1 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb3aecf685690786d860f89cc48eef15.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=jTRb2-HrUG%7EtlUne8AFtBZOBK6RdChHVrB95pe3Nz2yNuBO3kXWrIrtzTxCh7nGyJGt27c6o7BavQVqf4EKDYqo%7Eu%7EvgB%7EArBJiUgEq1pAg-aADnGX2b2gxI1vEftOqU%7EnDv1JToAka8-blgZuCS3u9I2FkmAiVNJ6iIKtXvuFh3F6QElooIxluuVJ%7E%7Ed0ftLD4zm0Py-pAzFYegUBYbYWGkb8mQ%7EhNBXG%7EOOFVZt2uZxYWnRBN0191L2dZjN-ZDMQ7CKl8-p%7EzcdQRqAjaGitl6rNceEFTRCYi7DI0ZBPQyde7Pmbjlsf7ZwsVcS%7EB0yrxCASMxTb5i5CKAdNQv6w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3e23999882c849314f3347b154d2e8e5 PDF Text Text AGAINST SOCIALISM. BY HUMANITA8.” Author of “ Is God the First Cause? ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”, Thoughts on Heaven”, “Jacob the Wrestler”, “Mr. Bradlaugh 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”, etc. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9. PRICE ONE PENNY. COMPANY, �LONDON: PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. r �AGAINST SOCIALISM. [The following remarks were originally written in the form of a letter, which, however, I did not dispatch, coming to the conclusion that it might be useful as a small pamphlet against Socialism. This must be my plea for its brevity, and also for what may be deemed its somewhat fragmentary character.] Since writing my pamphlet against Socialism1 (now nearly six years ago), which partook of the nature of a reply to Dr. E. B. Aveling, my mind has, if anything, been strengthened in the belief that State Socialism would really be a curse rather than a blessing. I think the larger half of those who adopt Socialism do. so. without examining it, and also without carefully weighing the theories put forward by leading Socialists. I do not doubt for a moment that these theories are sincerely and honorably held by their principal exponents. I am confident such is the case in some instances. But I do not think the subject is sufficiently weighed and understood by the majority of those who throw up their caps in favor of it. The possibility of My Lord having, in some dim and indescribable manner, to share his riches with the ordinary hard-working — and often out-of-work — journeyman, is doubtless a very taking bait to dangle before the latter. I am here leaving out of the question the very large leaven of those who are not hard-working, but who hope to profit by any change, quite regardless as to whether it be for the better of for the worse. But if the ordinary working man, who is tickled by this delusion, looks below the surface he will see that it would not only not work, but that it is simply madness to dream Cq1 <la®oc^a^sm a f-'urse-” Price 3d. Freethought Publishing �4 AGAINST SOCIALISM. of its ever coming about. He will find that his salvation lies in the direction of Co-operation, rather than in that of confiscation. For my own part, I believe that, although the movement may do some harm—perhaps much harm— its ultimate and complete adoption is simply an impossi­ bility. State Socialism means State serfdom, and State espionage carried into every act and effort of one’s life. It means the complete annihilation of each individual’s individuality ; and, if enacted to-morrow, would by sheer necessity be ignored the day after. I believe the advocates themselves would, if successful, find the condition of affairs they had brought about so intolerable as to compel them to be amongst the first to undo their own work. Some of them, at least, could not by their very nature sink themselves to the necessary State level which would be demanded by what they themselves had set up. Some few there might be willing to sink themselves for what they thought to be the general good; but it is expecting too much of human nature to suppose that the bulk of the brightest, best, and fittest would submerge themselves in the slough of medio­ crity and inferiority at the bidding of a State (by which I mean the executive for the time being) composed of those who, despite the Socialistic government regulations, had, by their individuality, come to the top. Practically, I think Socialists hold, in common with most of us, that it is the duty of the State to guarantee each individual in the free and safe enjoyment of what he may, by his superior industry, thrift, and intelligence, earn. This at least is what they profess to desire; and it is possible that the main difference between us consists in the method adopted to attain that end. Whilst giving them credit for sincerity, I hold that Socialism would not only not do this, but would actually make its being done impossible. It would squeeze, or try to squeeze, all down to a kind of worse than State mediocrity, and thus rob each of his individual merits. If it did not do this, but allowed each to possess what he individually earned or produced, there is an end of Socialism, because it would then be allowing individual accumulation of capital, which it is its particular mission to destroy. It would seem to me that the very essence of Socialism is that an individual (or even a voluntary company formed of individuals) must not possess what he earns either by �AGAINST SOCIALISM. 5 brain, sinew, or actual moral worth, because one man will, by the greater exercise of these, earn ten-fold what another will. And this always strikes me as being strangely at variance with the great Socialistic complaint, that the workman does not receive what he is justly entitled to do. I am bound to admit that in many cases he does not; but will Socialism give it to him ? Will robbing the intelli­ gent, the industrious, and the better man, by levelling him down to the standard of the worser, give it him? And bear in mind that if you reduced the profits of the employer to the level of the average wage of the workmen, you would still have the question of extra merit, and con­ sequent extra worth, of the men themselves to deal with ; so that robbing the employer of the fruits of the position to which he had possibly slaved and toiled would not settle the injustice as between the workmen. The fact would still remain that all men are not equal : they are not equally wise, industrious, virtuous; nor are they equally fit in any respect whatever. Equality before the law is good, but it does not mean that all are equal in worth, either intellectually, morally, or even commercially, and no government stamp can make them so. Keeping this in mind, I do not see how robbing one man to balance another can be just or reasonable, whether that man be a duke, capitalist, government official, working man, or man in any other position. If Socialism will not permit me to possess the fruits of my brain, and enterprise; of my sobriety, and greater application, where is the freedom—not to mention the right ? [I would here remark that I am not forgetting the duty of the individual to the State, and to the general well-being.] But if, on the other hand, Socialism will allow me such possession, which means the possession of individual property—and you cannot logically draw the line between a trinket and a mansion—what becomes of it ? You are admitting the very principle that your Socialism is set up to kill; and bear in mind that whether you admit the principle or not, it will live; and rightly live. Nature herself will not allow even a government to command : Thus much shalt thou earn, produce, or possess, and no more ; or if thou producest more, thou shalt give it up, and go back to the level of the less active and deserving mass thou hast left behind. If a government could do this, and so deprive the more energetic and better �6 AGAINST SOCIALISM. man of the fruits of his greater energy—and with them .the incentive to that energy—it would at the same time be encouraging the mass to depend not upon their own efforts, but upon the efforts of others ; thus inducing and helping all—as per Socialistic law—to be indolent rather than otherwise. “ Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what the State will send you ”, is not a wise doctrine to preach. The large heap of money shared all round, with Jack’s notion of sharing it over again as occasion may require, is however, although the very backbone of Socialism, too absurd for any practical purpose, or for serious considera­ tion. Of course it is held that Socialism does not mean anything of the sort: but when explained (?) this is found to be what is really meant; because the moment you dis­ card it, you are landed in individual accumulation. I am aware that Socialism is held to be not yet thoroughly defined: but 1 believe it to be undefinable ; and that the more you endeavor to define it, the more unworkable you find it. Imagine for instance the arts and sciences being worked upon a kind of huge out-door relief system, the products not belonging to the producers, but to the State I Do you suppose you could by process of law—I am not asking ought you to do so—but could you make the great painter, inventor, sculptor, musician, engineer, physician, etc., etc., satisfied with the same remuneration as you would give to the railway porter, or the stable man ? Indeed, the intrigue, the red-tapeism, the discontent and rebellion which would be certain to form part of the ques­ tion as to which should become the stable boy, and which the engineer or philosopher, is something ludicrous to picture. The phrenologist might possibly be brought into requisition with some advantage; but not all the State paid (?) phrenologists, nor Government Boards that ever existed, or will exist, could make the great of brain, and the great of power, (in every calling)—mostly begot of perseverance and application—satisfied to be placed upon a par with the mass. The thing is simply a joke. The idea of finding sufficient reward—plus a “ leather medal ” —in the knowledge of having served mankind, shorn of all other and more substantial considerations, is nothing better than twaddle, and practically all, even including Socialists themselves, proclaim it to be so. �AGAINST SOCIALISM. 7 But if you do propose to remunerate the great and meritorious in something like proportion to their work, or services rendered to the State; might they spend or put such remuneration to further use, with an eye to immediate comfort, or to — perchance — future interest 2 Or would they be compelled to simply sit upon it, not even daring to hatch it into 2^ per cents. ? Perhaps a method of rewarding extra merit might be found in a system of awarding dummy medals—or, if really valuable, accom­ panied by criminal consequences in case of the recipient converting them into money or other valuables. For my own part I regard Socialism as the cry of the poorer and less able—and, alas ! larger—half of humanity —and I might go so far as to say : the worse half— against its own poverty and wretchedness. And it is this wretchedness, together with the hope of being able to remedy it, which constitutes the strength of the Social­ istic craze, and commands the sympathy and support of many to whom the merits of the scheme, as a means to an end, would certainly fail to appeal. Let us by all means do what in us lies : let us legislate with a view to reducing poverty and its consequent suffer­ ings ; but let us not do it at the expense of the liberty and the commonest rights of the people themselves. What we want is reform, not serfdom. We want an extension of individual liberty ; greater freedom of contract in the matter of the sale and transfer of land ; fewer restrictions upon trade, commerce, markets, etc.; the re­ adjustment of financial matters, with a view to a more equitable mode of taxation. These and many other changes calculated to directly benefit the working man, we un­ doubtedly require ; but we do not require a retrograde movement into primitive (now called scientific) Socialism. The science which shall thin some down and thicken others up to some kind of State regulation standard, making all good boys and girls, each being satisfied with the government dole, and also satisfied with that station and calling in life which it pleaseth—not God in this instance, but the State—to place them, is yet to be dis­ covered. The ism, whether Socialistic or other, would have to be very scientific indeed to prevent the eagle from soaring and the race-horse from outstripping the ass. And it would be very mad to attempt to legislate in that direction. �8 AGAINST SOCIALISM. But Socialism, whilst endeavoring to bring some down, would also necessarily have to prevent others from rising. It is in principle quite as adverse to a small capital as to a large one. The ability to produce wealth would be of no use; the main incentive to thrift and effort would be removed. Under the Socialistic regime individual possession of valuables of any kind whatever would be impossible. This is denied, because the idea is too ridiculous on the face it for standing-room; but the denial is simply a repudiation of the thing in behalf of which it is made. If Socialism should ever reign, our very language would have to be reconstructed: I, mine, and me, with all that belongs to them and is understood by then^ would have to be erased from our grammars as well as from our institutions; and every explanation offered by Socialists against this view is, though not so intended, essentially an argument against the feasibility of Socialism. Perhaps one of the worst features of Socialism is, that it would create a gigantic swarm of State officials, whose duty it would be to “inspect”, i.e, pry into the private business of every individual in the State, to such an extent as would be insufferable to any people claiming, in the smallest sense of the word, to be free. Nay, I doubt if there could be, such a thing as private business ; it would all have to be public, with a Government detective in every shop, house, or factory. It would be State vassalage, pure and simple. It might, I think, be safely prophesied that should we ever “ evolve ” into State Socialism, we should speedily evolve out of it again. Therein lies some consolation. And, as I have remarked, some of the leading Socialist luminaries would be the first to attract and draw the smaller fry into the outward course. These leaders are in some notable instances, and for this they deserve honor, the very personification of self-help, self-assertion, and self-reliance. It is true their great individuality is in direct opposition to the principle of Socialism, and is so far inconsistent with their creed ; but should that creed ever be generally and practically adopted, it would at once either kill or convert them into anti-Socialists. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Against socialism, 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: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Shows signs of having been detached from bound volume. 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 N054 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against socialism, 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 NSS Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=Wt0p8HeGK53757sCXgGbc-nJCS%7EmTxXHm-sBhq8bfqPk02TDtMtR%7EVg3Z20VQfw-MUIl%7EOH7bX1GOUGWdUgEHVMd-yoFsX0d3hpkGGNe5AWd40uHouJg5OMbcdvfkEKRDRo0NzShGZclSti2%7EYAOFlUzSrh6Fxr8ZEs4Ukrfg11Bvk4yfkiWDeU1sP2kETQnDiCtuDpjaaJOd%7Ey10OKRzSPTCx3ETqza-OhCuKGKpMnFvtdoNCPCNNs673bWjNdnXTZgACwJVIqRE8YPpnMjrTYiN7BWHu8mzw-kuS0q%7EmSmpCgECggJxRNzXDapDeqnG7fpNhNz8mtw%7EqqDEgfc7g__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 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/144333907e0df5166510fb57b643e074.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=QVl%7EFVpw-1nnUQe8X4l2IhQ-Yf385XVW%7EF3x3V6h38lGEbkCBUhowKYnEW-8Wnmy6ea7suPVB1LF2BN2b8PpLgr7qxJeRw4GspL9T9GkChhrlmSYjLJe6CeCzuOyiQqlcQkgGcp8-iRkPiZsxMSiEVTYA5h35pGsRe77ok-yVBtCI7O7euYLKvjaZYOWhYt9CCRQKmakAb58pW6I1bYa2cO8Z-AeaAtgzpxSHD-QNEcie93j%7Es1UccVGHdc0Y4IEOgMsyJ5HuQTO7CWpweCnLrSClEUhu1wubETWKP%7EV2jiwboisz0ahweTm1hUHwFaYpwfn45vDLuU-bd8SlmZ8OA__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 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/071a486dec65ed69f8aa33d77aca5988.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=M%7ElTPLZXZaRnKEuW1YPXhvoDrpJ8bG-RZ2KZEQgNKm5vwJ3R0E-cKx1yAokhyVNu%7EDI5DgTVDCN5XLa%7EuTYardbX8y3jQmjjZES90MW-mNgwqNW8ILbZOPy5dM3ADMsTdeJ5lh-7bTczKHMZEOgIzYe8WXej94k5CrhEV4lV478K3kE6aAS6-tKdkh5ucXbNBt4I8pkpVJXhO2CYlZo0bRC-rXVPe2wqCdAOJUkjgmC6mK33Nk8QXXrrPWgeM7ulM7PYeGbmGtXGzTGmvFIpIPzwObNCKxWBkdMBKg7iUkGpMU7p4uylmFe3AxXCdJHksGaqcyDybMn9JvmUxJwK8g__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Why I 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=1782345600&Signature=YQT2uirUNLKAbUhDqpsroO9RPUuWbJggshbkdtW-pB6OFY9lr4xmQs7gDihCHspgmYKNjzfFaz3o31GrCr4uy3FqC2wHBv9akL36z5IC2Y5zzSDRBpjCi21zGmupohI6WaSFGn2s0GWuXqOB5DoAMMHNo3KwgPz%7EB-Ubo1pp4VqoJMKMeI6QOMCHBPcbvnLncO9xcsK4svjYupGY28qQ0k738CSndW%7EgMZA9xddb3LdqsZkSgdaY5r2tH5e1TVfeU0Ors8MHMBo5LVVn9r0NzaQIKwNb0rgkXratl79otuf5Y%7EqNLlFNEEuQrvHdBhKmMduwqwVJ06dZovMuXTRjVg__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 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/766c992c7367fd258c2886385c4817f5.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=jM8C%7EdYQ9UtC%7E679gBEqSXGTmxK2pWvRHI7kJMxvsZqmDPtukSWESeZwS5A2-luetFzCyKi267p0ULYTK8le0HNqI2p8g4jrtHDCnQNsGpPHAlOI7OaX0OwJnBb-Xf7gmMEPNKkpUX6JQ9R6P2Uqy2LOu2fkEosE9QGEV9gFOD55CbSCZB-MGfa4Rd-0V6bgXN%7E2Pd1dfcf7QEw0qDBJdxakRSdluyqV0%7EOkj5dCo-%7EqU0u6XrBMPUw94YCM6fq9p-wuCjIZlZ4Hui%7EBnkZWnFMubM6NIEH1JJNPniEeTbcY2FQXYdnp9ycSXIQxzDYyi25s8h%7EKBQ2SeuGzzRcNMg__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The 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/850e7396c7a47975bc7ec9c53d270b83.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=N5VFjZZx5kYi5aP93YUaYP5PJR-84ytT-aKDGs-Qwfy2eG1CmtLFyeb7Xw1oi%7EfjrYnVV3WZQ5tRY1VzIAcA6pqMuQN0RMfKydSR-4L2j8UCRBhfTl3lQ1gRV7fkMHh%7ExYVN1ZFDs9abTE3I00msXe1xpSB4z6vnspBRSm4zteHhPDrBmZwJ3vIYzK5iQkU2RbWzS8-YeVB-xX1xxxZzbYFdhGZi60dDEwSa-dv39tc10xJg0%7EBa1bqyqv2OfiSY1A3PExJR9X%7ExXQGBkBKsAvuORf3HBnqdCMvYbA6KcMWuEw7XlkZiUIk-Ds--BbLvU2Nl5EPZFgIxg8f6xLntWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bc3d0300cb453b8d9379653e83d2feed PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOC1™’ HOME RULE AND FEDERATION. WITH EEMABKS ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY; AND WITH A PEOPOSAL EOB THE FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND, ' AS THE MOST IMPOBTANT STEP TO THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD. BY A DOCTOR Author of OF MEDICINE, “The Elements of Social Scib.vce”. LONDON: E. TRUELOVE, 256 HIGH HOLBORN. (REMOVED FROM TEMPLE BAR.) 1 8 8 9. �“ The time may come when the aspirations and the wishes of some among us may be realised, and we shall see all the possessions and the colonies of England united in one great federation. When that tiTHo. comes we may have a great federal authority which will be pre­ pared to take the place, the supreme place, in the government of our Empire which is now occupied by the Imperial Parliament.”—Lord Hartington {Speech at Norwich, Feb. 27, 1889). “ Some of us who look with hope to a possible federation of the whole of the dominions now nominally or really subject to British rule, recognise that we shall then have to face the huge difficulty of constitution-making.”—Mr. Bradlaugh {National Reformer, Feb. 10, 1889). �g 23 24- THE QUESTION OF IRISH HOME RULE.1 i. As a warm friend of Ireland, though, an opponent of Home Rule in the sense of an Irish Parliament Separate from that of Great Britain, I may perhaps be permitted here to make a few remarks on the great and complicated Irish question. I know that on this subject I have the misfortune to differ in certain respects from some whose opinion I value very highly and with whom I am anxious to be agreed ; but I think that the differ­ ences are partly owing to the ambiguity in the phrase “ Home Rule” or “local self-government”, which is used in at least three widely different senses, and that at bottom we have the same earnest desire—that the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia­ ment and the unity of the kingdom should be preserved, and that Ireland should not be separated from Great Britain. The Irish question has been divided into the three parts of local self-government, or Home Rule, the land system, and social order—including under the first terms not only an Irish parliament, whether on the colonial or the federal model, but also minor forms and degrees of local self-government, and meaning by “social order” compliance with law and the re­ pression of outrages and boycotting; and besides the above there is a fourth question which should, I think, be attentively considered, namely, the Irish Churches, Catholic and Protestant, and their relation to the State. I need scarcely say here, more­ over, what Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have so nobly and strenuously contended for, that the population question lies at the very root of the social evils, in Ireland as in all other old countries, and should be carefully taken into account. The most serious objection to an Irish Parliament, I venture to think, is this—that if such a parliament were “independent”, or in other words if it were neither subject to the British Government nor subject along with it to a higher common government, it would make Ireland an independent, separate, 1 Reprinted from the National Reformer. �2 DEMAND EOR LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE. or foreign State like France or Holland; while if, on the other hand, it were “dependent” on the British Government, it would put Ireland in an inferior position to that which she now occupies, and it would therefore not content Mr. Parnell and his followers but would be used by them as an instrument for effecting entire separation. Mr. Parnell claims for Ireland “legislative independence” and “the full and complete right to arrange our own affairs, to make our land a nation, and to secure for her, free from outside control, the right to direct her own course among the peoples of the world”. But an inde­ pendent legislature free from outside control could not possi­ bly, as it seems to me, exist in Ireland unless it were entirely separated from Great Britain. The word “independent” some­ times means distinct or detached, but its proper sense, and the sense in which it is evidently here used by Mr. Parnell, is “ not dependent” or “not subject to outside control”. An inde­ pendent legislature or government is therefore equivalent to a supreme or sovereign government, and means a government which is not subordinate or subject to the commands of any higher authority. Such a government can only exist in a separate or independent State, for the very meaning of an independent State is a political society consisting of a sovereign government and its subjects, and there cannot be two sovereign governments in the same State. “By ‘an independent political society ’, or ‘ an independent and sovereign nation says Mr. John Austin in his lectures on jurisprudence, “we mean a political society consisting of a sovereign and subjects, as opposed to a political society which is merely subordinate”. Mr. W A. Hunter, M.P., a high legal authority, says also in his work on Boman Law, “ Since the time of Hobbes, the pro­ position that sovereign power is one, that there cannot be two sovereign powers in one State, has become a political common­ place ”. There may be many distinct legislatures or govern­ ments in the same political community, as we see for instance in the United States and in the British Empire, but there can be only one independent and sovereign government to which all the rest are subject, for otherwise the community could not form a single State. The great majority of Englishmen who are in favor of a separate Parliament for Ireland have, I believe, radically different views and aims on the subject from Mr. Parnell. They do not wish that the Irish Parliament should be inde­ pendent and free from outside control, which would inevitably have the effect of making Ireland a foreign country. Thus Mr, Bradlaugh holds that there should be a federal union in these islands, as in the United States, and that Ireland should be fully and constantly represented in the Imperial Parliament. He said at a Home Bule meeting in St. James’s Hall, in �FEDERAL FORM OF HOME RELE. 3 explaining his views on the subject, “Let Ireland share in Imperial legislation. It was asked ‘ How will you prevent the Irish members from voting on English, Scotch, and Welsh ■questions?’ Let English, Scotch, and Welsh questions go to English, Scotch and Welsh assemblies. Let the Parliament of England be an Imperial Parliament.” “ I contend ”, he writes in another place, “ that Ireland ought not in any event to be deprived of its fair and constant representation in the Imperial Parliament. As I have often said, my desire is that all local affairs should be withdrawn from the Imperial Parliament and dealt with under wide powers of local self-government.” A political community like the United States is often called a ■composite State and is said to be under a supreme Federal Government. Mr. Austin carefully examines the constitution of the United States with the view of determining where the sovereignity resides, and he shows that all the different legisla­ tures, both State and Federal, form together the sovereign government, to which each of these legislatures, taken singly, is subject or subordinate; just as in our own constitution, and in all other cases where the sovereign power is vested not in a single person but in a body of persons, each member of the body, taken singly, is subject to the whole body taken collec­ tively. “In the case of a composite State or a supreme Federal •Government”, says Mr. Austin, “ the several united governments of the several united societies, together with a government common to those several societies, are jointly sovereign in each ■of these several societies, and also in the larger society arising from the Federal union. Or, since the political powers of the common or general government were relinquished and conferred upon it by those several united governments, the nature of a composite State may be described more accurately thus: As compacted by the common government which they have con­ curred in creating, and to which they have severally delegated portions of their several sovereignties, the several governments of the several united societies are jointly sovereign in each and all.” To this aggregate and sovereign body, he says, “ each of its constituent members is properly in a state of subjection”. Under a Federal system, therefore, though the Irish Parliament would be a part of the sovereign body, it would not be inde­ pendent, but would on the contrary, if taken singly, be in a state of subjection to the whole body; and hence Mr. Parnell has always, I believe, been opposed to the Federal scheme, when regarded as an ultimate aim or policy for Ireland. The other leading scheme of Home Pule which has been proposed, and of which Mr. Parnell is (or was until lately) an adherent, is that called the colonial, from its resemblance to the form of government in many of the English colonies. Under it the Irish members would be excluded from the House of �4 COLONIAL FORM OF HOME RULE. Commons, or would at most only take part in debates on. Imperial questions, and Ireland would have her own legislature for the management of Irish affairs, with an executive or ad­ ministrative government responsible to it. This is evidently a proposal of a widely different and far more separatist character, repealing as it does the union of the British and Irish Parlia­ ments, and I believe that comparatively very few English Liberals or Radicals are in favor of it. They object to the exclusion of the Irish members, or to their taking part only in certain debates, even if the latter suggestion could be carried out in practice. Mr. Bradlaugh, for instance, says of such a suggestion, “ with this part we utterly disagree. We contend that every member of the House of Commons should have equal right, but that purely local questions should be relegated to local assemblies.” It was keenly debated in the House of: Commons whether the Imperial supremacy would be retained, or whether the two countries would be separated, if the Irish members were excluded, and the controversy evidently turns upon the question whether or not the Irish Parliament would be independent. If it were dependent on the British Government, the supremacy of the latter would be retained and the countries would remain united, but Ireland would he placed in the same intolerable position of inferiority as she occupied prior to 1782; if it were independent, on the other hand, then Ireland as we have just seen would be a foreign country. In the course of the debate, Sir Henry James defined supremacy as “ the power of making laws for the whole dominions of the Crown ”. He also defined sovereignty (which, he said, is another phase of supremacy) as consisting in two things, namely, that a Sovereign Parliament “ must be subject to the control or decision of no man or body ”, and that “ it must be able to alter and re-model its own constitution ” ; and he maintained that if the Imperial Parliament, after the departure of the Irish members, had no longer the power of legislating for Ireland, its supremacy would be gone and the countries would be entirely separated from one another. “I am con­ tent ”, he said, “ to take my stand upon the dictum that if you give up the abstract right—and I make no distinction between abstract right and right—of legislation, the country over which you give it up becomes an independent and foreign State ”, It is true that the two countries would still be connected as regards their foreign affairs which would be entirely under British control, but Ireland would here be reduced to the humiliating condition of an inferior having no voice in the management. What tends to obscure this question is the peculiar position of the British Colonies, which are nominally dependencies but really independent States, connected with the mother-country by a voluntary alliance and not by the legal or compulsory tie- �AMBIGUITY OF WORDS FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE 5 of subject and governor. The eminent judge, Sir James Stephen, lately pointed out that the colonies might separate from this country if they chose, without any attempt being made to retain them by force; and that the superior power nominally reserved, and indeed not unfrequently exercised, by the Im­ perial Parliament of making laws to bind the colonies is at bottom “ merely theory ”, since no laws would be imposed on them against their will, and if any serious conflict arose the English law would give way. “As to the great colonies ” says Sir James Stephen, “it is plain that wherever, as in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, constitu­ tional government has been granted, the grant has involved, as indeed it was meant to involve, the consequence that from that time forth the connexion between such a colony and the British Islands should depend ultimately on the good will of both parties, and that every idea of retaining it by force in any event whatever, and in the last resort, should be definitively renounced. That the Dominion of Canada could, if the Canadian Parliament thought proper, separate from the United Kingdom as effectually and completely as the United States, and that if it determined to do so no civil war would take place, can be denied by no reasonable man.” Where countries are connected together but have the power of separating if any of them please, it is evident that their connexion, in its essence, is not a legal or compulsory union but only an alliance, and that they really stand to each other in the relation of free and in­ dependent States. II. But the words “ freedom and independence ” are used in very different senses when applied to individuals and when applied to States, and this ambiguity of language should be carefully noticed, as it seems to me the source of endless con­ fusion and of the most dangerous errors. As applied to indi­ viduals, the words mean freedom and independence under law and government, but as applied to States they mean freedom and independence in the absence of law and government, or in what jurists call “the state of nature” or of anarchy. The former may be called legal or political, and the latter lawless or anarchical freedom and independence. The wide difference between them will be seen if we reflect that freedom and inde­ pendence, when the words are used with reference to individuals (as for instance in speaking of a freeborn person or an emanci­ pated slave) are legal rights which are protected or secured, like �6 ANARCHY BETWEEN INDEPENDENT NATIONS. all other such rights, by means of corresponding duties imposed by the law on other persons, forbidding them under penalties to violate the rights in question. “ What, for example”, says Mr. Hunter, “is the meaning of a ‘right to liberty’? It means that all men are bound to abstain from interfering with a man s freedom of action, except in the case where such constraint is authorised by law.” “ In the civil law ”, he says again, “duty and right are correlative terms. No duty is imposed except in the interest of some specified person, who thus has a right, and no right can exist except by imposing on another some duty. The subject-matter of the civil law may thus be described as rights and duties.” The position of free and independent States, however, is very different from this. As regards their international relations, or their dealings with one another, independent nations live to­ gether in the peculiar kind of anarchy called by Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, and other writers “the state of nature”, or the natural condition of society; that is to say, the anarchy which does not consist in resistance to, but in the total absence of, law and government. They have no common government, no international laws, and no courts of justice for the settlement of international disputes. In such a state of things, legal right and legal duty do not exist, for there is no government to protect the one or to impose the other. Each nation has to protect itself as best it can by its own strength and resources; and hence the so-called freedom and independence of nations’ being unprotected by law, are not legal rights, and are quite spurious and illusory. “ As Mr. Locke has well observed,” says Blackstone in his Commentaries, “where there is no law, there is no freedom ”. And in the passage here quoted from his essay on Government, Locke says: “ In all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom; for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is not law ”. Law and government are by far the greatest and most valuable of all institutions, while anarchy with its attendant war is among the most terrible of evils. So great an evil is the.anarchy or “ state of nature ” existing between independent nations, that it has filled all past history with wars, and the endeavor to put an end to it and to bring mankind under a common government has been a main cause of foreign con­ quests and the subjugation of vast territories by single5States, especially by ancient Borne, and by Bussia and England in modern times. But conquest, in addition to the bloodshed and misery it occasions, is attended with the immense evil that it reduces free States to the condition of dependencies under a foreign rule; although their subjection is not unfrequently of the greatest benefit to "'he conquered race if they are much �UNION THE REMEDY EOR INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY. 7 inferior in civilisation to their conquerors, and the two peoples may in time become united on terms of equality. All nations, like all individuals, should be equal, and have equal political rights, as soon as they are sufficiently civilised to use them with advantage; and therefore the true and ultimate mode of putting an end to the anarchy between nations is not by conquest and the dependency of one State upon another, but by the legal union of different States on equal terms. Now States cannot be legally united together unless they are brought under the same government, for all laws proceed from government, and a government can only make laws for its own subjects. It cannot establish legal relations between those who are not under its authority and jurisdiction, and thus the unity of a kingdom or empire depends on the unity of its government. “ The real unity of a kingdom ”, says Sir Henry James in the debate already referred to, “ must depend upon the unity of its laws. I do not mean by that that there must be an identity of laws. But what I mean is that there must be one power of making laws for a kingdom supposed to be united. It is not the identity of manufacture, it is the identity of the manu­ facturer that makes the unity of a kingdom.” In order, there­ fore, that two or more free and independent nations should be legally united together, they must have the same government; and to be united on equal terms, each of them must have a share in the government, and a share in proportion to its population. They cannot, as we have seen, be legally united at all unless one of them has the power of making laws for the others ; and they cannot be united on equal terms unless each of them has this power and can make laws for the others as well as for itself; that is to say, unless they have a common government and are mutually subordinate to one another. Mutual legislation, and mutual subordination or subjection, are the requisites for a legal union between free and independent States under repre­ sentative institutions. These conditions are fulfilled by the two great and invaluable methods of uniting nations, called the complete union and the federal union; which agree in the cardinal point that they are not mere alliances but real legal unions, since in each of them a single State, consisting of one sovereign government and its subjects, is formed by the junction of two or more separate States. They differ, however, in this respect, that in the com­ plete union the sovereign powers of the State thus formed are vested in a single body of persons, while in the federal union they are divided between several distinct assemblies, which together make up the sovereign government, and each of which, taken singly, is a subordinate or non-sovereign legislative body. It is by means of a complete union, or in other words, by incorporation under one central government (whether consisting �8 COMPLETE UNION AND FEDERAL UNION. of a sovereign assembly or of a single person or monarch), that the grea 1 majority of modern States, such as France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, have been gradually built up out of the host of petty independent kingdoms, principalities, tribes, or clans, perpetually at war with each other, which at early times existed in every part of the world. As to the federal union,, which is more complicated, it is of comparatively recent origin, having been first planned and instituted by the eminent men who founded the United States, and it has since been adopted in several other countries, including Switzerland, Canada, and Germany. Under both systems of government in advanced countries, as, for instance, in the United States and the United Kingdom, there is complete political equality between the different states or nations taking part in the union. Thus Ireland has exactly the same political rights and privileges as England or Scotland; she is just as free and independent as they are ; each country has a share in the government in pro­ portion to its population, so that they mutually legislate for and are mutually subject to one another; the colonies and dependencies of the empire belong to Ireland no less than to Great Britain, and the one has the same privileges and duties as the other with respect to them; it is not the “British” or the “English” Government and Empire (though often so called for shortness), but the British-Irish Government, and the British-Irish Empire which are common to all the three countries alike, and in which each of them has an equal part and interest. Many Irishmen, however, have sought to sever this connexion, and hold that Ireland has in strict justice a right to separate and be independent if she prefers separation to union. Mr. Dicey, professor of law at Oxford, in his work on “ England’s case against Home Rule ”, alludes to those “ Nationalists who still occupy the position held in 1848 by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy and his friends, and who either openly contend for the right of Ireland to be an independent nation, or accept Home Rule (as they may with perfect fairness) simply as a step towards the independence of their country.” Mr. Parnell too, in the passage already quoted, claims for Ireland legislative independence, freedom from outside control, and the full and complete right to manage her own affairs, which are just the distinctive characteristics of a separate and independent State. On the contrary, Mr. Bradlaugh and almost all Englishmen and Scotchmen to whatever party they belong, strenuously deny the right of separation. Some months ago Mr. Bradlaugh said in the House of Commons that ‘ ‘ he had preached the doctrine of Home Rule for twenty-five years. He preached it in New York in 1873, when he was attacked by Irishmen in a perfectly friendly spirit, because, though he supported Home Rule, he declared that he would resist separation by force if �ANARCHICAL LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE. force were employed to bring it about.” The question as to the true relations between England and Ireland is evidently only a part of a far wider question which concerns every country in the world; namely, is it a good thing for any nation, and has any nation a right in morality and justice, to be independent and separate from others, and to have a sovereign government to itself apart ? I venture to think that no nation has such a right, but that all nations ought to be legally united together; and that the rights which Mr. Parnell claims for Ireland, of legislative independence, freedom from outside control, and exclusive management of her own affairs, are not a good or a blessing either to Ireland or to any other country, but on the contrary enormous evils to mankind. The only kind of freedom or liberty which is really a blessing is political or civil liberty—that is to say, the freedom which exists under the reign of law and government, and whose nature is thus described by Mr. Austin: “Political or civil liberty”, he says, “is the liberty from legal obligation which is left or granted by a sovereign government to any of its own subjects ”, Moreover, before we can call liberty a blessing it must be such liberty as is consistent with the welfare of society, or, in other words, the acts permitted by government must not be of a mis­ chievous character and hurtful to other people. “The liberty ”, says Bentham, “ which the law ought to allow of and leave in existence—leave uncoerced, unremoved—is the liberty which concerns those acts only by which, if exercised, no damage would be done to the community as a whole ”. Now, the liberty of independent States in their dealings with one another is not political or civil, but anarchical or lawless, liberty, that is to say, the liberty which is unrestrained by government and law; for independent nations, as already remarked, have no common government, and therefore no international laws pro­ perly so called, but live together in a state of nature or of anarchy. Hence each nation is free to make war upon others, to oppress them, to violate their rights, to defraud them, and to do them any act, good or bad, which lies in its power, and which it may think conducive to its own interests. Such liberty as this is evidently not a blessing, but an incalculable evil to mankind. .Again, the truly desirable kind of independence and sove­ reignty is not that which a nation possesses for itself apart, but that which it shares with others, and which, moreover, is coupled with dependence or subjection in such a man nor that each sharer in the sovereignty is both independent and depen­ dent, sovereign and subject. The states of the American Union, and. the different parts of the United Kingdom, did not lose their sovereignty or independence when they combined to­ gether, but shared it with others by forming in each case one �10 HAVE NATION'S A RIGHT OF SEPARATION ? independent and sovereign State. Moreover, it is only in their collective capacity that the supreme governments in England and America are sovereign and independent, while each of their constituent parts or members, taken singly, is dependent or subject to the will of the whole. The countries which really lose their independence by being united with others are dependencies such as India, which have no share in the govern­ ment, and this is an evil which we should seek earnestly though cautiously to remedy till at last we can become united with them on equal terms. But the sovereignty or independence which is.shared with others is not an evil but a good, whereas that which is held by a nation for itself apart is anarchical independence and is attended by all the frightful evils and dangers of anarchy ; for whenever there is more than one supreme or sovereign government it is evident that the different sovereign governments are in a state of nature or of anarchy with respect to each other. It is independence in union, and not in separation, that is a real blessing to mankind. III. As to the question whether a nation has a right, in morality and justice, to be separate from others and to have the exclusive management of its own affairs, it seems to me that in justice nations should be legally united together and that each nation should have a voice in the management of affairs which concern them all. There is a wide difference, as Mr. Mill points out, between those of a man’s acts which affect himself alone, and those which affect other people ; the former are really his own affairs, and he should be allowed to manage them for himself; but the latter are just as much the affairs of others as of himself, and they have an equal right with him to a share in the management. The most important of the affairs which concern all mankind and in which therefore all should have a voice, are the rules of justice, whose essential character is that they are the rules which forbid a man or a nation to hurt others —to kill or enslave, to rob, cheat, or oppress them. ‘ ‘ The moral rules”, says Mr. Mill, “which forbid mankind to hurt one another (in which we must never forget to include wrongful interference with each other’s freedom) are more vital to human well-being than any maxims, however important, which only point out the best mode of managing some department of human affairs. Now it is these moralities primarily which compose the obligations of justice.” Each nation, I venture to think, should have a share in laying down and enforcing the �FEDERATION OF MANKIND. 11 essential rules of justice not only between nation and nation, but between man and man and between rulers and their subjects, all over the world. The first rights of man, the security of person and property and the fair and equal ■ treat­ ment of individuals, concern everyone deeply, and should be under the common protection of all. But law and government are institutions whose main object is to lay down and enforce the rules of justice among mankind. How then can it be just for a nation, how can a nation have a right, to separate and remain apart from others, when by so doing it puts an end to law and government between itself and them, and thus saps the very foundations of justice ? Instead of seeking to make Ireland “free and independent ” in the spurious and anarchical sense oi these terms, we ought rather to seek that no country whatever should be independent in this sense, but that all should have the true freedom and independence which can only exist under the reign of govern­ ment and law. It seems to me that one of the grandest aims ever conceived—indeed, next to the removal of poverty and the other population evils, the very greatest reform that could be effected in human affairs—is to get rid gradually of the present system of independent or sovereign States, which is attended with complete international anarchy, and to substitute for it a system of law and mutual subordination by bringing all mankind under a common government; in such a way that there should be only one supreme or sovereign federal govern­ ment, of which the national governments in the different countries, together with a general congress composed of re­ presentatives from them all, would form parts or members, and to which each of these governments, taken singly, would be subject or subordinate. All States would thus be legally united or confederated with one another, while the component parts of each State would be joined together either by a com­ plete or by a federal union ; and the condition of dependencies, in which less civilised races are governed by others more civilised, would gradually be done away with as the backward populations grew in enlightenment, till at length all nations were placed on a footing of political equality, and endowed with equal rights and privileges. This, I believe, is the great goal to which humanity should aspire and is actually tending, as is warmly urged by many of the ablest and most prominent members of the Freethought party, including Mrs. Besant, “ D.”, Mr. J. M. Robertson, and Mr. W. P. Ball, in late numbers of the National Reformer. Mrs. Besant said at the Home Rule Meeting in St. James’s Hall: “They hoped that this union with Ireland would be the forecast of a wider union which, in days to come, should bind together every land in one great commonwealth. What the Radicals hoped for was that �12 FEDERATION OF MANKIND. every nation might manage its local affairs in its own way, and that over and above every nation there should be one vast Parliament where all should make their voices heard—the Parliament of that English commonwealth which spreads over every part of the habitable globe.” “Can any clear-headed Liberal”, “D.” writes, “doubt for one moment that the future of Liberal politics lies with the development of the Federal idea”? and he adds, quoting Tennyson, that “The hope of the future lies with ‘ the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World’”. “True federation”, says Mr. Robertson, “is a great ideal—an ideal only to be fully realised, indeed, when nations hitherto armed against each other agree to bury their jealousies ”, And in a letter on the subject of the Channel Tunnel, Mr. Ball says, “ Possibly the Tunnel might be a good thing in the long run by helping to bring about the United States of Europe. But I should prefer that the United States of Europe brought about the Tunnel by rendering it safe for us.” Imperial federation of England and her colonies has grown rapidly in public favor within the last few years, and would be an immense step in advance, but the federation of independent or foreign nations, between whom there is the risk of war, such as the States of Europe, seems to me of even greater importance. It is not merely for the sake of strengthen­ ing the Empire that federation is to be desired, but above all, in order to introduce law and government into the society of nations and do away with the state of nature or of anarchy. Until there is a common international government among mankind, there can be no international law, in the proper sense of the term, nor any legal rights and duties between nations, but only moral rights and duties; there can be no legal limits to the power of existing sovereign governments over their sub­ jects, nor can the former have any legal rights and duties towards the latter, but only moral rights and duties; in short, the dealings of nations with one another, and of sovereign governments with their subjects must be uncontrolled by law and must remain as at present in a state of anarchy. There can be no legal union between countries which are not under the same government, but only a moral unions; and as regard the latter, it seems to me impossible that nation s under different supreme governments should really love and trust each other, for they have no common superior to lay down and enforce the rules of justice between them, to settle their disputes, and redress their mutual wrongs ; and therefore, whenever they cannot agree and will not yield to one another, so that a com­ pulsory settlement is needed, their only resource is the terrible expedient of war. How can there be real love and trust between nations who have, as it is called, “ the right of making war” on one another, that is to say, war between whom is not �ESSENTIALS OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT. 13 solemnly declared to be a legal crime, and forbidden under threat of punishment by a government able and willing to execute the threat against offenders ? The huge standing armies and navies, the wars and dread of war, the oppression of weak States by strong ones, and the hatred, jealousy, and distrust between nations, are really due to the want of a com­ mon government and the consequent international anarchy now prevailing over the world. These considerations are so extremely important that, in order to throw additional light upon the subject, I may perhaps be permitted here to examine a little more closely the essential nature of law and government together with the nature and consequences of anarchy, and to quote, in support of the fore­ going statements, a . few passages from the writings of the great jurists Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, and also from the celebrated treatises, the “Leviathan” and the essay on “ Government ”, by Hobbes and Locke. "What then are the essentials of law and government ? Law may be defined as consisting in a set of commands issued by governments to their subjects, conferring on them rights and imposing on them duties ; obedience to these commands being compelled by means of sanctions or threatened penalties which are enforced by the power of the State. Thus Sir Henry Maine in his work on “Ancient Law” observes that “Ben­ tham in his ‘ Fragment on Government ’, and Austin in his ‘ Province of Jurisprudence determined ’, resolve every law into a command of the law-giver, an obligation imposed thereby on the citizen, and a sanction threatened in the event of disobedience; and it is further predicated of the command which is the first element in a law, that it must prescribe, not a single act, but a series or number of acts of the same class or kind. The results of this separation of ingredients tally exactly with the facts of mature jurisprudence.” In like manner Mr. Hunter says : “The subject matter of law is commands—general rules in­ tended to govern men in their conduct towards each other. ‘ Law ’ may be defined sufficiently for the present purpose as a command of the Sovereign to all persons in given circumstances to do or not to do something, which persons will be visited with some evil by the Sovereign if they disobey.” From this definition it will be seen, in the first place, that laws are commands addressed by governments to their subjects, and hence that law is merely the creature or product of govern­ ment, and where there is no government there can be no law, in the legal or political sense of the word; secondly, that all laws are compulsory, that is to say, they compel people to do or not to do certain acts by the threat of punishments or penalties in case of disobedience; and thirdly, that laws are enforced by an enormous and irresistible power, namely, by �14 DEFINITION AND DIFFERENT SENSES OF “ LAW ”, the whole physical force of the community, which is placed, if need be, at the disposal of the government or supreme authority in order to execute its commands. Moreover, since government represents the nation and is chosen under the representative system by the great bulk of the people to make laws for th pm, the commands of government may be said to be virtually the commands of the nation or commonwealth, as is done by Hobbes in his definition of civil laws. “Civil law”, he says, is to every subject those rules which the commonwealth hath commanded him, by word, writing, or other sufficient sign of the will, to make use of for the distinction of right and wrong . that is to say, of what is contrary or not contrary to the rule ”. The word “law”, as Mr, Austin points out, is used in four widely different senses, which are often blended and confounded with one another but should be carefully distinguished. There are, in the first place, the laws, strictly and emphatically so called, which are set or prescribed by governments to their subjects ; secondly, the laws or rules of morality which are set hy public opinion / these laws together with the foregoing con«, stitute law or morality as it is, and may be either good or bad, wisely or unwisely framed; thirdly, the moral law, or morality as it ought to be, that is to say, .the standard of right to which legal and moral rules ought to conform, and must conform if they are to merit approbation; and, fourthly, the scientific laws, which are only called laws in a metaphorical or figurative sense, as they are not rules for conduct but uniformities or invariable relations existing between natural phenomena. The first and second classes of laws, which it is particularly important here to distinguish, are called respectively by Mr. Austin positive law and positive morality and are thus defined by him- “The essential difference”, he says, “of a positive law (or the differ­ ence which severs it from a law which is not a positive law) may be stated generally in the following manner. Every positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set by a sovereign person, or a sovereign body of persons, to a member or members of the independent political society, whereof that person or body is sovereign or supreme. Or (changing the phrase) it is set by a monarch or sovereign number to a person or persons in a state of subjection to its author.” Of positive morality, or the laws imposed by opinion, he. says: “No law belonging to the class is a direct or cir­ cuitous command of a monarch or sovereign number in the character of a political superior ” ; and he adds, “ The character or essential difference of a law imposed by opinion is this : that the law is not a command, expressly or tacitly, but is merely an opinion or sentiment, relatively to conduct of a kind, which is held or felt by an uncertain body, or by a �BENTHAM ON GOVERNMENT. 15 determinate party ”, Positive law gives rise to legal rights and duties, but positive morality only to moral rights and duties, or in other words, to rights which are not protected and duties which are not enforced by the State. Now the rules which guide and influence sovereign governments in their dealings both with foreign nations and with their own subjects are not positive law but positive morality merely. “ For example , says JMr. Austin, “ the so-called law of nations consists of opinions or sentiments current among nations generally. It therefore is not law properly so called.” The same may be said of those parts of constitutional and adminis­ trative law which concern the acts of the supreme govern m rm f itself, and not of its political subordinates; in short, the con­ duct of sovereigns, whether they be single persons or bodies of persons, and whether in their foreign or their domestic relations, is not under the control of law but only of morality and public opinion. IV. The difference between political society, in which there exists a government, and natural society, or society in the state of nature, in which there is no government, is described as follows by Bentham and Austin,. the latter of whom points out also the distinction between an independent political society, such as the United Kingdom, and a subordinate political society, or dependency, such as India, in the former of which the govern­ ment is sovereign and independent, while in the latter it is control of another and higher government. “When a number of persons (whom we may style subjects} says Bentham in his “ Fragment on Government ”, “are sup­ posed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person, or an assemblage of persons, of a known and certain description (whom we may call governor or governors} such persons alto­ gether (subjects and governors) are said to be in a state of political society”. On the other hand, “When a number of persons are supposed to be in the habit of conversing with each other, at the same time that they are not in any such habit as mentioned above, they are said to be in a state of natural society ”. In criticising some remarks of Blackstone, Bentham says also : ti ? S.tate °f na^ure’ a man means anything, it is the state, 1 take it, men are in or supposed to be in before they are under government, the state men quit when they enter into a state of government, and in which, were it not for government they world remain. ”. As examples of men living together in a �16 BENTHAM ON GOVERNMENT. state of nature or of anarchy, without any common government, Bentham instances not only tribes of savages amongst them­ selves, but also all independent nations and governments in their foreign or international relations. Thus he speaks of “the kings of France and Spain” as being “ in a perfect state of nature with respect to each other ”, and observes that the Spanish provinces of the Netherlands, having effected their independence, “are now in a state of nature with regard to Spain”. In fact, all men are in a state of nature in relation to those who do not belong to the same political society with themselves; to all who are under a different supreme govern­ ment to their own, they are foreigners or aliens. The following is the definition of sovereignty and independent political society given by Mr. Austin. “ The superiority which is styled sovereignty ”, he says, “ and the independent political society which sovereignty implies, are distinguished from other superiority and from other society by the following marks or characters. 1. The bulk of the given society are in a habit of obedience or submission to a determinate and common superior; let that common superior be a certain individual person, or a certain body or aggregate of individual persons. 2. That certain individual, or that certain body of individuals, is not in a habit of obedience to a determinate human superior. Or the notions of sovereignty and independent political society ”, he continues, “ may be expressed concisely thus: If a determinate human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receive habitual,from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and independent. To that determinate superior the other members of the society are subject; or on that determinate superior the other members of the society are dependent,” As to the distinction between an independent and a subordinate political society, Mr. Austin says: “ By ‘an independent political society’ or ‘an independent and sovereign natiop’, we mean, a society consisting of a sovereign and subjects, as opposed to a political society which is merely subordinate^ that is to say, which is merely a limb or member of another political society, and which therefore consists entirely of persons in a state of subjection ”. And with regard to a society in the state of naimre or anarchy, he says: “A natural society, a society in a state of nature, or a society independent but. natural, is composed pf a number of persons who are connected bjhapiutual intercourse but are not members, sovereign or subject, M-a; political society. None of the persons who compose it live irr-the positive state which is styled a state of subjection.” He shews that from the absence of a common international government, "tefiependent nations are really in a state of nature with regard to ohe another, and �AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT. 17 thus the so-called law of nations or international law is not properly law at all. “Society formed by the intercourse of independent political societies”, he says, “is the province of international law or of the law obtaining between nations. For (adopting a current expression) international law, or the law obtaining between nations, is conversant about the conduct ■of independent political societies, considered as entire com­ munities. Speaking with greater precision, international law, or the law obtaining between nations, regards the conduct of sovereigns, considered as related to one another. And hence it inevitably follows that the law obtaining between nations is not positive law; for every positive law is set, by a given sovereign, to a person or persons in a state of subjection to its author.” In a similar manner Sir James Stephen says: “ It is because nations have no common superior that international law commonly so called is not really law at all, but only a form of morality ”, Mr. Austin divides the existing systems or forms of society into the four classes described above, namely, “societies political and independent, societies independent but natural, society formed by the intercourse of independent political societies, and societies political but subordinate ”, The great object of those who aim at the federation of mankind, is gradually to change the existing systems and to unite all nations into one independent political society, consisting of a sovereign federal government and its subjects, so that there should be no longer any foreigners or aliens, and that a true international law should put an end to war and secure peace and justice throughout the world. It should be remarked that by “the sovereign”, jurists ■commonly mean the sovereign government, whether it consists of a. single person or a body of persons. In Europe the only single persons who are sovereigns in this, the true sense of the word, are the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan of Turkey, while all the other royal and imperial persons, though members of the sovereign bodies, and though their actual shares in the sovereignty vary greatly in different countries, are, when con­ sidered singly, not really sovereigns but subjects. The con­ stitutional king or emperor in a so-called limited monarchy does not differ in this cardinal point from the president of a republic, and is really subject to the assembly which has the power to limit him. “Unlike a monarch in the proper accep­ tation of the term ”, says Mr. Austin, “that single individual is not sovereign, but is one of the sovereign number. Con­ sidered singly, he is subject to the sovereign body of which he is a limb. Limited monarchy therefore is not monarchy,” Each member of a sovereign assembly, taken singly, is subject to the assembly itself, taken collectively, and can be bound by laws enacted by the whole. He is thus at once a sharer in the �18 AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT. sovereignty and a subject, a political superior and inferior; and this constitutes a most important difference between govern­ ments of one and of many persons. “ In the case of a monarchy or government of one ”, says Mr. Austin, “ the sovereign portion of the community is simply or purely sovereign. In the case of an aristocracy or government of a number, that sovereign portion is sovereign as viewed from one aspect, but is also subject as viewed from another.” Under the representative system of government, moreover, the whole body of electors are virtually sharers in the sovereignty, and form, as it were, an ulterior sovereign behind the immediate or legal sovereign, Thus, in England, the legal sovereign is the assembly composed of the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament; but the House of Commons, by far the most powerful branch of the legisla­ ture, is itself elected by the constituencies, who are thus the ultimate controlling body in the State, and whose desires and mandates are sure in the end to be obeyed. “ The electorate ”, says Mr. Dicey, in his lectures on the Law of the Constitution, “is, in fact, the sovereign of England”. One of the immense benefits of the representative system is, that it does away with any degradation connected with habitual obedience to the com­ mands of a political superior. Political subjection is only degrading when it is one-sided, as in the subjects of an abso­ lute monarch or in a dependency ruled by another country; but when the position of superior and inferior is reciprocal, and when each person commands as well as obeys, and is at once a sharer in the sovereignty and a subject, there is no degradation to any one, nor anything repugnant to the great principle of equality between all mankind. The nation itself is author of the laws which every one is obliged to obey, Every sovereign government, whether it consists of a single person or a body of persons, is absolute and uncontrolled by law, or, in other words, it is in a state of nature or of anarchy with regard both to foreign nations and to its own subjects. This is a necessary consequence of its being supreme, and not subject to the commands of any higher government. ‘ ‘ It follows from the essential difference of a positive law, and from the nature of sovereignty and in­ dependent political society”, says Mr. Austin, “that the power of a monarch, properly so called, or the power of a sovereign number in its collegiate and sovereign capacity, is incapable of legal limitation. A monarch or sovereign number bound by a legal duty, were subject to a higher or supreme sovereign ; that is to say, a monarch or sovereign number bound by a legal duty were sovereign and not sovereign. Supreme power limited by positive law is a flat contradiction in terms.” In like manner Blackstone says of sovereign governments that tf there is and must be in all of them a supreme, irresistible, �AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT. 19 •absolute, uncontrolled authority ”, that is, an authority which is not and cannot be limited by positive law. A. sovereign government is controlled, not by law, but only by morality and public opinion in its dealings with its subjects, and has no legal rights and duties towards them, but only moral rights and duties. “Independence of political duty”, says Mr. Austin, “is one of the essentials of sovereignty”, and he observes further that a supreme government ‘ ‘ has no legal rights (in the proper acceptation of the term) against its own subjects. To every legal right there are three several parties; namely, a party bearing the right; a party burthened with the relative duty; and a sovereign government setting the law through which the right and duty are respectively conferred and im­ posed”. It is powers, and not legal rights, that a sovereign government possesses in respect of its subjects. On the other hand, subjects have no legal rights but only moral rights, together with legal and moral duties, towards the supreme government. Thus Mr. Austin says, “As against the govern­ ment itself you can have no legal right ”, and “ as against the sovereign there can be no right”. Wherever subjects have legal rights against their government, it is because the latter is not sovereign but subordinate to another and higher govern­ ment ; as is the case, for example, with the different legislatures in the United States, each of which is subordinate or habitually obedient to the Constitution enacted by them all, and with the ■executive or administrative government in this country (often called emphatically “ the Government ”) which habitually obeys the will of Parliament. “ The power of Parliament”, as Mr. Bradlaugh lately remarked, “ is unlimited, but the powers of "the executive are not unlimited”. As to the supreme powers or the powers belonging to a sovereign government, Mr. Austin observes that they are ininite in number and kind, and that the modes in which they may be shared among the different members of the sovereign body are also infinite; thus he describes them as “the political powers infinite in number and kind, which, partly brought into exercise, and partly lying dormant, belong to a sovereign or ■state ”. Some of these powers are exercised by the supreme government itself while it delegates others to political subor­ dinates, as for instance to the executive authorities and to the judges. The branch of law which deals with the powers, rights, and duties of the supreme government and its political subordinates is commonly divided into constitutional law and administrative law; the former of which determines the constitution or structure of the government, that is to say, it determines who shall bear the sovereignty, and also, if the government consists of a number of persons, how the supreme powers shall be shared among them; while the latter deter- �20 AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT. mines the ends to which, and the modes in which, the powers shall be exercised, either by the government itself or by its subordinates. Now it is evident from the foregoing remarks, that the parts of constitutional and administrative law whicbe concern the acts of the supreme government itself, though included in legal treatises, are not properly law at all, but merely rules set by morality and public opinion, like the socalled law of nations. “As against the monarch properly socalled, or as against the sovereign body in its collective and. sovereign capacity ”, says Mr. Austin, “ the so-called laws which determine the constitution of the State, or which deter­ mine the ends or modes to and in which the sovereign powers shall be exercised, are not properly positive laws, but are laws set by general opinion, or merely ethical maxims which the sovereign spontaneously adopts ”, “ Against the monarch properly so called”, he says also, “or against the sovereign number in its collegiate or sovereign capacity, cons’itutional law and the law of nations are nearly in the same predicament. Each is positive morality rather than positive law. The former is guarded by sentiments current in the given community, as the latter is guarded by sentiments current amongst nations generally.” The individual members of a sovereign assembly may indeed be bound by laws, but not the assembly itself. “ Considered collectively, or considered in its corporate char­ acter ”, continues Mr. Austin, “ a sovereign number is sovereign and independent; but considered severally, the individuals and. smaller aggregates composing that sovereign number are subject to the supreme body of which they are component parts. Consequently, though the body is inevitably independent of legal or political duty, any of the individuals or aggregates whereof the body is composed may be legally bound by laws of which the body is the author.” The only possible way to bring the existing sovereign governments, while preserving their equality and real independence, under the control of law, and to give them legal rights and legal duties towards their subjects as well as towards foreign nations, is to make them all members of, and subordinate to, one supreme federal government : whereby the collective wisdom and justice of the common central authority might remedy the defects of local authorities, and the tyranny of national rulers over their subjects, together with revolutions and civil wars, might beeffectually prevented in every country of the world. �HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT. 21 V; The great and permanent cause of government—the cause which has given rise to governments in the past, maintains them at present, and will ultimately, it may be hoped, unite all nations under a common federal government—is the per­ ception of the enormous evils attendant on the state of nature or anarchy, and a wish to escape from these evils. “ The only general cause of the permanence of political governments, and the only general cause of the origin of political governments ”, says Mr. Austin, “ are exactly or nearly alike. Though every government has arisen in part from specific or particular causes, almost every government must have arisen in part from the following general cause, namely, that the bulk of the natural society from which the political was formed were desirous of escaping to a state of government from a state of nature or anarchy.” I may quote also the words of Thomas Hobbes, the powerful thinker who has done more than almost any other to throw light on the theory of government, and of whom Mr. Austin says: “I know of no other writer (except our great contemporary Jeremy Bentham) who has uttered so many truths, at once new and important, concerning the necessary structure of supreme political government, and the larger of the necessary distinctions implied by positive law”. In his “Leviathan ” (a figurative title by which he means a Common­ wealth or State) Hobbes says: “The final cause, end, or design of men, who naturally love liberty and the dominion over others, in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out of that miserable con­ dition of war, which is necessarily consequent to the natural passions of men, when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants and observance of the laws of nature ”. In like manner the illustrious philosopher, John Locke, in his work on Civil Government, observes that “the end of civil govern­ ment ” is “to avoid and remedy these inconveniences of the state of nature, which necessarily follow from every man being judge in his own case ”. No one has explained more clearly than Hobbes and Locke the evils of the state of nature or of anarchy; the former of whom deals chiefly with the anarchy, or absence of a common government, existing among savages and between independent political societies, while the latter draws attention also to the evils and dangers of the other kind of anarchy, namely, that consisting in the absolute power, un­ controlled and uncontrollable by law, which, as we have seen, �22 HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT. is possessed by all sovereign governments over their own subjects. The chief evils of the state of nature arise from the want of a provision, such as government essentially is, for securing peace and justice among mankind. There is a want of a known and settled law or rule of justice, and of a sufficient power to compel obedience to it. Men’s judgments with regard to right and wrong conduct differ widely, and are very often erroneous ; and therefore, as in numberless cases they cannot agree on what is just, the only way to settle disputes and to keep the peace between them, is that an umpire or arbiter should be appointed to lay down beforehand and apply to each particular case the rules of justice, and that all parties should agree to abide by his decisions. “As when there is a controversy in an account ”, says Hobbes, “ the parties must by their own accord set up, for right reason, the reason of some arbitrator or judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows or be undecided for want of a right reason constituted by nature ; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.” Moreover, since it is not mere advice or exhortation, but the compulsory settlement of disputes and redress of injuries, that are required from the arbiter, he must have sufficient power to compel obedience to his laws and sentences by the punishment of those who disobey them: for as Blackstone observes, “nothing is compulsory but punishment”. What is needed therefore, to secure peace and justice in human society, is a supreme authority, or government, which all are obliged to obey, and which can lay down, apply, and enforce the rules of justice. Where no such authority exists to restrain the passions of mankind, and where each person is free to do to others whatever lies in his power, and is himself judge in his own case of what is just, there can be no real justice or real peace for anyone, but a perpetual war or the dread of war. “ In the nature of man ”, says Hobbes, “ we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition ; secondly, diffidence” (that is, distrust or suspicion); “thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain ; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence ». to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, > for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons, or byreflexion in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name. Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war: and such a war as is of every man against every man. War consisteth not in battle only. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a �HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT. 23 shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together; so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is Peace. Whatever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; the same is conse­ quent to the time, wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal.” It will be seen that in the above passage Hobbes includes under the term “war ” not only actual fighting, but also the dread of war and the constant danger of it, as the characteristic evils of the state of nature or of anarchy. A similar account of the evils arising from the want of a government is given by Locke. Men, he says, are led to quit the state of nature, and to “unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property. The great and chief end therefore of men’s uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting. First, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong. . Secondly, in the state of nature, there wants a fair and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differ­ ences according to the established law.” Such an impartial judge is evidently needed to prevent men from being judges in their own cases, when they are so apt to be blinded by passion or self-interest. “That ‘no man shall be judge in his own cause ’ (that is, in any matter in which he is interested) ”, says Mr. Samuel Warren in his Introduction to Law Studies, “is a great fundamental principle in the administration of justice ”, Locke continues : “ Thirdly, in the state of nature, there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offend, will seldom fail, where they are able by force, to make good their injustice ; such resistance many times makes the punish­ ment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it. To avoid these inconveniences, which disorder men’s properties in the state of nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties and may have standing rules to bound it; by which every one may know what is his.” In the state of nature no one knows clearly what is his and what another s, what is mine and thine, for there is no government either to define the rights of each individual or to protect them. We have seen that, according to Bentham and Austin, the state of nature not only exists, or has at one time existed, �24 HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT. among savage tribes, but prevails at present over the whole world between independent political societies in their dealing» with one another. Independent nations have no common government, no international law properly so called, nor any judges or courts of justice for the compulsory settlement of international disputes and redress of wrongs ; but each nation is itself judge in its own case as to what is just towards others, and has absolute liberty to make war upon them and to do them any other harm within its power, unrestrained by the fear of legal punishment. Among nations the anarchy is between commonwealth and commonwealth, just as among savages it exists between man and man or between families. This i& pointed out by Hobbes and Locke, who show that the effectsof such a state of things are essentially similar to those described above, and that it necessarily leads to a want of real justice and of real peace, as well as of mutual love and trust, between nations, and to what may be called the condition of “ war ”, if we understand by this term not only actual hostilities, but also the dread and danger of war, and habitual preparations against it. Thus Hobbes says, after referring to the anarchy among savages : “ But though there had never been any time wherein particular men were in a condition of war, one against another ; yet in all times, kings and persons of sovereign authority, be­ cause of their independency, are in continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of gladiators; having their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms; and continual spies upon their neighbors; which is a posture of war”. “And as small families did then”, that is, among barbarous communities, he says in another place, “ so now do cities and kingdoms, which are but greater families, enlarge their dominions upon all pretences of danger and fear of in­ vasion or assistance that may be given to invaders, and endeavor as much as they can to subdue or weaken their neighbors by open force or secret arts.” And again, in speaking of the liberty of independent states in their dealings with each other, he says that this “ is not the liberty of particular men, but of the commonwealth, which is the same as that which every man then should have, if there were no civil laws nor common­ wealth at all. And the effects of it also be the same. For as amongst masterless men there is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, no inheritance to transmit to the son nor to expect from the father, no propriety of goods and lands, no security, but a full and absolute liberty in each particular man ; so in states and commonwealths not dependent on one another, every commonwealth, not every man, has an absolute liberty to do what it shall judge, that is to say what that man or assembly that representeth it shall judge most conducive to �HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT. 25- their benefit. But withal, they live in the condition of aperpetual war and upon the confines of battle, with their frontiers armed and cannon planted against their neighbors round about.” The terrible truth of this may be seen from the history of Europe, which has never ceased to suffer either from actual war, or from the dread and danger of it, and where the vast standing armies, far larger and provided with far deadlier weapons now than at any former time, are calculated to amount to about ten millions of men. Locke points out in like manner the state of nature existing between independent rulers, and draws attention to the onlv effectual remedy for war and security for peace among mankind, namely, a common government. “ Since all princes and rulersof independent governments, all through the world ”, he say-, “are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state”. With regard to war and the means of preventing it, he says that “ force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature; for where there is an authority or power on earth from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that? power.” And as to peace, he observes that “civil society” is“ a state of peace, amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them ”. In civil society, peace isfurther secured by forbidding under penalty all force or violenceexcept in self-defence; and then too, only while the wrong isbeing actually committed, and there is no time to appeal tothe law for assistance or redress. Men are not allowed forcibly to redress their own wrongs, or what they conceive to be their wrongs, and to exact any penalty they please, but must in all cases appeal for redress to a court of justice. “When the wrong is consummated, when the mischief is done ”, says Mr. Hunter, “it is never lawful to resort to force; the peaceful remedy of an action or criminal accusation can alone be em­ ployed. . But if the invasion of my right, or the attack on my person is not completed, as a general rule force may be used in defence.” Beal peace, like real justice, real liberty, and rpal independence, can only exist under the reign of government and law.; whereas the so-called peace which alternates with open strife in the state of nature or anarchy, and which is �26 POLITICAL UNION. accompanied by huge armaments and by hatred, jealousies, and distrust between nations, is but a veiled form of war. VI. We now come to the great permanent remedy for war and the other evils arising from the state of nature or anarchy, namely, the formation of a common government. The anarchy prevailing at the present day is not between individual men or single families as among savage tribes, but between inde­ pendent political societies in their dealings with one another; .and what is needed to put an end to it is the political union of different nations and of different sovereign governments, by methods which have already been repeatedly employed with success in building up the existing states and empires of the world. Whether between individuals or between nations, a true legal or political union is always essentially the same process, and consists in submitting all wills, and entrusting the whole strength of society, to the will and direction of one sovereign government, composed either of a single person or of one or more bodies of persons acting collectively, so as to avoid that division of wills and of physical force which leads to war and to the appalling evils characteristic of the state of nature or anarchy. Thus Hobbes says, in describing the generation of a Com­ monwealth among a society living in the state of nature: “ The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, into one will; which is as much as to say, to appoint ■one man or assembly of men to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be the author of what­ soever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety ; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgment to his judgment. This is more than consent or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man; in such a manner as if every man should say to every man, ‘I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou �DANGER OF OPPRESSION BY SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS. 27 give up thy right to him and authorise all his actions in like manner This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonivealth.” In a similar manner Blackstone observes that harmony of wills ‘ ‘ can be no otherwise produced than by a political union; by the consent of all persons to submit their own private wills to the will of one man, or of one or more assemblies of men, to whom the supreme authority is entrusted; and this will of that one man, or assemblage of men, is, in different states, according to their different constitutions, understood to be law”. Locke says also in describing the formation of a Common­ wealth : ‘ ‘ This is done whenever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people or body politic, under one supreme government; or else when one joins himself to and incorporates with any government already made; for hereby he authorises the society, or, which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a Commonwealth, by setting up a judge on earth with authority to determine all the con­ troversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any members of the Commonwealth; which judge is the legislative1 or magistrate appointed by it.” He adds that “ whosoever out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be under­ stood to give up all the power necessary for the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community,, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than th© majority”. The rule that if opinions differ among the members of a sovereign body, the majority or some other fixed propor­ tion must decide, is evidently needed to secure the unity of will and action which is indispensable for the purposes of government. From the necessity of submitting all wills and entrusting all power to one man or one assembly (or to any number of assemblies, at any distance apart, provided they act together by a majority of their body and arrive at joint decisions or enactments) in order to avoid the division of wills and of the forces of society; and from the fact, already noticed, that the power of a monarch properly so called or of a sovereign assembly cannot be limited by law, there arises the great in­ herent evil and danger of government, which, like the opposite evil of anarchy, has caused such countless miseries to mankind, namely, the abuse of their immense powers by rulers to plunder and oppress their subjects. This evil, though it has always to be most carefully guarded against, is far more severely felt under an absolute monarchy, which was the earliest form of government as the simplest way of obtaining one supreme will, �28 SUBJECTS CAN, SOVEREIGNS CANNOT, BE BOUND BY LAW. and which, still prevails in most of the backward countries of the world. Thus Locke says, in replying to the advocates of monarchical rule: “I shall desire those who make this objec­ tion to remember that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy for those evils which necessarily follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, .and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to anyone to question or control those who •execute his pleasure ? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake, or passion, must be submitted to?” “If it be asked”, he says again, “what security, what fence is there in such a State against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler ? the very question can scarcely be borne. To ask how you may be guarded from harm or injury on that side 'where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion; as if when men, quitting the state of nature, entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one should be under the constraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power and made licentious with impunity.” In a sovereign assembly, though its power is as great as that of a monarch, being absolute and unlimited by law, Locke points out that there is this great safeguard against oppression, that each of the members, taken singly, is a subject, and is himself amenable to the laws which the assembly enacts. When the people, he says, found that monarchs abused their power, they “ could never be safe nor at rest, till the legislative was placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please. By which means every single person became subject, equally with other the meanest men, to those laws which he himself, as part of the legislative, had established.” An even greater security against oppression under the repre­ sentative system is that the constituencies, who form the bulk of the nation, are themselves virtually authors of the laws by which they are to be governed. Mr. Mill shows that in the representative system (though he points out grave defects in it as now existing, especially the want of a fair proportional representation of minorities and the denial of a share in the suffrage to women) the sovereignty, or ultimate controlling power, is really vested in the entire community, and that this is far superior to any other form of government. “ There is no difficulty in showing ”, he says, “that the ideally best form of government is that in which the sovereignty, or supreme controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire �DIEEEliENCE BETWEEN UNION AND ALLIANCE. 2f aggregate of the community; every citizen having not only a voice in the exercise of that ultimate sovereignty, but being, at least occasionally, called on to take an active part in the government by the personal discharge of some public function, local or general ”. From these improvements in government and from the growing feelings of brotherhood and of common interest between all mankind, aided powerfully by easier means of communication, the obstacles to the political union of nations have greatly diminished, while the beneficial effects of such union on the relations of governments, not only to each other but to their own subjects, cannot, I think, be exaggerated. The oppression of subjects by their rulers is largely due to the ■absolute power, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by law, which resides in every supreme government, whether it consist of a single person or a body of persons ; and to reduce the evil as far as possible, there should be only one supreme or sovereign federal government, of which the existing legislatures in the different countries would be members (or might, if it were thought preferable, elect a part while the people elected the other part, of the members), and to which each of them, taken singly, would be subject or subordinate. In this way the national governments would be no longer isolated from one another, as at present, or sole judges in their own cases; but the common judgment and authority of all would be brought to bear on all, and oppression by local rulers, as well as rebellion among subjects, might be legally controlled and prevented in ■every part of the world. A legal or political union between two or more independent states should be carefully distinguished from a mere alliance. An alliance is an agreement between them, while remaining -separate states, that is, while remaining under different sovereign governments, to co-operate for certain purposes; all the acts of each of them, including the continuance of the alliance or its dissolution at any time, being determined by the will of its own government. A political union, on the other hand, is an agreement between them to unite together into one state, that is, to have one and the same sovereign government, by whose will all their acts, including the continuance of the union or its repeal at any time, are to be determined. Though an alliance is often very valuable for temporary purposes, it has no effect in putting an end to the state of nature or anarchy existing between independent communities. “It is not every compact which puts an end to the state of nature between men ”, says Locke, “but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community and make one body politic; other promises and compacts men may make one with another, and yet still be in a state of nature.” In an alliance there are •different supreme governments, or supreme wills, each claiming �30 PERMANENT ALLIANCES DISTINGUISHED FROM UNIONS. obedience from its own subjects among the allied nations, which is the state of nature or anarchy; whereas in a political union there is only one supreme government with claim to obedience from the whole united people, and this submission of all willsto one is, as we have seen, the essence of government. Some alliances, of a more complicated character than others and intended to be more permanent, are particularly apt to beconfounded with true political unions, and among them Mr. Austin instances the confederations of states existing in his time in Switzerland and in Germany before the formation of the present federal governments in these countries. Mr. Dicey also describes as a “permanent alliance rather than a union” the dual system of government in Austria-Hungary, which resembles in its main features the bond now connecting to­ gether the two kingdoms of Norway and Sweden. The distinction between a system of confederated states, like the former Swiss and German confederations or the dual system of Austria-Hungary, and a composite state or supreme federal government such as that of the United States of America, is thus pointed out by Mr. Austin. “A composite state and a system of confederated states ”, he says, “ are broadly distinguished by the following essential difference. In the case of a composite state, the several united societies are one independent society, or are severally subject to one sovereign body; which through its minister the general government, and through its members and ministers the several united govern­ ments, is habitually and generally obeyed in each of the united societies, and also in the larger society arising from the union of all. In the case of a system of confederated states, the several compacted societies are not one society, and are not subject to a common sovereign; or (changing the phrase) each of the several societies is an independent political society, and each of their several governments is properly sovereign or supreme.” The agreement to form the Confederation at the beginning, and the subsequent resolutions passed by it, are not enforced on the different governments or on their subjects by the collective will of the whole, but are spontaneously adopted by each government and enforced upon its own subjects. “In short ”, continues Mr. Austin, “ a system of confederated states does not essentially differ from a number of independent governments connected by an ordinary alliance. If in the case of the German or the Swiss Confederation, the body of confederated governments enforces its own resolutions, those confederated governments are one composite state, rather than a system of confederated states. The body of confederated governments is properly sovereign; and to that aggregate and sovereign body, each of its constituent members is properly in a state of subjection.” As to the dual government of Austria- �TTNION ON NATIONS ALREADY FAR ADVANCED. 31 Hungary, Mr. Dicey says, after giving a detailed account of it: “ The Austro-Hungarian system is therefore briefly this: two separate states, each having a separate administration, a separate parliament, and separate bodies of subjects or citizens, are each ruled by one and the same monarch; the two portions of the monarchy are linked together, mainly as regards their relations to foreign powers, by an assembly of delegates from each parliament, and by a ministry which is responsible to the delegations alone, and which acts in regard to a limited number of matters which are, of absolute necessity, the common con­ cern of the monarchy.” He says also that “the Hungarian Diet has, as such, no legislative authority in Austria, and the Reichsrath has no legislative authority in Hungary.” The dual system of Austria-Hungary is really an alliance or agreement between two separate states, under different supreme govern­ ments, to manage together their foreign affairs and all matters relating to war and to finance; both countries having the same emperor, who though not a monarch or a sovereign in the true sense of the terms, but only a member of each of the two sovereign bodies, has considerably more political power, accord­ ing to Mr. Dicey, than royalty possesses in England. VII. A true political union, on equal terms, between two or more independent states, can only be effected by uniting together into one their different sovereign governments, in such a manner that each state shall have a share, proportional to its population, in the common government thus resulting. The union of nations under a common supreme government, whether on a footing of equality or on that of sovereign and subordinate states, and whether by conquest or by mutual agreement, has already been carried out to such an extent in the course of ages, that, according to the Government Year Book for 1888, “the chief independent countries of the world, arranged on the basis of their nominal forms of government ”, are now only forty-four in number, eight of them being absolute monarchies, while the others have more or less fully developed representative institu­ tions. “Theoretically”, says the writerafter giving a list of them, “thirty-six out of the forty-four states just enumerated are under various forms of popular government, having repre­ sentative institutions, and executives based upon contracts between the governing and the governed”. The most im­ portant difficulties now standing in the way of the equal political union of nations and its immense benefits, seem to me �32 CHIEF DIFFICULTIES NOW OPPOSING UNION. to be the very backward condition, of some populations, the existence of absolute monarchies, the distances of nations from one another, and difference of language. The last two of these, however, may be surmounted by some adaptation of the invaluable principle of federal government; as we see, for instance, in the United States, which are nearly as large as the whole of Europe, and where the local State legislatures, though far distant from one another, make up together one sovereign body; and in Canada, where a million and a half of French colonists are united with three millions of English under the same federal constitution and on terms of complete political equality. Abso­ lute monarchies, on the other hand, though they may favor the reduction by conquest of many nations under the dominion of one supreme ruler as in Russia, are, I think, incompatible with their union on equal terms, the only conditions on which civilised states can be expected voluntarily to unite with one another. This follows from the essential character of an abso­ lute monarch as contrasted with a sovereign assembly. ‘ ‘ The difference between monarchies or governments of one and aristocracies or governments of a number”, says Mr. Austin, “is of all the differences between governments the most precise and definite, and in regard to the pregnant distinction between positive law and morality incomparably the most important An absolute monarch is purely sovereign, and cannot be bound by law; whereas each member of a sovereign assembly, taken singly, is a suZy'eci, and may be bound by laws enacted by the whole. By uniting therefore on equal terms with another government, a monarch ceases to be sovereign, becoming a member of a sovereign body, and thus amenable to the control of law. What is commonly called a “limited monarchy”, as Mr. Austin points out, is not really monarchy at all, but is “one or another of those infinite forms of aristocracy which result from the infinite modes wherein the sovereign number may share the sovereign powers”. A limited monarch, such as the Emperor of Germany or the Queen of England, is not a monarch or a sovereign in the true sense of these terms, but a member of a sovereign assembly, and either is or may be made, like the president of a republic, amenable to laws passed by the whole body. Limited monarchy is therefore no barrier to the equal political union of independent states, as is clearly shown by the fact that four kings, together with reigning princes, grand dukes, and others, are included in the great federal union forming the German empire. Amenability to law, it should be remarked, is a matter of the utmost import­ ance, for one of the chief ends of civilisation is to bring man­ kind universally under the dominion of law and government, so that all acts whatever (except those of a supreme govern­ ment in its collective capacity) should bp ’fither permitted, or �GOVERNMENT THE ORGAN OE COMPULSION. 33 ■enjoined, or forbidden by law. This end has been attained in cur own and other countries with regard to subjects or citizens, but not with regard to their rulers or to the mutual intercourse of different nations. As observed by Montesquieu, the rela­ tions of mankind in society may be divided into those existing ■either between subject and subject, or between subjects and their government, or between one sovereign government and another. Now it is only the relations of subject to subject, and of a subject towards his government, that have been brought under the dominion of law; whereas the relations of the existing supreme governments towards their subjects, and of one supreme government to another—as we have already seen—are quite uncontrolled by law, or in other words, are in a state of nature or anarchy. If all nations could be united under a common federal government, as is urged by those who aim at the federation of mankind, the reign of law, whether Tietween individuals, between nations, or between national rulers and their subjects, would be universal, and the only acts which would, of necessity, remain exempt from legal control would be those of the supreme federal government itself. Government is the organ, and the only legitimate organ, by which compulsion or force is employed in a community. It not only lays down in its laws or commands the duties of each individual, but compels him to perform them and to abstain from mischievous acts, or acts which are hurtful to other people. “The general object of all laws”, says Bentham, “is to prevent mischief,”. Law does not exhort or entreat, but always compels, and the manner in which it exercises its com­ pulsion is by the threat of punishments or penalties to be inflicted on those who disobey. Thus Mr. Mill observes that “penal sanction is the essence of law”. In like manner Sir James Stephen says : “ The distinctive and special characteristic of all law and government is force—coercion in some one of its shapes. It is this which draws the line between law and advice, between government and speculative discussion.” He points out also that no other compulsion than that authorised by government (excepting of course the compulsion coming from public opinion or from one’s own conscience) can right­ fully, be exercised over any individual; and that “the first principle of the supremacy of the law of the land is that it is the only form of coercion .... which ought to be brought upon all,.whether they like it or not”. It is true that the great majority of people suffer no inconvenience from this legal control, feeling it as little, to use Mr. Hunter’s striking simile, as “the weight of the atmosphere”, because they are con­ vinced in the main of the justice of the laws and have a voice in making them; but the control or compulsion exists never­ theless, and is absolutely indispensable to the happiness and �34 j GOVERNMENT THE ORGAN OE COMPTTLSION. security of society. However willing or desirous men may beto abstain from mischievous acts, no free choice is given them in the matter, for it is felt that society cannot be sufficiently protected against such acts without the compulsion exercised' on all persons alike, willing or unwilling, by the fear of legal punishment if they offend. If a man has not a sufficient love of justice and regard for the interests of his fellows to keep him from crime, he must be deterred from it by the fear of punishment; and, moreover, just laws are well known to have a most powerful effect in making men just, and giving them a genuine love of virtue for its own sake. These truths are well understood with regard to a particular society, and are quite as applicable to the great society of nations. Every national government in its dealings with other nations and with its own subjects ought, like every private individual, to be under the control of law as well as of morality and public opinion. It should be bound by compulsory rules, laid down and enforced by a common authority, not to injure other nations or to oppress its subjects. Now, a common authority, armed with the irresistible power which is needed to enable it to lay down and enforce the laws, is obtained in each community by the political union of all the citizens—or, in other words, by the submission of all wills and all physical force to the will and direction of one sovereign government—and in like manner in the general community of mankind such an authority can only be obtained by the political union of all the nations. A mere alliance between separate states is of no avail; what is needed is a legal or compulsory union under one sovereign government • for nations which are not under the same supreme government can have no legal relations, but only moral relations, to each other. The laws of one independent state have of themselves no validity whatever in another, though they are often, from motives of comity, allowed to take effect, or speaking more accurately, are spontaneously adopted by the courts of justice in trying cases between citizens of different states who are under different systems of law. Thus the eminent American judge, Story, in his work on “ The Conflict of Laws ”, says : “ It is plain that the laws of one country can have no intrinsic force, proprio vigore, except within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of that country. Whatever extra-territorial force they are to have is the result, not of any original power to extend them abroad, but of that respect which from motives of public policy other nations are disposed to yield them.” This absence of any power to exercise legal compulsion over inde­ pendent states, and of any code of international law prescribed by a common authority, seems to me the essential cause of wars and revolutions. Force or compulsion is so indispensably needed for the settlement of disputes in which the parties can- �MATIONS UNITED BY UNITING THEIB, REPRESENTATIVES. 35 ■not agree, and for the prevention and redress of injuries, that if it cannot be applied in a legal form it is sure to be resorted to in another. War, conquest, and the oppression of weak ■states by strong ones, are the barbarous and arbitrary methods, in the absence of a common superior, for effecting this compul­ sion between nations; while political union, law, and a common government where disputes can be settled by the voice of a majority, are the peaceable and civilised means for compelling ■one nation to be just to another and national rulers in every part of the world to abstain from tyranny over their subjects. To form an equal political union and common government between independent states, it is the real and not merely the nominal rulers of each state who must be united together into ■one sovereign body. Now under the representative system, the dorm of government which is rapidly tending to become univetsal among civilised communities, the real rulers are the elected representatives of the nation. “ The meaning of repre­ sentative government”, says Mr. Mill, “is that the whole people, or some numerous portion of them, exercise through ■deputies periodically elected by themselves, the ultimate con­ trolling power, which, in every constitution, must reside somewhere ”, In England the real government is very different from the nominal one, and is in fact representative: for al­ though by constitutional law the Crown has the power of refus­ ing assent to Bills which have passed both Houses of Parliament, -and . also of appointing the members of the executive or administrative government, yet by custom and constitutional morality these powers have become practically obsolete, the Crown’s veto not having been used since 1707, in the reign of Queen Anne, and the executive government being really appointed and removable by, or in common phrase being ■“responsible to”, the House of Commons. “The constitu­ tional morality of the country”, says Mr. Mill, “ nullifies these powers (of the Crown), preventing them from being ever used; and, by requiring that the head of the administration should always be virtually appointed by the House of Commons, makes that body the real sovereign of the state.” In a similar manner Mr. Dicey says : “The executive of England is in fact placed in the hands of a committee called the Cabinet. If there be any one person in whose single hand the power of the state is placed, that one person is not the Queen, but the chairman of the committee, known as the Prime Minister.” Moreover, the House of Lords, though nominally possessed of equal legis­ lative powers, acts rather as a checking or restraining body to secure further discussion of disputed questions, and is really ¡subordinate to the House of Commons, to whose will it is ■obliged sooner or later to conform. “ The British government ”, says Mr. Mill, “is thus a representative government in the �36 NATIONS UNITED BY UNITING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, correct sense of the term : and the powers which it leaves in hands not directly accountable to the people can only be considered as precautions which the ruling power is willing should be taken against its own errors.” Mr. Dicey observes that the various rules and customs of constitutional morality, or as he calls them “the conventions of the constitution”, which have been established in this country by the growing influence of the constituencies and have gradually changed thegovernment in reality though not in name, “ have all one ultimate object. Their end is to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet which is indirectly appointed by Parliament, shall in the long run give effect to that power which in modern Eng­ land is the true political sovereign of the State- -the majority of the electors, or (to use the popular though not quite accurate language) the nation.” “ The conventions of the constitution ”, he says again, “now consist of customs which (whatever their historical origin) are at the present day maintained for ensuring the supremacy of the House of Commons, and ultimately, through the elective House of Commons, of the nation.” Since, therefore, the elected representatives of the people are the real rulers in this and other countries having popular forms of government, an equal political union of such countries can only be effected by uniting their representatives into one sovereign body; whether that body consist of a single assembly as in the United Kingdom, or of several distinct assembliesacting collectively as in the United States. Nations, in fact, are politically united under the representative system in exactly the same way as the different parts of the same nation, namely,, by bringing their representatives together into one supreme governing body, so that all matters requiring a compulsory settlement may be decided, not by war and violence or by diplomatic pressure, but by fair and open discussion and the vote of a majority. Thus the essential articles in the treaties of Union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, are those which joined together their Parliaments, declaring in the former case that “ The United Kingdom shall be represented by one Parliament ”, and in the latter, “ That there shall be one Parliament, styled the Parlia­ ment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ”. On the other hand, the demand which is, or was, put forward by Mr. Parnell and the Nationalist Party for an Irish Parlia­ ment, to be formed by the withdrawal of the Irish members from the House of Commons, seems to me not really a demand for Home Pule, but for the separation of the countries. Home Rule properly so called means, I think, the rule of local legis­ latures, of a subject or subordinate character and possessing a delegated authority, in countries which are united with others on equal terms under the same supreme government. Countries �HOME BULE PROPERLY MEANS FEDERALISM. 37 which are under different supreme governments are separate from one another; and a common supreme government, on equal terms, between states with representative institutions, can only be obtained by joining their representatives into one sovereign body. If their representatives are separated, the countries cannot be united on equal terms, but must either be separate from each other or united on the footing of sovereign and subordinate states, a form of union which would never again be tolerated between Great Britain and Ireland, and is fast becoming quite impracticable between any civilised nations. The great English colonies such as Canada and Australia, which have legislatures of their own, are only nominally subject to the English rule, and are really and essentially, as we have already seen, independent states which are connected with the mother country by a voluntary alliance, and have the power of separating from her if they please. To withdraw the Irish members from the House of Commons seems to me, therefore, really equivalent to the separation of Ireland from Great Britain. VIII. Nations which are independent and separate from others are not said to have “ Home Rule”, but only those nations which are politically united with others under a constitution of a peculiar kind. Every country which can properly -be said to have Home Rule must, I think, like one of the states in the American union or in the German empire, be under two governments, namely, a common supreme government in which it has a share together with other states by the union of their representatives in one sovereign body, and a local subordinate government, composed exclusively of its own representatives, for the management of its domestic affairs. A dependency, if it has a legislature of its own, is often said to have Home Rule, but improperly, as it seems to me, or at least in a widely different sense of the term, for the legislature in such a case is subject to the government of the dominant country, in which the dependency has no share. Mr. Austin observes that all the laws made by a subordinate legislature require the consent or approval of the supreme legislature, and ‘ ‘ derive their validity from its express or tacit authority. For either directly or remotely the sovereign or supreme legislator is the author of all law”. But if the above definition is correct, and if in­ dependent and separate nations, as well as dependencies, though possessing parliaments of their own, cannot rightly be said to have “ Home Rule ”, it follows that neither Ireland nor �38 FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. the British colonies have ever yet had Home Rule in the true sense of the word; for Ireland up to the time of the Union was either a dependency of England or an independent nation, and the colonies, as we have seen, are nominally dependencies, but really and virtually independent states. In speaking of laws enacted by subordinate legislatures, Mr. Austin says : “ Such were the laws made by the Irish Parliament before that Act of the British Parliament which acknowledged the independence of Ireland (1719-1782). In fact and practice, the Irish legis­ lature (consisting of the King and the Irish Houses of Parlia­ ment) was in a state of subjection to the supreme legislature of Great Britain; that is to say, to the same King and the British Houses of Parliament.” Neither Ireland nor the colonies could properly be said to have Home Rule in their relations with this country, unless they not only had local legislatures but were fidly and fairly represented in the supreme imperial legislature, or in other words, unless they were federated with Great Britain. Home Rule properly so called is thus identical with Federalism or the federal system of government. As to the very different system of government often called “the colonial form of Home Bule ”, in which countries having parliaments of their own are not represented along with others in a common supreme parlia­ ment, it should not, I think, be spoken of as “Home Rule” at all, since the countries in this case are necessarily either dependencies or independent and separate states. The federal form of Home Rule is the one advocated by Mr. Bradlaugh and I believe by the great majority of Englishmen and Scotchmen, as well as Americans, who are in favor of a separate Irish parliament; and it is the only kind of Home Rule to be desired among civilised nations, who should be united as equals, and not on the footing of dependencies and sovereign states. In­ equality is only justifiable in dealing with backward and uncivilised populations, till they are sufficiently advanced to have equal political rights. The federal system, which was first introduced in the United States and has since been modified in other countries, especially in Germany, seems to me one of the greatest discoveries ever made, and of an importance to human happiness which cannot possibly be exaggerated; for it supplies the means of uniting independent nations under a common government, so as to do away with the state of nature or anarchy now existing between them, and to put an end to war. It fulfils the three main conditions of a satisfactory political union, for it unites nations legally and effectively by bringing them under the same sovereign government; it unites them on equal terms, by joining their representatives in one supreme body, and thus giving each nation a share in the government proportional to its population; and moreover it �FEDERALISM IN UNITED STATES AND GERMANY. 39 secures to them the advantages of sei!/-government or govern­ ment exclusively by their own representatives, wherever this is thought desirable, by allowing them to retain their national legislatures for the management of their domestic affairs. Each nation is thus placed under a general supreme legislature composed of its own representatives along with those of other states, and a local subordinate legislature composed of its own representatives exclusively. The advocates of Federation hold that Home Rule in the above sense, or as meaning Federalism, ought to be extended over the whole world; and that all nations, besides having their national rulers, should be united together under one supreme federal government. The federal ■system is so important and so different in some respects from the government with which we are acquainted in this country that it deserves an attentive consideration. The form of federation existing in the United States seems to me to differ in one very important point from that which has been adopted in Germany; namely, that in the former country the sovereign government consists, as already remarked, •of all the State legislatures acting collectively, and that the general legislature or Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, together with the President, is a subordinate body; whereas in Germany the Diet or general legislature, composed of the Bundesrath, the Reichstag, and the Emperor, is itself the sovereign government. This will appear, I think, if we consider the powers possessed by these bodies, and also the distinction between supreme and subordi­ nate political powers, and between a sovereign and a subordinate government. Thus Mr. Austin observes with regard to political powers: “Of all the larger divisions of political powers, the division of these powers into supreme and subordinate is perhaps the only precise one. The former are the political powers, infinite in number and kind, which, partly brought into exercise and partly lying dormant, belong to a sovereign or state. The latter are the portions of the supreme powers which are dele­ gated to political subordinates.” Mr. Dicey in pointing out the signs or maiks which distinguish a sovereign government, ■such as the English Parliament, from a subordinate govern- ' ment, such as Congress or a state legislature in the United 'States, says: “ These then are the three parts of parliamentary sovereignty as it exists in England; first, the power of the legislature to alter any law, fundamental or otherwise, as freely and in the same manner as other laws; secondly, the absence of any legal distinction between constitutional and other laws; thirdly, the non-existence of any judicial or other authority having the right to nullify an Act of Parliament, or to treat it as void, or unconstitutional”. As to “the marks or notes of legislative subordination” he says: “These signs by which �40 FEDERALISM IN UNITED STATES AND GERMANY. you may recognise the subordination of a law-making body are, first, the existence of laws affecting its constitution, which such body must obey and cannot change; hence, secondly, the formation of a marked distinction between ordinary laws and fundamental laws ; and lastly, the existence of some person or persons, judicial or otherwise, having authority to pronounce upon the validity or constitutionality of laws passed by such law-making body”. Sir Henry James also, in a passage already quoted, reduces the distinctive marks of a sovereign government to these two—that it “ must be subject to the control or decision of no man or body”, and that it “must be able to alter and remodel its own constitution ”, Judging by these marks or tests, we can see at once that the American Congress is a subordinate government, whereas the German Diet appears to be a supreme or sovereign assembly. The Constitution of the United States (a written document which was agreed to as the fundame: tai law of their union by all the States in 1787-1789, soon after they acquired their independ­ ence of Great Britain) creates Congress and grants to it certain legislative powers strictly defined and limited, and creates also a supreme court of justice, with jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and with an authority, which has not unfrequently been exercised, to declare void any law passed by Congress in excess of its powers; and moreover, changes in the constitution cannot be effected by Congress, but only by a majority, of three - fourths of the state legislatures. Such changes or amendments may be proposed either in Congress or in a convention called by the States, and if approved of there, must be sent for ratification to all the state legislatures, and must be ratified by three-fourths of these bodies, before they are adopted. Hence Mr. Dicey observes that “the legal sovereignty of the United States resides in the majority of a body constituted by the joint action of three-fourths of the several States at any time belonging to the Union ”, On the other hand, although Germany also has a written constitution, adopted in 1871, which distributes the various powers and departments of legislation between the Diet or federal govern­ ment and the State governments, there is, I believe, no judicial body corresponding to the Supreme Court in the United States with authority to declare void any act of the Diet, but the latter is itself judge in disputes between the States, and may settle them, if need be, by federal legislation ; and the Diet, moreover, has itself the power of changing or amending the constitution. Thus the German Constitution (which is given in full in the Government Year Book for 1888) says: “ Litiga­ tions between several States, in so far as they do not concern private rights and are not thereby within the competence of ordinary tribunals, will be adjudged by the Bundesrath, on the �MR. DICEY ON FEDERALISM. 41 demand of one of the parties. Disputes concerning the consti­ tution, where there is no authority competent to decide such disputes, must be amicably adjusted by the Bundesrath, on the demand of one or other of the parties, and if this cannot be effected, they must be determined by federal legislation. Changes in the constitution are to be effected by Acts of the Assembly ; but such modifications must receive in the Bundesrath the support of a majority of two-thirds of the representative votes.” It thus appears to me that the German Diet, like the English Parliament, or like all the state legislatures in the United States acting collectively, is a sovereign government, and, as such, possesses powers which cannot be limited by law. The leading characteristics of federalism are summed up as follows by Mr. Dicey, who has given a most valuable exposition of this system and other matters relating to government in his “ Lectures on the Law of the Constitution ” and in “ England’s case against Home Rule”. “A Federal Constitution”, he says, “ must from its very nature be marked by the following characteristics. It must, at any rate in modern days, be a written constitution, for its very foundation is the ‘ Federal pact ’ or contract ; the constitution must define with more or less precision the respective powers of the central government and the state governments, of the central legislature and of the local legislatures ; it must provide some means (e.g., reference to a popular vote) for bringing into play that ultimate sovereign power which is able to modify or reform the constitution itself ; it must provide some arbiter, be it Council, Court, or Crown, with authority to decide whether the Federal pact has been observed ; it must institute some means by which the principles of the constitution may be upheld, and the decrees of the arbiter or Court be enforced against the resistance (if need be) of one or more of the separate states ”. He says also in another place: “The essential characteristics of federalism— the supremacy of the constitution—the distribution of powers —the authority of the judiciary—reappear, though no doubt with modifications, in every true federal state.” This descrip­ tion, however clearly it explains the form of government existing in the United. States or in Switzerland, is not, I venture to think, equally applicable to the German Constitution, which, by making the Diet a sovereign body, seems to me a most important and valuable modification of the federal system. The essence of federalism in my opinion is the existence of a common supreme legislature, in which all the federated states are duly represented, together with local subordinate legisla­ tures, consisting solely of local representatives, in the different states ; while the other remarkable feature in the American Government, namely, that the sovereign power is vested in all the state legislatures taken together, and that Congress is a �42 ELECTORAL SOVEREIGNTY, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY subordinate body, unable to change its own constitution and subject to the control of a legal tribunal, does not appear to mo to be necessarily or essentially a part of federalism. Govern­ ments which are not federal, such as the English Pari i am ent., might in like manner be made subordinate bodies and might have their powers limited, if the constituencies who elect them ■chose to retain the legal sovereignty in their own hands. Mr, Austin points out that although the trust held by the House of Commons for the constituencies is at present enforced only by moral sanctions, it might be enforced by legal sanctions; and that for this purpose, a law or written constitution would need to be passed by the constituencies themselves, who would thus form an ulterior legislature. If such a constitution were enforced by the courts of justice, the legal sovereignty of the country would then reside in the constituencies or electors, and not as at present in Parliament. “ In order that the members of the Commons House might be bound legally and completely to discharge their duties to the Commons”, says Mr. Austin, “ the law must be made directly by the Commons themselves ” with the assistance of the king and the lords, or, in. a republic, by the Commons alone. In that case, “the King and the lords with the electoral body of the Commons, or the electoral body of the Commons as being exclusively sovereign, would form an extraordinary and ulterior legisla­ ture This is exactly what has been done in the United States and in Switzerland, where the body of the electors, or of the State legislatures, have tied down the federal govern­ ment by a constitution enforced by the law courts, and have kept to themselves the ultimate sovereign power. But this electoral sovereignty seems to me unessential to federalism, and in many respects a less advantageous principle than par­ liamentary sovereignty. It unduly limits or cripples the power of the central legislature in a country, and makes the govern­ ment more complicated; and also, as Mr. Dicey shows in a striking passage, it vests the legal sovereignty in an inactive and non-apparent body, and renders any change in the con­ stitution a matter of much difficulty, especially in the United States, where so large a majority as three-fourths is required for. the. purpose. “From the necessity for placing ultimate legislative authority in some body outside the Constitution ”, says Mr. Dicey, “ a remarkable consequence ensues. Under a federal as under a Unitarian system there exists a sovereign power, but the sovereign is under a federal state a despot hard to rouse. The sovereign of the United States has been roused to serious action but once in the course of ninety years. But a monarch who slumbers for years is like a monarch who does not exist. A federal constitution is capable of change, but for all that a federal constitution is apt to be unchangeable.” �SHOULD IRELAND BE EEDEBATED WITH ENGLAND ? 43 If Congress were made supreme, these evils would be obviated ; and I believe that the best means for securing the rights of the people throughout the world is not by any plan of electoral sovereignty, however valuable it may be in some respects, but by uniting the r ations under one supreme federal government, whose combined authority could protect the people of each, country from tyranny or oppression by their national rulers. One advantage of making Parliament supreme is that, as Hobbes remarks, “there needs no writing”, or in other words, a written constitution is not needed for a sovereign government, because its powers are infinite and cannot be limited by law ; and a constitution of this kind, which defines the delegated powers and can be enforced by the law courts, would be required only for subordinate bodies. Even where a written constitu­ tion assigns to a supreme government, as well as to its subor­ dinates, certain functions or makes other conditions, the supreme government cannot be legally bound by these conditions, since it can change the constitution. For all these reasons it appears to me that parliamentary sovereignty is not only compatible with federalism but is the principle which might best be adopted in the federal union of different states. IX. If Parliamentary sovereignty were adopted as a part of federalism, and if the central legislature were made supreme, a federal government such as that of the United States would resemble much more closely a unified government as in Eng­ land, and they would differ chiefly in the extent of the powers delegated to subordinate bodies. The question of Irish Home Rule would then be narrowed to the inquiry as to what powers should be delegated to a subordinate body or bodies in Ireland by a supreme parliament in which that country was fairly represented : for the so-called “ colonial form of Home Rule ”, in which the Irish members would be excluded from the Imperial Parliament, seems now to be very generally aban­ doned. In a letter to Mr. Rhodes in last June, Mr. Parnell says ; “I think you have correctly judged the exclusion of the Irish members from Westminster to have been a defect in the Home Rule measure of 1886”; and in the following July, Sir George Trevelyan observed that ‘ ‘ two years ago the mass of the people were not willing to exclude Irish members from the English Parliament. Now the Liberal party were ready to keep those members ”. All parties are agreed, moreover, that the “ minor representative bodies ”, which according to Mr. �44 FEDERALISM AND UNIFIED GOVERNMENT. Mill “ ought to exist for purposes that regard only localities ”, as, for example, Town Councils, and the newly created County Councils, are of the greatest value, and that the latter should be extended to Ireland also as soon as circumstances permit. These minor bodies are the third kind of government by local representatives to which the term “Home Rule” has been applied, though it is usually reserved for the larger and more important assemblies coming under the designation of parlia­ ments or legislatures. The real question at issue, therefore, in respect to Home Rule, is whether or not there should be a separate Irish Parliament on the federal model; and it should be borne in mind that while a state legislature in the United States is independent of Congress, and is a member of the ultimate sovereign government, the Irish parliament would be purely subordinate or subject to the Imperial parliament, sup­ posing the latter to continue as at present a sovereign body. As regards the question of an Irish parliament, which lies at the bottom of the recent controversies, I confess it appears to me that the present system of unified government in these islands is a preferable one. Unification seems to me better than federa­ tion, except in cases where the countries to be united are very distant from one another, or where their inhabitants speak different languages, and it is chiefly, I think, by overcoming these two great obstacles to political union that the federal system is such an incalculable blessing to mankind. It also renders invaluable service as a first step by uniting together independent nations who, though near neighbors and having the same language, would not, for various reasons, consent to give up their national legislatures and to form at once a unified government, but who may in course of time see cause to do so, and to become thoroughly incorporated with one another. A single parliament is a more complete union than a plurality of parliaments, and in cases which admit of it, seems to me to have several important advantages. Mr. Dicey points out, as in his opinion two of the chief drawbacks or dangers of federalism, the divided allegiance of the citizens, who owe obedience both to the central govern­ ment and to the government of their own state, and the want of sufficient power in the central legislature to protect un­ popular minorities in the different states. “ Federalism ”, he says. “ has in its very essence, and even as it exists in America, at least two special faults. It distracts the allegiance of citizens and, what is even more to the present point, it does not provide sufficient protection for the legal rights of unpopular minori­ ties ”. To these causes, he considers, were greatly due the terrible civil wars in the United States and in Switzerland, from the history of which countries it will be seen that “ the two most successful confederacies in the world have been keDt �DRAWBACKS AND DANGERS OK FEDERALISM. together only by the decisive triumph through force of arms of the central power over real or alleged State rights.” A signal instance of the want of sufficient protection for minorities and oppressed classes, is that Congress had no power to abolish slavery in the Southern States, and its total abolition could only be effected at the close of the civil war by a special amendment of the Constitution. It seems, indeed, to be the chief defect of the federal system as compared with a unified government, that the primary rules of justice, the rules for the security of person and property, which concern every one, and which all should have a voice in framing, are not discussed and settled by the representatives of the whole people collectively, but only by the representatives of each separate state; so that the common will of all is not brought to bear on all, and laws passed by particular states may be completely opposed to the feelings of justice and morality in the great majority of the nation. This defect, however, might to a great extent be remedied if the •central government were made sovereign or supreme, and if it were to lay down a set of conditions in the written constitution granted to each subordinate legislature, to prevent the latter from oppressing any class or any individual of its subjects. Such a set of conditions, commonly called a “ bill of rights ”, exists in the written constitution of every single state in the American Union, though it is there inserted by the body of local electors and not by the central government. Another feature of federalism which seems open to objection is its tendency unduly to multiply the number of parliaments and of .legal systems, thus increasing the labor and cost of legislation, and at the same time making law and government more complicated. In the United States there were originally thirteen and are now thirty-eight States, each of which has a parliament of its own, consisting, like Congress, of a Senate and a House of Representatives, together with a governor and executive staff; and this seems a large proportion, even when we consider the vast size of the country, which is nearly as extensive as the whole of Europe. Moreover, each of the State parliaments has substantially the same functions, namely, to lay down and administer the great bulk of the civil and criminal law, or in other words, to deal with all subjects of legislation and administration except the comparatively small number— including foreign affairs, the army and navy, national finance, the currency, the post-office, the bankruptcy laws, and other matters—which are delegated to Congress or to the President by the constitution. ‘ ‘ The powers not surrendered to the Government of the United States”, says Mr. Sterne, a barrister of New York, in his “Constitutional History of the United States”, “are much more extensive and much more immediately related to the rights of the individual, and therefore affect him �46 DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM. more closely, than the delegated powers of the Federal Govern­ ment. In all his functions as a citizen—in his amenability to the deprivation of life and liberty by the criminal law, in the assertion or denial of his rights through the civil administration of justice—the State, with but few exceptions, has absolute control over the life, liberty, and happiness of its subjects.” Thus the work entrusted to the State legislatures is performed thirty-eight times while that entrusted to Congress is only performed once. In England all affairs, both foreign and domestic, are managed by one parliament ; but if Ireland had a legislature of her own on the federal model, there would need to be at least three and not improbably five parliaments in the United Kingdom; for the Irish members at Westminster could no longer take part in the domestic legislation of England and Scotland, and to confine them to debates on Imperial questions has been shown to be impracticable. The only resource, there­ fore, would be to have a parliament for the management of domestic affairs in Great Britain also, or possibly in each of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as in Ireland, and to deal with Imperial questions in a separate assembly, as is done in all federal countries. Besides the difficulty of defining the spheres of the central and the local legislatures, which gives rise to frequent litigation under a federal constitution, another source of complexity is the multitude of legal systems created by the different parliaments: and the branch of jurisprudence called “ private international law” or the “ law of domicil”, which is due to the difference of legal systems and deals with the rights and duties of persons living in other countries or states than their own—as, for instance, of Scotchmen residing in France, and even in England, since English law differs from Scotch law—is well known to be a very important and intricate one. The American Chief Justice Story, whose work on the “Conflict of Laws” is devoted to this subject, says : “ The jurisprudence, then, arising from the conflict of the laws of different nations, in their actual application to modern commerce and intercourse, is a most interesting and important branch of public law. To no part of the world is it of more interest and importance than to the United States, since the union of a national government with already that of twenty-six (now thirty-eight) distinct states, and in some respects independent states, necessarily creates very complicated private relations and rights between the citizens of these states, which call for the constant adminis­ tration of extra-municipal principles ”. The above seem to m6 some of the chief objections to the adoption of federalism between Great Britain and Ireland, but they do not apply to its past history in the United States, where the federal system has rendered the most immense services, and, consider­ �FEDERATION OR MANKIND. 47 ing the size of the country and the international jealousies at one time existing, is probably the only kind of common govern­ ment which the states would have consented to enter into, or which would have held them together. X. The large and increasing numbers, in different countries, who advocate federation as the only true remedy for war, for huge armaments, and for the other evils arising from the want of a common international government, propose therefore that all nations should be federally united together. In other words, they hold that all nations should gradually be brought under one supreme federal government, consisting of representatives from each of them, who would legislate on the subjects affecting them all in common; and that they should also have subordinate national governments, consisting exclusively of nationaljrepresentatives, for the management of their internal or domestic affairs. M. de Laveleye in his recent work on the Balkan Peninsula, which has been translated into English, describes the federal system as “ theoretically the best form of government ”, and says of it: “ This form of government allows the formation of an immense and even indefinitely extensible State, by the union of forces, without sacrificing the special originality, the individual life, the local spontaneity of the provinces which compose the nation ”, Under a federal system, if it were extended throughout the world, all the existing sovereign governments would become subordinate or subject to a common supreme government; while the number of subordi­ nate legislatures or governments would depend on various circumstances, and would in the long run, I venture to think, be chiefly determined by the consideration already alluded to, namely, that nations who are very distant from one another or who speak different languages should have separate parlia­ ments of their own, but that for near neighbors speaking the same language it is in several important respects a great ad­ vantage to have one unified parliament. The common inter­ national government might be elected by the nations in the same manner as the federal legislatures in the United States or in Germany: that is to say, supposing it to consist of two Chambers, one of them might be chosen by the national govern­ ments and the other by the body of the people; each State sending to both Chambers, as in Germany, a number of repre­ sentatives approximately in proportion to its population. This would apply, however, only to civilised or advanced communi­ �48 COMPOSITION OP COMMON INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT. ties, between whom there should always be completely equal federation. Backward and semi-civilised populations, on the other hand, could not have equal political rights, since their vast numbers would enable them to outvote all others; but it seems to me extremely desirable that no people whatever—much less the great nations of Asia, some of whom are in many respects highly polished, and are at the present day rapidly in­ creasing in enlightenment under the influence of Western ideas ■—should be treated as a mere dependency of another State. All nations should, I think, be federated together, that is, they should all have a share both in the common supreme govern­ ment and in the national government of their own country; but with backward communities the federation could at first only be on unequal terms, gradually changing to equality as the inhabitants grew in civilisation. The difficulty now felt in giving the great dependencies a share in the government arises from the weakness and isolation of the dominant States, who fear to lose their ascendancy ; but if the latter were themselves federated with one another this difficulty would disappear, and all nations could be represented both in the central and in the local legislatures in such measure as justice and the real in­ terests of each people might require. The common supreme parliament, though containing repre­ sentatives of all the nations, would not necessarily be larger than other parliaments, even if it consisted only of a single body, as its size would depend on the proportion of members to the populations who elected them. It would doubtless consist, however, not of a single assembly but of several as­ semblies in different parts of the world, who would act col­ lectively and legislate by a majority of their whole number, like the State legislatures in the United States when they exercise their sovereign powers ; an arrangement by which the difficulty of uniting very distant countries might be overcome and a fuller representation could be allowed to each people. The other great difficulty, arising from difference of language, might also be surmounted by this means ; and wherever different nationalities were included in the same legislature each member should be allowed to address the assembly in his own language, as is the rule at present in several legislative bodies. In Canada, for example, where a million and a half of French inhabitants are federally united with three millions of English, either language may be employed in the Dominion Parliament; in the Cape Parliament, as mentioned in the Government Year Book for 1888, Dutch may be spoken as well as English; in the Hungarian Diet the deputies from Croatia may use their native tongue; and in Switzerland, where about a fourth of the people speak French, and nearly two-thirds German, both languages can be employed in addressing the Federal Assembly. �BALKAN CONFEDERATION. 49 In Austria, which, apart from Hungary, seems to be really a federal State with a large share of the sovereignty vested in the Emperor, the nationalities are more mixed than in any other country of Europe, and there are seventeen local par­ liaments, many of them transacting their business in distinct languages, in addition to the common central parliament, or Reichsrath, in which, I believe, only German can be employed. Though there would doubtless be numerous difficulties in government from these and other causes, the experience of federal countries shows that they admit of being overcome by a spirit of fairness and mutual concession, together with a stedfast respect for law; and even at their greatest they do not seem to me to bear comparison with the difficulties con­ sequent on the “state of nature” or of anarchy now existing between independent nations, and the perpetual risk of war. At present, international questions are not treated by the methods of law and government at all, but by secret diplomacy and other methods characteristic of the state of anarchy ; whereas if mankind were federated, secret diplomacy would be done away with, and international affairs, like all others, would be openly discussed by parliament and the press, and settled in a legal and constitutional manner by the vote of a majority. It is evident that a change of such vast extent as the federal -union of all nations could only be effected by successive steps, and by the gradual federation of independent countries with each other, and of sovereign states with their dependencies, throughout the world ; but I cannot think its final accomplish­ ment so distant and so extraordinarily or insuperably difficult as is often supposed. If the dreadful calamity of another European war be averted, there seem good reasons for believing that great progress will be made before long in this direction. The junction of the numerous separate states in Italy and in Germany, in the one case by a complete and in the other by a federal union (which are really the same at bottom, since both consist in the fusion of two or more supreme governments into one, and in the formation of a single independent and sovereign state), has shown in the most striking manner the enormous benefits of political union; and Mr. Freeman, the distinguished historian, speaks of the change thus effected as “the greatest event of our times If the states in Italy and in Germany have united together, and thereby greatly increased their strength and national importance, their security from attack, and the feelings of sympathy and brotherhood among the people as fellow-countrymen, why may not other European states unite with like results ? Many of our most eminent politicians, both Liberal and Conservative, have declared them­ selves in favor of a federation between Turkey, Greece, Bui­ 'S �50 IMPERIAL FEDERATION. garia, and other countries of the Balkan Peninsula ; which shows that they regard as perfectly feasible the union of nations who are separated by the widest differences in religion and in language, and by the memory of ages of war and oppression. M. de Laveleye warmly advocates a Balkan Confederation as the.true solution of the Eastern question, and says that it is desired by the people of the countries themselves as well as by Austria-Hungary and by the English Liberals. “ This solution, so just and natural ”, he says, “ has been for many years advocated by the English Liberals. It is the only one which is conformed to the right of the populations to govern them­ selves, and which avoids giving a dangerous preponderance to one of.the two large neighboring empires.” What hinders the execution of this project is no want of feasibility, but the opposition of Russia, whose aim for generations has been to keep Turkey and the neighboring states weak and divided, so that she may seize the magnificent city of Constantinople. Other countries whose federation seems especially desirable at. present, and comparatively easy to effect from their near neighborhood and the identity or affinity of their languages, are the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark; the kingdoms occupying the third great peninsula of southern Europe, Spain and Portugal ; and the numerous independent Spanish republics in North and South America, whose separation from one another, and the state of nature or anarchy thus produced between them, have led to the most frightful evils in the shape of constant wars and revolutions. Political union is evidently most needed and most easily carried out between contiguous nations and those having the same language, from the frequency of their intercourse together; and hence each people should strive above all to be united with their nearest neighbors and with those akin to themselves in race and language in other parts of the globe. It is also much easier to effect a federation between a sovereign state and its dependencies than between independent countries, for the former are already united under the same government, and to the dependencies federation is a manifest gain ; while it is not less important to the interests of the dominant state, for in thepresent day, when the great ideas of national equality and the equal rights of nations are spreading far and wide, no empire can long be held together on the footing of a sovereign state and dependencies, but if not federated will assuredly fall to pieces. This tendency to promote federation shows the great value to mankind at large, and not merely to the dominant nations themselves, of vast empires such as those of Russia and England. The policy which the truest friends and admirers of Russia would wish to see her pursue is not to engage in aggres­ sive wars which might end in her own overthrow, but legally �FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND. 51 -and peacefully, or without revolution, to change by degrees her present absolute monarchy into a constitutional and representa­ tive system of government, and to federate her immense domin­ ions. In England the extraordinary importance of Imperial Federation, or, in other words, the federation of the British Isles with their colonies, and eventually with India and the other great dependencies, is recognised by statesmen of all political parties, and Lord Rosebery lately declared the hope of its accomplishment to be “ the dominant passion of his public life ”. The colonies themselves are desirous of being federally united with the mother country; and meanwhile, as statfid in the Government Year Book, “ the federation of colonial groups into dominions has made good progress. The confederation of British North America is all but complete. That of Australasia ■is, accomplished in part; and in all probability the South African settlements will follow suit.” It is not for themselves alone, but for mankind, that Russia and England would ■federate their empires, since other nations would doubtless sooner or later be admitted, and urgently invited, to join the federation. But of all political unions, that which seems to me most important at present, and most ardently to be desired, is the federal union of France and England. The statesmen who could bring it about would render an inestimable service to both countries, and inaugurate a new era of peace and fraternity, for in itself and by its probable consequences it would go far ^towards making the federation of mankind, instead of a remote ideal, an actual and accomplished fact. The advantages to this •country of such a union, and the weight of the reasons in its favor, cannot, I think, be exaggerated. The French are our nearest neighbors; they are one of the bravest and most power­ ful, and at the same time most highly cultivated, quick-witted, ■and charming nations on the face of the earth; a nation whom ■any people might be delighted to have as fellow-countrymen. From its proximity to England, France is the country with ■which we mu3t always have most frequent intercourse, and with which therefore a union is most of all required; Paris and London are nearer together than any other great capitals, and indeed if the project of a Channel Tunnel were carried out, as ■could safely be done if the countries were united, the journey from London to Paris might be performed, without the dis­ comforts of a sea voyage, in about seven hours. Our language, though of Teutonic origin, has become since the Norman Conquest so intimately mixed with the French that the latter is easier for an Englishman to acquire than German, and there ure probably twenty persons among us who know French for ■one who is acquainted with any other continental language. '.The strength and resources of the two countries if united �52 !1 , ) ; ( ' i's |( u If FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND. would be twice as great as of either of them singly; Franc® would gain England, and England would gain France; and what is particularly important for countries having distant possessions of such enormous extent (since the colonies and dependencies of each nation would then belong to both) their combined navy would have nothing to fear from any foreign, foe. Moreover, the paramount reason for every political union, whether of individuals or of nations, is that it puts an end to the state of nature or anarchy previously existing between them, and substitutes for it the reign of government and law. Mr. Dicey remarks that a separation from Ireland would entail upon England three great evils, namely, a defeat and surrenderof her traditional policy, a loss of power, and “the incalculable evil of the existence in the neighborhood of Great Britain of a new, a foreign, and possibly a hostile state”. Is not theseparation of France and England exactly in the same way am “incalculable evil ” to both countries ? It appears to me that the union of France with the United Kingdom would tend to settle the Irish question and to bring about a thorough and permanent reconciliation with Ireland ; that it would strengthen the foundations of the Empire, whosemaintenance is of such vast importance, and for whose complete security against any hostile attack England urgently needs a partner; that it would render feasible Imperial Federation or federation with the colonies, and not improbably also a federalunion with our kinsmen and former fellow-countrymen in the United States, both of which objects, however ardently to be desired, are at present surrounded with difficulties that seem to me insuperable; and that it would enable a share in the government, in the form of an unequal federation, to be granted without danger to India and the other great dependencies. It would do' more than almost anything else to convince the Irish. Nationalists that separation from Great Britain is neither practicable nor desirable, and that “ national independence ”, in the sense of a separate supreme government, is only anothername for the state of nature or anarchy between nations, and opposed to the most vital interests of all. Indeed, if we consider the matter closely, it will appear, I think, that political unioni and government are not at bottom founded on what can pro-perly be called a contract or consent, but on a moral duty, namely, the duty of the minority, when opinions differ, to yield to the majority (which does not mean that the less numerous nation should yield to the more numerous, but that the minority of ' both nations taken together should yield to the majority) since this is at once just in itself, and the only way to secure peaceamong mankind. Moreover, France has at different times beem allied with Ireland, and was for centuries the ally of Scotland, in their wars against England; and she is a Roman Catholic: �FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND. 52 country, and a country of peasant proprietors, which, circum­ stances might be expected to aid in overcoming the hostility of the Irish priesthood and the Irish peasantry, and in enabling them to obtain the fullest satisfaction of all their legitimate rights and demands. As regards the federation of England with the colonies and with the United States, it seems to me that an insurmountable obstacle to this at present is the unwilling­ ness of the latter countries to incur the risk of being involved in European wars, and obliged therefore, like the nations of Europe, to maintain huge standing armies and navies. Mr. Washburne, late Minister of the United States in France, ob­ serves : “It had been the traditional policy of our Government to keep out of all entangling alliances with foreign govern­ ments”. Mr. Sterne also, a barrister of New York, from whose work I have already quoted, says: “Unlike the nations of Europe, the United States has no neighbor sufficiently powerful to affect its policy or to modify its constitution. It requires no standing army : and so long as England performs the police duties of the seas, it requires but little of a navy.” Why should the United States, whose standing army is only twenty thousand strong, and why should the colonies, mix themselves up with the politics of a continent groaning under the weight of ten millions of armed men ? But if France and England were united, the situation would be entirely changed. Their union would be a guarantee for peace, insomuch that both the colonies and the United States might safely federate with them, thus adding immensely to the strength and security of the con­ federation and promoting the spread of liberal ideas and re­ presentative government throughout the world. One very powerful motive for union arises from the peculiar circumstances of Canada. The French are already federally united with the English in Canada, and if they were similarly united in Europe the colony would be attracted with double force to the two mother countries; while the United States also has long been urgently desirous of federating with Canada, and it is evident that the only way to satisfy all these deeply-rooted desires is by the federation of all the four countries together. This would secure peace in Europe, not only by the union of so many powerful and peace-loving nations, but by showing how much greater results can be obtained by political union than by the terrible weapons of war. If all wars and conquests are to end sooner or later in federation, why not rather begin with federation and spare these horrors and miseries to mankind ? Whatever other nations may do, however, our own policy in my humble opinion should be to seek a federal union with France. It would lighten our difficulties, lead to peace and concord, and tend most powerfully to promote federation and to solve the problems of government in everv part of the world. �54 FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND FISTULA nd, I would conclude with, the words of the great thinker, Thomas Hobbes, who may be regarded as in many respects the founder o<f the true theory of law and government, and who says that ‘ the condition of mere nature, that is to say, of absolute liberty, such as is theirs that neither are sovereigns nor sub­ jects, is anarchy and the condition of war ”, whereas “ all other time is Peace ”, � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Home rule and federation : with remarks on law and government and international anarchy, and with a proposal for the federal union of France and England, as the most important step to the federation of the world Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Drysdale, George Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 54 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. By 'A doctor of medicine'. Author's name handwritten in pencil on title page. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available E. Truelove 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 N194 Subject The topic of the resource Ireland Anarchism 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 (Home rule and federation : with remarks on law and government and international anarchy, and with a proposal for the federal union of France and England, as the most important step to the federation of the world), 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 Anarchism Federalism Great Britain-Foreign Relations-France Home Rule-Ireland NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ba92ac61d491eb62b28486e13393feb6.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=K8yn63E02NZ3UvRF-qMXQfkuSJ8Vu7GrVskuM0KqnQTqzLEgr0LCAGhGJdZCA3G4MqluzHtyIxvWhroQFRWCYK09Hf-hEJWgyq0fcPMdGLcNBfdDr4N73aMX8MoKdGW%7E-DQyVoqdvRX0N1b6usH0zft5y0aOP9B9Y7mIAJfTLuqOpOSvZHMz3LglN7wKRHXlqfI6CBG07YL9Z4LVKWUM0s9EGxmRpuYzBgseWu2oRufHBOsW5VNfOW4V1ooHnuoVGFWiGC9vBFqB9T0ZYekIlRDgO8XGsqCbunTKE3QaL9FM0EX-d7S-pgxmE2ex09jaMg7-PBhDMlUio6yutFYu4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3f23529afa838e82eeb8b2eb3d2dce18 PDF Text Text B %V I NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY G. W. FOOTE. ITonbott: X PROGRESSIVE / Y Vi* cm ' PUBLISHING COMPANY, . 28 STONECUTTER STREET, KO. ��B 2>7 ( ON DARWIN GOD BY G. W. FOOTE. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1889. �4 LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. 57. EOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �DARWIN ON GOD. --------- •---------- Only a few feet from the tomb of Sir Isaac Newton, in Westminster Abbey, lie the bones of Charles Darwin. The two men are worthy compeers in the scientific roll of fame. Newton’s discovery and estab­ lishment of the law of Gravitation marked an epoch in the history of science, and the same may be said of Darwin’s discovery and establishment of the law of Natural Selection. The Vrincipia and the Origin of Species rank together as two of the most memorablemonuments of scientific genius. In a certain sense, however, Darwin’s achievements are the more remarkable, because they profoundly affect our notions of man’s position and destiny in theuniverse. The great English naturalist was of a. modest and retiring disposition. He shrank from all kinds of controversy. He remarked, in one of his letters to Professor Huxley, that he felt it impossible to understand how any man could get up and make an impromptu speech in the heat of a public discussion. Nevertheless he was demolishing the popular super­ stition far more effectually than the most sinewy and �4 DARWIN ON GOD. dexterous athletes of debate. He was quietly revolu­ tionising the world of thought. He was infusing into the human mind the leaven of a new truth. And the new truth was tremendous in its implications. No wonder the clergy reviled and cursed it. They did not understand it any more than the Inquisitors who burnt Bruno and tortured Galileo understood the Copernican astronomy; but they felt, with a true professional instinct, with that cunning of self-preser­ vation which nature bestows on every species, including priests, that the Darwinian theory was fatal to tlieir deepest dogmas, and therefore to their power, their privileges, and their profits. They had a sure intuition that Darwinism was the writing on the wall, announc­ ing the doom of their empire ; and they recognised that their authority could only be prolonged by hiding the scripture of destiny from the attention of the multitude. The popular triumph of Darwinism must be the death-blow to theology. The Copernican astronomy destroyed the geocentric 'theory, which made the earth the centre of the universe, and all the celestial bodies its humble satellites. From that moment the false astronomy of the Bible was doomed, and its exposure was hound to throw discredit on “ the Word of God/’ From that moment, also, the notion was doomed that the Deity of this inconceivable universe was chiefly occupied with the fortunes of the human insects on this little planet, which is but a speck in the infinitude of space. Similarly the Darwinian biology is a sen­ tence of doom on the natural history of the Bible. Evolution and special creation are antagonistic ideas. �DARWIN ON GOD. 5 And if man himself has descended, or ascended, from lower forms of life; if he has been developed through thousands of generations from a branch of the Simian family ; it necessarily follows that the Garden of Eden is a fairy tale, that Adam and Eve were not the parents of the human race, that the Fall is an oriental legend, that Original Sin is a theological libel on humanity, that the Atonement is an unintelligible dogma, and the Incarnation a relic of ancient mythology. Let it not be forgotten, however, that Darwinism would have been impossible if geology had not pre­ pared its way. Natural Selection wants plenty of elbow-room; Evolution requires immeasurable time. But this could not be obtained until geology had made a laughing-stock of Biblical chronology. The record of the rocks reveals a chronology, not of six thousand, but of millions of years ; and during a vast portion of that time life has existed, slowly ascending to higher stages, and mounting from the monad to man. It was fitting, therefore, that Darwin should dedicate his first volume to Sir Charles Lyell. Darwin was not a polemical writer; on the contrary, his views w7ere advanced with extreme caution. He was gifted with magnificent patience. When the Origin of Species was published he knew that Man was not exempted from the laws of evolution. He satisfied his conscience by remarking that “ Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” and then waited twelve years before ex­ pounding his final conclusions in the Descent of Man. This has, indeed, been made a subject of reproach. �6 DARWIN ON GOD. But Darwin was surely the best judge as to how and when his theories should be published. He did his own great work in his own great way. There is no question of concealment. He gave his views to the world when they were fully ripened; and if, in a scientific treatise, he forbore to discuss the bearing of his views on the principles of current philosophy and the dogmas of popular theology, he let fall many remarks in his text and footnotes which were sufficient to show the penetrating reader that he was far from indifferent to such matters and had very definite opinions of his own. What could be more striking, what could better indicate his attitude of mind, than the fact that in the Origin of Species he never men­ tioned the book of Genesis, while in the Descent of Man he never alluded to Adam and Eve Such con­ temptuous silence was more eloquent than the most pointed attack. DARWIN’S GRANDFATHER. Before Darwin was born his patronymic had been made illustrious. It is a curious fact that both Darwin and Newton came of old Lincolnshire families. Newton wras born in the county, but the Darwins had removed in the seventeenth century to the neighboring county of Nottingham. William Darwin (born 1655) married the heiress of Robert Waring, of Wilsford. This lady also inherited the manor of Elston, which has remained ever since in the family. It went to the younger son of William Darwin. This Robert Darwin was the father of four sons, the youngest of whom, �DARWIN ON GOD. 7 Erasmus Darwin, was born on December 12, 1731, at Elston Hall. The life of Erasmus Darwin has been charmingly written by his illustrious grandson.1 Prefixed to the Memoir is a photographic portrait from a picture by Wright of Derby. It shows a strong, kind face, dominated by a pair of deep-set, commanding eyes, surmounted by a firm, broad brow and finely modelled head. The whole man looks one in a million. Gazing at the portrait, it is easy to understand his scientific eminence, his great reputation as a successful physician, his rectitude, generosity, and powers of sympathy and imagination. Dr. Erasmus Darwin practised medicine at Derby? but his fame was widespread. While driving to and from his patients he wrote verses of remarkable polish, embodying the novel ideas with which his head fer­ mented. They were not true poetry, although they were highly praised by Edgeworth and Hayley, and even by Cowper; but Byron was guilty of “ the false­ hood of extremes ” in stigmatising their author as “ a mighty master of unmeaning rhyme.” The rhyme was certainly not unmeaning : on the contrary, there was plenty of meaning, and fresh meaning too, but it should have been expressed in prose. Erasmus Darwin had a surprising insight into the methods of nature; he threw out a multitude of pregnant hints in biology, and once or twice he nearly stumbled on the law of Natural Selection. He saw the “ struggle for existence ” with remarkable clearness. “ The stronger 1 Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. With a Preliminary Notice by Charles Darwin. London : Murray, 1879. �8 DARWIN ON GOD. locomotive animals/’ lie wrote, ii devour the weaker ones without mercy. Such is the condition of organic nature I whose first law might be expressed in the words, ‘ Eat or be eaten/ and which would seem to be one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of rapacity and injustice.’’ Mr. G. H. Eewes credits him with “ a profounder insight into psychology than any of his contemporaries and the majority of his successors exhibit,” and says that he <c deserves a place in history for that one admirable conception of psychology as subordinate to the laws of life.” Dr. Maudsley bears testimony to his sagacity in regard to mental disorders ; Dr. Lauder Brunton shows that he anticipated Rosen­ thal’s theory of “ catching cold ” ; and a dozen other illustrations might be given of his scientific prescience in chemistry, anatomy, and medicine. He was also a very advanced reformer. He believed in exercise and fresh air, and taught his sons and daughters to swim. He saw the vast importance of educating girls. He studied sanitation, pointed out how towns should be supplied with pure water, and urged that sewage should be turned to use in agriculture instead of being allowed to pollute our rivers. He also sketched out a variety of useful inventions, which he was too busy to complete himself. Nor did he confine himself to practical reforms. He sympathised warmly with Howard, who was reforming our prison system; and he denounced slavery at the time when the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel held slaves in the Barbadoes, and absolutely declined to give them Christian instruction.2 2 Erasmus Darwin, p. 47. �DARWIN ON GOD. 9 No one will be surprised to learn that Erasmus Darwin was a sceptic. Indeed there seems to have been a family tendency in that direction. His sister Susannah, a young lady of eighteen, writing to him at school in his boyhood, after some remarks on abstinence during Lent, said “ As soon as we kill our hog I intend to take a part thereof with the Family, for I’m in­ formed by a learned Divine that Hog's Flesh is Fish, and has been so ever since the Devil entered into them and ran into the Sea.” Bright, witty Susannah 1 She died unmarried, and became, as Darwin says, the “ very pattern of an old lady, so nice looking, so gentle, so kind, and passionately fond of flowers.” Erasmus Darwin’s scepticism was of an early growth. At the age of twenty-three, in a letter to Dr. Okes, after announcing his father’s death he professes a firm belief in “ a superior Ens EntiumJ’ but rejects the notion of a special providence, and says that “ general laws seem sufficient ” ; and while humbly hoping that God will “re-create us ” after death, he plainly asserts that “ the light of Nature affords us not a single argu­ ment for a future state.” He has frequently been called an Atheist, but this is a mistake ; he was a Deist, believing in God, but rejecting Revelation. Even Unitarianism was too orthodox for him, and he wittily called it “ a feather-bed to catch a falling Christian.” His death occurred on April 10, 1802. He expired in his arm-chair “ without pain or emotion of any kind.” He had always hoped his end might be painless, and it proved to be so. Otherwise he was not disturbed by the thought of death. “ When I think of dying, ” �10 PARWIN ON GOP. lie wrote to liis friend Edgeworth, “ It is always without pain or fear.” Such a brief account of this extraordinary man would be inadequate to any other purpose, but it suffices to show that Darwin was himself a striking illustration of the law of heredity. Scientific boldness and religious scepticism ran in the blood of his race. ■ DABWIN’S FATHER. Darwin’s father, Robert Waring Darwin, the third son of Erasmus Darwin, settled down as a doctor at Shrewsbury. He had a very large practice, and was a very remarkable man. He stood six-feet two and was broad in proportion. His shrewdness, rectitude and benevolence gained him universal love and esteem. He was reverenced by his great son, who always spoke of him as “ the wisest man I ever knew.’’ His wife was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, and her sweet, gentle, sympathetic nature was inherited by her famous son. She died in 1817, thirty-two years before her husband, who died on November 13, 1848. There is little, if anything, to be gleaned from any published documents as to the opinions of Darwin’s father. Upon this point Mr. Francis Darwin has been too zealously discreet. Happily I have been furnished with a few particulars by the Rev. Edward Myers, minister of the Unitarian chapel at Shrewsbury. Mrs. Darwin was herself a Unitarian, and she attended with her family the Unitarian chapel in High Street, Shrewsbury, of which the Rev. George Case was then minister. The daughters were all baptised �DARWIN ON GOD. 11 by Mr. Case and their names entered in the chapel register; but the sons were for some reason baptised in the parish church of St. Chad. Charles Darwin attended Mr. Case’s school, and was by him prepared for the Shrewsbury Grammar School. Up to 1825, when he went to the University of Edinburgh, he, with the Darwin family, regularly attended the Uni­ tarian place of worship. But in 1832, after the erec­ tion of St. George’s Church, Frankwell, they left the chapel and went to church. “ Dr. Darwin,” says Mr. Myers, who succeeded Mr. Case, “was never a regular attendant at the Unitarian chapel, but he went occasionally. Indeed, he never regularly attended any place of worship, and his extreme view’s on theological and religious matters were so well known that he used to be commonly spoken of as ‘Dr. Darwin the unbeliever,’ and ‘Dr Darwin the infidel.’ ” The question naturally arises, how could Dr. Darwin have seriously intended his son to become a clergy­ man'? Mr. Myers offers, as I think, a sufficient explanation. The Church at that time was looked upon as simply a professional avenue, like the law or medicine; and, as Mr. Gladstone remarks in his Chapter of Autobiography, “ the richer benefices were very commonly regarded as a suitable provision for such members of the higher families as were least fit to push their way in any other profession requiring thought and labor.” But, the reader will exclaim, how was it possible to include Charles Darwin in this category of incapables 1 The answer is simple. Darwin was not brilliant in his youth. !Iis great �12 DARWIN ON GOD. faculties required time to ripen. He failed as a medical student because lie had an unconquerable antipathy to the sight of blood, and was so afflicted by witnessing a bad operation on a child that he actually ran away. He was always regarded as “ a very ordinary boy/’ to use his own words; and his father once said to him, “ You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat­ catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and your family.’’3 It was a singularly infelicitous pro­ phecy, but it shows Dr. Darwin’s mean opinion of his son’s intellect, and enables us to understand how “ Dr. Darwin the infidel” devoted his unpromising cub to the great refuge of incapacity. DABWIN’S EARLY PIETY. Either the Rev. George Case belonged to the more orthodox wing of Unitarianism, or the teach­ ing at the Shrewsbury Grammar School must have effaced any sceptical impressions he made on the mind of Charles Darwin, whose early piety is evident both from his Autobiography and from several of his letters. And this fact is of the highest importance, since it follows that his disbelief in later years was the result of independent thought and the gradual pressure of scientific truth. “ I well remember,” he says, “ in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to 3Life and. Letters of Charles Darwin. Edited by his son, Francis Darwin. Vol. I., p. 32. �DARWIN ON GOD. 13 God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided. Speaking of himself at the age of twenty or twentyone, he says, “ I did not then doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible?’0 When a little later he went on board the “ Beagle/'’ to take that famous voyage which he has narrated so charmingly, and which determined his subsequent career, he was still “ quite orthodox.’-’ “ I remember/’ he says, “ being laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality/’0 Darwin charitably supposes “ it was the novelty of the argument which amused them/'’ But why was the argument novel ? Simply because the Bible is a kind of fetish, to be worshipped and sworn by, anything but read and followed. As Mill remarked, it furnishes texts to fling at the heads of unbelievers ; but when the Christian is expected to act upon it, he is found to conform to other standards, including his own con­ venience. There can be little doubt that the laughter of his shipmates produced a powerful and lasting effect on Darwin’s mind. His character was translucent and invincibly sincere ; and the laughter of orthodox persons at their own doctrines was calculated to set him thinking about their truth. ALMOST A CLERGYMAN. Being a f allure as a medical student, Darwin received i Life and Letters, vol. i.. p. 31. 5 Vol. I., p. 45. ' 6 Vol. I., p. 308 �14 DARWIN ON GOD. a proposal from his father to become a clergyman, and 1 he rather liked the idea of settling down as a country parson. Fancy Darwin in a pulpit! The finest scientific head since Newton distilling bucolic sermons I What a tragi-comedy it would have been I Darwin carefully read “ Pearson on the Creed,” and other books on divinity. £< I soon persuaded my­ self,” he says, “ that our Creed must be accepted.” He went up to Cambridge and studied hard. “ In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up'Paley’s Evidences of Christianity and his Moral Philo' sophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the ‘ Evidences ’ with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book, and, as I may add, of his Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that tirqe trouble myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.” Darwin probably owed most to the Natural Theology of Paley. Writing to Sir John Lubbock nearly thirty years later, he said: “ I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more.” Perhaps it was less the logic of the great Archdeacon than his limpid style and in­ teresting treatment of physical science which charmed the young mind of Darwin. He had a constitutional love of clearness, and his genius was then turning towards the studies which occupied his life. Scruples gradually entered Darwin’s mind. He began to find the creed not so credible. One of his �DARWIN ON GOD. 15 friends gives an interesting reminiscence of this period. “We had an earnest conversation,” says Mr. Herbert, 4< about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his asking me, with reference to the question put by the Bishop in the ordination service, 4 Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, etc./ whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my saying I could not, he said, 4 Neither can I, and there­ fore I cannot take holy orders/ ” Still he did not abandon the idea altogether; he drifted away from it little by little until it fell out of sight. Fourteen or fifteen years later, writing to Sir Charles Lyell, he had gone so far as to speak of 44 that Corporate Animal, the Clergy.” Looking back over these experiences, only a few years before his death, Darwin was able to regard them with equanimity and amusement. There is a sly twinkle of humor in the following passage. “ Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the 4 Beagle ’ as naturalist. If the phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretary of a German psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photo­ graph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discus­ sion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of reverence,developed enough for ten priests.”7 The Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, accounts for 7 Vol. I., p. 45. �16 DARWIN ON GOD. Matthew Arnold's scepticism by the flatness of the top of his head. Mr. Arnold lacked the bump which points to God. But how does Mr. Cook account for the scepticism of Darwin, whose head was piouslyadorned with such a prodigious bump of veneration ? ON BOARD THE “ BEAGLE.” While at Cambridge, studying for the Church, Darwin made the acquaintance of Professor Henslow and Dr. Whewell. He read Humboldt “ with care and profound interest/’ and Herschel’s Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy. These writers excited in him “ a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science.5' Humboldt’s description of the glories of Teneriffe made him desire to visit that region. He even “ got an introduction to a merchant in London to inquire about ships." Soon afterwards he became acquainted with Professor Sedgwick, and his attention was turned to geology. On returning from a geological tour in North Wales with Sedgwick he found a letter from Henslow offering him a share of Captain Fitzroy’s cabin on board the “ Beagle," if he cared to go without pay as naturalist. The offer was accepted, Dr. Darwin behaved handsomely, and the young man sailed away with a first-rate equipment and a pecuniary provision for his five years' voyage round the world. This voyage, says Darwin, “ has been by far the most im­ portant event in my life, and has determined my whole career." Readers of Darwin’s fascinating A Naturalist’s �DARWIN ON GOD. 17 Voyage8 know that his great powers were matured on board the “ Beagled’ “ That my mind became deve­ loped through my pursuits during the voyage,” he himself says, “ is rendered probable by a remark made by my father, who was the most acute observer whom I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in phrenology ; for on first seeing me after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters and exclaimed, ‘ Why, the shape of his head is quite altered.’ ” During the voyage Darwin was brought into close and frequent contact with “ that scandal to Christian nations—-Slavery.”9 This was a matter on which he felt keenly. His just and compassionate nature was stirred to the depths by the oppression and sufferings of the American negroes. The infamous scenes he witnessed haunted his imagination. Nearly thirty years afterwards, writing to Dr. Asa Gray, he wished, “though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery.” His im­ pressions at the earlier date were recorded in his book, and it is best to quote the passage in full: “On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was 8 A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H. M. S. "Beagle” round the World. By Charles Darwin. 9 Life and Letters,veA, i., p. 237. �18 DARWIN ON GOD. as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted, enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio Janeiro a powerful negro’ afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had longed lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authen­ tically heard of ; —nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes,where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived .amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears. It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; ■as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our �DARWIN ON GOD. 19 poorer countrymen; if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see ; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave­ owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves- into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change 1 Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder I And these deeds are done and palliated by men who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who be­ lieve in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth I”1 The sting of this passage is in its tail. Darwin must have felt that there was something hypocritical and sinister in the pretensions of Christianity. He must have asked himself what was the practical value of a creed which permitted such horrors. SETTLING AT DOWN. Darwin married on January 29, 1839. His wife was singularly helpful, making his home happy, and subordinating herself to the great ends of his life. Children grew up around them, and their home was one of the brightest and best in the world. Here is a pretty touch in Darwin’s letter to his friend Fox, dated from Upper Gower Street, London, July 1840 : “He, (i.e., the baby) is so charming that I cannot pretend to any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our baby, for 1 defy anyone to say anything in its praise of* Pp. 499—500. �20 DARWIN ON GOD. which we are not fully conscious ... I hacl not the smallest conception there was so much in a five-month baby.'-’ Cunning nature I twining baby fingers about the big man’s heart. Still the proud father studied the cherub as a scientist; he watched its mental growth with the greatest assiduity, and thus began those observations which he ultimately published in the Expression of the Emotions. In September 1842 he went to live at Down, where he continued to reside until his death. He helped to found a Friendly Club there, and served as its treasurer for thirty years. He was also treasurer of a Coal Club. The Rev. Brodie Innes says “ His conduct towards me and my family was one of nnvarying kind­ ness.’"’ Darwin was a liberal contributor to the local charities, and “ he held that where there was really no­ important objection, his assistance should be given to the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances best, and was chiefly responsible.” He did not, however, go through the mockeyy of attending church. I was informed by the late head constable of Devonport, who was himself an open Atheist, that he had once been on duty for a consider­ able time at Down. He had often seen Darwin escort his family to church, and enjoyed many a conversation with the great man, who used to enjoy a walkthrough the country lanes while the devotions were in progress DEATH AND BURIAL. Darwin’s life henceforth was that of a country gentleman and a secluded scientist. His great works, �DARWIN ON GOD. 21 more revolutionary than all the political and social turmoil of his age, were planned and written in the quiet study of an old house in a Kentish village. He suffered terribly from ill health, but he labored on gallantly to the end, and died in harness. “ For nearly forty years,"’ writes Mr. Francis Darwin, “ he never knew one day of the health ot ordinary men, and thus his life was one long struggle against the weariness and strain of sickness.” But no whimperings escaped him, or petulant reproaches on those around him. Always gentle, loving and beloved, he looked on the universe with unswerving serenity. A nobler mixture of sweet­ ness and strength never adorned the earth. In 1876 he wrote some Recollections for his children, with no thought of publication. “I have attempted,” he said, “ to write the following account of myself, as if I were a dead man in another world looking back at my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life is nearly over with me.” He was ready for Death, but they did not meet for six years. During February and March, 1882, he wa? obviously breaking. The rest must be told by his son, ‘■No especial change occurred during the beginning of April, but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experi­ ment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach of death, and said, ‘ I am not the least afraid to die.’ All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea, and hardly �22 DARWIN ON GOD. rallied, before the end came. He died at about four o’clock on Wednesday, April 19tb, 1882”2 Thus the great scientist and sceptic went to his everlasting rest. He had no belief in God, no expec­ tation of a future life. But he had done his duty; he had filled the world with new truth ; he had lived a life of heroism, compared with which the hectic courage of battle-fields is vulgar and insignificant; and he died in soft tranquillity, surrounded by the beings he loved. His last conscious words were I am not the least afraid to die. No one who knew him, or his life and work, could for a moment suspect him capable of fear. Nevertheless it is well to have the words on record from the lips of those who saw him die. The carrion priests who batten on the reputation of dead Free­ thinkers will find no repast in this death-chamber. One sentence frees him from the contamination of their approach. Darwin’s family desired that he should be buried at Down. But the fashion of burying -great men in Westminster Abbey, even though unbelievers, had been set by Dean Stanley, whom Carlyle irreverently called “ the body-snatcher.” Stanley’s successor, Dean Bradley, readily consented to the great heretic’s interment in his House of God, where it is to be presumed the Church of England burial service was duly read over the “ remains.” Men like Professor Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, ind Sir Joseph Hooker should not have assisted at such a blasphemous farce. It was enough to make Darwin groan in his coffin. Well, the Church has Darwin’s corpse, but that is all 2 Li/e and Letters, vol. iii., p. 358. �DAIDVIN ON GOD. 23 she can boast; and as she paid the heavy price of telling lies at his funeral, it may not in the long run prove a profitable transaction. She has not buried Darwin’s ideas. They are still at work, sapping and undermining her very foundations. PURPOSE OF THIS PAMPHLET. My object is to show the general reader what were Darwin’s views on religion, and, as far as possible, to trace the growth of those views in his mind. I desire to point out, in particular, how he thought the leading ideas of theology were affected by the doctrine of evolution. Further, I wish to prove that there is no essential difference between his Agnosticism and what has always been taught as Atheism. Finally, I mean to give my own notions on evolution and theism. In doing so, I shall be obliged to consider some points raised by anti-materialists, especially by Dr. A. B. Wallace in his recent volume on Darwinism. SOME OBJECTIONS. Let me first, however, answer certain objections. It is contended by those who would minimise the impor­ tance of Darwin’s scepticism that he was a scientist and not a theologian. When it is replied that this objection is based upon a negation of private judgment, and logically involves the handing over of society to the tender mercies of interested specialists, the objectors fall back upon the mitigated statement that �24 D ARAVIN ON GOD. Darwin was too much occupied with science to give adequate attention to the problems of religion. Now, in the first place, this is not really true. He certainly disclaimed any special fitness to give an opinion on such matters, but that was owing to his exceptional modesty; and to take advantage of it by accepting it as equiva­ lent to a confession of unfitness, is simply indecent on the part of those who never tire of holding up the testimony of Newton, Herschel, and Faraday to the truth of their creed. Darwin gave sufficient attention to religion to satisfy himself. He began to abandon Christianity at the age of thirty. Writing of the period between October, 1836 and January, 1839, he says “ During those two years I was led to think much about religion.”3 That the subject occupied his mind at other times is evident from his works and letters. He had clearly weighed every argument in favor of Theism and Immortality, and his brief, precise way of stating the objections to them shows that they were perfectly familiar. True, he says “I have never systematically thought much on religion in relation to science,” but this was in ansAver to a request that he should write something for publication. In the same sentence he says that he had not systematically thought much on “ morals in relation to society.” But he had thought enough to write that wonderful fourth chapter in the first part of the Descent of Man, which Avas published in that very year. Darwin was so modest, so cautious, and so thorough, that “ systematic thought” meant with him an infinitely greater stress 3 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 307. �DARWIN ON GOD. 25 of mind than is devoted to religious problems by one theologian in a million. The next objection is more subtle, not to say fan­ tastic. In his youth Darwin was fond of music. He had no technical knowledge of it, nor even a good ear, but it filled him with delight, and sometimes sent a shiver down his backbone. He was also fond of poetry, reading Shakespeare, Coleridge, Byron, and Scott, and carrying about a pocket copy of Milton. But in later life he lost all interest in such things, and trying to read Shakespeare again after 18/0 he found it “so intolerably dull” that it “nauseated” him. His intense pre-occupation with science had led to a partial atrophy of his aesthetic faculties. It was a loss to him, but the world gained by the sacrifice. Now upon this fact is based the objection I am dealing with. In the days of Sir Isaac Newton or Bishop Butler, when belief was supposed to rest on evidence, the objection would have seemed pre­ posterous; but it is gravely urged at present, when religion is fast becoming a matter of candles, music, and ornament, seasoned with cheap sentimentality. Darwin’s absorption in intellectual pursuits, and the consequent neglect of the artistic elements in his nature, is actually held as a sufficient explanation of his scepticism. His highly-developed and constantlysustained moral nature is regarded as having no relation to the problem. Religion, it seems, is neither morality nor logic; it is spirituality. And what is spirituality ? Why, a yearning aftei' the vague, the unutterable; a consciousness of the sinfulness of sin; a perpetual study of one’s blessed self ; a debauch of �26 DARWIN ON GOD. egotistic emotion and chaotic fancy; in short, a highlyrefined development of the feelings of a cow in a thunderstorm, and the practices of a savage before his inscrutible fetish. Spirituality is an emoti mal offshoot of religion ; but religion itself grows out of belief; and belief, even among the lowest savages, is grounded on evidence. The Church has always had the sense to begin with doctrines; it enjoins upon its children to say first of all “ I believed’ Let the doctrines go, and the senti­ ments will go also. It is only a question of time. Darwin tested.the doctrines. Miracles, special provi­ dence, the fall, the incarnation, the resurrection, the existence of an all-wise and all-good God; all seemed to him statements which should be proved. He there­ fore put them into the crucible of reason, and they turned out to be nothing but dross. According to the “ spiritual ” critics this was a mistake, religion being a matter of imagination. Quite so ; here Darwin is in agreement with them; and thus again the proverb is verified that “ extremes meet.” The last objection is almost too peurile to notice. It has been asserted that Darwin was an unconscious believer, after all; and this astonishing remark is supported by exclamations from his letters. He frequently wrote “ God knows,” “would to God,” and so forth. But he sometimes wrote “ By Jove,” from which it follows that he believed in Jupiter 1 Ou one occasion he informed Dr. Hooker that he had recovered from an illness,and could “ eat like a hearty Christian/ ’ from which it follows that he believed in the connection of Christianity and voracity 1 �DARWIN ON GOD. 27 Mr. F. W. FI. Myers is too subtle a critic to raise this objection in its natural crudity. He affects to regard Darwin’s tranquillity under the loss of religious belief as a puzzle. He asks why Darwin kept free from the pessimism which “ in one form or other has paralysed or saddened so many of the best lives of our time.” What “ kept the melancholy infection at bay?” “ Here, surely, is the solution of the problem. The faculties of observing and. reasoning were stimulated to the utmost; the domestic affections were kept keen and strong; but the atrophy of the religious instinct, of which we have already spoken, extended yet farther—over the whole range of aesthetic emotion, and mystic sentiment—over all in us which‘looks before and after, and pines for what is not.’ ”4 This is pretty writing, but under the form of insi­ nuation it begs the question at issue. Keligious instinct and mystic sentiment are fine phrases, but they prove nothing; on the contrary, they are devices for dispensing with that logical investigation which reli­ gion ever shuns as the Devil is said to shun holy water. DARWIN ABANDONS CHRISTIANITY. Dr. Buchner, the German materialist, who was in London in September, 1881, went to Down and spent some hours with Darwin. Fie was accompanied by Dr. E. B. Aveling, who has written an account of their conversation in Darwin’s study.5 This pamphlet is 4 Charles Darwin and Agnosticism. By F. W. H. Myers, “Fort­ nightly Review,” January, 1888, p. 106. 5 The Religious Views of Charles Darwin. By Dr. E. B. Aveling. Freethought Publishing Co. �28 DARWIN ON GOD. referred to in a footnote by Mr. Francis Darwin, who says that “ Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impres­ sion cf my father’s views.” 6 He does not contradict any of Dr. Aveling’s statements, and they may there­ fore be regarded as substantially correct. Darwin said to his guests, “ I never gave up Chris­ tianity until I was forty years of age.” He had given attention to the matter, and had investigated the claims of Christianity. Being asked why he abandoned it, he replied, “ It is not supported by evidence.” This reminds one of a story about George Eliot. A gentleman held forth to her at great length on the beauty of Christianity. Like Mr. Myers, he was great at “aesthetic emotion” and “mystic sentiment.” The great woman listened to him with philosophic patience, and at length she struck in herself. “Well, you know,” she said, “ I have only one objection to Christianity.” “And what is that?” her guest en­ quired. “ Why,” she replied, “it isn’t true.” Dr. Aveling’s statement is corroborated by a long and interesting passage in Darwin’s chapter of Auto­ biography, which the reader shall have in full. “I had gradually come by this time, that is, 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—Is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible. “ By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by 0 Vol. I., p. 317. �DARWIN ON GOD. 29 which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—'that tho Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual in­ accuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Chris­ tianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. “ But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day­ dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gcspels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.”7 Three features should be noted in this striking passage. First, the order in which the evidences of Christianity were tried and found wanting; second, the complete mastery of every important point; third, the absence of all distress of mind in the process. Darwin’s mind was, in fact, going through a new development, and the old creed was got rid of as easily as an old skin when a new one is taking its place. For nearly forty years Darwin was a disbeliever in Christianity. He rejected it utterly. It passed out of his mind and heart. The fact was not proclaimed 7 Vol. I., pp. 308-309. �30 DARWIN ON GOT). from the house-tops, but it was patent to every intelli­ gent reader of his works. He paid no attention to the clerical dogs that barked at his heels, but wisely kept his mind free from such distractions, and went on his way, as Professor Tyndall says, with the steady and irresistible movement of an avalanche. Much capital has been made by Christians who are thankful for small mercies out of the fact that Darwin subscribed to the South American Missionary SocietyThe Archbishop of Canterbury, at the annual meeting on April 21, 1885, said the Society “ drew the atten­ tion of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more lasting.” Such language is simply fraudulent. The fact is, Darwin thought the Fuegians a set of hopeless savages, and he was so agreeably undeceived by the reports of their improvement that he sent a subscription of £5 through his old shipmate Admiral Sir James Sullivan. This gentleman gives three or four extracts from Darwin’s letters,8 from which it appears that he was solely interested in the secular improvement of the Fuegians, without the smallest concern for their pro­ gress in religion. Darwin subscribed to send missionaries to a people he regarded as “ the very lowest of the human race.” Surely this is not an extravagant compliment to Christianity. He never subscribed towards its promo­ tion in any civilised country. Those who parade his “support*” invite the sarcasm that he'thought their religion fit for savages. s Vol. III., pp. 127-128. �DARWIX OX GOD. o1 Dl DEISM. Having abandoned Christianity, Darwin remained for many years a Deist. The Naturalist’s Voyage was first published in 1845, and the following passage occurs in the final chapter : “ Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests undefaced by the hand of man; whether those of Brazil, where the powers of Life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego, where Death and Decay prevail. Both are temples filled with the varied products of the God of Nature :—no one can stand in these solitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.”9 This is the language of emotion, and no one will be surprised at Darwin's saying subsequently “ I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life/71 How great a change the thinking wrought is seen, from a reference to this very incident in the Autobiography, written in 1876, a few years before his death. “ At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. Formerly I was led by such feelings as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the exist­ ence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘ it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. 9 P. 508. 1 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. ,309. �32 D ARAVIN ON GOD. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such con­ viction and feelings to rise in my mind.” 2 ! Darwin's belief in a personal God had not per­ ceptibly weakened in 1859, when he published the Origin of Species. He could still speak of “the Creator’' and use the ordinary language of Deism. In a letter to Mr. C. Ridley, dated November 28, 1878, upon a sermon of Dr. Pusey’s, he said, “ When I was collecting facts for the £ Origin ’ my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself."3 It is therefore obvious that Darwin doubted Chris­ tianity at the age of thirty, abandoned it before the age of forty, and remained a Deist until the age of fifty. The publication of the Origin of Species' may be taken as marking the commencement of his third and last mental epoch. The philosophy of Evolution took possession of his mind, and gradually expelled both the belief in God and the belief in immortality. His development was too gradual for any wrench. People upon whom his biological theories came as lightning-swift surprises often fancied that he must be deeply distressed by such painful truths. Some­ times, indeed, this suspicion was carried to a comical extreme. “Lyell once told me,” says Professor Judd, “ that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was not one of the most unhappy of men, it being sug­ gested that his outrage upon public opinion should have filled him with remorse."4 How it would have astonished these simple creatures to see Darwin in his 2 Vol. I., p. 811. 3 Vol. III., p. 236. 4 Vol. HI., p. 62. �DARWIN ON GOD. 33 happy home, reclining on the sofa after a hard day’s work, while his devoted wife or daughter read a novel aloud or played some music ; or perhaps smoking an occasional cigarette, one of his few concessions to the weakness of the flesh. CREATION. Evolution and Creation are antagonistic ideas, nor can they he reconciled by the cheap device of assum­ ing their cooperation “ in the beginning.” When the theologians spoke of Creation, in the pre-Darwinian days, they meant exactly the same as ordinary people who employed the term ; namely, that everything in nature was brought into existence by an express fiat of the will of God. The epithet “ special ” only hides the fate of Creation from the short-sighted. To say that the Deity produced the raw material of the universe, with all its properties, and then let it evolve into what we see, is simply to abandon the real idea of Creation and to take refuge in a metaphysical dogma. Creation is only a pompous equivalent for “ God did it.” Before the nebular hypothesis explained the origin, growth, and decay of the celestial bodies, the theologian used to inquire “ Who made the world ? ” When that conundrum was solved he asked a fresh question, “ Who made the plants and animals ? ” When that conundrum was solved he asked another question, “ Who made man? ” Now that conundrum is solved he asks “ Who created life 1 ” And when the Evolutionists reply “ Wait a little ; we shall see,” he puts his final poser, “ Who made matter ? ” �34 DARWIN ON GOD. All along the line he has been saying “ God did it” to everything not understood ; that is, he has turned ignorance into a dogma. Every explanation compels him to beat a retreat; nay more, it shows that “ making ” is inapplicable. Nature’s method is growth. Making is a term of art, and when applied to nature it is sheer anthropomorphism. The baby who prattles to her doll, and the theologian who prates of Creation, have a common philosophy. When the Origin of Species was published, we have seen that Darwin firmly believed in a personal God. Unfortunately he allowed himself, in the last chapter, to use language, not unnatural in a Deist, but still equivocal and misleading. He spoke, for instance, of “ the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.-” This is perhaps excusable, but there was a more unhappy sentence in which he spoke of life “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” A flavor of Genesis is in these words, and the clergy, with their usual unscrupulousness, have made the most of it; taking care not to read it, or let their hearers read it, in the light of Darwin’s later writings. In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, dated March 13, 1863, Darwin writes, “ I had a most kind and delight­ fully candid letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he no more believed in Creation than you or I.”5 Writing again to Hooker, in the same month, he said: “ I have 5 Vol. III., p. 15. The italics are mine. �DARWIN ON GOD. 35 long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentatcuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘ appeared ’ by some wholly unknown process/’6 “ Truckling ” is a strong word. I fancy Darwin was too severe in his self-reproach. I prefer to regard the unhappy sentences about Creation as the slip-shod expressions of a roan who was still a Deist, and who, possessing little literary tact, failed to guard himself against a misuse of popular language. The greatest misfortune was that the book was before the public, and the expressions could hardly be withdrawn or altered without a full explanation; from which I dare say he shrank, as out of place in a scientific treatise. ORIGIN OF LIFE. “ Spontaneous generation is a paradoxical phrase, and it has excited a great deal of unprofitable discus­ sion. However the controversy rests between Bastian and Tyndall, the problem of the origin of life isentirely unaffected. Nor need we entertain Sir William Thomson’s fanciful conjecture that life may have been brought to this planet on a meteoric frag­ ment, for this only puts the radical question upon the shelf. We may likewise dismiss the theory of Dr. Wallace, who holds that “ complexity of chemical compounds ” could “ certainly not have produced living protoplasm.” 7 “ Could not,” in the existing state of knowledge, is simply dogmatism. Dr. Wallace has a spiritual hypothesis to maintain, and like the 8 Vol. Ill, p. 18. 7 Darwinism, p. 474. �36 DARWIN ON GOD. crudest theologian, though in a superior style, he introduces his little theory, with a polite bow, to account for what is at present inexplicable. The thorough-going Evolutionist is perfectly satisfied to wait for information. So much has been explained already that it is folly to be impatient. The presump­ tion, meanwhile, is in favor of continuity. Argument without facts is a waste of time and temper. “It is mere rubbish,” Darwin said, “thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.” 8 This was written in 1863, in a letter to Hooker. Darwin could not help seeing, however, that the conditions favorable to the origination of life might only exist once in the history of a planet. A very suggestive passage is printed by Mr. Francis Darwin as written by his father in 1871. “ It is often said that all the conditions for the first produc­ tion of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh ! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”9 Darwin appears to have felt that life have originated naturally. The interposition of an imagi­ nary supernatural cause does not solve the problem. It cuts the Gordian knot, perhaps, but does not untie it. Nature is full of illustrations of the truth that “ properties ” exist in complex compounds which do 8^Vol. III., p. 18. 9 Vol. III., p. 18, footnote. �DABWIN ON GOD. 37 not appear in the separate ingredients. Huxley rightly inquires what justification there is for “ the assumption of the existence in the living matter of a something which has no representative, or correlative, in the not living matter which gave rise to it.” 1 There is no more mystery in the origin of life than in the formation of water by an electric spark which traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. Dr. Wallace appears to see this, and consequently he ascribes electricity, with gravitation, cohesion, and chemical force, to the “ spiritual world ! ” 2 ORIGIN OF MAN. Darwin’s masterpiece, in the opinion of scientists, is the Origin of Species. But the Descent of Alan is more important to the general public. As applied to other forms of life, Evolution is a profoundly inte­ resting theory; as applied to man, it revolutionises philosophy, religion, and morals. Tracing the development of animal organisms from the ascidian, Darwin passes along the line of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, mammals, and finally to the simians. “ The Simiadee then branched off,” he says, “ into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys ; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.”3 Notwithstanding that some specimens of the “ wonder and glory of the universe ” cannot count 1 Lay Sermons, p. 137. 2 Darwinism, p. 476. 3 Descent of Man, p. 165. �38 DARWIN ON GOD. above the number of the fingers of one hand, while some of them live in a shocking state of bestiality, Darwin's deliverance on the origin of man was greeted with a storm of execration. “Fancy/’ it was ex­ claimed, “ fancy recognising the monkey as our first cousin, and the lower animals as our distant rela­ tions ! Pshaw 1 ” The protesters forgot that there is no harm in “ coming from monkeys ” if you have come far enough. Some of them, perhaps, had a shrewd suspicion that they had not come far enough; and, like parvenus, they were ashamed to own their poor relations. Anticipating the distastefulness of his conclusions, Darwin pointed out that, at any rate, we were descended from barbarians; and why, he inquired, should we shrink from owning a still lower relation­ ship ? ' ' “ He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide with­ out remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”4 Eighteen years have passed since then, and Darwin’s views have triumphed. The clergy still “hum’-’ and “ha'” and shake their heads, but the scientific world has accepted Darwinism with practical 4 Descent of Man, p. 619. �39 DARWIN ON GOD. unanimity. Even Dr. Wallace, who at first hesitated, is now convinced. “ I fully accept Mr. Darwin’s conclusions,” he says, “ as to the essential identity of man’s bodily structure with that of the higher mam­ malia, and his descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes. The evi­ dence of such descent appears to me to be overwhelming and conclusive.”5 Now if Darwin’s theory of the origin of man is accepted we may bid good-bye to Christianity at once. But that is not all. The continuity of development implies a common nature, from the lowest form of life to the highest. There is no break from the ascidian to man, just as there is no break from the ovum to the child; and neither in the history of the race nor in the history of the individual is there any point at which natural causes cease to be adequate, and super­ natural causes are necessary to account for the pheno­ mena. The tendency of Darwinism, says Dr. Wallace, is to “ the conclusion that man’s entire nature and all his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in the lower animals, in the same manner and by the action of the same general laws as his physical structure has been derived.” G Dr. Wallace sees that this is sheer materialism, and casts about for something to support his spiritualistic philosophy. He assumes three stages at which “ the spirit world ” intervened. First, when life appeared; second, when consciousness began; third, when man became possessed of “ a 3 Darwinism, p. 461. 6 P. 461. �40 DARWIN ON GOD. number of his most characteristic and noblest facul­ ties.” All this is very ingenious, but Dr. Wallace forgets two things ; first, that the “ stages ” he refers to are purely arbitrary, each point being approached and receded from by insensible gradations; and second, that his “ Spirit world ” is not a vera causa. It is, indeed, a pure assumption ; unlike such a cause as Natural Selection, which is seen to operate, and which Darwin only extended over the whole range of organic existence. With respect to his third “ stage,” Dr. Wallace contends that Natural Selection does not account for the mathematical, musical, and artistic faculties. Were this true, they might still be regarded, in Weismann’s phrase, as “a bye-product” of the human mind, which is so highly developed in all directions. But its truth is rather assumed than proved. Taking the mathematical faculty, for instance, Dr. Wallace makes the most of its recent developments, and the least of its early manifestations ; which is a fallacy of exaggeration or false emphasis. He also under­ rates the mathematical faculty displayed even in the rudest warfare. There is a certain calculation of number and space in every instance. It is smaller in in the savage chief than in Napoleon, but the differ­ ence is in degree and not in kind; and as the human race has always lived in a more or less militant state, the mathematical faculty would give its posses­ sors an advantage in the struggle for existence; while, in more modern times, and in a state of complex civilisation, its possessors would profit by what may be called Social Selection. �DARWIN ON GOD. 41 Dr. Wallace lias discovered a mare’s nest. He may rely upon it that the basis of beauty is utility; in the mind of man as well as in architecture, or the plumage of birds, or the coloration of flowers. And we may well ask him these pertinent questions ; first, why did “ the spirit world ” plant the mathematical, musical, and artistic faculties in man so ineffectually that, even, now, they are decidedly developed in less than one per cent, of the population ; and, second, why are we to suppose a divine origin for those faculties when the moral faculties, which are quite as imperial, may be found in many species of lower animals ? ANIMISM. Dr. Tylor is not a biologist, but he is one of the greatest evolutionists of our age. His work on Primitive Culture7 is a monument of genius and re­ search. Employing the Darwinian method, he has traced the origin and development of the belief in the existence of soul or spirit, from the mistaken interpre­ tation of the phenomena of dreams among savages, who afford us the nearest analogue of primitive man, up to the most elaborate cultus of Brahmanism. Buddhism, or Christianity. And as Animism is the basis of all religion, two conclusions arc forced upon us ; first, that the supernatural in being traced back to its primal germ of error, is not only explained but exploded ; and, second, that religion is a direct legacy from our savage progenitors. Religious progress consists in mitigating the intellectual and moral erudi- «• 7 Primitive Culture. By Edward B. Tylor LL.D. 2 vols. �42 DARWIN ON GOD. ties of primitive Animism ; and religion itself, there­ fore, is like a soap-bubble, ever becoming more and more attenuated, until at length it disappears. Darwin had written the Descent of Man before reading the great work of Dr. Tylor, and his letter to the author of the real Natural History of Religion is worth extracting. It is dated September 24, 1871. “ I hope you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you how greatly I have been interested by your Primitive Culture now that I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound work, which will be certain to have permanent value, and to be referred to for years to come. It is wonderful how you trace Animism from the lower races up to the religious belief of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at religion—a belief in the soul, etc—from anew point of view.’’8 “A new point of view” is a pregnant phrase in regard to a subject of such importance. What can it mean, except that Darwin saw at last that religion began with the belief m soul, and that the belief in soul originated in the blunder of primitive men as to the “ duality ” of their nature ? Darwin has a very interesting footnote on this subject in his Descent of Man. After referring to Tylor and Lubbock, he continues— “ Mr. Herbert Spencer accounts for the earliest forms of religious belief throughout the world by man being led through dreams, shadows, and other causes, to look at himself as a double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As the spiritual being is supposed to exist after death, and to be powerful, it is propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its aid invoked. He then further shows that names or nicknames given from some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders Life and Letters, vol. III., p. �DARWIN ON GOD. 43 of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the real progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is then naturally believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred, and worshipped as a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect that there is a still earlier and ruder stage, when anything which manifests power or movement is thought to be endowed with some form cf life, and with mental faculties analogous to our own.” 9 This is tracing religion to the primitive source assigned to it by David Hume—“ the universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious.”* In other words, 1 Darwin begins a stage lower than Animism, in the con­ fusion of subjective and objective such as we see in a very young child ; although, of course, the worship of gods could not have obtained in that stage, since man is incapable of ascribing to nature any qualities but those he is conscious of possessing, and it is therefore impossible for him to people the external world with spirits until he has formed the notion of a spirit within himself. Darwin was not attracted by that experiential Animism which has such a fascination for Dr. Wallace. In 1870 he attended a seance at the house of his brother Erasmus in Chelsea, under the auspices of a well-known medium. His account of the performance is not very flattering to Spiritualism. “ We had great fun one afternoon; for George hired a medium who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery Descent of Man, p. 94. 1 Hume, “ Natural History of Religion,” section III. �44 DARWIN ON GOD. points jump about in my brother’s dining-room, in a manner that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held the medium’s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery took place. How the man could possibly do what was done passes my understanding.” 2 The more Darwin thought over what he saw the more convinced he was that it was “all imposture.” “ The Lord have mercy on us all,” he exclaimed, “ if we have to believe in such rubbish.” Darwin has not left us any emphatic utterance as to his own belief about soul. “ What Darwin thought.” says Mr. Grant Allen, “ I only suspect; but if we make the plain and obvious inference from all the facts and tendencies of his theories we shall be constrained to admit that modern biology lends little sanction to the popular notion of a life after death.” 3 Writing briefly to an importunate German student, in 1879, he said “ As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabili­ ties.”4 This reminds one of Hamlet’s “ shadow of a shade.” First, you have no certainty, nor even a probability, but several probabilities ; these are vague to begin with, and alas! they conflict with each other. Surely such language could only come from a practical unbeliever. Like other men who were nursed in the delusion of personal immortality, Darwin had his occasional fits Vol. Ill,, p. 187. 3 The GoKpd A wording to Darwin. By Grant Allen, “ Pall Mall Gazette,” January, 1888. 4 Vol. I., p. 307. �DARWIN ON GOD. 45 of dissatisfaction with the inevitable—witness the following passage from his Autobiography. “ With respect to immortality, nothing shows me so clearly how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consid­ eration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, thatthe sun with all the planets will in time grow too coldfoi life? unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immoitality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.”5 Had Darwin been challenged on this passage, I think he would have admitted its ineptitude, for he was modest enough for anything. The thought that every man must die is no more intolerable than the thought that any man must die, nor is the thought that there will be a universe 'without the human race any more intolerable than the thought that there teas a universe without the human race. On the other hand, Darwin did not allow for the fact that immor­ tality is not synonymous with everlasting felicity. According to most theologies, indeed, the lot of the majority in the next life is not one of happiness, but one of misery; and, on any rational estimate, the annihilation of all is better than the bliss of the few and the torture of the many. Nor is it true that everyone would cheerfully accept the gift of immor­ tality, even without the prospect of future suffering. Every Buddhist—that is, four hundred millions of the 5Vol. I,, p. 312. �46 PAE WIN ON GOD. human race—looks forward to “ Nirvana,” the extinc­ tion of the individual life, which is thus released from the evil of existence. Even a Western philo­ sopher, like John Stuart Mill, understood this yearning as appears from the following passage : “ It appears to me not only possible but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life, not annihilation but immortality may be the burdensome idea ; and that human nature, though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that it is not chained to a conscious existence which it cannot be insured that it will always wish to preserve.”8 Mr. Winwood Reade, on the other hand, indulged in the rapturous prophecy that man will some day grow perfect, migrate into space, master nature, and invent immortality.7 It is all a matter of taste and tempera­ ment. Both wailings and rejoicings are outside the scope of philosophy, and belong to the province of light literature, A PERSONAL GOD. We have already seen that Darwin remained a Deist after rejecting Christianity. Not only in the letter on Dr. Pusey’s sermon, but in his Autobiography, Darwin discloses the fact that his belief in a personal God melted away after the publication of his masterpiece. Speaking of “ a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man,” he says, This conclusion was strong in my mind about the * Three Euxayx on Reliyion By J. S. Mill, p. 122. i Martrydom of Man. By Win wood Reade, pp, 51.4, 515. �DAB WIN ON GOD. 47 time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker/’'’ By the time he published the Descent of Man, in 1871, the change was conspicuous. He was then able to treat religion as a naturalist; that is, as one who stands out­ side it and regards it with a feeling of scientific curiosity. Not only did he trace religion back to the lowest fetishism, he also analysed the sentiment of worship in a manner which must have been highly displeasing to the orthodox. “ The feeling- of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being coukl experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. Nevertheless, we see some distant approach to this state of mind in the deep love of a dog for his master, associated with complete submission, some fear, and perhaps other feelings. The behavior of a dog when returning to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a monkey to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear to be somewhat less and the sense of equality is shewn in every action. Professor Braub ich goes so far as to maintain that a dog looks on his master as a god.”9 This is not very flattering, for the dog’s attach­ ment to his master is quite independent of morality; whether the dog belongs to Bill Sikes or John Howard, he displays the same devotion. Darwin quoted with approval the statement of Sir John Lubbock that “it is not too much to say that 3 Vol. I., p. 313. Descent of Man, pp. 95, 96. �48 DARWIN ON GOD. the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.”1 He also referred to witchcraft, bloody sacrifices, and the ordeals of poison and fire, cautiously observing that “ it is well occasionally to reflect on these super­ stitions, for they show us what an infinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason to science, and to our accumulated knowledge ”2—in short, to the slow and painful civilisation of religion. That the universal belief in God proves his exist­ ence Darwin was unable to admit. “ There is ample evidence, he says, ££ derived not from hasty travellers but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their language to express such an idea.”* On the other hand, as he remarks in the same work— “ I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for his existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man ; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity.’’4 Attention should here be called to a silent correction in the second edition of the Descent of Man. Defer­ ring to the question “ whether there exists a Creator and Euler of the universe,” he said, ££ this has been answered in the affirmative by'the highest intellects that have ever existed.” This was altered into “some 1 Prehistoric Times. By Sir John Lubbock, p. 571. 2 Descent of Man, p. 96. 3 Ibid, p. 93. 4 Ibid, p. 612. �DARWIN ON GOD. 49 o/the highest intellects.’'’ Darwin had discovered the inaccuracy of his first statement, and learnt that some of the highest intellects have been Atheists. Two important passages must be extracted from hie Autobiography. After remarking that the grandest scenes had no longer the power to make him feel that God exists, he answers the objection that he is “like a man who has become color-blind/’ which is a favorite one with conceited religionists. “ This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. There­ fore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essenti­ ally differ from that which is often called the sense of sub­ limity ; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.’5 Further on in the same piece of writing he deals with a second and very common argument of Theism. “ Another source of conviction in the existence of God, con­ nected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather utter impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having, an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man. Tlii s conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since 3 Vol I., p. 312. �50 DARWIN ON GOD. that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions ? ” 6 This handling of the matter may be somewhat con­ soling to Theists. One can hear them saying, “ Ah, Darwin was not utterly lost.” But let them see how he handles the matter in a letter to a Dutch student (April 2, 1873). “ I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God ; but whether this is an argument of real value I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am also induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.’ ‘ “ Man can do his duty ”—a characteristic touch ! The man who said this did his duty. His scientific achievments were precious, but they were matched by his lofty and benevolent character. DESIGN. Darwinism has killed the Design argument, by explaining adaptation as a result without assuming design as a cause. The argument, indeed, like all Vol. I., pp. 312, 313. - Vol. I., pp. 306, 307. �DARWIN ON GOD. 51 “ proofs” of God’s existence, was based upon ignorance. It was acutely remarked by Spinoza, in his great majestic manner, that man knows that he wills, but knows not the causes which determine his will. Out of this ignorance the theologians manufac­ tured their chaotic doctrine of free-will. Similarly, out of our ignorance of the caus s of the obvious adaptations in nature, they manufactured their plausible Design argument. The “ fitness of things ” was indis­ putable, and as it could not be explained scientifically, the theologians trotted out their usual dogma of “ God did it.” Professor Huxley tells us that physical science has created no fresh difficulties in theology. “Not a solitary problem,” he says, “ presents itself to the philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not existed from the time that philosophers began to think out the logical grounds and theological consequenceof Theism.”8 While in one respect true, the states ment is liable to mislead. Adaptation presents no new problem—that is undeniable ; but the scientific expla­ nation of it Cuts away the ground of. all teleology. “ The teleology,” says Huxley, “ which supposes that the'eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its deathbloAv.” Yet he bids us remember that “ there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental 8Zf/e and Letter?, vol. II., p. 202. �52 DARWIN ON GOD. proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the whole world, living and not living, is the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the powers possessed by the molecules of which the primi­ tive nebulosity of the universe was composed.”0 Theologians in search of a life-buoy in the scientific storm have grasped at this chimerical support, although the wiser heads amongst them may doubt whether Pro­ fessor Huxley is serious in tendering it. Surely if eyes were not made to see with the Design argument is dead. What is the use of saying that the materialist is still “ at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that the primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe?” The, very word “arrangement” gives the teleologist all he requires, and the implied assumption that we are “ at the mercy” of anyone who makes an assertion which is incapable of proof, simply because he “ defies ” us to disprove it, is a curious ineptitude on the part of such a vigorous thinker. When, in 1879, Darwin was consulted by a German student, a member of his family replied for him as follows :—“ He considers that tlie theory of Evolution is quite compatible with belief in God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God.”1 Precisely so. You may believe in God if you define him so as not to contradict facts ; in other words, you have a right to a Deity if you choose to construct one. This is perfectly harmless, but what connexion has it with the »Vol. II., p. 201. 1 Vol. I., p. 307. �DAPAVIN ON GOD. 53 “ philosophy ” of Theism ? There is no definition of God which does not contradict facts. Why, indeed, is theology full of mystery? Simply because it is full of impasses, where dogma and experience are in hopeless collision, and where we are exhorted to abnegate our reason and accept the guidance of faith. Darwin’s attitude towards the Design argument is definite enough for such a cautious thinker. In one of his less popular, but highly important works, the first edition of which appeared in 1868, he went out of his way to deal with it. After using the simile of an architect, who should rear a noble and commodious edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting stones of various shape from the fragments at the base of a precipice; he goes on to say that these “ fragments of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice built by him the same relation which the fluctuating varieties of organic beings bear to the varied and admirable structures ultimately acquired by their modified descendants.” The shape of the stones is not accidental, for it depends on geological causes, though it may be said to be accidental with regard to the use they are put to. “ Here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can itbe reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice ? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter­ mined for the builder’s sake, can it be maintained with any �54 DARWIN ON GOD. greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants ;—many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves ? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds ? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man’s brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man in­ cluded, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,” like a stream “ along definite and useful lines of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent end omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face te face with a difficulty as insoluble as that of free will and predestination.2 Darwin protested that this had met with no reply. What reply, indeed, is possible ? Design covers every2 Farfniwn of Animals and Plants under Domestication. Charles Darwin. Vol. II., pp. 427, 428. By �DARWIN ON GOD. 55 thing or nothing. If the bulldog was not designed, what reason is there for supposing that man was designed ? If there is no design in an idiot, how can there be design in a philosopher 1 The Life and Letters contains many passages less elaborate but more pointed. Here is one. “ The old argument from Design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that'fhe law of natnral selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”3 The fit survive, the unfit perish; and the theologian is eloquent on the successes, and silent on the failures. He marks the hits and forgets the misses. Were nature liable to human penalties she would have been dished long ago; but she works with infinite time and infinite resources, and therefore cannot become bankrupt. Here is a passage from a letter to Miss Julia Wedgwood (July 11, 1861) on the occasion of her article in Macmillan. “ The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, namely, in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think the less I can see proof of design.”4 This reminds one of a pregnant utterance of another master-mind. Cardinal Newman says he should be an Atheist if it were not for the voice speaking in his conscience, and exclaims—“ If I looked into a mirror, 3 Vol. I., p. 309. 4 Vol. I., pp. 313, 314. �56 DARAVIN ON GOD. and did not see my face, I should have the sort of feeling which comes upon me when I look into this living busy world, and see no reflexion of its Creator.”5 Here is another passage from a letter (July, 1860) to Dr. Asa Gray. “ One word more on ‘ designed laws ’ and 1 undesigned results.’ I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly killed this man ? Many or most persons do believe this; I can’t and don’t. If yon believe so, do you believe when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particu­ lar swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant ? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat is designed, I see no reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed.”0 Twenty years later, writing to Mr. W. Graham, the author of the Creed of Science, Darwin says, “ There are some points in your book which I cannot digest The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.” 7 During the last year of his life a very interesting conversation took place between Darwin and the Duke of Argyll. Here is the special part in the Duke’s own words. “ In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable words on ‘ Fer­ tilisation of Orchids ’ and upon ‘ The Earthworms,’ and 5 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 241. 6 Vol. I., pp. 314, 315. 7 Vol. I., p. 315. �DARWIN ON GOD. 57 various other observations he made of the wonderful con­ trivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impos­ sible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. He looked at me very hard and said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘ it seems to go away.’ ’'8 This is a remarkable story, and the point of it is in the words “ it seems to go away.’; There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that Darwin, who was a Christian till thirty and a Theisttill fifty, should some­ times feel a billow of superstition sweep over his mind. The memorable thing is that at other times his free intellect could not harbour the idea of a God of Nature. The indications of mind in the constitution of the universe were not obvious to the one man living who had studied it most profoundly. Belief in the super­ natural could not harmonis 2 in Darwin’s mind with the facts and conclusions of science. The truth of Evolu­ tion entered it and gradually took possession. Theo­ logy was obliged to leave, and although it returned occasionally, and roamed through its old dwelling, it only came as a visitor, and was never more a resident. DIVINE BENEFICENCE. The problem of how the goodness of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil is at least as old as the Book of Job, and the essence of the problem remains unchanged. Many different solutions have been offered, but the very best is nothing but a 8 Vol. I., p. 816. �58 ' DARWIN ON GOD. plausible compromise. Even the Christian theory of a personal Devil, practically almost as potent as the Deity, ancl infinitely more active, is a miserable make­ shift ; for, on inquiry, it turns out that the Devil is a part of God’s handiwork, exercising only a delegated or permitted power. The usual resort of the theo­ logian when driven to bay is to invoke the aid of “ mystery,’7 but this is useless as against the logician, since “ mystery ” is only a contradiction between the facts and the hypothesis, and the theologian can hardly expect to be saved by what is virtually a plea of “ Guilty.7’ Like every educated and thoughtful man, Darwin was brought face to face with this problem, and he was too honest to twist the facts, and too much a lover of truth and clarity to submerge them in the mysterious. He preferred to speak plainly as far as his intellect carried him, and when it stopped to frankly confess his ignorance. Writing to Dr. Asa Gray (May 22, 1850), Darwin puts a strong objection to Theism very pointedly. “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidse with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not be­ lieving this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of mar, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left �DABWIN ON GOD. 59 to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.”9 The latter part of this extract about “ designed laws ” is modified by a subsequent letter, already quoted, to the same correspondent. The first part is the one to be dwelt upon in the present connexion. Dealing with the same subject sixteen years later in his Autobiography, Darwin gives his opinion that happiness, on the whole, predominates over misery, although he admits that this ‘f would be very difficult to prove.” He then faces the Theistic aspect of the question. “ That there is much suffering' in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. • This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one.”1 Darwin is perfectly conscious that he is advancing no new argument against Theism. An age of micro­ scopical science was, indeed, necessary before the internal parasites of caterpillars could be instanced; not to mention the thirty species of parasites that prey on the human organism. But such larger para­ sites as fleas and lice have always been obvious, and the theologians have been constantly asked why Almighty Goodness prompted Almighty Wisdom to provide humanity with such a sumptuous stock of these nuisances. It may also be observed that while 9 Vol. II., p. 312. 1 Vol. I., p. 311. �60 DARWIX OX GOD. cholera, fever, and other germs, are modern discoveries, such things as tumors, cancers, and leprosy, have always attracted attention, and they are more telling instances of malignant “ design ” than the ichneumonidae in caterpillars, as they immediately affect the gentlemen who carry on the discussion. Darwinism does, however, present the problem of evil in a new light. It shows us that evil is not on the surface of things, but is part of their very texture. Those who complacently dwell on the survival of the fittest, and the forward march to perfection, con­ veniently forget that the survival of the fittest is the result. Natural Selection is the process. And if we look at this more closely we discover that natural selec­ tion and the survival of the fittest are the same thing; the real process being the elimination of the unfit. Those who survive would have lived in any case ; what has happened is that all the rest have been crushed out of existence. Suppose, for instance (to take a case of artificial selection), a farmer castrates nineteen bulls and breeds from the twentieth; it makes a great difference to the result, but clearly the whole of the process is the elimination of the nineteen. Similarly, in natural selection, all organic variations are alike spawned forth by Nature ; the fit are produced and perpetuated, while the unfit are produced and exter­ minated. And hoic exterminated? Not by the swift hand of a skilful executioner, but by countless varieties of torture, some of which display an infernal ingenuity that might abash the deftest Inquisitor. Every disease known to us is simply one of Nature’s devices for eliminating hei’ unsuitable offspring, and a cat’s playing �DARWIN ON GOD. 61 with a mouse is nothing to the prolonged sport of Nature in killing the victims of her own infinite lust of procreation. Place a Deity behind this process, and you create a greater and viler Devil than any theology of the past was capable of inventing. Accept it as the work of blind forces, and you may become a Pessimist if you are disgusted with tlic entire business ; or an Optimist if you are healthy, prosperous and callous ; or a Meliorist if you think evolution tends to progress, and that your own efforts may brighten the lot of your fellows. Darwin put the case too mildly in his first great work. “ When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply. ’2 Professor Huxley, in liis vigorous and uncompro­ mising fashion, has put the case with greater foice and accuracy “From the point of view of the moralist the animal world is ;on about the same level as a gladiator’s show, the creatures are fairly well treated, and set to figlit—whereby the strongest, the swiftest and cunningest live to fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as no quarte1' is given. He must admit that the skill and training displayed are wonderful. But he must shut his eyes if he would not see that more or less enduring suffering is the meed of both vanguished and victor.’’3 Dr. Wallace, on the other hand, argues that the “ torments ” and “ miseries ” of the lower animals are imaginary, and that “ the amount of actual suffering - Origin of Species, p, Gl. 3 The Struggle for Existence, “ Nineteenth Century,” February, 1888, p-163. �62 DARWIN ON GOD. caused by the struggle for existence among animals is altogether insignificant?' They live merrily, have no apprehensions, and die violent deaths which are “ pain­ less and easy?’ Really the picture is idyllic I But Dr. Wallace’s optimism is far from exhausted. Ide tells us that “ their actual flight from an enemy ” is an “ enjoyable exercise ” of their powers. This reminds one of the old fox-hunter who, on being taxed with enjoying a cruel sport, replied: “ Why the men like it, the horses [like it, the dogs like it, and, demmc, the fox likes it too.” RELIGION AND MORALITY. Darwin was, of course, a naturalist in ethics, holding 1 hat morality is founded on sympathy and the social instincts. There is no more solid and satisfactory account of the genesis and development of conscience than is to be found in the chapter on “ The Moral Sense ” in the Descent of Man. I do not think-, how­ ever, that he had given much attention to the relations between morality and religion, but what he says is of course entitled to respect. “ With the more civilised races,” he declares, “ the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality?’4 He speaks of “ the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God,”5 and again of “the grand idea of a God hating sin and loving righteousness.”c These are casual opinions, never in any case elaborated, so that we cannot tell on what grounds Darwin held 1 Descent of Man, p. 612. 5 Ibid, p. 93. « Ibid, p. 144. �63 DARWIN ON GOD. them. One would have liked to hear his opinion as to how many people were habitually swat ed bt this “ grand idea” of God. AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. ' My views are not at all necessarily atheistical, wrote Darwin in 1860 to Dr. Asa Gray.7 In the same strain he wrote to Mr. Fordyce in 1879 : “ What my own views may he is a question of no conse­ quence to anyone but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.” s Similarly, he closes a lengthy passage of his Auto­ biography—“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us ; and I for one must be con­ tent to remain an Agnostic.”9 Let us here recur to the conversation between Darwin and Dr. Biichner, reported by Dr. Aveling. Darwin “ held the opinion that the Atheist was a denier of God,” and this is borne out by the extract just given from his letter to Mr. Fordyce. His two guests explained to him that the Greek prefix a was privative not negative, and that an Atheist was simply a person without God. Darwin agreed with them on every point, and said finally, “ I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist.” They suggested that Agnostic was Atheist “ writ respectable,” and Atheist was Agnostic “ writ 7 Vol. II., p. 312. 8 Vol. I., p. 305. s Vol. I., p. 313. �64 DARWIN ON GOD. aggressive?’ At which he smiled, and asked, “ Whyshould you be so aggressive ? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of man­ kind t It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people ; but are the masses yet ripe for it ?”1 Mr. Francis Darwin does not dispute this report. “ My father’s replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father’s views as distinguish­ ing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which dis­ tinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.” 2 This is amusing but not convincing ; indeed, it gives up the whole point at issue. Mr. Francis Darwin simply confirms all that Dr. Aveling said. The great naturalist was not aggressive, so he preferred A gnostic to Atheist; but as both mean exactly the same, essen­ tially, the difference is not one of principle, but one of policy and temperament. Darwin prided himself on having “ done some service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations”® Had he gone more into the world, and seen the evil effects of other dogmas, he might have sympathised more with the aggressive attitude of those who challenge Theology in toto as the historic enemy of liberty and progress. This at least is certain, that Charles Darwin, the supreme biologist of his age, and the greatest scientific intellect since Newton, was an Atheist in the only proper sense of the word ; the sense supported by etymology, the sense accepted by those who bear the name. 1 Dr. Aveling’s pamphlet, p. 5. 2 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 817. 3 Descend of Man, p, 61. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Darwin on God 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: 64 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 N236 Subject The topic of the resource God Evolution 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 (Darwin on God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Charles Darwin Evolution-Religious Aspects-Christianity God NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d13ed9db848b5b0ec35d62553bb6d36d.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=HKl6mO2y7vE2tsMu4cWiqNxElKszt%7EnUBLqrK43qqWpoJva9k6MxT8JvF05FJcKgyu08GvL%7EvF9liVpbx20HcdETV8KFLgjOcqGlwh-S6bOHpTV4unii1tUOdmvQ73lHyuE6SPNrfWimCm6UHKddCRv4VhIpljgDkmXkgby0VuSRXAMVLZB5-JvIk-A6Ii2D0hEo4YvmaACMWdeU1Bm8-xYM7iXlYrMGo6WEF7PbQRXxDWxd6lRGjlX6kvSLpH6STrDvCclalI6wGAWSxmOgB5X7TIDHwGjxut312Xjhrk5dlMKGhBFzJR%7E88-NjOTvrHbeo0yOoXSG4mfKTsWwrGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3b7c3d6237af69c47c551fe622895a15 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE NEW CAGLIOSTRO AN OPEN LETTER TO MADAME BLAVATSKY It is worth considering what element your Quack specially works in: the element of Wonder ! The Genuine, be he artist or artisan, works in the finitude of the Known; the Quack in the infinitude of the Unknown.—Carlyle. Price Twopence. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1889. �THE NEW CAGrLIOSTRO. AN OPEN LETTER TO MADAME BLAVATSKY. Madam,—In addressing this open letter to you I am writing for the public rather than for yourself. I have no expectation, and certainly no desire, of influencing you in the slightest degree. You are personally a stranger to me, your orbit is far removed from mine, and I should never have felt any interest in your move­ ments or teachings had it not been for the conversion to Theosophy of a lady for whose character I entertain the highest respect. Mrs. Besant’s change of position was a phenomenon to which I could not remain indifferent. I had occasion to criticise her new opinions, and in doing so I was obliged to notice you. Mrs. Besant eulogised your personal character in glow­ ing language. With that, however, I did not concern myself; I was unable to perceive its connexion with the truth or falsity of theosophic principles. But you were also credited, at least by implication, with the possession of extraordinary powers, which ordinary men and women would regard as miraculous. It was more than hinted that you were the connecting link between the humble devotees of Theosophy in the benighted West and the Wise Men of the East who deliver their supernal oracles in the unexplored regions of Thibet. Such statements were open to criticism, and I dealt with them in my reply to Mrs. Besant. My remarks were brief and pointed ; the space I devoted to you being simply proportionate to the part you played in Mrs. Besant’s apology. What I had to say was not very complimentary, and I am not sur­ prised at your annoyance. But I am suprised at your being stung into replying. It is more than I dared �g *2*9 3 The New Gagliostro. 3 to hope. I was afraid you would follow your wise old plan of letting the storm blow until it spent itself and was forgotten ; but, instead of this, you have given me an opportunity of writing at greater length on what is now an interesting subject. Your pamphlet betrays a dreadful ill temper. This is a fact of which I do not complain. A cross dis­ putant generally gives himself away, and his sarcasms are apt to raise a smile of pity. It was not with anger that I read your observation that “ The Freethinker has shown its foot, and henceforth it cannot fail to be recognised by its hoof.” This delicate badinage is a revelation of the sweetness and light which prevail in the upper circles of esoteric philosophy. It shows what exquisite powers of wit are wielded by the Chelas and adepts who have cultivated their spirits on the heights of being, and breathed the pure air of theosophic perfection. You tell your readers, madam, that I am a “slanderer,” that I am guilty of “false and malicious accusations as brutal as they are uncalled for,” that I have “ abused and denounced you,” that I have “ flung handfuls of mud ” at you, that I have circulated “ lies which have never been proven, and on which no evidence is adduced,” and that I have made free with your “ private life and personality.” I reply that I have done nothing of the kind. I have made no accusations against you ; I have not said a single word about your private life. With regard to the latter charge, I defy you to pro­ duce a single proof. What are the facts ? Mrs. Besarit described you, in her Star article, as “ the most remarkable woman of her time,” as one who had “ left, home and country, social position and wealth, to spend her life and marvellous abilities ” in spreading Theosophy. Now this is a publie utterance, open to public criticism ; and as one of the public, I ventured to ask the simple and modest questions—“What is Mde. Blavatsky’s home, what is her country, what was her social position, and what is the extent of her wealth ? ” Certainly I have no claim to have these questions answered, but when your praise is sounded �4 The New Gagliostro. so lustily, I have a right to ask them. Instead of replying, you fly into a passion, and cry “impertinent! ” Would it not be wiser to restrain the enthusiasm of your friends? If they drag your “ personality ” into the discussion, you ought not to be surprised at its being canvassed. Am I to understand that you are willing to profit by their eulogies, but resentful at any request for information ? You decline to answer my “ impertinent question,” and refer me with a regal air to the Indian Political Department and the Russian Embassy. No doubt both of them have a pretty full dossier on Mde. Blavatsky, but I have no intention of consulting them. They are not likely to entrust me with their secrets, which may be important if you visit India again. I notice, however, that you supply the public with information through circuitous channels. You are too discreet to write your own biography ; you assign that mission to your friends. Accordingly I find a long account of your family connections in the Birmingham Gazette, from the pen of Mrs. Besant. It is a subject on which that lady has no personal knowledge, having only recently formed your acquaintance. Still, I have no reason to doubt her statement. I learn that you are the widow of a Russian Councillor of State, that you belong to the “highly placed family” of the Von Hahns, and that your “ means ” are your own, drawn from your father. This is very interesting, but the extent of your “ means ” is not indicated. Mde. Coulomb says you told her, in 1880, that the whole of your income was derived from a sum of money left to you by your father, which did not yield you more than a hundred rupees a month. Of course poverty is no crime, as wealth is no virtue ; and intrinsically it is indifferent whether you are an aristocrat or a plebeian, or rich or poor. But while you are enlightening the world, through the agency of your friends, you may as well be precise ; and when they parade your sacrifices it is absurd to quarrel with a natural curiosity. This is the full extent of my inquisitiveness as to your “ private life,” and how does it justify your indignation ? I made no charges ; I did not even �The New Cagliostro. 5 make a statement; I simply asked a question, which was provoked by the zeal of your admirers. I never concerned myself for a moment with your domestic affairs, how you live, what you eat and drink, and whose society you frequent. I have nothing to do with such matters, and I am as little of a Paul Pry as any man on this planet. I am known, more or less intimately, by hundreds of people, who are the judges of my taste in this direction. If I know myself, too, I would not do any person an injustice, not even the prophetess of Theosophy. I hasten, therefore, to withdraw a word I used, and the only one I see reason to regret. I said that twenty years ago you were “ practising as a spiritist 1 mejum ’ in America.” Now practising is the wrong word ; it conveys more than I intended. I should have written operating, or some such word. I did not mean that you were living by your mediumship, and I frankly apologise for the inadvertency. My object was to show that you were a Spiritualist, and a medium, long before you were a Theosophist, and this you are unable to deny. It is proved by your letter to Human Nature in April 1872, it is proved by Colonel Olcott’s People from the Other World, and corroborated by Mde. Coulomb. This lady says the Cairo seances came to grief because the devotees found the apparatus with which they had been deluded, especially the “ long glove stuffed with cotton,” which represented ‘‘the materialised hand and arm of some spirit.” I am defied to “ prove beyond doubt or cavil that Mde. Blavatsky has ever asked for or received any reward whatever, of a material nature, during her fifteen years of voluntary labor.” As I have never asserted anything of the kind, I do not feel called upon to prove it. I am not in a position to say Aye or No. Every reader of Mde. Coulomb’s pamphlet will be able to judge for himself in some respects, especially if he looks carefully at two interesting letters (pp. 81, 85) by Colonel Olcott, and another on the very next page by Mde. Blavatsky herself. “ Reward ” does not always take the shape of direct payment. Besides, it seems to me that “ the lady doth protest too much.” �6 The New Cagliostro. There is really no harm in living by the cause to which you devote your life. Mrs. Besant herself has done it, and is still doing it so far as Freethought is concerned. The indispensable condition is that it be done honestly and above-board. On the other hand,, too much protestation is apt to breed suspicion. Your cash transactions, madam, were not called in question in my pamphlet. They did not so much as form the subject of an allrfsion. Why then are you so vehemently indignant on the matter ? And why is so scrupulous a lady so very tzwscrupulous in her quotations. You represent me as saying that “ denuncia­ tion of landlords, capitalists, and all privileged persons, is silly screaming against 1 eternal justice.’ ” I did indeed write the words, but I did not father them. I said they were true, in my opinion, if—mark the if—if Mrs. Besant’s doctrine of Karma were sound, if each man “reaps exactly as he has sown,” (/each Ego goes into “ such physical and mental environment as. it deserves.” I was asking Mrs. Besant to reconcile Karma with Socialism. You know this, yet you place me before your readers as a person who cites “ eternal justice ”—in which I do not believe—as the friend of landlordism and privilege. Again, you tell your readers that I described my friend Mr. Wheeler as a profound scholar whom Mrs. Besant “ can never hope to emulate.” What I said in my pamphlet was that “ it would take Mrs. Besant many years of close study to rival ” his “ know­ ledge of Brahminism and Buddhism, as well as of general ‘ occult ’ literature.” I also said in the Free­ thinker that he knew “more about Buddhism and Oriental thought generally than Mrs. Besant is ever likely to learn.” I am writing nearly three hundred miles from home, and the file of my paper is not before me, but I unhesitatingly deny having written that Mr. Wheeler was a “ profound scholar ” whom Mrs. Besant “ can never hope to emulate,” notwithstanding your printing the words as a quotation. Mrs. Besant knows a great deal, but not in this particular direction, whereas Mr. Wheeler has studied Oriental literature for more than twenty years. �The New Cagliostro. 7 Further, you say that I censure, ‘ ‘ Mde. Blavatsky’s arrogance” for “assuming to know more of these religions and occultism than does Mr. Mazzini Wheeler.” Sheer invention, madam ; the birth of your own fertile brain ! I did refer to your “ arro­ gance,” but only in connexion with your attitude towards Darwin and Haeckel, whom you presumed to instruct in evolution ; one of whom you described as “ idiotic,” and both of whom you styled “ the intel­ lectual and moral murderers of future generations.” I am aware that you are extensively read in useless literature. You have a prodigious knowledge of occult authors. You have made a wonderful collection of the maggots of the human brain. There is hardly a superstition which is not wholly or partially sanctioned in your four portly volumes. Your heap of rubbish is colossal. Mr, Wheeler himself looks upon it with amazement. But after all, to borrow a phrase from Charles Lamb, you have only gathered the rotten part of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I will now consider what I did say of you in my pamphlet. It is not true that I called you “ a thorough­ paced adventuress.” I applied that phrase to the writer of the letters to Mde. Coulomb, which I honestly said you had “ repudiated as forgeries.” I as honestly said, however, that Mde. Blavatsky “does not vin­ dicate herself in the law courts, and the letters cer­ tainly came from a more fertile brain than Mde. Coulomb’s.” What is your reply to this ? You scream at Mde, Coulomb as a “Judas,” you protest against “insults and slanders,” and you declare that they were “in­ vented ” by the “ goldy Christian missionaries ” who ‘‘ bribed Mde. Coulomb ” and then “ cheated her out of her well-earned blood-money.” Admirable! madam. Your courage is superb. It is worthy of Cagliostro himself when caught in the toils. But, alas, your answer will not bear examina­ tion. You have overdone your part. If Mde. Cou­ lomb was bribed by the missionaries she might have dishonestly put her name to forged documents in India ; but, if she was cheated of her blood-money, �8 The New Oagliostro. why should she allow the pamphlet to be republished in England ? If her motive was purely mercenary, and she was without any other feeling, why should she encourage the persons who have cheated her of the price of her treachery ? Vengeance is sweet, and the lower the nature the sweeter it is. The more, therefore, you represent Mde. Coulomb as mean and avaricious, the more incredible is her silence. If she rounded on you, with no case, why, with a splendid case, does she not round on the missionaries ? On the other hand, is it conceivable that the missionaries would invent the slanders, forge the correspondence, and then, by withholding the “blood-money,” put themselves at the mercy of a disappointed and exasperated woman ? There is one letter, ostensibly yours, madam, which the missionaries could not have “ invented,” and from which I take a striking extract. You are represented as writing to Mde. Coulomb, from Poona, in October, 1883 “ Now, dear, let us change the subject. Whether something succeeds or not, I must try. Jacob Sassoon, the happy pro­ prietor of a crore of rupees, with whose family I dined last night, is anxious to become a Theosophist. He is ready to give 10,000 rupees, to buy and repair the headquarters, he said to Colonel (Ezekiel, his cousin, arranged all this) if only he saw a little phenomenon, got the assurance that the Mahatmas could hear what was said, or gave him some other sign of their existence (?!!). Well, this letter will reach you by the 26th (Friday); will you go up to the shrine and ask K. H. (or Christofolo) to send me a telegram that would reach me about 4 or 5 in the afternoon, same day, worded thus : “Your conversation with Mr. Jacob Sassoon reached Master just now. Were the latter even to satisfy him, still the doubter would hardly find the moral courage to connect himself with the society. “ Ramalinga Deb. “ If this reaches me on the 26th, even in the evening, it will still produce a tremendous impression. Address, care of N. Kandalawala, Judge, Poona. Je berai ee reste. . Oela coutera quatre ou cinq roupies. Cela nc fait rien. [I will do the rest. It will cost four or five rupees. That is of no con­ sequence.] “ Yours truly, “ (Signed) H. P. B.” 1 i Some Accownt of my Intercourse with Aide. Blavatsky from 1S72 to 1884. By Madame Coulomb. London: Elliot Stock. �The New Cagliostro. 9 Mde. Coulomb affirms that she sent the desired telegram, as from Root Hoomi, a great Mahatma far away in Thibet ; and I have been told that “ the fish was landed.” You shelter yourself behind a general repudiation. This is a plea of Not Guilty, but it is no evidence for the defence. There is apparently a strong corroboration of Mde. Coulomb’s story. Mr. Richard Hodgson, who went out to investigate your occult phenomena on the spot for the Society for Psychical Research, reported as follows :— “ The envelope which Madame Coulomb shows as belonging to this letter bears the postmarks Poona, October 24th Madras, October 26th; 2nd delivery, Adyar, October 26th; (as to which Madame Blavatsky has written in the margin of my copy of Madame Coulomb’s pamphlet: ‘ Cannot the cover have contained another letter ? Funny evidence! ’). Madame Coulomb also shows in connexion with this letter an official receipt for a telegram sent in the name of Ramalinga Deb from the St. Thome office, at Madras, to Madame Blavatsky at Poona, on October 26th, which contained the same number of words as the above.”2 I do not stand sponsor for the authenticity of your reputed letters to Mde. Coulomb. I have my impres­ sions, of course ; but, for all I know, you may have an overwhelming defence. When yon offer it I will listen with the deepest attention. Meanwhile I must say that screaming “Judas 1” is not evidence. These accusations of imposture are deliberate and circumstantial. If they were made against me, and I were guilty, I would hold my tongue. If I were innocent, I would refute them point by point, or vindicate my character before a legal tribunal. It is idle, madam, to ask me why I do not prosecute the Christian Evidence agents for their “ shameful accusations of gross profligacy launched against the immaculate editor of the Freethinker.” Such accusa­ tions are loose innuendoes, not open charges. They are made against me in common with Mrs. Besant and every other Freethought leader. And they are made in the streets, in such circumstances that the law of 2 Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Eesearc/i, December, 1885, �10 The New Cagliostro. libel cannot reach them. I have heard for instance, that I have run away with some one’s wife. Well, I can afford to smile at such nonsense. All the same, however, it may deceive the ignorant and unwary, and T would prosecute the slanderers if they would only put their libels in black on white. You urge that a Christian jury would be prejudiced. Very likely. But that has not prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from prose­ cuting his libellers. In any case, one’s own friends, and the impartial public, would have the facts before them, and be able to form their own judgment. You appear to forget an important point of your case. My “ profligacy ” would not affect the truth of Freethought, but your “ imposture ” would seriously affect the truth of Theosophy. The facts on which Freethought is based are quite independent of my character; but what becomes of the wonderful Mahatmas if the lady who is the authority for their very existence is found concocting their messages ? I now turn to the Report of the Society for Psychical Research, with regard to which you write very in­ accurately. You allege that in 1885 the Society accused you of being a Russian spy. This is absolutely false. The Society published Mr. Hodgson’s careful, elaborate, and extremely able Report on your Indian wonders, but did not endorse his speculations as to your moti ves. It was Mr. Hodgson, and Mr. Hodgson only, who sug­ gested a political motive for your Eastern adventures. He found a rumor current in India that you were a Russian spy, but he put it aside as “ unworthy.” Subsequently, however, a singular piece of your hand­ writing fell into his possession, breathing a strong hatred of the British, looking forward to “ the approach­ ing act of the Eastern drama ” which was to be “ the last and the decisive one,” and declaring that those who sat idle while the great preparations were going on were traitors to their “ country and their Czar.” You explained to Mr. Hodgson that it was probably a por­ tion of a translation you had made from a Russian work. “ Be this as it may,” Mr. Hodgson says, “ I cannot profess myself, after my personal experiences of Madame Blavatsky, to feel much doubt that her �The New Gagliostro. 11 real object has been the furtherance of Russian interests.” Mr. Hodgson went out to India on behalf of the Society to investigate your marvels on the spot. The Society is on the hunt for occult phenomena, and anxious to find them. Mr. Hodgson himself was far from indisposed to discover something; whatever prepossessions he had were “distinctly in favor of occultism and Mde. Blavatsky.” But after three months’ close investigation he was obliged to conclude that “ the phenomena connected with the Theosophical Society were part of a huge fraudulent system worked by Mde. Blavatsky with the assistance of the Coulombs and several other confederates, and that not a Single genuine phenomenon could be found among them all.” The Psychical Society had for its president Professor Balfour Stewart, Professor ’Sidgwick was among the vice-presidents, Mr. F. W. H. Myers was a member of the Committee with Professor Sidgwick, and among the honorary members I see the names of Professor Crookes, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Ruskin, Dr. A. R. Wallace, and Lord Tennyson. When this is known, madam, it will be futile on your part to ask English­ men to regard the Society as a band of libellous blackguards, whose Report would only be believed by a “ fool.” The Committee of the Psychical Society received from Mr. Hodgson a selection of your reputed letters to Mde. Coulomb, with some letters undoubtedly written by you. These “ were submitted to the well-known expert in handwriting, Mr. Netherclift, and also to Mr. Sims, of the British Museum. These gentlemen came independently to the conclusion that the letters were written by Mde. Blavatsky.” After carefully weighing all the evidence, the Com­ mittee arrived at the following conclusions :— (1) “ That of the letters put forward by Mde. Coulomb, all those, at least, which the Committee have had the opportunity of themselves examining, and of submitting to the judgment of experts, are undoubtedly written by Mde. Blavatsky, and suffice to prove that she has been engaged in a long-continued combination with other persons to produce by ordinary means �12 The New Cagliostro. a series of apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophic movement. (2) “That, in particular, the Shrine at Adyar, through which letters purporting to come from Mahatmas were re­ ceived, was elaborately arranged with a view to the secret in­ sertion of letters and other objects through a sliding panel at the back, and regularly used for this purpose by Mde. Blavatsky or her agents. (3) “ That there is consequently a very strong general pre­ sumption that all the marvellous narratives put forward as evidence of the existence and occult power of the Mahatmas are to be explained as due either (a) to deliberate deception carried out by or at the instigation of Mde. Blavatsky, or (b) to spontaneous illusion, or hallucination, or unconscious mis­ representation oi' invention on the part of the witnesses.” You cannot pretend, madam, that the Society has been animated by prejudice or a desire to expose you. . Its investigations were carried on quietly, and its Report was published in the usual way for its members.. Your injudicious friends are responsible for this extended publicity. If you are innocent, and all the evidences against you are ridiculous fabrications, you have a splendid case against the respectable firm of Triibner and Co, and the wealthy members of the Society for Psychical Research. Now for your Mahatmas. The great Root Hoomi’s letters have been declared to be in your own handwriting. Further, they betray your very tricks of style. Mde. Blavatsky wrote “ Olcott says you speak very well English,” and Root Hoomi wrote one who understands tolerably well English.” Here is a small list of their similarities of spelling Mde. Blavatsky. your’s, her’s3 expell thiefs deceaved, beseached quarreling cool.v (for “ coolly ” lazzy, lazziness consciensciously defense Koot Hoomi. your’s dispell, fulfill thiefs leasure quarreling alloted in totto circumstancial defense. Mde. Blavatsky makes the very same blunder “their’s” in the pamphlet before me. �The New Gagliostro. 13 Koot Hoomi also spelt “ skepticism,” an American fashion of spelling, which yon might have acquired in the land of the Stars and Stripes before your voyage to India. Finally, Koot Hoomi spelt “ remarqued,” a form of spelling easily fallen into by a Russian lady with a good command of French and an imperfect command of English. It is also very singular, madam, that Koot Hoomi not only repeated your curiosities of spelling, and your very tricks of style, but actually repeated your crude scientific blunders; writing of “ a bacteria,” and confusing “ carbonic ” with “ carbolic ” acid. Still more singular is it? if possible, that Koot Hoomi’s hand-writing is remarkably like Mde. Blavatsky’s disguised, and that the experts declare his letters to be undoubtedly from your pen. Considering that Koot Hoomi is a Wise Man of the East, possessing supernormal wisdom and supernormal powers, it is astonishing that he should write to Mr. Sinnett from Thibet, in 1880, and give as his own a long passage borrowed from a speech of Mr. H. Kiddle, an American Spiritualist, which was reported in the Banner of Light two months before the date of Koot Hoomi’s letter. Koot Hoomi’s explanation was shuffling and preposterous; and, subsequently, Mr. Kiddle was able to show that Koot Hoomi’s amended letter still contained a number of unacknowledged borrowings, in addition to the passages now marked as quotations. Who can resist the conclusion of the Psychical Society’s committee, that “The proof of a deliberate plagiarism, aggravated by a fictitious defence, is therefore irresistible ” ? Koot Hoomi made another dreadful mistake in a letter to Mr. Hume with reference to a young man in his employment. After speaking of the young man’s “inner soul-power and moral sense,” the Mahatma continues :— “ I have often watehed that silent yet steady progress, and on that day when he was called to take note of the contents of your letter to Mr. Sinnett, concerning our humble selves, and the conditions you imposed upon us—I have myself learned a �14 The New Oagliostro. lesson. A soul is being breathed into him, a new Spirit let in, and with every day he is advancing towards a state of higher development. One fine morning the ‘ Soul ’ will find him ; but, unlike your English mystics across the great Sea, it will be under the guidance of the true living adept, not under the spasmodic inspirations of his own untutored ‘ Buddhi,’ known to you as the sixth principle in man.” Mr. Hume appends a note that, at the very time this was written, the good young man “ was systematically cheating and swindling me by false contracts, besides directly embezzling my money.” So much for the “ learned spirit of human dealings ” of the great Mahatma who is “ able to read the hidden thoughts of others without first mesmerising them.” As for Koot Hoomi’s poor tricks—such as disinte­ grating and reintegrating letters, saucers, and cigarettes —they would be looked upon with contempt by any third-rate English conjuror ; while his “ astral appear­ ance ” to the faithful at Madras is declared by the Coulombs to have been operated by means of a dummy. With respect to your own “ remarkable powers,” they are probably as authentic as those of the Sheik you tell of in Isis UnveiLed, who was absolutely bullet­ proof, even at close quarters. We are informed that you are very chary of exercising your “ remarkable powers,” because they extend to the very life of other people ; but most sensible persons, I fancy, will smile at such extravagant pretensions. Nevertheless, I do not undertake to deny your occult resources. I am willing to believe you can “ eat a crocodile or drink up Eisel ”—on production of proof. You charge me, madam, with grossly misrepresent­ ing Theosophy. I reply that all I have said of it is based on the writings of yourself and Mrs. Besant. I said that “ Spiritism is the logical issue of this fanciful philosophy.” You answer that you are not a Spiritist. I never said you were. I spoke of “ the logical issue ” of your teaching. But why, in any case, will you quarrel over straws ? You talk ofil astral appearances,” and Mrs. Besant says the Ego can be separated from the body during life and “ appear apart ” from it. Strictly speaking, perhaps, this is not Spiritualism, as presented �The New Oagliostro. 15 by the mediums ; but I venture to include it under the general head of Spiritism. You are good enough to remind me that my scepticsm belongs only to “ a fraction ” of the human race. But what does that signify ? Truth is not established by appealing to numbers. I have no ambition to be on the side of the majority. I desire to be on the side of Truth. With characteristic flippancy and inaccuracy, you say that I urge the antiquity of the doctrine of re­ incarnation as an objection to Theosophy. I did nothing of the kind. I gave a brief historical sketch of the doctrine from the most obvious sources, in order to give point to my wonder that Mrs. Besant should have been “ struck with the charming novelty of very ancient doctrines.” I need not deal, therefore, with your demolition of your own man of straw. You seek to turn the edge of my criticism of the ethics of Theosophy by explaining away every objectionable feature. Thus the “ destruction of self,” and the “ killing out of personal desires,” are whittled down to “ a control over one’s animal passions.” Really, madam, one would think you were writing for children. Do you imagine that grown-up people are to be cheated into regarding “ control ” and “ destruction ” as equivalent ? You say I am fighting an imaginary windmill in denouncing your doctrine of celibacy ; yet, in the very same breath you show all the exquisite urbanity of your refined nature, in asserting that my “ material instincts ” are aroused against celibacy, which is natural in one “ who is proud to claim kinship with the gorilla.” I am not aware that I have ever pro­ fessed pride in any kinship ; on the other hand, I do not despise my lowly relatives ; and, on the whole, I would sooner claim kinship with a gorilla than with a Cagliostro. Celibacy, you tell me, is “ not enforced ” in your inner circle. Very likely. You are not able to “ enforce ” anything. But is it not the rule ? With respect to those who “ enter on the Path,” Mrs. Besant states that “ if they mean to go any distance, �16 The New Cagliostro. they must lead a celibate life.” Observe the word, madam—must! You forget, also, what you have written yourself on the subject. I take the following passages from your own tract:— “ Even the love for wife and family—the purest as the most unselfish of human affections—is a barrier to real occultism . . . The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without depriving either the one or the other of its rights ; for he will either lend his ears to the “ still small voice ” and fail to hear the cries of his little ones, or he will listen but to the wants of the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married man, who would pursue true practical Occultism instead of its theoretical philosophy.4 You see, madam, I am not so “ absurdly ignorant ” of your writings as you allege. When you write for Theosophists you insist on celibacy ; when you write for the outer world you pooh-pooh it, and instance “ a member of the ‘ inner circle ’ who has just got married to a second wife.” You conclude by bidding the “ genii of Freethought” to “ learn good manners first of all.” Thank you, madam ; I have learnt many things from you. I have learnt that Socrates died for the rotundity of the earth, that men at one time had three eyes and four arms, that Darwinism is moonshine, and that apes are the offspring of human and animal parents. While you impart such transcendent wisdom I shall always listen with profound respect. It will cost me an effort to believe it all, but I promise you, madam, that I will believe as much as I can ; and after Mrs. Besant has developed such unexpected credulity, there is surely hope for the shrewdest Freethinker. Yours doubtfully, G. W. FOOTE. 4 “Theosophical Tracts,” No. vii., pp. 14, 15. .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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky 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: Madame Blavatsky co-founded the Theosophical Society and was a leader of the Theosophy religious movement. 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 N256 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 (The new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky), 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 Helena Petrovna Blavatsky NSS Theosophy https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9655754bce799f131a9e4da03ba08a8.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=FoUDeKI527%7EIQCN-wHvdE2mrxH5MJsVpAqQnThwv41ODQo9iTtFcmrT1grM7kZd-u0de0qVrt2%7EFYdHyINbo1UEmzh1f0zbv8MUk6J-tYBSn%7Ejec6p0KcxhQnZfb%7E3GMPK8sFnf2KQz4LzpyP5hN9GWCbmJFha0y7ZRACh76qB9BH-DAdlb1Eoc1-rf0ox5HjN426L6mpKDn8ry24mECMW32xdJX2oikqdD%7E8E-nzxld1%7EF0WhTVU8OQu7VT6Agyz0fS3ptfE4U6RUWqMgf3bAks7FY4LhCewNRvXCP1Z9FGUHxCvmUpJ%7EfT6KVYFQ8gQQMDArGyHncHOF4LyxYA0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM aef73bd82281a0b371c058b31d269d01 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY A Rejoinder to Mrs. B esani's pamphlet BY G. W. FOOTE. PRICE TWOPENCE. bonbon : PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E,0. 1889. �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. A REJOINDER TO MRS. BES ANT’S PAMPHLET. MRS. Besant has at length discovered that she owes a duty to the Secular party, and to all the persons she has for many years been helping to mislead. The obligation does not seem to have occurred to her until I pointedly urged it in my pamphlet on Mrs. Besant's Theosophy. But better late than never. Her recanta­ tion and her fresh programme, minus some discreet omissions, are placed before her old friends and followers, and I now submit them to a fuller • examination. I must first, however, clear away some personal matters. Mrs. Besant apparently pleads that her delay in addressing the Secular party was necessitated. “ I had no paper,” she says, “ in which I could give my reasons for becoming a Theosophist.” True, but not the whole truth. I cannot believe Mr. Bradlaugh would have denied her space in the National Reformer; I am certain I would not have denied her space in the Freethinker. Even if the Freethought papers were closed to her, there was still the alternative of a pamphlet, and that she has now adopted. Mrs. Besant complains that she has been misrepre­ sented. I do not admit it ; but who was at fault if it be true ? I took what she had written, and I could not know what she had not written. She has only herself to blame for any misunderstanding. Curiously enough, she has only detected one “ mis­ representation ” in my pamphlet, and that is no misrepresentation at all, as I shall show presently. The other “ misrepresentations ” are discovered in the Free­ thinker. I am rebuked for quoting a portion of a �13^505 SECULARISM . AND THEOSOPHY. 3 review of my pamphlet in the Medium and Daybreak, The fact is, I had not seen the paper itself, which was not forwarded, but only the extracts I used, which were copied and sent me by a friend. Mrs. Besant quotes “the context,” but she only quotes as much as serves her purpose. She indulges in the withering but hackneyed remark that “ comment is needless.” I agree with her. The matter is of infinitesimal import­ ance. It is a speck of dust in comparison with such a mistake, for instance, as the one about Krishna and Christ in her Roots of Christianity; a mistake which has been pointed out to her again and again, but which I am not aware that she has taken the slightest pains to correct, although it is a serious damage to the Freethought cause in controversy with the agents of the Christian Evidence Society. Another point is not worth the space it occupies. It was stated in the Freethinker, on the authority of a Theosophist, that Mde. Blavatsky was going abroad for a holiday, and would confide the presidency of the Society to Mrs. Besant. Now Mde. Blavatsky is “the centre ” of the movement in England, as Mrs. Besant wrote in the Star, but she is not the “ president.’ Theosophically the distinction is immense. The Freethinker clearly circulated false news. I plead guilty. I put on sackcloth. I humble myself in the dust. I am oppressed by the enormity of my crime. But if every editor as guilty joined me, what a company we should be. It is a pity Mrs. Besant is so lacking in humor. She seems to think her old colleagues are in a conspiracy to insult her. She complains of “ rebuke,” of “ reproach,” of “ bigotry.” She apostrophises Truth, and declares she will follow her “ into the wilderness.” She even writes an epitaph for her martyr’s tomb.. All this shows she is very much in earnest, but is it pertinent, is it sensible ? Does criticism become persecution when Mrs. Besant is its object ? Is no one to tell her that her new opinions are false ? Is no one to point out their incompatibility with Secularism ? Is she to be treated as the spoilt child of Freethought ? Must we applaud her passionate appeals to Truth and �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. never let her hear a little ? I protest that when any­ one gets into this frame of mind a douche of plain speaking is the only proper remedy. Theosophy is not above criticism, neither is Mrs. Besant. She is free to change her views as often as she pleases. She may turn Roman Catholic if she likes. Freethinkers will respect her motives and admire her eloquence. But they will retain their right to criticise her religion as theyT would any other, and to define where and how it clashes with Secularism. When Mrs. Besant says that I write “ with exceeding bitterness,” I can only reply that I am not conscious of doing so. I spoke of her as “ a brave as well as a good woman.” I said I “ admired Mrs. Besant’s eloquence and abilities, and still more her generous and enthusi­ astic character.” Is this “ exceeding bitterness ” ? My criticism is called the “ recent attack on me.” There is the secret. Mrs. Besant has been humored and fluttered so long that criticism is an “attack.’’ Still more absurd is the complaint that I “ warn her off the platform.” “ I will cherish a hope,” I said, “ that a lady so gifted, so eloquent, so devoted, and so brave, may some dayT see that Theosophy itself is Maya, or illusion, and return to the sound and bracing philo­ sophy that once guided and inspired her.” This is not warning her off the platform, but hoping she will return to the platform she has virtually left. I certainly did complain of Mrs. Besant’s having used the Freethought platform “ in an unjustifiable manner ” to propagate Socialism. I also remarked— but this is judiciously avoided—that “ she advocated Socialism in Secular halls, but not Secularism in Socialist meeting-places.” Hundreds of Freethinkers said the same thing, but it did not reach Mrs. Besant’s ears. Well, it should, and it has. I fear she will never forgive me for telling her, but truth is higher than politeness, and I risk the consequences. Mrs. Besant says that “ in myT younger and broader days ” I lectured from the Freethought platform on various subjects. She is mistaken. Let us take the Hall of Science in London. Sunday evening lectures are delivered there by the leaders of our party. That �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY, 5 is the Freethought platform. I have always recognised it and acted accordingly. There are also Sunday morning lectures during a few of the winter months. That is not the Freethought platform. It is merely an adjunct. Besides, the character of those lectures was decided by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant. All I had to do was to acquiesce. At any rate, the Secular party was not committed to any views expressed on those occasions ; nor could it be, for one Sunday Mr. Brad­ laugh was lecturing against Socialism, and the next Mrs. Besant was lecturing for it. But Mrs. Besant was not satisfied with that. She took to lecturing in the evening, and used the Freethought platform for a foreign purpose. I do not expect her to agree with me, but I say it was wrong. Her being a Socialist did not conflict with her being a Secularist, but there is a time and a place for everything, and a party organised for one object will split up if it deals with twenty. As a Freethinker, belonging to a party which teaches the supreme value of liberty, I might (I apprehend) speak from the platform against compulsory vaccination. But the separate question of the medical character of vac­ cination is an open one. Freethinkers may and do differ upon it, and what right have I, or what right has anyone, to use a platform maintained by all for the regular advocacy of sectional views ? I might use my position and my popularity, such as they are, to carry my own way, as far as the party would stand it; but in doing so I should be a traitor to the cause, I should be setting myself above its welfare and its traditions. Again and again I have declined, as a special lec­ turer of the National Secular Society, to speak against Socialism. Some of our members were Socialists, and I was bound to refrain from attacking their opinions on our common platform. I have tried to carry out the same policy in the Freethinker. It is a just and a wise policy, and Mrs. Besant was thinking more of Socialism than of Secularism when she violated it so flagrantly. Mrs. Besant’s position is untenable. She claims the right of “ using the platform for lecturing on any sub­ �6 SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. ject that seems to me to be useful.” What, on any subject ? Crinolines, tall hats, and French pastry ? Clearly any is too sweeping. Suppose Mrs. Besant turned a Roman Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Wesleyan, or a Salvationist, would she still claim the right of airing her views on the Freethought platform ? Again any is too sweeping. There are necessary limitations, and Mrs. Besant has not troubled to ascertain them. Let me tell her what I believe her right is on the Freethought platform. It is not a right to lecture on any subject she thinks useful, but a right to lecture on any subject the party thinks useful- To this com­ plexion she must come at last. Meanwhile Mrs. Besant forces upon me an unplea­ sant duty. She will have no compromise, and no accommodation, until the Secular party is stung into taking action on the matter. She is going round the country preaching Theosophy from our platform. Very well, I shall go round and oppose it. I will spare it no more than any other superstition. And she has no reason to complain. She will do her duty, and I will do mine. When the party decides, I will submit or retire. That it must decide I have no doubt. Foreign matter will sometimes enter an organism, but the organism tries to expel it, and if strong enough it succeeds. I am sure Freethought is strong enough, and I believe this controversy will help to accentuate its principles and define its policy. Let me also tell Mrs. Besant why I said she might “lead Freethinkers astray.” She protests that Free­ thinkers are “ competent to form their own judgment, not mere sheep, to be led one way or the other.” Borrowing her own expression, I call this clap-trap. Judgments are formed by hearing both sides. That is one reason for my interference. Then there are Free­ thinkers and Freethinkers. The best of us are human, and many excellent persons have followed a trusted leader into new paths, out of sheer love and admira­ tion. When Mrs. Besant was so annoyed with Mr. Ball’s pamphlet on her Socialism, when she denounced it in the National Reformer as insulting, declining to answer it on the ground of its scurrility, and refusing �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. 7 her old contributor a word of explanation—I met with one Freethinker whom she did lead astray. He said he was sorry to hear that Mr. Ball had grossly insulted Mrs. Besant, and on being asked if he had read the pamphlet, replied “ Certainly not, I shouldn’t think of doing so.” Here and there, then, a Free­ thinker is a sheep, in certain moods ; and it is well to protect these weaker brethren against their own frailties. Now for the single “ misrepresentation ” in my pamphlet. I spoke of Mrs. Besant’s belief in the “ transmigration of souls.” Upon this she remarks : “ I can but suppose that he is moved rather by a desire to discredit me than by a desire for truth ”—and this from a lady who is herself so sensitive to criticism! Was there no alternative but a dishonorable motive on my part ? Mrs. Besant had not fully explained herself ; I took what she offered, and paid her the compliment of supposing she was logical. She believed in re­ incarnation, and I thought she accepted its conse­ quences, like the Brahmins and Buddhists, like the ancient Egyptians, and indeed like every other people among whom the doctrine has prevailed. If there is ascent, there is also descent; if those who purify them­ selves are reincarnated in higher forms, those who degrade themselves are reincarnated in lower forms. Such is the philosophy of reincarnation in ancient and modern faiths. But Mrs. Besant does not “ believe in the transmigration of souls, or that the human Ego can enter a lower animal.” I accept the correction. I was ignorant of what Mrs. Besant had not informed me. I had not—and I said I had not—made a minute study of the expensive publications of the Theosophical Society. I now learn that this mushroom school, this plagiarist of the great oriental faiths, sacrifices logic to agreeableness, and puts a Western brand on its stolen property from the East. Mrs. Besant goes a great deal too far, however, in speaking of “ an absurd statement ” in the Freethinker “ about the souls of ill-behaving Hindu wives passing into various animals,” as she is guilty of gross mis­ representation in calling it “ a caricature of Theosophy.” �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. Theosophy was not so much as mentioned. is the whole paragraph. Here “ Mrs. Besant goes in for the transmigration of souls. But this doctrine is as useful to priests as the doctrine of heaven and hell. Bombay girls have been taught in the Government school that in the next life a wife who is cross with her husband will become a village dog; the woman who eats sweetmeats without sharing them with her husband’s relatives will become a musk-rat living in filth. On the whole we think hell is slightly preferable.” * Calling this “ absurd ” does not dispose of it. It is a fact. Surely Mrs. Besant is not ignorant that this kind of thing is taught in the Hindu scriptures. I will give her chapter and verse if she disputes it. We will now take Mrs. Besant’s reasons for leaving Atheism and Materialism ; then we will hear what she says about Theosophy ; and finally we will see if her new teaching is compatible with Secularism. Mrs. Besant says she was satisfied with Atheism on the negative side, but not on the positive side, for it did not explain Life and Mind. But is Atheism called upon to do so ? The origin of life is a question for biologists. Should it never be cleared up our ignorance will not prove there is a God. Nor is an Atheist com­ pelled to be a material Monist. The late Professor Clifford inclined to believe in matter-stuff and mind­ stuff (not spirit stuff, which was all stuff), and he was a thorough-going Atheist. But. waiving this, I will ask Mrs. Besant a question. Why did she keep her dissatisfaction with Atheism, on the positive side, so carefully to herself ? I have looked through some of her pamphlets without finding a hint in that direction. I have spoken to friends who have frequently heard her lecture (a pleasure necessarily denied to me), and not one of them suspected the dissatisfaction she now proclaims. To say the least, it is very unfortunate. Atheism is now left for Pantheism, which I need not attempt to argue against, no defence of it being made. Mrs. Besant plainly says that her new “ theory of the Universe ” is taken “ on the authority of certain Freethinker, July 28, 1889, p. 298. �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. 9 individuals,” the said individuals being the Wise Men of the East, or rather their intermediaries like Mde. Blavatsky. “ God is all and all is God.” This is the new shibboleth. But Mrs. Besant is anxious to break it gently to Atheists, so she tells them she has “ no personal God.” This is cheating us with phrases. If our Ego is spirit, and comes from the uni­ versal spirit-fount, what makes our personality must also make the infinite personality. I know the subtle answers to this, but they make no impression on me. The broad fact remains that non-miraculous men and women cannot talk of God without a concep­ tion of personality. The pronoun is always he or she, and never it. There are expressions to satisfy any Theist in Mde. Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled. She speaks of “the Universal Soul,” of “the one living God,” and of “the Father Spirit.” So true it is that God must necessarily be a magnified man. With respect to Materialism, Mrs. Besant did more than conceal her dissatisfaction. Only last year she spoke of her individuality as a combination, and said “ if the combination is destroyed I am destroyed.” She ridiculed the notion that “ the forces of the soul, love, memory, thought, could not perish with the bodily dissolution, but must continue to exist somewhere.” She laughed at Canon Liddon for talking of “ a dis­ embodied spirit.”* If this is the language of doubt, or even of suspense, I am very much deceived. It seems to me the language of absolute conviction. I have already, in my previous pamphlet, given my opinion that the. “causal link” Mrs. Besant was privately in search of is a mental figment. I deny that Cause and Effect are external realities ; I assert that they are subjective conceptions. There is no solution of continuity in nature. We isolate phenomena in thought for convenience, just as in the definition of a line we isolate the idea of length. And as Cause and Effect are subjective, the “ nexus ” is also subjective, which is precisely what I have affirmed. Whoever asks for the Why of nature is simply asking * National Reformer, April 8, 1888. �10 SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. for an anthropomorphic explanation. The question “ Why should it be so ? ” is answered by the question “ Why should it not be so ? ” The solid fact remains that it is so. We can learn the How of nature, and the statement that there is anything else to learn is a sheer assumption. Oxygen and hydrogen exist together as free gases in mechanical mixture. They are precipitated by elec­ tricity into water. The two gases are now in chemical combination, and we have a visible and palpable fluid. A great change has taken place, but the process is ex­ plained. Science is satisfied. But Mrs. Besant is not. Besides the oxygen, hydrogen, and electricity, she wants a fourth thing that made the other three cooperate. That is, she is in the same position as the metaphysicians who were satirised by Swift in his “meat-roasting power of the meat-jack.” Passing along the line of evolution we come to com­ binations of increasing complexity, but all built up from the same matter. No new substance is introduced. The inorganic gradually becomes organic, differentia­ tion follows differentiation, the law of continuity is never broken, and finally we come to man. If we study man separately he is unintelligible. He must be studied in connexion with other living forms. His nature is involved in his history, and his destiny in his origin. Man did not spring into existence as Minerva leapt full-armed from the brain of Jove. He is the last of a long line of ascending forms. All his faculties are incipient, and some of them well developed, in lower animals. Whatever difficulty there may be in explain­ ing whij he thinks, must also be found in explaining why animals think. Mrs. Besant follows nerve vibrations till she comes to a thought, and says “ Here is something fresh.” She means, I presume, that there is a psychical and a physi­ cal aspect of the complete process. What is objectively a nerve vibration is subjectively a sensation or a thought. That the two aspects are correlated is indisputable. Now it is asserted that besides the body there is a spirit. Mrs. Besant says that “ Body and Mind, how- �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. IT. ever closely intermingled, are twain, not one.” But she does not explain the absolute co-operation of two dissimilar entities. If the body cannot think how can the mind act? Why is it that mental and moral phenomena appear so dependent on nervous activity ? Leibniz was driven to the colossal joke of pre-estab­ lished harmony. God arranged the bodily and spiritual phenomena at the outset, so that they should always go together without any real relation, like two different clocks keeping exactly the same time! Observe the extremities to which spiritualists are reduced. Every theory must show a true cause : that is, a cause which is not invented for the occasion, but is capable of being demonstrated independently. Now the spiritualist is asked to establish his cause. He says it works through the body, and he is desired to show that it exists and operates elsewhere. The usual answer is, “Wait till you are dead.” But a number of level-headed people reply, “Well, if I must die before I can learn, I won’t trouble myself about it till I am dead.” Then another answer is made. The spiritists say, “The spirit does manifest itself apart from the body in this world.” Thus we have “ materialised spirit forms ” in Spiritism, and “ astral appearances ” in Theosophy. Mrs. Besant is driven by an inevitable logic to declare that body and spirit “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 belief was once almost universal, but it dies away in the progress of civilisation. Up to a certain point it is consistent with legal sanity beyond that point it leads straight to the asylum. Mrs. Besant presses hypnotism into her service, but I confess I see nothing in it to support her theory. Double consciousness and other abnormal processes are being carefully studied, and sensible persons will wait for the scientific explanation. It is simply idle to base far-fetched theories on our temporary igno­ rance. I pass lightly over the calculating boy. He does not upset my philosophy. As for the ignorant servant �12 SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. girl who “ talks Hebrew in her sleep,” I suspect she is the person I read of in Coleridge, who picked up Hebrew sounds unconsciously in the service of a learned parson. Shakespeare understood this well enough, and made Ophelia sing a questionable song in her madness, which she might have heard from the lips of a loose-minded nurse. Let me remind Mrs. Besant that Theosophy is not Pantheism or Idealism. What she has to defend is its speciality—the doctrines that differentiate it from other systems. On these points, however, she condescends to say very little. She gives us the sevenfold division of man—Atma, Buddhi, Manas, Kamarupa, Prana, Linga Sharira, and Rupa. I was not conscious of all that cargo. I sus­ pect I should laugh if it were not for the imposing terminology. At any rate it is hardly worth discuss­ ing. Nor, indeed, can it be discussed. No evidence is offered ; the category is accepted from the Wise Men of the East. Only one proof is offered of re-incarnation. We are told that Hofmann, the infant prodigy of music, acquired his faculties and knowledge in a previous existence. But why Hofmann ? Mozart was a far greater prodigy. Both of them were the offspring of professional musicians, and the law of heredity is a sufficient ex­ planation. It would be more to the purpose if Hof­ mann had been born among the Hottentots. Mrs. Besant forgets her own principles, or she would see that the Hofmann’s case is not explained by rein­ carnation. Waiving the fact that faculty is not acquired individually, I inquire of the Theosophists how long a period of Devachan intervenes between successive incarnations. Mr. Sinnett says it may be “ thousands of years,”* while 1,500 years is the very lowest estimate.f Mde. Blavatsky says “ many centuries.” Now if Hofmann’s previous incarnation was only “ many •centuries ” ago, how did he acquire a musical know­ ledge which was then impossible ? Harmonic music is little more than three centuries old. * Theosophical Tracts. No. 4, p. 5. f Esoteric Buddhism, p. 120. �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. 15 Reincarnation is supported by no evidence, and is therefore a superstition. Karma, being based upon it, shares the same fate. Mrs. Besant asks me if I believe in ethical causation. Of course I do—in this life. Secularism has always taught that doctrine, and has nothing to learn from Theosophy. It appears to me that Mrs. Besant has dropped Secu­ larism out of her mind altogether ; otherwise she would scarcely ask us to concede that Theosophy isnot a “superstition” because it has been granted a Charter of Incorporation at St. Louis, in America. Christianity has a very big Charter of Incorporation in England in the form of a State Church. On the other hand, Secularism is outlawed, being incapable of hold­ ing property or receiving bequests. Surely the Secu­ larist will look grimly at this Theosophical passport of respectability. I fancy, too, he will look no less grimly at “ the broad platform ” offered him, which is to hold “ Atheist and Theist, Christian and Hindu, Mohamme­ dan and Secularist.” What a happy family ! The only broad platform on which all men may stand is the platform of humanity. With respect to the Mahatmas, or Masters, or Wise Men of the East, Mrs. Besant informs us that she knows nothing of them personally. She “ believes in the existence of these teachers on second-hand evi­ dence.” These Great Souls do not appear to utter any surprising wisdom. The specimens I have seen are seldom worth the paper they are printed on. Their “ abnormal powers ” are displayed in performances that are common among Spiritualists and conjurors. For my part, I am prejudiced against a Gospel which is heralded by travelling cigarettes, broken-mended saucers, and letters dropping from the ceiling. I pro­ test that in comparison with the stories told of the Adepts the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a respectable superstition. This leads me to Mde. Blavatsky and her credentials. Mrs. Besant accuses me of cirulating “ malignant libels ” on this wonderful woman, and I am asked what I should think if Mrs. Besant “ soiled her pages with a repetition of the stories told against me by the �14 SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. lecturers of the Christian Evidence Society.” But I fail to see the analogy. If I were a thief, it would not prove that Jonah was swallowed by a whale ; it 1 were an adulterer, it would not prove the Incarnation ; it 1 were a murderer, it would not prove the Resurrection. But if Mde. Blavatsky’s authority is offered for in­ credible occurrences, what is one to .do but see if the lady’s bond fides will bear investigation ? I discovered that Mde. Blavatsky had been openly accused of decep­ tion ; I looked into the evidence; and I satisfied myself that a very black prima facie case was made out against her. The charges were printed by respon­ sible persons after careful and minute investigation. Besides the terrible exposure of the Coulomb otters, the letters of Koot Hoomi, a great Mahatma m Thibet, are declared by experts to be in Mde. Blavatsky s hand­ writing, and it is shown that Koot Hoomi made, the same mistakes in spelling as Mde. Blavatsky, fell into her foreign idioms in writing English, and reproduced her very tricks of style. To call this a “ malignant libel” is no answer. I say it is preposterous to accept extravagant statements on the bare authority ot a lady who lies under such grave suspicion of imposture. Mrs. Besant is discreetly silent about the grotesque science of Mde. Blavatsky in her Secret Doctrine, and her extravagant credulity in Isis Unveiled. It would not do to press these absurdities on the attention ot Freethinkers. Nor does Mrs. Besant notice the curious mistakes of Koot Hoomi, some of which, with their attempted explanations, are enough to wrinkle the face of an omnibus horse with laughter. I now come to the question of celibacy. Mrs. Besant seeks to minimise the effect of this doctrine. This is a policy I shall at once expose. Unfortunately for Mrs. Besant, her Theosophical mistress has spoken too plainly about “ the path.” It appears that a Lanoo r (disciple) must take care to “ separate his outer body . _ .. • T 1 _ J * 1 —T from all external influence,” and “ must avoid bodily ______ He must contact with human as with ^animal being. touuh'even'the hand of the nearest and dearest ” nOt “ tuLlVXX ™ ,, ,,12~_ -1 -__ 'd Even the love for wife and taniily5 ” we are told, 41 the purest as the"most unselfish of human affections, U--------- �SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. 15 is a barrier to real occultism.” Mde. Blavatsky insists that “no one can serve his body and the higher Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without depriving either the one or the other of its rights.” She adds that “ it would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married man, who would pursue true practical Occultism.” * Does not this corroborate what I said in my pamphlet ? Does it not show that Theosophy, like every sincere form of spiritualism, inevitably leads to a war between the honest claims of “ the flesh ” and the autocratic claims of “ the spirit ” ? How far has Mrs. Besant departed from her old teaching on this subject! “ Asceticism,” she said in her tract on Secular Morality, “ asceticism, in any shape, is immoral; it decreases the amount of temporal happiness ; and whether it please God or no, whether it give a seat in heaven or no, whether it brin^ happiness in a future life or no, it is equally immoral it is equally wrong ” It-requires very little sagacity to see that Theosophy, on this side, is quite incompatible with Secularism. The only answer Mrs. Besant makes is that everyone need not become celibate. But she cannot deny that celibacy is necessary to the “ higher life.” It is idle to instance music, and to urge that people who have no vocation for it need not “ practise eight hours a day.” If music were the essential path to our highest spiritual •culture we should be bound to give it our fullest devo­ tion. Besides, there are degrees in music, but none in celibacy. You cannot be partially celibate. Mrs. Besant confesses that ,£ celibacy is one of the smallest of the sacrifices ” which the higher Theosophy demands. I am thankful for the admission. It will put Secularists on their guard. Forewarned is fore­ armed. It is well to know that “ the path ” leads to •endless macerations of “ the flesh.” Let me appeal to Freethought mothers to see what Theosophy would mean to them. The doctrine of re­ incarnation, for instance, would play havoc at once in * Theosophical Tracts, No. 77pp. 5, 6,14, 15. ' �16 SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY. the domestic circle. When the mother is crooning to her babe, and watching the reflexion of her smiles on its face, she is under a delusion. The baby is an old stager. It is not her child. It is no relation to her. Their connexion is nothing but a fleshly accident. Once admit this monstrous idea, and celibacy and all the rest of it may be accepted without a shudder. I will conclude with another passage from the tract on Secular Morality. “ Our morality,” Mrs. Besant said, “ is tested only—be it noted—by utility in this life, and in this world ; with any other life, with any other world, we have nothing whatever to do.” All this is now unsaid, and I am obliged to hold that Mrs. Besant has ceased to be a Secularist. For what is the Secular position with regard to Theism and Immortality ? Our position is Agnostic. W§ neither deny nor affirm. We say there is no knowledge. We take our stand on that. We confine our practical philosophy to this life, and admit no motives, sanctions or consolations that relate to another. Mrs. Besant is no longer in this position. I am convinced of it, and I honestly say so. It is not for me to say more—at present. Secularists are not fond of ostracism, and it is unfair to throw un­ necessary responsibilities upon us. Mrs. Besant has become a Theosophist, and it is for to determine whether her new ideas are consistent with her old convictions ; it is for her to decide whether they are in harmony with the accepted principles and traditional policy of our party. # Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, .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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet 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: 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 N263 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism 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 (Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet), 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 Secularism Theosophy