progress
and thwart Secular improvement at every step.
Favored and privileged and largely supported by the
Statj, they usurp a fictitious dignity over less popular
ideas. They thrust themselves into education, insist
on teaching supernaturalism with the multiplication
�28
Philosophy of Secularism.
table, dose the scholars with Jewish mythology as
though it were actual history, and assist their moral
development with pictures of Daniel in the lions’ den
and Jesus walking on the sea. They employ vast
wealth in preparing for another world, which might
be more profitably employed in bettering this. They
prevent us from spending our Sunday rationally,
refusing us any alternative but the church or the
public-house. They deprive honest sceptics as far as
possible of the common rights of citizenship.7 They
retard a host of reforms,8 and still do their utmost to
7 Nearly every leading Secularist lias suffered in this respect.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake was imprisoned for blasphemy ; Mr. Brad
laugh had to win the seat which Northampton gave him, by
means of almost superhuman energy and resource, in the face of
the most bigoted and brutal opposition ; Mrs. Besant was and is
robbed of her child by an order of the Court of Chancery ;
and in would be a false modesty not to add that I have
suffered twelve-months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal
for editing a Freethought journal.—Here is another fact which
must not be forgotten. Mr. Spencer, a Secularist of Manchester,
left £500 in his will to assist in building a Secular Hall in that
city ; but the will was contested by the Christian residuary
legatee, and the Court set aside the bequest. Money cannot,
therefore, be left to propagate Secularism, which is practically
outlawed. This incident occurred so late as 1886.
8 The Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill is steadily opposed as con
trary to Christian tradition.
Scarcely any but theological
arguments are used against it, and the Bishops fight it as though
they were defending the very citadel of their faith.—Down at
Middlesborough, quite recently, the County Council decided to
erect a crematorium in the interest of the public health, while
leaving the cemetery open as before for all who wished their
bodies to be disposed of in the orthodox fashion. But before
the project could be carried out the Vicar of All Saints called a
public meeting to protest against this “ outrage on the Christian
sentiment of the community.” Religious prejudice was pro
foundly excited by these tactics, the medical officer of health
was mobbed by infuriated females, the mayor received anonymous
warnings to prepare for his latter end, and finally the project had
to be abandoned.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
29
suppress or curtail freedom of thought and speech.
While all this continues, Secularism must actively
oppose the popular creed. Nor is it just on the part
of Christians to stigmatise this aggressive attitude.
They forget that their faith was vigorously and per
sistently aggressive against Paganism. Secularism
may surely imitate that example, although it neither
intends nor desires to demolish the temples of Chris
tianity as the early Christians, headed by their bishops,
destroyed the temples of Paganism and desecrated its
shrines.
Properly speaking, Secularism is doing a positive,
not a negative, work in destroying superstition. Every
error removed makes room for a truth; and if super
stition is a kind of mental disease, he who expels it is
a mental physician. His work is no more negative
than the doctor's who combats a bodily malady, drives
it out of the system, and leaves his patient in the full
possession of health.
Secular propaganda, by means of lectures, journals,
and pamphlets, conducted for so many years, has pro
duced a considerable effect on the public mind. A
great change has been wrought during the past gene
ration. Much of it has been accomplished by science,
but much also by the energetic labors of Secular advo
cates. Yet it must be admitted that Secular organisa
tion is relatively defective. The reason of this, how
ever, is by no means recondite. Secularism, as a
distinct system, came into existence with the decline
of the Socialist movement inaugurated by Robert Owen.
When Socialism began to alarm the upper classes fifty
years ago, the ministers of religion, conveniently for
�30
1 hilosophy of Secularism.
getting that the first Christians were communists,
declared war against it, and made its followers deter
mined foes to Christianity. When their movement
subsided, the Socialists who were still eager for work
accepted the new designation of Secularist, and these
poor malcontents became the moving spirits of the new
faith. Thus Secularism grew up, like every other
system the world has ever seen, amidst distressing
poverty; and as organisation is impossible in these davs
without money, the development of Secular organisa
tion is painfully slow.
Wealthy and “respectable” dissenters from the
popular creed generally keep their heresy to themselves.
They have given too many hostages to Mrs. Grundy,
and are nearly in the same position as the Church of
England clergyman who sympathised with Wesleyanlsm but did not join it, giving nine solid reasons against
doing so, namely, a wife and eight children. Some of
them, doubtless, would leave money for the promotion
of Secularism, but it has already been shown that this
is impossible in the existing state of English law. For
these reasons, and also because Secularism, like all new
systems, appeals to the dissatisfied rather than the con
tented, its staunchest adherents are found among the
elite of the working classes. Inquire closely into the
personnel of advanced movements, and you will find
Secularists there out of all proportion to their nume
rical strength. They are obliged to work in this indi
vidual manner, for the bigotry against Secularism is
still so strong that few dare to recognise its organi
sations. They have always assisted the cause of
National Education, and now it is carried they are
�Philosophy of Secularism.
31
getting their members on School Boards, and doing
their utmost to improve the quality of the instruction
given to children, as well as to preserve them from the
nefarious influence of priests. They promote Sunday
freedom, they are advocates of international peace,
they are sturdy friends of justice, they are firm sup
porters of the emancipation of women, they are lovers
of mental and personal liberty, and they are actively
on the side of every political and social reform. Their
votes can always be depended upon ; no one needs to
solicit them. Where Christians may be they are sure
to be; not because they necessarily have better hearts
than their orthodox neighbors, but because their prin
ciples impel them to fight for Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity, irrespective of nationality, race, sex, or
creed; and prompt them to exclaim, in the sublime
language of Thomas Paine, “ the world is my country,
and to do good is my religion.”
Printed and Published by G-. W. Foors, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�MR. FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS.
2
6
... '...2
6
PRISONER, FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth ...............
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Mouths’ Imprisonment.
Copies in paper covers,
soil d, 6d.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. T.
In collaboration with J. M. Wheel r.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
..........................
...
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besaut.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
1
o
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
Four Nights’ Public Debate vith the Rev. Dr. James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, is. 6d.
1
0
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
.......................................... 0
Seco..d edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..............................................................................
8
DARWIN ON GOD..................................................................
6
3
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
.......................... 0 4
Tiuve Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Cole
ridge.
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST
THE BIBLE GOD
.............................. 0
4
.................................................................. 0 2
.......................................... 0
2
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.............................. 0
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
2
WHAT WAS CHRIST? ... '
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
0
2
WAS JESUS INSANE ?...................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Na areth.
1
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD..........................
0
2
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
......................................
�
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 philosophy of secularism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published 1879 "under a slightly different title"--Note inside front cover. "Mr Foote's books and pamphlets" listed on back cover.
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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N258
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The philosophy of secularism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bKn7CoGjt2JSLeNmPuTRR9cIdk0od8xRQlQINGFn5sSom1Optwt9rrckbZpqjgH5kE-I8KeePgGJoK8uR3Fy6n0v7lxokdzBT5OmkvM2y92Cs-dutlYS7acGFGo5o4d5K4inQ6Vv-DF0m6otMaZgHEPv8JL74wViOPahOUw8XIIMxCY-BjKzsBKTZV6nWr9hCr52wNDNW9lCustxIa1VCp9kSDQPY6BBsMZR%7Eipm1y1rPT6hb8zS1R205xsQ4djvPICELNi6JPSNUTDS9Jusu-YqdU1Gz6vkANQOY-Q4PT-GHUaBUBBbPOL9CIvv8Omm8iNOVZW-MNp7WgfgYVnVdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
37feacb69ba8bfdfa58d820541348d09
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
BY
“ HTJMANITAS.”
Author of “ Is God the First Caused ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”,
“Thoughts on Heaven’9, “Jacob the Wrestler99, “Mr. Eradlaugh and the Oaths
Question", “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P,",
“ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ",“ Socialism a Curse", “ A Fish in Labor;
or, Jonah and the Whale ", “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments
Against Agnosticism ", “ Against Socialism ", tc.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9 .
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON
FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHAELES BBADLATOH,
63 FLEET STEEET, E.C.
�\T0S3
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
This pamphlet was originally written as a portion of my
larger one on “God ” ; but considering it to be complete in
itself—as against Agnosticism—I determined to publish
it, in a separate form, hoping thereby to reach many who
might not be inclined to buy the larger one.
The observations I have made, and the arguments I
have endeavored to advance, are made and advanced with
great respect and with much diffidence: respect for the
opinions of those who, from their longer and closer appli
cation to the question, and better means of studying it,
are more capable of forming a correct opinion than my
self : and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at
which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion.
Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself;
but I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I
shall endeavor to put forward seems to me to be real
difficulties.
If I should appear to be dogmatic, or wanting in respect
for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing
a difficulty in finding a method of expressing the thoughts
I wish to convey.
In my pamphlet on God, of which this forms a part,
I have said that God is not, nor could not be. And it is
upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying
the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observa
tions.
I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is
put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the
whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his
existence. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings.
�4
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
But I think I see very marked signs of what may be
considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism.
Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take
up this position, but what is considered the safer and more
moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean
that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to
mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him;
and that therefore he should neither affirm_ nor deny his
existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos
ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with
Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence.. Mr.
Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of
Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of th©
Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we
cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a
first, cause, and a personal God ; equally, we cannot prove
a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the
Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further
saying: “ Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what
we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned ”. I
would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all
practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull
ing the statement. But he further holds that if the
existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of
course to illustrate the idea he is expounding.) be asserted
in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos
sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be
admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible
in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist
an uncaused cause of all things? If it, as well as the
existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc., —
which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so
on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not
three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ?
It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr.
Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible
in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which
is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned,
the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned.
If anything which is inconsistent with what we really
1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone.
�AGAINST AGNOSTISISM.
5
know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a
beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—£e., God
—stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a
term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot
be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of
the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct
issue.
The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr.
Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face
-of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One
would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five
thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till
tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is,
as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the
non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously,
forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it
grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice
it denies it.
Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible
that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary
methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then
it is, so far Atheism: because the Atheist does but say
what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis
able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus
Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but
be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of
the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of
luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not,
physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but
who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical
ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility
of something about the Unknowable; although that admis
sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions
superbly ridiculous.
Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the
possibility of what both practically say is impossible?1
2
1 I notice that “D” (of the NationalReformer} takes exception to
the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, but I do not think that affects
the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God.
2 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journaloi March 30th,
remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over
which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic
�6
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
It would appear to me that what is ■unknowable is not.
Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there
may be some points and niceties about it which pass my
comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some
very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all
things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an
individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra
ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with
what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you
prove to the contrary ? ” Of course one could shake one’s
head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the
extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the
closure will come in again with quite as much force against
the improbable as it did against the impossible, when
used in reference to the Unknowable.
It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold
a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely
it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no
matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general
way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside
the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend
the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or
idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing
spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding
that it may le this, that, or the other. The whole idea
seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely
wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically,
no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall
be completely outside or free from considerations which
ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and
Atheism is no more.”
Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than
Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am
startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of
reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is
assured. ‘God’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic
basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.”
With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be
difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and
if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God
being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults.
If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the
better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists
who believe in God.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
7
ar© in connexion with the universe, or which are not based
upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos
ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which
assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or,
what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories
so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure,
rather than to throw more light upon what is already
sufficiently difficult.
As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach
ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This
may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre
sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it
as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism.
I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples
we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got
to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of
course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist
becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism,
or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve
further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other
hand, if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist
has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says
no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says
perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution
till he arrives at Theism, which says yes.
Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house
between the two extremes, there will at all times probably
be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It
will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism,
and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become
a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of
faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a
time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being
neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose
minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded
as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who
are either going forward or returning, as the case may be.
In the observations which follow I will endeavor to
further explain myself, and to point out why I think an
Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God.
I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs.
Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the
Rev. W. T. Lee, and the definition of Agnosticism quoted
�8
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
from, the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan
guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at
the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear
to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of
Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally
follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only
B very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi
fying the boast made by many, that there is no living
person who really believes there is no God. Of course this
boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when
they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those
whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything,
mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to
a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed,
and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and
teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind
of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would,
I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a
weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a
similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in
mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate
in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave
the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position
should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and
logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues,
which may contain no principle.
The question then arises which is the most logical
position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimate
end and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at
the last gate by refraining from making such direct
declaration ?
At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part
of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may
not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what his
name implies—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves
in the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God.
Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he
remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he
do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi• tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula 1‘ we do not
and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does
he not in reality say “there is no God ” ? If you venture
as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
9
logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean
that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps
after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the
hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict? It
appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I
do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the
common and consequent result of investigation should not
be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other
enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we
cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we
must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an
open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves
Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of
to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who
professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that
neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not
withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi
bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with
the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for
him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra
dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume
the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in
supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot
assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore
its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded
then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that
ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible.
If you venture one whit further in the shape of denial
than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the
extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put
out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who
do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be
true.
I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is
a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And
that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for
giving direct form to his verdict, orresult of his investigation.
I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse
declared it contained no money, would not be held to be
illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin
ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con
tained money, but would not venture upon saying out
right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it
�10
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near
being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in
mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn,
and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all
possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the
wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi
tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use
in dropping one term and picking up another, which,
whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing?
If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean
one other thing : the possibility of the existence of God,
which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and
denial of Atheism.
Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I
think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with
approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had
with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism,
as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the
time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps
to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ?
But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility
of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean
that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact;
thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the
Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con
ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils,
ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms
with which the regions of supernature are peopled.
I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to
admit of a may-le, which the whole universe proclaims may
not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly
say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond
it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those
calling themselves Christians, will have much to be
grateful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position.
It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position
the possible correctness of which you have already
1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a
purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to me
that the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature, is an
admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still
an admission that perhaps it (supernature) ; to the shutting out of
the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
11
conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely
repudiate.
It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction
in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quitesavoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is
not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I
thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that
Agnosticism is safer because it teils you neither to affirm,
nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means
of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you.
there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If
that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes
nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say
perhaps yes? Do I then doubt, or half believe? What
logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into
myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond
Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as
think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non
admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with
its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not.
The “New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded,
and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. AVace, states that “an
Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything
behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and,
as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially
that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know
nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good.enough for
the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant
for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows
the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism.
Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good ;
although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous
position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in
a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the
name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who dis
claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable
God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late
1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National
Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The
correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following
quotation, given in the .Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition
of the word, be correct: “As the inventor of the word, I am entitled,
to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence
�12
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
"bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said
that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”.
He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist,
nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take
a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own
part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I
think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com
patible with the position now apparently assumed by
leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements
taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti
mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in the
belief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and
safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in
Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case.
To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is,
at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between
the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not
demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no
God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic
doing so.
of science whether ancient or modem. It .-imply means that a man
shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly
is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley
to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to
God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the
existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such
belief. So far it is Atheistic.; but if it further means that man has
no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not
therefore to state his disbelief, then it is rot Atheistic. And if
meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it
means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then
it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes
half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as
here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist
should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove.
But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean
ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege
that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi
cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny
the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss h m.
Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is
scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to
the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their
accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to
deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance,
the Trinity.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
13
It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least
illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that,
while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out
side natural phsenomena, nor of the first cause which is
the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may
exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as
though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though
he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would
seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and
act Atheism.
I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we
are bound to have great respect, that the word God,
undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the
work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no
idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will
remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no
reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a
nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But
is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ?
It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It
is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and
earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin
ning and the End, and many other things.. But the
cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the
supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is
meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist,
knowing what is broadly meant and held as. to God by
those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the
word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no
moaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can
you not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to
convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can
' know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined.
I recognise the difficulty; but reply: Would an Atheist
subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary
—I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would
not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no
1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words
defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas, they
are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular
word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put
forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either
accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence.
�14
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or
asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning
only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to
convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to
convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli
gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his
existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the
universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to
whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories
of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question
of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a
matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning
is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist
to say yes or no to such general meaning.
If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean
the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently
clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I
presume in every scientifically arranged language in the
world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their deri
vatives, nor would Atheists themselves have existed.
If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion
arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and
Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and
therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does
exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will
—put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing
room for variations of definition) holds that he does not
exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ?
I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to
his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then
he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon
him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may
without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is
not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in this
particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he
must not venture upon making the logical and consequent
avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic
tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear
upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to
affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to
deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its
existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results.
It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
15
it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity.
I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not,
it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed
an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that
he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an
Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter
pret his position.
I could understand taking up the position that, because
we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what
might, or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos
sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable
and improbable ; although I should be strongly tempted
to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I
should consider beyond the improbable and to be im
possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round
and include all questions, and not be confined to that.of
the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility
or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my
thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended
lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con
cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence.
I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving
expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving
expression to his conviction that a moon made of green
cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being
“ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis
belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus
be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither
affirming nor denying” : it is the embodiment of denial
and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into
another position; but in the meantime, I must again say
that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it
that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare
the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis
believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name,
and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it
or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and
teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi
tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the
weak avowal he makes when he says ‘ ‘ the Atheist does not
say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so
term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions
�16
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It
stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of
God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words,
he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not
be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate
to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much
reason be regarded as a loop-hole.
But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to
thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming
in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet
evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future
are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do
not know God — and forgive me if I once more say—
thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought,
I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow
to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all
its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other
terms as shall better define our position. In that case
we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature
Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term
is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted
sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one.
For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or
otherwise, I have no hesitation in asserting that, so far
as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other
wise, I could not be an Atheist.
Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles
in the National Reformer, “In Defence of Agnosticism”.
They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and
profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them.
But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have
confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to
Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an
Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue
the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when
considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question ”
being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”, But he
further says that some argument is admissible when he is
taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it:
“ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it
is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on
to explain, such assertions include statements with regard
to the order of nature ; as, for instance : “We may argue
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
17
•from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence
of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”,
This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but
to my wind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to
leave the person awkwardly situated, who does. not believe
in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his
God forward as being supernatural only, and as having
nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be
dumb; or limit, one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at
most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put
forward in conjunction with our phenomenal universe (as
indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled
to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him.
But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify
what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirma
tively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we
know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be
verified either way without full discussion ? And why
should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the
other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only
discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ?
And finally, is that Agnosticism ?
But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade
the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward.
Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced
except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of
authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is
generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time
the cause and author or creator of the universe and of
all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone
who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the
enabling position, above all others, I take to be that
of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion
of the statement only, discussion upon the question
of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because
all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super
natural being. But the qualification comes in as a
kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to
discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at
once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that
even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of
the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega
tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say,
�18
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
“ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must
not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not
know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis
factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos
ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s”
further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when
a Christian states that “three times one God are one
God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in
the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the
following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as
logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possi
bility, as to say “the subject matter is beyond the reach of
my faculties, and that the assertion itself conveys no distinct
meaning to my mind”. These seem to be quite distinct
statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and
I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct
form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro
fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed.
I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”,
but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that
an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon
common sense and science, “does not, or needs not,
deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three
days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and
the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that
if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are
one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it;
but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor
disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be
hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming
nor denying.
The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored
to give form have been in my mind for a considerable
period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting
them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps,
in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them
more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other.
The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of
some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small
space here at my command I have not been able to much
more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned
works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do
but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
19
occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My
observations are possibly better calculated to induce the
ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and
to look for larger and more complete investigations than
they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the
great of learning.
The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We
can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and
our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method
and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are
worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating
humanity, and building up a people who shall consider
their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry,
but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry,
rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches
and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought.
�
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
Against agnosticism, 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: 19 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N053
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d677a7b95d19ab0f5c98f04773d69a6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GLvbr8b0SVxdm-XY1XzqplJ-GWN8A2WZmW2%7En5Sw8at8PlERnWGzJ8Xz1mZ5627XaTvZIVTNKfBvUeOOBiB1rPA1rgxyiFfXL3vF0uT%7ElO-wZM0ijYzFEFmq8pyWIcPAkkCv1Bh65kj4TiRgs9nKmos81ca3dZMUPN%7EbkXc4gJ%7EIWhXpFAHB2imA7Hl320JfUckMs0LJQnDS5n3Mv59s3GrX6JyNBt5R3fPdmZk-zZx4vmObYX08p90KToUYcZVA7CAbwr2zK6gdhDPmhIWAAgaTeR4NtD2GeDaMdsJbzSNxO-CBiDQnL4Rw%7EzB0RPtFp1Nr%7EU78xt2jNGIQmtO4Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52b3769024839cb7f639e2ed304bac4f
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
libit tasus C iliilisatinn:
AN APPEAL TO THE PIOUS.
BY
“G. F. S.”
“Rivers of
THY LAW.”—Ps.
waters
cxix.,
run
down
mine
eyes,
because
they
136.
LONDON:
A. BONNER,
63
FLEET
STREET,
1889.
E.C.
keep
not
��&
WibU tom 0 i bi Its atf ott.
In his time, old John Bunyan grieved that religion
went in silver slippers. What would he say now
were he alive? We no longer respect the God we
profess to worship, but have gone after the luxurious
idol of civilisation. Civilisation is replacing God in our
hearts and lives; we are casting out the Almighty from
among us, and following other lights than His. It is
time to rouse ourselves and begin to read the Bible,
which we pretend to reverence, though we neglect to
make ourselves acquainted with its sacred pages. If
we profess godliness, let us have the decency to follow
the precepts of our God. It is true that He has said
“ An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, and because
it suits our social arrangements the murderers among us
are made to suffer the just penalty of their evil doings.
But God has also said “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live”, and if God had not known that witches existed
He would not have given such a terrible command. So
explicit is His will in this matter that not only is death
the prescribed punishment, but the precise manner of
it—a bleeding shuddering death by stoning—is com
manded. Yet we, glorying in our pretended enlighten
ment, decide we know better than our God, defy him,
and speak with horror of the near date of 1722, when
the last witch was burnt in Scotland by Captain Ross,
Sheriff-Depute of Sutherlandshire! Who are we that
we should change the decrees of Omnipotent Wisdom,
creatures of a day who cannot fathom his awful
designs? We cry Lord! Lord! and do not his com
�4
BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
mands, but allow ourselves to be softened and beguiled
by our humanity into the ways of the Secularists. That
holy man John Wesley said that the giving up of witch
craft was in effect the giving up of the Bible. “ I can
not ”, said he, “give up to all the Deists in Great
Britain the existence of witchcraft till I give up the
credit of all history, sacred and profane.”
There is nothing in which we have more treacherously
forsaken our religion than in our way of treating heresy.
We even pride ourselves on our toleration, and look
back upon the past “ persecutions”, as we irreligiously
call them, with horror and disgust. Yet if we believe
our religion to be the only true one (as who among us
does not ?), what is our duty respecting the heretic, the
man or woman whom we believe to have forsaken the
only true God ? Does the Almighty whom we worship
command us to tolerate such, to live harmoniously with
such, bearing with them, praying with them, and
beseeching our God to turn their hearts unto Himself ?
Not so. God knows the spiritual leprosy which will
infect us if we live with heretics, and in His awful
wisdom he says the heretic shall be cut off from the
land of the living. “ 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 shalt not 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 ” (Deuteronomy xiii, 6—io). ‘ We cannot do this
thing ’, we cry ; ‘ we cannot obey here ’ ; spare us, O Lord,
we say; or, worse, we try to explain away the com
mand, saying Christ’s mission has changed all that.
This is sheer self-indulgence. We either are to obey
the Unchangeable, or we are not. “ Thus saith the
Lord ! ” We cannot escape the fact that if we profess
godliness we must, at any cost or pain or distress, obey
the mandates of our God; and they are rigid. What
matter how flesh and heart shrink from casting out the
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
5
wife of our bosom and seeking her death, if only our
conscience is at peace ? Do we not extol the great and
beautiful obedience of Abraham in his willingness to
slay his beloved son ? Do we say he ought to have
disobeyed his God ? And who are we that we shall
dare with impunity to disobey explicit commands ?
Friends, we try in vain to fit our modern ideas to our
God-given ancient religion. How are we better than
the Secularists ? They ignore the Bible ; we pretend
to worship its precepts, and blasphemously neglect its
severe demands. We pick and choose as we like, and
obey only such of the Almighty’s laws as fit our modern
civilisation, which boasts that it “has assisted,. if,
indeed, it may not claim the main share, in sweeping
away the dark superstitions, the degrading belief in
sorcery and witchcraft, and cruel intolerance ”. Alas,
is not our science sweeping away our ancient and
divinely-inspired religion ?
To take up a specially modern delusion, does a
reverent and earnest study of God’s dealings with the
ancient peoples show him to be such as our nineteenth
century sentiment imagines—a God of love, a heavenly
Father ? It is very charming to think of Him as such,
no doubt ; our duty, however, is not to find the charm
ing, but to search the true. Do we not read of very
frequent and terrible massacres of men, women, and
children by His direct commands ; though sometimes
virgins were spared as booty for God’s priests ? “ But
Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by him;
for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made
his heart obstinate that he might deliver him into thy
hand .... and we took all his cities at that time,
and utterly destroyed the men and the women, and
the little ones, of every city ; we left none to remain”
(Deuteronomy ii, 30, 34). This is one of many similar
cases. And do we not see God’s anger — his great
majestic anger — raised against all flesh from time to
time, until we feel that punishment, not love, is the
garment of the Almighty ? From the unsinning cattle
which died of hailstones (Exodus ix, ig, 23, 25) to the
preachers, 450 in number, of a false religion, who had
to be slaughtered by God’s true clergy, the one penalty
�6
BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
of exciting the divine wrath is—death. This thought
naturally does not please us; we do not care to enter
tain it ; we seek other writings to contradict it ; but
it remains. It is of the Lord ; His law is eternal ; let
Him do what seemeth Him good. Shall not He do
with His own as He will ? The God of Nature and
the God of our beloved Bible are not opposed. They
are one. We can, as that pious soul Cowper said so
truthfully, “Look from Nature up to Nature’s God”.
The law of destruction so noticeable in Nature is also
God’s law as expressed to us in his earliest written
revelation. . How little the Christ realised God’s spirit
is shown in the opposition of his teaching to His
Father’s. “ Do unto others as you would that they
should do unto you,” is Christ’s teaching. Something
very different was the treatment which the Almighty
commanded his Chosen Ones to exercise towards those
nations with whom they had dealings. “ So Joshua
smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and
of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings : he
left none remaining ; but utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded ”
(Joshua x, 40).
‘‘And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and
the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all
the souls that were therein ; he let none remain ”
(Joshua x, 28). The celebrated French divine Bossuet, one of God’s most eminent modern servants, shows
how deeply he has studied the method of the Eternal,
when he says, “ God has all hearts in His hand ;
sometimes He holds back the passions, sometimes He
gives them the rein. Does He wish to make legis
lators ? He sends them His wise spirit and foresight.
He warns them of the evils which threaten states, and
establishes public tranquillity. Knowing human wisdom
to be limited, He enlightens it, extends its powers, and
then abandons it to its ignorance. He blinds it, over
turns it, confounds it by itself. Its own subtleties
embarrass it, and its precautions are its snare. When
God wishes to destroy empires, He weakens counsel.
Egypt, once so wise, becomes drunken, stupid, and
tottering, because the Lord has spread the spirit of
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
7
folly in its councils. But let not men deceive them
selves. God restores the lost faculties when it pleases
Him. It is thus that our God reigns righteously over
the peoples.” God and Nature are not in opposition ;
the severity of Nature is the expression of his Omni
potence—his Power. Are not “ the scorpion’s sting, the
cobra’s poison, the ferret’s teeth, the tiger’s claws, and
the eagle’s talons ” part of His divine design ? Is not
the law of the forest, is not the law of the ocean, rapine
and destruction ? Creation must be an expression of
the Creator—His thought. Let us who are believers
in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses not
try to escape, by the road of evolution, from the fact
that God is the maker of all created things, and that
He has Himself given the instincts to each creature,
whether it is the instinct of the cat to torture the mouse
ere killing it, or the instinct of the male rabbit to
devour its offspring, or that of “ the wasp bringing in
the caterpillar for its young, and stinging it enough to
paralyse, but not to kill ”. Is it not enough for us to
know that since God designed “ animals to prey upon
each other for food, and then pronounced the system
of almost universal carnage ‘very good’,” as a living
writer expresses it, it is the Father’s will ; and we
ought to forbear making comparisons between our petty
ideas of goodness and the divine conceptions. Let us
beware of mental pride in such matters, and bow our
spirits before the Inscrutable.
In the light of these conclusions as to the unity of
God and Nature, marriage, the central social institu
tion, can be better understood. Our modern European
notion of monogamy being the highest form of union
between man and woman, leads us to assume that it
is of divine institution. We resent any tampering with
it, as immoral and contrary to the will of God. But
were not God’s chosen friends polygamists, and of a
most pronounced type ? Had not Abraham his Sarah,
Hagar, Keturah, and concubines besides ?
Jacob
married two sisters and their two maids, and “ God
hearkened to Leah and Rachel and gave them sons”, as
indeed he also blessed their maids. David had his
Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, and “ four more wives and
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
concubines out of Jerusalem ”, God blessing .six of the
seven with children. May we not therefore infer, since
Abraham and David were so close to God, and intimate
with His counsels, that polygamy is more in accordance
with His will than monogamy ? Indeed, do we not
altogether misunderstand the relative importance of
man and woman as demonstrated in the Holy Scrip
tures ? Surely even the Mohammedans read God’s
pleasure on this point better than we, His apostate
children who lightly preach the equality of the sexes ?
And our very notions of illegitimacy are completely
opposed to the cherished biographical facts of the
greatest of the Bible heroes. God, like Nature, mocks
at our little social ceremonies and upstart ways, and
bids us back to our noble Old Testament to see what
manner of men were “ after his heart ”.
One last word. Let us cast from us, O friends, the
silver slippers John Bunyan dreaded so much, and
which have beguiled our steps too long into the wide
sweet pastures of godless tolerance and civilised chari
ties. Beautiful to look at, luxurious to worship, as is
the idol of civilisation, which makes a virtue of for
bearance and a merit of Samaritanism, it is at our
soul’s peril we pay homage at that shrine. The
Eternal’s dealings with, and instruction to, His own
people, must be our guide; and may we bravely, and
at whatever cost or heart-break, fulfil His awful Will.
�
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
Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: By 'G.F.S.' [from title page]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N572
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
G.F.S.
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 (Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious), 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
NSS